"Academic Conferences, Unconferences, & Reciprocity: The risks and rewards of emerging forms of community engagement." A presentation at 2013 Imagining America conference at the Warehouse in Syracuse, NY. Presenters: Kristin Medlin (Communications & Partnerships Manager, Institute for Community & Economic Engagement, University of North Carolina at Greensboro) Sarah Bratt and Stephanie Prato (MLIS students at Syracuse University). Emily Janke could not be at the presentation, but her paper provided the foundation for the core ideas for discussion (Director, Institute for Community & Economic Engagement, University of North Carolina at Greensboro), Including community partners – or community “voice” – is essential to enact the core community engagement principles of reciprocity. Increasing the extent to which academic conferences honor participant voices is important for enhanced knowledge generation as community perspectives are intended to transform scholarship as well as practice and outcomes for all stakeholders. Unfortunately, community participation at conferences continues to be weak. Traditional conference models often discourage reciprocity, revolving around keynote speakers, hierarchical planning, and a passive participant experience. To what extent are academic scholars open to the transformation that is possible when all partners genuinely and earnestly seek to understand, value, respect, and incorporate community partners into plans for community engagement conferences? Are we willing to change the process for identifying conference hosts, conference planners, session formats, locations and venues? In what instances do we narrow our objectives for a conference on community engagement to achieve academic outcomes alone – and at what cost? Providing an applied perspective to address these questions, participants will discuss a case study from Syracuse University, in which a group of MLIS students came together with librarians and other professionals around Syracuse, New York to create the 2013 unconference on Spaces + Places.With no keynotes, no registration fees, and no pre-planned content, the unconference empowered attendees to share their voices and solicit feedback from the community on specific issues. Anyone at Spaces + Places could present on a topic or facilitate a discussion. The event successfully pulled together disparate sectors of the community around a central theme, inspiring attendees to solve problems and make connections. Key Unconference Success Factors 1. Preliminary needs assessment (solicited ideas from OCPL Library directors, students, and academic, public, and school library community) to determine conference theme. 2. Use crowd-sourced problem solving, but make decisions with a small executive planning group. 3. Provide platform for pre-event dialogue such as social media and collaborative technology platforms (wiki, google docs, twitter) 4. Find the right space and enforce the “vote with your feet."

1. Academic Conferences,
Unconferences, &
Reciprocity
The Risks and Rewards of New Forms of Community
Engagement
Emily Janke, Director, Institute for Community & Economic Engagement, University of North
Carolina at Greensboro
Kristin Medlin, Communications & Partnerships Manager, Institute for Community &
Economic Engagement, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Sarah Bratt, MLIS student, Syracuse University
Stephanie Prato, MLIS student, Syracuse University

2. Agenda
● Introductions
● Walking the Talk - a UNCG case study
● Rethinking Academic Conference outcomes
● Reframing Reciprocity
● SYR’s unconferences

3. Rethinking Traditional Models of
Academic Conferences
In what capacities have you
witnessed community colleagues at
academic conferences?
© Janke & Medlin, 2013

4. Walking the Talk - UNCG Case Study
“Would you mind sharing this with the [consortium] listserv? I believe
I shared this opportunity that I've been developing with [name],
Senior Scholar at the [National] Foundation and developer of this
year's [conference] at [an out of] State University. It would be
great to meet with you to discuss the best strategy to ensure that
this meeting is immediately useful to community partners. The
senior scholar] will be sending some speaking points that will be
common to the [Institute-based] discussions, but there is room for
us to shape it for our own local folks. Would you be willing to help
to do this? Perhaps even help to facilitate? I realize that I should
have asked this prior to sending this announcement out... Hmm, if
you're interested, I can add you and the [consortium] on the flyer
before I send it to the [consortium] and any further... your
thoughts?”
© Janke & Medlin, 2013

5. Walking the Talk - UNCG Case Study
The next day I received an unsettling email simply stating: “Please
call me at [phone number].” I called and the effect of the
conversation was that the program planning committee was not
willing to co-sponsor the meeting. They did not believe that it
would serve their mission: to be directly useful to nonprofits. In
my earnestness to provide a high-quality experience in
collaboration with a prestigious international conference, I had
failed to partner with the individuals and organizations that such a
hub meeting was developed to serve.
The irony of trying to plan a conference on communityengaged partnerships without community partners was
embarrassing, to say the least.
© Janke & Medlin, 2013

6. Foundations
Mutual Benefit: suggests a win-win relationship. Speaks
to the outcomes anticipated and expected by all parties
involved in the activity, initiative, or relationship.
(implies equitable academic AND community outcomes)
Reciprocity: the seeking, recognizing, respecting, and
incorporating the knowledge, perspectives, and
resources that each partner brings to a collaboration
(Janke & Clayton, 2011, p. 3)
(implies balanced power and a process of co-creation)
© Janke & Medlin, 2013

7. Traditional Academic Conference
Outcomes
●
●
●
●
●
●
sharing and generating ideas
institutional and individual prestige culture
eminence
advancing the disciplinary community
cosmopolitan values
socialization and norms about “successful scholars”
To what extent are community-engaged scholars
and activists repeating the same patterns,
enacting and reifying the same schema, in
conference planning?
© Janke & Medlin, 2013

8. But where are all the community
partners?!?
Are academic conferences are set up to maximize the time
of community participants?
● cooperation vs. collaboration
● participation vs. inclusion
Community colleagues often find sessions to be too
theoretical, or alternately, too context specific and thus
not of much practical use
No benefit = Disengaged attendance or no attendance at all!
© Janke & Medlin, 2013

9. Paradigm Shift
To what extent are academic scholars open to the transformation that is
possible when all partners earnestly seek to understand, respect,
and incorporate community partners into plans for community
engagement conferences?
Are we willing to change the process for identifying conference hosts,
conference planners, session formats, locations and venues?
In what instances do we narrow our objectives for a conference on
community engagement to achieve academic outcomes alone—and
at what cost?
© Janke & Medlin, 2013

10. Underlying assumptions that derail
“transformation”
(Driscoll, 2010)
● fear (traditional research would become undervalued and
no longer accepted)
● worry (research/scholarship will lose quality and rigor)
● avoidance (society’s problems and issues feel
insurmountable); overwhelming (preparation takes
significant time); discomfort (requires new kinds of
relationships)
● woe (lack of preparation for fostering community
relationships)
© Janke & Medlin, 2013

11. Reciprocity is Fluid
“transformational”
Janke, 2013
CAN BE
VALUE
NEUTRAL
“transactional”
© Janke & Medlin, 2013

12. Read more:
Janke, E. (2013). Increased community presence is not a
proxy for reciprocity. E-Journal of Public Affairs, 2(2).
Retreived from
http://ejournal.missouristate.edu/2013/08/increasedcommunity-presence-is-not-a-proxy-for-reciprocity/
© Janke & Medlin, 2013

13. Participation at Every Step
Reciprocity in the Planning Process

14. Spaces & Places:
an Unconference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
=pJqXTi2h1zg&feature=youtu.be

15. What is an Unconference?
Source: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3155/2464629784_afd3054962.jpg

16. Why have one?
● Sharing ideas
● Connecting communities to knowledge
networks
● Engaging the community
● Sharing your voice

17. Who’s involved?
The organizers4 MLIS Students from Syracuse University.
The community who attended:
● Academic Librarians
● Public Librarians
● School Librarians
● Special Librarians
● Vendor Representatives
● SU Faculty
● Students!

18. How? Before the event
● Build community buy-in
● Plan, plan, plan
● Get the conversation started
● Find sponsorships and partners
● Market your event!

19. How? During the event
1. Pick session topics
1. Create the schedule
1. Break into groups
1. Repeat step 3!
1. Reconvene and share out

20. After Spaces & Places
● Feedback
● Evaluation
http://bit.ly/13lhtWJ

21. “I found the conversations stimulating and very thoughtful.
The mix of practicing librarians, graduate students, and
faculty was very engaging, because we talked about
important issues from several different perspectives...the
feedback from the whole group was overwhelmingly
positive. I hope that we can facilitate future
unconferences at the iSchool; it's a powerful way to
generate conversations about important issues.”
- Barbara Stripling
President of the American Library Association

22. Call to action
Thank you! Questions?
Stephanie Prato
SU Student
scprato@syr.edu
www.scprato.com
Sarah Bratt
SU Student
sebratt@syr.edu
@sarahsbratt