Tawk Amongst Yourselves: the ConverStation

Speakers presenting at the front of the room.  Audience members in chairs facing the presenters.  Does this say "Annual Meeting" to you?  As the members of the Task Force investigate new and non-traditional approaches to conducting a conference, we are also taking advantage of opportunities to experience these different ways of meeting.  This post reports back on my (Kathy Marquis, AMTF co-chair) experiences with informal sessions called “ConverStations” at my *second* favorite national conference, the Public Library Association, held in mid-March in Philadelphia.  It’s a mammoth group:  around 8400 attendees.  Their size is probably one of the reasons they thought of trying two new methods (our next post will be on PLA’s Unconference):  both capitalize on the interactions between attendees, rather than on formal presentations by a panel of experts.

The meeting program noted that “ConverStations, formerly known as Talk Tables, are engaging forums on timely issues and concerns for public library professionals. Following brief presentations, attendees are encouraged to join in engaging and relevant discussions.”  I’d been to talk tables before and they were not (in my opinion) well organized.  They ended up being pretty much undirected “tawk amongst yourselves” periods.  The ConverStations, nearly half of the sessions offered, boasted named facilitators and session-like descriptions.  They actually ended up going in the other direction from the Talk Tables.  The facilitators gave presentations that couldn’t be described as brief, though they still allowed for a longer audience participation period.  And we were seated at round tables, which led to more interaction amongst audience members.  At a conference where the largest sessions can have 500-1000 attendees, this definitely leant intimacy to the discussion.  And, it naturally limited the attendance size, as many fewer of us could be seated in these rooms, which meant that attendees could be turned away.

As a matter of fact, after the meeting, I attended an online discussion forum on PLA’s Facebook about the conference.  There weren’t a lot of comments, unfortunately, but one, seconded by more than one attendee, was that they were shut out of a session they especially wanted to attend because it was a ConverStation.  They noted that it probably should have been a regular/larger session because of its popularity (or repeated another day – something PLA also does with high interest topics.)  I was also closed out of a ConverStation, as it had reached its maximum attendance.  So I went to another session (disruptive patrons or helping community entrepreneurs?  A hard choice!) and serendipitously ended up being energized to start a new programming stream at my public library…  This is a fairly common occurrence at PLA (and ALA) I find.  Attendees plan for early arrival for especially crucial sessions.

So, what did I like about the ConverStations?  When they worked well, and the ones I attended did, they were a nice combination of overviews of practice (by the facilitators) and exchange of information (by the attendees and the facilitators.)   They were more focused on a particular topic than the kind of networking possible in hallway conversations, or even roundtable or section meetings.  But, they gave more than the perfunctory five to ten minutes to the audience.  Someone would raise a question and the responses would include lots of citations, URLs, “our handouts are on our website,” names and emails, and general networking content.  For example, I went to one on Technology Petting Zoos and got lots of good advice on funding options, equipment recommendations, handouts, p.r., collaborations with local businesses, things to avoid, useful blogs, and “feel free to call us and ask us how we did it.”

Should SAA consider this type of session?  What do you think?  Are we small enough that traditional session discussion periods accomplish the same thing?  Or, would a table arrangement and a mandate to make the discussions the focus help for some topics?  Let’s tawk!

lgbarber says:
Importance of Facilitators

I love the idea of this and recently went to a conference where it was attempted, but over lunch.  Unfortunately at our table, the facilitator came late and never brought up the supposed topic of the group during the whole session. 

Lesson learned: Facilitators needs to be on board!  And may not be compatible with lunch. 

Still think the idea is great.  The traditional people at the front of the room talking for almost all the time really can be replaced by a webinar.  We need to think about what kind of interactions happen when we are there in person. 

 

Lucy Barber

[my personal view, not those of my employer]

marqu897 says:
Couldn't agree more!

There's a real art to preparing well, making sure the topic is well introduced, stepping out of the way to let the audience fully explore it - and still providing enough leadership to make sure people don't get too side-tracked or allow one person to dominate.  A lot to handle!  It would be useful to provide some guidelines about how to effectively lead such a session.

Kathy Marquis

27 April 2012

jrsharp says:
small groups

Interesting! I'd been thinking of something similar lately. Recently I attended an event that, ostensibly, had nothing to do with archives or networking. It was a small group (approx. 20) which allowed for plenty of conversation among us. I have to keep this rather vague, but at the end of the evening someone in a position of influence asked if I'd applied for a particular archives position.

Last weekend I was at the New England Archivists conference. Friends and I had plenty of room at our lunch table and welcomed another person who was looking for a seat. One of my friends was asked, "Oh, you work [there]? Do you know anyone who's unhappy? I need a cataloguer." Business cards were exchanged.

Small groups definitely seem to be the key to networking, which many hope to see more of at future annual meetings. I'm uncertain, though, as to the best way to bring people together. Combining a few idea that have been floating around (most notably the SNAP Roundtable's lunch buddy idea), maybe we could try something like themed lunch tables.

carvann says:
ConverStation

Yes, we should definitely consider this type of session.  They provide an opportunity for attendees to network and gather information.  This seems to be the perennial dilemma.  How do we accomodate people who want more educational sessions and more time to network.  No, I don't think our traditional sessions acomplish the same thing.  Session chairs are usually reluctant to cut off speakers.  I find that most sessions I attend leave little time for discussion.  And, as you state, the standard room setup does not lend itself to conversation.

I do have a concern, though, with programming and accomodating this type of session in our current model.  Would we have to schedule more concurrent sessions if the sessions are limited in size?

I think we should also explore the possibility of leaving more open blocks of time on the program that would allow groups of people to create their own conversations.  Maybe longer lunch breaks?

Carl Van Ness