→Did you know that someone wrote a manifesto about humanities conferences? It comes as a New York Times blog post by an academic who argues, essentially, that bad practices at academic conferences may be contributing to “the death of the humanities.” Those are some high stakes for conference goers! Here’s the piece, which is a little tongue in cheek, but does have something serious to say:
- Christy Wampole, “The Conference Manifesto,” 4 May 2015, Opinionator Blog, The New York Times, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/the-conference-manifesto/?_r=2
I recognize some of the patterns that have made Wampole “weary of academic conferences,” such as self-centred questions from audience members and truly awful presentation skills. I think I have been guilty of both these things, unknowingly at the time, so I sympathize with the “contract” she suggests conference organizers “distribute in advance to speakers”. The ten “criteria” she lists relate to audience members too, not just presenters, and her piece includes a few paragraphs that question the purpose and format of conferences. It is all certainly worthy of being a “topic of discussion,” as Walpole intends.
The question of how to make conferences worthwhile is especially relevant to me right now as I look forward to participating in the 2015 conference of the Canadian Historical Association. It’s at the University of Ottawa this year, and you can access the program on the CHA website at this page, or go directly to the online pdf here. More specifically, I am thinking about how to help ensure our panel is worthwhile.
We are session 57 on the preliminary program. (p18) Here’s us:
Session 57, Tuesday, 2 June, 10:15 – 11:45
- “100 Shades of Khaki: A Round-Table Discussion of First World War Commemoration.”
Facilitator:
- Christopher Schultz (University of Western Ontario)
Participants:
- Rebecca Beausaert (Wilfrid Laurier University & Woodstock Museum National Historic Site): Oxford County during the First World War
- Christopher Schultz (University of Western Ontario): Canada’s First World War: A Centennial Series on ActiveHistory.ca
- Nathan Smith (University of Toronto Mississauga & SUNY Empire State College): First World War History and Memory in University Classrooms
- Jamie Swift (Independent Scholar): Commemoration and Nationalism
Deciding on a title took a bit of work – and had the 50 Shades of Grey movie done better it would probably be more effective.
The roundtable format was a no-brainer. It offers a good way to encourage discussion between panelists and with the audience, and that’s what we want. It is less formal than the traditional session in which panelists present prepared papers, a discussant presents a commentary, and then a chair invites questions in what little time remains. A roundtable does not (or should not, in my view) involve the presentation of a paper, the format Wampole’s manifesto addresses. Roundtables are about “direct, real-time contact with other humans,” to use a winning-phrase from her post, and designed to get the people in the room to “interact meaningfully”.
Wampole writes “interact meaningfully with other scholars,” but I think large academic conferences are better when they are not exclusively scholarly, and reflect in some substantial way the linkages of research and higher education with society. The sessions on archives and recordkeeping at this year’s meeting, and the many public historians participating, are examples of such links, as is our session. I also notice that a lot of roundtables are listed in the program for the upcoming meeting, and that may be evidence that historians in Canada, at least, are doing their part to keep the humanities alive. I’ll be doing my best to avoid Wampole’s conference don’ts, that’s for sure!
