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

Thu May 30 11:38:54 PDT 2013

Mia,

I love the idea of substantially honoring the work serious reviewers do by
rewarding them at least with a solid line on their CV.

Could we have something like an AoIR Conference Editorial Committee, just
like we have an Ethics Committee? Where we could elect or appoint, say, six
folks (grad students would be great) who would be "point people" for
respective areas (say, identities and representation, communities and blah
blah, interface and blah blah ) who could take on the heavy lifting of
reviewing in their areas? Not instead of the blind reviews, but as a
overseer over processes and someone to turn to when a reviewer says, "I'm
really the wrong person to look at this.")

Then, on a CV, under professional affiliations, a grad student could say,
Association of Internet Researchers, Conference  Committee Editorial
Member--Race & Gender Area.

Or like that....

T

in areas where they have ?

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Mia Consalvo <consalvo at mit.edu> wrote:

> hi all,
>
> To weigh in on the template and reviewing:
>
> Template:
> 1. I am not a fan of templates generally, so having one at all is always a
> bit of trouble. I don't think it's really that hard to find author names on
> a paper or to have folks use different fonts or page widths.
> 2. The call this year said "Please note that your submissions must adhere
> to the template to be accepted". This is a bit off-putting, right off the
> bat. It immediately felt antagonistic, and made me feel that I was being
> judged first on how well I conformed to guidelines, and then only second on
> my ideas.
> 3. The template has guidelines for font choice, font size, an abstract (for
> an abstract!), headings, subheadings, charts, diagrams, references, images,
> and so on. Much of my time was spent deleting all of the stuff I didn't
> need to use. It also created an expectation in my mind (true or not) that
> this is what submissions are supposed to look like, that this is what they
> are supposed to include. I was trying to propose a roundtable and it didn't
> fit at all with the template. Somewhere else on the submission page (I
> forget where) I realized that roundtables didn't have to follow these
> guidelines, but I had already been put off by the formal structures. It
> wasn't about APA or MLA- it was the enforcement of a rigid structure that
> felt so anti-aoir.
>
> Reviewing: AoIR is not the only organization and/or conference to suffer
> from bad reviewing. The question is, if we are reviewing ourselves, why are
> we doing such a bad job at it? Are we overworked? Are we getting too many
> reviews? Are we having collective bad days? Are we being asked to review
> out of our depth? We really need to have a good discussion about this,
> because WE are the ones doing this to ourselves.
>
> Finally, I'd point out that reviewing scores me/us little or NO credits
> either in our university jobs, our daily life, or in general recognition
> other than a formal thank you somewhere in a program. I'm not suggesting
> reviewers be paid for their work, but maybe thinking about offering other
> kinds of recognitions (best review? best reviewer? top review mentors?)
> might help improve quality by encouraging us to spend more time on them.
>
> Mia
>
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Alexander Halavais <halavais at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > 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/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Mia Consalvo, Ph.D.
> Visiting Associate Professor
> Comparative Media Studies
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Building  14N-226
> Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
> USA
> consalvo at mit.edu
> 617.324.1868
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>

-- 
<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