 Over
the past dozen years, I've presented at about a hundred different
conferences. I've turned down many more opportunities, and unless it's
a NFP event I now ask for a fee to present. I'm not a great
bums-on-chairs presenter, and I've discovered that many of my favourite
bloggers aren't that great either -- a lot of us are just better at
conveying ideas and information in writing than orally. I find I learn
a great deal as a presenter -- preparation for a live audience makes
you take a more critical look at stuff you've written, tighten it up,
synthesize, update, and the audience always gives you some different
perspectives from what your blog audience offers.
So I'm intrigued by the idea of Unconferencing.
There is a reason why people like conferences with a lot of unscheduled
time between sessions, and why the hallway discussions are frequently
more animated than the discussions in the conference rooms. Some people
believe it's because the quality of speakers is inadequate
(specifically because they lack the ability to make complex, important
subjects understandable and interesting), but I'm inclined to believe
it's more because most people get more value out of one-on-one and
small-group conversations with both peers and experts, where they get
to discuss the issues and get answers in the context of their particular situation.
This is the same reason that students often get much more value out of
personal coaching than they do from listening to lectures.
What
has changed the equation substantially is the sheer amount of free
reading material that's available online on just about any imaginable
subject. The self-initiated learner can now often learn more in an
hour's online research than in an hour listening to the most profound
and articulate expert. And while some don't have the skill or interest
in doing such research, and are willing to pay money to hear someone
step them through something they could teach themselves for free in the
same time, the freeing of information has raised expectations and
lowered the satisfaction of many audiences with formal conference
presentations and panels.
At one extreme, Unconferences can be
totally unscheduled meetups, with no set topics (just an umbrella
theme), self-organized in real time using Open Space
or some similar technique. You spend the time talking about the issues
you want to talk about with others who want to talk about the same
issues. Everyone is an equal participant, and everyone needs to take
the responsibility to prepare for the sessions by pre-reading and
thinking in advance about the subjects.
While I love such
events, they ask a lot of attendees, in many cases more than attendees
may be willing to contribute. I think there is a happy medium that is
less demanding of attendees than a completely self-organized and
egalitarian Unconference (in return for which they are expected to pay
the conference fee, the price of 'taking more than you give' during the
event), but still much more engaging and participatory than formal
conferences. Here, based on some of the best sessions I have attended
and 'presented' at, are some suggested guidelines for such an
Unconference:
- Each session at the Unconference should have one Discussion Leader rather than a Speaker or Panel. In my experience panels
are almost invariably 'too many cooks': They inhibit audience
participation, and there's never enough time for all panel members to
make a meaningful contribution to the discussion. So: One Discussion
Leader per session, with a minimum of 45 and a maximum of 90 minutes
per session.
- Each session should have a theme rather than a
title, and the Discussion Leader should be prepared to say something
new about each of at least two
subjects (and ideally three or four) related to that single overarching
theme. The purpose of the 'something new' is to jumpstart the
conversation among the attendees. It can be an idea, a discovery, an
area for collective exploration, or a controversial statement.
- The
Discussion Leader should provide short handouts (hard copy, graphics
preferred, no cryptic bullet points) on each of the two to four subject
she is prepared to discuss. This will satisfy those attendees who want
takeaways for their attendance fee. It also gives multi-taskers the
opportunity to read while they listen, and to formulate some thoughts
and questions they can contribute to the conversation.
- The
Discussion Leader should start by spending one minute laying out the
two to four subjects and orienting the attendees to the hand-outs
supporting each subject. She should then start to discuss the subject she thinks is most likely
to generate a valuable and insightful conversation among all attendees.
This discussion should be purposefully directed to engage the attendees
and to invite them to participate (asking open-ended questions, laying
out a problem for collaborative resolution, saying something
controversial or provocative, inviting stories and examples and
different perspectives from attendees etc.) If the attendees don't
'bite', it's on to the next subject, until some animated discussion
ensues. The key is to provoke discussion on subjects the attendees can
be expected to know enough about to add meaningfully to the ideas and
perspectives of the session. That means the Discussion Leader needs to
know roughly who is in the audience before the session begins
(background, reason for attending etc.)
- Once an animated
discussion (or at least, a Q&A with the Discussion Leader involving
several attendees) has begun, the Discussion Leader's role changes to
facilitator. Her task is now to keep the discussion dynamic, relevant,
non-repetitive, and interesting. If it gets stale or runs out of steam,
then it's back to the Discussion Leader to provoke something new or
change direction and draw out the audience again.
- The layout of
the room needs to be considered. Ideally, a circular or semi-circular
layout is best. Cafeteria layout (tables with 4-8 chairs each) is OK,
especially if (in a large room) there's a microphone for each table and
the Discussion Leader can stand where she is visible to all tables.
Theatre seating is sometimes inevitable, in which case it's useful (in
a large room) to have several wireless microphones to pass around, and,
if possible, to get each person speaking to come up to the front so
they can face the audience.
- If the audience is very large (say,
over 60 people) engendering genuine conversation becomes much more
problematic. I find most 'keynote' speeches disappointing -- they're
usually rehashes of stuff I've already read or heard, and usually
there's better value in skipping them and scheduling one-on-one
discussions with people you want to spend time with during them. If you
know you're going to have that large an audience, and the organizer of
the conference is flexible, it might be worthwhile suggesting two
smaller sessions with a maximum capacity of 50 people for each. There
are some people who can wow a large crowd, and if I have nothing better
to do I'll go and see them, but I recognize that what makes such
sessions so appealing is largely their entertainment value rather than information value.
Notice
I don't call the attendees 'participants'. It's great if even half of
the audience does participate in the conversation, but I think it's
presumptuous to think that most attendees will, or will even want to.
But even non-participating attendees are likely to find more value in a
meaningful conversation that brings multiple perspectives, frames and
ideas to the subject, than a single speaker's monologue. Iterative
discussion among two or more people brings clarity.
I'm sure
you've attended conferences that had some of the attributes of an
Unconference. What do you think of the seven 'specifications' above?
Think for a moment about the best learning events you've paid
to attend: What worked, and what didn't? When is an Unconference the
best approach, and under what circumstances are more traditional, or
more radical, approaches more effective? |
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
