May 2013 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Re: [Air-L] Let's talk about AoIR.
by Nicole Ellison 31 May '13

31 May '13

Re: Ruth's comment that: "The internet is always changing and I worry that to fully take on board Nicole's suggestion of only submitting things that had 'findings' ..." I'd like to clarify that this is not what I said at all, nor do I think this should be the case. I'm actually pretty shocked that my note was interpreted this way. My comment was about the need for different kinds of presentation formats that support different kinds of work. For empirical ("straight") research, I think it makes sense to include "findings" when assessments about quality are being made. The perceived low-quality of the conference (and its subsequent implications for funding, tenure decisions, etc.) have been noted by others, and I think encouraging people to include their findings when submitting empirical work will go a long way towards addressing the problems others have noted with regard to cocktail-napkin-notes presentations or excellent abstracts/poor papers. ***I also think there should be separate formats for the other kinds of work that Terri and others have mentioned - be they roundtables, birds of a feather, performances, workshops, etc.*** I think the conference can support these different kinds of presentation modes. I agree that having clearer guidelines for authors and reviewers will help with the reviewing problems that have been noted, as would a larger reviewing pool. Thanks, Nicole -- Nicole B. Ellison Associate Professor School of Information University of Michigan

2 1

Let's talk about AoIR
by Baker, Andrea 31 May '13

31 May '13

Hi, everyone, I am out of town for a few days, and wanted to note just that I find this discussion fascinating. I hope we don't cut it off prematurely, but rather let the opinions flow freely. Clearly we are gathering a wide range of opinions on all sides, in response to this year's CFP and reviews, and the nature of AoIR, and its future direction. I hope to weigh in a little later on. cheers, andee

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Let's Talk About AoIR
by Deller, Ruth A 31 May '13

31 May '13

Wow, a few days away on annual leave and I come back to find AOIR asploding all over my inbox! Lots of things to digest here but my twopenn'orth on a few of them (apologies, these thoughts will be conference specific ones not ones pertaining to AOIR in general, although I might come back to that later) CONFERENCE TEMPLATES I'll hold my hands up, I really struggled with the format this year both to write and to review. I'm used to just submitting and reviewing conference abstracts of 250-500 words so a longer one - yet something too short to be a proper paper - was a bit of a shock to the system, and not only that, it had its own particular fonts and styles and layouts! I found that quite intimidating and unnecessarily formal and I wasn't sure of its purpose. As others have said, it was too short to be a paper, too long for an abstract and trying to decide exactly what got put into it was hard. When reviewing, it was problematic using the template because everyone had interpreted it in different ways, some giving mini papers, others extended abstracts, others something else entirely - I genuinely found it hard to judge and I do a lot of reviewing of abstracts and of papers - but this hybrid beast was new to me. Having seen Terri's comment about roundtables/panels, I fear I am possibly one of those guilty of confusing them in the reviewing process this year somehow - on last year's system it seemed much clearer whether things were papers, panels, fishbowls etc - although I was on the organising team last year and accessed everything via the back system so maybe it looked different for team members than for actual reviewers. I do worry that we might have lost some quality papers, panels and roundtables purely because of the formatting issues and people's difficulty in interpreting the brief both as authors and reviewers. CONFERENCE FEEL AND SO ON I think one of the things this issue with the templates highlights is the problems of interdisciplinarity - I am ALL FOR it and think one of our biggest strengths is that we can accommodate scholars from lots of disciplines and countries - but it does mean that, naturally, we all differ a lot in practice and in terms of what is considered 'prestigious' (unlike some people's experiences, my research centre actually thinks a lot of AOIR - probably not enough to fund me to go to Denver but that's just because they don't like spending money). Therefore, we're probably never going to agree on what the conference should be: a creative exchange where newer, innovative stuff can be shared, or a place for finished products. I'm not an either/or person, so I would always advocate the both/and way of thinking. Being on the conference team last year I did sometimes find we were restricted in what we could put on the programme and how we could structure plenaries, keynotes etc. I personally feel that we're researching at the cutting edge and the creative edge. The internet is always changing and I worry that to fully take on board Nicole's suggestion of only submitting things that had 'findings' would stifle that and lead to more dated things being presented rather than allowing us to be fresh - and I think one of our distinctive markers should be our ability to be up-to-date with developments in our research field. Academia moves ridiculously slowly, the internet maddeningly quickly - we can't let everything be dictated by the former when we're interested in the latter. That said, I also appreciate the concerns over 'rigour' needing to be part of the process. I wasn't convinced by the arguments that conferences aren't a place for sharing works-in-progress though - every conference I've ever been to (and they've all been interdisciplinary or in media, cultural studies and a bit of sociology and all in either the UK or USA so I acknowledge that different fields and countries will vary) has had a combination of new work, work-in-progress and work completed. I love that and I think it keeps things fresh as well as encouraging newer work, PhD students etc. I've heard terrible presentations on completed work and excellent ones on work-in-progress so I don't consider the stage the work is at to be a marker of quality at all. One option could be to have different streams - completed papers, work-in-progress, whatever. I'd love us to have more workshops or similar where we get to experiment with different internet platforms and technologies. I bet several people would love it if they could have an hour to learn about, and get to grips with, 4chan or Tumblr or Vine or whatever it may be. I would love much more creativity and innovation in the programme - more 'traditional' conference fare is fine, but only to a point. Conferences for me are much more about connection than anything else - I read articles and books if I want the finished, extensive product. I want conferences to inspire me and introduce me to exciting people. OTHER CONFERENCE STUFF Sarah mentioned the size of the conference (and the expense of it for many). I don't know if this is worth thinking about, but another organisation I was once part of used to have an annual conference of its members, who were from all over the world. It got difficult and expensive for many people to meet that way, so they moved to having conferences on each continent instead with a 'global gathering' every two or three years. So maybe we could look to alternate with a continental/national conference one year and a big global shindig the next? Or have more web/internet-based ways of sharing and connecting - if not streaming, then weeks/months where we actively work to share stuff via blogs or online repositories or YouTube or Twitter or whatever works best for what we want to share. Ruth

2 1

Let's talk about AoIR.
by Terri Senft 31 May '13

31 May '13

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

22 26

job in a cool spot with cool peeps
by qCentral 31 May '13

31 May '13

pretty interesting place (with Lucy Suchman, Adam Fish, and a number of other smart scholars across campus). > PLEASE CIRCULATE – APOLOGIES FOR CROSS-POSTINGS > __________________________________________ > > The Department of Sociology at Lancaster University seeks to appoint a Senior Lecturer with a specialism in the media industries. > > You are expected to be research active with high-level publications and significant research funding, and have excellent teaching abilities at both UG and PG levels, relevant administrative skills and the ability to take a leadership role. Candidates with experience of working in the media industries are particularly encouraged to apply. If appointed, you will develop new postgraduate and undergraduate modules on the media industries, and new collaborative teaching initiatives with other departments. Salary will be in the range £47,314 – £53,233. > > Lancaster Sociology is a research-oriented department with specialisms in science and technology studies, cultural political economy, mobilities, media and cultural studies, political sociology and gender and women’s studies. In the last UK Research Assessment Exercise the Department was placed in the top five group of UK departments. It was also recently placed 5th in the UK in the 2014 Complete University Guide, and in the top 40 sociology departments in the world in the 2013 QS World University Rankings. > > For more information on the post, including how to apply, go to: http://hr-jobs.lancs.ac.uk/Vacancy.aspx?ref=A722. > > The closing date for applications is Monday 24 June 2013; the interview date is to be confirmed. > > Informal enquiries are welcome and should be made to Dr Bronislaw Szerszynski, tel +44 (0)1524 592659, e-mail: bron(a)lancaster.ac.uk. > > The Department’s webpage is at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/. > > ______________________ Mary L. Gray Senior Researcher, Microsoft Research New England, Cambridge MA Associate Professor, Communication and Culture Adjunct Faculty, American Studies; Anthropology; Gender Studies Indiana University, Bloomington mLg at qcentral dot edu www dot maryLgray dot org @maryLgray

1 0

CFP - SIIE2013 - XV International Symposium on Computers in Education
by Ana Francisca Monteiro 31 May '13

31 May '13

XV International Symposium on Computers in Education Viseu, Portugal | 13 - 15 november 2013 siie13esev.ipv.pt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Overview ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The 15th edition of the International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE) will be held in Viseu, Portugal, from 13 to 15 November 2013. The International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE) is an international forum for presenting, discussing and reflecting on research, development and practices in the field of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in Education. The previous editions were held alternately between Spain and Portugal, providing a space for researchers, educators and institutional representatives to exchange and debate ideas. SIIE has become a reference, particularly in the Ibero-American context. The 15th edition of the International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE) will be held in Viseu, Portugal, from 13 to 15 November 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Topics ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The 15th edition of SIIE encourages the submission of original contributions in English (preferred), Spanish or Portuguese in various areas including, but not limited to, the following: - Design, development and evaluation of educational software - Interaction Design for education - Design and standardization of educational technologies, modelling languages and metadata - Data mining and Web mining for education - Semantic Web in education - Intelligent educational systems - Personal learning environments - Tools and Web-based educational resources - Games and simulations in education - Virtual laboratories - Ubiquitous/mobile computing and education - Robotics and education - Free/Open Software, Open Knowledge and Open Educational Resources - Technology, knowledge and skills management in education - Emerging technologies in education - Use and evaluation methodologies of ICT in educational contexts - Innovative experiences of ICT in Teaching / Learning - Social aspects of ICT in educational settings - Gender, cultural diversities and specific audiences - ICT applications for special education needs - Teacher education and ICT - Distance education - Social Web, collaborative systems and learning communities. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Formats ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Invited keynote speakers Paper presentation Posters ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Official Languages ---------------------------------------------------------------------- English (preferred) Portuguese Spanish ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper publication ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Accepted papers will be published in the Symposium Proceedings (CD-ROM with ISBN), which will be distributed to participants. Best papers presented at the Symposium will be selected, according to the Program Committee evaluation, for inclusion in other publications soon to be announced. The Organizing Committee is currently involved in negotiations to ensure the publication of papers in reference publications. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper submission ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All contributions must be sent as PDF (preferred), Doc, Docx or ODT and follow the official ACM Proceedings Format guidelines available at http://www.acm.org/sigs/pubs/proceed/template.html. Paper contributions will be limited to 6 pages and Posters contributions to 2 pages. All proposals must be anonymously submitted, the authors name and institution should not be included in the submitted file. These data should only be included in the submission form. Proposals will be submitted through https://www.easychair.org/account/signin.cgi?conf=siie13 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dates ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 15/06/2013 Submission ends 29/7/2013 Review results sent out 9/9/2013 Submission of final version of accepted proposals 1/10/2013 Deadline for registration of authors of accepted papers 13/11/2013 SIIE 2013 begins ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Registration ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For registrations paid until October 1, 2013 Registration fee: 150 € For registrations paid after October 1, 2013 Registration fee: 180 € ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Researchers Bursaries ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SIIE 2013 has decided to offer financial support for two emerging researchers from low GDP European countries to enable their participation. The bursary consists of free entry to the SIIE (and social events), a 300 € travel bursary and free accommodation (Students' Residence). The bursary is for PhD students and new researchers within one year of completing their PhD in order to allow them to participate in SIIE 2013 in Viseu.

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Let's Talk About AoIR (Michael Petit)
by Michael Petit 30 May '13

30 May '13

Hello Everyone, I can't speak to how the template affected the composition of proposals submitted, but I can attest to its effect on at least one of the reviewers, who wrote the following about mine: While each abstract has strong elements, they are each far shorter and less developed than the short papers using the required SPIR template. While the SPIR template was quite demanding, it was nevertheless a template that every other paper and panel Ive reviewed stuck to. [] While I feel something of a pedant reinforcing a template so at odds with the conference themes [of appropriation and resistance], to be fair to everyone who did use the template, these abstracts all need development. Reject. Based on past experience (this would have been my 7th AoIR), this panel would have been accepted, but apparently theoretically-engaged work from a humanistic perspective that follows the methodologies of the humanities is much less welcome on the basis of the SPIR template. (I'm also wondering why some proposals (such as mine) were assigned 4 reviewers while others had only 2, but perhaps this is a separate issue.) Fiona writes that she did not submit a proposal this year because she found the template foreign to the ways in which she conducts and reports her research. But she also writes that she'll be attending AoIR to discuss the issues this thread has raised. I would very much like to contribute to those discussions, but unfortunately, like many, I do not have institutional funding to attend without being on the program. I won't be there. I hope those who attend find the conference interesting. I felt I had developed an intellectual home at AoIR, but the algorithmic thinking that underpins the template and the way this conference is being organized has given me second thoughts. -- Michael Petit, PhD Director, Media Studies and the Joint Program in New Media Studies Department of Arts, Culture & Media University of Toronto Scarborough Toronto, ON M1C 1A4 416.287.7164

1 0

think of the audience
by Barry Wellman 30 May '13

30 May '13

We do need some sort of quality control, because too much open vagueness is more likely to lead to unthought-through papers than exciting innovative ones. A public presentation is not the place to get advice on a diss. proposal -- you can do that in private or set up birds of a feather roundtables. But it is unfair to subject an audience to such stuff. This has been a problem with AoIR since the first Kansas meeting and one reason I have cut back on my attendance. While I would kvell to hear anything Terri Senft had to say about anything. Alas, we are all not Terri. YMMV Barry Wellman _______________________________________________________________________ S.D. Clark Professor FRSC NetLab Director Faculty of Information (iSchool) 611 Bissell Building 140 St. George St. University of Toronto Toronto Canada M5S 3G6 http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman twitter: @barrywellman NETWORKED:The New Social Operating System. Lee Rainie & Barry Wellman MIT Press http://amzn.to/zXZg39 Print $22 Kindle $16 Old/NewCyberTimes http://bit.ly/c8N9V8 ________________________________________________________________________

1 0

conference discussion
by Nicole Ellison 30 May '13

30 May '13

Heya, I agree with Terri that there should be a space for the kinds of work she describes, but I also want to point out that for the kind of work that at least some of us do, it is quite difficult to adequately assess a paper that is based on proposed research that hasn't been conducted yet. If I'm reviewing a paper, I'd like to see findings and I'd like to see conclusions. If an author doesn't have them yet, maybe the paper should be submitted the following year. Since I know this is likely to be misunderstood, let me say it again: I think there should be a place for work in progress, performance, activist collaborations, etc. But there is also good, interesting, empirical work that can be written up in January and presented months later, and which can't really be assessed until this is done. For instance, suppose you propose an experiment and your manipulation doesn't work? I don't personally do experiments, but I'd like AOIR to be a place where this kind of work is welcome along with everything else. That was kind of the genesis for the organization in the first place, if I recall correctly. I think different formats for different kinds of work is the ticket here. Nicole

2 1

Re: [Air-L] Let's talk about AoIR
by Tamara Peyton 30 May '13

30 May '13

I've been a quiet yet active member of AOIR since 2003 and have watched it develop over that period. I, too, recently noticed a distinct influence of formalization and "scientification" of the conference, and have had more theoretical pieces rejected for the annual conference on a few occasions because they weren't "empirically grounded" (direct quote). I see this discussion as exemplifying the ongoing tensions within our Internet studies community. I "read" the template this year as signifying a shift to a more formal approach similar to ACM, a huge organization that is frequented, in part, by a lot of iSchool folks, and one could argue that iSchools have become one of the more prominent places for Internet Studies. So I actualy liked having the template, though I too puzzled over how to fit our panel paper (which yes it got rejected) into it, given we didn't have "findings" so much as general discussions of the impact of a phenomenon. Yet, because AOIR has typically been low profile in respect to iSchools and because AOIR hasn't annually produced printed proceedings, the AoIR community and organization has an inferior or even non-existent reputation in iSchools. As someone who has recently made the switch between sociology/media studies into the ACM /iSchool world, I can tell you that I cannot get any funding whatsoever to go to AoIR because it is seen as the least worthy of environments, mocked as one of those "lazy abstract-only playground venues" (direct quote from another uni's iSchool faculty). And this despite the fact that I know firsthand that AoIR is arguably THE best place to get a collection of top notch Internet Studies work seen and discussed! My point? The attempts to formalize and add more rigour to AoIR is something I think is a worthy cause. I get weary of self funding myself to go to the conference, only to see people slap-hazardly throwing together a presentation at the last minute based on a tiny abstract they wrote 9-12 months earlier. At the same time, as others have already more cogently pointed out, we have to be careful that our attempts to increase the quality of our community's output doesn't squeeze out the more experimental, last minute or provocative theory work, activist work, etc. How to do so is what we're apparently grappling with now. What could we do? Perhaps have university "ambassadors" for various venues that champion the association within areas typically neglectful of AOIR? Have specific meta-areas/meta-keywords that are standardized and self-selected by authors to papers so that the experimental, activist or theoretical papers get reviewed as a group and are reviewed only by like-minded reviewers who volunteer for those meta-areas? I do volunteer for reviews and I actually did 15 (!!) of them this year, with scores across the range depending on the internal merit of the piece as presented. To those who suggest we should do more and be more active, I have to say that I would love to but given the fact that my department will not support me in the attempt, I have had to sadly work towards conferences and venues with a higher "rep", in and outside of the ACM world (e.g. ASA and ICA annual confs). -- Tamara Peyton College of Information Sciences & Technology The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16802 tamara(a)psu.edu <typ5121(a)psu.edu> / http://about.me/tamarapeyton / @pstamara

1 0