On Meetings: A Loose Ethnography

In my brief career in Thoracic Surgery, I have attended a few major meetings in North America. I have found the experience interesting often, rewarding occasionally, and disappointing sometimes.

The purists would say that the original and true purpose of a scientific meeting is to communicate new data of ongoing or completed research. The objective here is to disseminate new information, as it is on its way to becoming knowledge. Very importantly, it gives the presenter the opportunity to discuss observations and criticisms about their work. I still believe that this is a seminal purpose of the meetings in Thoracic Surgery.

However, with the frenetic pace of science, the internet, and the explosion of information that is available, how is it that the scientific meeting survives to achieve this seminal purpose? I speculate that just like newspapers and books survive, so does the presenter in front of the podium. Nothing can substitute a face-to-face discussion surrounding a question or a problem. True insight into someone’s research is only gleaned this way.

But this is the idealist’s view. In reality, to really judge and critique research, it is necessary to review the published manuscript (and sometimes even then it is difficult). Nevertheless, there is value added in speaking with the investigators.

For me, the research aspect of a meeting is a great source of new ideas and it renews my enthusiasm to support and participate in such research endeavours. This is the interesting part.

Most of us are simple practitioners of clinical thoracic surgery and our purpose in attending meetings is to be educated. Pure research discussions may be of little relevance to the average surgeon because only rarely can the research be applied immediately to clinical practice. It is the educational component of the meetings that attracts many of us. It is an opportunity to listen to expert opinions. If one really wanted an educational experience, it would be better to attend meetings that emphasize reviews of topics or approaches to difficult clinical problems. These often contain research in the form of posters. Most, if not all, scientific meetings include some educational course or the like. This is a rewarding part of the whole affair.

Meetings are also business events. It is an opportunity for the members of the societies to meet and discuss relevant business (regulations, policies, by-laws, statements, guidelines, direction, etc). There is not much more to say about this.

Meetings are also great social events. You can meet old friends and make new ones. I would describe this aspect of a meeting as networking. Networking is very much part of our lexicon and our behaviour. It is part of being a social animal. To network is to interact or engage in informal communication with others for mutual assistance or support (American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition). I could not have put it more eloquently. Oh, how I do love the clarity of definitions! There is no contempt in my observation. I just put it forward as something obvious. I believe networking is necessary to build alliances and create opportunities. Yet it must be done in a dignified way.

Networking must not be confused with “schmoozing”. To schmooze is to converse casually, especially in order to gain an advantage or make a social connection (American Heritage Dictionary, 4th editions). Again, the lucidity of this definition I cannot surpass. The purpose of networking and schmoozing is similar, but the latter behaviour is more perverse and, certainly, not dignified. This is the disappointing part.*

Meetings can also have pageantry. There is nothing wrong with this. I love history and tradition. It is an expression of our heritage as Thoracic Surgeons. However, academic surgery and its opinions may be overrepresented. The non-academic surgeon should not be forgotten. Yet it is this surgeon that tacitly approves opinions that may not reflect the realities of his or her practice. Again, disappointing.

Meetings also allow us to see what new technology is out there. Companies set up their booths and put on fancy events. It feels to me like the towns that are hastily built around an encamped army and then follow them around during a military campaign. For full disclosure, I have enjoyed a few good meals on their dime.

So why should we attend meetings? For me, it is the ideas that they give me. They are also an opportunity to renew old friendships. If I can network, this is a bonus, but this is not part of my personality. I would prescribe one scientific meeting per year and one educational meeting, as well. If nothing else, they are an opportunity to get away. And guys and gals, bring your wives and husbands.



*If I have been guilty of such behaviour, I apologize, and I deplore myself for it. I have tried very, very hard not to be a participant in such a spectacle.