🚀 go-pugleaf

>Then there is a large chunk of folks within AECT who come, not to hear the
>latest research findings but, rather, how to make sense of them in the midst of
 >their rapidly changing worlds.  These people do not need refereed
proposals or
> blind reviewed papers to deal with - they just want to get their paws dirty
>doing what needs to be done


I would disagree with the blind review even for the hot topic paper. Most
definetly a synthesis of the research should be reviewed. Similarly,
demonstrations should be reviewed, preferably by blind review.


I would agree that AECT has a need for different types of papers. The
association made this move sometime ago when they created a special secion
(not division) for research papers. Maybe now is the time to reconsider the
session types and structures (I vote for 3 research papers and discussant
in a single session) to accomodate the different types of presentations.

>Is it not in these avenues that many of our serious scholars should aim their >major salvos, saving the annual meeting for, perhaps, one good thunk which says >it all?

Does this imply that our annual meeting should not be scholarly, and
researchers should focus their efforts on the journals rather than paper
presentations?

Gary