Home » Organization (how?)

Two themes instead of three?

Written By: Christiane Herr on July 15, 2010 One Comment

It has already been suggested that the first two conference themes are very similar and may be difficult to discuss separately. Combining them into one would make for two main conference themes:

cross-over processes: how we might cross-over between fields—metaphor, aesthetics, process? And what does it mean to be a trans-, inter- or meta-disciplinary subject?

actual and abstract: moving from actual to abstract is understood; but how do we move from abstract to actual? What are the relations between models that are conceptual, computational and physical? How are their differences productive?

Assuming four main time slots (31/07 PM, 01/08 AM, 01/08 PM, 02/08 AM) available for discussions, this could be organized to accommodate two time slots per theme: The first time slot each for divergent conversations (brainstorming, identifying issues) in larger groups (~15 participants), and the second time slot each for convergent conversations (proposals, ways forward) in smaller groups (2-4 participants).

Both the larger and the smaller group type could be asked to appoint a rapporteur who will present conversation outcomes at general meetings at the end of each time slot in say 20-30mins in the case of larger groups and 3-5mins in the case of smaller groups.

Please comment further!
Christiane M. Herr

One Response to “Two themes instead of three?”

  1. Ranulph Glanville says on: 17 July 2010 at 11:53 am

    I like this idea. It would also give us more time in that we would perhaps need less facilitations. I’ve not really tested the scheduling. However, there is a problem, which is to do with the time and numbers you do specify.

    I think we are likely to have 7 or 8 groups of 10 people: those are the sort of numbers we have spaces for. If each takes 20 to 30 minutes to report back, we are talking of up to 4 hours. I would prefer that all reports back were much shorter and much more essentialist. We will have facilitation, and the point is to use the reports to bring the groups together so that we actually have a process of synthesising. That has to be done with the material that each group brings.

    The smaller groups each group would break into would mostly need to be in the same space as each other, because those are the spaces available. This may be fine. Of course, there are other places and corners, and I guess they might be used.

    I’m just thinking through this and hope others will join in. I think this can be a really interesting way forward. But it may also have big problems.

Leave a Reply:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2010 American Society for Cybernetics, All rights reserved.