Especially for brainwane, because this might be an idea in our industry: in the rare panels that were all men presenting, the discussant (the person who provides a response-critique-commentary on the four panels) was a woman. We should adopt that concept into tech conferences, as a way to up diversity. (Let me know if you want me to expand on that for geekfeminism.)
I found it so delightful and unexpected to find you mentioning me! :) Yes, I'd be interested in a post that:
* explains how this structure works logistically at academic conferences, including the discussant's role and why/how organizers pick a discussant for a panel (especially since a panel of 3-4 people formally presenting work feels rare at tech conferences; a presentation is usually solo or pair, and panels are so often just jaw-jaw) * explains what's good about this structure and alleviates fears (for instance, do audiences and panellists take discussants' critiques seriously, or do they see it as noise or fine print or tokenism?) * suggests we pilot it out
no subject
Date: 3 Apr 2014 02:27 pm (UTC)I found it so delightful and unexpected to find you mentioning me! :) Yes, I'd be interested in a post that:
* explains how this structure works logistically at academic conferences, including the discussant's role and why/how organizers pick a discussant for a panel (especially since a panel of 3-4 people formally presenting work feels rare at tech conferences; a presentation is usually solo or pair, and panels are so often just jaw-jaw)
* explains what's good about this structure and alleviates fears (for instance, do audiences and panellists take discussants' critiques seriously, or do they see it as noise or fine print or tokenism?)
* suggests we pilot it out
Would that make sense?