Research agendas from the four subcommittees

August 2012

Meeting model subcommittee, submitted by Lynn Eaton

The Meeting Model Subcommittee (Shari Christy, Lynn Eaton, Ardys Kozbial, Berlin Loa and Christie Peterson) identified a small set of organizations to contact with a survey about  meeting models.  We created the survey on Survey Monkey (with great teamwork in discussing what to include/not include in the survey) and at this time have had a 33% return rate of responders.  We are greatly interested in the larger organization listing soon to come.

In creating the survey, the subcommittee was most interested in the areas listed below. We will be discussing the results and will be able to provide a summary of the survey by SAA. 

Frequency of meetings (annual and committee/sections)

Venue of meetings

Services offered at the meeting (i.e. live virtual conference streaming, etc. )

Changes those organizations have made to their conference model or are planning

Organizational budget and percentage derived from the conference

Social Responsibility subcommittee, submitted by Rachel Vagts

On behalf of the Social Responsibility subcommittee (Rachel Vagts, Hillel Arnold, Lynda DeLoach, Jodi Koste and Alan Lefever):

Items for Research and Discussion:

Potential Modifications to SAA's hotel contract language that address labor issues.

1. A social responsibility policy that addresses issues of sustainability including food waste, recycling and other related matters.
2. Creating an opportunity for SAA members to engage in a service project experience during the Annual Meeting.

Online Accessibility subcommittee, submitted by Rebecca Bizonet 

The Online Accessibility of Meeting Content Subgroup (Beverly Allen, Rebecca Bizonet, Lisa Carter, Erin Lawrimore, Sibyl Schaefer) performed an environmental scan, with assistance and input from Nancy Beaumont, looking at the ways meeting content is made accessible online by other organizations.  Discussion among the group also identified related issues that must be further focused.  Feedback from the larger AMTF will be helpful in narrowing and/or redirecting this focus, as will the general member feedback at SAA 2012.  Based on the landscape so far, it is expected that the area of online access may receive a great deal of attention from annual meeting attendees. We should be prepared to receive, document, and appropriately address and prioritize member feedback.

The key areas for research and discussion, broadly identified:

1. Online Conference Models, Options, and Examples:  Based on prior exploration of other online conference models, further define scope and area(s) of focus in terms of virtual conferencing (separate from live meeting), asynchronous meeting content, access to live conference, or some combination thereof, and the various issues arising from each option, including preservation and sustainability.  The field surveyed yields great diversity here. Subgroup will summarize and list most appealing/relevant options and seek feedback from AMTF at large.  Related to this, explore feasibility of pilot project of putting selected past meeting content online. 

2.  Social Media:  Look at ways that SAA can harness (or engage/cooperate with) the already ongoing online attendee presence (blogging, tweeting, etc.) relating to annual meeting content.

3.  Collaborations: 
         a.  External:  Explore collaborations with regionals, student chapters, for hosting online conference companion modules.
         b.  Internal:  Work and communicate closely with Meeting Model subgroup as well as Meeting Content subgroup in areas of overlapping concern, in particular, wireless access during annual meeting, virtual conferencing, also models for creation of and access to audio and visual recordings.

5.  Ongoing Communication:  Continue to balance communications with larger membership (ensure two-way) with charge to gather information and make recommendations only (i.e., not implement or endorse new initiatives), without dampening enthusiasm or weakening trust. The subgroup with assistance from the task force at large should try to determine the most effective ways of managing and accommodating member expectations and needs.

Content subcommittee – submitted by Ben Primer

Content subcommittee thoughts on research needs

1.Need for historical research on SAA meetings to show change over time:

The current protocol has been in place as long as I can remember. It is long overdue for an overhaul.  Back in the day, the sections and roundtables spent more time brainstorming session proposals at the annual meeting.  Today, the section steering committees serve more as clearinghouses for session proposals asking for endorsements in the brief interlude between the end of the meeting and the deadline.  In my experience program committee largely ignore these endorsements, instead relying on how members rate the proposed sessions.

Certainly, dialogue with the membership at the upcoming meeting and beyond is vital to understanding the survey results and to informing our recommendations. The meeting will be a subject of informal conversation beyond our ‘booth’.  Once we have a more formal research agenda, perhaps we could formulate 1-3 questions that we could ask our colleagues, or at least keep in the back of our minds while interacting with them.  Though this is anecdotal/qualitative (subjective) information, I think that if we focus our notes on particular aspects, and guide conversations towards specific topics, we may be able.  How might we actually conduct these conversations in a formal way?

I think that knowing what has been tried in the past and showing what has changed for the better is helpful to our cause and may ease some dissatisfaction (part may be perceived inaction, when, in fact, periodic tweaking is occurring).  It is hard to suggest useful changes if we do not know what has been tried before, learn from those mistakes, and perhaps even draw inspiration from past successes (I’d love to move beyond the past 10 years for this research, but this may become too burdensome). Information exists in the archives held by UWM, but while I’d be happy to put in the time, I know I can’t get myself to Wisconsin anytime soon, and I assume most Task Force members are in the same boat. Perhaps we could turn to the SCOSAA group at UWM for some help with getting a sense of how the annual meeting has changed over time? Perhaps a professor might be willing to incorporate this into a course. Perhaps we could talk to all the program co-chairs for the last dozen years bout changes and what has been tried successfully or not.

I, too, am also curious about the effect that the timing between the annual meeting and the session proposal deadline may have on the number of proposals.  I also wonder what effect it may have on the quality, diversity, and creativity of these sessions. Should SAA’s meeting incorporate brainstorming, matchmaking, session-planning time, to jumpstart the process?

I think we need to research our own history and ask why the current format and content came to be.   For example, SAA’s tendency is to compartmentalize the meeting schedule.   Workshops occur on Mondays and Tuesdays, committee meetings on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, etc.  There is very little concurrency.   The schedule is arranged so that everyone can attend anything.  Looking back at this setup, it probably made more sense 20 years ago than it does today.   Not to beat a dead horse, but perhaps people’s dissatisfaction with committee meetings may be simply that they require committee members to be at the meeting a day earlier.  Perhaps committee meetings should be held on Thursday, Friday or Saturday concurrent with sessions.  

It may be helpful to understand how the annual meeting has grown over the last 10 years.  I know workshops and committee meetings now begin a day earlier, did that move accommodate more section/roundtable meetings or was it to accommodate more sessions?

I think we need to pay particular attention to the level of dissatisfaction with education sessions.   Are people unhappy with the traditional format, the content of the sessions, the lack of topical diversity, etc., or is it simply that education sessions are not as important as they used to be?  Again, we don’t know.

Has the time between the annual meeting and session proposal deadline affected the number of proposals received?

And within the SAA meeting,

How many non-traditional sessions are held each year? Is the number growing? Should the Program Committee be making people aware of other format options?

As far as accessibility goes, how many speakers actually submit their work to the website so non-attendees can see their paper or PPT? Do people know that some are available? Do they use them?

 What days have the heaviest attendance? (I think there’s already a doc on the Wiggio site with this info) Should the meeting be shorter?

2.Research related to other professional organizations:

 How do other organizations handle session proposals, and do they account for planning sessions at all in their meetings? 

Perhaps we can identify a list of organizations that we might be interested in researching, and then divide and conquer? Some online detective work should reveal most of what we want to know about other organizations and their meeting content, and I am sure that we all have personal connections to individuals who are active in other professional organizations, archival and otherwise, to whom we might turn for further information

It would be interesting to know what types of sessions other organizations offer:  Panels, lightning talks, world cafes, etc.

Some comparison of SAA and other groups for,

· When non-educational sessions are held at annual meetings (like plenaries, Committees, RT, task forces, etc.)

·When workshops are held

· When cultural/volunteer activities are held

·    Since we know from the survey that not many folks actually go to sessions, maybe a look at how other groups handle formal networking opportunities

3.Other comments:

For me, how we research is just as important as what we research.  We can look at other large professional meetings for comparison, but we need to focus internally and continue a dialogue with the membership.   People go to SAA for different reasons and tend to focus on different aspects of the meetings.  This makes research difficult.   The survey points to several areas of dissatisfaction, but we don’t know why people are dissatisfied.    I hope the discussion tables at the annual meeting will provide more feedback.