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

Thu May 30 11:58:33 PDT 2013

Thank you, Alex, for elaborating on this issue once again.

A few comments just on the conference, rather than the broader set of questions Terri initially raised.

I for one am OK with both the use of a template and the requirement to submit short papers, rather than only abstracts, for both individual papers and panel proposals. While the changes created extra work (and work is hard and annoying), I'm now glad that I have a nearly-finished short paper that will get published somewhere so people can read it, and like it or not, that will count as 'fully refereed paper in proceedings', which give me and my institutional those all-important brownie points. The roundtable and fishbowl formats left room for looser, more speculative or creative session formats.

I reviewed several submissions. From my perspective as a reviewer, the short paper (rather than abstract) format made it easier to review them, without adding the burden of reading thousands upon thousands of words--it's much easier to get the gist of a paper if it has a bit more room for substance rather than meta-narrative; and it made it easier to separate submissions in terms of quality. I agree we could have done with clearer guidelines (customized to the new submission requirements, which in turn need to be matched to the criteria provided in conf-tool), but I for one exercised my best judgement on the relevance, interestingness, and rigour of the papers, not their technical compliance with the template. I also tried to mark across the range where appropriate. Having said that, using multiple reviewers usually does result in multiple perspectives.

Cheers
Jean

On 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/