- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

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

Travel grants (was: Let's talk about AoIR)
by Alexander Halavais 30 May '13

30 May '13

Hello, Eduardo: There is a small travel grant available, which will not cover travel from most places but may help. And those applying from Asia, Africa, and South America are particularly targeted. More information here: http://aoir.org/ir14-0-travel-grant-applications/ A list of our keynote and plenaries may be found here: http://ir14.aoir.org/speakers/ Hope to see you in Denver. Best, Alex On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:09 AM, eduardo erazo acosta <rueduardo2000(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Good Day, > > I researcher in education and Internet in Colombia > > Can anyone tell me if there are scholarships for travel? > > and power particuipar speaker at the conference this year?? > > THANKS ¡¡ > > ::::::::::::::::: > > >> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 11:00:22 -0700 >> From: halavais(a)gmail.com >> To: jhunsinger(a)wlu.ca >> CC: >> Subject: Re: [Air-L] Let's talk about AoIR. >> >> 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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.)

1 0

Voting Open & A Question for Candidates
by Alexander Halavais 30 May '13

30 May '13

Dear AoIR Members (and members of the broader community), Just a reminder that AoIR elections are now open, and will be until the end of the month. I want to encourage all members to vote. There are lots of ways to help contribute to and shape the future of an organization like ours, and electing an executive committee that represents your interests is one of these. I have not yet voted and I'm hoping the candidates can answer a question for me. (And I hope others will ask questions as well, despite the looming deadline!) I've looked over your candidate statements (linked here: http://aoir.org/2013-executive-committee-election-candidate-statements-voti… ) and I recognize and agree with the need to increase connections among members outside of the conference setting--something that several of you noted. That said, I wonder what single, concrete change you would most like to see in the conferences themselves, and how you might suggest bringing that about. What would you like to see in, say, Bangkok for 2014 that we haven't seen in previous conferences? (If anything!) And what can you do to help make that happen? Thank you all for running, and I look forward to your responses. Best, Alex -- -- // // This email is // [x] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] 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.)

9 13

aoir
by Hillis, Ken 30 May '13

30 May '13

Thanks Terri, Feona and others who are raising this very important issue. I, for one, am seriously wondering, after reading the reviews from two panels I agreed to moderate, what AoIR is now about. One panel was accepted and was was rejected, yet both used the now 'discredited' and 'outmoded' format of submission used in previous years, in part because organizers strongly indicated after a flurry of concerned emails many months back that no proposal would be discriminated against if it used the old fomat. Yet this is precisely what did happen--one panel was accepted (with 2 reviews) and the other rejected (with 4 reviews, two of which were glowing and two of which picked the proposal apart on the basis of not conforming to the new format--even as one of them overtly stated her/his discomfort in doing so given the overall conference thematic of resistance/appropriation. I am a humanities scholar who happens to very much respect social science approaches--this is an issue that we, as a department of communication studies (I'm incoming Chair) have been grappling with now for more than two years and we're very much focused on ways that humanities and social science approaches can complement one another. I thought AoIR was about this as well, or at least it seems that it used to be organized along those lines. But, something has changed and proposals that feature 'theory' now run the risk of rejection on the basis of 'poorly conceived' methods, inadequate description of the entire project (that one is working on proposing almost a full year in advance of presenting) and so forth . . . Perhaps enough for now. I *almost never* post a personal type of email to this list. But I am saddened and, yes, even angered, even as I know it's an all volunteer project. Yet it really felt like it was the algorithm making the decisions this time round . . . Ken Ken Hillis Department Chair and Professor of Media and Technology Studies Department of Communication Studies The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3285 USA

2 1

AoIR & IR14 Deadline Roundup
by Alexander Halavais 30 May '13

30 May '13

Please mark your calendars with the following deadlines, as relevant: May 31 (Tomorrow!): IR14.0 Doctoral Colloquium application due: http://ir14.aoir.org/doctoral-colloquium/ June 1: AoIR Executive Committee voting complete AT NOON ETD: http://aoir.org/2013-executive-committee-election-candidate-statements-voti… June 15: Deadline for "Representing personal history, ability, and reputation online" pre-conference application: http://ir14.aoir.org/preconference-workshop-representing-personal-history-a… July 1: Final copy of paper must be uploaded to ConfTool for inclusion in SPIR: http://conftool.com/aoir-ir14/ July 15: IR14.0 Travel Grant applications due: http://aoir.org/ir14-0-travel-grant-applications/ August 1: Earlybird and presenters' deadline for registration. Note that presenters *must* be registered by this date or their presentation will be removed from the program: http://bit.ly/ir14-register August 1: Deadline for Ignite-IR proposals: http://bit.ly/ignite-ir14 August 1: Preconference abstract deadline (for preconferences requiring abstracts): http://ir14.aoir.org/preconference-workshops/ August 20: Preliminary conference schedule available: http://ir14.aoir.org October 23-26: IR14.0 Conference in Denver: http://ir14.aoir.org October 27-28:: #aoircamp: http://ir14.aoir.org/preconference-workshops/ Finally, I encourage you to reserve your room at the Westin as soon as possible. October is a busy conference month for a busy conference town, but more importantly, we have to make our hotel quota or it results in a substantial cost to the Association and its members.Thank you! Best, Alex

1 0

Final Call: May 31 deadline for submissions to the doctoral colloquium
by Annette Markham 30 May '13

30 May '13

A reminder that if you (or someone you know) is interested in applying for the doctoral colloquium at this year's AOIR conference, the May 31 deadline is approaching. Here's the call: http://ir14.aoir.org/doctoral-colloquium/ If anyone has questions, please feel free to contact me directly, annette ***************************************************** Annette N. Markham, Ph.D. Guest Professor, Department of Informatics, Umeå University, Sweden Affiliate Professor, School of Communication, Loyola University, Chicago amarkham(a)gmail.com http://markham.internetinquiry.org/ Twitter: annettemarkham

1 0

IR 14 Question
by Ted Coopman 30 May '13

30 May '13

All, Has anyone received acceptance/rejection of a panel or roundtable submission? My stand alone paper result came in (out-of-luck) but nothing yet on the roundtable we pitched. -TED -- Ted M. Coopman Ph.D. Lecturer Department of Communication Studies San Jose State University http://www.sjsu.edu/people/ted.coopman/

4 3