AATSEEL 1997 Conference: Request for Comments

[Olga T. Yokoyama]

Having read the document David Birnbaum has posted on the web, I would
like to respond.

I became a strong proponent of refereeing AATSEEL papers several years
ago. That year, I happened to stay at the conference from its first to
its last day, and made a point of filling every time slot of the
conference with one linguistics or pedagogy panel or another. Most of
the shortcomings of the old system listed in the web document - which I
had unsystematically noted before - became very clear to me that year. I
am sure that all of us, "polozha ruku na serdce", would have to admit
that they have noticed many, if not all, of the problems mentioned in
the document.

To the list of reasons for change listed in the web document - of which
the single most significant one is the imperative of improving the
quality of the presentations - I would like to add just one which seems
to me to have particular practical significance. When considering a
dossier for promotions, many institutions distinguish between refereed
and not refereed talks (and publications). A conference which requires
formal blind refereeing is universally considered more presitgious. At a
time when Slavic/Russian departments are increasingly coming under
institutional scrutiny, we would do a favor to our membership, as well
as to our field, by making our annual AATSEEL conference a refereed one.

Aside from this, I would like to emphasize the benefit of having fewer
"one paper" panels than has hitherto been the case. The preliminary
program shows that for linguistics and pedagogy, while there are fewer
panels than last year, the panels are fuller (even if not all are full).
This is clearly one of the important positive results of the "central
management" of the program that has taken place under the new system. I
expect this change to prove to be more than trivial, as the
disappearance of "one paper" panels (not infrequently leading to "one
person" audience) should raise our morale and considerably improve
scholarly intercourse. What can be more discouraging than giving a paper
to the chair plus one listener, and to receive no real feedback (even if
there may be an apparent short term benefit of having an extra
conference talk on one's CV)? "Centralized management" makes it possible
to incorporate would-be-single papers into panels composed of similar
papers thereby providing the speakers with an interested audience and a
relevant forum for discussion.

I will not repeat the other arguments in favor of the new system, which
far exceeds mere introduction of refereeing. I hope that all the members
acquaint themselves with the document, and that SEELANGS serves as a
productive forum for an open and constructive discussion of the new
system, of what it has to offer to the membership, and of what could
still be improved. I also hope that the membership agrees that the new
system should be generalized to all the panels: literature, pedagogy and
linguistics. The web document shows an impressively fair and thoughtful
handling of the new system (so far only for linguistics and pedagogy
panels) on the part of the organizers both in their willingness to
continue to improve the new system, and in their openness to membership
input. This way of handling of a vital professional and organization
issue by opening it to a general discussion is unprecedented in our
association.

One last point. Since beeing refereed amounts to being examined, and I
do not know of anyone who likes to be examined, it will be hardly
surprising if many of us feel uncomfortable with the idea of being
refereed. It may also well be the case that Slavists have little
experience writing abstracts for this purpose. The guidelines provided
last year for writing abstracts were helpful, but I would like to
suggest that the organization committee goes one step further and
provide additional guidance in abstract writing to those who express
their interest in having it. It may be a time consuming proposition for
the providers of such guidance (as is refereeing for those who were
asked to referee), but I think that it is needed to overcome the
reluctance some members may experience when faced with the unfamiliar
task of abstract writing. I have in mind perhaps a workshop along the
lines of the interviewing workshop organized by the Women's Caucus that
has been so successful. One might argue that the option of revising
one's abstract consitutes just that kind of opportunity to learn
abstract writing, and this is certainly true. But by providing this
opoportunity for those who are reluctant to even try the first time we
may well encourage a fuller participation.

I congratulate the organization commitee on the courage in (partially)
implementing the new system and would like to express to them my sincere
appreciation for the time and effort they have invested into this
important service to our field.

Olga Yokoyama
UCLA