• 7 years - 30 posts - Latest - RSS
• OP: 4 Goods vs 5 No Goods
• Thread: 154 Goods vs 125 No Goods

1. Sociologist
   b3fb
   

   Thinking that you will or should get reviews when you don't make it on a panel is to me a signal that someone probably doesn't implicitly understand the game enough to get their paper accepted onto a panel in the first place.

   Having now been on the other side for this type of stuff, when you get a deluge of apps for a limited number of slots it's pretty easy to filter out the apps from folks who are younger grad students and still learning how the game is played. You don't deny these people slots because their ideas are bad, but because it's clear they're not entirely thought out yet and aligned with the subtleties of the conversations in the discipline that would necessitate their inclusion.

   Better IMO, both for panels and for those people, is to season themselves at ASA for a few years on roundtables and watching a bunch of talks and making progress in their work, lest you give them a stage on which they're not yet ready to present their best selves on.

   7 years ago # QUOTE 5 GOOD 9 NO GOOD !

2. Sociologist
   7b68
   

   ... lest you give them a stage on which they're not yet ready to present their best selves on.

   You're making this sound like some sort of trial by fire. My regular session presentation had like 4 people other than the presenters.

   7 years ago # QUOTE 19 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !

3. Sociologist
   b3fb
   

   You're making this sound like some sort of trial by fire. My regular session presentation had like 4 people other than the presenters.

   Fair. I've been on regular sessions with as few as 7 or 8, and as many as 40 or 50.

   On the 7 or 8 one I also got chewed out by a pretty famous person in my subfield who didn't like my work.

   My point wasn't that regular sessions are the Hunger Games, but that it's generally neither good for the panel nor the individual to accept a paper from an early career grad student who, in their work, has yet to show the development to fit the spot they've been granted.

   Basically what I'm saying is that rather than people thinking it's unfair bias that's keeping them off panel sessions, it probably isn't, and they're probably better off seasoning themselves on roundtables and watching other talks a little bit first anyway (which was certainly the case for me).

   Also, I know very famous younger profs we've all heard of who still get sent to roundtables (even at the regionals), still go, and still get something out of them.

   7 years ago # QUOTE 5 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

4. Sociologist
   7cf7
   

   C'mon, when your paper immediately gets bumped down to the next choice on the first day after submissions were due, its not that it wasn't good enough, its that it wasn't read.

   And really that isn't fair. If you don't have time to give the submissions all a fair shake then don't sign up to do this, its totally voluntary. And if you have no intention of selecting other papers and have basically set up the panel before submissions were due, that's even worse. It may be how the game is played but that doesn't mean it is the way the game SHOULD be played. The norm that this is okay ought to change.

   7 years ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 5 NO GOOD !

5. Sociologist
   64f4
   

   The submissions aren't read, they're "read." A quick glance can make it pretty clear whether something has a chance.

   7 years ago # QUOTE 5 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

6. Sociologist
   b1cc
   

   C'mon, when your paper immediately gets bumped down to the next choice on the first day after submissions were due, its not that it wasn't good enough, its that it wasn't read.
   And really that isn't fair. If you don't have time to give the submissions all a fair shake then don't sign up to do this, its totally voluntary. And if you have no intention of selecting other papers and have basically set up the panel before submissions were due, that's even worse. It may be how the game is played but that doesn't mean it is the way the game SHOULD be played. The norm that this is okay ought to change.

   Wait until you organize one of these. As another poster mentions, skims of the paper (or even abstract) can provide a lot of clues as to quality and fit

   7 years ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !

7. Sociologist
   5026
   

   Agree, and we have too much unnecessary crying against the inequality perpetuated by cultural capital. Bourdieu is so out of day.

   You don't deny these people slots because their ideas are bad, but because it's clear they're not entirely thought out yet and aligned with the subtleties of the conversations in the discipline that would necessitate their inclusion.

   7 years ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !

8. Sociologist
   32a0
   

   If you want actual reviews, you have to submit to Academy of Management, where they do blind review. It would be interesting to have a sociology equivalent.

   7 years ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !

9. Sociologist
   a028
   

   The submissions aren't read, they're "read." A quick glance can make it pretty clear whether something has a chance.

   I agree, you just glance at the author and their affiliation.

   7 years ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 5 NO GOOD !

10. Sociologist
    5acc
    

    Andy Abbott got roundtabled this year

    8 months ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

Reply