Letter to the Editor

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.22363
• Author: James Geller
• Date: 01 October 2018
• Published date: 01 October 2018

Letter to the Editor

Dear JCAF Reader,

Many conferences organize

breakout sessions for small

groups of participants between

the panels and plenary talks.

At the recent NCWIT

(National Conference for

Women in Information Tech-

nology, May 15–17, 2018) con-

ference in Grapevine, TX, six

such smaller groups (with

10–20 participants each) con-

vened in one large conference

room. Every group had its own

table (really three tables pushed

together) and every table had

two discussion leaders. The

other (non-leader) participants

moved three times from one

table to another table of their

choice. That meant that partici-

pants had a chance to meet more

than 30 new people in their areas

of interest in three 20-minute

intervals—andtoforgetmostof

them immediately.

As it is customary, every

session commenced with going

around the table, starting with

the discussion leaders, having

every participant introducing

her/himself by name, affilia-

tion, and a sentence about their

interest in the topic. Alas, since

George Miller’s“The Magical

Number Seven…” (Miller,

1956) we know that almost

nobody at the table could

remember all the names. At

none of the tables did I observe

any participant trying to write

down the names of the

speakers introducing them-

selves. Furthermore, while

many of the attendants were

clearly experienced conference

goers who had their elevator

speeches ready at any required

length, others were not. Youn-

ger participants were “mum-

bling”their names, which were

fine with “the Johns and the

Marys,”but really problematic

with unusual/ethnic names

containing phonemes that the

other audience members were

not used to; and there were

several of those at each table.

Why would it be helpful to

know the names of the discus-

sion partners at the table? First,

it would make it possible to

directly address them during

the session. Second, it would

create familiarity when meeting

them again in a later session, in

the hallway, at the next coffee

break, or at lunch. Lastly, if

contact after the conference is

desirable, it would make it

possible to email a participant

or find her/him in an atten-

dance list of the conference, on

LinkedIn, on Google, or on an

appropriate university or com-

pany website. After all, making

connections is one main reason

why people go to conferences

in the first place.

At one of the tables, the dis-

cussion leaders realized that it

would be a good idea to collect

the names of everybody and

passed a prepared sheet with col-

umns for name, institution, and

email address around the table;

this was the right thing to

do. Here is what they did wrong.

After the sheet made its round,

they kept it. There was a vague

expectation that it would be

shared after the end of the con-

ference,butthathasnothap-

pened. Here is what they should

have done. They should have

passed the sheet around for a

complete second cycle. Every

single person at the table had a

smart phone with a camera, and

if they so desired, they could

take a photo of the attendance

list. Looking at their own

photos, every person at the table

could reconstruct the names of

the other attendants immediately

and then later on also. Indeed,

the discussion leaders should

have encouraged this picture

taking of the attendance list.

Thus, this is the proposal:

Use a “two cycle introduction

round (2-CIR)”at every small

group meeting in settings with

unfamiliar people. However,

this idea can be slightly

enhanced. Instead of using an

© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI 10.1002/jcaf.22363

82