Home Home | About Us | Sitemap | Contact  
  • Info For
  • Professionals
  • Students
  • Educators
  • Media
  • Search
    Powered By Google

Program Committee Goals and Progress Report Form

Committee Chair Name: John C. Scott

 
Date: 3-9-09

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