AI-Generated Image
Usha Raman
We are a little over six months away from the first-ever STS-IN Network conference, and the wheels in the Conference Organizing Headquarters are turning at a furious pace! We have just completed the first stage in preparing for the conference, and many of you may have received communication from us in this regard. Thank you to all those who submitted their work for consideration, and whether you are going to be presenting in December or not, we do hope to see you all there!
Any process of selection and elimination is fraught. Job applications, elections, competitive examinations, lotteries…in some, the outcome is left entirely to chance, while in others, there is an attempt to put in criteria and processes that minimise subjectivity and enhance the possibility of all entries (and entrants) receiving a fair opportunity to be picked.
So it is with a conference–this conference, that is to take place over three days in December. Apart from the plenaries and round-tables, the conference has space for 25 panels that can together accommodate around 100 papers, give or take a few. Some of the 25 sessions are reserved for what we call “closed panels,” which come as a package of interrelated papers that are part of a theme.
When we first put out the call for papers (given that this is the very first time our informal but enthusiastic collective had attempted anything like this), we expected that we would receive a modest response. “Fifty papers,” said one member of the programme committee. “Sixty if we’re lucky,” said another. The first deadline rolled around, and there was a small, unimpressive trickle. The deadline was extended by ten days, and the trickle turned into a steady stream. Ultimately, we received nearly 200 submissions, including stand-alone papers, closed panels, and workshop proposals.
The Programme Committee knew there was a daunting task ahead. The numbers meant that we’d have to apply some fairly stringent criteria for acceptance, even as we wanted to ensure that the final selection would reflect the diversity and variety of STS work in and on the region. We put together a set of broad guidelines for review, and set about assembling a team of reviewers.
As anyone who has done reviews of any kind would know, it’s a fine act of balancing multiple criteria, of trying to be objective while remaining sensitive to issues of representation and marginality. It’s about discerning potential and identifying work that needs something more, about spotting innovation and freshness, while weeding out tired old themes. It’s no precision science; rather, a finely honed sensibility.It’s also quite thankless–except that one has the satisfaction of identifying and bringing together elements of what could be a great conversation.
Our reviewers came from multiple disciplines, people who had been associated with STS in the region and whose expertise aligned with the sub-themes of the conference. They had to be willing to read 3-6 extended abstracts in three weeks and offer comments and a recommendation. Since we wanted each paper to receive two evaluations, we needed a larger pool of reviewers so that we could ensure a fair distribution of work. We were able to call on the good offices of over 55 scholars. Most received five abstracts to review, some received a few more. One of our foremost considerations when assigning papers to reviewers was the alignment of their expertise with the topics of the papers assigned to them. We also took into consideration potential conflicts of interest between programme committee members, reviewers, and authors when assigning reviewers as well as during the meta review process.
The Programme Committee then scrutinised all the recommendations before issuing the final decisions. Where there were serious disagreements between reviewers, we assigned a meta-reviewer who independently reviewed the paper and made a third recommendation, which was considered final. Closed panels were reviewed as a set, while workshop proposals were considered individually, keeping in mind infrastructure demands, potential interest to participants, and alignment with the conference objectives.
We were finally able to send out acceptances to 62 individual abstracts, 22 posters, 11 closed panels, and 8 workshop proposals. There were many good abstracts that had to be declined, and some very promising ones that could only be accommodated by opening a poster track. The entire process, from submission deadline to issuing of decisions, took 8 weeks, involving 60+ people, and multiple meetings of the Programme Committee.
So here we are, happy that we’re a few steps closer to an exciting meeting. Do stay with us as we count down to December, and whether you are presenting or not, we’d love to see you there, as we mark an important point in building a community of STS scholars in the region!
Usha Raman is a Professor at the Department of Communication at Hyderabad Central University. Prof. Raman is a member of the review committee for the STS-IN conference and an Executive Member of the STS-IN.
