[Air-L] Let's talk about AoIR.

Thu May 30 11:00:22 PDT 2013

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.)