Ken,

Do you ever make short posts?  It's worth trying sometime.

Dick


On 11/19/06 2:45 PM, "Ken Friedman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi, Dick.
> 
> Thanks for alerting me to a possible misunderstanding. I'm not
> concerned with elite meetings. My concern is creating a good space
> for engaged dialogue. In this context, it seemed worth making clear
> that the Gordon Research Conferences seek both cutting edge research
> and an elite position. This is why people are so eager to attend and
> it is why they find it easy to secure funding despite the prohibition
> against publishing. The specific charter and features of the Gordon
> Research Conference system and the rich culture these meetings have
> developed over the past 75 years give them the tone that make such an
> impression on those who participate.
> 
> What could be equally interesting would be to find some way to
> generate extended and reflective conversations using other methods.
> To some degree, Scandinavian universities do this with NoRFA research
> seminars comprised of scholars and students among the different
> Nordic nations. Because these are fully funded by the Nordic Council
> of Ministers, there is usually no need to ask one's school for funds.
> As a result, there is generally no need to publish anything, though
> some NoRFA seminars may seek to publish a document if it meets their
> needs and interests.
> 
> The forthcoming conference at Denmark's Design School will not pursue
> an elite strategy. We are being selective to achieve broad
> participation with many different points of view while remaining
> small enough to do everything as one group. We issued some
> invitations, and we also called for proposals. We selected among
> proposals to achieve a broad spectrum of positions on the conference
> theme as well as a rich variety of participants. We sought
> participants from several fields, and we sought a range of
> participants to include doctoral candidates, post-docs,  mid-career
> scholars and senior scholars, as well as reflective practitioners and
> a few curators and critics who also focus on the conference topic. In
> developing our invitation list, we asked people who they thought we
> ought to ask to represent the most exciting work in the field. I
> guess you could say that's an appropriate adaptation of the Delphi
> method to the task at hand. A larger call yielded additional
> surprises, including people we did not know from nearby and distant
> fields.
> 
> We did something similar when we hosted a conference of the Center
> for Philosophy and Design. After two meetings at Staffordshire, we
> hosted a third at Denmark's Design School. The focus was
> conversation. We considered a publication, but we did not finally go
> that route. What's important is that we were able to host the entire
> event. Once participants got to the conference center, we covered all
> expenses. Again, this created a great deal of freedom -- and, there
> too, we asked earlier participants whom else we ought to invite. They
> gave suggestions based on interesting ideas and quality of work, not
> on publications or status.
> 
> Since you didn't suggest using the Delphi method for forecasting, an
> historical note would be irrelevant. The Gordon history was relevant.
> This list has more than 1,200 subscribers from more than 40 nations,
> and people from some parts of the world don't know about things that
> others among us take for granted. Sometimes a little background
> helps. I wouldn't have written an historical note on a topic you
> didn't raise. Unless, of course, you predicted a post on the history
> of the Delphi method just to "beard" me.
> 
> Nevertheless, I note that Delphi methods customarily sample selected
> experts. This means that most Delphi systems are to some degree
> elite. In stating this, I am not advocating an elite system. I do,
> however, note that most of the methods you suggest as a way to ensure
> broad participation and diverse views seek those among identified
> elite groups or by selection.
> 
> The way to sample the full field would be random selection. Even
> after a sharp tug on the beard, I'm not sure that's what you intend.
> 
> There is another challenge to overcome here as well. The open quality
> and tone of the Gordon Research Conferences is in part an outcome of
> the strict rule that EVERYTHING is off the record. It's not simply
> that they don't allow publications. They prohibit any reference to
> the Gordon Research Conferences in any scientific publication on a
> topic that an author may have discussed at one of their conferences.
> They also prohibit ANY kind of photographic or sound recording and
> any kind of reporting, documentation, or capture of ideas.
> 
> The challenge of exploring these different kinds of proposals is to
> find new ways to develop a deep, productive, and sustained
> conversation in a way that allows all of us to participate.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ken
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> I liked Clive's point a lot.  We need ingenuity in crafting some new
>> formats--both in individual meetings and perhaps in a series of related
>> meetings held around the world.
>> 
>> The goal would be new discussion of important themes or issues as well as
>> broad participation.  Ken seems to be more concerned about elite meetings,
>> but I prefer broad participation with lots of different points of view on
>> focused issues. 
>> 
>> I wonder if there could be something Delphic in the method?  (I'm waiting
>> now for Ken to post on the history and nature of the Delphic method in
>> business and its uses there for predicting future trends.  Not an approach
>> that I am advocating in this form.)  We need some ingenuity here.
>> 
>> I wonder if a series of conversations around the world in regions--with some
>> form of reporting and capture of ideas--would be possible?
>> 
>> Depth conversations and Delphic or Socratic diversity may be a distinctive
>> approach for our field that would surprise folks in other disciplines.
>> 
>> Dick
>