|
Over several meetings in 2000-2001 a Map Group was formed to review possible ways in which work in COST269 could continue and possible topics it could consider. The aim was to explore options for providing more flexibility and cover a wider range of topics than was being done by the existing workgroups – although that did not mean that workgroups could not continue. As regards topic areas, the Map Group considered the interests of the various COST269 group members as reflected in the topics that had previously been suggested during brainstorming sessions conducted at different time points over previous years. Current interests and interests of newer members were also considered as were the topics suggested for a conference. When these interests were clustered into groups, four main areas emerged covering most, but not all, of the topics mentioned.These were: For each area, a rational for considering theme, its relevancy, potential questions and deliverables were outlined. In the subsequent plenary, the discussion and the hypothetical vote on areas of most interest to members, all four areas received roughly equal backing. Hence, we might conclude that the four themes broadly cover the interests on COST269. The first area subsequently became the topic of a workgroup in its own right. Meanwhile the interest in evaluating social consequences and considering future implications became generic elements of the COST269 Helsinki conference. Following from the practice of its predecessor COST248, COST269 had initially consisted of workgroups each meeting over a period of time and addressing a particular topic or theme. One option was for this to continue. The Map Group also discussed the option of a seminar format whereby there could be discrete one-off meetings dealing with a particular topic. These topics could be drawn from the list above or could involve other topics of interest to at least several COST269 members (e.g. the role and nature of scenarios). The outcomes of the discussions could then be written up – and possible elaborated afterwards – as deliverables. This format implies that we could cover more areas than workgroups, and individual members could follow up a variety of individual interests. But the format might also imply potentially less depth than the workgroup approach. |