🚀 go-pugleaf

From:  Jim Stonge

Thanks for the replies.  Unfortunately, the messages I have seen so far
were all from those who would claim the title "researcher."  I'd like to see
more diversity in response, including those in K-12, government, business
and industry, community colleges, health sciences, and other places from
which we draw our diverse membership.

If you would humor me, please, with just a few requests of clarification
from Gary Morrison, Jim Klein, and the others who have a real concern
about these issues:

>  If we have worked with the student on the research, we should be
>  mentioned as coauthor as we would be with any other colleague with
>  whom we have worked.
  and
>  Removing a second author's name from paper to abide by the 2
>  presentation limit is simply unethical and unprofessional. In addition,
it
>  may give the wrong impression to someone that it is ok to leave off a
>  coauthor's name in a future presentation/publication.
   and
>  AECT (like any professional organization) should recognize the work of
>  individuals who are advancing the field thru mentoring grad students.
>  In my own case, I worked with three doctoral students who completed a
>  research study during the last year.  Each one asked me to be a
>  coauthor on their 1995 AECT proposal.

What level of involvement would require a co-authorship versus a notation
thanking Professor So-and-so for his/her support on this research?  I guess
I have always thought, and want to validate my thoughts, that part of the
reward for a teacher (at any level) is seeing the fledgling take wing.  When
does it stop being ordinary mentoring and become a collaboration requiring
a "co-authorship" or other specific acknowledgment?

>  (Referring to non-research sessions) My main concern that such
>  sessions would be places for individuals to present less than standard
>  presentations to obtain a spot on the program. I believe that such
>  abuse could harm the organization and detract from the credibility
>  of reviewed presentations.

Are you assuming that because a presentation is a research paper it
could not be just as guilty, or even could not be less than standard?

>  I see an emerging issue that is of great concern. Is the annual meeting
>  a scholarly meeting, or does it fall under some other category?  From
what
>  I heard in Anaheim and have read here, it would seem that there is an
>  effort to downplay the scholarly nature of the meeting and make it more
>  of "show and tell" without the academic rigor one might expect of
>  the annual meeting. Personally, I feel such change would seriously hurt
>  the credibility of the organization and make it less viable for higher
>  education faculty members.

Are you aware that there is a large portion of the membership which does
not attend the research sections, and has little interest in the research
presentations, preferring the "show and tell" of practical applications, and
that this has been so for my nearly 20 years of association with AECT?

I hope that this organization is large enough for both the researchers and
the practitioners.  The synergy is greater than the separate parts.