[Sigcabinet] ASIST Technical Sessions Reorganization

[swarwick at sprynet.com]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute and ask, what is the role of ASIS&T if the annual meeting doesn't focus on research? I remember attending a mid-year a while ago which had quite a number of practitioner sessions and less conventional programming which was stigmatized by Tefko (at the business meeting) as being  nothing more than a good SLA conference.

I wrote the above before I read Dick's message, so I guess the question goes beyond what the SIGs do, to how the meeting planners convey their needs to possible participants. I think we need to go beyond saying we're looking for sessions that are NOT just conventional panels and say what we do WANT.  Innovation is hard  to come by. I'm concerned that if we put too much emphasis on innovation that the SIGs will think their ideas aren't up to the mark and we'll lose participation.  Perhaps SIG Cabinet and/or the technical program committee should come up with a few suggested formats for sessions that SIGs could plug into (while leaving the door open for other interactive formats).  This would help us achieve the goal of more interactive sessions without placing the onus of innovation on individual SIGs. 

I think developing sessions categories for which SIGs could submit session proposals is a good concept, but I wouldn't want to firmly commit to a set number of sessions per category, since it might eliminate a session in one category that is superior in content to the best session in another category. What I'm saying, in essence, is that we don't want to get so caught up in form that we forget about content.


-----Original Message-----
>From: Phillip M Edwards <pmedward at email.unc.edu>
>Sent: Sep 23, 2009 2:59 PM
>To: Sigcabinet at mail.asis.org
>Cc: Gary Marchionini <march at ils.unc.edu>, Pascal Calarco <pcalarco at nd.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Sigcabinet] ASIST Technical Sessions Reorganization
>
>
>I'm glad to see this discussion getting underway. I am all for the idea of
>having particular "types" of sessions for the Technical Sessions: a
>"traditional" panel type, a "workshop" type (like they are starting to do
>at 4S: http://www.4sonline.org/meeting.htm ), and a "demos" type might work
>well. If there are multiple types of Technical Sessions in the new
>structure, I think it's important to let the SIGs specify one or more
>acceptable format for their session, and the Program Committee can broker
>some of deals with SIGs' sessions which would be better as one type or
>another. I don't know if 6 and 6 and 6 is the "right" distribution, but
>doing *something* is worth a shot.
>
>I still wonder--I've wondered this for years, sometimes out loud--if there
>wouldn't be some benefit to having a Minute Madness session at the AM where
>all attendees can get some sense of which sessions might be most relevant
>to them.
>
>Just some thoughts... -Phil
>
>On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:28:08 -0400, KT Vaughan <ktlv at email.unc.edu> 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.
>_______________________________________________
>Sigcabinet mailing list
>Sigcabinet at mail.asis.org
>http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcabinet


S.Warwick
swarwick at sprynet.com