I have heard back from several people on the issue of the role of a
respondent in conference panels.  I'll let you read their responses before
I tell you what I've decided to do.
 
 ======================================================================= 58
From: "Sandra Petronio." <[log in to unmask]>
 
In response to the role of a respondent, I have increasingly seen this position
 as unnecessary. Typically, the papers are so diverse that it is difficult to p
ut a thematic turn on the discussion. I dislike the notion of a critic, given t
he fact that it seems unproductive and even disruptive to young scholars, I rat
her see the time devoted to a large group discussion and depend on facilitators
 so that the audience has a chance to enter the conversation. Cheers, Sandra Pe
tronio
 
 ======================================================================= 38
 
From: Nancy Anne Burrell <[log in to unmask]>
 
Paul...I think that you should involve as many people as possible.
Therefore, if at all possible have both a chair and a respondent.
The role of the respondent should be that of a discussion leader and cheer
leader to encourage the audience to read the panel's papers.  In no way
should the respondents be critical and mean spirited to panel members.
Respondents should offer insightful commentary period!
 ======================================================================= 38
 
From: Ted Spencer <[log in to unmask]>
 
  Put me on record as believing that Top Paper panels should always have a
critic/respondent who responds both in writing to the panelists in depth and
in verbal remarks to the audience; and there should ALSO be time for
discussion.
  As for other competitive paper panels, that is probably more a matter of
divisional style, although I myself believe that anyone who takes the
responsibility of responding to a panel ought to have prepared written
comments in advance or else never again be asked to respond. Even if the
respondent's role in the session is to be more of a discussion leader than
critic/show off, there still needs to be a role in the competitive paper
process that involves authors getting feedback on their work. Presenting a
competitive paper is supposed to be a step on the way to publication,
whereas a planned/submitted panel may serve a different purpose, i.e. to
show off the ideas of a group of people around a topic or theme.
  Let's not dumb down our panels. Let's expect more of our panel chairs and
respondents, not less--measured in quality of participation, of course, not
speaking time.
 
 ======================================================================= 48
 
From: "Frank.Boster" <[log in to unmask]>
[I accidentally nuked the first line of Frank's message, but he
said that "At this time that having both a chair and a respondent would be]
best.  If there is a student panel, then the respondent should be a gentle
soul.  xxx might be good.  yyy would be ok.  zzz [names omitted] would
do a fine job.  There are several others as well.  In the future you might
want to experiment with different formats, i.e., something other than the
tradition panel or a poster session.  fjb
 ======================================================================= 51
 
From: "Sandi.Smith" <[log in to unmask]>
 
I think that any
format that is not too critical is best.  If you so use respondents maybe you
can pick kind ones or use a constructive format for delivering feedback.
 
 ======================================================================= 100
 
From: [log in to unmask] (david dryden henningsen)
 
I guess my thought on the matter is that if the panel is randomly put
together, a respondent serves a useful unifying function (if they ever show
up, that is). I don't know how much of a critique is needed.  I've always
preferred the panels that let the audience (in other words, me) do most of
the commenting/critiquing of the papers.  So I guess I would say some form
of respondent is nice to organize the sturcture of the panel/field audience
participation, etc.... but I don't know if an actual critique is called for
or not.
 
 =============================================================================
 
END OF RESPONSES....
 
First of all, I'd like to thank all these people for taking the time to
respond.  I've considered all of the responses and here's what I've decided
to do.
 
I'm going to have a single person act as BOTH chair and respondent.  I am
asking those people volunteering to chair to promise to provide authors with
written feedback about the work.  I agree with Ted's comment that we need to
consider conference presentation as one step along the route to publication,
so written feedback specific to the paper will be very helpful.  This also
serves to free up the time after the paper presentations for discussion
between panelists and the audience.
 
The only thing I don't particularly like about this arrangement is that it
makes the job of chair to be somewhat more taxing and requires more experience.
Being a panel chair is a good place for students to get their first
"professional" experience at a conference (aside from presenter at least).
But maybe I need to reconsider my assumption that those of us faculty types
can provide more useful and effective feedback than can students...
 
Thanks again to all those who responded.  Let me know if you have any
thoughts.
 
Paul
 
********************************************************
*  Paul Mongeau  -  Communication  -  Miami University *
*              BITNET: PMONGEAU@MIAMIU                 *
*      INTERNET: [log in to unmask]            *
********************************************************