[Sigcabinet] ASIST Technical Sessions Reorganization

Mon Sep 28 12:35:53 EDT 2009

Hi all,

I will address this point briefly from the point of view of a 
practitioner who has organized panels at AM.

If ASIS&T wants to attract more attendees that traditionally go to SLA, 
ALA, NASIG, and Computers in Libraries conferences and the like, then it 
needs to make or leave room for sessions that deal with 'practical' issues.

Not all practical session may be suitable for ASIS&T. NASIG, 
specializing in practical serials-related topics, tiers its sessions 
into three different types: vision, strategy, tactics.

> • Vision sessions are offered at no-conflict times to allow all conference attendees to participate. These programs generally deal with the larger universe of ideas and issues that may influence the serials world.
> • Strategy sessions generally deal with broadly-based aspects of the serials world which affect publishers, vendors, service providers, and/or librarians. These sessions are 90 minutes; please allow 10 minutes for questions from the audience.
> • Tactics Sessions are designed to address day-to-day issues and generally deal with one or two practical aspects of the serials world. These sessions are 60 minutes; please allow 10 minutes for questions from the audience. 

I am sure that anyone at ASIS&T would feel comfortable with practical 
sessions fitting similar categories, or at least with those practical 
session that fall within the vision or strategy realms.

In fact, it would be interesting for ASIS&T to attract presenters with 
more ambitious practical sessions, whether they are willing to present 
them at AM alone or in addition to other conferences. Sending out emails 
to listservs of other library associations with the specific aim of 
attracting presenters with such practical sessions and advertising 
ASIS&T as being open to them could be an approach worthy of consideration.

Rafal
-------------------------------------------------------
Rafal Kasprowski                 Acquisitions Dept.
Electronic Resources Librarian   Fondren Library MS44
713-348-2621 (tel)               Rice University
713-348-5862 (fax)               6100 Main Street
rk11 at rice.edu                    Houston, TX 77005
-------------------------------------------------------

On 9/27/2009 9:47 AM, Kevin Rioux wrote:
> 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.