Why I prefer unconferences to conferences
I recently ran an unconference. I’ve run a fair few in the past, with varying sizes and groups. To summarize the format: organized group discussions amongst the audience, on topics selected by the audience. Every time I run one, the feedback is good, people love this format. And I do too.
A typical conference is usually a bunch of talks, maybe some big names, then some kind of networking in between the talks. I’ve always found the networking to the most valuable part of a conference. The talks can always be watched later, with subtitles, at 2x speed. The same is not true of talking to another person face to face. That's not to discredit talks, though. A good talk can really help set the atmosphere and give people things to talk about, as well as inspiration. Live talks have a captive audience, which makes it a good way to distribute knowledge or information to a large number of people.
An unconference typically involves asking the audience what they’d like to talk about, then grouping people for discussion. The groups go off for some time, then come back and repeat. There’s many different formats, though, but this is the typical one I’ve seen.
In the Nordics, where people are friendly but not outgoing, I've been to so many events where people just chat to those they came with. Which has value too, given that the default socializing place otherwise is a bar. The unconference format encourages people to talk to new people.
The difference is one-to-many vs some-to-some. A talk is one-to-many, usually, with some questions at the end. Small group discussions are some-to-some, with the right group size everyone takes part.
Unconferences have some weaknesses, though.
The biggest one is that people don't know what an unconference is. It's not a hugely well known format, so people are easily put off. For that reason the name “unconference” isn’t the best for getting new people involved.
The second is that it requires good facilitation. Because the content is selected and discussed by the audience, some unconferences end up without proper facilitation. But in fact, it's the opposite: a facilitator needs to coordinate heavily. Even people who know the format well tend to run over time, or derail conversations.
My final big problem is that it requires the audience to have social energy. Sitting in an audience of a talk requires much less social energy than taking part in active discussions. Encouraging people to take a break, or even leave, whenever they want to is a simple fix.
The rough guide of how I run an unconference successfully:
There must be a facilitator.
The ground rules should be introduced, and reminded.
Assume nobody is familiar with the format. Unconferences are all run a little differently, so introduce the ground rules as if nobody has been to one before.
There are no “right” topics, whatever the audience wants to talk about is good1. It is a good idea to have “seed” topics, though, as the audience might not always know what to suggest to start. Some topics might not be suitable for the particular setting (e.g discussing zoology in a tech unconference), so the facilitator can redirect that closer to the intended topic areas.
Timing is important, to keep variety and discussions on point. But use the old facilitation technique of flex time - adjust time based on reading how the group discussions are going.
The voting system for topics can be up to the facilitator - I usually go for each topic must have at least two participants, but groups should not be bigger than 4. Topics with more votes should be in multiple smaller groups. This gives a chance for everyone to take part in the discussion - the more people in a group, the less time each person gets to talk.
The unconference can last as long as the audience likes, and the facilitator should check-in to see how much energy they have.
The facilitator should rotate between groups, and try to ensure that the groups are giving a voice to everyone. Asking questions rather than answering them can help further conversation.
We are here to have fun, not to argue. Disagreements should be productive, and nobody should be attacked for their input.
At the start of each group discussion, everyone should introduce themselves to each other briefly.
An unconference can scale pretty well to any size of audience, but somewhere between 12 - 40 is a good spot. A smaller audience needs a different approach to a bigger audience.
Don't call it an unconference. The name leads to confusion in those who haven't heard of it before. “Group Discussions” is my current preferred name, but that's not perfect either.
I’ll still host and give talks, but I’ll also highly recommend the unconference format for anyone looking to create a better sense of community.
The topics we covered at the last unconference:
Trust in images/audios/video in 2024
Scaling a startup with 1 human developer, but infinite AI resources
Working at home vs the office
AI ethics
Developing with AI
Big Data architecture
Data cleaning
Why do systems become complicated