We’re rethinking our gatherings from the ground up based on what the research says actually works. This post is part of that process, and so is the survey at the end.
Can you have a community without gatherings?
Probably. If we define a community as a group of people who face a common challenge, then it’s possible, at least on paper, to have a community that interacts entirely asynchronously.
But cultivating a sense of community or shared progress without real-time interactions seems like playing on hard mode. Trying to help people “feel a sense of connection or belonging with members of my group” (a social outcome) without bringing people together is like trying to learn to swim from a textbook. Can you do it? Maybe — eventually. But why would you?
Trading labels for levers
Gathering has been central to what we do here in MaP since our community began back in 2020. But if you’ve looked at our calendar lately, you may have noticed it’s been empty since the holiday break. That’s not for lack of ideas. It’s more that I’ve grown uncomfortable with the degree of uncertainty that comes with reaching for vague formats that may or may not really support what we’re trying to achieve.
For example, you’ve probably sat through a “workshop” where no one makes anything or a “peer learning session” where one person holds the floor the entire time. These labels feel like they should be the options you reach for when planning a gathering, but if you scratch the surface you can see how they’re a shorthand that conflates many variables.
Without a way to see past the labels to the actual design levers, it’s hard to make a choice that feels complete or intentional.
I went looking for what the research says about what actually makes group interactions work — and kept finding the same variables, whether the source was meeting science, group therapy, or active learning research. Thirteen variables that seem to capture the actual design space, regardless of what format label gets printed on the agenda.
But knowing what’s in the spice rack is important for any chef, and using those ingredients to create a prix fixe menu that you can choose from is probably ideal. What I want is a handful of go-to formats that are carefully dialed in and that I can reach for whenever we have an idea for a gathering.
A couple of examples: Participation symmetry asks whether everyone is speaking or if one voice dominates. Google’s Project Aristotle found that equality in conversational turn-taking was the single strongest predictor of group effectiveness. If the most senior voice in your strategic planning session drowns out everyone else, that’s a structural failure. Group size determines what’s possible: deep outcomes peak at 5–8 people, and full-community events serve energy and identity but not learning or trust. So, whether to keep everyone together or break into smaller groups is less a logistical question and more about what kind of outcome you’re designing for.
Each variable seems self-evident on its own — but if you’re like me, you’ve never treated them as dials you can control in relation to one another. These are two of thirteen. The rest cover facilitator role, response mode, time structure, participation stability, confidentiality, synchronicity, recurrence, accountability, task type, experiential cycle, and relationship maturity. If you’re designing gatherings at your own institution, that’s where to look.
I’d like your help
But I can map every variable and still miss what matters if I’m designing from my own assumptions. What I need is your experience.
I want to hear about your experience at professional gatherings through this brief questionnaire:
I’m sharing the taxonomy because I think it may be useful to some of you who are thinking about modes of gathering at your own institutions. If I’m going to ask you to spend three or four minutes filling out a survey, that request should carry value on its own — even if you don’t complete the survey, you’ve come away with something to think about.
Whether you’re running a museum, advising one, sitting on a board, or reflecting on decades of doing all three, your experience with professional gatherings is exactly what we’re designing from. The more diverse the professional contexts we hear from, the better the formats we’ll build.