Conversations

Use this page to invite others to join in conversations, discussions, or lively debates:


 *  1. panel : Controversial discusssion concerning the differenciation between scientists/scholars, practitioners and artists** 
 * 2. panel : "Quality assured" art production and research**


 * Some thoughts on conversations and discusssions:**

Which made me wonder if there should be some way to solicit partners in controversy, like a dating service ;-) Should we start a new content section: XXX seeks XXX for controversial discussion concerning bla bla bla?? Any ideas on a most useful format for such a thing? SO

I think the idea of how a ‘conversation page between folks that come from different points of view, or different source (academic, practitioner, artist) is a very good idea, and from what you said, could be triggered by specific questions that would ignite such dialogue. However, I would not begin such a page with the term controversial. In the world of academia, sparring is routine, expected, and sometimes taken personally even though it defines the academic culture, and requirement. In the world of business, controversy bears a different connotation, so I would like to suggest the site thinks about what ‘language’ is used, and makes no assumptions that everyone hears meaning in the same way. All this is to say…..that I think what you are seeking is an honest, robust ‘discussion/debate’ that in the process would illuminate and perhaps persuade, and definitely inform points of view. I would suggest that whatever ‘terms’ are used in the site…that they be ‘defined in context’ to ensure they are heard as intended. RM

And Clive, I agree that "Dialogue" is a great word. Now my question is for Peter, I think, or whomever wants to weigh in, whether "dialogue" falls into one of the following categories, such as the Sandbox, or wants to be its own space. For example, for Jurgen, we could create a Sandbox page called "Practitioners vs. Artists/Scientists vs. Scholars" and let the debate unfold...or we could create a Dialogue section that posts provocative questions to chase: "Do you differentiate between practitioners and artists, scientists and scholars? How?" SO

I can only reiterate what I said previously...that the owners of the site create 'labels' that are either universal in their meaning, or the meaning is identified. For example, what is now stated as a definition of 'reflection' differs from what I would define it as. This is not a wrong or right...it is simply the reality that language is important and no assumptions should be made. My bias is for simplicity....debate, discussion, viewpoints, dialogue, conversation....all imply more than one voice, and do not imply a win/lose goal. For the sake of cohesion, and to stimulate participation, I think the 'catalyst' to such conversation could be started by one of the 'owners' or 'members' with a clear question, as opposed to a clear statement. From what I can see, this would include the current definition of 'reflection' so I think these should be consolidated, or distinguished. One more 'semantic' comment.....your previous note including "vs" in a proposed title. For the same reasons as controversy, I would prefer to see..."and", not "vs", points of view that add to the whole, not compete within. Hope these thoughts help. RM

How about the word “lively” (instead of controversial)? DB

My vote is for the 'category' to be labeled a word that is clear, universal and without judgment - - and to allow for the 'process' to be lively, controversial, boring, etc. The audience we are creating this site for is 'not' us. We have been 'in bed' with it for quite awhile, debating and discussing amongst ourselves. This is typical 'change management'....and too frequently those few that 'make the changes' forget to remember the process they went through during decision making. Apart from the stated 'goals' of the wiki.....the objective is 'engagement', and to that end, I think simple is preferred. Once the site is up, and achieves success, it will evolve. I believe our role is to launch a site that encourages engagement from the growing and diverse AACORN group. So as bland as this may seem, here are my thoughts. Conversations.....here is where members can post a question (usually tied to a statement) to engage others and that outcome may be lively, controversial, boring. I think here is where a webmaster has to anticipate volume, and plan for bundling of topical conversation. I think this broad topic would include the current reflection and sandbox areas and to me that is a good idea, because as of now they are not clearly different to me. RM

To clarify, I was asking more particularly for an idea of how to set up invitations to dialogue, not to revise items that others have established. "Conversations" might just do it, thanks Rochelle. "Controversial" was not meant to be a heading, but was Jurgen's word in the context of his particular invitation, and I quite like it--it catches my eye in a playful way. The rest is up to others. I fall on this side of advocating creative and playful use of language, that will differentiate our site and encourage exploration. Most important, I advocate everyone making their contribution as they see fit. Esp. if we are signing our work, different "voices" will emerge from within the choir. SO

I see my absence was too long, because I insist really on controversial. This is not to seek for the best argument. I'm more interested in emotion, conflict, shaping, scratching, fighting. I will put already what was written about this proposal on the page. Under conversation can be one stream: dialog and another stream: controversial. (transico)