[Sigcabinet] ASIST Technical Sessions Reorganization

[Kevin Rioux]

Hi, all--

I agree with Shelley that research should remain the focus of the AM,  
and that the meeting planners need to better communicate what is  
needed to possible participants.  I think we've all been in the  
position of scratching our heads after reading and re-reading CFP's  
that are somewhat obscure.

But research doesn't have to be, well, boring, or positioned away from  
practice. I agree with Phil and KT that the "panel" format is a bit  
tired. I've heard from some ASIST members that they don't go to panels  
or workshops unless there is an opportunity to interact and chat with  
other attendees--which is why most of us attend ASIST. I think panels  
are useful for some topics, but unless the discussion has some  
controversy or liveliness, it just results in another talking head  
session.  I don't need to travel to another city for four people to  
give me a synopsis of their latest paper---I can read it myself.  We  
really need to address the "so what" factor for both practitioners and  
researchers.  It's a basic thing, but I think those of us who think  
very abstractly most of the time can forget this.

I'd welcome discussion on various techniques that research-based  
topics can be conveyed to groups of people in a more interesting way,  
and share these different format ideas with the SIGS.  I definitely  
think AM should be shorter and more (for lack of a better word)  
"targeted".

I think dividing the meeting by type may be something that the Society  
could try.  It may not work exactly as intended, or maybe it will.   
It's worth further discussion I think.

Just my .02.

Best,
rioux

+++
Kevin Rioux, PhD
St. John's University, New York
rioux.kevin at gmail.com





On Sep 27, 2009, at 10:08 AM, swarwick at sprynet.com wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Sigcabinet mailing list
> Sigcabinet at mail.asis.org
> http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcabinet