Futures for Commerce and Commons (and for the CCi)

Brisbane.
The CCi conference is slowly drawing to a close - the next plenary is billed as a CCi Advisory Board discussion drawing together some of the threads from the three days of conferencing, and setting the agenda for future developments at the CCi. Henry Jenkins is the chair for this session.

Henry begins by opening the floor, and Kerry Raymond begins. She notes the relative absence of IT researchers at the conference, and thinks more IT people should attend conferences such as this - there is a need to break down institutional and disciplinary silos. Bob Hodge adds that there is a lot of revolutionary rhetoric here, but that the idea of a revolution needs to be further theorised - is this really a revolution or a more gradual change. A speaker from the Queensland government (didn't hear the name) would like to see further questioning of future directions - is where we going where we want to be going?

Trevor Barr begins by congratulating the organisers, and suggests that if Kevin Rudd was here, he'd point to the roll-out of an Australian high-speed broadband network as one of his key priorities. This has not been addressed sufficiently here - what new services are possible on the basis of this new network; what kind of network is needed for the services discussed throughout the conference? Also, what about institutional changes - one revolution here might be that Telstra may not be the successful tender for this new network, which would revolutionise the industry!

David McKnight also questions whether we want to be going where we appear to be going. He sees a kind of technological (or possibly ageist) determinism which accepts the new as better and rejects criticism of new models as old-fashioned. What alternative directions are also open to us? Sherre DeLys, executive producer of the ABC's Pool project, points to the value of networking as a very important aspect of this conference, and this is especially valuable for people from the industry who are now able to connect with researchers. A representative from the South Australian government notes the relative absence of government representatives, for whom this conference would have been of very significant value (also in the context of developing new policies and services) - governments are also major funders for research, she reminds us, so there is good reason for academics to engage from their side, too.

Henry notes that as he says yesterday, the plenitude of YouTube means that we don't see what is missing - the same is true here, too: what industries, what groups are missing here? Lelia Green notes that we've looked mainly at people's behaviours, but not at what motivates these behaviours - this needs to be further researched. Jenine Beekhuyzen from Griffith University would also like to see more technologists, and there is a recurring theme in her and other comments that says that the conference should have been more widely publicised. There also wasn't enough time for questions in many of the sessions, she felt.

Erica McWilliam notes this as a pedagogical issue - there may be better ways to do some things associated with the conference, such as more directly asking questions of the audience to involve them, encouraging more interactive forms of participation. Academic papers may not be the best way to organise conferences - and Henry also points to the idea of unconferences which is becoming very popular on the American academic circuit. Formats of presentation may need to be diversified (without dumbing down the conference). Sal Humphreys also notes the absence of proceedings from the conference, which would have been a way to draw together some of the best work. Pam Rosengren has experience with unconferences - such as the Australian Blogging Conference held at QUT - which worked very well.

Stuart Gluth (?) notes also the pedagogical possibilities, and highlights new ways of educating people. Like various other forms of (entertainment) media, the conventional forms of education and conferencing are under threat, and people are now self-organising to orchestrate alternative approaches. All industries need to be creative industries. A speaker from Swinburne now echoes David McKnight, and thinks new media uses are reminiscent of uses and gratifications approaches. There's something missing here.

Henry's own view is that there is a reconfiguration of scholarly fields around the world, and the best universities are those embracing that change. This needs to be done with a critical awareness and engagement with political debates, with a view to what and who is being left behind and what alternatives there may be. Such dialogue takes place best often in institutions which were not at the heart of the 20th-century research environment - technical universities taking on the humanities (like MIT and QUT) are very well placed to do exciting new work in that field, for example. Here, traditional science can meet the cultural and social sciences. There is also a great opportunity for international cooperation here.

The mix of economic, legal, educational, and policy perspectives in the CCi and at this conference was very important, he thinks; the arts are somewhat less present, and MIT has done some work in recent years to bring in creative artists to inform its research, and he suggests that this may need to happen here, too - without reintroducing divisions between high and low arts, of course. Susan Greenfield's presentation was useful in this regard, even though (like quite a few others who were there) Henry has some profound disagreements with some points in her presentation; but fundamentally, bringing in key speakers (and creating such points of disagreement) can be extremely useful.

The ability to use simple and clear language in discussing research and related issues is also important here - any hiding behind scholarly terms should be discouraged. How do we bring the language of academic discourse and the discussions in everyday life together more effectively - bringing in those voices which are not being heard in academia. The connection of academics and the public sector is already a strength in Australia, he suggests.

Stuart Cunningham adds to this that criticisms of what the CCi does sometimes point to the overuse of bureaucratic language - breaking new ground academically as well as having an impact on policy and industry as well as collegially interacting with teachers and researchers across many disciplines is difficult unless the language is appropriate. There is often also a perception of the embrace of creative industries as a "Queensland ideology", and perhaps as being overly utopian, optimistic, or technologically determinist. Further, the CCi is very much sitting at a cross-disciplinary edge, but is it communicating effectively into the disciplinary spaces from which its contributors are drawn? Does it have (and demonstrate) broader impact beyond its own space; does it make a difference in the policy domain; does it create conceptual advances around evolutionary economics and cultural studies; does it advance legal debates and developments around copyright and other regulatory structures so that they facilitate rather than inhibit cultural changes around media content and associated social structures?

Sherre DeLys from the ABC responds that in her experience as a media producer academics are not necessarily very effective in pushing ideas outward into the wider public perception. There is a need to be more media-savvy in order to create this public engagement. Yvonne Rees (?) from the Queensland state government notes the key role of the creative industries - indeed, any industry needs to embrace its creative abilities to succeed. There is a need to take this message outward from the core creative industries to a wider audience; perhaps a wider audience should be addressed by the CCi, therefore.

Brian Fitzgerald adds that the conference was also a major opportunity for Centre researchers to connect with one another and others in their fields, and the level of discussion here (often also between very junior and very senior scholars) has been very good. This was a conference where legal scholars were central rather than being positioned as representatives of a discipline which mainly tends to hinder new developments. Networking activity was also very strong.

Lelia Green adds that among the absences were the 'shock troops' of creativity and innovation - the performing arts. The new iteration of the CCi should probably invite them in even further - we're missing something if they're not part of the discussion. Trevor Barr adds that as the Centre moves towards its next phase, it needs to engage strongly with the new federal government. How important are policy recommendations for innovation, in terms of building a new national plan that can be put on the PM's table in a few years' time? Are we going to stay in silos (even though the CCi has already managed to deconstruct silos to some significant degree), or can we move further beyond them?

Katie (?) from AFTRS very much enjoyed this conference, and wonders whether artists could be engaged further by approaching innovative young (and perhaps older) artists by inviting submissions for some five artists who would give feedback on presentations from their own practice. Scott Kiel-Chisholm also points to the interdisciplinary nature of the conference, and of many of the projects which have been presented at the conference; as an example, he highlights structural problems in the education system which a conference like this may also be able to address. We must not lose the outcomes of this confererence, but need to do what we can to disseminate the outcomes even further.

Peter Black adds that a recurrent theme of the comments is that the CCi's work is very interesting and needs to be further disseminated. How can we do a better job to get our message and our work out there - to government and to the community at large? Pam Rosengren follows up on comments involving artists - why stop at involving just a few, and instead organise a small, well-considered festival related to the commons and technology? Caroline (?) from the University of Queensland notes the variety, and highlights the range of international perspectives (especially looking at China and the Asia-Pacific). At a knowledge management conference in Mexico, she noticed how a fringe arts event associated with the conference managed to bring in the wider public, and how conference staff organised a forum each day that connected academics and the public.

Sherre DeLys adds that there is also a great deal of interest in creative commons licencing among artists, and that this would be an important aspect of this - as well as liaising with artistic real-time media for further dissemination. Jessica Coates notes the Creative Commons Salons (one of which happened as part of the CCau conference on Tuesday) - this also helps connecting artists and academics, and the wider public. Rachel (?) from the State Library of Queensland also acknowledges the CCau event on Tuesday, which managed to get its message out to a wider sector of galleries, libraries, museums, and artists.

Stuart Cunningham also notes Jessica's interview in the Media Report which addressed some of these issues; the ABC's policies of placing media commentary, he suggests, are something of a problem here as there are some turf wars within the ABC that hinder dissemination. Kerry Miller (?), a publicist from the CCi, also notes the difficulties of spreading academic work through popular media - she notes the ability especially of junior researchers to help here, as they are already highly aware of the ability to spread messages through new media technologies.

The person from the South Australian government returns to the question of academic language here; that said, she says there are massive opportunities for artists and media people to show academics what they are currently working on, as well as to engage with the wider public. We need to step out of the academic comfort zone and welcome people form outside into conferences like this. Pam Rosengren adds that unconference-style sessions could be wired up to use the technology to facilitate conversation - this would enable a threaded discussion which allows for conversations to be kept going more effectively. Henry adds that the MIT MediaLab's TalkBack software has been used in this context, for example.

Jessica Coates gives a big thumbs-up to a Twitter-backed conference, and notes that an ABC film crew came to the CCau conference mainly because of the artist event in the evening. Someone else (he didn't identify himself) adds that the title of the conference itself is a problem - it does not appropriately indicate the range of content actually being addressed here. There's a clear need for better marketing here - an ability which many academics do not have. It's not the gadgets, he says, but the content of the conference, which needs to be better advertised.

Peter Black notes that it is odd that there is no bigger online engagement during this conference; this is due also to the exorbitant cost of Internet access here at the Brisbane Conference and Exhibition Centre. It is necessary to bring in the external online audience for this conference. Pam Rosengren suggests that this audience exists during the conference itself, but importantly also before and after the event. Scott Kiel-Chisholm adds that the artwork for the conference posters and publication was fantastic, and he'd like to find out who did it. (John Hartley says that it is freeware from the Net.)

Finally, then, Henry wraps up by saying that there was an enormous sence of excitement here at the conference, and that it managed to be diverse and programmatic at the same time. There is a shared vision of where this might be going which is at the same time inclusive enough to allow a space for its critics, and that the Centre has been doing exceptional work which provides a great basis for further work, ensuring even greater diversity of perspectives.

Some very interesting comments there. Personally, I would echo especially the need to generate some further engagement before, during, and after the conference through effective use of social networking and communication technologies (and to provide free wireless access at any future conference, as we did with AoIR 2006 here in Brisbane). This could involve tools such as Twitter, shared social bookmarking, blogs like this one (and aggregation of their content feeds on the CCi site), and social networking sites - why not set up a temporary CCi Ning site to pull it all together, for example? I hope very strongly that photos and videos from the conference will be posted on Flickr and YouTube as well, of course, and that Powerpoints are uploaded to Slideshare (as I've done with mine). It's well established in the new media environment, sharing creates value - and the CCi absolutely needs to be leading by example (and showcase its - and our - work in the process).

Technorati : CCi 2008, commerce, commons, conference, creative industries
Del.icio.us : CCi 2008, commerce, commons, conference, creative industries