EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“Complexities of Environment and Development in the Age of DNA,” was held May 1-4, 2004, at the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. The workshop was organized by Peter Taylor (University of Massachusetts–Boston) and facilitated by Denise Lach (Oregon State University).

Goals of the Workshop

This workshop is one of a series, the New England Workshops on Science and Social Change (NewSSC), that is guided by three premises:

· Scientists, science educators, and science and technology studies (STS) scholars can cross fertilize each other’s work.

· Academic workshops that allow participants to connect theoretical, pedagogical, practical, political, and personal aspects of the issue at hand can foster new projects and collaborations.

· Productive workshops can be run at modest costs. (Taylor 2004a; http://www.stv.umb.edu/newssc.html)[1]

Building from these premises, this workshop was intended to support projects and collaborations around the complexities of environment and development in the Age of DNA:

Everyone “knows” that genes and environment interact, but, in this “Age of DNA,” genetics is often seen as the way to expose the important or root causes of behavior and disease or as the best route to effective therapeutic technologies. Several scientific currents, however, are bringing back into the picture environmental contributions in the development of behavioral and medical conditions over any individual's lifetime. This trend provides a wealth of potential issues and case material for science and technology studies (Taylor 2004a; newssc04.html).

In addition to the NewSSC goals, a complementary set of goals was discussed in the workshop prospectus and other materials. The workshop was designed to bring together a diverse group of STS scholars, scientists and educators, and to foster new projects and collaborations by establishing an environment that was:

· safe and supportive – a comfortable space to open one’s self and one’s thinking to alternatives,

· collaborative – fostering close interaction and the exchange of ideas,

· experimental – inviting participants to stretch what they know and how they know,

· generative – leading to new insights, approaches and projects,

· restorative, energizing and fun.

Evaluation Design

I was both a participant in and an evaluator of this workshop. In my dual role, I paid close attention to the design and implementation of the workshop, the substance of discussions, the nature of participants’ engagement and interactions, and the evolving feeling of the workshop. I recorded my observations and impressions in field notes throughout the workshop.

Peter, Denise and I shared the view that evaluation should be an integral aspect of the workshop to complement activities, generate richer experiences for the participants, and provide the means to reflect on and improve what was done. Including opportunities in the workshop schedule for participants to ‘take stock’ of what they were experiencing, learning and feeling reflects our commitment to an embedded, generative evaluation.

Two activities of this kind provide participant feedback that I examine in this report. First, I summarize responses to a reflective writing activity on day 2 of the workshop as part of my description of workshop activities (see section 7). The participants’ full responses to the day 2 reflective writing are in Appendix 1. Second, in section 9, I analyze the responses to the written evaluation that was completed at the conclusion of the workshop. The full responses to the final evaluation are in Appendix 2.

Following the workshop, Peter, Denise and I held two debriefing sessions in which we reviewed and critiqued each workshop activity and considered the implications for future workshops.

Workshop Participants

The workshop enrolled thirteen participants (six women, seven men), including Peter, Denise and me. Among us were university-based and independent scholars from five countries, early-career and senior scholars, and two graduate students. Fields of study included philosophy, history and social studies of science; science education; and labor education and research. Personal profiles written by the participants are on the workshop website at newssc04.html#profiles.

Workshop Activities

In the months preceding the workshop Peter asked participants to send in personal profiles to post on the website, to send electronic files of relevant papers for circulation prior to the workshop, and to think about activities or discussions they might lead so that colleagues could help them work through challenging ideas.

The workshop included pre-planned activities facilitated by Peter and/or Denise, and participant-led activities that took shape as the workshop progressed. The following table lists the major workshop activities for each day.

Day

Workshop Activities

Van ride to Woods Hole; Guided freewriting; Autobiographical introductions; Reflections on introductions; Themes about group processes; Video: Donna Haraway Reads National Geographic

Heterogeneous intersecting processes & PKU; Walk on the beach; Sense of place map, reflective writing, generating more activities; Bedtime reading

Performances of metaphor; The boundaries of disease; Taking stock: What has surprised you?; Making music together

Problem-based learning: Developing funding initiatives; Historical scan of the workshop, Final written evaluations

Analysis of Final Evaluation Responses

The final written evaluation had four preparatory questions that asked participants to reflect on their personal goals for the workshop and obstacles to meeting those goals; what they learned about how to get the most out of an interaction-intensive workshop; how well the workshop met the goals of the NewSSC workshop series, and the general quality of the workshop and its impact on them. A final question asked participants to synthesize their thoughts from the prior questions to focus on the workshop’s strengths and weaknesses, and ways to improve future workshops. Appendix 2 contains the participants’ full responses to the final evaluation (also available at newssc04eval.html). More participant feedback is contained in email messages sent to Peter Taylor following the workshop (Appendix 3).

How well did the workshop meet the participants’ expectations and goals? The first question on the final evaluation asked participants to consider whether they achieved their personal goals for the workshop. They were also asked to write about any obstacles they experienced. The participants’ goals typically combined meeting and working with colleagues, developing new ideas and approaches, and advancing current projects and/or starting new ones. The participants consistently reported that the workshop met or exceeded their goals. For example, one participant wrote:

My personal goals were to come to a setting where I could explore ways my own work connects to or resonates with work of other people, who share, at least partially, my own interests and concerns. I feel very satisfied with the results, and, in particular, with the possibility of both keeping up the conversation and experimenting back home with what I have learned.

The most common obstacle to achieving their goals was spending too little time preparing for the workshop.

How well did the workshop meet the NewSSC goals? The participants again thought that the workshop was successful in meeting these goals. Commenting on the first of the goals, one wrote:

Cross-fertilization most definitely occurred and I was interested to watch how ideas and collaborative projects developed as the workshop evolved–if I can use this metaphor.

Several participants described being part of and/or witnessing the formation of collaborations, which they hoped would in time yield positive results. For instance:

· We have gone some way towards attaining these goals, but some work is still needed to extend our joint work into longer-term cooperation. The existence of an email list will certainly be important, but it might be interesting as well to try and organize initial collaborations between participants.

In addition to the NewSSC goals, a complementary set of goals applied specifically to this workshop (see section 2). This workshop was designed to bring together a diverse group of STS scholars, scientists and educators to foster new projects and collaborations in an environment that was supportive, collaborative, experimental, generative, and restorative. This response from one of the participants makes several points that are common in the responses:

The organizer’s personal goals for the workshop were that it would be “generative, restorative, and experimental.” These became the touchstone for the workshop, which succeeded on all three counts. Of course, there is always the challenge of continuing and fulfilling ideas and collaborations that emerge in a workshop, but this group finished with a strong spirit so I am confident the generativity will continue. Many, many workshops are dysfunctional - this one wasn't. Interestingly it's not obvious that we created new approaches to the difficult issues of the workshop's topic, but people were relaxed about this. It needs to be seen whether a process-intensive workshop like this can also highlight context [i.e., content] issues.

Overall, in the final evaluation responses and follow-up emails (Appendices 2 and 3) participants describe feeling personally comfortable even as they were drawn into unfamiliar social and intellectual terrain. Their comments include praise for the quality and collegiality of the facilitators and the other participants. Several note that they were initially unfamiliar with, unsure about, and sometimes skeptical toward the workshop’s highly interactive and emergent format and activities. As the workshop progressed, participants found that their uncertainties and concerns resolved into greater comfort with open-ended approaches and excitement about the ideas they generated.

What changes did the participants suggest? One of the final evaluation questions asked the participants to suggest how the workshop could be improved. The participants did not have much to say about the weaknesses of the workshop. Perhaps the most notable suggestion was about the need for time to relax, think to oneself, and talk informally. The intense demands on the facilitators and participants alike “made the relaxation interludes doubly important. These.…were also productive in furthering personal and group projects” (final evaluation comments).

A few participants suggested adding more structure by including formal presentations and responses, or by focusing in more depth on a particular topic or product. But most of the participants appeared to appreciate the move away from familiar academic routines: “It was very important that there were no formal presentations!” (final evaluation comment). Another suggested, “take time to articulate emerging themes halfway through.”

Recommendations

The following recommendations for future workshops are based on my review of workshop materials, the participants’ feedback, the debriefing session with Peter and Denise following the workshop, and my experiences in the workshop.

Recommendation 1: Increase expectations and opportunities for participant involvement prior to the workshop.

Recommendation 2: Shift a larger portion of Peter’s time and effort from organizing and leading toward participating.

Recommendation 3: Preserve the flexible scheduling and generous free time to allow for informal conversations, emergent collaborations, quite contemplation, and rest.

Recommendation 4: Make the research community-building goal of the workshop series more explicit to the participants.

REPORT

1. Introduction

This report is both a detailed description of the workshop and an evaluation. My goal is to provide an account of the workshop that is useful to:

the workshop organizer and facilitator–to guide them in continuing to develop future workshops,
potential participants in future workshops–to inform their decision by helping them know what to expect,
participants in this workshop–to help them take stock of their experience, and
the National Science Foundation and other potential funders–to determine the success of this workshop and to inform funding decisions for future workshops.

Organization of this Report

The sections and appendices of this report can be read in whole, or separately if you want only particular kinds of information. Section 2 examines the goals of the workshop, based on the prospectus and related materials. Section 3 describes my approach to evaluating the workshop. Section 4 identifies the workshop participants and their areas of study. Section 5 reviews the pre-workshop activities that helped to prepare the participants. Section 6 contains a day-to-day overview of the workshop program in table format, and section 7 provides a detailed narrative and commentary on each of the activities. Section 8 analyzes the participants’ responses to the final written evaluation to determine how well the workshop met the participants’ and the organizer’s goals. Section 9 contains recommendations for future workshops, based on my analysis of the participants’ feedback, conversations with the organizer and facilitator, and on my experiences as a participant/evaluator. Appendices 1, 2, and 3 contain participants’ written reflections from day 2, their final evaluation responses, and email feedback from them following the workshop, respectively.

2. Goals of the Workshop

I will use the organizer’s goal statements as interpretive guides against which to critically examine the workshop activities and the participants’ reactions to them. Two complementary sets of goals are contained in Peter’s descriptions of the workshop in the prospectus (Taylor 2004b; newssc.html - Background), on the workshop website (Taylor 2004a; newssc04.html), and in the pre-workshops bulletins that he sent to the participants.

The first set of goals applies to the workshop series in which “Complexities of Environment and Development in the Age of DNA” is the latest offering. This series, the New England Workshops on Science and Social Change (NewSSC), is intended to demonstrate that:

· scientists, science educators, and STS scholars can cross fertilize each other’s work;

· academic workshops that allow participants to connect theoretical, pedagogical, practical, political, and personal aspects of the issue at hand can foster new projects and collaborations; and

· productive workshops can be run at modest costs (Taylor 2004a; newssc04.html).

I’ll expand on the first two statements, since they are especially useful perspectives from which to examine the nature of the workshop and participants’ reactions to it.

Peter maintains that a “wider discussion of science and technology can influence science, society, and science education in constructive ways” (Taylor 2004b; newssc.html - Background). He suggests that those of us interested in critical practices in and understandings about science ought to attend to the “reciprocal animation” of science and its social contexts by 1) critically examining the social applications and implications of science and technology, and 2) looking ‘upstream’ at how social, political, economic, cultural and linguistic factors shape the processes and products of science and technology in the making. From this view, scientists, STS scholars, and science educators can cross fertilize each other’s work by bringing their respective expertise and perspectives to bear as they help one another (or use one another’s work) to look both downstream and upstream at the relations of science, technology and society. Thinking in terms of reciprocal animation, a close examination of science and technology concepts and methods can deepen insights about the social conditions that shape science and technology, and analyses of the social contexts of science and technology offer views that are otherwise unavailable to scientists, perhaps “suggest[ing] alternative lines of scientific investigation” (Taylor 2004b; newssc.html - Background).

The second goal is to foster projects and collaborations by examining multiple dimensions of the issues under study, which in turn tends to engage multiple dimensions of workshop participants’ scholarly and everyday lives. Peter’s strategy involves using innovative group facilitation techniques to nurture social connections among participants, raise personal and professional dimensions of their lives to higher levels of awareness and relevance, and encourage open-ended, emergent development of activities that are responsive to participants’ evolving relationships and insights. This approach is “designed to catalyze collaborations and networks among the participants, in recognition of the fact that we not only need tools, but need continuing support and inspiration as we weave new approaches into our work” (Taylor 2004b; newssc.html - Background).

Building upon these premises, this workshop was intended to support projects and collaborations around the complexities of environment, human development and genetics. To potential participants, Peter described the workshop as a place to examine social, scientific and technological dimensions of human development through collaborative critical thinking about science and its social contexts:

Even in the apparently ‘common sense’ notion that genes and the environment interact in human development, jaundiced hierarchies and polarities continue to hold. This workshop was intended to bring dominant and alternative views of human development under critical scrutiny using an array of interdisciplinary thinking tools and perspectives.

One of the pre-workshop bulletins distributed to the participants (Taylor 2004c) offered the following “guiding thoughts” about the focus of the workshop:

“Complexities of environment and development in the Age of DNA” is a challenging, multilayered topic for a workshop:

A. “Complexities of environment and development” means we are interested in knowledge-making about one or more of these topics:

· making form (embryological morphogenesis)

· structured relationships with the environment (made in part through those relationships)

· becoming conscious (in part, but only in part, through conscious relationships)

· establishing knowledge (which depends on “applying it” -- making it significant to others with whom we are in various relationships)

· changing society (which enables and constrains our social-changing efforts).

B. “..in the Age of DNA” suggests

· a social-scientific context that shapes/conditions possibilities for establishing knowledge -- making it significant against a background where “genes” are at the center of technical, commercial, funding, popular attention,…

The premise of the workshop is that interdisciplinary process can enhance A and B – notice the analogies between A and the idea of a workshop that develops over time and stimulates/strengthens/reshapes relationships that continue to develop after the workshop is over.

Unpacking the workshop title in this way reveals interwoven issues and levels of analysis that are usually separated as distinct activities–as, for instance, scientific inquiry; social, historical, and philosophical analyses of science; and social activism around science. These guiding thoughts suggest that the workshop was intended to bring what are often disparate conversations into contact to create new possibilities for understanding and action around genetics, the environment and human development.

In addition to the NewSSC goals, a second set of goals was framed specifically around this workshop. In a pre-workshop bulletin, Peter shared his personal goals for the workshop:

· Have a comfortable practice/model of combining substantive topics with process, and have productive fun.

· Experiment with new ideas and processes in a safe and supportive environment.

· Learn from participants (each other): question, inquiry about existing work, sharing ideas and problems.

· [Contribute to a workshop that is} experimental, generative, and restorative (Taylor 2004c).

These goals bring specific qualities, experiences and outcomes to the surface, and so they are useful perspectives from which to evaluate the workshop and the participants’ feelings about it. Complementing the NewSSC goals, this workshop was designed to bring together a diverse group of STS scholars, scientists and educators to foster new projects and collaborations in an environment that was:

· safe and supportive – a comfortable space to open one’s self and one’s thinking to alternatives;

· collaborative – to foster close interactions and the exchange of ideas,

· experimental – inviting participants to stretch what they know and how they know;

· generative – leading to new insights, approaches and projects;

· restorative, energizing and fun.

3. Evaluation Design

I was both a participant in and an evaluator of this workshop. Given the highly interactive format of the workshop (see section 7), my role as an evaluator was strengthened by being fully engaged as a participant. The workshop topic was directly related to my interests in science curriculum and science studies, so my participation was personally meaningful. As a participant, rather than only an observer, I had direct involvement in the workshop activities, which helps me understand the reactions of the other participants. In my dual role, I paid close attention to the design and implementation of the workshop, the substance of discussions, the nature of participants’ engagement and interactions, and the evolving ‘feeling’ of the workshop. I recorded my observations and impressions in field notes throughout the workshop.

Peter, Denise (the workshop facilitator) and I shared the view that evaluation should be an integral aspect of the workshop to complement activities, generate richer experiences for the participants, and provide the means to reflect on and improve what was done (Patton, 1997; Stake 1995). Including opportunities in the workshop schedule for participants to ‘take stock’ of what they were experiencing, learning and feeling reflects our commitment to an embedded, generative evaluation.

Following the workshop, Peter, Denise and I held two debriefing sessions (the first on the day the workshop ended and the second the following week) in which we reviewed and critiqued each workshop activity and considered the implications for future workshops. I audiotape recorded our conversations, which totaled more than 3 hours, and later listened to the tapes to identify insights and recommendations.

A central goal of this workshop is to foster and support ongoing projects and collaborations, so six months following the workshop (November 2004) the participants will be asked to reflect on its evolving meaning and influence in lives and work. Their responses will extend this initial report and provide a more complete picture of the nature and impact of the workshop.

4. Workshop Participants

The workshop enrolled thirteen participants (six women, seven men), including Peter, Denise and me (Table 1). Among us were university-based and independent scholars from five countries, early-career and senior scholars, and two graduate students. Fields of study included philosophy, history and social studies of science, science education, and labor education and research. Personal profiles written by the participants are on the workshop website at newssc04.html#profiles.

Table 1. Workshop participants.

Name	Field of Study	Institution
João Arriscado Nunes	sociology of biomedical science	University of Coimbra, Portugal
Steve Fifield (participant/evaluator)	science education	University of Delaware
Evelyn Fox Keller	history/interpretation of biology	Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Denise Lach (facilitator)	environmental sociology	Oregon State University
Sergio Martinez	philosophy of biology	UNAM, México
Susan Oyama	evolution and developmental systems	independent scholar
Matthew Puma (assistant to the organizer)	adult education	University of Massachusetts– Boston
Jason Robert	philosophy of biology	Dalhousie University, Canada
Peter Taylor (workshop organizer)	critical thinking and reflective practice around biology in society	University of Massachusetts– Boston
Cor van der Weele	philosophy of biology	Wageningen University, Netherlands
Sarah Vogel	history of public health	Columbia University
Marc Weinstein	labor education & research	Oregon State University
Rasmus Winther	philosophy of biology	UNAM, México

5. Pre-Workshop Activities

By January 2004, Peter had posted a website with application directions, costs, and a workshop description. In the months preceding the workshop, he periodically sent bulletins by email to update potential participants on logistics and the developing themes of the workshop. He asked participants to send in personal profiles to post on the website, to submit electronic files of relevant papers for circulation prior to the workshop, and to think about activities or discussions they might lead so that colleagues could help them work through challenging ideas.

Some participants quickly responded with detailed autobiographies and sample publications, others supplied information shortly before the workshop or not at all. It is a challenge to capture people’s attention in advance of a workshop, but using the Internet to begin to form a collaborative community and to stimulate thinking in anticipation of meeting together is a promising approach for future workshops.

6. Workshop Activities: Overview

The workshop schedule as implemented is summarized in the Tables 2-5 in this section. In section 7, I describe each activity in more detail.

Table 2. Schedule of workshop activities on day 1 (Saturday, May 1).

Time	Activity	Description (facilitator)
9:00 am	Van leaves Boston for Woods Hole	Informal introductions & conversations begin
10:30	Arrived & checked into rooms
11:30	Lunch & conversation	Lunch in the meeting room (100A Lillie)
12:00 pm	Welcome; lunch continues; introductions	Brief introductions by participants. (Peter & Denise)
12:30	Guided freewriting	“When I consider times in the past when I’ve missed out on raising something that I would have liked to, the thoughts/feelings/experiences/ideas that come to mind include…” (Peter)
12:45	Extended autobiographical introductions	Each participant takes 15 minutes to give a detailed autobiographical introduction. Denise summarizes on flip charts (Denise & Peter)
1:25	Break
2:05	Introductions continue
4:40	Taking stock of the autobiographies	Group reflection on issues & themes in the introductions. (Denise)
4:50	“Themes to chew on…”	Reflection on group processes. (Peter)
5:15	Break
6:00	Dinner	Eating take-out & casual discussion in Swope cafe
7:00	Video: “Donna Haraway Reads National Geographic”	Video from 1987 episode of NY City cable program, Paper Tiger. Discussion. (Peter, in Swope cafe)

Table 3. Schedule of workshop activities on day 2 (Sunday, May 2).

Time	Activity	Description (facilitator)
9:10am	Welcoming a new participant; Taking stock	One more autobiography. Group then discussed ideas “that we don’t want to lose.” (Denise, in 100A Lillie)
9:40	Understanding heterogeneous intersecting processes: PKU	Introduction to diagramming heterogeneous intersecting processes. (Peter)
10:50	Break
11:05	Understanding intersecting processes: PKU (con’t.)	Small groups diagram intersecting processes based on Diane Paul’s account of PKU. (Peter)
11:50	Understanding intersecting processes: PKU (con’t.)	Discussion of virtues & challenges of using diagrams to represent complexity. (Peter)
1:00pm	Lunch; walk on the beach; break	Lunch at picnic tables outside Swope café; walk on the beach; informal conversation
4:10	· Sense of place map · Reflective writing · Creating activities for tomorrow	· “In context of this workshop and group of people: Where am I? Where have I come from? Where do I want to go? “ (Steve) · Prompt for reflection: “When you look back after a week, what would make this workshop wonderful?” (Steve) · Thinking about activities for the remainder of the workshop (Denise)
6:00	Dinner
7:00	Bedtime reading	Readings & personal stories related to the workshop theme

Table 4. Schedule of workshop activities on day 3 (Tuesday, May 3).

Time	Activity	Description (facilitator)
8:30am	Metaphors & the genome	Cor discusses her paper on metaphors & the genome
9:00	Performing metaphors	Participants break into two groups to create & present performances of metaphors. (Rasmus, Matthew, Cor, Steve)
11:00	Break
11:25	Reflecting on performing metaphors	Discussion of the metaphor performances (Denise)
12:00pm	Lunch
1:10	The boundaries of disease: Asthma	Participants read and reflect on a New Scientist article about asthma and its causes. What interpretive tools do we have to reframe accounts of disease? (Sarah & Peter)
2:00	The boundaries of disease: Asthma	Presentations & discussion
3:00	Break	Free time for conversations
5:00	Taking stock	What’s surprised you? What are you thinking about that you did not expect to be thinking about? (Denise)
7:00	Making music together	Ben Schwendener: jazz as a frame of mind; a group performance.

Table 5 . Schedule of workshop activities on day 4 (Tuesday, May 4).

Time	Activity	Description (facilitator)
8:30am	Problem-based learning (PBL): Proposing a research initiative	Participants develop CFPs for a new funding initiative on complexity and development (Peter)
8:50	PBL: generate ideas	Individual & small group work
9:10	PBL: elaborate ideas	Sharing emerging ideas; small group work to develop ideas; prepare presentations
11:00	PBL: present ideas	Short presentations of proposed funding programs
12:00pm	Lunch
12:45	Historical scan	What events & experiences gave been most meaningful to you? (Denise)
1:35	Written evaluation	Writing about personal goals, workshop goals, insights & recommendations

7. Workshop Activities: Description & Commentary

This section contains descriptions of and commentary about the workshop activities in Tables 2-5.

Day 1 (Saturday, May 1)

Trip from Boston to Woods Hole; lunch – Most of the participants gathered at a hotel in Boston the night before the workshop. The next morning, Peter arrived with a van and drove nine of us to Woods Hole. It was a pleasant trip that gave us the chance to strike up causal conversations with new and old colleagues.

In Woods Hole, participants checked into their rooms while Peter and Denise laid out a buffet lunch in 100A Lillie Laboratory. This small conference room was our home for most of the workshop. Three more participants, who arrived separately, joined us for lunch and more conversation. Thanks to the conversations on the road and over lunch, we began the workshop as a collegial group with relationships already forming.

Welcome and brief introductions – Lunch continued as Peter formally welcomed the group. He acknowledged the gift from the National Science Foundation that made this gathering possible, and noted that our collective presence was a gift of time and ideas to one another. With our broadly shared interests and diverse backgrounds, he said he thought of our task as “reaching over gaps to people who think differently about things” (field notes).

Peter posed a question to help us think about what had brought us together: “How have I come to this place where I am part of a workshop on complexities of environment and development in Age of DNA?” A quick pass around the table, brought our diverse experiences and interests to the surface:

Ten years ago I had a hunch something was wrong with the human genome project, but didn’t know why.
I have been a complexity avoider.
Knowing more about a disease does not mean you are able to diagnose more precisely.
I’m interested in going home with many questions in complexity.
I’m interested in …why it is so difficult for research to piece together sequences of development over time.
Having worked on conceptual framework of development…is that all there is to do? Is it even useful?
How are complexity and risk related?
How [has] public health changed and how is that related to notions of health and the environment?
How much interdisciplinarity is productive and how much multidisciplinarity is necessary?

(participants’ comments from field notes)

Guided freewriting – Guided freewriting is one of several strategies for reflection and critical thinking that were modeled in the workshop. A handout from Peter explained: “Guided (topic-based) free writing is an exercise designed to clear mental and/or emotional space and to allow ideas about an issue to begin to come to the surface before you simply push ahead.” A writing prompt invited each of us to think about our stance, participation and voice in the upcoming discussions: “When I consider times in the past when I’ve missed out on raising something that I would have liked to, the thoughts/feelings/experiences/ideas that come to mind include…” We wrote for ten minutes and kept the responses to ourselves. Not every product of an activity has to be shared. Sometimes the point is simply (or not so simply) to get our own mental wheels turning so we are better prepared for what comes next.

Extended autobiographical introductions – We returned to introductions, this time taking 15-20 minutes for autobiographical accounts of what brought us to this place of being in a workshop on the complexities of environment and development in Age of DNA.

These were autobiographies of interdisciplinarity in and around science, science studies and cultural issues. Several were developmental accounts that traced and then interwove multiple threads to create a coherent pattern. Some of us pulled at a few threads, unraveling the strands of our lives to find the interconnections. Some participants told stories about how life events beyond the familiar contexts of academia contributed to their developing academic interests. Others spoke about themselves and their work in accounts of the grants, papers, books and ongoing projects that are the familiar markers of lives in academia. Denise summarized each account on large sheets that spread across the walls as the stories continued.

The intersections and distinctions among our lives came to light as we talked about ourselves. Common topics in the introductions included:

interdisciplinary (what is it? how do you do it? when is it appropriate?)
science and politics
the relationship of research and social activism
theory and practice
norms
complexity and causality
boundaries (negotiating their shifting & problematic nature)
interest & attention as ethical dimensions of our lives and work
how one frames/makes a problem for study
education
metaphor and language.

From these issues emerged questions about interdisciplinary work:

· How do we select the work we do? What agencies and constraints play out?

· How do we participate across types of questions and communities? How do we (re)negotiate boundaries for ourselves and our work?

· How do we assess the value of what we do, or of what we might do?

· How do we embed academic work in broader worlds of social and scientific needs?

· How can we use inter/multidisciplinary approaches to notice the taken-for-granted, the unmarked, the silent and the absent in dominant perspectives.

· How do interdisciplinary perspectives raise our awareness of metaphor? Lead us to challenge metaphor? Push us to deploy alternative metaphors?

· How does recounting these problems and prospects lead us to see our lives and work in new ways?

Scholars don’t often come to know one another in ways that exceed the formal texts we produce. This personal distance constrains the sense we make of one another’s professional ideas. Far more than just a pleasant preface to the ‘real’ work of the workshop, these autobiographies enriched the possibilities for moving toward new and shared understandings by bringing an unusual variety of salient issues to a level of awareness, and by making more of our life experiences available to one another as means to make connections, to make sense.

Themes to chew on concerning our interactions and process as a group – Peter passed around a sheet with a few statements about personal and collaborative sense-making. For example, one read, “One challenge is to acknowledge our investment in our specific projects while finding ways to stretch what we are doing and to connect with the projects of others.” A few people read the statements aloud and offered some thoughts in response. This prompted reflection on what had been a full and intense afternoon of getting to know each other:

It feels like a lot of us are in transition. [It’s] hard but exciting.
People here have ideas that aren’t fully formulated. This is an interesting space to be in.

· We all know how to do interdisciplinary work in some sense. The hard thing is to know how to share the how-to. We’ve learned and lived it, but the trick is to learn to share it.

(participants’ comments from field notes)

We ended the afternoon by sharing one idea or impression each of us would take away. Here’s a sample:

Causality and complexity are very much the same process.
The ethics of attention caught my attention.
The history of the fact/value distinction comes back to haunt you from the dead.
The diversity of ways that people responded to telling their stories.
Despite the fact that philosophers think the best work is done by lone investigators, I am impressed by the role of support, smiles, and connections.
It makes me want to cry sometimes, this so rich and unmanageable at the moment.
This reminds me of participatory theater.

(participants’ comments from field notes)

Dinner –We had Swope café to ourselves on a quiet Saturday night at MBL. We pulled tables together and lapsed comfortably into conversation and take-out food. For instance, Sarah, Marc and I talked about the implications of genetic screening for workplace safety and liability, and wondered about the quality of current work in bioethics.

Videotape of Donna Haraway, “Reading National Geographic”– In this 1987 episode of the New York City cable program Paper Tiger, Donna Haraway gives a provocative and entertaining cultural critique of science as she deconstructs images of apes and humans on the cover of National Geographic magazine. In an avant-garde performance of science studies, she plays with language and science and culture in ways that pushes and blurs the boundaries of academic and popular subjects, styles, and audiences. The video prompted discussion about apes and sign language, and what Haraway really means by ‘cyborg.’ Her performance invited us to think about how we might ‘push the envelope’ in our own thinking and performance, as how, as Peter suggested, we can “have fun with science studies” (field notes).

Day 2 ( Sunday, May 2)

A new participant; Taking stock of insights so far– We started the day with an autobiography from a late-arriving participant. Already, the seventeen flipchart sheets that lined the walls reflected complex interconnections among our lives and interests. Denise asked us to collect our thoughts since the previous evening. “Anything come up that we don’t want to lose?” A major topic on people’s minds was the places, conditions and varieties of knowledge production:

If you start looking at genes to find out what they need to work, everything else is [treated as if it is] extra.
Start from the relations…
It isn’t knowledge until it is acknowledged
I’m thinking about the different ways and sites at which knowledge is produced…in outreach activities and lay knowledge.

(participants’ comments from field notes)

Diagramming intersecting processes – Peter introduced the idea of conceptualizing and representing complex historical/developmental events as heterogeneous intersecting processes. Heterogeneous intersecting processes can be thought of intrasections–not separate processes intersecting, but systems with multiple points of connection, and so multiple possible points at which intervention might change relationships and shape outcomes. Diagrams of heterogeneous intersecting processes illustrate the temporal progression, interaction, and multiple possible outcomes of the many strands that comprise complex developmental events. The diagrams foreground multiplicity and resist privileging one or a few of the many linear accounts that might be traced through them. To illustrate, Peter showed diagrams of the incidence of depression in working class women; his own life history; the collapse of a rural economy in Mexico, and the spread of a cattle disease in Africa. (See his notes for the activity at newssc04.html#materials.) His introduction grew into a discussion that extended ongoing conversations about causality, behavioral genetics, metaphor and more. One of the participants recognized something in Peter’s diagrams and wondered about an application:

I have used a similar approach to examine an environmental controversy over the burning of toxins in a cement kiln. ‘Experts’ framed the problem as how to get the minimum possible emissions. A more diverse public group looked at where emissions go, no matter what the level of emissions. They defined the boundaries of the inquiry differently. Can we use this approach to represent the various perspectives in a public policy controversy? Perhaps as a device to promote public policy discussions?

(participant’s comments, from field notes)

After a break we worked in small groups to draw our own intersecting processes diagrams. Using Diane Paul’s (1997) account of the history of newborn PKU screening (http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/research/fed/tfgt/appendix5.htm), our small groups diagramed either the life course of a woman diagnosed with PKU, or the process of developing and implementing newborn PKU screening. After 45 minutes, one of the groups put their diagram, still a work-in-progress, on the blackboard. This prompted discussion about the details of the PKU story and the utility and challenges of graphically mapping complexity and development.

How do we bound the diagram? What count as useful & interesting things to put on there?

Do you use this diagram to represent a preexisting narrative, or do you develop or use it prior to reading/writing.
This is a way to keep actors and events in the story, to keep our view wide. In actor network theory these tend to get dropped out.
Each strand continues, they don’t disappear...I want to resist narratives that get interpreted as only the bottom line. These diagrams try to oppose this.

(participants’ comments, from field notes)

“What are we doing next?” – Before we broke for lunch, a few of the participants had questions about what was next. In contrast to the fully prescribed schedule of a more traditional workshop, this one had a few pre-planned activities and time for ‘plan-as-you-go’ activities developed and led by participants. By this point on the second day, some in the group wondered where we were headed, and looked to Peter and Denise to point the way. They were met, instead, with a few possibilities and an invitation to contribute their own ideas. My field notes reflect my sense that there was a potentially productive uncertainty in the air:

I think [the participants] would have been happy to be shown the path forward, to let Peter tell them. The process instead invited them to form it, but there is perhaps not a mechanism in place to quickly bring multiple interests together in a way [that] yields emergent workshop activities that also build, that are progressive and cumulative. [It’s] hard to get rational, linear progress in the organic design, and maybe we should not expect or desire that. [This is] more a format in which the unanticipated, emergent, opportunistic happen. These become lovely nuggets that go home with people, and that they work with and re-shape in retrospect…that’s what open-ended is.

Other participants shared my sense that the second day was a period of transition, of making sense of new ways of thinking and interacting. One of the participants remarked that “day 2 was a very vague day, the least well defined day. It was a day of letting go.” Another added that the day involved letting some habits dissolve while new ones formed, like “going into solution before crystallizing again” (field notes).

Lunch and a walk on the beach  Lunch at picnic tables next to the Eel Pond and a walk along a nearby beach gave us time to reflect, to continue conversations, and to relax. The workshop schedule called for a formative evaluation activity that afternoon, and during the beach walk Peter, Denise and I planned an approach that we hoped would help participants organize their thoughts and direct their attention to the kinds of experiences they wanted to make happen during the remainder of the workshop.

‘Sense of place map’ and written reflections– We returned to the meeting room late in the afternoon and I facilitated the three-part reflection/evaluation activity that Peter, Denise and I had talked about. As a warm-up activity, each participant completed a ‘sense of place map’ by writing or drawing a picture or diagram in response to these questions:

In the context of this workshop and this group of people, Where am I? Where have I come from? Where do I want to go?

Next, we asked the participants to envision the kinds of experiences that would make the workshop wonderful by imagining themselves looking back on it:

Imagine looking back in a week’s time telling someone that you went to a wonderful workshop. They ask you “What made it so wonderful?” You answer, “It was wonderful because I had the opportunity to…”

After 10 minutes of paired discussions each participant shared one idea from the response (full responses are in Appendix 1). Their vision of a wonderful workshop included opportunities to discuss complex topics, such as:

exploring new ideas about how to represent complexity,
how knowledge gets made and boundaries get drawn around concepts of disease,
applying theoretical work to concrete situations.

And they imagined experiencing novel ways of interacting:

new ideas for workshop facilitation
discussing new ideas without judgment, outside normative frameworks
being part of an extended mind.

(from summaries on flip chart)

Creating workshop activities – Denise encouraged the group to shape these imaginings into concrete activities. From the issues raised, she identified topics of shared interest and asked small groups to meet to discuss possible workshop activities.

One of the topics of shared interest was the nature of metaphors in understanding developmental complexity. I joined Rasmus and Matthew on the steps outside Lillie Lab and, as light rain blew in off the ocean, we pieced together a workshop session for the next day. I captured bits of our conversation in my field notes:

How about playing charades, with metaphors as the topics?

Think of it as a silent performance. Enacting metaphors, miming.

How about a group performance – participatory theater? And we need a comparative dimension to open up metaphors and their interpretations.

Should we pick the metaphor? How about genetic determination?

Or ‘master molecule’?

A different metaphor for each group? Or the same metaphor to see how it is interpreted differently?

With a basic plan in mind, we spoke with Cor, who had circulated a paper on metaphoric images of the genome (van der Weele, 2004; available at newssc04.html#materials) and wanted to share some of her ideas with the group. We decided to combine the performance of metaphors activity with a short talk by Cor, and told Denise that we were ready to go the next morning. Sarah and Peter developed another activity around the representations of disease, incorporating a New Scientist article Peter had noticed weeks before, and brought along to the workshop, just in case. So in a short time, two activities emerged for the following day.

Bedtime reading - In one of the pre-workshop bulletins, Peter had asked us to bring articles, passages, poems, pictures or other things to share for a bedtime reading session one evening. Following dinner we gathered in the lounge on the second level of Swope for informal recitations, stories and reflections connected to the themes of the workshop. Several participants shared favorite passages from novels, plays and poems (citations are at newssc04.html#materials). Susan brought a shape-shifting handbag that was transformed by incremental pulls on a zipper as it passed around our circle. We recognized this process as a material metaphor for the development of collective understandings as they circulated among us during the workshop.

Day 3 (Monday, May 3)

Before the workshop started on Monday, I wondered in my field notes about how the day’s activities would play out:

We will see today if the activities that arise serve the needs of folks, [or] whether they appear to be disjunctive–interesting in themselves, but not forming something bigger. Or if something bigger is even what people are looking for.

Performing metaphors - Over breakfast, Matthew, Rasmus, Cor and I reviewed our plans for the metaphor activity. Cor would discuss her paper for about 20 minutes to bring interesting issues to the surface. Then we’d divide into two groups that would chose a metaphor related to the theme of the conference and create a performance of the metaphor. The performance could contain no spoken words. We thought that this unfamiliar, embodied way of enacting metaphors might help us see the concept and practice of metaphor from new perspectives.

We circled chairs in the upper lounge area of Swope, where Cor led off with thoughts about public and scientific images of the genome. Cor contrasted blueprint and recipe metaphors for DNA. In one sense, the recipe metaphor can be used to oppose deterministic conceptions of genetic influence. Recipes are just guidelines, they are open-ended, subject to context, without a one-to-one correspondence of input and outcome. But she described how, in student focus groups around the genetic modification of humans, most preferred a blueprint metaphor, because the genome as recipe implies an ability to ‘cook-up’ humans, to play with how they are put together. We discussed metaphors of DNA as memory and as an attic, and viral DNA as immigrants, as unwelcome guests. Cor suggested that almost all common metaphors for the genome are rooted in scientific practice, in researchers’ efforts to make sense of their own work, rather than, as often claimed, in the oversimplifications of popularized science.

With this background, Rasmus explained the performance of metaphors activity. The two groups spent nearly an hour planning their 5-10 minute performances. Rasmus (Winther, 2004) later wrote up an insightful description of the activity and the ensuing discussion (see newssc04metaphor.html). His account of the performances reflects the creativity and fun of the moment:

Group 1

Act 1. The six members of the group are each kneeling and crouched on the floor. The members are arranged in a circle. One member of the group raises her back, remaining kneeling. She looks at a notebook on the floor in front of her. She claps slowly and with measure. After each clap the other members, in unison, raise their backs a bit while remaining kneeling. After some claps, each member of the group has an erect posture, although each remains kneeling.

[metaphor: central director controlling organization/reading from the ‘Book of Life’]

Act 2. The members of the group are crawling on the floor, opening and closing their mouths while making mastication sounds. Each crawls independently and in their own rhythm. Suddenly each stops opening and closing their mouths. They join to form a "train" and start singing "Amazing Grace."

[metaphor: self-organization (in slime molds)]

Group 2

Three partitions are joined to form a "V" facing the audience. Three members of the group are inside the partitions doing different things with shoes, etc…? [They are manipulating objects and interacting with each other.] The other three members are outside the partitions ignoring what happens inside. They stare off into space. Two of them eventually unite the partitions so that what happens "behind" the partitions now remains invisible to the audience and to the three group members remaining outside. One member of the outside group sits down behind a table and starts writing on paper. The other two members of the outside group stare and inspect the partitions. They also approach the member sitting behind the table, asking and pleading him to help them investigate the partitions. The three outside group members start knocking on the partitions and start throwing pieces of papers with integrals, flow charts, and molecular shapes on them over the partitions. Crumpled paper and paper with question marks ("¿?") on them are thrown back. Once in a while, paper with significant content written on it is returned to the outside group members (e.g., "Hox A"). Knocks are also responded to, although not systematically. One of the inside group members, with a black scarf over her head, goes in and out of the partitions [but those outside the partition appear to pay her no attention]. After a while, the partitions open (from the inside) and we see one of the inside group members sitting down imitating puffing a cigar and playing with a remote control. Another inside group member holds a leash, which is attached to the other inside group member, [who] holds a mirror [that] is shown to the audience members. We also see a little black box in the middle of the floor. The three outside group members see all this activity and stare at the audience and each other in horror. They close the partitions again.

[metaphor: development and complexity as ‘black-boxed’ in theory and practice]

The performances were followed by lively discussion. Rasmus noted that “the two-act play of group 1 was extremely clear and concise. Their play was readily interpretable.” On the other hand, “The one-act play of group 2 was fairly opaque to group 1 and generated a number of very divergent interpretations” (Winther, 2004; newssc04metaphor.html). Several people interpreted the performance of the black box metaphor as a representation of cellular processes. They spoke of what they saw through reference to cellular processes as real things (not metaphors) to try to make sense of the enacted metaphor. This flexible use of the real and the metaphoric, and the fuzzy boundaries in our thinking of models and reality, was one theme of the bedtime readings the previous evening. This leads to creativity, confusion, insight and unintended consequences in communication.

The very process of conceiving and carrying out the performances blended content and process dimensions of the workshop. The performances were emergent, developmental processes that explored understandings of emergent, developmental relationships. These intimate, embodied experiences with the concept of metaphor raised issues about what we mean by ‘metaphor.’ We discussed how we might think of metaphor as, literally, movement or, figuratively, crossing boundaries; as a rhetorical device; as a deep and synesthetic cognitive/linguistic practice; as situated historical/cultural constructions (e.g., ‘Franken-foods’); as an invitation to think of one thing as another; as a means to restructure relationships; as superficial thinking that is not sufficiently grounded in the literal; and/or as a marker of the limits of the literal.

Our discussion also revealed alternative perspectives on inquiry into and through metaphor. One might ask about the utility of metaphors as tools of analysis; as ways to think about language; as cognitive/biological structures. One might also advocate more narrowly drawn, culturally- and historically-situated analyses of how particular metaphorical relationships structure knowledge production in particular scientific and social contexts. Our discussion began to reveal the contours, overlaps and tensions of these cognitive/analytical and sociocultural perspectives on metaphors.

The impact of the metaphor performances is evident in participants’ reflections, made later that day:

· I’m surprised by this exercise in epistemological theater. You can have different ways of looking at things, and you can get together to perform them even if you don’t understand them in the same way.

· I’m surprised by different ways the [metaphor] performance was understood, and the variety of meanings of metaphor as a concept, and individual metaphors, can have.

· I didn’t expect to be thinking about how an impromptu group organizes itself. This morning’s metaphor activity–I want the security video of that.

(participants’ comments from field notes)

The boundaries of disease - After lunch, Sarah and Peter distributed an article from New Scientist (Brown, 2004) about rising asthma rates and possible explanations. This activity is another example of one that took shape during the workshop. Peter had noticed the article weeks earlier and brought it along with him to the workshop with no particular plan in mind, but anticipating that it might be useful. And Sarah, Marc and others had talked about their interests in the ways disease and health risks are variously partitioned and bounded as predominantly genetic and/or environmental in nature. Using the article Peter happened to put in his folder of workshop resources, they were able to design an activity that drew the rest of the group into this issue. They asked us to read the article and to consider how the tools of science studies could stretch the conversation around this issue. How might we productively redraw the boundaries of disease?

Reactions to the article ranged from pointed critiques of its line of argument to reflections on broader interpretive and rhetorical devices that frame the relationships of genes, environments, bodies and disease. The diversity of our backgrounds–from philosophy to sociology and beyond–was reflected in our responses to task. Some of us wondered about the logical rigor of experimental designs, causal links and inferences. Others noted the ‘sliding environment’ phenomenon, a gendered power relationship in which the role of environment in disease depends on whether the environment in question is women’s bodies. Via the ‘sliding environment’ the responsibility for environmental impacts on neonatal development is shifted to pregnant women. As a group we perhaps did not sufficiently take up during this activity the invitation to stretch the boundaries of (our conversations about) disease. But the diversity of our reactions to the article did make explicit how our own familiar habits of critique condition the conversations we are likely to start.

Taking stock - A 2-hour break in the afternoon was a time for hatching collaborations, jotting notes to oneself, checking email, taking a walk or taking a nap. After the break we reconvened and Denise asked, “What has surprised you? What didn’t you expect to be thinking about that you are thinking about?”

The idea to organize a conference on metaphor...
I have not taken out my laptop…this is rare. I don’t want to write anything because I don’t want to miss anything while I’m writing.
I’m surprised by really drawing a blank on the asthma exercise. Hearing myself makes some beginning steps to a problem I’ve been trying to solve: How to put these approaches to practical use.
How difficult it is to talk clearly about complexity. But how easily it emerges with simple tasks.
I was surprised about the relevance of developmental systems theory to a sociologist.
The seamless web between activities, discussions, and fun.
I’ve been surprised at how gentle we’ve been with each other, even as we’ve gotten tired.

(participants’ comments from field notes)

Making music together – After dinner Ben Schwendener, a jazz pianist, composer and teacher, gathered us around a little-used piano in Swope (see a group photo at n04music.jpg). A few of us brought instruments from home–a ukulele, flutes, a recorder. The rest picked something from Ben’s eclectic and user-friendly collection of wind and percussion instruments. He sat at the piano and introduced us to jazz as sound and theory and state of mind. Then it was our turn to perform. He helped the wind instruments find a few good notes and a melody to work around. The bongos laid down a rhythm under the winds and the rest of us improvised in and around that structure. Our instruments, and norms about what ‘sounds good,’ imposed some order on us, but left plenty of room to make things up. After three days of doing academic jazz–listening to one another, embracing some rules of practice and challenging other, taking risks, improvising–we sounded good.

Day 4 ( Tuesday, May 4)

Problem-based learning – On the final morning of the workshop, Peter used a problem-based learning (PBL) approach as a process for “synthesizing our ideas about directions for future research and collaboration” (the PBL activity handout is at newssc04PBL.html; for information on PBL see http://www.udel.edu/pbl/). The experience was abbreviated due to the workshop setting, but it reflected a PBL approach by using a realistic, ill-structured scenario as the context for meaningful, open-ended inquiry. In this scenario, we were invited to help the board of a hypothetical foundation develop an innovative funding initiative on issues related to human development. After about 30 minutes of individual and small group work, we went around the table to report out our preliminary ideas. This was an opportunity for people with similar interests to find one another and join up to develop their proposals further. As it turned out, all but two of the participants worked individually for the next 90 minutes, preparing for presentations to the board of the foundation. Participants used this as a chance to think and write on their own, after several days of close and productive collaboration.

During the presentations, I was struck by how my colleagues integrated their interests with ideas that had emerged during the workshop to produce new or more clearly conceptualized projects. The realistic scenario led several participants to outline projects they actually intended to pursue. The proposed funding initiatives included:

· …develop[ing] new metaphors, models or concepts for representing causal pathways in disease that incorporate complex intersections of development.

· Investigator-initiated Strategic Research Networks [that] endeavour to bring together researchers from across disciplinary and institutional boundaries for intensive discussion and debate of selected topics.

· Projects that treat research as a developmental system, with processes at many scales (temporal, psychosocial, political/economic, etc.), the…goal being to encourage a more thorough mining of a variety of nonstandard theoretical frameworks in developmental research.

The details of these and other proposals can be viewed at newssc04.html. Perhaps reflecting their experiences in their workshop, several of the projects involve innovative means of representing conceptual, material and social relationships, and group process techniques to foster production interactions.

Historical scan - After lunch we gathered to look back on the workshop, including pre-workshop preparations, formal activities, and informal interactions, to consider how the experiences and ideas fit together and the meanings they held for us. To assemble this ‘historical scan,’ each of us wrote critical moments and events in the workshop on sticky notes. The notes were then posted along a workshop timeline (Table 6).

The selected comments in Table 7 reflect pronounced themes in the complete responses (Appendices 2 and 3) in which participants describe feeling personally comfortable, even as they were drawn into unfamiliar social and intellectual terrain. Their comments include praise for the quality and collegiality of the facilitators and the other participants. Several note that they were initially unfamiliar with, unsure about, and sometimes skeptical toward the workshop’s highly interactive and emergent format. As the workshop progressed, participants found that their uncertainties and concerns resolved into greater comfort engaging in open-ended activities and excitement about the ideas they generated.

On the final evaluation, the participants were also asked what advice they would give future workshop participants. Their responses, as much as being advice to others, reflect what they learned about themselves as thinkers, risk-takers and members of a collaborative community:

It’s easy for all to get stuck on getting it right, being good and smart students. Advice, easy to give, hard to take: chill.
It’s necessary to leave behind baggage about roles of workshop leaders and participants. In this case, there was space for us to take ownership. Be generative. Lead activities. Helps to be comfortable with engaging actively on where it will go, rather than to expect to be told that.
Read beforehand and make notes on how people’s work connects with your own.
Prepare in advance and be willing to get surprised by the development of the workshop.
Try it with openness – remember it worked for others.

What changes did the participants suggest?

One of the final evaluation questions asked the participants suggest how the workshop could be improved. The participants did not have much to say about the weaknesses of the workshop. Perhaps the most notable suggestion was about the need for time to relax, think to oneself, and talk informally. The intense demands on the facilitators and participants alike “made the relaxation interludes doubly important. These.…were also productive in furthering personal and group projects” (final evaluation comments).

A few participants suggested adding more structure by including formal presentations and responses, or by focusing in more depth on a particular topic or product. But most of the participants appeared to appreciate the move away from familiar academic routines: “It was very important that there were no formal presentations!” Another suggested, “take time to articulate emerging themes halfway through.”

9. Recommendations

The following recommendations for future workshops are based on my review of workshop materials, the participant feedback, the debriefing session with Peter and Denise following the workshop, and my experiences in the workshop.

Recommendation 1: Increase expectations and opportunities for participant involvement prior to the workshop.

Several participants reported that spending too little time preparing for the workshop was an obstacle to achieving their personal goals. The current strategy of using the workshop website and email to link the physically dispersed participants as a virtual community has the potential to start critical thinking and conversations before a workshop. Ways to build on this approach include developing a bulletin board on which participants can post comments on papers, identify shared interests, and/or begin to plan participant-led activities. Designate a core collection of readings that all participants are expected to complete prior to the workshop. This collection could consist of one paper authored or recommended by each participant. Make workshop handouts (e.g., background materials, activities, evaluation forms) available ahead of time on the workshop website.

Recommendation 2: Shift a larger portion of Peter’s time and effort from organizing and leading toward participating.

Peter is the organizer and leader of the NewSSC workshops, roles that are crucial to the success of the workshops and that demand a great deal of his attention. But the productivity of a workshop is also affected by his ability to be fully engaged before and during the workshop in social interactions and private reflections around ideas and projects. In our post-workshop debriefing session, Peter expressed a strong desire to be more intellectually engaged and less preoccupied with logistical concerns. I agree that this would be a better experience for Peter and, through his deeper intellectual and social engagement, for the other participants, as well. For this workshop, a graduate student assistant and a workshop facilitator shared the tasks of organizing and conducting the workshop, but more needs to be done. The logistical challenges of planning and conducting a workshop clearly justify funding for a graduate assistant. Denise was a very effective facilitator, and in the future I suggest that an experienced facilitator play an even larger role in orchestrating workshop activities. In addition, veterans from this and future workshops can step forward to develop and lead workshop activities.

Recommendation 3: Preserve the flexible scheduling and generous open time to allow for informal conversations, emergent collaborations, quite contemplation, and rest.

Peter said in the debriefing session that one sign of a successful workshop is when the “quiet spaces that occur are not filled up.” The program for this workshop included open periods for participant-initiated activities, like the metaphor performances and the boundaries of disease activity. The time that remained unscheduled was used for informal meetings, walks, writing, and rest. To complement the intensity and productivity of the scheduled activities, future conferences should continue to offer quiet spaces that aren’t filled up.

Recommendation 4: Make the research community-building goal of the workshop series more explicit to the participants.

In the debriefing session, Peter described the workshop series as a way to create a collaborative network of scholars who share interests in science and social change, and who share a repertoire of creative thinking and critical inquiry strategies. He laid out an ambitious vision to nurture an informal but robust community in which individuals whose work crosses traditional disciplinary boundaries can support one another in ways that existing, disciplinary communities do not. This vision should be clearly stated in the call for applications and revisited as a guiding tenet throughout the workshop. I think the participants will even more deeply appreciate the workshop as not only an energizing break from academic routine, but as the beginning of, or a restorative phase of, an ongoing effort to make their work and their colleagues’ work more meaningful with the help of critical friends.

REFERENCES

Brown, Phyllida. 2004 (March 27). “Take a Deep Breath,” New Scientist 181: 2440. Retrieved from http://archive.newscientist.com/.

Patton, M. 1997. Utilization-focused Evaluation: New Century Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Paul, Diane. 1997. Appendix 5. “The history of newborn phenylketonuria screening in the U.S.” Promoting Safe and Effective Genetic Testing in the United States. N. A. Holtzman and M. S. Watson. Washington, DC, NIH-DOE Working Group on the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Human Genome Research: 137-159. Retrieved from http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/research/fed/tfgt/appendix5.htm.

Stake, R. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, Peter. 2004a. New England Workshop on Science and Social Change (2004 workshop homepage). Retrieved from http://www.stv.umb.edu/newssc04.html.

Taylor, Peter. 2004b. New England Workshop on Science and Social Change (workshop prospectus). Retrieved from http://www.stv.umb.edu/newssc.html - Background.

Taylor, Peter. 2004c. “Complexities of environment and development in the Age of DNA,” New England Workshop on Science and Social Change, Bulletin 3 (April 12), unpublished document.

van der Weele, Cor. 2004. Images of the genome: From public debates to biology, and back, and forth,” Acta Biotheoretica, Special Issue (in press). Retrieved from http://www.stv.umb.edu/newssc04.html#materials.

Winther, Rasmus G. 2004 (May 9). “Participatory Theatre and subsequent discussion of metaphor,” Retrieved from http://www.stv.umb.edu/newssc04metaphor.html.

APPENDIX 1

Participants’ responses to a reflection/evaluation question on day 2 of the workshop.

Prompt: Imagine looking back in a week’s time telling someone that you went to a wonderful workshop. They ask you “What made it so wonderful?” You answer, “It was wonderful because I had the opportunity to…”

Responses:

Participant 1

· delve deeply into the meaning of complexity

· further my critical analysis f thinking on the boundary-making process of risk and with this process the construction of blame and responsibility

· reflect on knowledge-making as multiple levels or layers & on thinking & processing intersections within the knowledge-making process, and how in both of these processes ideas are acknowledged.

· gain insight into how the historical narrative can capture intersecting processes in knowledge-making to map out how scientific knowledge and ideas about health, disease have been constructed; the processes/structures/institutions which influence and are influenced by such knowledge.

· just reflect on my work - what it is I’m trying to do and why.

Participant 2

It was wonderful because the people in the group explained enough about the particular problems and issues they are consumed with and let the rest of us in on what they both think is most important and most difficult. Each also honestly defined how they see themselves, their identity as a scientist in the context of social change with the result that I ended up with a number of specific examples of extremely thoughtful people who represent engaged scientists.

Participant 3

· learn more/watch how an interdisciplinary group learned to think together.

· learn from brilliant, thoughtful thinkers how to contemplate, frame, consider important problems in complex ways.

· learned more about the 2 faces of complexity and causality

· practiced different ways of accessing info I didn’t have or didn’t know I had

· great walks on the Cape Cod beach

· spent time with generous thinkers & scholars on an unfamiliar topic

· practiced facilitating on energized and/but self-organizing group.

Participant 4

· find out that your odd interests and strange […] into some theories are shared by others

· find out other ways of looking at things you have been groping with

· I enjoyed the talking, the walking, the meals, the intersections;

· I was part of a group valuing the personal experience and the biographical experience you often try (in vain!) to show others are relevant & […] contribution to knowledge you produce

· I was part of a knowledge-making exploration which did have ways that tried to fit them

Participant 5

· learn about how sociologists and philosophers grapple with the issue of DNA and complexity

· learn of new literature to inform my work

· share the concerns of people I work with about development in genetics

· share ideas about new empirical projects relate[d] to the ethical, legal, & social implications of new advance in genetic research

· learn and develop new heuristics for learning

· observe and learn new ideas for workshop facilitation

Participant 6

· I made wonderful friendships

· I learned to experience new dimensions & new aspects of working in groups

· think about dynamic processes in new ways.

Participant 7

· take space to talk and think away from the track of being organizer – for at least 1/2 of the people/issues I’ve identified by now.

· make phone dates for 1-1 follow-up conversations about conversations to continue over time

· shared resources with others (beyond what I gestured to in sessions)

· got signs (implicit and explicit) that flexible engagement had happened

· mapped out the pros and cons of intersecting processes (got beyond using it loosely and heuristically)

· digested process lessons (& what to do differently) with Denise

Participant 8

· bounce ideas regarding new research direction --> metaphor (Cor), notions of ceteris paribus principles/laws using heritability as a case study (Susan, Evelyn), math as metaphor (Joao) abstraction in art - art as sister group to science (in a comment by Sarah), role of politics in [philosophy] of science (Peter, Evelyn, Steve) Janus-face of causality & complexity (Sergio), idea of transitions (Denise).

· Not feel like the work/the ideas must revolve around analytic [philosophy] & its projects, problems, & protocols

· experience an inter-disciplinary & highly intercultural group of people interact

· revisit Woods Hole and its pleasant location & nature (in all senses of [the] word)

Participant 9

· meet these people and establish connections

· have an extended mind for my questions

· learn new tools

· learn new titles and references

· buy a Woods Hole sweatshirt

· experience an unorthodox & energizing workshop design

· feel relaxed

· experience what happens on an implicit level (subconsciously?)

· work in a cooperative atmosphere

· get feedback to my ideas

· see Susan

· hear the others and their questions

Participant 10

· see some old friends, some after long separation, in a stunning location

· have time to go out into the area together and separately

· hear that my own work, mostly produced in extreme isolation, especially in the beginning, has been significant to others sometimes in areas I myself haven’t worked in.

· see that work/approach/perspective related [to] one produced by other participants, applied in very concrete situation, like medical decision making or ecological modeling in ways that open up new questions, expose or suggest new points of intervention / organize the too muchness of information in useful ways

APPENDIX 2

Participants’ responses to the final written evaluation.

New England Workshop on Science and Social Change 2004

Final evaluation responses

Part 1

Note: Each bullet is from a separate participant.

1. Start with a self-evaluation: In what ways did you achieve your personal goals? How could you have proceeded differently if you were participating in this workshop again? What have been your major personal obstacles to taking more from this workshop?

· One goal that was well achieved was learning what a workshop like this could achieve. I did want to learn more about the substance of DST. Reading (or attempting) to read the papers on this topic prior to the workshop felt like I was walking into the middle of a conversation. If I could do this again I would find the time to read more basic work on the subject.

· Reconnecting with colleagues accomplished. I would have done more searching for books (and brought them!), etc., having understood the request too narrowly. Obstacles: general tendency to hang back, skepticism about activities, deep ambivalence about academic scholarly life.

· I found new resources and relationships. New people, readings to do , some new ideas to play with. I sense a prospect for the future – workshops, writing, new collaborators. I want more detail, pursue projects more explicitly.

· In what ways? I’m not sure I had personal goals. I think I just wanted to dramatically expand in my thinking – to take a step far away from my framework for analyzing. I would have proceeded differently by spending more time in pre-workshop preparation. The timing in the semester made it such that I came to the workshop very rushed in my thinking. So, this was an obstacle—also at times I felt behind the curve – wonderfully learning but frustrated.

· The personal goals were to become more clear about the questions of my project. I am not totally clear how but I received a lot of signals and reassuring and affirmation of my intuitions.

· Personal goals achieved: participants took up on the process.

Not achieved: made lots of space/outside track of being organizer for conversators.

Read and began conversations before workshop.

I was tired before the workshop and didn’t sleep well during it.

· By developing a bit the themes of a paper I should be writing soon. My major personal obstacle to take more of this workshop was my ignorance about this sort of workshop.

· Obstacles; I have recently had some resistance to academia and the world of ideas (as opposed to the world of experience, flesh, dance, humor, etc.)

Achievement: Interesting to see, yet again, that these dichotomies are false and bad/false advertising. Too bad they can often seem so calcified in the academic world, especially in self consciously rigorous disciplines including philosophy.

· My personal goals were to come to a setting where I could explore ways my own work connects to or resonates with work of other people, who share, at least partially, my own interests and concerns. I feel very satisfied with the results, and, in particular, with the possibility of both keeping up the conversation and experimenting back home with what I have learned. I would just have spent some more time before the workshop studying the materials.

· My personal goals were simple as I saw this as a great learning opportunity. It was in many ways. I would have benefited more if I had more background in the biological dimension.

· [No response]

· I was able to share some old and new ideas, and to receive some very helpful feedback and some affirmation. I came to realize what makes Arizona so exciting to me – through my autobiography on day one. I was held back by my persistent GI difficulties, which made me exceedingly tired.

1a. What have you learned about making an experimental, “interaction-intensive workshop stimulating and productive? What would your advice be to prospective workshop participants about how to get the most from a workshop like this?

· I learned about the value of tight time limits on activities, the value of creative activities, the value of long breaks.

· It’s easy for all to get stuck on getting it right, being good and smart students. Advice, easy to give, hard to take: chill.

· I am comfortable with the format. It’s necessary to leave behind baggage about roles of workshop leaders and participants. In this case, there was space for us to take ownership. Be generative. Lead activities. Helps to be comfortable with engaging actively on where it will go, rather than to expect to be told that.

· Participation, participation, participation. The workshop itself becomes a metaphor for complex development and should be thought as such. Participants should spend time thinking about a lot they’re working on, thinking about, and reflect on why they agreed to participate in such a workshop.

· I learned that a developing and open program works. It takes courage to take so much time for the early phases à and it works! (or worked now at least). It was very important that there were no formal presentations!

· It’s possible with a good choice of participants and facilitator. People feel like things happen even if big or specific debates aren’t focused on. Read beforehand and make notes on how people’s work connects with your own.

· Prepare in advance and be willing to get surprised by the development of the workshop.

· Advice: Arrive with an open mind. Do all the reading (scare them a bit).

Learned: Do not worry about having too many exercises that seem to be self-reflexive/self-reflective and evaluate. We already know so much. Rather than further produce/generate knowledge, reflect on what you already know and see how it ties in with what other people know and how productive work can come out of it.

· I believe that it depends, most of all, on the participants themselves, but also on the facilitation and on those arrangements (location for instance.) which are crucial for success. I would ask the participants to give some of their time before the workshop to engage with whatever writings are accessible, and to engage in mutual conversation of pleasant and intellectually rewarding functions.

· You have to balance formal/informal, structured activities/open discussions and it helps to vary the day structure. Advice – take time to articulate emerging themes halfway through.

· The play – (metaphor theatre, music-making) was extremely important in creating a sense of camaraderie.

· PBL works very well; especially where the problem is open ended. I will use a variant of this technique with an upcoming workshop audience to brainstorm about future opportunities. Advise! Suspend disbelief and you’ll uncover otherwise impossible opportunities. I would find ways to respect healthy regular breaks!!

2. General evaluation: How did the workshop meet or not meet your expectations? How did your attitude to doing the workshop change through the four days? How do you think the workshop could be improved? What was special about this workshop (negative & positive)? How does it compare with other workshops? What would be your overall recommendation to prospective participants?

· The workshop met my expectations (exceeded my expectations_ regarding developing new relationships and learning new processes. In some ways it fell short of my expectations in terms of learning more of the substance about development and biology.

· Didn’t know what to expect; the preliminary scaffold didn’t prepare me for the intensity and density of assignments. I did gradually come to appreciate the exercises, esp as devices for acknowledging what I can do. Some dismay that usual irritation and anxieties did erupt. Little frame for comparison.

· I want an experimental, interaction intensive that focuses on a sustained issue/case. Not running us through productive paces but actually taking on and rereading/reframing a case of science and social change oriented to developing a treatment, a view, a product. Not only for personal development with prospects for future work.

· I think it met—to exceeded my expectations. I expected mind expanding conversations but I had no idea how intensely I’d be thinking creatively and critically as I adjusted to the workshop. I felt more comfortable to ask questions, let people know if I didn’t understand an idea.

· In the beginning I was a bit worried about the very open program. Yet by day 2 I relaxed and others did as well, I think, and that generated the energy for playfulness of the 3^rd day.

· Met goal of making me feel it was worth the effort and $. I was interested to notice we weren’t discussing specific debates but this wasn’t an obvious source of frustration.

[On compare with other workshops] A whole lot better (incommensurable).

[On Recommendation] Try it with openness – remember it worked for others.

[On improvements] Perhaps: some concentrated presentations and structured responses.

· It did not meet my expectations about specific goal, but met my expectations insofar as giving me ideas as to what we can get out of a group.

· I did arrive a little “curmudgeon-like” and, as is so often the case in these situations, that rose perhaps, out of fear and defensiveness. At times, I do feel inadequate (“not intelligent enough”) in academic contexts and it was great to be removed from a judgmental framework. Attitude: I became more open minded. A personal crisis on the 3^rd day was averted by a very nice conversation with Susan.

· I was expecting an interesting workshop but it proved to be exciting as well on some accounts. Although this is building I have not had the time to reflect upon, was lead to think a lot about development and about other issues which will be central to my work over the next months/years. I found the workshop excellent and would highly recommend attendance to prospective participants.

· I got more relaxed and comfortable with the variety of venues.

· More fun than other workshops.

· Great fun – great ideas – great locale. Excellent prospects for future work. I wish I hadn’t been so tired. Great effort to break the usual workshop mold.

3. Re-read the workshop description (from the prospectus). Comment on how well the goals expressed there were met and make general and specific suggestions about how these could be better met:

NewSSC is an innovative, interaction-intensive workshop designed to facilitate discussion and longer term collaboration among college faculty who teach and write about interactions between scientific developments and social change. Specific objectives of NewSSC are to show that:

scientists, science educators, and Science and Technology Studies (STS) scholars can cross fertilize each other’s work;
academic workshops that allow participants to connect theoretical, pedagogical, practical, political, and personal aspects of the issue at hand can foster new projects and collaborations; and
productive workshops can be run at modest costs.”

· I presume the third goal was met and this is a terrific achievement. I believe the first goal was met from impression of others. Probably only in the broadest sense am I an STS scholar. Great, great success on the second goal as I was able to make and observe a number of connections.

· Quite well met.

· I think it accomplished these goals… But now I want the dimensions in the 2^nd point to be put to work. Not at the surface as subjects to play with in a variety of contexts, but the way we attack a bounded issue.

· Cross-fertilization most definitely occurred and I was interested to watch how ideas and collaborative projects developed as the workshop evolved – if I can use this metaphor. As a student I felt my goals were different but in many ways was spoiled to be able to participate with so many amazing minds. I don’t think I answered this question fully.

· Since various plans to continue cooperation came out of the workshop, I think it worked very well in realizing these goals. I also think that the facilitation online and the preparation work of Peter was very important in enabling all of the above.

· [Re objective 1] Science education took a low profile; scientists not attending.

[Re objective 2] Confident that has begun to happen.

[Re objective 3] Definitely.

· The goals expressed in the first part were met but the second part I am not sure, but I think that insofar as we come out with several potential long term collaborations those goals should also be.

· I think the workshop was highly successful and met its goals.

· We have gone some way towards attaining these goals, but some work is still needed to extend our joint work into longer term cooperation. The existence of an email list will certainly be important, but it might be interesting as well to try and organize initial collaborations between participants. I would as well strengthen explanation of participatory, creative forms of collective work and to draw on a wider society of these.

· Innovative, yes, and participatory; the final short presentations were strong evidence of the cross fertilization that occurred and can continue.

· Yes, but I am not sure how much cross-fertilization there actually was.

Yes – but for me, mainly in hooking up with Cor.

For sure.

· Timing – not at the end of term! Goals were obviously met. Participants were open to workshop activities. Many of which were heterodox. One evening off with a nice dinner out—possibly with bedtime stories or with no work at all—to celebrate and relax and enjoy.

Part II

Note: Each bullet is from a separate participant.

· The workshop was a wonderful demonstration of the principles that alternative formats can contribute in novel ways to the development of ideas and scholars. On a personal level, I learned far more about STS as a field and DST as a concept than I could ever imagine by attending a conference of a comparable length. I also believe that the professional and personal relationships I have established over the last four days will endure and contribute to my future research and perhaps to the research of others.

· The workshop diminished my skepticism and personal reluctance; once here, I participated, and had moments of surprise and recognition that validated these approaches for me. I saw collaborations being born and though I am not involved in them I am now alerted to them. The planners were extremely important as organizers but also as moment-to-moment facilitators and coaches. It was sometimes a problem that these roles demanded too much of them, with concomitant stress, frayed tempers and too-divided attention. This made the relaxation interludes doubly important. These latter were also productive in furthering personal and group projects.

· The workshop effectively engaged me (I think others) in ways of interacting, collaborating, [unclear text] issues, processing ideas on the surface. But what I want now is sustained engagement with a bounded project using strategies and tools like those we developed/practiced here - and perhaps it is necessary to do this work with people who have been thru this process together. Do these approaches inform how we do our inquiry/interdisciplinary work or are the social/pedagogical tools developed here really just preliminary to traditional, largely individual level of interdisciplinary work?

· Diverging from goal oriented, narrowly focused conferences this workshop itself became a metaphor for understanding complexity and development. Reflecting throughout the process, building "organic" from emerging ideas and concepts, the workshop became a self organizing whole. At times many of us, demanding a product or wanting a single purpose or theme to hold onto, became frustrated with the process. Questions of direction and logic in turn move the development of the workshop into new and creative spaces.

· Participants should spend time prior to the workshop reflecting on their work, the questions they're struggling with and why they chose to go to the workshop. This space of reflection will best prepare them for joining a collaborative, interdisciplinary process.

· For me the great strength of the workshop was that it enabled a relaxed mind and therefore playfulness and creativity. It takes some courage to go with this set up because the program is open and the progress develops in the making. But it certainly worked extremely well to accomplish what I said in the first sentence.

This set up also implies that many loose ends will remain, but I grew comfortable with that since there will be so much opportunity to stay in touch. The surprising thing is that even very concrete plans emerged ý we are going to organize and international conference on science and metaphor.

The facilitation was modest and inconspicuous but very efficient and important. The workshop showed how important it is to create a joint atmosphere of trust and relaxation. More emphasis on concrete material might help for a follow-up workshop. But I was surprised to see how well we did with relatively little concrete cases.

· The organizers personal goals for the workshop were that it would be "generative, restorative, and experimental". These became the touchstone for the workshop which succeeded on all three counts. Of course, there is always the challenge of continuing and fulfilling ideas and collaborations that emerge in a workshop, but this group finished with a strong spirit so I am confident the generativity will continue. Many, many workshops are dysfunctional - this one wasn't. Interestingly it's not obvious that we created new approaches to the difficult issues of the workshop's topic but people were relaxed about this. It needs to be seen whether a process-intensive workshop like this can also highlight context issues.

· It was an interesting innovative way of making people realize the different ways in which a non-formal environment and a non-disciplinary format can lead to fruitful discussions and ideas. I think that it will also lead to future projects and collaborations. I have at least three projects in sight. I think it would be quite good if in future meetings (in one or two years) we came to present the fruits of such collaborations in the same place or another.

· Great Workshop. EXCELLENT.

One comment. Although it might be difficult to do this, it may be useful to do a slightly more critical activity in which people are asked to identify one area in which the workshop could be improved. For example, the people could be asked "It would have been wonderful if the workshop could focus on x more rather than so much attention being given to y." But this may seem to negative or judgmental. So if this seems inappropriate, I will happily retract the suggestion.

· The workshop was highly successful as a first step towards exploring inventive forms of collaboration and developing new tools and approaches to more extended and inclusive approaches to making knowledge and working for change.

It would be important to build on the major emerging strong points to try and establish continuing, long-term collaborations among those who are willing or prepared to engage in them. It is difficult to identify weak points, in so far as the strong points were the bulk(?) of a very open and experiential approach which always involves some trade-off.

· The pattern of opening up, interconnecting ideas and foreshadowing on the first day proved to be effective. The shaping of day 3 activities that took place on day 2 did prove to work. There was enough context and tension to make the focusing by participatory activity design work. Then, there was enough informal time to enrich these activities and to connect with others who could enrich them. Specifically, the metaphor activity design was transformed 3 times before its execution. The other focused activity worked very well that day also. Alternation of style of activity and reflective review was crucial! Mix of personal, structured and unstructured. Two facilitators with different roles was effective.

· Perhaps the most potentially constructive was the intro of the article on asthma and the discussion of its use in the classroom.

· I learned some excellent new tricks to stimulate team-building and participation. I have never seen problem-based learning work so well, for instance.

I would have liked to have seen a healthier respect for downtime including a dinner out (and an evening off!!) to rest and relax and enjoy each other's sociality. This is because participation at this level is exhausting.

This was an exceptional group of participants. I hope for many opportunities to collaborate in the future.

APPENDIX 3

Email feedback from the participants.

These are excerpts from email messages to Peter Taylor from five participants after the workshop.

· I have found myself talking about the ideas, activities, and general development and evolution of the workshop itself to faculty and colleagues for the past two days. As soon as Tuesday night, I began to see the effects of weekend in my work, even if only in subtle reframing of problems. It really was a rich experience. Driving home with Susan was really lovely, as well--for me the workshop didn't really end until I made it home.

· Thanks so much for organizing this conference. It is seriously one of the best--stimulating and liberating--conferences that I have attended. Could you write down a list (with brief explanations/descriptions) of all the activities that we did? I think that it would be useful, at least to me, to see this list and, among other goals, incorporate it in my own teaching (I will try two free-writing exercises in my class today) *and* research. It may also be useful to the others.

· Thanks again for the wonderful workshop, you will see this workshop growing in cycles of contingencies soon.

· As I suggested in my comments at the workshop, I have had a wariness of experiential approaches that is somewhat at odds with what I write (and believe). Woods Hole has diminished that resistance... Anyway, it was wonderful to see you, and I think you did a heroic job...

· I loved the workshop. It had spirit and elegance... I think, that for me the workshop was a little bit too interdisciplinary; high school education was beyond my focus. (Not that it was a problem.) I am very happy about the interactions at the workshop, the atmosphere of relaxation and excitement at the same time, the ideas and plans we developed, the encouragement I received for my research plans. One element I really loved was the bedtime reading. Like you, I am a great fan of reading aloud. Thinking about it right now I start to wonder whether and how reading aloud could be used as the core of a follow-up workshop. A creative method that looked, for example, for connections between widely different readings, is surely not too hard to think of, at least in principle and fantasy.

[1] From hereon, http://www.stv.umb.edu/ will be the prefix for all website addresses cited.