The discussion on conferences and their value is interesting, but I
think we are all convinced that conferences have a role in disseminating
our research. After all, the papers presented in many of our conferences
are double blind peer reviewed, as papers in journals...Nevertheless
governments (the Danish one is on the same line as the Australian
government) are not convinced about this.
Well, I discovered recently that, to my surprise, not all the
disciplines have full peer reviewed conferences. Some of them have only
a peer review of the abstract and some of them (mathematics, for
instance) have very few peer reviewed conferences (I learned this from a
colleague of mine who works in mathematics). I was very surprised, as I
am used to consider this kind of disciplines as those that dictate the
criteria for scientific quality. I understand when considering
scientific research, governments are usually not interested in design
research (at least this is my experience, if anyone can give me a clue
about the category of government funding to apply for my design research
I would be very glad) and tend to use the same standards and criteria of
the "most scientific" disciplines. That could be a reason why
governments are giving very low value to conferences. But what can we do
in this case?
As a member of an internal research committee in my department we are
trying to propose that the research funding from the government is
redistributed among the researchers or research departments with
different criteria that take into account any kind of serious peer
reviewed publication, thus including peer review conferences, although
our department should give more weight to publications on refereed
journals. Giving value to peer reviewed conferences is a way to
encourage the kind of interaction and research dissemination happening
in conferences, which is vital for any of us, whereas giving more value
to refereed journals is a way of reminding our colleagues that those
papers are the real source of income when it comes to government
research funding.
Of course it is hard to maintain this position against the economic
rationalism of our university. Furthermore I had to admit that some
refereed conferences are possibly giving too much emphasis to the
interaction, sometimes considering the quality of the papers as
secondary (I've seen terrible presentations and read terrible papers
from some refereed conferences). In this sense our community should try
to find the right balance and possibly privilege quality to interaction,
small numbers to large numbers, etc. in the future conferences.
Associate Professor Nicola Morelli, PhD
School of Architecture and Design, Aalborg University, Denmark
Web: www.aod.aau.dk/staff/nmor
skype: nicomorelli
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Filippo A. Salustri
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 7:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Conferences less relevant to design research?
I see de-emphasizing conferences as a very bad idea. I find conferences
FAR more stimulating from a research perspective than just reading
journal papers.
A conference is, at its best, collaborative - two-way communications. A
journal paper, no matter how good, is just a one-way communication.
On the other hand, if the writing is on the wall, then we must learn to
adapt. Perhaps virtual meetings? The web is still a weak replacement
for a face to face meeting, but its better than nothing at all.
We should also push for 'open access' and 'open review' journals,
because they can provide alternative means for communications. Again,
imperfect, but better than nothing.
Cheers.
Fil
Terence Love wrote:
> Hello,
> In Australia, we have received clear signals from the government that
> conferences will become much less relevant in research quality
assessment.
> Instead, the focus will be on citations of refereed papers in
> first-rank journals with high impact factors. (Design Issues is in the
> citation list, Design Studies is not).
>
> This impact directly on income for education institutions and cash
> that is made available to academics.
> I gather this sea-change is a world-wide phenomenon.
>
> Some implications are:
> * Funding for attendance to conferences will be significantly
> restricted, particularly for anyone under professorial rank who does
> not have their own research income stream.
> * Conference viability will be reduced.
> * Conferences will become less relevant to building the research field
> * Conferences will have a biasing effect on the growth of the field
> because the networking will comprise a restricted subset of
> participants that will exclude many researchers in early/mid career
> * Increased conservatism in the field (conferences only with existing
> established professors).
> * Increased emphasis on well-justified research outcomes rather than
> contextual and philosophical discussions.
>
> This might be the time to think twice for those thinking of planning
> future design research conferences?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Terry
> ____________________
> Dr. Terence Love
> Curtin Research Fellow, FDRS, AMIMechE Design-focused Research Group,
> Design Out Crime Research Group Key Researcher, Centre for Extended
> Enterprise and Business Intelligence Research Associate, Planning and
> Transport Research Centre Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth,
> Western Australia 6845
> Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
> Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council UNIDCOM/ IADE,
> Lisbon, Portugal.
> Visiting Research Fellow,
> Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development, Management
> School,
>
> Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, [log in to unmask]
> ____________________
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|
