Program Committee Goals and Progress Report Form
Committee Chair Name: John C. Scott
X Goals Report
o Progress Report
Committee Members:
Strategic Program Planning Subcommittee Members:
Sara Weiner, Incoming Program Chair (2010)
Steven Rogelberg, Past Program Chair (2008)
|
Communities of Interest/Interactive Posters
|
Thursday Theme Track
|
|
Anthony Adorno, Chair
|
Denise M. Rousseau, Chair
|
|
Dave Daly
|
Gerard Beenen
|
|
John DeVille
|
Rob Briner
|
|
Michael Hargis
|
Jone Pearce
|
|
Ivan Kulis
|
Sara Rynes
|
|
Katy Melcher
|
|
|
Chad Van Iddekinge
|
Saturday Theme Track
|
|
|
Sara Weiner, Chair
|
|
Call for Proposals/Flanagan Award
|
Peter Bachiochi
|
|
Mo Wang, Chair
|
Alessia D'Amato
|
|
Eden King
|
Stephen Dwight
|
|
Autumn D. Krauss
|
Michele Ehler
|
|
Jeanie Whinghter
|
Adam M. Grant
|
|
|
John Howes
|
|
Friday Seminars
|
Deborah E. Rupp
|
|
Russell Johnson, Chair
|
Daniel B.Turban
|
|
Daisy Chang
|
|
|
Glenda Fisk
|
Master Collaboration
|
|
Chris Rosen
|
Linda Shanock, Chair
|
|
H.P. Sin
|
Jamie Donsbach
|
|
|
David Hofmann
|
|
|
Ronald Piccolo
|
Program Goals and Progress to Date:
This year the SIOP program committee received well over 1200 submissions that spanned a variety of formats and topic areas. Each submission was evaluated by at least 3 reviewers who were assigned by matching their area(s) of expertise with the submission’s content (and taking into account an appropriate academic/practitioner balance). Drawing upon a pool of 1171 reviewers, the review process resulted in an overall acceptance rate of 72.1%. When posters are removed from the equation, the overall acceptance rate was 65.2%. Table 1 presents the acceptance rates by format and overall.
Table 1
|
Format
|
Total Submissions
|
Accepted
|
Percent Accepted
|
|
Poster
|
879
|
659
|
74.9%
|
|
Symposium
|
245
|
150
|
61.2
|
|
Panel
|
86
|
66
|
76.7
|
|
Roundtable/ Conversation Hour
|
27
|
17
|
62.9
|
|
Master Tutorial
|
6
|
4
|
66.7
|
|
Debate
|
1
|
1
|
100
|
|
Total
|
1244
|
897
|
72.1
|
|
Total without Poster
|
365
|
238
|
65.2
|
Another interesting statistic was the relative mix of sessions in terms of their relevance for practitioners, academics or both. During the submission process, each submitter was asked to identify who they thought was the most likely audience for their proposed session. Table 2 shows this breakdown for accepted submissions.
Table 2
|
Intended Audience
|
% Relevance -Excluding Posters
|
% Relevance -Including Posters
|
|
Mixed (Academics and Practitioners)
|
55%
|
52%
|
|
Practitioners
|
28
|
13
|
|
Academics
|
17
|
35
|
The majority of accepted sessions are intended for a mixed audience regardless of whether posters are considered in the equation or not. When posters are excluded, 83% of the sessions are relevant for practitioners (55% mixed + 28% practitioners) vs. 72% of the sessions which are relevant for academics. When posters are included in the mix, 67% of the sessions are considered relevant for practitioners vs. 87% for academics.
- These numbers do not include the special events, theme tracks, invited speakers, communities of interest or interactive posters.
2. Additional Program Activities
- Made final trip to Sheraton in New Orleans to ensure all is in order
- Prepared Newcomer reception materials
- Scheduled and conducted debrief with SIOP AO staff, outside programmer and incoming program chair (Sara Weiner) to address software issues and ensure necessary upgrades/revisions are made for next year
- Updated documentation and help prepare new program chair for the job
- Continue to meet with Sara to ensure she is fully oriented and ready to take on new responsibilities
|