This paper belongs to Thematic Session 1 of the Gothenburg Meeting Science Symposium
Elise Keith, Lucid Meetings
Abstract:
At Lucid Meetings, we work to solve the “meeting problem” in the US. We sought statistics to help quantify this problem. How many meetings are people holding? How many of them are ineffective? What does all this wasted time cost? We found lots of numbers, but as we dug into the sources, we realized they were out of date. This paper details our attempt to uncover more modern metrics and the conclusions we reached after reviewing the available data from literature, industry surveys, and online demographic data sources.
Want to share the key info here - methods and findings? I’d be interested in seeing what this research came up with, and how it came up with it.
Hi Jane,
I’m not sure I understand the question - and hadn’t seen your question earlier, so sorry for the slow reply!
As may be painfully obvious, I am not an academic or researcher AT ALL. Methods? Ummm… I dug into the numbers and studies I could find. Is there a name for that approach?
I believe I was invited to participate because my company publishes so much content about meetings, this particular piece has relevance to the symposium, and I try to be clear about where the information comes from and how I arrive at each conclusion. But after reading some of the other symposium papers, I’m painfully aware that my perspective is not a trained academic perspective.
For this piece, you can read the original here and let me know. What is this method called?
For another look at the way I synthesize work from multiple disciplines, this is also a useful piece:
As a software company founder, I am not subjected to the standards of peer review (much to my great relief!) This means I can write in a much more informal fashion, but on the down side, it also means I miss out on the collaborative and shaping input I might otherwise gain. We certainly hear from the practitioner community - I’m eager to learn from the academic community now too.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts
Elise
Ironically, this is precisely what academics should do too, at least when the source of the number they have is not clear. I came across Elise’s blog post when I was digging into that 11 million number that kept popping up all the time and she had done the work that no academic had done.
Look, @Elise_Keith, your blog post is being cited by Steven Rogelberg. That’s how scientific facts are made
Image source: https://symm.de/meeting-papst-rogelberg-auf-deutschland-tour/
Or at least I think it’s supposed to be your blog post. The slide says “Keith, 2016” although your blog post is from 2015. And your conference paper is from 2017…
And now on CBS…
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/how-to-make-workplace-meetings-more-effective-and-successful/
You’d think some of that reflected glory would lead to more sales for my book, but a Business Insider pick it was not. They just don’t know what they’re missing…
