Over the past few decades attending large annual academic conferences has lost its appeal to many scholars and graduate students alike.
Participants frequently complain that these meetings are:
• too expensive,
• crowded, and
• artificial environments (e.g., almost everyone is on their best behavior).
On top of this, many attendees have difficulties with the quality of papers presented, the selection criteria for paper acceptance, the poor or lack of feedback on papers/posters, and the times at which panels are scheduled.
Now that measures have been developed and implemented to deal with the COVID-19 virus, and face-to-face academic conferences are resuming, these complaints seem to be rearing their ugly heads again.
Once again conference goers are asking themselves (and their colleagues) are large scale annual academic meetings really worth attending? In particular, they ask why should they subject themselves and others to this kind of expense and inconvenience, just to present a paper, meet colleagues who don’t live in the same city, and to network with likeminded people?
More specifically, are there better ways to achieve the intended goals of academic conference attendance, and address some of the recurrent problems that academic conference goers experience?
The short answer is yes, but there are also a number of alternatives that scholars might want to consider.
First, perhaps these conferences could be held less often, or scholars might want to attend them less frequently. This way they temporarily postpone the pain until they believe that it is almost entirely necessary to attend.
Second, if academics want to meet face to face with like-minded individuals, then perhaps conferences, or at least large scale annual academic ones is not (or rarely) the best place where this is going to occur. Instead, they might want to attend smaller conferences, with considerably less people in attendance, like ones held by regional academic associations, or ones that focus on relatively narrow subjects (e.g., symbolic interactionism, ethnographies, etc.). This may be one reason why numerous small divisions of larger academic organizations seem to proliferate. These types of meetings may not be held every year, so it’s important to keep one’s eye out for them.
Third, if it’s the feedback on your ideas that you want, then short of conducting research, writing up the findings in the form of a paper and submitting it to a peer review journal, then it might be helpful to join or form an informal research groups that meets (either face-to-face or on-line) on a regular basis. Similar to mastermind groups, these groups discuss papers they have written, are going to write, and may collaborate on grants they are going to seek.
As you go about your work this academic year ask yourself what do you really get from conferences? Perhaps attending annual meetings provides a break from the routine of teaching and research, and departmental, college and university service. Maybe attending conferences is a chance to take a break from your partner or even the kids.
The truth is that you really don’t’ need to attend large scale annual conferences to do good scholarly work, nor network with likeminded people.
What about the money that departments, colleges and universities earmark for faculty travel? Put it into an annual faculty research fund and have professors, instructors, and graduate students spend it any way they want as long as it’s in furtherance of their research.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/2559900474_9dea8be8a1_c.jpg531800Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-08-13 16:04:372022-08-13 16:04:37Meet markets? Questioning the utility of large scale annual academic conferences
University instructors and students usually have contrasting expectations of each other.
One of the most dominant concerns the respective roles and differences between facts versus opinions.
Some students, (and sometimes instructors and administrators too) assume that university instruction should primarily be the transmission of facts and ideas, and dislike it when their instructors offer their own opinions.
This approach to instruction and learning, however, is problematic. Why?
Getting an education that places primacy of knowing facts versus being able to understand, develop, and argue against opinions assumes that life is simple and that there are always correct answers to complex problems and situations.
But the world, more specifically the professions in which a university education is typically required is complex. That is why argumentation, logic, critical thinking, and opinions will almost always be valued.
That being said, facts should be understood as starting points in any discussion or debate, but they don’t win the day. Facts may be wrong (e.g., taken from inappropriate sources) and/or misapplied in particular situations. Also just because an instructor has opinions (which they should) doesn’t mean that students can’t or shouldn’t question them. (Likewise there are better and worse opinions and not everyone’s and every organizations’ opinions are of equal value).
On the other hand, there is significant pedagogical value when students question the instructors perspective and vice versa. This is how we learn and should learn.
Photo Credit
bellmon
opinión
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2022-08-03-at-7.45.56-AM.png256280Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-08-03 12:08:082022-10-02 12:17:13Undergrads need to know the difference between expressing facts versus opinions
Cities and urban locations vary not only on their size, topography, the people who live, work, and visit there, the kinds of businesses they support, but on the types of structures that are built to enable the activities that occur in these locales.
Most cities and urban locations also have considerable diversity in the types of neighborhoods that develop within their confines, including ones that are more residential in nature, and those that have more commercial buildings where people work, shop, or ones in which they learn (i.e., schools) or worship.
This diversity is frequently reflected in the visual landscape, including the types of structures that are built and their condition, and the amount, type and quality of the green space, like parks, ravines, etc.
Although the question of whether a city (or indeed a neighborhood) has more graffiti, etc. than others) is open for empirical evaluation, and doing so would require an enormous amount of resources, here are some thoughts about why this may occur.
Despite being frequently beat up by critical criminologists, the Routine Activities Theory, though a relatively simple explanation, might provide some initial insights. According to this explanation, the presence of graffiti and street art might be facilitated by a considerable number of suitable targets, no or few capable guardians, and highly motivated people.
With respect to suitable targets. Cities (or neighborhoods) where there are lots of abandoned buildings (from houses that are speculated on, to factories and warehouses), train yards, and parking lots, may be ripe for graffiti writers and street artists to do their thing. Additionally, in these areas there may also be certain norms about both private and public property. In other words it may be okay to spray graffiti on a surface that is slated for demolition, new siding, or a new paint job. On the other hand, if the structure is a house of worship then it may be deemed off limits as are brick surfaces of a building, whereas the wooden doors may be up for grabs as they can be easily painted over are.
Closely related to this issue is how a city’s Department of Public Works or Business Improvement District/s engage in graffiti/street art abatement. For example, they may clean or buff graffiti/street art on an irregular basis. Inevitably this can set the tone for the abundance of graffiti/street art or graffiti writers/street artists to seek alternative surfaces. Along with lots of suitable targets, a city or neighborhood may provide better access to materials, like paint, markers, etc. used by writers and artists in their applications. Additional factors may be proximity to copy shops, printers etc. where street artists can print their own stickers, wheat pastes etc. at a fraction of the cost than doing this on a home printer. As for the many types of street art, this may in fact be actively encouraged by an arts district.
In terms of capable guardians, a neighborhood may not have “enough” motivated private security guards, municipal police officers, or concerned neighbors to respond to graffiti writers and street artists. This may be because the public and private or public security officers are busy doing more important things, don’t really care, or the citizens in that neighborhood are apathetic, or have communicated to public and private safety officials that they want them to focus on more important challenges.
Finally, a city or neighborhood may have an active graffiti and street art subculture or scene. People who are part of this collectivity typically know each other, hang together, and collaborate (or sometimes compete) with each on graffiti/street art. All told they are part of the street culture that develops in different parts of an urban location.
Every relatively large city has graffiti and street art. Because of the ephemeral nature of graffiti and street art, the amount and types of this work changes and can be more or less than that which appears in similar sized urban locations. Understanding the subtle dynamics is more complicated to understand, but worth knowing about if one is to take this modern form of visual communication seriously.
Photo: Robert Wallace
Athens Graffiti
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/127660312_08e31718c9_c.jpg532800Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-07-25 22:10:312022-07-25 22:10:31Why do some cities appear to have more graffiti and street art than others?
Meet markets? Questioning the utility of large scale annual academic conferences
/by Jeffrey Ian RossOver the past few decades attending large annual academic conferences has lost its appeal to many scholars and graduate students alike.
Participants frequently complain that these meetings are:
• too expensive,
• crowded, and
• artificial environments (e.g., almost everyone is on their best behavior).
On top of this, many attendees have difficulties with the quality of papers presented, the selection criteria for paper acceptance, the poor or lack of feedback on papers/posters, and the times at which panels are scheduled.
Now that measures have been developed and implemented to deal with the COVID-19 virus, and face-to-face academic conferences are resuming, these complaints seem to be rearing their ugly heads again.
Once again conference goers are asking themselves (and their colleagues) are large scale annual academic meetings really worth attending? In particular, they ask why should they subject themselves and others to this kind of expense and inconvenience, just to present a paper, meet colleagues who don’t live in the same city, and to network with likeminded people?
More specifically, are there better ways to achieve the intended goals of academic conference attendance, and address some of the recurrent problems that academic conference goers experience?
The short answer is yes, but there are also a number of alternatives that scholars might want to consider.
First, perhaps these conferences could be held less often, or scholars might want to attend them less frequently. This way they temporarily postpone the pain until they believe that it is almost entirely necessary to attend.
Second, if academics want to meet face to face with like-minded individuals, then perhaps conferences, or at least large scale annual academic ones is not (or rarely) the best place where this is going to occur. Instead, they might want to attend smaller conferences, with considerably less people in attendance, like ones held by regional academic associations, or ones that focus on relatively narrow subjects (e.g., symbolic interactionism, ethnographies, etc.). This may be one reason why numerous small divisions of larger academic organizations seem to proliferate. These types of meetings may not be held every year, so it’s important to keep one’s eye out for them.
Third, if it’s the feedback on your ideas that you want, then short of conducting research, writing up the findings in the form of a paper and submitting it to a peer review journal, then it might be helpful to join or form an informal research groups that meets (either face-to-face or on-line) on a regular basis. Similar to mastermind groups, these groups discuss papers they have written, are going to write, and may collaborate on grants they are going to seek.
As you go about your work this academic year ask yourself what do you really get from conferences? Perhaps attending annual meetings provides a break from the routine of teaching and research, and departmental, college and university service. Maybe attending conferences is a chance to take a break from your partner or even the kids.
The truth is that you really don’t’ need to attend large scale annual conferences to do good scholarly work, nor network with likeminded people.
What about the money that departments, colleges and universities earmark for faculty travel? Put it into an annual faculty research fund and have professors, instructors, and graduate students spend it any way they want as long as it’s in furtherance of their research.
The only thing that is preventing us from changing course is inflexibility or a failure to be creative. Falling back on the same routines by going to the annual learned society annual conference is not the only way to achieve its intended goals. Like so many other things in higher education, the conference attendance must be rethought.
Photo Credit:
Fred Davis
cows
Undergrads need to know the difference between expressing facts versus opinions
/by Jeffrey Ian RossUniversity instructors and students usually have contrasting expectations of each other.
One of the most dominant concerns the respective roles and differences between facts versus opinions.
Some students, (and sometimes instructors and administrators too) assume that university instruction should primarily be the transmission of facts and ideas, and dislike it when their instructors offer their own opinions.
This approach to instruction and learning, however, is problematic. Why?
To begin with many students don’t know the difference between facts and opinions and the relationship between the two. Some may even assume that instructors sole purpose is to assist students understand the content of the textbooks or reading materials that that are assigned in the class.
Getting an education that places primacy of knowing facts versus being able to understand, develop, and argue against opinions assumes that life is simple and that there are always correct answers to complex problems and situations.
But the world, more specifically the professions in which a university education is typically required is complex. That is why argumentation, logic, critical thinking, and opinions will almost always be valued.
That being said, facts should be understood as starting points in any discussion or debate, but they don’t win the day. Facts may be wrong (e.g., taken from inappropriate sources) and/or misapplied in particular situations. Also just because an instructor has opinions (which they should) doesn’t mean that students can’t or shouldn’t question them. (Likewise there are better and worse opinions and not everyone’s and every organizations’ opinions are of equal value).
On the other hand, there is significant pedagogical value when students question the instructors perspective and vice versa. This is how we learn and should learn.
Photo Credit
bellmon
opinión
Why do some cities appear to have more graffiti and street art than others?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossCities and urban locations vary not only on their size, topography, the people who live, work, and visit there, the kinds of businesses they support, but on the types of structures that are built to enable the activities that occur in these locales.
Most cities and urban locations also have considerable diversity in the types of neighborhoods that develop within their confines, including ones that are more residential in nature, and those that have more commercial buildings where people work, shop, or ones in which they learn (i.e., schools) or worship.
This diversity is frequently reflected in the visual landscape, including the types of structures that are built and their condition, and the amount, type and quality of the green space, like parks, ravines, etc.
That being said, frequently people who travel or vacation to or in other cities note the abundance of graffiti and street art in these locations. Although these individuals may not be able to distinguish among different types of graffiti, street art, murals, and public art, this visual information typically impacts visitors and tourists.
Although the question of whether a city (or indeed a neighborhood) has more graffiti, etc. than others) is open for empirical evaluation, and doing so would require an enormous amount of resources, here are some thoughts about why this may occur.
Despite being frequently beat up by critical criminologists, the Routine Activities Theory, though a relatively simple explanation, might provide some initial insights. According to this explanation, the presence of graffiti and street art might be facilitated by a considerable number of suitable targets, no or few capable guardians, and highly motivated people.
With respect to suitable targets. Cities (or neighborhoods) where there are lots of abandoned buildings (from houses that are speculated on, to factories and warehouses), train yards, and parking lots, may be ripe for graffiti writers and street artists to do their thing. Additionally, in these areas there may also be certain norms about both private and public property. In other words it may be okay to spray graffiti on a surface that is slated for demolition, new siding, or a new paint job. On the other hand, if the structure is a house of worship then it may be deemed off limits as are brick surfaces of a building, whereas the wooden doors may be up for grabs as they can be easily painted over are.
Closely related to this issue is how a city’s Department of Public Works or Business Improvement District/s engage in graffiti/street art abatement. For example, they may clean or buff graffiti/street art on an irregular basis. Inevitably this can set the tone for the abundance of graffiti/street art or graffiti writers/street artists to seek alternative surfaces. Along with lots of suitable targets, a city or neighborhood may provide better access to materials, like paint, markers, etc. used by writers and artists in their applications. Additional factors may be proximity to copy shops, printers etc. where street artists can print their own stickers, wheat pastes etc. at a fraction of the cost than doing this on a home printer. As for the many types of street art, this may in fact be actively encouraged by an arts district.
In terms of capable guardians, a neighborhood may not have “enough” motivated private security guards, municipal police officers, or concerned neighbors to respond to graffiti writers and street artists. This may be because the public and private or public security officers are busy doing more important things, don’t really care, or the citizens in that neighborhood are apathetic, or have communicated to public and private safety officials that they want them to focus on more important challenges.
Finally, a city or neighborhood may have an active graffiti and street art subculture or scene. People who are part of this collectivity typically know each other, hang together, and collaborate (or sometimes compete) with each on graffiti/street art. All told they are part of the street culture that develops in different parts of an urban location.
Every relatively large city has graffiti and street art. Because of the ephemeral nature of graffiti and street art, the amount and types of this work changes and can be more or less than that which appears in similar sized urban locations. Understanding the subtle dynamics is more complicated to understand, but worth knowing about if one is to take this modern form of visual communication seriously.
Photo: Robert Wallace
Athens Graffiti