I was among the group of Fellows who attended the 8th Annual Symposium on Communication and Communication Intensive Instruction, held on May 9th, 2008. Despite the weather, the turnout was great and we saw a lot of lively exchanges of ideas. Esther Dyson’s and Richard Lederer’s Keynotes were interesting and entertaining, and we enjoyed each other’s company at the table discussion and over dinnner afterwards.

This year’s theme was ‘Miscommunication’. In the table discussion, Olga and I were with facilitators Gardner Cambell (Professor of English at the University of Mary Washington) and Ruth-Ellen H. Simmonds (Executive Director, One Stop Senior Services), our own Dennis Slavin and three other professionals (Irwin Dayan, David Sutcliffe and Karen Stevenson). Because we had a good proportion of academics and professionals, we were able to share our experience in the classroom and the workplace, what kind of miscommunication takes place, and why it takes place. Our dicussion somehow centered around the fact that many of us feel like we ‘miscommunicate’ with colleagues because we have little understanding of people that belong to different generational/gender/cultural groups from our own. Just as we did in the symposium, by ‘listening’ to each other’s perspectives and experiences, we learn a little more about effective communication every day. I feel that ‘listening’ is an essential part of communication no less than ‘talking’. Now I should tell my Japanese friends to keep their heads high for their ‘air-reading’ ability.:-)

So this was another interesting experience for me. I would also like to invite comments from other Symposium participants. Please share your experience!

I am very sad to report that the Schwartz Communication Institute has lost a dear friend. Raymond F. von Dran, Dean emeritus of the School of Information Studies at Syracuse University passed away at the young age of 60 earlier this week. Ray was a Symposium regular who was very influential in the evolution of that event as well as of the Schwartz Institute in general. He facilitated this past year and, as expected, brought his characteristic exuberance and insight to the discussion. Please take a look at the moving tribute to Ray on the School of Information Studies website and his obituary in the Syracuse University News.

After this year’s Schwartz Symposium, where I once again served as a moderator, I decided to publish a short paper describing the results of the table discussion in which I participated. Described is the evolution of an idea and the research needs it suggests.

The link to the paper is below.

Channels, Audience Needs, and Communications – The Rise of a Idea.pdf 102K

I was thinking this evening walking to the train about how someone had commented that the moring speaker at the Symposium was “great but did not talk about communication.” I think that’s not quite correct. If we think back to the stories he related, they were all basically about LISTENING, a pretty important part of communicating. In the end listening is probably more than half of communicating. Communicating is not just what we say and how we say it, it’s what we hear and how we’re heard. Think how different BLSCI would be were it’s name “The Bernard L. Schwartz Speaking Institute.”

I’d like to start a space here to discuss last week’s Symposium on Communication and Communication-Intensive Instruction where, hopefully, we can aggregate some feedback and thoughts for the staff which will help them plan next year’s event.

This was my first symposium, and I had a fine time. It’s nice to break up the monotony of our academic day-to-day, to mix with folks from the outside world, and also to get to know some of my fellow fellows better. I thought both Keynotes were good. William Taylor’s talk resonated through our small-group discussion, and I thought it was an effective mixture of presentational models: part book talk, part corporate motivational speech, and part exhibit on public presentation. Chris Anson’s talk was interesting due to his knowledge and polish, but felt a little disconnected to me… I’m not sure that the format of a fireside chat meshes well with a Keynote in this context. Perhaps other folks felt differently.

My discussion group was enjoyable, though we could have used a few more business folks and a finer focus. Everyone was amiable and contributed something to the discussion, but our group didn’t get much further with the questions than the fellows had when we wrote them. That’s ok, since the purpose was to generate dialogue between businessfolk and academics. Much of our group’s talk revolved around the relationship between authenticity and effectiveness in communication. I argued that there was no determined relationship between the two, and that most businesses care less about being “authentic” with their customers than they do about effectively communicating their way into pockets. Authenticity can be a tactic, but communication can be just as effective if the communicator is being inauthentic. In many cases, “effective” communication requires inauthenticity (see: buildup to War in Iraq). The afternoon discussion did not address the question we came up with in the morning, which was: “Given a world with too many forms of communication, how do we create an architecture that ensures that we communicate effectively within our organization?” Perhaps that question was unanswerable, or maybe the answers were obvious.

My final point, which obviously says more about me than anything else: I should have been more prepared for this, given that we’re at Baruch and given the nature of this gathering… but in my many years of graduate school, I’ve rarely been in a room where the big C seemed so far off the table.

By the way… those mini-cheesburgers? Man alive… and grilled to a perfect medium, too. We should have applauded the Chef at the Players Club right after we cheered for Mikhail and Mr. Schwartz.