Thursday, December 10, 2015

Reflections on Diversity in PR and Research Challenges

This was an important year for research about diversity in public relations. posted a round-up of several recent studies on November 9, 2015, “Progressing toward Diversity Goals in the Public Relations Industry” which highlighted the findings. Since then at least two more studies were released: the National Black Public Relations Society’s “2015 State of the PR Industry: Defining & Delivering on the Promise of Diversity” and the Chartered Institute of Public Relations’ “From Diversity to Inclusion: The Progression of Equality in Public Relations and Challenges for the Future.”

Our study, “Factors Affecting the Success of Under-represented Groups in the Public Relations Profession,” focused on young African-American and Hispanic PR professionals’ experiences in career advancement. We were privileged to receive generous financial support from the Public Relations Society of America Foundation as well as gracious assistance from PRSA, PRSSA, the National Black Public Relations Society, the Hispanic Public Relations Association, City College of New York, Howard University, and the Arthur W. Page Society.


We found that young African-American and Hispanic PR professionals are positive about the profession, but they acknowledge regular race- and ethnic-based obstacles that temper their optimism and their likelihood to recommend their career to the next generation.

Findings show that employers have embraced diversity recruitment with success. But once young African-American and Hispanic PR professionals are hired, diversity sensitivity falls short. Improvements in mentoring and other retention strategies may be the key for enabling the PR profession to benefit from multicultural professionals.

Our findings are compatible with the other studies cited above, despite varying methodologies. This brings us to the challenges of research standards, the primary interest of readers of The Measurement Standard.


Our project needed to:
Conform to methodological expectations as defined by university institutional research board (IRB) standards, as well as to the scrutiny of academic, media, and activist readers.
Balance between research and policy advocacy to support both goals.
Undergo public scrutiny in timely and effective channels, consistent with methodological responsibility, policy guidance, and media appetite.


The challenges were common to most behavior researchers. First was the definition of terms. What is “diversity” in PR (as seen by sociologists and/or the media)? Various researchers apply significantly different criteria that can embrace race and ethnicity, sex and gender, social class, and age.

Second was defining exactly what we wanted to learn. Our research question needed to conform to the “FINER criteria:” Feasible; Interesting (to the professional community); Novel; Ethical by university Institutional Review Board standards; and Relevant (to policy, future research, and good research practice).

We defined “diversity” as PR professionals who self-identify as African-American and/or Hispanic, who work in PR (or a closely-related field), and who graduated with a college degree since 2008. Our research question was “What are the factors that affect the success of under-represented groups in the public relations profession?”


No single “list” of our target sample exists. Working with The Gilfeather Group and Gazelle Global Research, we developed a sampling methodology that enlisted cooperation from the several PR associations noted above.

We used a nonprobability (convenience), chain-referral sampling method, recruiting respondents for an online survey via emails, postcards, blog-posts, and in-person appeals at Fall 2014 professional PR conferences. While we recognize some lack of apparent representativeness in the respondent demographic profile, we know of no other method that would yield a better profile (at a reasonable cost).


None of these issues are unique to our study. More acute was the potential for conflict of interest in our roles as advocates for a more diverse PR workforce. Our careers have focused on initiatives intended to change the demographic profile of the PR field through research, teaching, mentoring, professional development programs, and advocacy. Our research funder (PRSA Foundation) is also an advocate for increased diversity in the profession.

We came to our project with predispositions. Throughout the initial stages of our secondary and qualitative research and in writing our questionnaire, we challenged ourselves to sustain objectivity.


Our research was conducted within a timeframe that was both charged with news about racial discrimination against young African-Americans (and the Black Lives Matter movement, etc.), as well as increasingly inflected with the higher media profiles that brought Larry Wilmore to The Nightly Show, Trevor Noah to The Daily Show, and attention to an increasing number of sports, entertainment, and celebrity personalities from traditionally under-represented groups.

Despite the polarized public contexts, our research subjects provided nuanced and balanced input. As readers will note, our research respondents are often disappointed by the shortcomings of the PR industry to support diversity, but they and our methodology seem to have avoided the most polarizing representations of opinion and attitude that were the backdrop in the media and public discussion.


Finally, since our findings straddle research and advocacy, the inevitable question arose as to how our research would be made public. Had we followed the most conventional route of academic publishing, our findings would undoubtedly have been delayed by months, given the time constraints of academic publishing.

Fortunately, we had no compelling need for the project to be initially published by a peer-reviewed journal, even as we recognize its importance. Our priority was to reach industry leaders and HR professionals in the hopes of triggering discussion and possible action. As a result, we benefited by having the PRSA Foundation release and distribute our report to industry leaders and the media, supported by the press office of The City College of New York, and by self-publishing and distribution initiatives through our own website and social media.


Our experience with this project proves that PR research is intellectually stimulating – methodologically and ethically – as well as personally rewarding. More importantly, our positive experience with this research along with others’ shows that the PR profession can do more to help young, earnest, and committed professionals of all backgrounds succeed. Our work helps ensure that public relations remains an authentic and credible practice for creating productive relationships among all Americans. 

This post was published at The Measurement Standard on December 9, 2015.

Monday, December 7, 2015

The Painted Bunting

Regional NYC and national news reports, over the past week, have not been focusing on sitings of Santa Claus or Big Foot or alien invaders. Something more interesting -- the Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris).  For the past several days there have been multiple sitings -- by avid bird-watchers, local Brooklynites, NYC and national media -- of the appearance of a Painted Bunting in Prospect Park, mostly around the East Drive and near the LeFrak Center at Lakeside.

What started out as a local curiosity escalated to the status of national news (The New York TimesCBS,  ABC, and USA Today for examples).

Is this "news"?  Well, some reports claim the siting is "as rare as a unicorn." (Wouldn't that count as news?) Or, as The New York Post headlined its coverage, "People are losing their s--t over this bird."

According to the Prospect Park Alliance, the development of the LeFrak Center (new skating rinks) along with its parking lots, also created the ideal stop-over for Painted Buntings on their annual migrations: "The multi-colored member of the cardinal family is likely bound for Florida or Central America for the winter, but was drawn to this area of the Park due to an abundance of shelter and seeds to forage and eat. As part of the creation of Lakeside, one of the Park’s newest attractions and the most ambitious restoration project in the history of the Park, the Prospect Park Alliance transformed a 300-spot parking lot into an additional three acres of green space and wildlife habitat – a perfect respite for migrating bird species like the painted bunting."

I have not seen the Painted Bunting myself. But I have seen -- over the past several days -- at various times of day anywhere from a dozen to fifty+ Brooklynites (and from further afield according to media coverage) with their binoculars and big camera lenses tip-toeing around the Lakeside area of Prospect Park. Older people, younger people, and a healthy demographic, ethnic mix of curiosity seekers of presumably varied motivations.

The experience / phenomenon of the Painted Bunting in Prospect Park this year would never have been possible without 1) neighborhood enthusiasts, 2) social media / phone cameras, 3) NYC parks promotion, and -- 4) the bird(s). The natural world, local residents' pride of place, digital technologies, and global media have coalesced to provide a distinctive, and encouraging story for the year's end.

Sunday, December 6, 2015

Content Analysis as News

The New York Times article on December 5th, "95,000 Words, Many of Them Ominous, From Donald Trump’s Tongue," was an interesting example of textual content analysis applied for media coverage (news) and policy analysis (current and historical context). Close textual content analysis is rare in "mainstream" media coverage. The NYT occasionally demonstrates its abilities in various kinds of data journalism, but this kind of analysis is not routine. One might imagine a media category in which this kind of content analysis was a staple -- alongside of reports about polls. We could have an on-going analysis and insight into what political candidates were saying (which could be reported in conjunction with what the surveyed public is reporting).

Among us PR / media geeks, we'd pay attention. The question is -- would the "public" care to track the measurement and monitoring of messages?

Monday, November 30, 2015

Discovering a Trajectory Toward a More Diverse PR Profession

In 2012, Prof. Lynn Appelbaum and I received one of several grants from the Public Relations Society of America Foundation to identify and explore the opportunities and obstacles to career advancement reported by young African-American and Hispanic PR practitioners. Related research had been periodically published, especially since 2005 when Lynn Appelbaum (City College of New York) and Rochelle Ford (Syracuse University, then at Howard University) published “Hispanic and Black Public Relations Practitioners’ Perceptions and Experiences within the Industry.” However, the increasing interest in this topic by academic research is widely perceived as not being matched by increasing actual diversity in the PR profession.

We directed our research project on a somewhat different and more restricted sample than most previous studies. We limited our focus to individuals working in PR (and closely allied integrated communications fields) who self-identified as African-American and/or Hispanic, and who graduated with a Bachelor’s degree sometime in the range of 2008 – 2014. Our intention was to capture distinctive insights from these young professionals who are members of the Millennial Generation and who had entered the profession at the time of the global economic downturn and recovery.

We also focused on public relations executives in organizations who are actively involved in the recruitment and retention of entry- and early-level PR practitioners.

We developed our survey instrument after extensive review of the published literature, in-person interviews with human resources and PR professionals who have active hiring responsibilities of young PR practitioners, and our own series of focus groups with you professionals who met our demographic profile.

Sampling was an expected challenge, but we enjoyed gracious and enthusiastic cooperation from a number of organizations that assisted in implementing our nonprobability (convenience), chain-referral method. The URL for the online questionnaire was widely distributed by email, by public announcement at industry conferences, and through personal referrals. We are happy to acknowledge and thank the Public Relations Society of America, the PRSA Foundation, the Black Public Relations Society, the Hispanic Public Relations Society, several PRSSA chapters associated with historically Black colleges and universities, and the Arthur W. Page Society.

Our online survey was accessible for participation from October 10, 2014 through January 22, 2015. We worked closely through the whole project with The Gilfeather Group and with Gazelle Global Research. The findings of the survey are reported at and at the PRSA Foundation website.

Our study finds that young African-American and Hispanic PR professionals are positive about their experiences in the profession (“the good news”), but they readily acknowledge regular race- and ethnic-based obstacles which temper their optimism for the future and their likelihood to recommend their career path to the next generation (“the bad news”).

Findings suggest that employer organizations have embraced diversity recruitment with, reportedly, success. However, once the young African-American and Hispanic PR employees are hired, diversity sensitivity and valuation falls short.

Providing improvements for insufficient mentoring and other ineffective retention strategies may be the key issue, in 2015 and going forward, for bringing the U.S. public relations profession to a position in which it can benefit from the input of multicultural professionals as well as become a leader (instead of a laggard) in cultivating a diverse, rich, and creative workforce.

We offer the following implications from the study for the PR industry:

  • Young Hispanic and African-American public relations professionals are mostly happy with their career choices – but have misgivings that may be sending negative messages out to the next, younger generation. How can the PR profession reduce these “misgivings”/doubts and reinforce the general inclination to support the profession?
  • Young professionals from diverse backgrounds – particularly African-Americans – strongly suspect that their career development has been held back because of racial/ethnic prejudice. While this current study has no way to determine whether this impression is accurate or not, the fact is that the PR profession needs to do better to 1) ensure there are no prejudicial patterns in career advancement, and 2) develop clear professional guidelines and recommendations to help employers be more effective in the recruitment and especially retention of young multicultural professionals.
  • Educating employees about micro-aggression in the workplace would appear to have benefits in creating a more cohesive workplace culture.
  • There appears to be a significant opportunity for HR professionals who work in the PR industry to become more engaged in helping to retain young professionals in the workplace by either playing a more active role in mentorship, or by helping to facilitate mentorship among account teams that engage and include multicultural professionals. At present, HR personnel appear to play a negligible role in retention
  • Mentoring, “modeling,” and HR programs designed to welcome and develop young professionals from diverse backgrounds are rare – and urgently needed. If not offered in-house, there is opportunity for organizations such as BPRS and HPRA to offer a more formal mentoring program and/or professional development programming. As these organizations and subsequent networking channels are viewed as highly valuable to the continued success of minority young professionals, organizational leadership may want to develop new initiatives in this area.
  • The workplace is not “color blind.” It probably never will be. Race and ethnicity should be valued as potential assets in a young professional’s profile – but certainly not exclusive criteria. Young professionals from diverse backgrounds should be encouraged to use their “identity” as an asset in their professional development, without being constrained (“pigeon-holed”) by that identity.
  • Diversity initiatives would appear to be more effective when employers invest less in formal “diversity programs” and more on supporting employees to build a genuine connection with other employees that makes them feel appreciated and welcome. The notion of “diversity programming” without an understanding of why it’s being created and how it supports recruitment and retention does not move the needle to sustain and enhance diversity.
  • Cultural appreciation and awareness must accompany equal opportunity.

The PRSA Foundation, the PR Council, and other industry organizations have increased research, advocacy, and student support programming in the past few years. Several new research projects, including our own, will be available in late 2015 and in 2016.

Consensus among industry advocates seems to be stronger than ever to invest in discovering and replicating optimal organizational policies to facilitate the development of a truly diverse and inclusive PR practice. If we, as public relations professionals (who are supposed to have distinctive expertise in relationships among publics) do not manage these issues in accordance with evidence and with our clients’ – and our audiences’ – expectations, our credibility will erode with the next generation of practitioners.

This post was published at the Institute for Public Relations website, "Research Conversations" blog on November 23, 2015.

Monday, November 9, 2015

Progressing toward Diversity Goals in the PR Industry

Faces of the PR industry of the future: Class of 2015 students,
Branding + Integrated Communications Master's Degree program at City College of New York

The year 2015 may turn out to be viewed as a watershed in the public relations industry for taking stock of its shortcomings of achieving a diverse, multicultural workforce.

Over the past few months, a number of formal studies conducted by academic researchers throughout the country and funded by the PRSA Foundation and the Arthur W. Page Society, are yielding new insights into the obstacles to and opportunities for achieving diversity in the PR profession.

Earlier this year, Professor Dean Mundy, Ph.D. from the University of Oregon, published his study, “From Principle to Policy to Practice? Diversity as a Driver of Multicultural, Stakeholder Engagement in Public Relations” in PR Journal (Vol. 9, No. 1). (The research was funded by the Arthur W. Page Center for Integrity in Public Communication at Penn State University.)

In an August 31, 2015 blog post at the Institute for PR site, Professor Mundy commented on his study, asserting that PR organizations continue to assert the benefits of diversity in the workforce. But he also learned “despite this sentiment . . . PR has not taken a lead role in championing diversity. In fact, when asked how the PR function has addressed diversity, almost one third of the [study] respondents replied, ‘not applicable.’ Finally, I learned most practitioners feel their organizations do a solid job providing benefits for diverse groups, but few are able to indicate readily what those benefits actually are.”

Professor Mundy’s research set the stage for the panel discussion on Monday morning, November 9, 2015, at the PRSA International Conference in Atlanta, “Tiptoeing the Talk: Is PR as Inclusive as We Like to Think?” that presented early public discussion of three additional new studies, all funded by the PRSA Foundation.

One study, “Improving the Shades of Diversity in Public Relations: Engaging Under-represented Practitioners in the Workplace by Exploring their Concerns involving Career Satisfaction, Workplace Inclusion, and Work-Life Balance,” was conducted by Professor Richard D. Waters, Ph.D. at the University of San Francisco, looked at a wide variety of under-represented demographic categories, including African-Americans, Hispanics, Asia-American/Pacific Islanders, and LGBT PR practitioners.

A second study, conducted by Professor Hua Jiang, Ph.D. at Syracuse University explored the perceptions of elite corporate and agency PR practitioners through in-depth interviews and a survey of members of the Arthur W. Page Society (primarily CCOs of Fortune 500 corporations, CEOs of leading PR agencies, and senior academics from top-tier communications and business schools).

The third study is more narrowly focused. This study was jointly conducted by Professor Lynn Appelbaum at City College of New York and by myself, and investigated the specific PR career obstacles and opportunities faced by African-American and Hispanic young professionals, who graduated from college from 2008 – 2014, “An Examination of Factors Affecting the Success of Under-represented Groups in the Public Relations Profession.”

All three of these research projects will be available in published and PRSA Foundation-distribution formats. The full text of the Appelbaum-Walton study is currently online at

Since all the reports of these studies are just now being published and distributed, we look forward, over the next few months, to formulating insights and understanding implications as the various data sets are compared. However, a few immediate observations are worth preliminary attention:

Public “commitment” to diversity by corporate communications departments and PR agencies is solid, but vague. Diversity definition, even within individual organizations, is not well defined. Management accountability is not linked to diversity metrics. Intentions are perceived to be correct (by all samples and perspectives); implementation, not so much.

Efforts to recruit under-represented groups into PR departments and agencies are fairly well rated with a number of organizations having ramped up their outreach efforts to some success.

However, retention of under-represented groups in PR departments and agencies is clearly a major challenge for the immediate future. Once “in” the organization, the multicultural practitioner often reports being “outside” the normal patterns of work assignments, assigned roles, mentor relationships, preferment structures, and social-cultural dynamics.

Employees with specific “identities” (African-American, Hispanic, Asian, male, female, LGBT) report varying experiences, but cumulatively, they seem to report still experiencing that they are on the margins of the PR establishment.

More cross-study insights will emerge, but one is striking on just first review. The Jiang survey of Arthur W. Page Society members (CCOs of Fortune 500 corporations and CEOs of PR agencies) present some striking dissimilarities to the findings of the Appelbaum-Walton study (African-American and Hispanic PR practitioners who graduated college since 2008):

One area of discrepancy is the perception of workplace bias for advancement.
Only 12.7% of the Page Society members survey respondents believe that PR professionals from under-represented groups have to be “more qualified” than Caucasians for the same position.
This contrasts with the Appelbaum/Walton study that found 30.4% of the Hispanics and 56.3% of the African-American PR professionals who graduated since 2008 report that they have to be more qualified than a Caucasian professional for the same position.
A second area of discrepancy is in workplace relations.

93.5% of the Page Society members say that racial/ethnic minorities are treated with genuine respect by their colleagues in the PR profession. This presents a different perception compared with
69.6% of the Hispanics and 50% of the African-American PR professionals who graduated since 2008 and report feeling that they are treated with genuine respect in the workplace.

While acknowledging that these comparisons are drawn from different data sets, the scale of this kind of disagreement on core issues, at least, should raise a “red flag” for the PR industry. As more detailed and thoughtful review of all these studies is conducted, the PR industry associations and major players will find focus for additional action.

Here is the good news. On first review of all these studies – all samples of PR practitioners from the CCOs to the young professionals – reveals a strong support and commitment to the PR profession. Where perceptions of shortcomings emerge, those perceptions emerge in the context of “disappointment,” not of anger or rejection.

The good work of PRSA Foundation and other industry leaders in funding the research and insights from these studies presents the U.S. PR sector with an enormous opportunity to act with new knowledge and vigor – knowing that the young, under-represented professionals in the PR profession are eager and willing to assist the profession to adapt to the 21st century.

Having taken stock of the PR sector’s diversity challenge in 2015, we can look forward to a year of action and initiatives in 2016.

This post was published at on November 9, 2015.

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Chantal Akerman, Filmmaker, 1950 - 2015

Image copied from The Guardian, October 6, 2015
Chantal Akerman in Venice in 2011. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo
Chantal Akerman had an uncompromising view; she suffered no fools. I certainly did not know her well, but in a few years during which we both taught at City College of New York, I had opportunity to share a few occasions of commiserating about the "organization." There is much media coverage today because of her death on Monday (reported, probable suicide) in the European mediia -- and even a New Yorker post The cultural media is treating her quite well now. "Rest in Peace" is a nice thought, but not for people like Chantal: the more apt thought -- "Did Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night."

Bridgehampton, New York -- October 4, 2015

Monday, October 5, 2015

Trevor Martin and Comedy Central: Great Comedy / Satire / Absurdism -- Trump as Our First African President

I'd been underwhelmed by the first few nights of The Daily Show with Trevor Noah.  But this piece on Trump as America's first African president is Brilliant.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Conference on Insights into Meditation Research, 2015

On September 24-25, 2015 I attended a conference at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City on the topic of Advances in Meditation Research, 2015.

Here is the full agenda:

Most speakers were quite young (under age 50).  Purpose of the conference was to highlight new research (recently published or soon-to-be published).

There was no presence or attention paid to popular culture representations or promotions of meditation and contemplative practices – no Dan Harris or Arianna Huffington, etc.  No presence or attention to “popular” meditation or mindfulness teachers.  No presence or attention to religion or spirituality.


Both Thursday night and Friday, there were about 100 – 125 people in the audience.

The audience was young – most under 40 years of age. Some of these young people had brought their babies with them.  Some of them looked “hipster” in attire, etc.   A close 50-50 mix of men and women.

The audience was 99% (my impression) white/Caucasian.  I think no blacks and very few Asians or in the room.  I noticed only one man (with head covering and beard) who I would guess was presenting himself as a Sikh.

At Q&A sessions, when audience members identified themselves, they all identified themselves as either neuroscience researchers or as doctors and nurses doing clinical work in high-risk/stress situations (emergency rooms, cancer care, neonatal pediatric care, etc.).

I would guess that there were very few people in the audience who were representing a spiritual practice or religious tradition. I do not know if Memorial Sloan Kettering did not promote the conference to those communities. Or perhaps those spiritual / religious communities are not so concerned about the kinds of work being presented at this conference. I was, actually, surprised, not to find more of a “mix” of the religious / cultural communities and the neuroscience community.

Speakers: Neuroscience

Majority of the speakers are active research neuroscientists. There were a few clinical practice professionals (psychiatrists and social workers), but even the clinical professionals focused their presentations on research.

The presentation of research was mostly focused on therapeutic outcomes – 1) child development (normal and abnormal); 2) helping cancer patients; 3) helping patients with anxiety, depression, and addition (including post-traumatic stress disorder); 4) mitigating effects of brain and biological aging.

Speakers represented leading research institutions, hospitals, and universities. While all acknowledged the value of “complementary” and “integrative” approaches to medicine, all of these speakers were primarily oriented toward the Western, scientific tradition and practice.

None of the speakers represented anything like “alternative” or “New Age.” 

Presentations: Neuroscience

While I took notes (for myself) I am loath to share them – I don’t know anything about neuroscience, and I probably would mis-represent much of what was presented.

The conference did not offer the PPT presentations.  If I can get them later, I will forward them on to you.

I offer the following “lay-man’s” observations from the many neuroscience presentations:

·       There is firm, 100% consensus among these advanced, young and more experienced neuroscientists that contemplative practices directly affect both brain function and even brain structure.

·       These researchers just accept the “fact” that contemplative practices can enhance or impede other brain and body states.

·       (BUT There is no discussion, at all, about “Mind” (Buddhism)  or “Soul” (Christian) .  )

·       While our DNA/genes cannot be changed, these scientists are all very aware of the many aspects of “epigenetics” – how various experiences affect how genes are “expressed” (turned on or off) – and how experience (physical and/or experiential trauma) can build or inhibit certain brain activities leading to positive or negative outcomes.

·       Lots of focus on the concept of brain “plasticity” – the brain – even adult and older people – can change and sometimes repair.  And self-directed experiences (like meditation, yoga, exercise, tai chi, music, etc.) can facilitate positive brain changes.  These neuroscientists just accept this as “proven.” --- not always sure “how and why” but they have no doubt that it’s real and replicable and should be part of cancer therapy, PTSD therapy, etc.

·       These neuroscientists are totally confidant and accepting that “practices” (yoga, meditation, etc. etc) can change the size and connections/functionalities in the brain.  They have lots of research showing that it happens.  However, they are not at a point in which they can prescribe exactly what practice would benefit people in certain situations. Although they have confident recommendations advice to cancer patients, for example.

·       Interesting but frightening insight: the research from many studies seems to clearly show that trauma (as an infant, in utero) can affect brain function into adulthood  (through the epigenetics issue cited above). So that people born and raised in poverty and other traumatic settings are more likely to have potential problems in the future (because of the difficulties of their brains in self-regulation, proclivity to anxiety and/or depression, etc.).  And these are populations that might benefit most from the contemplative practices that can (to some extent) re-model / re-train the brain processes.

Speakers: Public Policy

One of the keynote speakers was Dr. Josephine P. Briggs, Director of the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, an agency of the National Institutes of Health (leading U.S. government research-funding and policy agency).

Speakers: Spiritual / Cultural Perspectives

Only two speakers represented any organization of field considered to be “spiritual”:

1) Thursday night opening lecture was by Bob Thurman (Professor Robert A. F. Thurman)   As many of you know, Bob Thurman holds the first endowed chair in Buddhist Studies in the West, the Jey Tsong Khapa Chair in Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Studies in the Department of Religion at Columbia University.  Bob earned his Ph.D. from Harvard in Sanskrit Indian Studies. In the 1960s he decided to go to Asia to study: he was ordained a Buddhist monk, and studied directly with Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama (who because a friend and long-term associate).  In the 1980s he created Tibet House U.S in New York City with Richard Gere and Philip Glass.  Bob has an extraordinary and unparalleled career spanning acknowledged accomplishments in Indo-Tibetan scholarship, support for Tibetan political and social causes, support for Indo-Tibetan cultural institutions, and high-profile promoter of Buddhist topics and causes through his wide network of contacts among entertainment and cultural celebrities.

See notes, below, about Bob’s presentation.

2) One of Friday evening’s keynote speeches was by Joe Loizzo  (Joseph Loizzo, M.D., Ph.D.)   Founder and Director of the Nalanda Institute for Contemplate Science and clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry in Integrative Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College   Along with being an M.D. psychiatrist trained at New York University and Harvard, Joe earned his Ph.D. in Indo-Tibetan Studies at Columbia University.  His research, clinical practice, and popular writing have been focused on the fusion of the contemplative sciences and healing arts of India and Tibet into Western medicine, psychotherapy and health education.

See notes, below, about Joe’s presentation.

Presentations: Bob Thurman and Joe Loizzo

Beyond neuroscience:

Bob Thurman’s Presentation

I like Bob very much.  I’ve heard him speak many times.  I’ve met him several times, including a few times with Minoru and Chika.  So, I’m predisposed to liking his work.

Bob focused his presentation using an image shown to the audience on a large screen of a Tibetan mandala which was supposed to be “medical / healing.”

He asked us to imagine that among all those bodhisattvas, etc. in the mandala, would be the doctors and nurses and researchers at Memorial Sloan Kettering and others, etc.  This little gesture creates a link between the contemporary medical community and that “community” of bodhisattvas and sages, etc. in the traditional mandala.

Bob talked about “instrumentalizing the placebo effect” – in other words: he was totally OK and celebrates the possibility that the placebo effect (benefits of a patient from belief, prayer, etc.) could be “instrumentalized” (used and controlled) by Western medical practitioners.  He thinks that would be great – and would show the value of both points of view.

Bob says he has no problem with Western medicine vs. “religion.”  He says Buddhism is not a belief system.  You cannot believe yourself to salvation: You have to understand yourself to salvation.  Buddhism has always been a set of educational services (meditation, ethics, learning, wisdom-cultivation, etc.)  -- You will only free yourself of suffering if you understand yourself and your suffering (god won’t save you, your own understanding will save you).  So Bob welcomes all the most advanced, Western neuroscience and medicine – it’s not at all a threat to his understanding of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism.

Bob says, the Buddha put the path of realizing freedom from suffering as “three higher educations/training”  -- ethics, meditation, and wisdom (wisdom being defined as: “super knowing” – what is real in the world and in the mind – what is helpful to you and what is harmful to you?  -- which Bob felt is the topic of the Neuroscience conference)?

Joe Loizzo’s Presentation

Joe’s presentation centered on what I think is more of an anthropological or cultural history argument.  He argued that the traditional ancient Vedic and Chinese “map” of the body (the chakras of the Subtle Body and the circuits) were actually useful in the contemporary practice of healing and well-being.

He made an argument that the traditional “map” of chakras is meaningfully and usefully consistent with the “map” of the brain (as understood by Western, contemporary neuroscience).

I don’t know anything about either Chakras or brain science.  But Joe’s presentation was received politely, but with no approbation / enthusiasm.  His discussion did not seem to be in the spirit of “usefulness” that informed most of the program.