🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi Gary et al!  I hope I was not mis-understoond in my last set of comments vis
-a-vis the guidelines which govern how many times someone can present during a
single convention.  There appear two ends of this specturm as I see it and have
experienced it over the years...one is that most of us in Higher Education
have accountability measures to which we have to adhere...and among them is
the category called "research" or "scholarly something or other" etc. and
it is precisely at such meetings as AECT that we in this field can satisfy
those requirements as well as the scholarly itch to share,,,it is a near-inbred
trait which we in Higher Education seem to be afflicted (with).  I don't see
too many similar requirements being placed on our counterpart AECT members from
either K-12 or business/industry in terms of future accountability, that is.

Naturally, these groups AND the researchers are considerably aided by the fact
that they have been accepted as a presenter at the national convention.  That
fact makes obtaining travel dollars for some possible wherein, without said
acceptance, such funding might not be forthcoming.

For many of us in Higher Ed, just the fact that we have been accepted is a
pretty fair green light to our administrivia that we have gained acceptance
and thus, the department can now, with some lack of conscience, help pay our
way.  The fact that what we say gets added to our vitae is also of import.
Gets us promoted.

Now then, comes the second group, those who wish to present because they come
to AECT, not to share specific research findings, but to get ideas as to new
ways of doing old things (or vice vers),  those who want to share mew software
packages and how best they might be used with six-year olds in a kindergarten,
or those who wish to renew friendships and swap stories.  So, Gary, in response
 to your last asked question "Does this imply that our annual meeting should
not be scholarly, and researchers should focus their efforts on journals
rather than paper presenations?" I think there are many levels to how that
question gets answered.  It asks, I think, for all of us to re-examine why we
go to AECT meetings, and what value is going to each of us.

There are those who attend who have little interest in going to any research-re
lated presentations - they come for the exhibits and what they wish to purchase
 from next year's depleated budget or to swap stories with their peers as to
how to make tyhose few dollars grow as much as possible.

We have a mixture of BOTH research-oriented scholars from the International
Division, without whose acceptance as one giving a research paper would cause
them to remain at home, so that element is very important to these folks.
We also have international members who come almost every year, to join in the
warmth and good feelings being with kindred spirits brings about.  I am sure
that the same holds so in other divisions.

 So no, by all means, do we see our annual meeting being unscholarly...but...
it is (and should be) far more to those who seek it.

I would think we are not necessarily in the business of catering to one segment
of our membership over another and that ALL members need a crack at being
accepted as presenters.  To blind review or not to blind is not at issue,
I support the blind review because, it it is known in advance that such will
occur, lesser quality papers are not so likely to be submitted.

As to maximum numbers, it there is a mechanism to accomodate increased numbers

of presenters who, to survive academically, absolutely need to be accepted,
then we need to figure a way to allow that to happen.  Let's be creative
in seeking solutions - they exist, which will speak to ALL our members'
needs.
Hope that makes sense.

Dick Cornell

cornell@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu