[Air-L] Travel grants (was: Let's talk about AoIR)

Thu May 30 11:16:54 PDT 2013

Hello, Eduardo:

There is a small travel grant available, which will not cover travel
from most places but may help. And those applying from Asia, Africa,
and South America are particularly targeted. More information here:
http://aoir.org/ir14-0-travel-grant-applications/

A list of our keynote and plenaries may be found here:
http://ir14.aoir.org/speakers/

Hope to see you in Denver.

Best,

Alex

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:09 AM, eduardo erazo acosta
<rueduardo2000 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Good Day,
>
> I researcher in education and Internet in Colombia
>
> Can anyone tell me if there are scholarships for travel?
>
> and power particuipar speaker at the conference this year??
>
> THANKS ¡¡
>
> :::::::::::::::::
>
>
>> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 11:00:22 -0700
>> From: halavais at gmail.com
>> To: jhunsinger at wlu.ca
>> CC:
>> Subject: Re: [Air-L] Let's talk about AoIR.
>>
>> OK, so I want to separate the word-count issue from the template
>> issue, because they are divisible and too easily conflated.
>>
>> TEMPLATE
>>
>> On the template issue: we've been through this once before, but the
>> reason the template exists is to give some structure for proceedings.
>> I made the argument--and have made the argument since I ran for
>> VP--that I wanted what goes on at AoIR to reach a wider audience, and
>> to spread beyond those who can attend the conference each year. Many
>> of you running for Exec have expressed a similar interest, and have
>> proposed various mechanisms for accomplishing this. For me, getting
>> our work out in some form so that it was findable on the web was
>> important.
>>
>> The template exists because to be able to find and use stuff in a
>> collection, it is easier if there is some structural similarity--you
>> know where to find the title, the author, etc. There is nothing, at
>> least to my mind, that says "hard science" in that. Yes, there was a
>> format for subtitles (in case it's not obvious from this email, I
>> quite like subtitles), and tables, etc., but none of this required
>> their use.
>>
>> Maybe the issue is APA for the citation style? I frankly couldn't care
>> less about citation styles, and didn't pick it. This seemed to be the
>> most common style used in most previous IR conferences, but that
>> doesn't mean it should predominate. I don't see why it can't be "use
>> whatever you want as long as it is findable"--APA was arbitrary.
>> Perhaps that is what signals "hard science"? Would, by contrast, MLA
>> or Chicago then signal "Humanities"?
>>
>> I think there is value in getting our work out there. I think asking
>> people to share what they do at AoIR is valuable. I suspect that a
>> number of others do too. But I think there should also be options for
>> not sharing. It may be (with deep apologies to Suely and Andrew, who
>> have invested a lot of time and effort here) that SPIR just isn't
>> worthy of ongoing support.
>>
>> WORD COUNT
>>
>> On the word count issue: One of the reason I've separated these is
>> that I've heard largely support for the longer limits, with a few
>> grumblings about 1,200 being too short. We've had a number of
>> restrictions in the past, ranging from 250 to 1000. What I've heard
>> consistently during my 8 years on Exec is people saying that it's hard
>> to judge work based on two or three paragraphs alone, and that this
>> results a bad refereeing process. I think the 500 word limit favors
>> those who can write good abstracts. I count myself in that number--my
>> longer work may not be that great, but I write an awesome 500 word
>> abstract. That said, there were no such limits on roundtables, and
>> some of the proposals were quite short.
>>
>> We have allowed full papers for the last couple (three?) years, but
>> the number of papers submitted was vanishingly small, and a
>> nine-thousand word paper requires a disproportionate amount of
>> reviewer time.
>>
>> REVIEWING
>>
>> Finally, on the issue of reviews, I want to thank those who
>> volunteered to review this year. I'll note that many of you did not,
>> meaning that (a) your expertise was missing when it came to assign
>> reviews and (b) the reviewers who were assigned often had more reviews
>> than we have assigned in the past. I agree we need to provide better
>> guidance to reviewers, and some of you (reviewers and authors) will
>> hear from me soon about helping shape that process. But the first step
>> is to be willing to put time into reviewing.
>>
>> I just want to be very clear that there was a range of excellent
>> reviewing and reviewing that could have been much better, from a range
>> of early-career scholars and more experienced reviewers. Regardless of
>> this, I think our reviewers deserve a significant amount of praise and
>> respect for volunteering to review.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Jeremy hunsinger <jhunsinger at wlu.ca>
>> wrote:
>> > I think the problem in part is that it was a template that said it was
>> > for a
>> > paper, and not a template that said it was for a proposal or abstract.
>> > This combined with the required length, added considerably to the lack
>> > of
>> > clarity. I think we need to go back to the 'those that need to submit
>> > full
>> > papers for them to count, can submit full papers' but those papers are
>> > not
>> > automatically submitted for publication, and the other track should be a
>> > simple 500 word abstract, or longer panel abstract. the clarity of the
>> > two
>> > track system was again slightly problematic, but it was inclusive in
>> > ways
>> > that this system is not
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Alexander Halavais <halavais at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It would be helpful, at least to me, if folks could be more explicit
>> >> about *what* they objected to in the template. There were no content
>> >> restrictions. Yes, there were spaces for citations, subtitles, and for
>> >> a title, but if these were omitted, they were omitted.
>> >>
>> >> I am well aware of the power of defaults, but I'm missing what it was
>> >> about this particular template that makes it difficult. (Yes, I've
>> >> heard from folks that the word-count was restrictive, but that isn't
>> >> directly a template issue.)
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >>
>> >> Alex
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Feona Attwood <f.attwood at mdx.ac.uk>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Thanks for bringing this up Terri. I know lots of people have had
>> >> > similar feelings and feel awkward about how to express it.
>> >> >
>> >> > My feeling is that the new format for submitting proposals seems to
>> >> > signal a real shift in style. I haven't come across anything like
>> >> > that
>> >> > before, not even for really dull conferences and I didn't put a
>> >> > proposal in
>> >> > this year because I couldn't work out a way to fit what I do into
>> >> > that kind
>> >> > of format. It seems designed to filter out anything imaginative,
>> >> > innovative, speculative or original. The papers I reviewed in that
>> >> > format
>> >> > were really difficult to read; the format had squashed all the life
>> >> > out of
>> >> > them. I had felt very enthused after last year's conference which
>> >> > seemed
>> >> > very lively and friendly - and then really deflated by the submission
>> >> > process this year. I'm hoping it was an experiment that won't be
>> >> > continued.
>> >> > I'm still planning to attend this year but I can't imagine submitting
>> >> > anything again if this is the new direction AoIR is taking.
>> >> > Feona
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 30 May 2013, at 15:27, Terri Senft wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi Pals,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> With the encouragement of Andrew and Alex, I wanted to approach the
>> >> >> list
>> >> >> regarding some questions I have about culture of the Association of
>> >> >> Internet Researchers today.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm asking because after this round of conference proposal reviews,
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> feel
>> >> >> personally and professionally a bit disconnected from this group
>> >> >> these
>> >> >> days. This freaks me out a bit, because I've always thought of AoIR
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> my
>> >> >> intellectual home. I am wondering if this is just me (which would be
>> >> >> fine!), or if others are in struggle as well.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Some Big Questions I Have:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1. Who are we, personally and professionally? What makes us the same
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> organizations like ICA or ACM? What makes us different from these
>> >> >> organizations?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2. How do we perform our identity at our annual conference? How is
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> reflected in the way we phrase our calls for submissions? How is it
>> >> >> reflected in submission procedures?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 3. How do we want to define "rigorous scholarship" in our
>> >> >> organization?
>> >> >> How
>> >> >> do we want to deal with scholarship that strikes us as urgent,
>> >> >> necessary or
>> >> >> fresh, but not sufficiently rigorous?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 4. Is there even an "us" anymore? Can positivists, activists, and
>> >> >> artists
>> >> >> really sit in the same room and discuss 'internet studies'? My
>> >> >> answer
>> >> >> used
>> >> >> to be affirmative, but that was before internet studies was as
>> >> >> ubiquitous
>> >> >> as literature studies.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 5. Should the desire for a conference that showcases
>> >> >> professionalization
>> >> >> trump a desire for a conference that encourages its youngest
>> >> >> scholars
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> its most senior ones to take risks, make mistakes and push the
>> >> >> boundaries
>> >> >> of the field?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Okay, that's plenty to start. As they say in AA, take what you want
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> leave the rest.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Fondly,
>> >> >> T
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> <http://goog_689013053>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <http://goog_689013053>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dr. Theresa M. Senft
>> >> >> Global Liberal Studies Program
>> >> >> School of Arts & Sciences
>> >> >> New York University
>> >> >> 726 Broadway NY NY 10003
>> >> >>
>> >> >> home: *www.terrisenft.net <http://goog_689013053>**
>> >> >> *(needs a serious updating)
>> >> >> facebook: www.facebook.com/theresa.senft
>> >> >> twitter: @terrisenft
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>> >> >> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers
>> >> >> http://aoir.org
>> >> >> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
>> >> >> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>> >> >> http://www.aoir.org/
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Please note that Middlesex University's preferred way of receiving
>> >> > all
>> >> > correspondence is via email in line with our Environmental Policy.
>> >> > All
>> >> > incoming post to Middlesex University is opened and scanned by our
>> >> > digital
>> >> > document handler, CDS, and then emailed to the recipient.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you do not want your correspondence to Middlesex University
>> >> > processed
>> >> > in this way please email the recipient directly. Parcels, couriered
>> >> > items
>> >> > and recorded delivery items will not be opened or scanned by CDS.
>> >> > There are
>> >> > items which are "exceptions" which will be opened by CDS but will not
>> >> > be
>> >> > scanned a full list of these can be obtained by contacting the
>> >> > University.
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>> >> > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers
>> >> > http://aoir.org
>> >> > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
>> >> > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>> >> >
>> >> > Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>> >> > http://www.aoir.org/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> --
>> >> //
>> >> // This email is
>> >> // [ ] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded.
>> >> // [x] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing.
>> >> //
>> >> // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur
>> >> // http://alex.halavais.net
>> >> //
>> >> // Please attribute any stupid errors above to autocorrect on my phone.
>> >> // (But I probably was typing on a keyboard.)
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>> >> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
>> >> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
>> >> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>> >>
>> >> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>> >> http://www.aoir.org/
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> //
>> // This email is
>> // [ ] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded.
>> // [x] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing.
>> //
>> // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur
>> // http://alex.halavais.net
>> //
>> // Please attribute any stupid errors above to autocorrect on my phone.
>> // (But I probably was typing on a keyboard.)
>> _______________________________________________
>> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
>> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
>> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>>
>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>> http://www.aoir.org/

--
--
//
// This email is
// [ ] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded.
// [x] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing.
//
// Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur
// http://alex.halavais.net
//
// Please attribute any stupid errors above to autocorrect on my phone.
// (But I probably was typing on a keyboard.)