The Scholarly Conference: Do We Want Democracy and Markets or Authority and Tradition?

Abstract

The main attributes of the American Political Science Annual (APSA) Research Conference, and other similar regional conferences, have not changed in decades. These structures and incentives are governed more by authority and tradition than by careful consideration of how best to create stimulating and engaging environments for teaching and learning. As a result, conventional conferences are neither as effective at promoting teaching and learning nor as enjoyable to the participants, as they might be. This article proposes an alternative, the Customized Conference, that uses democratic and market principles to create scholarly conferences that meet the preferences and needs of individuals while building stronger academic communities.

Keywords:

• conferences
• meetings
• teaching
• learning
• scholarship

Notes

By “conventional” conference, I mean the general political science conferences such as the American Political Science Association annual research conference and other regional conferences.

My experience is primarily with political science conferences, but other conferences in the social sciences and humanities appear to share the same formats. For other conference programs, see American Economics Association (AEA 2011), American Historical Association (AHA 2011), American Sociological Association (ASA 2010), Modern Language Association (MLA 2006), and others.

The APSA office does not have the APSR between 1966 and 1973, and the bound editions of the APSR do not contain the annual research program in the preceding years nor were they otherwise available at the APSA office.

The questionnaire as well as a list of the students collecting the data are available from the author on request. The graduate students were from the international relations, comparative, and American subfields, but political theory was not represented.

Observational data were also collected on the behaviors of the chairs, discussants, and audience. As not all questionnaires were entirely completed, information on some panels was incomplete.

One clear advantage of proposing papers well in advance is that it is a “deadline-forcing” experience imposing an implicit contract on the proposer. If my proposal is accepted, I must actually write the paper by a certain date. The contract lacks a strong enforcement mechanism; however, those who fail to meet it pay no penalty other than the notice of their peers.

I have been the SH for two conference, but I expect that my experience is fairly typical. For some similar reflections, see Eisinger (1999).

Eisinger (1999, 9) indicates that prepackaged panels had a higher acceptance rate than individual papers. The chair of the Comparative Democratization section has urged members to submit complete panel proposals to raise their prospects for acceptance (APSA 2005).

For example, at one panel, the first paper might not begin until 10 minutes after the scheduled starting time, and the presenter might speak for 20 minutes, so that the second paper is presented at 30 minutes after the starting time. At another panel, the first paper may begin on time and end expeditiously, so that the second paper begins 15 minutes after the starting time.

For the 29 panels for which the chair's performance was assessed, 10 chairs provided context, instructions, and introductions; 16 only gave some combination of instructions and introductions, and three offered only context or instructions or introductions.

Good chairs do provide good guidance. My experience has been that “little or no guidance” is far more common than “good guidance,” although I do not have data to support this claim.

Of the 26 APSA panels for which discussant data were reported, 12 discussants offered context and detailed comments, nine gave only comments on the papers, and five provided only synthetic comments.

Personal correspondence from the APSA office (2006).

Many participants are not there for the entire conference, so will attend a higher proportion of the panels for the time at which they are at the conference. Others, of course, attend multiple panels during a single panel session, so in principle they could attend more than 14 panels. Still, it is not unreasonable to think that, if attending panels was a high priority, participants would extend their stay at the conference.

These are only three of the many possible dimensions that might be used to evaluate paper proposals. For a discussion of the various dimensions considered by political scientists, see, for example, Almond (1988).

Of the 33 APSA panels assessed in 2008, the mean time for questions was 17 minutes.

To be sure, the participant typically can download a paper from a panel that cannot be attended, but this can be done even by those who do not attend the conference.

Of course even the best research can be improved, and the least well-developed research might benefit from broad distribution. For illustrative purposes, it might be worth comparing the newly published book with the newly drafted book prospectus. The former—already printed—cannot be further improved, at least not before another edition is issued. The prospectus, on the other hand, is in the best position to be revised.

The details here are less important than the concept and can be modified according to pragmatic concerns.

Alternately, the teaching presentations might last 30 minutes each, with 15 minutes for Q&A or comments, and then a 15-minute transition between presentations. In this case, nine teaching presentation times could be scheduled each day. Because these individual sessions are relatively brief, there would be no need to schedule a break for lunch, as attendees would never be further than about 30 minutes from a break.

In principle, the presenters could determine—based on their preferences—how much time they would be available to meet others. Some presenters might choose a brief period—say, one hour on a given day—while others might prefer to be available on several hours on each of several days.

The revenue raised from those who vote but do not attend the conference could be used for other purposes that benefit the organization's members.

The specific number could be determined by the length of the conference, the number of conference rooms available for presentations, and other logistical concerns.

Basing votes on the number of presentations might also have another benefit. I suspect that more junior scholars on average attend more presentations than more senior scholars; by giving these junior scholars proportionately more votes, conference programs might more closely match the preferences of those closer to the cutting edge of the field.

The full program would still be available online as well as in published programs (available for purchase or review at certain locations). Additional benefits of this would be lower printing costs, less environmental waste, and less time spent in manually searching the printed program. After the conference schedule is set, registrants could sign up to attend presentations they did not vote for, and these presentations could be added to their personalized programs.

Individuals could potentially “opt out” of having this information captured if they have privacy concerns, though, to the extent that research is a public activity, I would hope that these concerns could be minimized.

One anonymous reviewer suggested that conferences could also feature more “debates” between scholars. This idea is surely worth pursuing, as much research actually involves virtual debates with the author of the current paper “challenging” the research of a previous scholar. Debates could be proposed, and accepted, by the same protocols as the teaching presentations.

In raising this question, I follow the classical liberal assumption that scholars comprise a community of equals; no, not in talents, experience, or reputation, but in the individuals' fundamental abilities to determine what is in their best interest.

It might be argued that Section Heads can use their discretion to guide their subfields in some promising direction, but I think this unlikely given the practical constraints (e.g., time pressures and the “choosing from what you've got” conditions) facing the SHs.

The conditions necessary for pareto-optimal outcomes may not be completely met in the proposed conference format, but it is not clear that the conditions deviate unacceptably.

For example, a “vote” for a proposal from a tenured professor might count as one point, a vote for a junior professor 1.2 points, a vote for a graduate student as 1.4 points, and so forth.

The relevant model here could be college athletics, where schools compete against schools with similar characteristics and are ranked accordingly (e.g., NCAA Division I, Division II, etc.).

As Eisinger (1999, 9) noted, “most people in the profession, rightly or wrongly, [regard giving posters] as second or perhaps fourth prize.”