ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries C&RL News ■ A p ril 2002 / 269 ACRL N A T IO N A L CONFERENCE Demystifying the program selection process How to submit a successful proposal for the 11th ACRL National Conference by L a rry H ard esty So you have sp en t c o n ­ siderable time a n d effort d e v e lo p in g a p ro g ra m proposal for ACRL’s 11th N a tio n a l C o n f e r e n c e , “Learning to Make a Dif­ f e r e n c e ” ( C h a r l o t te , North Carolina, April 10- 13, 2003). You write it u p for the particular session form at (contributed paper, p a n e l, p o s t e r s e s s i o n , p r e c o n f e r e n c e , roundtable, or w o rk sh o p ) a n d send it off to ACRL. T hen w hat happens? W hat processes a n d criteria are used to decide w hich p ro ­ posals are accepted for the conference? Given all the w ork you have put into your proposal, this is a valid question. At th e re c e n t ALA M idw inter m eeting, I, a n d sev eral co ch airs o f th e v a rio u s s u b ­ c o m m itte e s a sso c ia te d w ith th e n a tio n a l c o n fe re n c e , a tte n d e d as m an y ex e cu tiv e c o m m ittee s o f th e ACRL se ctio n s as p o s ­ sible to u rg e s e c tio n le a d e rs to e n c o u ra g e th e ir m em b e rs to su b m it p ro g ra m p r o p o s ­ als. At th e sam e tim e, I e n c o u ra g e d th e c o c h airs o f th e p ro g ra m s ’ su b c o m m itte e s to figure o u t a w a y to say “y e s ” to as m any p ro p o sa ls as th e y cou ld . For exam ple, w e agreed to increase the n u m b er of poster sessions from 48 to 72. My goal for the conference is to b e as inclusive as possible by offering a w ide variety of p ro ­ grams that reflect the diverse interests and needs of the m em bership. Nevertheless, not all proposals can b e ac­ cepted. At past national conferences, many m ore proposals w ere subm itted than could b e accepted because of the productivity ol academ ic librarians a n d th e lim itations ol space and time. The acceptance rate for some of the m ajor v e n u e s (co n trib u ted papers, panel sessions, a n d po ster sessions) is simi­ lar to the 25 percent to 40 percent a ccep ­ tance rate of the major journals in the profes­ sion. S election o b v io u sly is com petitive, Therefore, som e o f o u r colleagues will be p leased a n d some, unfortunately, will b e dis­ appointed. T h e p ro c e ss W hat process is u se d to ensure fairness, bal­ ance, excellence, tim eliness, and all those oth er factors that m ake for a great confer­ ence? The process will vary som ew hat from o n e type of proposal to another. For the p ro ­ posals for session formats, such as panels, posters, a n d contributed papers, the process About the author Larry Hardesty is college librarian a t A ustin College in Sherman, Texas, a n d chair o f the 11th ACRL N ational Conference, e- mail: lhardesty@austinc.edu mailto:lhardesty@austinc.edu 270 / C&RL News ■ A p ril 2002 may be similar to refereeing journal m anu­ scripts. There may be blind reviews by more than one individual, and there may be reviews by individuals with particular expertise outside the subcommittees. To prom ote consistency, the reviewers may use checklists or rating sheets as they evaluate the proposals. For other session formats, such as w ork­ shops, preconferences, and roundtables, the process may be less structured and m ore var­ ied. Relatively few opportunities for present­ ing preconferences and w orkshops are pos­ sible and few er individuals may be involved. In addition to subcom m ittee m em bers w ho review proposals for such factors as relevance, appeal, and timeliness, the ACRL staff reviews the proposals to ensure that program costs are reaso n ab le a n d fall w ithin ALA/ACRL policy guidelines. Tips for a successful proposal 1) Carefully read the “Call for Participa­ tion” at http://www.ala.org/acrl/charlotte/ program/cfp.html: • Review the “Selection Criteria,” par­ ticularly regarding how you will encour­ age active learning. • Consider the different requirem ents of the various “Session Formats.” • Keep in m ind and refer to the “Con­ ference Theme Tracks” in writing your pro­ posal. 2) Review “Preparing for ACRL’s 11th National C onference” in the March 2002 C&RL News at h ttp ://w w w .a la .o rg /a c rl/ confmar02.html. • Adhere to the requirem ents, includ­ ing deadlines. • Discuss your idea for a proposal with your colleagues both in your library and other libraries and solicit their com m ents before submitting your proposal. • Review the literature, including the presentations at previous ACRL National Conferences. • Have several people read your pro­ posal for context and clarity and for typo­ graphical and grammatical errors. While following these tips does not guarantee that your program will be se­ lected, I am confident that they will greatly im prove your likelihood of success. The num erous roundtables offer a format that requires neither the m ethodological rigor of a contributed p a p e r session nor the broad appeal of a preconference. The m ain crite­ rion is w hether a core group exists that wants to have a lively discussion on a particular to p ic . T h e r e f o r e , th e m e m b e rs o f th e roundtable subcom m ittee will conduct the review o f these proposals. W hat about the criteria? Six major criteria are delineated in the “Call for Participation.”1 published in the November issue of College & Research Libraries News and available at the c o n f e r e n c e ’s W eb site, h t tp : // w w w .a la . org/acrl/charlotte/program/cfp.html. I strongly encourage potential submitters to review the “Selection Criteria,” as well as the nature of specific session formats, in planning their pro­ posals. O th e r c o n s id e ra tio n s Over the years I have b e e n a review er for several journals, including College & Research Libraries, and probably the single m ost im­ portant criterion that leads to rejection is nei­ ther m ethodological error nor lack of clarity. It is the “so w h at” factor. Does the proposal have significant relevance or im portance to attract the n e ed ed audience? Reviewers are less likely to recom m end acceptance of pro­ posals on topics few individuals have an in­ terest in or those w here findings cannot be generalized to other situations. At the other en d of the spectrum are those topics that are “often discussed, but never so w ell.” Unfortunately, how ever well present­ ers may address som e topics, to the potential audience, the topics already have b e e n dis­ cussed ad nauseam . A review of the litera­ ture should reveal such topics to be avoided. More subjective are the criteria of balance and representation. While I encourage inclu­ siveness, there is no set quota for either type of library or type of section within ACRL. In my meetings at the last Midwinter meeting, I encouraged som e of the smaller sections to collaborate with larger sections to develop proposals with wide appeal. At the same time, there is the risk that proposals dealing with topics of broad appeal may b e rejected b e ­ cause they are duplicated by other proposals of higher quality. (co n tin u ed on p a g e 279) http://www.ala.org/acrl/charlotte/ http://www.ala.org/acrl/ http://www.ala C&RL News ■ A p ril 2002 / 279 The library was also a significant component of our FLC throughout the semester. Our students knew that w e were librarians and that w e ex­ pected them to use the library. The GSU library, as with many academic libraries, is a scary, intimi­ dating place for many freshmen. Coming to the library with us and visiting us in our library of­ fices hopefully helped our students feel more at ease and more likely to seek librarian assistance. W hen w e submitted our proposal for an­ other FLC next year (yes, w e are going to do it again!), w e rew orked it to appeal to m ore stu­ dents. We replaced the governm ent class with a m ath class to attract students interested in com puter science and business. We also re­ nam ed the FLC from “Information Odyssey” to the “Internet and the Information Age.” Most FLCs this year had m uch m ore d e ­ scriptive titles than ours, so w e h o p e the more straightforward nam e will appeal to students. O ur new FLC brochure narrative emphasizes how this FLC will help students succeed in college and keep their scholarships, and it now speaks m uch more directly to the students than our initial description. We hope these changes will result in a full community next year and provide us with the ability to further integrate the courses, particularly the English composi­ tion class, w here using the library and infor­ mation resources are natural emphases. C o n clu sio n Reflecting o n our experiences teaching the stand-alone GSU 1010 course in fall 2000 and GSU 1010 and the Perspectives seminar in our FLC in fall 2001, w e believe that several impor­ tant outcom es are noteworthy. • Librarians gained new perspective about freshm en likes, dislikes, and approaches to learning and the w orld around them . This insight is helpful as w e revise o u r approach to teaching students at the reference desk and in library instruction classes, and focus m ore on w hat students learn than on w hat w e teach. • Teaching faculty recognized that GSU librarians are, in fact, faculty m em bers w ho c a n m ak e v a lu a b le c o n trib u tio n s to th e university’s educational mission. Since w e attended faculty m eetings w ith teaching fac­ ulty and participated in discussions about stu­ d e n t learning, teaching techniques, successes a n d problem s, teaching faculty have com e to recognize librarians as equal partners in the teaching mission of the university. • A positive start was m ade in the ongoing task of raising academic librarians’ status and position to that of other teaching faculty in our university. • We discovered the benefits of taking risks by venturing into an area unfamiliar to us as academic librarians. Discovering w hat doesn’t work, as m uch as w hat succeeds, is an impor­ tant part of lifelong learning. The creation and implementation of our FLC was a rewarding but time-consuming process. We w ere fortunate that our library administra­ tion a n d th e d irector o f freshm en studies strongly believe in the importance and benefit of having librarians advise and teach critical thinking to freshmen. We w ould not have been able to do w hat w e did, or feel free to take the risks w e did, without their support. Their faith in our abilities to succeed m ade us m ore com­ fortable and eager to expand our roles and continue to seek new ways to contribute to the educational mission of the university. N otes 1. D onald G. Frank, Sarah Beasley, and Susan Kroll, “Opportunities for collaborative excellence,” C&RL News (2, no. 10(2001): 1101. 2. Initial retention figures from the first FLC in fall 1999 show increased retention rates in fall 2000 o v er non-FLC students. Visit h ttp :// www.gsu.edu/~wwwugs/flcretention00and01. pdf. 3. “Objectives for inform ation literacy in­ struction,” C&RL News 62, no. 4 (April 2001): 416-28. ■ ( “Demystifying. . continuedfro m page 2 7 0 ) Obviously th e selection processes and cri­ terion are com plex. O ur colleagues involved in the selection process will w ork very hard w ithin a relatively short p eriod of time to ensure fairness, balance, timeliness, and ex­ cellence. W orking together, I kn o w that ACRL will offer a terrific and varied collection of p ro ­ grams. G ood luck, a n d I look forw ard to se e ­ ing you in Charlotte. N ote 1. The “Call for Participation” w as p u b ­ lished as a n insert in C&RL News 62, No. 11 (N ovem ber 2001) a n d is also available at http ://w w w . ala. o rg /a c rl/c h a rlo tte /p ro g ra m / cfp.htm l. ■ http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwugs/flcretention00and01