Two recent research initiatives should provide themeetings industry with insights. Just don’t expect to be able to rattle off any clear-cut conclusions as a result.
W
e think of research as a means of providing answers. In fact, thewhole
point of research, according to research professor Brené Brown, is to “study phenomenon for the explicit reason of controlling and predicting.”During a terrific TEDxHouston Talk,
Brown—whois a sociologist—acknowledges thepitfallsof approachingdataoncomplexpsy- chological issueswiththe expectationthat it canbe measuredorquantified. (Youcanwatchher TEDxHoustonpresentationaspartofaConvene blogpostby SeniorEditorBarbaraPalmerat http://bit.ly/rlkzB8.) The truth is, sometimeswith really good
research—whether it explores the vast terrain of human emotion or something a little lessmessy, such as themeetings industry—you getmore questions than answers.And that’s thewhole point: to shake loose preconceived notions and get people talking.Hopefully, the discussion builds consensus or gives participants their own particular takeaways, or both. Two research initiativeswe highlight in this
issue fall into that category.The first isMeetol- ogy,whichwe spotlight in Plenary (on p. 16 and p. 18). Partially funded by the PCMAEducation Foundation and founded bymeetings-perform- ance consultant JonathanBradshaw, theMeetol- ogyResearch Institute’s tweet-basedwebsite (www.meetology.com) collects and organizes the latest scientific research on human behavior and performance as it relates tomeetings. At the press conference announcing theweb-
site’s launch at IMEXin Frankfurt inMay, I asked psychologist Jon Sutton—who helps cull Meetology research—what interests himabout meetings.They have somuch potential, he
4 pcma convene September 2011
replied, “because they are so universally thought to be so badly run.”He added: “Somuch is going on froma psychological perspective in a meeting, and I think there’s a real chance for psy- chology to apply itself to try tomakemeetings healthier andmore effective.” Meetology is like a smorgasbord,where you
pick and choosewhat you like—and then figure out howyou’re going to digestwhat you’ve con- sumed. For example, a recent blog post from Discovermagazine (http://bit.ly/fInX7s)—on howfood breaks sway the decisions of law judges—could provide insight about optimal times to schedule heavily participatory or intensive sessions. The bestway to describe the other research
initiative—also funded in part by the PCMA Education Foundation—is as an ongoing dis- cussion about the future ofmeetings and exhibi- tions, unfolding on both the FutureMeet LinkedIn group and itswebsite (http://where doesthefuturemeet.com),which is facilitated by interactive agencyManifestDigital. (See “The Future ofTrade Shows,” p. 82.)This is no easy conversation, and it can fly in the face of conven- tionalwisdom. For example, in a recent post, InsightLabs Founder andDean Jeff Leitner cre- ates a scenario for the trade showof 2016 in which digital technologies are used—but not “to ropemore people into the experience, to engage peoplewho aren’t there, or to pump our live experiences out tomore people.” The fact that that’s exactly howmeeting pro-
fessionals said they use those technologies today, according to a recent digital-event strategies study, also partly funded by PCMA(on p. 20), should raise some questions.And that isn’t a bad thing.
TED TALKER: TED founder Richard Saul Wurmanwould agree with Jon Sutton’s assessment that meetings are “badly run.” In fact, he lumpsmeetings together as being “all so terrible.” Read Executive Editor Christopher Durso’s compelling One on One interviewwith Wurman (p. 83) to learn howthis archi- tect-turned-meeting- organizer reinvented the conference format, and howhe continues to push the envelope— at the age of 78— with plans for a new improvisational event. He’s barely able to control his terror over this latest conference— which, he says, is the onlyway he’d have it.