[Air-L] Voting Open & A Question for Candidates

[Annette Markham]

Hi All,

I really appreciate the ongoing conversation among the candidates, and I
think Terri has just added another stack of interesting questions to the
mix. I figured I better jump in before the conversations get too entangled.

Tagging onto Daren's comments about the importance of informal structures,
I'll add that I believe there's an important and natural difference between
the official organizational structure and the informal organizational
culture.  While they're not unrelated or separate, I find it useful to make
a distinction so that we can think about what we can do as members in
addition to (versus) what we ask the Exec Committee to do for us as
administrators/leaders.  If we want the organization to grow in a certain
way, we all have the opportunity to volunteer to help shape or shift it.  I
personally prefer the loose structure that AOIR has tried to maintain,
which allows for a more organic evolution of the organizational culture.
Build too much formality, and "good ideas for the moment" can, over time,
become boxes we'll struggle to think outside of.

I think AOIR has always been open to creative modes of interaction and
efforts to socialize new members.  I have never found the Executive
Committee resistant to a good idea.  It seems the system is working pretty
well.  The events at conferences have shifted quite a lot over the past ten
years.  This year, too.  Based on creative input from members, we're doing
at least two things differently at this year's conference that I think move
us in the direction that many of the candidates have been talking about in
terms of Alex's question.

1) The doctoral colloquium: This year (based on some feedback we've gotten
in the past couple of years), I'm planning it somewhat differently:  In
addition to organizing participants in small groups to discuss their
research projects, we'll also have much more time for informal discussion
between students and the mentors of their choice. This way, students who
really wanted to talk with particular senior scholars could have that
opportunity built into the structure of the day.  I anticipate it will feel
a bit like speed dating.....  (incidentally, I believe something like this
was done previously, some years ago.  Mentors were stationary while
students moved around to talk with whomever they chose. Maybe someone who
was in attendance could fill in some of the details of that event)

The other thing we'll do somewhat differently this year is to connect
former with current participants at a small reception at the end of the
colloquium where we'll invite previous colloquium mentors and participants
to meet and chat with the current group.  This may not achieve the outcomes
of a more formalized socialization into the organization, but it's
certainly intended to add another informal event to the conference that
might bring new members into the fold and help connect newer scholars with
others in the organization.

What I like about the doctoral colloquium is that it can be organized
differently each year, depending on who organizes it, the region in which
we're holding the conference (which attracts different participants), and
so forth. This means it can be adjusted over time without fear of breaking
some rule or norm. I appreciate this flexibility and this year will be yet
another learning experience to see what seems to work and what doesn't.

2) The new post-conference event called #AOIRcamp: This idea was inspired
by Terri's plenary talk at last year's AOIR conference, where she
encouraged more expressive forms of writing, more risk taking, etc.  The
actual plan emerged from various conversations among David Phillips, Terri
Senft, Kelly Quinn, Valerie Fazel, Meghan Dougherty, and myself.  We want
to create a space after the conference where people can brainstorm or
network project ideas emerging from their conference experience,
participate in writing workshops if desired, get some serious writing
accomplished, or simply have some quiet time to gather their
post-conference thoughts and write.  All this in the beauty of the Rocky
Mountains, with the opportunity for socializing, hiking, and soaking in
natural hot springs.

Basically, after the conference ends, whoever registers for #AOIRcamp will
be transported a nearby national park and stay another two nights in park
housing.  More details will be forthcoming at
http://ir14.aoir.org/preconference-workshops/ (and i should note that
people will need to pay for their own lodging/food, since this is not a
sponsored event). I mention #AOIRcamp here because it's a direct effort to
accomplish what many of us are talking about: building the impetus for
meeting outside the AOIR conference, creating opportunities for creative,
out-of-the-box experiences, and strengthening the AOIR infrastructure to
support this sort of activity.

So...I guess, in answer to Alex's original question, where he asks what
concrete thing we'd change and how, then, I'd say these are two concrete
things I'm helping to change.  As for how it happens, I think it involves
many conversations, brainstorming, planning, listening, and being willing
to help do the work of organizing, pitching it, and whatever else it takes
to make it happen.

*****************************************************
Annette N. Markham, Ph.D.
Guest Professor, Department of Informatics, Umeå University, Sweden
Affiliate Professor, School of Communication, Loyola University, Chicago
amarkham at gmail.com
http://markham.internetinquiry.org/
Twitter: annettemarkham


On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Brabham, Daren C
<dbrabham at email.unc.edu>wrote:

> Not sure if Alex meant for candidates for open seats to respond to his
> questions, too, or if it was just for the VP candidates...but here it
> goes...
>
> I think the conferences work well as-is, really. The only parts that need
> improvement, perhaps, is that some panels struggle to sustain a coherent
> theme (i.e., a video game theory panel might have a paper or two that
> really are about video game theories, but the other couple of papers are
> about other things/theories and use an analysis of a video game to make
> their point). It is extremely difficult to somehow group ad hoc papers
> together into coherent panels, though, so I'm sure previous program
> planners have truly done their best. I don't have an answer for how to make
> this kind of thing better, except maybe to encourage whole thematic panels
> more...or to consider poster sessions or lightning talk formats for some of
> the ill-fitting ad hoc papers...or to maybe just call all of the ad hoc
> panels potpourri panels and just include more papers on each of them (5 or
> 6 per panel?).
>
> We are all Internet scholars, and we are all able to find full papers
> later (SSRN, emailing presenters personally, or whatever). The value for
> this conference, for me, is exposure to many ideas in short formats, and
> then good discussion that follows.
>
> The other value of the conference is the social hour. Informal cocktail
> time with colleagues is the best way to find mentors, extend scholarly
> conversation, and find allies in the field. I would actually oppose any
> more efforts to add new grad student mentoring programming to the
> conference. We have the doctoral colloquium, which is great. But really
> beyond that there need to be more mixers, more trading of business cards,
> more informal conversations between grad students and senior scholars. I
> know I would probably not want to be assigned a grad student to mentor
> throughout the year, but I would welcome any opportunity to have a beer
> with a grad student interested in the things I'm interested in. So, on the
> "mentoring grad students" front, I disagree with Jeremy and would like to
> see a less formal, more frequent social interaction across ranks than new
> panels and programs. That's really how the academy works, and the sooner
> the formal boundaries between ranks come down (and
>  I think formal mentoring arrangements inherently keep these boundaries
> up), the better for grad students.
>
> db
>
> ---
> Daren C. Brabham, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor, School of Journalism & Mass Communication
> Editor, Case Studies in Strategic Communication | www.csscjournal.org
> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
> Carroll Hall, CB 3365
> Chapel Hill, NC 27599
> (801) 633-4796 (mobile)
> daren.brabham at unc.edu | www.darenbrabham.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>