I had a similar experience to David at the conference and have since
complained to the RGS-IBG (for all the good it will do). In my opinion,
conferences such as the RGS-IBG are just too big to provide a forum for
discussion and debate and the danger is always there of them being run(as
happened) for the benefit of already established 'names' in Geography .
There was little time and attention given to the organisation and
management of the paper sessions because they were deemed to be far less
important when compared to the plenarys.

As a PhD candidate, I have to be careful as to how I allocate money and
time for travelling to conferences and I thought that this would have been
a great opportunity to get feedback and criticism on my research. I should
have known better.  My session was so badly organised that the organiser of
the plenary which was on next came in and threw us out in the middle of one
of the papers because he wanted to make sure everything was running
smoothly before his session started!

Is the way forward to have seperate conferences for the specialty groups or
perhaps to have related sub-disciplines joining forces for a smaller annual
conference? I think that smaller conferences with targeted audiences and a
more concentrated range of topics would provide a better method of allowing
a genuine academic dialogue to take place which is, to my mind, the point
of having a conference in the first place. Or maybe I am just  being
incredibly naive...

Garry

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:46:47 +0100, Nick Megoran <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>David,
>
>I wholeheartedly agree that the shift of emphasis away from smaller
>research-group sessions to 'big-name' plenaries was a negative move.  I
>enjoy these conferences as an opportunity to hear a wide-range of speakers
>given a short time to speak, and take part in more informal discussions in
>smaller groups: if I want to hear 'big names', I can read their papers when
>they publish them later.  However, a couple of the plenaries were of
>interest.  Perhaps instead of four research-group sessions a day as there
>used to be, or two as this year, there should be three, with one plenary?
>
>On venue - it was my first visit to the RGS, and I personally thought the
>rooms were of reasonable size with not too much walking between them.  I
>thought the provision of food and drinks was done well.  I think the
>weather was a saving grace: I spent a couple of delightful lunchtimes in
>Hyde Park (missing those plenaries!), but if it had been pouring down it
>would probably have got pretty crowded.
>
>As to whether the character of the IBG has changed since the merger - I am
>too young to have known anything else!  What was it like in the good old
>days?
>
>Nick
>
>
>--On 10 September 2003 12:19 +0100 D F J Wood <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>> Apologies to non-UK geographers and those not attending the recent
>> RGS-IBG conference in London, but I am interested that there has been no
>> discussion of (or resulting from) that conference on this list. I've
>> also noticed that I haven't annoyed anyone in a while, so here goes!
>>
>> In discussions with various colleagues and friends I have notices a
>> pretty serious amount of disatisfaction with many different aspects of
>> the conference - the timetabling, which favoured big-name and
>> small-content plenaries over research group sessions, which as a result
>> were over-crowded, rushed and with little time for discussion; the venue
>> which I am sure is a very nice historic building but completely
>> unsuitable for such an event (especially the basement rooms); and most
>> importantly, the more general issues again concenring the relationship
>> of the RGS and IBG.
>>
>> This latter area seems more important than ever and not just because of
>> the old (but still ongoing) questions of the ethics of RGS fundraising.
>> I will quote anonymously from someone who will probably be resigning
>> their membership of the organisation because "the RGS basically seem to
>> just piss money away and that the organisation as a whole, despite
>> supposedly representing geography is actually completely removed from
>> the academic side of it". The RGS has basically taken the IBG and eaten
>> it whole and geography has come out the other side looking from the
>> outside pretty much like the RGS.
>>
>> Maybe I just don't like conferences in general. But after each one,
>> people always say, 'there must be a better way of doing things' and then
>> go ahead and do things in exactly the same way. CGF is supposed to be a
>> critical mass of geographers who believe in doing things in a different
>> way. Do we not now have enough people to reconsider the issue of setting
>> up a real set of alternative institutions in the UK and beyond? Or at
>> least demanding the at the RGS-IBG is run in a way that takes the
>> academic work we do seriously and allows for genuine discussion rather
>> than a serious of tokenistic early-morning and evening sweatshops
>> separated by hours of prime-time media-oriented grandstanding. Or are
>> all of us critical geographers so thoroughly institutionalised that we
>> just can't rock the boat too much any more (if we had ever really
>> intended to in the first place)?
>>
>> In any case, lets hear some views...
>>
>> David.