http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2022/10/do-we-need-to-rethink-academic.html
EPIP (European Policy for Intellectual Property) – as the website states – is an international, independent, interdisciplinary, non-profit association of researchers that grew out of a network financed by the European Commission in 2003-05. The annual EPIP conference took place from 14th – 16th September 2022, at Cambridge University and online. This year’s theme was “Opening IP for a Better World?”
Over the three days, there was an overwhelming amount of activity, including 160 accepted papers, roundtables, no fewer than three key notes, not to mention the networking, drinks, and a gala dinner.
This Kat had the honour of attending the conference on Thursday 15th September, during which time there were five parallel sessions that ran from 8am to 7pm, ambitiously followed by the dinner. Whilst some academics might be delighted by this range and volume of choice, this one does not have the resilience nor the social stamina for that level of conferencing, and so her attendance was online.
You can find the full program here, and download the book of abstracts here.
Instead of reporting on the presentations from the conference (sorry EPIP!) there are two questions that I have been reflecting on that I am keen to discuss and hear from IPKat readers about their views on these points. [Although, it is important to add a caveat: these questions are not a reflection specifically on EPIP, or apply to all of the presentations made at the conference, but these are general thoughts gathered after the latest season of academic conferences that this Kat has attended.]
| Just a thought… |
What is the point of academic conferences? / What is the point of academics?
Is it just my perception, or are there more conferences and events than ever? Daily invitations for workshops, seminars, conferences, and symposiums fill my inbox. On the positive side, this is great, there are many compelling reasons to attend. Whether that is sharing research to be scrutinised by our peers to help improve our work, or learning from other’s presentations, offering feedback and discussion to develop the discourse around a topic, perhaps disseminating more polished ideas in knowledge exchange or building networks and community in the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship.
But, are we overdoing it? And have we lost sight of the key purposes of an academic conference? Should we present every idea that we have, however underdeveloped? Or is that entirely the point? What do you think?
My view is “no”, we should not be presenting every idea that pops into our minds, because although we may be holders of PhD’s or professorships, this does not mean that we are immune to terrible ideas. By terrible ideas, what I mean is useless ideas. And I understand that this is based on my belief that my job as an academic is to be useful. In my employment contract it says, “undertake scholarly activity.” Well, what is scholarly activity? Is it just thinking about things for the sake of thinking about them? Or are we actually trying to achieve something, as the EPIP conference title alludes to, are we trying to make the world a better place, or not?
If not, then carry on organising events for no reason other than something to do and invite anyone who has had a fruitless thought about anything. But, if we are trying to be useful and make the world a better place, as I suspect many of us are, might we be more mindful about the number of events we are organising, and think more carefully about what it is that we are trying to achieve – both in terms of the conference itself, and as a result, the presentations delivered. What problem does our research/presentation try to address? Does this ‘idea’ have any relevance or application in the world beyond our offices? In the wise words of copyright jurisprudence, it’s about “quality, not quantity,” and to borrow further from our shared parlance, should we be not purely aesthetic, but also functional?!
Asking these questions about the point of academics may seem controversial, but only if you’re worried that the answer is that there is no point. Of course there is, and I am sure there is an entire body of literature to back it up, but my argument here is not scholarly. It is simply that it is important for us to reflect, regularly and deeply, on what it is that we are doing and why.
What do readers think?
Content reproduced from The IPKat as permitted under the Creative Commons Licence (UK).