Unconferences: Ur Doin It Wrong!

Reading the excellent page by Walt Crawford on unconferences and library camps on the PALINET Leadership Network site, it occurred to me that perhaps the attempts to define what is and isn't an unconference are kind of pointless. Questions like the following are often used to decide if an event truly fits into the unconference model:

• Are there are invited speakers?
• Is there is a registration fee (even a modest one)?
• Are any attendees invited?

As Crawford notes, "the whole point is to provide a forum for participants to discuss what they want, when they want." I would definitely agree with that but would make a stronger argument for the element of participation by all attendees (or at least the possibility for participation) being the key element. What makes an unconference unique is the way it is engineered from the start to enable as much active participation by all attendees as possible. Maybe it would be better to think of any conference (traditional, virtual, unconference, whatever) and measure how participatory it is designed to be. Some events will fall on either end of the participation spectrum (from tons to none) while most others will be scattered in between (a bell curve).

When planning an event, the organizers should focus on just how participatory they want the event to be for attendees. Getting caught up in debates whether an event hews to the one true model of unconferences can be seen then as more of a distraction that doesn't serve attendees or organizers very well. Instead, the focus can be on to what extent the event will maximize the potential for all involved to share knowledge.

On a related note, if you happen to be going to Computers in Libraries next week, I'll be on a panel on March 31 (1:30 - 2:15 pm) with John Blyberg, Kathryn Greenill, and Steve Lawson (from whom I expect to learn a lot) on the subject of unconferences (details here).