|
Articles Conference Reviews |
2008L4SkinnellL.04: Think-Tank for Newcomers Developing Papers and Sessions for CCCC 2009 This session was designed by the Newcomers’ Orientation Committee as a way for 4C’s attendees, generally, and first-time attendees in particular to sit down in a workshop setting with experts in the field (all of whom were also former Stage 1 and Stage 2 reviewers from the Conference on College Composition and Communication) with the intent of developing proposals for the 2009 conference. The session was held in a ballroom and the organizers arranged tables and chairs into 12 groups—Practices of Teaching Writing; Composition/Writing Programs; Theory; History; Research; Information Technologies; Institutional and Professional; Language; Creative Writing; Academic Writing; Professional & Technical Writing; and Community, Civic, and Public—which represent the 12 areas into which proposals can be divided in the proposal process. 2 to 3 established experts in a given cluster were assigned to facilitate attendees thinking about C’s proposals in each broad area (including Marilyn Valentino, Program Chair of next year’s 4C’s). The morning started with much discussion as facilitators found their tables and attendees attempted to determine which area they would be best served by attending. After approximately ten minutes of general discussion, Paul Puccio and other members of the Newcomers’ Orientation Committee interrupted to offer some general information about proposing papers for 4C’s, such as the percentage of papers accepted (30-35%); the procedure for determining how each of the 12 areas is represented on the program (the percent of presentations in a given area is the same proportion as the percent of proposals in that area relative to the total amount of proposals); proposal due dates (May 2nd for mail proposals, May 9th by 11:59 CST for online proposals); and whether or not panels proposals are more easily accepted than individual papers (not true, according to Puccio). Puccio also made several useful points for proposers to think about when writing their proposals. First, each proposal need not make copious use of the Call-for-Papers language. In other words, Puccio said, the reviewers get tired of reading 500 proposals that tie their papers specifically to “making waves.” Rather, he said, proposals should show how proposed papers relate to the important themes of the Call-for-Papers. Second, the language of the proposals should be “clear, simple, and obvious” in explaining what you plan to do in your presentation. Again tying it to reviewer needs, Puccio explained that reviewers need to be able to understand what your paper is going to be about when they finish reading your proposal. Unclear, evasive, or overly theoretical language can begin to overwhelm the people who are being asked to determine if a proposal is appropriate for the conference and the conference themes. And third, for people who finish their proposals before April 16th, CCCC has online coaches who can help you revise your proposal to make it more appropriate. After a period of question and answer, largely devoted to further explicating the above general information, the groups began more focused discussion about the interests of the hopeful presenters. At the History table where I sat, Anne Ruggles Gere, Susan Jarratt, and Janice Lauer listened while two attendees (me and another gentleman) briefly explained our interests for papers. For the remainder of the session, the conversation consisted of what was essentially a peer review discussion in which the five of us discussed possible avenues, sources, and arguments for our projects and proposals. For example, Anne Ruggles Gere suggested a possible connection between Elizabeth Cady Stanton as a female orator trying to establish her right to speak in a male dominated world and Hillary Clinton—an addition she thought was obvious but which had failed to occur to any other people at the table. We ended our session with each facilitator briefly describing their own research projects, and while I cannot speak to the other sessions, the discussion at the History table throughout the morning was lively and helpful, and the facilitators were incredibly obliging. In all, according to Puccio, 85 people attended the session including 33 facilitators, and judging from the general cacophony in the ballroom, people were eager and engaged, and, as I left, I overheard several attendees marveling over the generosity of some of the most recognizable names in the respective fields. After the session, Puccio commented to me that he was very pleased with the session in terms of the amount of attendees, the willingness of facilitators to be available to newcomers, and the great lengths to which Charles Bazerman and the CCCC planning committee had gone to make sure the session was well placed and well timed. Finally, on a personal note, while 4C’s is often seen as catering largely to the stars of Rhetoric and Composition, this session highlighted the accessibility of even the most well-respected and prominent scholars in the discipline. C’s proposal aside, there is no measure of the value of being able to sit at a table with the authors of book you’ve read and ask them in person how they might help you move forward as a scholar and thinker. |