next »

[green]

I am the sole chair of a session for my field's major annual conference.  I had a good response for my session--over 20 proposals for 4 spots--but now I am faced with the task of ultimately selecting which papers I will include.  Right now I am regretting not having a co-chair with whom to exchange ideas and make difficult selections.

For those of you who have organized sessions, what are your guiding priniciples when selecting papers?  A mix of junior and senior folks?  Including different theoretical perspectives?  Selecting those papers that actually spoke to your description of the session (some of my submissions are very narrow in their scope)? 

Any suggestions appreciated. 

[drspouse]

I only discovered the existence of this type of session the other day, when chatting to a friend in another field, so I'm not the best qualified to answer - in my field it's mainly symposia organised by people who know each other - but one of my pet hates is papers that are nothing to do with the title/abstract of the symposium (or even the title/abstract of the talk).

"OK, I know I advertised I was going to talk about marsupial drunkenness. But I have some really exciting new data on plant mobility so I'm going to talk about that instead".

[donstefano]

I would do the following:
1/ weed out the crap - often, there are 2-3 proposals that are just not good
2/ make an excel sheet and grade the proposals on methods, innovation, and relevance to the session

If in doubt, make relevance your main criterion. Rejecting brilliant proposals because they focus on a different topic should not be a problem. It will reflect well on your session if those attending see it is well focused.

[airball]

A mix of junior and senior folks? 

If possible. Give a leg up to the little hu.

Including different theoretical perspectives?

Yes.

Selecting those papers that actually spoke to your description of the session (some of my submissions are very narrow in their scope)?

Not so much. If you can put together a killer session using papers that wander a bit from your original vision, or a lousy session that fits the original bill, go with the former.

Then remind yourself if you are on the fence between two papers, it probably won't affect the overall quality of the session.

airball

[inthelab]

In my field, conferences are dominated by the big head honchos (invited speaker slots and keynote addresses) and the young folk (10 minute platform or workshop presentations).  Sort of known mid-career folk (such as moi) do not get a chance!  We get to put up posters (yuck).  So please give some mid-career folk a chance to speak.

[bookishone]

Given a handful of papers of equal quality and relevance, choose those that "speak to one another" most, for a more cohesive panel. This is not to say they must repeat one another (obviously avoid this), but often you can find similar concerns arising across different topics, or a similar focus paired with different methods.