[Sigcabinet] ASIST Technical Sessions Reorganization

Wed Oct 14 18:52:15 EDT 2009

Excellent summary. I go along with your proposal with one suggested change - no guarantee. We need to state that every attempt will be made to balance the number of sessions in each category but if a sufficient quantity  of the proposals for a specific type of session do not meet content standards a different type of session may be substituted. To clarify: Lets say we get seven panel session submission and only four are really good in terms of focus and/or speakers and meanwhile we've received seven interactive session submissions of which six are really good. We could then only schedule four of the panel sessions and six of the interactive session. We can better clarify this perhaps by stating if a sufficient quantity of specific type of session does not receive X number of points from the review panel a session of a different type that received more than that number of points could be substituted. This would give us a bit more flexibility.

One question we should bring to the board on interactive sessions - how are we going to handled costs?. Lets say I want to do a session where everyone has clickers and responds to respond to a poll, or to direct the session topics - who supplies the software and hardware? Does this come from SIG budget or is this something we can count on as we move to more interactive formats. What about wireless access in meeting rooms so people could login using their own laptops to participate in a SecondLife event that perhaps provides coaching to those who haven't used 2nd life before or do a clickalong. Or the cost and technology of a live link to a presentor off-site and perhaps in another country? While there are many non-tech interactive formats we need to have a conference infrastructure that supports tech ones.

What say ye all?
-----Original Message-----
>From: KT Vaughan <ktlv at email.unc.edu>
>Sent: Oct 14, 2009 2:04 PM
>To: KT Vaughan <ktlv at email.unc.edu>
>Cc: Sigcabinet at mail.asis.org, 'Gary Marchionini' <march at ils.unc.edu>, "Pascal V. Calarco" <pcalarco at nd.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Sigcabinet] ASIST Technical Sessions Reorganization
>
>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. ~~
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sigcabinet mailing list
>Sigcabinet at mail.asis.org
>http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcabinet

S.Warwick
swarwick at sprynet.com