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] * ********************************************************