Comments on: How Dare They Reject My Conference Proposal http://acrlog.org/2008/10/03/how-dare-they-reject-my-conference-proposal/ Blogging by and for academic and research librarians Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:17:25 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Barbara Fister http://acrlog.org/2008/10/03/how-dare-they-reject-my-conference-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-102923 Barbara Fister Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:14:18 +0000 http://acrlog.org/?p=1013#comment-102923 In the case of the 4Cs conference, without having done due diligence and only skimmed some of the posts, there is a philosophical difference being debated, and it's one that cuts to the heart of the discipline, no? What actually constitutes the direction our scholarship should be going? is a question that any scholarly conference, consciously or not, addresses by choosing which scholarship gets to take the stage. And by posting rejected proposals and comparing notes, people can arrive at some kind of answer in an alternative mode, especially in the absence of a shared understanding of how the decisions are made. I'm not sure at all that such a question guided the ACRL planners' decision-making - I suspect it was more along the lines of "how can we construct a program that addresses the questions people are interested in" and picking what they consider the best submissions to address t hose questions, rather than choosing presentations that match a particular direction scholarship should be taking - but in the absence of a shared understanding of how these decisions are made, sharing what didn't get accepted is one way to suss it out. The other piece of this puzzle is the political economy of promotion and tenure. I get more support from my institution to attend a conference if I present, because those who present give back more to the institution in terms of prestige. In turn, I need to present to have an impressive CV. In those terms, there's no payoff for attending a conference. If the main motivation of attending a conference is to present, then the ratio of presenters to audience gets skewed. ACRL (and, no doubt, 4Cs) loses some registrations from those who aren't accepted because there's no reward offered by the institution. Which really is another argument for rethinking the "let's all go to a city and stay in expensive hotels to hear people read papers at us" conference model. It will become increasingly unsustainable on so many counts. In the case of the 4Cs conference, without having done due diligence and only skimmed some of the posts, there is a philosophical difference being debated, and it’s one that cuts to the heart of the discipline, no? What actually constitutes the direction our scholarship should be going? is a question that any scholarly conference, consciously or not, addresses by choosing which scholarship gets to take the stage. And by posting rejected proposals and comparing notes, people can arrive at some kind of answer in an alternative mode, especially in the absence of a shared understanding of how the decisions are made.

I’m not sure at all that such a question guided the ACRL planners’ decision-making – I suspect it was more along the lines of “how can we construct a program that addresses the questions people are interested in” and picking what they consider the best submissions to address t hose questions, rather than choosing presentations that match a particular direction scholarship should be taking – but in the absence of a shared understanding of how these decisions are made, sharing what didn’t get accepted is one way to suss it out.

The other piece of this puzzle is the political economy of promotion and tenure. I get more support from my institution to attend a conference if I present, because those who present give back more to the institution in terms of prestige. In turn, I need to present to have an impressive CV. In those terms, there’s no payoff for attending a conference. If the main motivation of attending a conference is to present, then the ratio of presenters to audience gets skewed. ACRL (and, no doubt, 4Cs) loses some registrations from those who aren’t accepted because there’s no reward offered by the institution.

Which really is another argument for rethinking the “let’s all go to a city and stay in expensive hotels to hear people read papers at us” conference model. It will become increasingly unsustainable on so many counts.

]]> By: chris http://acrlog.org/2008/10/03/how-dare-they-reject-my-conference-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-102916 chris Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:23:28 +0000 http://acrlog.org/?p=1013#comment-102916 Yours is the first post I've read that offers an opposing view of the thread of rejection posts. There's a larger conversation with which you might not be familiar that will help you better understand our "whining." The short of it is this: the organization recognizes and has initiated public conversations about the need for more rigor. Conference proposals and paper presentations need to have higher standards. As well, the process is a bit opaque. Some of the folks who are doing their public complaining are actually, in my opinion, providing a service. E.g. until I read some of my colleagues publicly posted conference proposals I had never even read a conference proposal (other than my own). I had no basis of comparison. Also, the conversation, as you point out, has provided me with some insight on how the selection process works. Something about which I was equally ignorant. Scholarly work is often isolated enough. Is there no value in this conversation? Does the conversation not offer at least a sliver of insight into the process? Why should they/we have held our tongues on this matter? Yours is the first post I’ve read that offers an opposing view of the thread of rejection posts.

There’s a larger conversation with which you might not be familiar that will help you better understand our “whining.” The short of it is this: the organization recognizes and has initiated public conversations about the need for more rigor. Conference proposals and paper presentations need to have higher standards.

As well, the process is a bit opaque. Some of the folks who are doing their public complaining are actually, in my opinion, providing a service. E.g. until I read some of my colleagues publicly posted conference proposals I had never even read a conference proposal (other than my own). I had no basis of comparison. Also, the conversation, as you point out, has provided me with some insight on how the selection process works. Something about which I was equally ignorant.

Scholarly work is often isolated enough. Is there no value in this conversation? Does the conversation not offer at least a sliver of insight into the process? Why should they/we have held our tongues on this matter?

]]>