Why Dialogue? Feedback and Discussions from the WKD Workshops

Ruth Dreifuss, former President of the Swiss Federal Council, said that in her workshop, Dialogue driven by Political Instruments and Respecting Academic Authority, the first questions: "Do we need dialogue? and Why do we need it?" were entirely pertinant and not at all trivial. One reason is to balance the needs of society and politics with the needs of the sciences. The necessity of an institutional interface to mediate the requirements of each was discussed, while encouraging communication and interaction for the benefit of all. The importance of a dialogue such as this one was highlighted by the statement that the "sciences are accountable to society, supported by society and have answers to societal problems".

Georges Haddad, Director of Higher Education for UNESCO, Paris, presented his thoughts from the workshop Dialogue driven by Academic Institutional Governance. He focused on the issue of an inter-disciplinary or trans-disciplinary approach to education. He also highlighted the need for this to occur not just at the university level but also at primary and secondary levels of education. Noting that UNESCO, in addition to sponsoring teacher training programs, had organized meetings between universities and industry, he said that industry had an interest in recruiting graduates with an inter-disciplinary background, who were adaptable, possessed a critical capacity and maintained a life long interest in education.

Richard Ernst, Professor Emeritus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and Nobel Laureate, gave a presentation based on the workshop Dialogue driven through Education. He too underlined the importance of a multi-disciplinary approach. Acknowledging that changes needed to be made in university curricula, Mr Ernst emphasised the role of universities as "incubators from which creative, innovative and responsible citizens should emerge". He added that creativity was a quality stimulated by external activities and passions. Because of this, he considered that personalities and role models were at least as important as structure and hence teachers needed curriculae that left them room to be inspired, while students should be encouraged to articulate their opinions and not to simply learn by rote.

Discussion from the floor was particularly focused on the question of restructuring universities. Geoffrey West, President and Distinguished Professor, Santa Fe Institute, New Mexico, USA, expressed the point of view that university curriculae should remain highly focused and that new institutions are needed to take on the challenge of supporting interdisciplinary research. It was pointed out that a fair number of such new institutions and programs already exist, but that a sustainable and productive dialogue between institutions for interdisciplinary research, universities and society at large is still elusive. 

Within the workshops, delegates had also been asked to give constructive criticism of the symposium itself. One point raised was that the duration of the symposium provided insufficient time to facilitate truely open communication. On the other hand there was consensus that communication between delegates did improve measurably over the course of the three day meeting. Asymmetry between sciences and humanities was also discussed, particularly the over-representation of the natural sciences. It was also felt that as a group, both natural scientists and the humanities experts, still had considerable room for improvement as far as avoiding the use of jargon was concerned. There was a marked gender imbalance amongst delegates and speakers, as well as between the representations of western versus non-western modes of knowledge. 

It was noted that although there had been presentations of common fields of investigation, within the limited time-frame, the priorities for discussion could perhaps have concentrated more on the inter-linkages between disciplines or opportunities for cross-fertilization. Future symposiums could overcome this by promoting problem oriented discussion. The round table sessions were deemed to have been lively, stimulating and a genuine ice-breaker for delegates who were not scheduled to make formal presentations. More sessions with a similar round table format could be used to promote dialogue that addressed topical issues such as climate, aging or violence.

These comments drew the first World Knowledge Dialogue Symposium towards its official close, however the ideas that are behind them will surely continue to evolve in the minds and works of those people present. Concluding the symposium, Julia Higgins said "the real work starts now". The guidelines she defined at the beginning of the conference may not have always been followed, but they did appear to have been generally taken on board at least for the duration of the conference. The real test will be in the application of those suggestions at home and work. She invited the participants to take away their ideas and be unafraid of sharing them. Once again she called on them to remember the basic rules of all true dialogue; Explain yourself without jargon; Listen uncritically; Open your minds and leave your comfort zones; Above all take pleasure in this intellectual adventure and in the strengthening and understanding of its connections to society and the world at large. Only in this way can our common goal of bringing about change and improvement in the way that scientists work together and work with society, politics and culture for the benefit of future generations, be realised.