Commercialisation of information exchange – let the buyer beware.  Whilst recently reviewing my CPD manual I was reminded of weekend courses from times past and memorable conferences in not so exotic places.  Some were remembered more fondly than others and careful reflection revealed why.  When listening to any presentation it is easy for the listener to judge the willingness of the speaker to exchange useful information or whether they are guarded/ reserved about sharing.  This was highlighted recently at a Movement Dysfunction conference where several of the keynote speakers gave overview presentations which were essentially commercial pitches for attending workshops, buying products or purchasing books.

Whilst this has no doubt been the case since time began the overt commercialisation was striking, as was the superficial skimming of the topic under discussion.  It is easy to see the potential conflict which can arise. Academics who produce published research have effectively already received their payment as part of the their academic salary and therefore have no purpose in “re-purposing” information which is available from published resources.

Conversely when there is substantial “back-end” financial gain from accessory products then one can clearly see the conflict between exchanging information and withholding with a view to secondary profit.  Perhaps ultimately the speaker selection process and scope of content need to be more rigorously defined in advance to prevent these “pitch fests” becoming the norm.

Reflecting on my 25 years in Physiotherapy I tried to trace the chronological sequence of this commercialisation and drew the following conclusions:

The simplest strategy is mis-naming a course as of intermediate or advanced content when in fact it is not.  Whether that is a reflection of the lecturer’s perception or the natural variance of course attendees is debateable.

The next development was the multiple module model, where compulsory attendance of initial (introductory) weekends were required prior to completing parts one, two and three etc. even if the material has been covered via alternative methods.  From a lecturer’s perspective one could argue that having a cohort of students covering similar material at each stage is a desirable objective and ensures a smooth flowing of information exchange.  However, in practice there is frequently significant padding and review of the previous modules in order to fulfil the allotted time.

Another strategy is to use an attractive course title to lure subscribers and then present material on a different topic.  I had a memorable three days some years ago when an International Lecturer came to visit these shores to talk about the “Oblique Sling System” and its mechanism in pelvic stability.  After two days practising core stability assessment and reviewing theory it became clear that any systematic teaching of the sling support mechanisms was not going to occur and if we wished to pursue this topic further then the videos would be available for purchase subsequently.  Needless to say there was general dissatisfaction on that weekend!!.

Another more recent trend I have noticed is of course outlines being general without specific timetabling of content or pre-course reading.  This has the advantage of allowing the Lecturer meander across a broad number of topics whilst not making it particularly obvious that they are deviating from an outlined schedule.  As a participant trying to decide whether the course is worthy of committment, is very hard to make judgements other than to “take a flyer”

I raise these issues here because undoubtedly increasing commercialisation is not going to go away anytime soon. We need to be able to make an informed decision when we pay for a course or conference that the information we are going to be exposed to is complete or is it  merely an overview which will require further measures in order to ascertain useful, practical information to apply clinically.

How many of you felt “short-changed” by conferences or seminars you have attended?

Am I being unrealistic to expect open information exchange in a forum of professional colleagues?

Please share your thoughts.

Enjoy the clinical challenge.

David.

© David for PhysioDigest - an educational resource for the musculoskeletal rehabilitation community, 2010. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Academia, Academic publishing, Communication, Information, Social sciences

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh