[Sigcabinet] ASIST Technical Sessions Reorganization

[KT Vaughan]

Hi all -
Thanks for a brief and lively discussion on this topic!  I think we're 
all in agreement that something can and should be done about how SIG 
sessions are arranged at the Annual Meeting.  Condensing all discussion:

- We want a balance between research and practice.
- We want interactivity, innovation, and interest, but we need to give 
guidance on how to accomplish this.
- Other examples of interesting, innovative, and interactive formats 
exist, especially in the "unconference" model.
- I love the "vision, strategy, tactics" idea.  Is this something we can 
run with?  Perhaps instead of focusing on the format we focus on the 
content - with an understanding that certain formats will be expected in 
the different content areas... just a thought (and probably not a good one).
- There is a concern that if we make a hard and fast limit to the number 
of each type of session that we'll hurt the overall quality of the sessions.

So here's my proposal: We have three types of session - "traditional" 
panel, interactive workshop, and some "other" category that could be 
better explained by someone else but that I'm envisioning will be along 
the unconference/pecha kucha idea.  If there are 18 sessions, each of 
these three types are guaranteed to have 5 slots each, with the 
remaining 3 slots to go to the strongest leftover submissions (but NOT 
all 3 to the same type? the tech sessions cochairs will have to 
negotiate this).  Examples of interesting formats for panels will be 
provided for the SIGs via the wiki, hopefully with several examples 
available before Nov. 6th.  I think we want to make it clear that it's 
not the content that's the problem - necessarily - but that it's the 
presentation of that content that needs attention.

Thoughts?
KT

KT Vaughan wrote:
> Hi SIG Cabinet Steering Cte, Gary, and Pascal!
>
> As promised in the teleconference from way back, I'm starting off our 
> discussion via email of how to revamp the technical sessions aspect of 
> the ASIS&T Annual Meeting.  Pascal, I'm involving you in this because 
> you're co-chair this year, and because you have lots of experience on 
> the topic.  Gary is invited in his role as AM gadfly and 
> President-Elect.  Feel free to ignore if you would like to (the rest of 
> you don't have permission to ignore!).
>
> The Board has asked us to propose new ways of organizing SIG-driven 
> content at the Annual Meeting.  Currently these show up as the Technical 
> Sessions.  Those, in turn, tend to be a standard model of a loosely 
> organized set of 3-5 presenters giving talks with question time at the 
> end.  There are some perceived problems with this model:
> 1: It's boring. (in general) Very little interaction happens with the 
> audience, and if the talks aren't interesting people don't get much out 
> of them.
> 2: It weights heavily toward academic rather than practical work, 
> towards research rather than practice, and towards older research and 
> completed research.  Not that any of these are bad/good - just that more 
> variation would be desired (speaking as a practitioner who does very 
> little research).
> 3: Reviewers are used to this model, so they tend to rate different 
> kinds of panels less highly b/c they aren't used to other models.
> 4: Certain SIGs are good at organizing this kind of session, so they 
> tend to overwhelm other SIGs in quantity of panels proposed and presented.
>
> We've been asked to brainstorm and then propose to the Board a different 
> way of running SIG "panels" (for lack of a better word).  One thing the 
> Board has tentatively agreed to is to shorten the overall length of the 
> conference from fourish days (Sunday through Wednesday) to threeish days 
> (Sunday through Tuesday).  The SIG RUSH reception will become a welcome 
> reception, and SIG CON will probably get folded into another reception 
> (likely the President's?).  This means we'll probably go from having 
> 30ish panels to having at most 20.  A current proposal on the table 
> would reduce panels down to 12; I'm lobbying hard to get it up to 18 at 
> least. Given that we have 21 SIGs, that would by necessity mean that 
> unless SIGs cosponsor, some won't have any programming at the AM at all.
>
> Ok, so that's the current status.  What we need to do is to think hard 
> about what a good SIG session COULD look like in the ideal world, and 
> then how we can make sure those sessions are the ones that are proposed 
> and presented.  Suggestions at the Board meeting included promoting 
> industry/tech demo sessions, mini-workshops, interactive discussions, 
> pecha kucha sessions, etc.  From a structural perspective, I think it 
> would be interesting to subdivide the panels proposals by type - and 
> declare up front that we'll only be accepting 6 traditional model 
> sessions, 6 of some other type, and 6 of a third type.  Then SIGs can 
> choose which type to submit to, recognizing that it could be a lot 
> harder to get into one type than another.
>
> Discussion!?
>
> KT
>
> PS: So sorry I've been out of touch.  As I think I noted before, I've 
> been sick for weeks, and am finally feeling better.
>
>   

-- 
Do you have a comment, question, or suggestion for the library?  Tell us: http://www.hsl.unc.edu/AboutLib/Staff/suggestionbox.cfm.  Praise and criticism are equally welcome!

KTL Vaughan, MSLS, AHIP
Pharmacy Librarian
UNC-CH Health Sciences Library	

Clinical Associate Professor of Pharmacy
UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy

CB 7585
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7585
Phone: 919 966 8011
Fax: 919 966 5592
Email: ktlv at email.unc.edu
Blog: http://pharmacylibrarian.blogspot.com
Twitter: librariankt
Delicious: HSLPharmacy

~~ Connecting people everywhere with knowledge to improve health. ~~