Comments on: What is an Unconference Anyway?

By: Steve Lawson

Steve Lawson — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 02:34:00 +0000

I think the first two principles are extremely valuable. I certainly think that it is worth evaluating after the fact whether the event actually reached optimum audience or whether changes to the proceedings would produce a more optimal outcome for more people. But during the event, I think it’s important for people not to worry about it. “This is weird! Are we doing it right?” Yes, because there is no wrong way to do it. “Hey, only six people chose to come to this session!” Yes, because that is the right group to have this exact discussion at this exact moment. It’s just a little communal faith that if you do whatever seems right within the parameters of the event, it will turn out OK.

And those principles may be especially good for library types to hear. We do so want to do the right thing all the time.

By: Kathryn Greenhill

Kathryn Greenhill — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:25:00 +0000

I puzzle over the last two points too, Walt.With venues pre-booked, it needs to start at some time I would think … The law of two feet I find an absolute challenge to most librarians who are very polite souls and would never *dream* of walking out on a colleague. When I talk about it, I focus on the aspect of “if you can make a difference to what is happening for you by either contributing or focusing on your own learning, do so – otherwise, walk.”

Like you Iris, I am stuck for a name for this genre.

On the “Professional” page of my blog I have a list of professional interests. Here is the way I tried a year ago to describe those kinds of events generally – as you can see, full of gaps and very unspecific:

“informal and highly effective learning gatherings – unconferences, barcamps, communities of practice.”

By: waltc

waltc — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:51:00 +0000

I have to admit, as a Left Coaster (U.S.) who’s generally down with that Zen-like stuff, the Four Principles struck me as a bit over the top when I first saw them…but maybe not. (I would say that 3 and 4 seem to conflict with the schedules that seem to be there for most every unconference…)

The Law of Two Feet, however, should apply to every good conference. When I used to go, the Charleston Conference made a point of saying this at the beginning and occasionally: If it’s not working for you, go find another session. I try to keep it in mind when attending–and when speaking.

By: Iris

Iris — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:12:00 +0000

Kathryn, those are excellent points, and things I wish I’d known before I wrote this post. It strikes me, then, that maybe we have a problem of terminology. One thing I’m least happy about with my personal definition of “unconference” is that runs the risk of becoming nearly meaningless as it stretches to encompass a slightly greater diversity of format. On the other hand, I think there has to be some room for more than the very unstructured setting you describe. Of course, the variety I’m going for need not necessarily claim the term “unconference” if that term is better used for something more specific.

All this has me wondering what the best name for this genre is.

By: Kathryn Greenhill

Kathryn Greenhill — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:38:00 +0000

I don't think that an unconference *has* to follow Open Spaces Technology (don't like the term!) that it grew from, but I do think that the major principles actually provide a zen-like guidance:

1) Whatever happens is the only thing that could have
2) Whoever comes are the right people
3) Whenever it starts is the right time
4) When it's over, it's over .

Should we have it on a weekend or weekday? Whoever comes is the right person. Should we charge for this - won't it put some people off? Whoever comes is the right person.

Should we have out of town speakers? Whatever happens is the only thing that could have.

There is also the "law of two feet" that made the first unconferences special - if you are not contributing or learning, you should use your two feet to leave the room.

In my book, as long as the participants *that turn up on the day* agree to the way the event will unfold, then the unconference will have got it right.

From my experience, if participants have a mutual obligation to actively participate rather than sit back and let things happen *to* them and if they use their right to leave if it is not working for them, then there is a more transparent event that breaks from the traditional conference format and enriches the participants in a way that a conference cannot.

If participants want something different, that's OK too...

By: Steve Lawson

Steve Lawson — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:24:00 +0000

Thanks for spelling that out so clearly.

By: waltc

waltc — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:01:00 +0000

I have two articles at PLN about unconferences–and I think your post here and Steve’s post+comment stream give me reason to revisit those. Thanks!

By: Dorothea

Dorothea — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:32:00 +0000

Brava. Well said.