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