What's more important in a symposium, staging the debate, or presenting your own point of view? I know that many people, like James Clay in this post, will respond immediately that it's about the debate. It is, after all, about the short exchange back and forth, isn't it? He says, "If you can't get your viewpoint across in five minutes then you just need to try harder." Well, that's fine for debates about relatively superficial topics. But for my own part, it does actually sometimes take an hour to make the point. Like when I'm describing the way network theory informs learning design, for example. Or when detailing how a harvesting-based repository network is more efficient than a repository federation. Oh sure, you can make the point, maybe, but forget backing it up with reason and argumentation.
I have presented many one-hour presentations, and I don't consider them to be stifling the debate, I consider them to be - when properly linked and referenced to the wider community - part of the debate. The mistake, I think, is in trying to stuff an entire conversation into a one-hour format, or even a one-day format. It's a wider world with fewer arbitrary boundaries. When we are thinking of symposia, we should be thinking about the broader open-ended debate, not some event managed by one organization or one person.
I have presented many one-hour presentations, and I don't consider them to be stifling the debate, I consider them to be - when properly linked and referenced to the wider community - part of the debate. The mistake, I think, is in trying to stuff an entire conversation into a one-hour format, or even a one-day format. It's a wider world with fewer arbitrary boundaries. When we are thinking of symposia, we should be thinking about the broader open-ended debate, not some event managed by one organization or one person.
Today: 3 Total: 20 [Direct link] [Share]
