I agree with Klaus on this.  Diversity in conference styles is good.

Here's a variation: "some" conferences could start with a 'conventional' stage 
during which papers are presented and panels do their thing.  Following that, 
tho, there could be a gordonesque element, at which participants, having heard 
each other give presentations and (presumably) being more aware of the 
perspectives of others, will "advance the field".

Cheers.
Fil

Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> i agree with ken, that the model of the gordon conferences is not for
> everyone.  
> 
> i participated in three.  i would not consider them elite conferences,
> however.  the idea is to enable scholars at the cutting edge of their field
> to converse about topics under development, not yet ready for publication.
> this has the advantage of allowing people to be more free to share their
> ideas even about theories that may not work out in the future.
> 
> i think we should have some gordon-like conferences.  publications are
> usually for younger scholars that have to develop their  publication records
> for promotions etc.  or for older scholars who have something to say to the
> world.  gordon-style conferences are to advance the field 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken
> Friedman
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 6:08 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Conversational conferences
> 
> Dear Dick,
> 
> The Gordon Research Conferences provide an interesting and important model.
> We can certainly adapt some features of this model in conferences -- this,
> for example, is what we did at La Clusaz with a single track and extensive
> time for conversation, along with a feature that the Gordon conferences
> purposely avoid: tracking the conversation.
> 
> There are two aspects of the Gordon Research Conference model that may cause
> some discomfort in our field.
> 
> The first of these is that the Gordon Research Conferences are deliberately
> elite conferences. They don't involve publishing because they invite
> scholars who have a strong publishing record or distinguished research
> potential The idea of the conference involves egalitarian networking among a
> group that the conference chair of any given conference identifies as a
> member of the elite or the potential elite.
> 
> The second problem is related to a distinct virtue -- but it remains a
> problem for many. The fact that there are no conference publications and the
> fact that publications flowing from the conference network are enjoined not
> to mention the conference would make participation impossible for those
> whose national or university policies require publication to secure funding.
> There are similar elite conferences in other fields where the elite
> reputation of the conference and the prestige of an invitation is so great
> that schools are happy to send participants even though there is no
> published record. Nevertheless, in most schools, the decision of the
> department head is required for funding approval and some schools (or
> nations) allow no exceptions to policies. As a professor at a class one
> research university, attending a Gordon Research Conference would have been
> no problem for you. This model would not work for anyone who requires a
> proceedings publication as a condition of funding.
> 
> I have mixed feelings about the entire conference business. As I said at the
> session on conferences, it may well be that the current DRS peer-reviewed
> paper policy needs rethinking. It's clear that across most fields, nearly no
> conference papers and relatively few journal papers are actually used or
> cited. This suggests the model may be wearing thin in many fields. (David
> Durling and I take delight in the frequent citation of papers from the La
> Clusaz proceedings. David managed the review process for La Clusaz, so there
> may be something to be said for David's version of peer review.)
> 
> In terms of your earlier note -- and Chris Nippert-Eng's -- I want to add
> that I prefer conversation to "reading" a paper. While I always try to
> deliver a full manuscript, I never read it. I write it out, and then I build
> a talk around the key ideas in the written paper. 
> Sometimes I use a mind map. Sometimes I even use the ancient rhetorical
> device of a memory theater.
> 
> While I have until recently avoided PowwerPoint, in recent years I have come
> to realize that large key words and carefully selected text excerpts
> (LARGE!) are a major help to people whose native languages are different to
> my own. The first time I saw Kun-Pyo Lee present with PowerPoint, I
> understood that PowerPoint could illuminate a presentation. I still have not
> attained Kun-Pyo's level of visual mastery, but I have added big words to my
> spoken repertoire. This restricts my rhetorical development, to be sure, but
> I have learned in Brazil, Taiwan, and elsewhere that those who speak other
> languages find the visual cues a great help.
> 
> On the main point -- conversational conferences -- there must surely be a
> way that we can add this to our conference repertoire while meeting the
> needs of those who are constrained by governmental or local policy.
> 
> Ken Friedman

-- 
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University                         Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St.                           Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON                                email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3  Canada                            http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/