Where conference "insights" are messages treated as database records, they can be interrelated so that a pattern emerges and can be addressed and improved. Thus formal messaging helps to separate various levels of "noise" and lends itself to higher level (re)orderings (see also Mapping / E13).
It is perhaps too early to generalize, but it would appear that there are some characteristic responses of participants to the freedom offered by this process:
1. One distinct group of messages includes :
These essentially invite participants to subscribe to a point of view which is not integrated into the subject matter of the conference at the level at which it is being discussed. At best they are alternative perspectives, introducing new dimensions which are often challenging, although possibly perceived as unconstructive. But "motherhood statements) (e.g. Peace is good) may also emerge.
"I was a little surprised by the emotional response to Barbara's talk. I saw it as an informative scientific history, entertainingly presented. Our choices and many implications are yet to be discussed. Were we brought to our feet by lights and music?" (Helen, Findhorn, 1979).
2. Another common group of messages includes :
Clearly these are part of a dualistic dynamic in which advocates of A or B criticise or appreciate each other's perspectives. At worst, it deteriorates into emotional hostilities or mutual admiration. At best, they energize the whole discussion, define its dimensions, and stimulate its evolution.
"This conference is really about how to admit the existence of god without embarrassing your friends or upsetting your concepts" (Anon, SGSR, 1979).
"UK NFP agrees entirely with proposals 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 in Bulletin 2, which could be adopted in major NFP's linked with library services to benefit users and make for better working" (W Pearson, UNEP/INFOTERRA, 1979).
3. As a result of messages of the previous types, a further type may emerge :
Such statements help to weave perspectives together into a meaningful whole, but they may fail to get beyond a superficial placatory level.
4. A fourth group includes constructive proposals building on constraints and possibilities recognized in the debate. These will include some which, however constructive they are, fail to take account of how the proposal is to be initiated.
"Is there anyone who would be interested in contributing towards an evening of sharing - through music, poetry, song, dance, etc. to create a spontaneous spirit? If so, please speak to Richard Frost at Cluny" (Findhorn, 1979).
5. A fifth group of messages reflects a willingness of the participant to take responsibility and act concretely in the implementation of a proposal. But again this will include feasible projects of a kind which has been of questionable value in the past, despite the enthusiasm with which they were then carried out.
6. A sixth group of messages reflects a sense of history, of collective learning, and a recognition of recurring patterns of discussion (in relation to previous meetings or other contexts). These may be very helpful in educating newcomers and introducing a sense of strategy. At worst, they may be discouragingly sterile, offering little hope for new initiatives - the sterile wisdom of those who have failed in the past.
7. One can perhaps argue that a seventh group of messages reflects a special awareness of the uniqueness and strategic value of the conference. Other groups of messages may also be usefully distinguished.
Whether the above grouping is any more than a crude guideline is not important. The problem is to encourage a sufficient variety of messages to prevent a preponderance of those from Group 2 or 2, and a deterioration into "conference graffiti". This is specially important at the beginning when the tone of the exchange is set.
A Bulletin editor (or editorial group) of participant status can to some extent insert messages to correct for any such preponderance and "upgrade" the process.
To some extent the art of improving the process lies in allowing any such preponderance to stimulate participants to respond with corrective perceptions. But unless the interaction process "feels right", it will not be used as a vehicle by some whose comments would most help to balance and improve it (e.g. comments in Groups 3 to 7). Note however that each group of messages can provide an important contribution. A preponderance of Group 7 is as unproductive as a preponderance of Group 1.
This is a problem of judgement and intuition. Too much editorial intervention erodes the value of the process. Too little intervention may lead to the proliferation of trivial or purely negative comments and lead to a "spastic" condition. Participants should be made aware of this problem by "editorial comments" as the final messages in a Bulletin issue.
There has been so little experience with the process that at this stage it is probably better to minimize editorial intervention. But in the future, with experience and editorial group will probably be able to guide and stimulate participants quickly into mature interaction with a rich variety of comments. This demands a special skill and could give rise to a new conference profession. Perhaps it may then be possible to weave disparate comments into new patterns of significance (as suggested in Mapping / E13). Possibly real breakthroughs in conference productivity could be achieved by allocating significant attention time and resources to this process.