CFP: SHOT 2012 Conference, 4-7 Oct in Copenhagen. Deadline 31 March.
Hello SIGCIS members, The dance of the heavens and progress of the Earth have brought us once again to that special time of year: the SHOT annual meeting call. Well, technically the "pre-call," as so far there's been a limited announcement with a promise of details to follow "By 13 February 2012." Below this message are pasted the current details from the SHOT website at <http://www.historyoftechnology.org/shot2012cfp.html> http://www.historyoftechnology.org/shot2012cfp.html. Note: this is NOT the call for the annual SIGCIS workshop, which usually takes place on the final Sunday of the conference. Our call will follow and will have a much later deadline. SIGCIS generally organizes one to three panel proposals for the main SHOT conference, and individual members sometimes also use the email list to put together panel proposals with SIG sponsorship. These proposals are reviewed like any others by the SHOT program committee. Sponsorship doesn't guarantee acceptance, but working with the SIG raises the chance of your paper being part of a coherent, relevant, and polished proposal. If you are interested in being part of such a panel please send me an informal expression of interest with a brief description of your possible contribution. I then try to find common themes to develop in the topics that could tie them together into a coherent looking proposal, and work with the authors to refine the individual abstracts to meet the expectations of historians of technology. SIGCIS members are also encouraged to develop their own panel proposals. These can also be sponsored by the SIG. Feel free to reply to the list ( <mailto:members@sigcis.org> members@sigcis.org) to find additional panel members. Certain things are common for history conferences but can confuse those from other disciplines. SHOT isn't usually as explicit about some things in its call as it could be. What you need to know: . Panels generally run for 90 minutes and consist of three panelists, a commentator, and a chair. Speakers get about 20 minutes each, with 10 for the commentator, 10-15 for questions, and the rest wasted. Most people now use PowerPoint. Many historians still read papers word for word. Some panels are proposed as a whole. Others are assembled by the program committee from papers submitted individually. . Reviewing is based on a one page abstract and one page cv, and thus is obviously not double blind. Usually about 1/3 of submissions are rejected, but you will never know why as you do not receive comments from the reviewers. Selection is done by the program committee members themselves, with program balance and session coherence a concern. Therefore the odds of being accepted are generally higher as part of a coherent panel than as an individual paper. . The full paper is never reviewed or published, but you are still expected to write out some version of it for the commentator to read prior to the meeting. The commentator is supposed to weave together useful common threads in the papers, add context where missing, and make suggestions on possible improvements. This role is known as a "discussant" in some disciplines. SHOT commentators generally err on the side of niceness, particularly versus some discussion I've seen in business schools. . All the chair does is to introduce the speakers, moderate the question period, and make sure that everything runs to time. It's a good way to get yourself onto the program if you don't have any new work to present. . Only one paper submission per person per year is allowed. SHOT discourages people from speaking two years running, but that rule does not apply this year because this is an "overseas" (i.e. not the USA) meeting. . Connecting your paper or panel to an official conference theme is helpful, but not usually essential. The East/West Cold War theme should be an easy one for many of us to address. . SHOT usually has travel money from the NSF and other sources to help graduate student presenters and those "between jobs." This is applied for separately after acceptance of your paper. Best wishes, Tom Haigh SHOT CALL FOR PAPERS, on SHOT WEBSITE AS OF FEB 16, 2012 Call For Papers: SHOT 2012: 4-7 October Copenhagen, Denmark Deadline for submissions: 31 March 2012 The Society for the History of Technology will hold its annual meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark from 4-7 October at the Copenhagen Business School. The Program Committee invites paper and panel proposals on any topic in the history of technology, broadly defined. The Committee welcomes proposals for individual papers or sessions, as well as works-in-progress from researchers at all levels (including graduate students, chaired professors, and independent scholars). It welcomes proposals from those new to SHOT, regardless of discipline. Multinational, international, and cross-institutional sessions are particularly encouraged. We especially encourage proposals from non-Western and Eastern-European scholars. Since this is a non-North American meeting, the Program Committee will permit scholars who presented at the 2011 Cleveland meeting to give papers in Copenhagen. It is SHOT's policy to relax its rule about not presenting papers at two consecutive meetings in order to attract as many people as possible to meetings outside of North America. For the 2012 meeting the Program Committee continues to welcome unconventional sessions; that is, session formats that diverge in useful ways from the typical three/four papers with comment. These might include round-table sessions, workshop-style sessions with papers that are pre-circulated electronically, or "author meets critics" sessions. We also welcome poster proposals for presentation in poster sessions. THE DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS IS 31 MARCH 2012. DETAILED SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS WILL BE AVAILABLE BY 13 FEBRUARY 2012. SHOT 2012 SPECIAL THEMES While paper and session proposals on all topics are welcome, the Program Committee is especially interested in proposals that engage the following themes: I. Technology, sustainability, and environment. SHOT has a long history of analyzing how technologies have interfered with or shaped nature and our social or cultural environments. The search for sustainable technology solutions has recently become a main preoccupation of engineers, designers and tinkerers all over the world and is high on the political agenda too. Possible themes to address are: . Questions of scale: onsite, small- and community-scale technology as challenges for large-scale and centralized models of technology design, both in rural and new urban environments . Smart design: ecodesign and sustainable industrial or product design as evidence of smart solutions for an accountable handling of technology . Natural infrastructures: infrastructures as "natural" environments and nature (air, water, soil) as co-producers of large-scale infrastructures . More with less: new technologies and the search for efficiency in energy consumption or technologies of power saving in housing, transport, and communication II. Technology, East-West relations, and the Cold War. During the Cold War, Europe was one of the central laboratories for experimentation with ideological and political regimes, which deeply affected traditional paths of knowledge and technology transfer in Europe. While the history of the Cold War has mainly been told as a history of discontinuity and fragmentation, we would especially welcome papers and sections dealing with examples of successful co-operation or "hidden continuities" in inter-European technology transfer during the 20th century. General areas to be explored are: . Changing times: continuities and discontinuities in the transfers of knowledge and technology between Eastern and Western Europe and the rest of the world from the mid-19th century to the present . Negotiating identities: spaces and places of co-operation or confrontation before, during, and after the Cold War . Blurred boundaries: spill-over effects and holes in the Iron Curtain . Trading zone: Europe as symbolic battlefield and diplomatic playground for world hegemony . Chilling effects: Technologies at war & wartime technology . Secret stories: technologies of intelligence and espionage and their staging in popular media (comics, films, magazines, television & radio) . Competing Modernities: the uses of technology in a variety of economic development and modernization schemes Evaluation Criteria The Program Committee's highest priority in evaluating paper and panel proposals is scholarly excellence. General ground rules SHOT rules exclude multiple submissions (i.e., submitting more than one individual paper proposal, or proposing both an individual paper and a paper as part of a session). However, scholars may both propose a paper and serve as a commentator or session chair. Proposals for individual papers must include 1. a one-page abstract (maximum 600 words) 2. a one-page curriculum vitae, including current postal and e-mail addresses Proposals for complete sessions must include 1. a description of the session that explains how individual papers contribute to an overall theme (300 words max) 2. the names and paper titles of the presenters 3. for each presenter, a one-page summary (maximum 600 words) of the paper's topic, argument(s), and evidence used 4. for the commentator, chair, and each presenter: one-page c.v., with postal and e-mail addresses * Please note that in general we discourage panels with more than three papers. **Please indicate if a proposal is sponsored by one of SHOT's special interest groups. DETAILED SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS WILL BE AVAILABLE BY 13 FEBRUARY 2012 For more information please see the Society's <http://www.historyoftechnology.org/annual_meeting.html> Annual Meeting Webpage. For general questions about the Society, please email SHOT Secretary <mailto:shotsecy@virginia.edu> Bernie Carlson <mailto:shotsecy@virginia.edu> .
Dear Thomas, The SHOT conference sounds dreadful however I am so happy to be receiving your mails that hardly matters. Thank you for letting me into your group. I very much appreciate the collegiality. Best Regards, Catherine Lathwell http://www.aprogramminglanguage.com
Dear Catherine, I'm very sorry for that impression as the Society has been an exceptionally warm and stimulating intellectual home for me for more than a quarter-century. The conferences are small (300-400 participants) and extremely welcoming of scholars from all disciplines as well as many who do not call themselves historians. I've listened to awesome presentations as well as some incredibly dull ones but I've never failed to go home without the sense that at least one or two Roman Candles have been set off in my mind. One of the most important parts of these conferences are the field trips, which have taken me atop of dams, over bridges, inside steel mills, and onto auto assembly lines over the years. Last year's plenary on the events following the tsunami in Japan was exceptionally helpful. The lesson from Thomas' note is that great sessions take work to create and put together. Like most things in life, there is not a guarantee that a slot can be found but the Program Committee tries to balance many things to make the program as diverse as possible. (As the chair of the Albatross Special Interest Group (Aviation and Space History), some in that group would love to have an "all-aviation and space conference" but, obviously, it's good to have some sessions on computing, etc. In general, I've often found that I've learned the most from sessions wholly outside my area of expertise. So I'm a bit less cynical than Thomas and would like to suggest you come to Copenhagen next fall or to Portland in 2013. Perhaps others might share there impressions of the Annual Meeting as I'm sure the conversation would benefit the Society greatly. Regards, Debbie Douglas On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Catherine Lathwell wrote:
Dear Thomas,
The SHOT conference sounds dreadful however I am so happy to be receiving your mails that hardly matters.
Thank you for letting me into your group. I very much appreciate the collegiality.
Best Regards, Catherine Lathwell
http://www.aprogramminglanguage.com _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
Deborah G. Douglas, Ph.D. • Curator of Science and Technology, MIT Museum, Room N51-209 • 265 Massachusetts Avenue • Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 • http://web.mit.edu/museum • http://museum.mit.edu/150 • ddouglas@mit.edu • 617-253-1766 phone • 617-253-8994 fax Spring Semester 2012 • Research Associate, Program in Science, Technology, and Society • Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room E51-179B • 77 Massachusetts Avenue • Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 • 617-452-3545 phone
Hello everyone, This topic has been receiving some spirited discussion on the general list and in smaller groups, but I think the time has come to accept it as an unfortunate use of "reply to all" from one of our newest members and move on.. ..but not before I mention that I wouldn't have come to every SHOT meeting for the last 8 years and organized something like 20 panel submissions for the conference if I was cynical about the SHOT experience or indeed found it dreadful. However, in encouraging people without history Ph.D.s to attend and submit to SHOT I've become aware that there's a lot of tacit knowledge about how a history conference works that is mystifying to (say) computer scientists, amateur historians or economists but is not included in a typical history CFP because it is "too obvious" to bother stating. So to further the SIG's interdisciplinary mission, and help SHOT's stated goal of broad participation, I aimed to take some of that "insider" knowledge I learned during my academic apprenticeship and share it with our members. Tom From: Deborah Douglas [mailto:ddouglas@mit.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:54 PM To: Catherine Lathwell Cc: Thomas Haigh; members@sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] CFP: SHOT 2012 Conference, 4-7 Oct in Copenhagen. Deadline 31 March. Dear Catherine, I'm very sorry for that impression as the Society has been an exceptionally warm and stimulating intellectual home for me for more than a quarter-century. The conferences are small (300-400 participants) and extremely welcoming of scholars from all disciplines as well as many who do not call themselves historians. I've listened to awesome presentations as well as some incredibly dull ones but I've never failed to go home without the sense that at least one or two Roman Candles have been set off in my mind. One of the most important parts of these conferences are the field trips, which have taken me atop of dams, over bridges, inside steel mills, and onto auto assembly lines over the years. Last year's plenary on the events following the tsunami in Japan was exceptionally helpful. The lesson from Thomas' note is that great sessions take work to create and put together. Like most things in life, there is not a guarantee that a slot can be found but the Program Committee tries to balance many things to make the program as diverse as possible. (As the chair of the Albatross Special Interest Group (Aviation and Space History), some in that group would love to have an "all-aviation and space conference" but, obviously, it's good to have some sessions on computing, etc. In general, I've often found that I've learned the most from sessions wholly outside my area of expertise. So I'm a bit less cynical than Thomas and would like to suggest you come to Copenhagen next fall or to Portland in 2013. Perhaps others might share there impressions of the Annual Meeting as I'm sure the conversation would benefit the Society greatly. Regards, Debbie Douglas On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Catherine Lathwell wrote: Dear Thomas, The SHOT conference sounds dreadful however I am so happy to be receiving your mails that hardly matters. Thank you for letting me into your group. I very much appreciate the collegiality. Best Regards, Catherine Lathwell http://www.aprogramminglanguage.com <http://www.aprogramminglanguage.com/> _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members Deborah G. Douglas, Ph.D. . Curator of Science and Technology, MIT Museum, Room N51-209 . 265 Massachusetts Avenue . Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 . http://web.mit.edu/museum . http://museum.mit.edu/150 . ddouglas@mit.edu . 617-253-1766 phone . 617-253-8994 fax Spring Semester 2012 . Research Associate, Program in Science, Technology, and Society . Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room E51-179B . 77 Massachusetts Avenue . Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 . 617-452-3545 phone
I’ve become aware that there’s a lot of tacit knowledge about how a history conference works that is mystifying to (say) computer scientists, amateur historians or economists but is not included in a typical history CFP because it is “too obvious” to bother stating.
... "mystifying to people without conference management experience" would have sufficed. One need not possess a Ph.D. to appreciate the complexities of conference organization (says the "amateur" historian, while asserting this his Vintage Computer Festival has a lot more complexity than a SIG day.) Some irony: two of this year's VCF East lecturers are Ph.D.s -- Dr. Thomas Kurtz, of Dartmouth, and Dr. Kent Lundford, of MIT.
Well, actually my longer string of highfaluting ten dollar words do mean something different from "people without conference management experience." It's not that computer scientists, for example, don't have conferences or that their conferences are somehow more primitive than ours. The problem is that the more experience somone has with CS conferences the more "mystified" they'll be by the SHOT process. Consider: computer science conferences provide written reviews and detailed scores. Reviewing and scoring is done by anonymous experts rather than the program committee. Reviews are double blind. Full text papers are submitted, reviewed, and published in conference proceedings. Rejection rates are prominently published. Leading conferences hold more prestige than journal publication. None of these things are true for SHOT, or for history conferences in general. So I sometimes get asked questions from SIGCIS members interested in SHOT participation like "Where are the reviewers' comments," or "when do I send the full paper," or "what's a commentator" or "when do the proceedings come out." This year I decided to address those questions up front to share the mysteries of history conference mechanics with our interdisciplinary audience. The mystification is, of course, mutual. Being used to history I find some of the practices at ASIS&T, the leading information science conference, quite odd but they seem perfectly normal to the "natives." For example, at ASIS&T one can submit either a panel proposal of informal roundtable discussion, reviewed on an abstract, or the full text of a formal academic paper. Whereas for SHOT a panel is just a collection of three related papers, ASIS&T has no way to propose a group of several scholarly papers. Panels aren't even allowed to list titles for the contributions by the individual contributors in case that distracts from the informality. Tom On 16 February 2012 21:00, Evan Koblentz <evan@snarc.net> wrote:
I’ve become aware that there’s a lot of tacit knowledge about how a history conference works that is mystifying to (say) computer scientists, amateur historians or economists but is not included in a typical history CFP because it is “too obvious” to bother stating.
... "mystifying to people without conference management experience" would have sufficed.
One need not possess a Ph.D. to appreciate the complexities of conference organization (says the "amateur" historian, while asserting this his Vintage Computer Festival has a lot more complexity than a SIG day.)
Some irony: two of this year's VCF East lecturers are Ph.D.s -- Dr. Thomas Kurtz, of Dartmouth, and Dr. Kent Lundford, of MIT.
______________________________**_________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/** members/ <http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/> and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/**listinfo/members<http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members>
Dear SIGCIS members Just a brief update on the much-discussed SHOT call for papers. The website at <http://www.historyoftechnology.org/shot2012cfp.html> is still saying that "detailed submission instructions will be available by 13 February", but it looks like the information has in fact been released in full on those pages. There are links to submission pages explaining the procedure. Cheers James -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] CFP: SHOT 2012 Conference, 4-7 Oct in Copenhagen. Deadline 31 March. Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:16:18 -0600 From: Thomas Haigh <thaigh@computer.org> To: <members@sigcis.org> Hello SIGCIS members, The dance of the heavens and progress of the Earth have brought us once again to that special time of year: the SHOT annual meeting call. Well, technically the “pre-call,” as so far there’s been a limited announcement with a promise of details to follow “By 13 February 2012.” Below this message are pasted the current details from the SHOT website at http://www.historyoftechnology.org/shot2012cfp.html. Note: this is NOT the call for the annual SIGCIS workshop, which usually takes place on the final Sunday of the conference. Our call will follow and will have a much later deadline. SIGCIS generally organizes one to three panel proposals for the main SHOT conference, and individual members sometimes also use the email list to put together panel proposals with SIG sponsorship. These proposals are reviewed like any others by the SHOT program committee. Sponsorship doesn’t guarantee acceptance, but working with the SIG raises the chance of your paper being part of a coherent, relevant, and polished proposal. If you are interested in being part of such a panel please send me an informal expression of interest with a brief description of your possible contribution. I then try to find common themes to develop in the topics that could tie them together into a coherent looking proposal, and work with the authors to refine the individual abstracts to meet the expectations of historians of technology. SIGCIS members are also encouraged to develop their own panel proposals. These can also be sponsored by the SIG. Feel free to reply to the list (members@sigcis.org <mailto:members@sigcis.org>) to find additional panel members. Certain things are common for history conferences but can confuse those from other disciplines. SHOT isn’t usually as explicit about some things in its call as it could be. What you need to know: ·Panels generally run for 90 minutes and consist of three panelists, a commentator, and a chair. Speakers get about 20 minutes each, with 10 for the commentator, 10-15 for questions, and the rest wasted. Most people now use PowerPoint. Many historians still read papers word for word. Some panels are proposed as a whole. Others are assembled by the program committee from papers submitted individually. ·Reviewing is based on a one page abstract and one page cv, and thus is obviously not double blind. Usually about 1/3 of submissions are rejected, but you will never know why as you do not receive comments from the reviewers. Selection is done by the program committee members themselves, with program balance and session coherence a concern. Therefore the odds of being accepted are generally higher as part of a coherent panel than as an individual paper. ·The full paper is never reviewed or published, but you are still expected to write out some version of it for the commentator to read prior to the meeting. The commentator is supposed to weave together useful common threads in the papers, add context where missing, and make suggestions on possible improvements. This role is known as a “discussant” in some disciplines. SHOT commentators generally err on the side of niceness, particularly versus some discussion I’ve seen in business schools. ·All the chair does is to introduce the speakers, moderate the question period, and make sure that everything runs to time. It’s a good way to get yourself onto the program if you don’t have any new work to present. ·Only one paper submission per person per year is allowed. SHOT discourages people from speaking two years running, but that rule does not apply this year because this is an “overseas” (i.e. not the USA) meeting. ·Connecting your paper or panel to an official conference theme is helpful, but not usually essential. The East/West Cold War theme should be an easy one for many of us to address. ·SHOT usually has travel money from the NSF and other sources to help graduate student presenters and those “between jobs.” This is applied for separately after acceptance of your paper. Best wishes, Tom Haigh SHOT CALL FOR PAPERS, on SHOT WEBSITE AS OF FEB 16, 2012 *Call For Papers:* SHOT 2012: 4-7 October Copenhagen, Denmark Deadline for submissions: 31 March 2012 The Society for the History of Technology will hold its annual meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark from 4-7 October at the Copenhagen Business School. The Program Committee invites paper and panel proposals on any topic in the history of technology, broadly defined. The Committee welcomes proposals for individual papers or sessions, as well as works-in-progress from researchers at all levels (including graduate students, chaired professors, and independent scholars). It welcomes proposals from those new to SHOT, regardless of discipline. Multinational, international, and cross-institutional sessions are particularly encouraged. We especially encourage proposals from non-Western and Eastern-European scholars. Since this is a non-North American meeting, the Program Committee will permit scholars who presented at the 2011 Cleveland meeting to give papers in Copenhagen. It is SHOT's policy to relax its rule about not presenting papers at two consecutive meetings in order to attract as many people as possible to meetings outside of North America. For the 2012 meeting the Program Committee continues to welcome unconventional sessions; that is, session formats that diverge in useful ways from the typical three/four papers with comment. These might include round-table sessions, workshop-style sessions with papers that are pre-circulated electronically, or "author meets critics" sessions. We also welcome poster proposals for presentation in poster sessions. /THE DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS IS 31 MARCH 2012. DETAILED SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS WILL BE AVAILABLE BY 13 FEBRUARY 2012./ SHOT 2012 SPECIAL THEMES* *While paper and session proposals on all topics are welcome, the Program Committee is especially interested in proposals that engage the following themes: I. /Technology, sustainability, and environment. /SHOT has a long history of analyzing how technologies have interfered with or shaped nature and our social or cultural environments. The search for sustainable technology solutions has recently become a main preoccupation of engineers, designers and tinkerers all over the world and is high on the political agenda too. Possible themes to address are: ·Questions of scale: onsite, small- and community-scale technology as challenges for large-scale and centralized models of technology design, both in rural and new urban environments ·Smart design: ecodesign and sustainable industrial or product design as evidence of smart solutions for an accountable handling of technology ·Natural infrastructures: infrastructures as “natural” environments and nature (air, water, soil) as co-producers of large-scale infrastructures ·More with less: new technologies and the search for efficiency in energy consumption or technologies of power saving in housing, transport, and communication II. /Technology, East-West relations, and the Cold War. /During the Cold War, Europe was one of the central laboratories for experimentation with ideological and political regimes, which deeply affected traditional paths of knowledge and technology transfer in Europe. While the history of the Cold War has mainly been told as a history of discontinuity and fragmentation, we would especially welcome papers and sections dealing with examples of successful co-operation or “hidden continuities” in inter-European technology transfer during the 20th century. General areas to be explored are: ·Changing times: continuities and discontinuities in the transfers of knowledge and technology between Eastern and Western Europe and the rest of the world from the mid-19th century to the present ·Negotiating identities: spaces and places of co-operation or confrontation before, during, and after the Cold War ·Blurred boundaries: spill-over effects and holes in the Iron Curtain ·Trading zone: Europe as symbolic battlefield and diplomatic playground for world hegemony ·Chilling effects: Technologies at war & wartime technology ·Secret stories: technologies of intelligence and espionage and their staging in popular media (comics, films, magazines, television & radio) ·Competing Modernities: the uses of technology in a variety of economic development and modernization schemes Evaluation Criteria* *The Program Committee's highest priority in evaluating paper and panel proposals is scholarly excellence. General ground rules/ /SHOT rules exclude multiple submissions (i.e., submitting more than one individual paper proposal, or proposing both an individual paper and a paper as part of a session). However, scholars may both propose a paper and serve as a commentator or session chair. Proposals for individual papers must include* *1. a one-page abstract (maximum 600 words) 2. a one-page curriculum vitae, including current postal and e-mail addresses Proposals for complete sessions must include* *1. a description of the session that explains how individual papers contribute to an overall theme (300 words max) 2. the names and paper titles of the presenters 3. for each presenter, a one-page summary (maximum 600 words) of the paper’s topic, argument(s), and evidence used 4. for the commentator, chair, and each presenter: one-page c.v., with postal and e-mail addresses /* Please note that in general we discourage panels with more than three papers. **Please indicate if a proposal is sponsored by one of SHOT’s special interest groups./ DETAILED SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS WILL BE AVAILABLE BY 13 FEBRUARY 2012 For more information please see the Society's *Annual Meeting Webpage* <http://www.historyoftechnology.org/annual_meeting.html>. For general questions about the Society, please email SHOT Secretary *Bernie Carlson* <mailto:shotsecy@virginia.edu>*.* <mailto:shotsecy@virginia.edu>
participants (5)
-
Catherine Lathwell -
Deborah Douglas -
Evan Koblentz -
James Sumner -
Thomas Haigh