ALA Members

My proposals for D.C. 2019 were not accepted this year. That's ok; I've presented before and I will again. At least, I think I will. I'd like to talk about the process itself and request one transformative change. I had the same frustrations with the process last year, and this year, it's time to say something about it.

Before I propose a conference topic, I ask myself some basic questions: is this relevant to anybody besides me? Is it worth knowing? Is it replicable? (I personally stopped attending presentations where an IMLF Grant and a team of programmers are required to make it work a long time ago). Does it seem interesting?

I then begin the submission process and here let me say I understand it must be incredibly challenging to solicit proposals at a national level. There appears to be a complex routing process worked into the form. Undoubtedly this was created to help out the volunteers who make up the committees. But here's what it looks like on the other end when you're trying to submit.

Who should attend? I always choose almost everyone because I select fairly wide topics. Should I be more selective in determining groups? Does it really matter, since attendees will search through their programs and attend whatever they want anyway?  At least, I hope they will. I'm an interdisciplinary humanities person to the core. I don't like to see any topic put into a box, nor do I like to be put into one.

Instead of requiring that all proposals state how they embrace inclusivity, equality, and diversity, how about stating that proposals which specifically address the following topics or groups will be given special consideration because you want to be sure that X% of the conference talks about whatever is currently deemed to be underrepresented topics? I fully support that. Although you can argue that the reverse of this would be to corral these issues, thereby designating them as "other" instead of integrating them. I'm sure others will be more lucid than I and will have valuable suggestions on this point.

ALA Strategic Direction (How does this support ALA goals)?  SIGH. At this point, I have multiple browser windows open, and I'm searching through ALA pages like a freshman with a paper due in the morning. I guess my goal here is to prove that I've recently visited the strategic goals?  For many years, I have honed the academic skill of unleashing a lyrical flow of utter B.S. when required, and here, too, I try, but frankly, I can't imagine my efforts here are giving those volunteer committee members anything beyond an eye roll and a headache.  

At last, here's the request for transformative change: I have been teaching on and off for 30 years, and the one thing that helps people progress is feedback. A team of reviewers took the time to read every conference submission. They had a rubric, made an evaluation, and then did not pass on that information to the one person who could benefit: the author. For accepted proposals, this could be a line or two, but for those not accepted, this is a classic teachable moment. What was lacking here, underdeveloped, banal, off the mark, etc.? If you want conference topics to be strong, help out those who are willing to present. I think I can hear in the far distance someone saying, "Should we offer an ALA online class on how to write successful conference proposals?" You could, but this is overkill. Look at it very simply: you wrote a paper for my class. I gave you a B- or worse. Wouldn't you like to know why, in my own words, I gave you this grade? Would you not be interested in reading the comments written on it? Peer-reviewers (who would still remain anonymous), wouldn't you like to know the effort you put into reviewing these was passed on and might result in better proposals next year?  I think closing this circle is a win for everyone.

Let me conclude with two good things: to everyone presenting at D.C., you will be awesome and undoubtedly you will make us all proud. And to Alicia Avarro, who I don't know, I am impressed every year to see you've survived another round of this process.

Thanks to all who make the conference happen and thanks for reading,

Wendy

My proposals for D.C. 2019 were not accepted this year. That's ok; I've presented before and I will again. At least, I think I will. I'd like to talk about the process itself and request one transformative change. I had the same frustrations with the process last year, and this year, it's time to say something about it.

Before I propose a conference topic, I ask myself some basic questions: is this relevant to anybody besides me? Is it worth knowing? Is it replicable? (I personally stopped attending presentations where an IMLF Grant and a team of programmers are required to make it work a long time ago). Does it seem interesting?

I then begin the submission process and here let me say I understand it must be incredibly challenging to solicit proposals at a national level. There appears to be a complex routing process worked into the form. Undoubtedly this was created to help out the volunteers who make up the committees. But here's what it looks like on the other end when you're trying to submit.

Who should attend? I always choose almost everyone because I select fairly wide topics. Should I be more selective in determining groups? Does it really matter, since attendees will search through their programs and attend whatever they want anyway?  At least, I hope they will. I'm an interdisciplinary humanities person to the core. I don't like to see any topic put into a box, nor do I like to be put into one.

Instead of requiring that all proposals state how they embrace inclusivity, equality, and diversity, how about stating that proposals which specifically address the following topics or groups will be given special consideration because you want to be sure that X% of the conference talks about whatever is currently deemed to be underrepresented topics? I fully support that. Although you can argue that the reverse of this would be to corral these issues, thereby designating them as "other" instead of integrating them. I'm sure others will be more lucid than I and will have valuable suggestions on this point.

ALA Strategic Direction (How does this support ALA goals)?  SIGH. At this point, I have multiple browser windows open, and I'm searching through ALA pages like a freshman with a paper due in the morning. I guess my goal here is to prove that I've recently visited the strategic goals?  For many years, I have honed the academic skill of unleashing a lyrical flow of utter B.S. when required, and here, too, I try, but frankly, I can't imagine my efforts here are giving those volunteer committee members anything beyond an eye roll and a headache.  

At last, here's the request for transformative change: I have been teaching on and off for 30 years, and the one thing that helps people progress is feedback. A team of reviewers took the time to read every conference submission. They had a rubric, made an evaluation, and then did not pass on that information to the one person who could benefit: the author. For accepted proposals, this could be a line or two, but for those not accepted, this is a classic teachable moment. What was lacking here, underdeveloped, banal, off the mark, etc.? If you want conference topics to be strong, help out those who are willing to present. I think I can hear in the far distance someone saying, "Should we offer an ALA online class on how to write successful conference proposals?" You could, but this is overkill. Look at it very simply: you wrote a paper for my class. I gave you a B- or worse. Wouldn't you like to know why, in my own words, I gave you this grade? Would you not be interested in reading the comments written on it? Peer-reviewers (who would still remain anonymous), wouldn't you like to know the effort you put into reviewing these was passed on and might result in better proposals next year?  I think closing this circle is a win for everyone.

Let me conclude with two good things: to everyone presenting at D.C., you will be awesome and undoubtedly you will make us all proud. And to Alicia Avarro, who I don't know, I am impressed every year to see you've survived another round of this process.

Thanks to all who make the conference happen and thanks for reading,

Wendy

My proposals for D.C. 2019 were not accepted this year. That's ok; I've presented before and I will again. At least, I think I will. I'd like to talk about the process itself and request one transformative change. I had the same frustrations with the process last year, and this year, it's time to say something about it.

Before I propose a conference topic, I ask myself some basic questions: is this relevant to anybody besides me? Is it worth knowing? Is it replicable? (I personally stopped attending presentations where an IMLF Grant and a team of programmers are required to make it work a long time ago). Does it seem interesting?

I then begin the submission process and here let me say I understand it must be incredibly challenging to solicit proposals at a national level. There appears to be a complex routing process worked into the form. Undoubtedly this was created to help out the volunteers who make up the committees. But here's what it looks like on the other end when you're trying to submit.

Who should attend? I always choose almost everyone because I select fairly wide topics. Should I be more selective in determining groups? Does it really matter, since attendees will search through their programs and attend whatever they want anyway?  At least, I hope they will. I'm an interdisciplinary humanities person to the core. I don't like to see any topic put into a box, nor do I like to be put into one.

Instead of requiring that all proposals state how they embrace inclusivity, equality, and diversity, how about stating that proposals which specifically address the following topics or groups will be given special consideration because you want to be sure that X% of the conference talks about whatever is currently deemed to be underrepresented topics? I fully support that. Although you can argue that the reverse of this would be to corral these issues, thereby designating them as "other" instead of integrating them. I'm sure others will be more lucid than I and will have valuable suggestions on this point.

ALA Strategic Direction (How does this support ALA goals)?  SIGH. At this point, I have multiple browser windows open, and I'm searching through ALA pages like a freshman with a paper due in the morning. I guess my goal here is to prove that I've recently visited the strategic goals?  For many years, I have honed the academic skill of unleashing a lyrical flow of utter B.S. when required, and here, too, I try, but frankly, I can't imagine my efforts here are giving those volunteer committee members anything beyond an eye roll and a headache.  

At last, here's the request for transformative change: I have been teaching on and off for 30 years, and the one thing that helps people progress is feedback. A team of reviewers took the time to read every conference submission. They had a rubric, made an evaluation, and then did not pass on that information to the one person who could benefit: the author. For accepted proposals, this could be a line or two, but for those not accepted, this is a classic teachable moment. What was lacking here, underdeveloped, banal, off the mark, etc.? If you want conference topics to be strong, help out those who are willing to present. I think I can hear in the far distance someone saying, "Should we offer an ALA online class on how to write successful conference proposals?" You could, but this is overkill. Look at it very simply: you wrote a paper for my class. I gave you a B- or worse. Wouldn't you like to know why, in my own words, I gave you this grade? Would you not be interested in reading the comments written on it? Peer-reviewers (who would still remain anonymous), wouldn't you like to know the effort you put into reviewing these was passed on and might result in better proposals next year?  I think closing this circle is a win for everyone.

Let me conclude with two good things: to everyone presenting at D.C., you will be awesome and undoubtedly you will make us all proud. And to Alicia Avarro, who I don't know, I am impressed every year to see you've survived another round of this process.

Thanks to all who make the conference happen and thanks for reading,

Wendy

My proposals for D.C. 2019 were not accepted this year. That's ok; I've presented before and I will again. At least, I think I will. I'd like to talk about the process itself and request one transformative change. I had the same frustrations with the process last year, and this year, it's time to say something about it.

Before I propose a conference topic, I ask myself some basic questions: is this relevant to anybody besides me? Is it worth knowing? Is it replicable? (I personally stopped attending presentations where an IMLF Grant and a team of programmers are required to make it work a long time ago). Does it seem interesting?

I then begin the submission process and here let me say I understand it must be incredibly challenging to solicit proposals at a national level. There appears to be a complex routing process worked into the form. Undoubtedly this was created to help out the volunteers who make up the committees. But here's what it looks like on the other end when you're trying to submit.

Who should attend? I always choose almost everyone because I select fairly wide topics. Should I be more selective in determining groups? Does it really matter, since attendees will search through their programs and attend whatever they want anyway?  At least, I hope they will. I'm an interdisciplinary humanities person to the core. I don't like to see any topic put into a box, nor do I like to be put into one.

Instead of requiring that all proposals state how they embrace inclusivity, equality, and diversity, how about stating that proposals which specifically address the following topics or groups will be given special consideration because you want to be sure that X% of the conference talks about whatever is currently deemed to be underrepresented topics? I fully support that. Although you can argue that the reverse of this would be to corral these issues, thereby designating them as "other" instead of integrating them. I'm sure others will be more lucid than I and will have valuable suggestions on this point.

ALA Strategic Direction (How does this support ALA goals)?  SIGH. At this point, I have multiple browser windows open, and I'm searching through ALA pages like a freshman with a paper due in the morning. I guess my goal here is to prove that I've recently visited the strategic goals?  For many years, I have honed the academic skill of unleashing a lyrical flow of utter B.S. when required, and here, too, I try, but frankly, I can't imagine my efforts here are giving those volunteer committee members anything beyond an eye roll and a headache.  

At last, here's the request for transformative change: I have been teaching on and off for 30 years, and the one thing that helps people progress is feedback. A team of reviewers took the time to read every conference submission. They had a rubric, made an evaluation, and then did not pass on that information to the one person who could benefit: the author. For accepted proposals, this could be a line or two, but for those not accepted, this is a classic teachable moment. What was lacking here, underdeveloped, banal, off the mark, etc.? If you want conference topics to be strong, help out those who are willing to present. I think I can hear in the far distance someone saying, "Should we offer an ALA online class on how to write successful conference proposals?" You could, but this is overkill. Look at it very simply: you wrote a paper for my class. I gave you a B- or worse. Wouldn't you like to know why, in my own words, I gave you this grade? Would you not be interested in reading the comments written on it? Peer-reviewers (who would still remain anonymous), wouldn't you like to know the effort you put into reviewing these was passed on and might result in better proposals next year?  I think closing this circle is a win for everyone.

Let me conclude with two good things: to everyone presenting at D.C., you will be awesome and undoubtedly you will make us all proud. And to Alicia Avarro, who I don't know, I am impressed every year to see you've survived another round of this process.

Thanks to all who make the conference happen and thanks for reading,

Wendy

My proposals for D.C. 2019 were not accepted this year. That's ok; I've presented before and I will again. At least, I think I will. I'd like to talk about the process itself and request one transformative change. I had the same frustrations with the process last year, and this year, it's time to say something about it.

Before I propose a conference topic, I ask myself some basic questions: is this relevant to anybody besides me? Is it worth knowing? Is it replicable? (I personally stopped attending presentations where an IMLF Grant and a team of programmers are required to make it work a long time ago). Does it seem interesting?

I then begin the submission process and here let me say I understand it must be incredibly challenging to solicit proposals at a national level. There appears to be a complex routing process worked into the form. Undoubtedly this was created to help out the volunteers who make up the committees. But here's what it looks like on the other end when you're trying to submit.

Who should attend? I always choose almost everyone because I select fairly wide topics. Should I be more selective in determining groups? Does it really matter, since attendees will search through their programs and attend whatever they want anyway?  At least, I hope they will. I'm an interdisciplinary humanities person to the core. I don't like to see any topic put into a box, nor do I like to be put into one.

Instead of requiring that all proposals state how they embrace inclusivity, equality, and diversity, how about stating that proposals which specifically address the following topics or groups will be given special consideration because you want to be sure that X% of the conference talks about whatever is currently deemed to be underrepresented topics? I fully support that. Although you can argue that the reverse of this would be to corral these issues, thereby designating them as "other" instead of integrating them. I'm sure others will be more lucid than I and will have valuable suggestions on this point.

ALA Strategic Direction (How does this support ALA goals)?  SIGH. At this point, I have multiple browser windows open, and I'm searching through ALA pages like a freshman with a paper due in the morning. I guess my goal here is to prove that I've recently visited the strategic goals?  For many years, I have honed the academic skill of unleashing a lyrical flow of utter B.S. when required, and here, too, I try, but frankly, I can't imagine my efforts here are giving those volunteer committee members anything beyond an eye roll and a headache.  

At last, here's the request for transformative change: I have been teaching on and off for 30 years, and the one thing that helps people progress is feedback. A team of reviewers took the time to read every conference submission. They had a rubric, made an evaluation, and then did not pass on that information to the one person who could benefit: the author. For accepted proposals, this could be a line or two, but for those not accepted, this is a classic teachable moment. What was lacking here, underdeveloped, banal, off the mark, etc.? If you want conference topics to be strong, help out those who are willing to present. I think I can hear in the far distance someone saying, "Should we offer an ALA online class on how to write successful conference proposals?" You could, but this is overkill. Look at it very simply: you wrote a paper for my class. I gave you a B- or worse. Wouldn't you like to know why, in my own words, I gave you this grade? Would you not be interested in reading the comments written on it? Peer-reviewers (who would still remain anonymous), wouldn't you like to know the effort you put into reviewing these was passed on and might result in better proposals next year?  I think closing this circle is a win for everyone.

Let me conclude with two good things: to everyone presenting at D.C., you will be awesome and undoubtedly you will make us all proud. And to Alicia Avarro, who I don't know, I am impressed every year to see you've survived another round of this process.

Thanks to all who make the conference happen and thanks for reading,

Wendy

My proposals for D.C. 2019 were not accepted this year. That's ok; I've presented before and I will again. At least, I think I will. I'd like to talk about the process itself and request one transformative change. I had the same frustrations with the process last year, and this year, it's time to say something about it.

Before I propose a conference topic, I ask myself some basic questions: is this relevant to anybody besides me? Is it worth knowing? Is it replicable? (I personally stopped attending presentations where an IMLF Grant and a team of programmers are required to make it work a long time ago). Does it seem interesting?

I then begin the submission process and here let me say I understand it must be incredibly challenging to solicit proposals at a national level. There appears to be a complex routing process worked into the form. Undoubtedly this was created to help out the volunteers who make up the committees. But here's what it looks like on the other end when you're trying to submit.

Who should attend? I always choose almost everyone because I select fairly wide topics. Should I be more selective in determining groups? Does it really matter, since attendees will search through their programs and attend whatever they want anyway?  At least, I hope they will. I'm an interdisciplinary humanities person to the core. I don't like to see any topic put into a box, nor do I like to be put into one.

Instead of requiring that all proposals state how they embrace inclusivity, equality, and diversity, how about stating that proposals which specifically address the following topics or groups will be given special consideration because you want to be sure that X% of the conference talks about whatever is currently deemed to be underrepresented topics? I fully support that. Although you can argue that the reverse of this would be to corral these issues, thereby designating them as "other" instead of integrating them. I'm sure others will be more lucid than I and will have valuable suggestions on this point.

ALA Strategic Direction (How does this support ALA goals)?  SIGH. At this point, I have multiple browser windows open, and I'm searching through ALA pages like a freshman with a paper due in the morning. I guess my goal here is to prove that I've recently visited the strategic goals?  For many years, I have honed the academic skill of unleashing a lyrical flow of utter B.S. when required, and here, too, I try, but frankly, I can't imagine my efforts here are giving those volunteer committee members anything beyond an eye roll and a headache.  

At last, here's the request for transformative change: I have been teaching on and off for 30 years, and the one thing that helps people progress is feedback. A team of reviewers took the time to read every conference submission. They had a rubric, made an evaluation, and then did not pass on that information to the one person who could benefit: the author. For accepted proposals, this could be a line or two, but for those not accepted, this is a classic teachable moment. What was lacking here, underdeveloped, banal, off the mark, etc.? If you want conference topics to be strong, help out those who are willing to present. I think I can hear in the far distance someone saying, "Should we offer an ALA online class on how to write successful conference proposals?" You could, but this is overkill. Look at it very simply: you wrote a paper for my class. I gave you a B- or worse. Wouldn't you like to know why, in my own words, I gave you this grade? Would you not be interested in reading the comments written on it? Peer-reviewers (who would still remain anonymous), wouldn't you like to know the effort you put into reviewing these was passed on and might result in better proposals next year?  I think closing this circle is a win for everyone.

Let me conclude with two good things: to everyone presenting at D.C., you will be awesome and undoubtedly you will make us all proud. And to Alicia Avarro, who I don't know, I am impressed every year to see you've survived another round of this process.

Thanks to all who make the conference happen and thanks for reading,

Wendy

My proposals for D.C. 2019 were not accepted this year. That's ok; I've presented before and I will again. At least, I think I will. I'd like to talk about the process itself and request one transformative change. I had the same frustrations with the process last year, and this year, it's time to say something about it.

Before I propose a conference topic, I ask myself some basic questions: is this relevant to anybody besides me? Is it worth knowing? Is it replicable? (I personally stopped attending presentations where an IMLF Grant and a team of programmers are required to make it work a long time ago). Does it seem interesting?

I then begin the submission process and here let me say I understand it must be incredibly challenging to solicit proposals at a national level. There appears to be a complex routing process worked into the form. Undoubtedly this was created to help out the volunteers who make up the committees. But here's what it looks like on the other end when you're trying to submit.

Who should attend? I always choose almost everyone because I select fairly wide topics. Should I be more selective in determining groups? Does it really matter, since attendees will search through their programs and attend whatever they want anyway?  At least, I hope they will. I'm an interdisciplinary humanities person to the core. I don't like to see any topic put into a box, nor do I like to be put into one.

Instead of requiring that all proposals state how they embrace inclusivity, equality, and diversity, how about stating that proposals which specifically address the following topics or groups will be given special consideration because you want to be sure that X% of the conference talks about whatever is currently deemed to be underrepresented topics? I fully support that. Although you can argue that the reverse of this would be to corral these issues, thereby designating them as "other" instead of integrating them. I'm sure others will be more lucid than I and will have valuable suggestions on this point.

ALA Strategic Direction (How does this support ALA goals)?  SIGH. At this point, I have multiple browser windows open, and I'm searching through ALA pages like a freshman with a paper due in the morning. I guess my goal here is to prove that I've recently visited the strategic goals?  For many years, I have honed the academic skill of unleashing a lyrical flow of utter B.S. when required, and here, too, I try, but frankly, I can't imagine my efforts here are giving those volunteer committee members anything beyond an eye roll and a headache.  

At last, here's the request for transformative change: I have been teaching on and off for 30 years, and the one thing that helps people progress is feedback. A team of reviewers took the time to read every conference submission. They had a rubric, made an evaluation, and then did not pass on that information to the one person who could benefit: the author. For accepted proposals, this could be a line or two, but for those not accepted, this is a classic teachable moment. What was lacking here, underdeveloped, banal, off the mark, etc.? If you want conference topics to be strong, help out those who are willing to present. I think I can hear in the far distance someone saying, "Should we offer an ALA online class on how to write successful conference proposals?" You could, but this is overkill. Look at it very simply: you wrote a paper for my class. I gave you a B- or worse. Wouldn't you like to know why, in my own words, I gave you this grade? Would you not be interested in reading the comments written on it? Peer-reviewers (who would still remain anonymous), wouldn't you like to know the effort you put into reviewing these was passed on and might result in better proposals next year?  I think closing this circle is a win for everyone.

Let me conclude with two good things: to everyone presenting at D.C., you will be awesome and undoubtedly you will make us all proud. And to Alicia Avarro, who I don't know, I am impressed every year to see you've survived another round of this process.

Thanks to all who make the conference happen and thanks for reading,

Wendy

My proposals for D.C. 2019 were not accepted this year. That's ok; I've presented before and I will again. At least, I think I will. I'd like to talk about the process itself and request one transformative change. I had the same frustrations with the process last year, and this year, it's time to say something about it.

Before I propose a conference topic, I ask myself some basic questions: is this relevant to anybody besides me? Is it worth knowing? Is it replicable? (I personally stopped attending presentations where an IMLF Grant and a team of programmers are required to make it work a long time ago). Does it seem interesting?

I then begin the submission process and here let me say I understand it must be incredibly challenging to solicit proposals at a national level. There appears to be a complex routing process worked into the form. Undoubtedly this was created to help out the volunteers who make up the committees. But here's what it looks like on the other end when you're trying to submit.

Who should attend? I always choose almost everyone because I select fairly wide topics. Should I be more selective in determining groups? Does it really matter, since attendees will search through their programs and attend whatever they want anyway?  At least, I hope they will. I'm an interdisciplinary humanities person to the core. I don't like to see any topic put into a box, nor do I like to be put into one.

Instead of requiring that all proposals state how they embrace inclusivity, equality, and diversity, how about stating that proposals which specifically address the following topics or groups will be given special consideration because you want to be sure that X% of the conference talks about whatever is currently deemed to be underrepresented topics? I fully support that. Although you can argue that the reverse of this would be to corral these issues, thereby designating them as "other" instead of integrating them. I'm sure others will be more lucid than I and will have valuable suggestions on this point.

ALA Strategic Direction (How does this support ALA goals)?  SIGH. At this point, I have multiple browser windows open, and I'm searching through ALA pages like a freshman with a paper due in the morning. I guess my goal here is to prove that I've recently visited the strategic goals?  For many years, I have honed the academic skill of unleashing a lyrical flow of utter B.S. when required, and here, too, I try, but frankly, I can't imagine my efforts here are giving those volunteer committee members anything beyond an eye roll and a headache.  

At last, here's the request for transformative change: I have been teaching on and off for 30 years, and the one thing that helps people progress is feedback. A team of reviewers took the time to read every conference submission. They had a rubric, made an evaluation, and then did not pass on that information to the one person who could benefit: the author. For accepted proposals, this could be a line or two, but for those not accepted, this is a classic teachable moment. What was lacking here, underdeveloped, banal, off the mark, etc.? If you want conference topics to be strong, help out those who are willing to present. I think I can hear in the far distance someone saying, "Should we offer an ALA online class on how to write successful conference proposals?" You could, but this is overkill. Look at it very simply: you wrote a paper for my class. I gave you a B- or worse. Wouldn't you like to know why, in my own words, I gave you this grade? Would you not be interested in reading the comments written on it? Peer-reviewers (who would still remain anonymous), wouldn't you like to know the effort you put into reviewing these was passed on and might result in better proposals next year?  I think closing this circle is a win for everyone.

Let me conclude with two good things: to everyone presenting at D.C., you will be awesome and undoubtedly you will make us all proud. And to Alicia Avarro, who I don't know, I am impressed every year to see you've survived another round of this process.

Thanks to all who make the conference happen and thanks for reading,