The Nature of Our Profession I

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. I definitely prefer the roundtable and question formats. I learn little in most panel conferences. People spend way too long presenting papers that I have already read. The virtue of a conference, I believe, is for scholars to get together and talk about something — to interact in a way beyond the way that they ordinarily interact. I can always read and comment on papers on my own time. What I often cannot do is have a group discussion with other professors about a particular topic or paper. This is what a conference can facilitate.

    The panel format is indeed often the best for an audience, but typically only for an audience unfamiliar with the panelists’ work. At many conferences, I’m quite familiar with the panelists’ scholarship and would rather see how they respond to questions rather than hear them summarize their papers.

    Maybe the ideal conference seeks to combine all of the formats — one set of panel presentations, followed by a roundtable workshop on some papers, plus some allotted time just for a question session.

  2. Frank says:

    I saw a panel at AALS in January on telecomms that was like an extended argument on the topic, moderated by Mark Lemley. It was very engaging.

    Given how difficult it is for people with heavy family care obligations to travel very extensively, I hope we see more virtual conferences, such as the one described here:

  3. 1. I’m not sure I recognize the distinction between “no presentation, no commentator, 100% questions” and the roundtable — the way I look at it, one variable is the presentation/interrogation style and the other has to do with the number of focal points. So I’m partial to roundtables that direct questions/comments to party G about her paper from a small number of interested parties (A-F, say), then have B-G direct questions at party A, and so forth.

    2. I agree with Dan that panels are better for audiences that are unfamiliar with the work. Another way to think about it is that the roundtable is valuable for injecting new ideas into your field, such as by attracting the fleeting interest of really smart people who would never be willing to commit themselves (and who might never be invited anyway) to the relatively intense and specialized character of a roundtable.

  4. Orin Kerr says:

    I think it largely depends on the nature of the conference; law review symposia are different from AALS subject matter conferences, for example. From the standpoint of an audience member, though, I prefer more people speaking for shorter periods.

  5. HughRice says:

    Organize it however you’d like; in the end, it will all still be useless.