Conference Learning

Earlier this month, I attended the state public health association meeting. The location changes each year, moving around the state in a effort to engage a broader audience of individuals who work in local health departments. Attendees included dental assistants, directors and administrators of the health department, environmental engineers, public health nurses, medical directors, and health educators; to name a few.

I've now been to such meetings in three different states over my career. These state meetings are interesting in several ways.

The ratio of practitioners to academics favors practitioners, unlike many large public health conferences. What that means is the conversation differs from what you hear at the large academic conferences. The conversation stays close to "what does this mean for agency and my clients?" The desire and inclination to mimic a successful neighbor creeps into the thinking. While this maybe helpful, it may not be completely thoughtful. It does reflect the reality that the most visible evidence is likely to be what my immediate peers are doing, rather than the latest RCT published in an expensive, inaccessible academic journal.

The scope of problems stays local, not national or global. Local epidemiological data guide attention mainly to health conditions for which the local situation is near the bottom (worst).  The thinking takes the form of: If the problem is not in my backyard, I don't have the energy, resources, or time to worry about it.  This is by no means a critique. When resources are tight, it's a practical approach.

The other interesting angle centers around an underlying desire to find "what works." This might include finding ways to leverage connections to academics. Across the nation the culture has been shifting away from "ivory tower vs real work" toward "let's collaborate." Naturally, such a culture shift take time for complete uptake. But, I view the shift as a positive one, and one that I tried to help along.

Going to such meetings is always humbling for me.  I enjoy being reminded of what the details really look like. And, I have multiple opportunities to silently practice empathy.

She mentioned Height-Ashby. That launched the conversation into a history lesson, beginning with the question: What is the curve of discoveries over the past 150 years? Linear? Exponential? Flat?  The surprise to me was how difficult it was for the graduate students (ages mid-20's to mid-30's) to name inventions. Their lack of a deep modern time scale and of milestones along that scale leaves them without a past that exceeds their first Facebook post. This has some of us as faculty worried, concerned. Why?

What's the value of knowing when the telephone was invented? Or the silicone chip? And how long was that after the transistor radio had been invented? Or, how long before the internet was created? What difference does it make to decision making or the development of scholarship to know when the birth control pill became available in the U.S.? And how long was that before the beginning of the AIDS epidemic?

It matters that they don't know Walt Whitman or Woody Guthrie. It leaves them with a diminished appreciation for the amount of suffering, effort, sweat, and failures it took to get to the amenities, the freedoms, and the opportunities of today. It distorts the distribution of effort across historical figures and those on the edge of their shadows. It makes shallow our culture, rather than deepening it. It leaves us all with fewer and weaker cultural references. Weaker too in the sense of not understanding nor appreciating the distance, differences over time.

The big inventions (e.g., nuclear fission) and the small inventions (e.g.,gram stains) have collectively changed how we as humans live, especially those of us who live in wealthier, more developed countries. That change in living logistics comes with changes in culture, relationships, and expectations about the future. And, therein lies the rub...