Funding and organization of the network

[John R. Sageng]

Regarding the insularity problem, I think this is mainly due to the lack of resources, since we’ve had to concentrate the efforts on yearly conferences, which historically have game studies as their primary audience. This makes the effort strictly tied to a specific research tradition, and at the same time too general to offer in-depth discussions within a more narrow body of research, which is needed for “outsiders” to properly make use of their own field of expertise.

In my experience, organization is to a large extent about putting the right people together, and then build on that. I’m still traumatized that we didn’t manage to get Thi over when he was PC-leader in Copenhagen – it could have significantly aided integration. To repeat myself: with some travel funding and properly staged research contexts, we could reach out to many interesting individuals and groups, and then use these as assets moving forward.

Regarding having a self-standing organization: I think this is an attractive idea, however, it would be really helpful if we could draw on professional resources of an institution. We haven’t got the time between us to handle infrastructure, economy, reporting, auditing etc. At the project I’ve worked on this spring, the uni even had professional proposal-consultants and financial incentives to work on the project. Pure heaven, compared to the ragtag nature of a volunteer effort. With the right environment, it might be possible to tap into internal budgets for joint projects or to work on proposals and connections made possible because of the stature of the institution. I suspect any major funding source will affect how it is to be organized, since a stakeholder will need to have certain requirements satisfied. Still, it is certainly possible to have both a self-standing organization and an affiliation (perhaps indeed more than one). Anita, who ran the Norwegian Kant Society, can tell more about that.

Regarding the technical problems: just did a bunch of updates. Perhaps they worked in the end.

[Olli Tapio Leino]

another reference, i organised a conference of their franchise a couple of years ago: http://www.isea-web.org/
they are an independent unaffiliated organisation, with elected board members, but, their secretariat is supported by a university in the UK, who basically have allotted x hours/week for one faculty to be the secretary. the paid secretary is not a voting member in any decisions, but their presence ensures continuity and institutional memory. the secretary is not elected, and i suppose the board could change the secretary and the institutional affiliation through voting, if they wanted.

edit, the financial model: the local organisers pay a ‘license fee’ to the society to host the conference, and take care of the budget themselves. the logic here is that the brand of the society makes it easier to get sponsors etc (which really wasn’t the case!). in return, local organisers have a freedom to decide on the content (program committee and keynote speakers), and the society oversees and has the right to approve/suggest changes to the local organisers’ plans before they are allowed to go ahead.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 11 months ago by Olli Tapio Leino.

[John R. Sageng]

ISEA seems very relevant as an organization. Their history is very similar to ours. Regarding the financial model – I’m surprised that they manage to make that work. Perhaps institutions actually see a value in associating with a network in this way. Not sure if we could emulate that, though. Our audience may be too small.

Here is another example, which is the network TekLab, run by a collaborator in Norway. It is funded by money from regional uni development + a grant from the Norwegian Research Council. https://teklab.uib.no/

[Gordon Calleja]

Hey all, apologies for missing the meeting today. Was offline for a few days writing on a neighbouring island and just got back.

I like John’s suggestion of an active explorations of specific topics. I would add that it would be good to clarify, at least internally, where the (future?) committee wants to draw the line in terms of
what constitutes a philosophical approach to these topics.

With regards to the entity and the funding I think it makes sense to figure out who will be the core members leading it and assign tasks to alleviate the burden that John has been carrying for a while now. I agree with Rune that having a separate association first to have a framework set up, then move for formal funding would be the way to go. That would also set up the new governing body and give those members more agency to act.

[John R. Sageng]

It is time to continue our conversation about the organization/future events for the network. Here is a synopsis of the meeting in June. Please look it over (it can be commented) and I’ll post the full synopsis in the forum afterwards:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ig81SJeiOFEOM8-S2_-6ceDUguquruFhZ2ao3rInmEs/edit?usp=sharing

[Author]

Posts