[SIGCIS-Members] SHOT is seeking input on its future

Wed Oct 2 01:49:57 PDT 2013

Hi Tom
Many thanks for raising this. But are you asking SIGCIS members to consider becoming an independent entity from SHOT?
Best
Bernardo
Bangor University (Wales)

On 2 Oct 2013, at 06:31, Thomas Haigh wrote:

> Hello SIGCIS members,
>  
> Atushi Akera has asked me to forward the messages below, which relate to a draft report on SHOT’s current challenges and future now available at http://shot-talk.org/wp-content/themes/twentytwelve/pdf/Preliminary%20Draft%20Report%20for%20Membership.pdf.
>  
> SHOT is the parent organization of SIGCIS, and our annual workshop is held in conjunction with the main SHOT meeting.
>  
> The report is interesting reading. I hadn’t been aware that SHOT was having the problems discussed in keeping up its membership and meeting attendance. Although SIGCIS is not mentioned by name, you do see our influence in various places.  The table on page 11 has “computing and information” as the largest category for papers at the upcoming annual meeting, and the graph of attendees at the meetings on page 1 shows that attendance at the annual meeting dropped from almost 600 in 2007 to barely 200 in 2010. So while registrations for our business lunch and workshop have both been stable at around 45-55 each (with considerable overlap), that makes me realize that SIGCIS has become a larger  share of the overall meeting since 2007 just by holding steady. It also suggests that the work we’ve done to attract SIGCIS members to SHOT meetings must have done a great deal to keep them financially viable during the darkest days of the recession.
>  
> There’s a sense running through the report that SHOT has become rather insular. In SIGCIS we’ve had success in brining scholars from outside the existing core history of technology community to our sessions and workshops, broadening the range of perspectives represented. In some cases this has produced new active members for SHOT. If other SIGS were similarly active then SHOT would be a significantly larger and more diverse organization. The draft report mentions SIGs as a way to “extend the intellectual agenda of SHOT” but does not explicitly position them as a means of dealing with the challenge of broaden SHOT’s geographical diversity, reversing its sliding membership, etc. (In fact it notes that SIGs may be “less fluid” as a way of dealing with “new and emergent areas” than the development of non-traditional panel formats). There’s also some discussion of SHOT’s committee structure, which I confess I have never really understood and is not fully explained on its website. But certainly SIGs could be better integrated into SHOT’s governance.
>  
> As became apparent previously when I was trying to explain SHOT’s particular customs to outsiders via this list there are some things that SHOT takes for granted that can be confusing to outsiders when they are trying to get onto its program. We raised some issues with its executive council years ago, but there is definitely scope for improvement regarding
> ·         Posting of rules somewhere – e.g. the one about not presenting two years running
> ·         Being more explicit about review process, what a commentator does, there being no proceedings, etc. – as we do on the SIGCIS workshop CFP.
> ·         Giving some feedback to rejected proposals. Someone could be rejected repeatedly and never know why.
>  
> Little things like that could make a big difference to SHOT’s ability to attract proposals from those whose disciplinary or geographical backgrounds mean they can’t pick them up as craft knowledge during their graduate education.
>  
> However those are just my thoughts and SHOT is encouraging everyone to leave feedback at http://shot-talk.org/?page_id=30. It would be good to have the thoughts of as many SIGCIS members represented as possible. If you have just attended one SHOT meeting or SIGCIS event that makes you the kind of potential active member SHOT is interested in attracting so your thoughts would be particularly useful to its leaders. In fact if you thought about attending SHOT but didn’t (abstract rejected, program looked too dull, etc) then that would also be a valuable perspective.
>  
> Best wishes,
> 
> Tom
>  
>  
> From: Akera, Atsushi [mailto:akeraa at rpi.edu] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 10:57 PM
> To: rob at furglu.com; taeho.kim.75 at gmail.com; Thomas Haigh; hackerb at si.edu; MARSH, ALLISON; secretary at sigcis.org; Jonathan Coopersmith; Chris Jones; anna.aberg at abe.kth.se; tisha.hooks at yale.edu; Deborah Douglas; Andrew Butrica; Geoff Zylstra;cxsgla at rit.edu; Andrew Russell; eric.nystrom at rit.edu
> Cc: lhe.lpf at cbs.dk; Audra Wolfe (audrajwolfe at gmail.com); sgk23 at drexel.edu; slatonae at drexel.edu; Erik Rau (erau at Hagley.org)
> Subject: FW: [Shotnews] Something Different for SHOT’s Annual Meeting, 2013
>  
> Hi Everyone (SHOT SIG Chairs & Officers),
>  
> So one of the main pieces of this year’s Presidential Roundtables is a report put together by the Ad Hoc Committee on Structure and Organization. This is a report that opens a conversation the future opportunities and directions for SHOT. Comments are already being posted on the website at this link:
>  
>                http://shot-talk.org/?page_id=30
>  
> While SIGs are in fact mentioned in one part of the report, what’s more important is for there to be broadly representative conversations about the recommendations in the report. As such, we’d appreciate it if you could send a follow up to Bruce’s note (below) and encourage all of the members within your SIG to chime in on the conversation. Comments can be left at the bottom of the page listed above, (under “Leave a Reply”). (You can simply forward this note, with your endorsement.)
>  
> I’ve also attached a copy of the committee’s report for everyone’s convenience. And yes, please let us know what you think!
>  
> - Atsushi
> (On behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee on Structure and Organization)
>  
> From: shotnews-bounces at muse.jhu.edu [mailto:shotnews-bounces at muse.jhu.edu] On Behalf Of Society for the History of Technology News
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 2:15 PM
> To: shotnews at historyoftechnology.org
> Subject: [Shotnews] Something Different for SHOT’s Annual Meeting, 2013
>  
> Dear SHOT members,
> 
> 
> As part of the Annual Meeting program upcoming in Portland (11-14 October 2013), I invite you to read on-line the short texts provided by the participants in the opening plenary and various roundtables that will take place during the meeting.  Even more, we solicit your comments, feedback and suggestions about the session topics and the individual papers through a blog feature – the first time SHOT has offered such an option tied to sessions and papers.  Our goal is to stimulate a discussion among the Society’s members about SHOT’s intellectual directions and activities.  I and the Executive Council strongly urge you to peruse the materials before the meeting, participate in the sessions once you are in Portland, and post your thoughts and ideas during and after the session.  We seek to align the Society with exciting intellectual trends and also to help historians of technology make more visible contributions to the development of those trends.  We also want to insure that SHOT is responsive to the needs and interests of its members. Thus for the first time, even if  you cannot be in Portland, you can interact with this important discussion about SHOT’s future. So please use this vehicle!  We want to hear your ideas and comments. 
>  
> Here’s how it works. For posting materials and the creation of the blog sites, a familiar layout has been used, specifically a wordpress template customized with SHOT branding.  Everyone who logs on can access the Plenary and Roundtables blog from the main "SHOT Talk" website (go to shot-talk.org)  From the same page, you also will be able to access a conference blog once the meeting actually gets underway. 
>  
> There will be two options for entering your comments.  (1)  Go to a particular panel (roundtable or plenary) to read and comment;  or (2) enter comments at this top level. For example, you will find a notice about the Ad Hoc Membership committee report at this level – it is well worth reading.  If you go to a particular panel, you'll see a short note about each paper followed by a "click here for more" button that will open the entire document. Readers may download or print files, or just read the text in your browser.
>  
> I hope many of you can find a few minutes to read the posted texts and join those offering comments and feedback.  This is a new initiative for SHOT, one that has been advanced through the effort of many people, including the program committee, the roundtable and plenary participants, and the officers and Executive Council.  But special recognition goes to Technology and Culture editor Suzanne Moon, who has coordinated the effort to make the materials accessible. 
>  
> We look forward to a good meeting – but even those of you not in Portland can, thanks to the marvel of social media, offer your input and comments.  Travel safe and best wishes!
>  
>  
> Bruce Seely
> President,
> Society for the History of Technology
> 
> PLEASE DO NOT REPLY DIRECTLY TO THIS MESSAGE.
> IF YOU HAVE A QUESTIONS, PLEASE SEND IT TO SHOTSECY at VIRGINIA.EDU
> THANKS!
> -- 
>  
>  
> (**Please excuse me if this message seems brief. Especially during my sabbatical year, I am trying to limit my replies to five (5) lines or less. I’m sure you’ll appreciate this in turn!**)
> _________________________________________________________
> Atsushi Akera
> Associate Professor, Department of Science and Technology Studies
> Rensselaer Polytechnic institute
> 110 8th Street
> Troy, NY 12180  USA
> cel: 518.300.0613/fx:518.276-2659/e:akeraa at rpi.edu /w: http://www.rpi.edu/~akeraa
>  
> _______________________________________________
> This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are athttp://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/attachments/20131002/f6287583/attachment-0001.htm>