Evaluation of the 2008 ICA Conference in Montreal by lifemate

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 43

									                                                           ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-1




                              Barbie Zelizer and Keren Tenenboim-Weinblatt
                                  Annenberg School for Communication
                                        University of Pennsylvania
                               3620 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104
                                         bzelizer@asc.upenn.edu



                      Evaluation of the 2008 ICA Conference in Montreal



Conference evaluation                                                                                2
Attendance                                                                                           2
Survey implementation and response rate                                                              2
Overall evaluation                                                                                   4
Role at the conference                                                                               5
Attendance and enjoyment of events                                                                   6
Divisions and interest groups: Attendance and membership                                             9
Evaluation of logistics, events and location                                                        12
Future programming                                                                                  14
Personal details                                                                                    17
Languages                                                                                           19
Additional Comments                                                                                 22
Appendix A: Exact answers to Q21                                                                    24
Appendix B: The questionnaire                                                                       38
                                                               ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-2



                                            Conference evaluation

Each year ICA conducts an evaluation survey among delegates who attended the annual conference. To ensure
comparability across conferences, each year’s survey is closely based on that of previous years. The survey
was administered online, this year using the online survey tool Tradewinds. The web survey did not collect any
personal, IP or other identifying information.

The ICA office emailed all delegates at the Montreal conference a request to complete the survey on June 24,
2008. Two follow-up emails were sent to everyone on July 14 and August 11, both of which produced a
significant increase in responses. The web survey was available for completion from June 24 to August 31.



                                                 Attendance

The Montreal conference was well attended. With 2,108 registrants, the attendance was typical of recent
conferences and only slightly lower than the 2007 San Francisco conference.

      Year and Location           Attendance     Survey N     Response Rate
 2008 – Montreal                     2108          559             27
 2007 – San Francisco                2134           730              34
 2006 – Dresden                      1888           730              39
 2005 – New York                     2238           716              32
 2004 – New Orleans                  1814           127               6
 2003 – San Diego                    1854           754              41
 2002 – Seoul, Korea                 1159           251              22
 2001 – Washington                   1677           318              28
 2000 – Acapulco                     1118           284              15
 1999 – San Francisco                1581           158              10
 1998 – Jerusalem                    857            195              23
 1997 – Montreal                     1339           287              22
 1996 – Chicago                      1404            --              --
 1995 – Albuquerque                  1329            --              --
 1990 – Dublin                       1250            --              --


                                 Survey implementation and response rate

The response rate was lower than in the past three years: 559 people responded to the web survey, a response
rate of 27%. The range of N for the questionnaire was 340 to 551 (with a low of 340 for the question about the
conference events that participants wish they had attended).

While the response rate was not high, the make-up of the respondents seemed to echo that of the conference
attendees. Thus, for example, the percentage of students at both the survey and the conference was 35%. The
different regions of residence were also fairly well represented in the survey, with a slight oversampling of
Europe, Asia/Pacific and Australia/New Zealand and an undersampling of North America, although the bulk of
the respondents (66%) were still from North America (for details see question 19 of the survey).
                                                                ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-3


No technical problems were encountered during the implementation of the survey. 30% of the survey
participants responded on the first day, 57% within the first week, 83% by the end of July, and the remaining
17% during August. The graph below illustrates the trajectory of responses received during the period of data
collection (with the two steep increases resulting from the follow-up emails):




Data were transferred to and analyzed in SPSS. The report follows the order of the survey questions (see
Appendix B for the full questionnaire) and compares the answers with those of the past three conferences (San
Francisco, Dresden and New York). Introduced this year was the ability to distinguish not only between students
and faculty but between senior and junior faculty, and in relevant questions we analyzed the differences across
professional ranking, comparing the responses of students, senior faculty and junior faculty. The results are
presented in questions where we found significant differences between the three groups (based on Anova and
chi-square tests).
                                                                     ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-4


                                                  Overall evaluation

Q1. How much did you enjoy each of the following aspects of the conference?
(7 point scale from 1=not at all to 7=very much)

                                                            Montreal*          SF         Dresden       New York
 Location                                                      6.0             6.2           5.8            6.2
 Organization, preparation and information                     5.8             5.9           5.5            5.7
 Overall quality of all sessions**                             5.4             5.3           5.3            5.2
 Social atmosphere, meeting with colleagues                    5.6             5.6           5.5            5.4
 Social program, events and outings                            4.8             4.9           5.1            4.5
 Accessibility and convenience of travel to the                5.6             6.0           4.9            6.0
conference city and hotel
 Accessibility of AV equipment in all rooms                    5.5             5.7          N/A            N/A
                                                Average        5.5             5.7           5.3            5.4
*Range of sample size for these items was 507-551.
**In the Dresden and New York survey, this question read “Quality of the program, good speakers, papers, etc.”
In the San Francisco survey it was changed to “Overall quality of all sessions” to improve clarity of the question.

Overall evaluations of the Montreal conference ranged from 4.8 to 6. General evaluations of the Montreal
conference were slightly lower than they were for San Francisco (except for the overall quality of the sessions
and the social atmosphere), and slightly higher than they were for both Dresden and New York. Like in previous
conferences, respondents were, on average, most positive about the conference location. Like in San Francisco
and New York, respondents were least positive about the social program, events and outings. There were no
significant differences between the overall evaluations of students, junior faculty and senior faculty.


Q2. When you decided to attend the Montreal conference, how important were the following motivations
for you personally? (7 point scale from 1-not at all to 7-very important)


                                                            Montreal*          SF         Dresden       New York
Improve my academic record through paper                       5.6             5.5           5.3            5.4
presentation or other activities
Job market (i.e., get in touch with potential                  3.3             3.4           3.4            2.8
employers/employees/colleagues)
Keep up with recent research                                   6.0             5.8           5.8            4.7
Seek opportunities for research cooperation                    4.9             4.9           4.9            5.6
Meet or socialize with colleagues, friends                     5.9             5.8           5.8            4.9
Travel to an interesting place                                 5.2             5.1          N/A            N/A
*n=542-551.

Of the six motivations, four were more important in Montreal than in previous conferences (improve one’s
academic record, keep up with recent research, meet or socialize with colleagues and friends, and travel to an
interesting place). The order of the motivations, however, remained the same. Keeping up with recent research
and socializing with colleagues and friends remained the top motivations for attending the conference, followed
by improving one’s academic record, travelling to an interesting place and seeking opportunities for research
cooperation. The job market remained, on average, at the bottom of the list.
                                                                    ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-5


An analysis of the relationship between the motivations for attending the Montreal conference and the
respondents’ professional rank suggests that there were statistically significant differences between students,
junior faculty and senior faculty with regards to four of the six motivations (improving one’s academic record,
socializing with colleagues and friends, job market and seek opportunities for research). Improving one’s
academic record and the job market were more important motivations for students and junior faculty than for
senior faculty. For students, improving one’s academic record was, on average, the most important motivation
(unlike the overall scores, where it was only in the third place). Meeting or socializing with colleagues and
friends was more important for junior and senior faculty than for students. Thus, for example, 26% of the
students indicated that socializing with colleagues and friends was a very important motivation for attending the
conference, compared to 40% of the junior faculty and 42% of the senior faculty. Seeking opportunities for
research cooperation was slightly more important for junior faculty than for senior faculty and students.

Motivations for attending the conference by professional rank
                                                      Students*               Junior Faculty**    Senior Faculty***
Improve my academic record through paper                         6.1                6.0                 4.9
presentation or other activities
Job market (i.e., get in touch with potential                    4.6                3.1                 2.2
employers/employees/colleagues)
Keep up with recent research                                     6                  6.0                 5.9
Seek opportunities for research cooperation                      4.7                5.3                 4.9
Meet or socialize with colleagues, friends                       5.6                6.1                  6
Travel to an interesting place                                   5.3                5.3                 5.2
*n=183-185; **n=135-137; ***n=182-185




                                                Role at the conference

Q3. Which of the following roles did you play in the Montreal conference? (check all that apply)

                                                            Montreal*         SF          Dresden        New York
Award winner                                                   9%             7%             7%               19%
Chair                                                         20%            21%            18%               14%
Discussant                                                    12%            14%            14%               7%
Divisional/Interest Group/ICA officer, committee or            9%             8%             8%               ---
Board Member
Paper Reviewer                                                30%            26%            23%               ---
Preconference (organizer, presenter)                          10%             6%             4%               77%
Presenter (paper, panel, poster; includes non-                77%            78%            76%               ---
presenting co-author)
Volunteer (student, staff)                                     1%             1%             2%               ---
Attendee (any sessions or meetings, but not any of            27%            32%            31%               8%
the prior roles)
Other (please specify)                                         1%             2%             3%               19%
* n=547
                                                                    ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-6


Like in previous conferences, presenting research was the major role played by the participants. There was a
small increase in the percentage of reviewers and preconference participants, and a slight decrease in the
percentage of discussants and conference attendees that did not play any other role.



                                     Attendance and Enjoyment of Events

Q4. Which of the following events at the Montreal conference did you attend (other than those for which
you had a formal role such as presenter/committee member)? (check all that apply)


                                                          Montreal*           SF         Dresden       New York
Divisional/interest group panel                              70%             74%           70%            83%
Plenary session (not including Poster session or ICA          ---            40%           58%            50%
Business meeting)**
Opening plenary session (Filmmaker-in-Residence)**           14%              ---           ---            ---
Mini-plenary (Friday and Saturday, noon-1:15 pm)**           12%              ---           ---            ---
Plenary poster session                                       39%             28%           40%            45%
Theme panel (not a plenary or miniplenary session)           44%             57%           59%            67%
ICA Business meeting with presidential address               21%             19%           14%            24%
Affiliate organizational panel                               9%               7%            7%            22%
Division/interest group business meeting                     54%             51%           43%            53%
Division/interest group reception                            52%             50%           49%            57%
University/institutional reception                           38%             39%           29%            60%
First night's ICA reception                                  51%             49%           41%            49%
Pre-conference workshop                                      19%             16%            8%            19%
New members’ orientation                                     7%               4%            5%            8%
Graduate student reception                                   12%              ---           ---           ---
Graduate student lounge                                      11%              ---           ---            ---
* n=522
** In Montreal, the Friday and Saturday plenary sessions were replaced by seven mini-plenaries. Plenary
sessions included the opening plenary, the ICA business meeting with presidential address, and the poster
session. Therefore, the question about “attending a plenary session (not including Poster session or ICA
Business meeting)” was replaced by two questions: “opening plenary session (Filmmaker-in-Residence)” and
“Mini-plenary (Friday and Saturday, noon-1:15 pm).”

Most survey respondents attended divisional/interest group panels, followed by division/interest group business
meetings, division/interest group receptions, and the opening reception. The percentage of respondents that
reported attending either the opening plenary session or a mini-plenary was lower than the percentage of
respondents attending a plenary session in the previous conferences. There was also a substantial decrease in
the percentage of attendees in the theme panels and a slight increase in the attendance at affiliate
organizational panels. However, it is not clear to what degree respondents were able to identify and differentiate
between these different types of sessions (particularly given the fact that in the program mini-plenaries were
under the more general title “sponsored sessions”).
                                                                  ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-7



Q5. How much did you enjoy each of the following events offered at the conference?
(7 point scale from 1-not at all to 7-very very much)

                                                                                  Montreal*             SF
Divisional/interest group panel                                                       6.0               6.0
Plenary session (not including Poster session or ICA Business meeting)**              ---               5.6
Opening plenary session (Filmmaker-in-Residence)**                                    4.6               ---
Mini-plenary (Friday and Saturday, noon-1:15 pm)**                                    5.3               ---
Plenary poster session                                                                5.3               5.2
Theme panel (not a plenary or miniplenary session)                                    5.9               5.9
ICA Business meeting with presidential address                                        6.0               5.1
Affiliate organizational panel                                                        5.3               5.4
Division/interest group business meeting                                              5.9               5.6
Division/interest group reception                                                     6.0               5.9
University/institutional reception                                                    6.0               6.1
First night's ICA reception                                                           5.2               5.7
Pre-conference workshop                                                               5.6               5.8
New members’ orientation                                                              4.9               4.9
Graduate student reception                                                            4.9               ---
Graduate student lounge                                                           5.0               ---
* 401 to 476 people answered this question and the number of “not applicable” ranged from 118 to 338. The
means are thus based on 79 to 358 responses (i.e. the number of people who attended each event and rated it).

The top four ranked events that participants enjoyed were divisional/interest group panels, the ICA business
meeting with presidential address, divisional/interest group receptions and university/institutional receptions.
The least enjoyed event was the opening plenary session (Filmmaker-in-Residence), followed by new members’
orientation and graduate student reception.

For most of the Montreal conference events, the level of enjoyment was equal to or higher than the level of
enjoyment at the San Francisco conference. The most significant increase was in levels of enjoyment of the ICA
business meeting with presidential address. The most significant decrease was in levels of enjoyment of the
opening reception, although other than a couple of qualitative comments that complained about the room being
too small and the drinks being too expensive, it is not clear what caused the decrease.

The table below represents the level of enjoyment of the different events by the respondent’s professional rank,
and the number of respondents in each subgroup (student/junior faculty/senior faculty) who attended the
different events. While the number of students and senior faculty among the survey respondents was identical
(186 students, 186 senior faculty), in almost all of the conference events (except for the poster session, new
members’ orientation, and graduate student reception and lounge) there was a higher number of senior faculty
than students. The most pronounced differences in the level of attendance are in the opening plenary session,
the mini-plenaries, and the ICA business meeting with presidential address, where the number of senior faculty
was almost twice the number of students. The attendance of junior faculty at the different events was largely in
congruence with their percentage among the survey respondents (137 junior faculty, 25% of the respondents).
The level of enjoyment of the different events was similar among students, junior faculty and senior faculty.
Statistically significant differences were found in three events that were enjoyed more by students, including the
theme panels, the plenary poster session and, naturally, the graduate student lounge.
                                                               ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-8


Enjoyment and attendance of events by professional rank
                                                     Students              Junior Faculty    Senior Faculty
Divisional/interest group panel                            6.0 (109)*         6.2 (91)         6.0 (132)
Opening plenary session (Filmmaker-in-Residence)           4.6 (23)           4.3 (22)          4.8 (45)
Mini-plenary                                               5.3 (23)           5.3 (15)          5.3 (40)
Plenary poster session                                     5.6 (78)           5.3 (54)          5.0 (75)
Theme panel                                                6.2 (75)           5.8 (48)          5.7 (84)
ICA Business meeting with presidential address             5.3 (34)           6.0 (27)          5.5 (61)
Affiliate organizational panel                             5.5 (20)           5.7 (22)          5.1 (34)
Division/interest group business meeting                   5.9 (86)           5.9 (74)          5.8 (114)
Division/interest group reception                          6.1 (86)           6.0 (77)          6.0 (103)
University/institutional reception                         6.1 (67)           6.2 (51)          5.8 (81)
First night's ICA reception                                5.1 (87)           5.5 (55)          5.1 (111)
Pre-conference workshop                                    5.6 (34)           5.8 (44)          5.6 (49)
New members’ orientation                                   5.6 (34)           5.8 (12)          5.6 (25)
Graduate student reception                                 5.1 (62)           4.1 (8)           4.4 (15)
Graduate student lounge                                   5.3 (51)          4.2 (11)            4.0 (9)
* The number in parenthesis represents the number of respondents in each sub-group that attended and rated
the events.

One of the findings suggested here points to the tendency of students to attend association-wide events less
than they attended other kinds of niche-oriented programming. In response, we are presently surveying ICA
student membership to ascertain how we might make activities such as the ICA business meeting,
plenaries and mini-plenaries more attractive to students so as to better assist them in socializing into
association-wide programming.


Q6. Were there events at the Montreal conference that you did not attend but that you wish you had
attended? (check all that apply)

                                                                               Montreal*      San Francisco
Divisional/interest group panel                                                  11%              15%
Plenary session (not including Poster session or ICA Business meeting)**          ---             16%
Opening plenary session (Filmmaker-in-Residence)**                               24%               ---
Mini-plenary (Friday and Saturday, noon-1:15 pm)**                               10%                ---
Plenary poster session                                                           12%              15%
Theme panel (not a plenary or miniplenary session)                               10%              13%
ICA Business meeting with presidential address                                   21%              16%
Affiliate organizational panel                                                    4%               5%
Division/interest group business meeting                                         22%              22%
Division/interest group reception                                                19%              23%
University/institutional reception                                               11%              18%
First night's ICA reception                                                      31%              26%
                                                               ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-9


                                                                                 Montreal*    San Francisco
Pre-conference workshop                                                            21%             18%
New members’ orientation                                                           16%             16%
Graduate student reception                                                         14%              ---
Graduate student lounge                                                            11%              ---
* n=340

Like in San Francisco, the opening reception was the event that most respondents said they would have liked to
attend. A fifth or more of the respondents indicated that they would have liked to attend the opening plenary
session, the ICA business meeting with presidential address, divisional/interest group business meeting and a
preconference.


                        Divisions and Interest Groups: Attendance and Membership

Q7. Please indicate the divisions or interest groups whose sessions you attended in any role (check all
that apply):

                                                      Montreal*       San Francisco
Information Systems                                      14%              15%
Interpersonal Communication                              14%              17%
Mass Communication                                       42%              47%
Organizational Communication                             17%              19%
Intercultural Communication                              9%               17%
Political Communication                                  31%              34%
Instructional and Developmental Communication            7%                7%
Health Communication                                     19%              22%
Philosophy of Communication                              17%              18%
Communication and Technology                             29%              27%
Popular Communication                                    17%              17%
Public Relations                                         12%              13%
Feminist Scholarship                                     12%              12%
Communication Law and Policy                             8%                8%
Language and Social Interaction                          10%               8%
Visual Studies                                           10%               9%
Journalism Studies                                       22%              24%
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies          4%                6%
Intergroup Communication                                 4%                6%
Ethnicity and Race in Communication                      11%              12%
Game Studies                                             10%              11%
Global Communication and Social Change                   17%               ---
Communication History                                    7%                ---
* n=520
                                                                ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-10



While the level of respondents’ attendance at the events of the Mass Communication division declined by 5% in
comparison to the San Francisco conference, the survey responses suggest that it was still the most well
attended division at the Montreal conference, followed by Political Communication, Communication and
Technology, and Journalism Studies (in an equivalent order to the San Francisco conference). The most
significant decrease was in Intercultural Communication (called Intercultural and Development Communication
in previous conferences), which split last year into two separate divisions: Intercultural Communication and
Global Communication and Social Change. Notably, however, the aggregate percentage of respondents who
attended the events of the two divisions (26%) was significantly higher than the percentage of respondents who
attended the events of the unified division in San Francisco (17%). This suggests that the split has drawn in
additional attendees.


Q8. Please indicate the divisions or interest groups of which you are a member (check all that apply):

                                                          Montreal*         SF           Dresden       New York
Information Systems                                          10%            13%            12%           11%
Interpersonal Communication                                  11%            12%            11%           13%
Mass Communication                                           32%            33%            33%           31%
Organizational Communication                                 15%            16%            15%           14%
Intercultural Communication                                  8%             15%            14%           16%
Political Communication                                      18%            21%            22%           20%
Instructional and Developmental Communication                5%             5%             4%             5%
Health Communication                                         14%            16%            13%           14%
Philosophy of Communication                                  10%            9%             9%             6%
Communication and Technology                                 20%            18%            17%           19%
Popular Communication                                        10%            8%             8%            10%
Public Relations                                             9%             10%            10%            8%
Feminist Scholarship                                         7%             8%             7%             8%
Communication Law and Policy                                 4%             5%             5%             6%
Language and Social Interaction                              6%             6%             6%             6%
Visual Studies                                               5%             5%             7%             4%
Journalism Studies                                           13%            12%            15%           11%
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies              4%             3%             3%             4%
Intergroup Communication                                     3%             4%             3%             3%
Ethnicity and Race in Communication                          7%             6%             5%             4%
Game Studies                                                 6%             5%             4%             ---
Global Communication and social Change                       9%              ---            ---           ---
Communication History                                        6%              ---            ---           ---
Children, Adolescents, and the media                         7%              ---            ---            ---
* n=505

Participation from the various divisions and interest groups remained relatively stable in comparison to previous
conferences (except for the three new divisions and interest groups, and Intercultural Communication, which
split last year into two divisions).
                                                              ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-11



If responses are any indication, divisional and interest group sessions are drawing interest from non-members,
since in all cases the percentage of respondents who attended the events of the division/interest group
(question 7) was higher than the percentage of respondents who were members of these divisions/interest
groups. The question, however, is whether there are differences between the different divisions/interest groups
in the ratio of attendance and membership. That is, between divisions/interest groups whose events are
attended primarily by their members (in this case we would expect a ratio close to 1 between the number of
people who attended divisional events and the number of members), and divisions whose events tend to attract
people outside of the division/interest group (in this case we would expect higher ratios). The table below
represents the ratio between the number of attendees at divisional/interest group events at the Montreal
conference (based on question 7) and divisional/interest group membership (based on question 8). We can see,
for example, that events of the Visual Studies division are attended by more than twice the size of its
membership, whereas Organizational Communication is located at the other end of the spectrum, with almost
the same number of attendees and members (a ratio of 1.1). Other divisions/interest groups that attract broader
audiences than their members are Political Communication, Philosophy and Communication, Popular
Communication, Feminist Scholarship, Communication Law and Policy, Game Studies, and Global
Communication and Social Change.

The ratio between the number of attendees at divisional/interest group events
at the Montreal conference and divisional/interest groups membership
                                                                  ratio
 Information Systems                                                  1.5
 Interpersonal Communication                                          1.4
 Mass Communication                                                   1.4
 Organizational Communication                                         1.1
 Intercultural and Development Communication                          1.2
 Political Communication                                              1.8
 Instructional and Developmental Communication                        1.5
 Health Communication                                                 1.4
 Philosophy of Communication                                          1.7
 Communication and Technology                                         1.5
 Popular Communication                                                1.8
 Public Relations                                                     1.4
 Feminist Scholarship                                                 1.8
 Communication Law and Policy                                         1.9
 Language and Social Interaction                                      1.6
 Visual Studies                                                       2.2
 Journalism Studies                                                   1.6
 Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies                      1.2
 Intergroup Communication                                             1.5
 Ethnicity and Race in Communication                                  1.5
 Game Studies                                                         1.8
 Global Communication and social Change                               1.9
 Communication History                                                1.3
                                                               ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-12


                                 Evaluation of logistics, events and location

Q9. How much do you agree with the following descriptions of logistics at the Montreal conference?
(7 point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree)

                                                                      Montreal*       SF      Dresden      NY
Montreal was a stimulating conference location                            5.9         6.1        5.5       6.0
Le Centre Sheraton Montreal was a good conference site                    5.3         5.5        4.8       4.8
The local organizing committee did a good job of providing special        5.1         5.4        5.4       4.7
events throughout the conference
The layout of the meeting rooms made it easy to get to sessions           4.7         4.2        4.5       4.2
The meeting rooms were comfortable                                        4.9         5.0        4.1       4.2
Audio visual needs were met effectively                                   5.3         5.3        4.7       5.1
The printed program was easy to follow                                    5.7         5.6        5.5       5.4
* n=516-546

Satisfaction with the logistics of the conference ranged from 4.7 to 5.9. The Montreal conference was
considered better than previous conferences in terms of how the meeting rooms were laid out across the hotel
and in terms of the ease of following the printed program. The conference was considered less satisfying than
both the San Francisco and Dresden conferences in relation to the special events organized by the local
committee, and slightly less satisfying than the San Francisco conference in terms of the location, the hotel and
the comfort level of the meeting rooms. No significant differences were found across the evaluations of students,
junior faculty and senior faculty.

Many of the qualitative comments in question 21 addressed the various logistic aspects of the conference, with
particular emphasis on the hotel, the meeting rooms, audio visual needs and internet access. The small size of
some of the meeting rooms was the most frequent complaint, and it was particularly problematic in the
presidential address, sessions that took place on the seventh floor, and sessions with renowned scholars. Other
frequent complaints concerned the uneven temperature in the meeting rooms (some too cold, some too warm),
the lack of adequate public spaces, the high cost of rooms, drinks and internet access, the need to pay for audio
equipment, the unavailability of MAC adapters and the lack of onsite computers.

Despite the problems with the conference hotel, there was a general agreement that Montreal was a great
(though expensive) location for the conference.

In response to these comments, as of next year ICA has changed its requirements for conference hotels
and will no longer use any rooms that seat less than 50 people theater-style. Hopefully, this will help
offset the unevenness of room size and the possibility that rooms are unable to accommodate
comfortably attendees at a given session.
                                                                  ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-13


Q10. How much do you agree with the following descriptions of events at the Montreal conference?
(7 point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree, including the option of “not applicable”)

                                                                          Montreal*         SF    Dresden       NY
Too many interesting programs were scheduled opposite to one                 5.2            5.1     4.5         4.7
another
The pre-conference workshops were stimulating and valuable                   5.4            5.0     4.2         4.5
additions to ICA
The plenary sessions were valuable                                           5.0            5.0     4.9         4.5
The mini-plenary sessions were valuable                                      5.0            ---     ---         ---
The theme sessions were valuable                                             5.7            5.5     5.0         4.8
The quality of the papers I heard at panels was first-rate                   5.4            5.1     4.6         4.8
The quality of the posters I saw at the poster plenary was first-rate        5.1            4.6     4.3         4.4
Adequate time was available for audience discussions at the end              4.8            4.3     4.0         4.1
of sessions
I was bothered by the number of no shows among panelists on                  3.2            3.8     4.3         3.3
the program
The book exhibit area was very useful to me                                  5.1            5.2     4.4         5.1
The calls inviting submissions for publication in the Montreal          4.5         4.6        ---       ---
theme book were straightforward.
Publication of the theme book based on the Montreal conference          4.8         4.7        ---       ---
should be a valuable resource to communication researchers
* 472 to 533 people answered this question and the number of “not applicable” ranged from 17 to 303. The
means are thus based on 183 to 516 responses (i.e. the number of people who selected an answer other than
not applicable).

Levels of satisfaction with the conference events seem to have gone up over the past two years (from Dresden
to San Francisco and from San Francisco to Montreal), with the only exceptions being a slight increase in too
many interesting programs being scheduled opposite to one another and a slight decrease in satisfaction with
the book exhibit area and the call for submissions to the theme book. Notably, satisfaction with the quality of
posters, pre-conferences and the time available for audience discussions increased substantially from the San
Francisco to the Montreal conference. The most satisfying elements of the Montreal conference were the theme
sessions, the pre-conferences, and the quality of papers.

Statistically significant differences between the evaluations of students, junior faculty and senior faculty were
found in relation to three areas, listed in the table below. Students were more satisfied than faculty with the
theme sessions, and they were more likely to think that a theme book based on the Montreal conference would
be a valuable resource. Generally speaking, theme sessions and the theme book seemed to go down in
importance the more senior the rank. On the other hand, the book exhibit area was much more useful for both
junior and senior faculty than it was for students.

Evaluation of conference events by professional rank
                                                              Students*        Junior Faculty**   Senior Faculty***
The theme sessions were valuable                                 6.0                  5.8                 5.4
The book exhibit area was very useful to me                      4.5                  5.4                 5.4
Publication of the theme book based on the Montreal              5.3                  4.9                 4.0
conference should be a valuable resource to
communication researchers
*n=96-124; **n=80-110; ***n=111-150
                                                                  ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-14



Q11. Has the fact that the 2008 conference took place in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, made it easier for
you to participate, more difficult, or did it make no difference compared with previous conferences?

                     Montreal*     San Francisco        Dresden
Easier                   24%            38%                32%
More Difficult           17%            12%                31%
No difference            59%            50%                36%
* n=533

The percentage of respondents who indicated that the Montreal conference was more difficult to attend was
higher than the San Francisco conference and lower than the Dresden conference. The percentage of
respondents who indicated that the Montreal conference was easier to attend was lower than both the San
Francisco and Dresden conferences.



                                              Future Programming

All the questions in this section (11-16) were added to the survey this year. Question 12 was largely based on
the categories developed in last year’s report, whereas questions 13-16 examine members’ interest in- and
position on particular programming ideas.

Q12. The activities and services ICA provides for its members at the conference are always evolving. Of
the following types of activities and services, which would you like to see more of? (check all that apply)


 Activity                                                        Interest (% of respondents)
 Social events                                                              46%
 Professional activities (workshops, mentoring sessions)                    60%
 Pre-conferences                                                            19%
 Plenary sessions                                                           12%
 Mini-plenary sessions                                                      9%
 Poster sessions                                                            13%
 Cross-divisional/interest group programming                                58%
 Tours and activities outside of conference venues                          24%
n=470

Professional activities and cross-divisional programming are the two types of activities that respondents would
most like to see more of, followed by social events and activities outside of conference venues. Less than a fifth
of the respondents were interested in more pre-conferences, poster sessions, plenary sessions and mini-
plenary sessions.
                                                                  ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-15



Q13. ICA is experimenting with ideas for different types of programming. To what extent would you be
interested in attending the following types of programming?
(very interested, somewhat interested, not interested)


                                                           Very Interested       Somewhat          Not Interested
                                                                                 Interested
Cross-divisional/interest     group   programming,              65%                 28%                  7%
discussing topics of shared interest
Programming devoted to academic professionalism                 36%                 42%                 22%
Programming devoted to developing media skills for              24%                 37%                 39%
academics
Programming devoted to fellowship opportunities                 34%                 40%                 26%
Programming devoted to grant-making opportunities               48%                 35%                 17%
Programming devoted to junior career opportunities              37%                 30%                 33%
n=490-518

Of the six programming ideas, respondents were by far most interested in cross-divisional programming. Next
was programming devoted to grant-making opportunities, followed by programming devoted to academic
professionalism and programming devoted to fellowship and junior career opportunities.

An analysis of the relationship between the level of interest in the different types of programming and the
respondents’ professional rank suggests that all of the ideas were of less interest to senior faculty than they are
to students and junior faculty. The table below presents the percentage of respondents in each group who
indicated that they would be “very interested” in the different types of programming. Thus, for example, 42% of
students and 40% of junior faculty were very interested in programming devoted to academic professionalism,
compared with only 28% of senior faculty. Similarly, 58% of students and 53% of junior faculty were very
interested in programming devoted to grant-making opportunities, compared with only 38% of senior faculty.
Except for cross-divisional/interest group programming, where the differences between the groups were small
and not statistically significant, in all other cases the differences were substantial and statistically significant
(based on Chi-square tests).

While cross-divisional programming was of most interest to all groups, for students the second most interesting
item was programming devoted to junior career opportunities, compared with programming devoted to grant-
making opportunities among junior and senior faculty.


                                                              Students*        Junior Faculty**   Senior Faculty***
Cross-divisional/interest     group   programming,              67%                 66%                 60%
discussing topics of shared interest
Programming devoted to academic professionalism                 42%                 40%                 28%
Programming devoted to developing media skills for              30%                 30%                 13%
academics
Programming devoted to fellowship opportunities                 47%                 35%                 24%
Programming devoted to grant-making opportunities               58%                 53%                 38%
Programming devoted to junior career opportunities              65%                 39%                  8%
*n=173-178; **n=126-134; ***n=159-173
                                                                 ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-16


In response, the conference in Chicago is being organized around the idea of cross-unit programming,
as already implicated by the conference theme on Keywords in Communication. Similarly, the Chicago
program will feature a number of professionally-oriented panels to address the interest evidenced in the
issue.


Q14: ICA is considering having the opening reception in a location outside the conference hotel. What is
your position on this matter?

 Position                                                           % of respondents
 ICA should not consider going off site for a reception                   34%
 ICA should consider going off site for a reception                       66%
n=518

Two thirds of the respondents thought that ICA should consider going off site for a reception, and one third
thought that it was not a good idea.

Two of the qualitative comments in question 21 addressed the idea of having an off-site reception. One was
negative, saying that “AEJMC once had its reception off site. It was a huge pain in the butt,” whereas the other
was positive, underscoring the high prices of drinks in hotel receptions: “I strongly believe that social events
should happen off-site. Most junior faculty and grad students can't afford to stay in the conference hotel
anyways, so it's not an issue to move elsewhere; what IS an issue is the extortionate prices for drinks that ICA
hotels always charge. Go figure why the average age at these parties is usually higher than the ICA norm -- the
junior academics are priced out of them. So help us out, and go somewhere where a beer costs less than $8,
please.”


Q15: Would you be willing to walk ten to fifteen minutes to an off-site reception? (This question was
posed only to those who said ICA should consider going off site for a reception)

                     Position                         % of respondents
  I would not mind walking to the reception site           88%
  I would prefer not to walk to the reception site         12%
* n=444


Q16. ICA is considering separating the ICA business meeting from the presidential address and awards
ceremony. What is your position on this matter?

 Position                                                                                    % of respondents
  Separate the ICA business meeting from the presidential address and awards ceremony               32%
  Retain the current format (the three events together)                                             15%
  It does not make a difference to me either way                                                    53%
* n=531

About a third of the respondents supported the separation of the ICA business meeting from the presidential
address and awards ceremony, 15% preferred to retain the current format, and for more than half of the
respondents it did not make a difference either way.

Two of the qualitative comments in question 21 referred to the idea of separating the ICA business meeting from
the presidential address, both of which supported the separation. One assumed that the awards ceremony
                                                                   ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-17


would be separated from the business meeting and commented that “that way we can skip the address and still
support colleagues and hear ICA business.” The other emphasized the need for an extended and more inclusive
business meeting: “I strongly support having a separate meeting for ICA business, and allowing the membership
to participate. Resolutions on matters of compelling interest to our field should be allowed to be presented,
discussed and voted on by the membership.” Another respondent suggested bringing back the reception
following the presidential address.

In response to those preferring a separation of the business meeting from the awards ceremony, this
year's conference will try out a separation of the two events. An open business meeting will be held
during the latter part of the Thursday board meeting on May 21, in which members can hear about the
state of the association and board members will field questions from members. The awards ceremony
will take place at its usual time on Saturday, May 23.




                                                   Personal details

Q17. Are you…

                                                                         Montreal*       SF         Dresden   NY
Student (undergrad, master, Ph.D., postdoc, prospective)                   35%          33%          31%      31%
Junior Faculty (untenured and/or assistant professor)**                    25%
Senior Faculty (including also emeritus, dept. chair, dean,                35%          58%          58%      60%
university administrator, etc.)**
Researcher (coordinator, scientist, director, administrator, not            3%          5%            7%      ---
faculty or student)
Non-University Professional (journalist, publisher, librarian,              1%          2%            2%      3%
government official, foundation)
Other                                                                       1%          1%            1%      6%
* n=539
** The “faculty” category of previous surveys was divided this year to junior and senior faculty.

Around one third of the respondents were students, another third were senior faculty members and one fourth of
the respondents were junior faculty members. The remaining 5% were researchers, non-university professionals
and “other” (e.g., media activists or people who belong to several categories). Over the past years there has
been a gradual increase in the percentage of students among the respondents, with 31% in New York and
Dresden, compared with 33% in San Francisco and 35% in Montreal. The percentage of faculty members
oscillated between 58% and 60% over the past four conferences.


Q18. What is your gender?


             Montreal*         SF         Dresden         NY
Female          56%            54%          48%           53%
Male           43.5%           46%          50%           47%
Other           0.5%            ---          ---           ---
n=544
                                                                   ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-18


56% of the respondents were women, a slightly higher percentage than in previous conferences. As the table
below demonstrates, the percentage of women was much higher among students and junior faculty and much
lower among senior faculty. 66% of the students and 62% of the junior faculty were women, compared to 40% of
the senior faculty.


                Students        Junior Faculty    Senior Faculty
Female            66%               62%               40%
Male             33.5%             37.5%             59.5%
Other            0.5%               0.5%              0.5%



Q19. Where do you currently reside?


                                     Montreal*          SF         Dresden       NY
Africa                               0% [0.2%]**        0%           1%          0%
Asia/Pacific                          6% [4%]           5%           6%          4%
Australia/New Zealand                 3% [2%]           2%           3%          2%
Central and South America             1% [1%]           0%           0%          1%
Europe                              22% [18%]          23%          31%         19%
Middle East                           2% [2%]           1%           2%          2%
North America                       66% [73%]          69%          57%         71%
* n=543
** The percentages in parentheses represent the actual representation of the different regions at the
conference, based on ICA registration data.

The distribution of respondents by regions was similar to previous conferences (particularly the San Francisco
conference) and largely in accordance with the distribution of conference attendees by region, with a slight
oversampling of Asia/Pacific, Europe and Australia/New Zealand and undersampling of North America. Two
thirds of the respondents were from North America (whereas in the conference itself North American attendees
constituted almost three quarters of the respondents), a little more than a fifth of the respondents were from
Europe (compared with a little less than a fifth of the conference attendees), and the remaining 12% were from
other parts of the world.

ICA registration data show that conference registrants came from 51 countries (compared with 47 in San
Francisco and 52 in Dresden). The 20 countries with the most representatives were:

Country               Montreal             SF         Dresden        New York
United States            1409              1528          971           1666
Canada                   130               43            24               55
Germany                    75              102           297              94
Netherlands                67              54            84               57
United Kingdom             64              61            62               62
Israel                     33              22            35               33
                                                                   ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-19


Country               Montreal           SF           Dresden        New York
Singapore                 33             18             23              23
Sweden                    27             28             31              20
Australia                 26             27             28              31
Switzerland               26             27             32              13
Belgium                   25             21             14              15
Denmark                   20             15             15               7
Hong Kong                 17             12             1               11
Mexico                    15             19             9               15
Finland                   13             13             15               9
New Zealand               12              6             22               8
Spain                     11              8             15              11
Korea                     9              25             33              27
China                     8              13             26               6
France                    8               4             6                3

Attendance from Canada was three times higher than it was in San Francisco, with Canada replacing Germany
as the second largest group at the conference. Attendance from Germany has gradually declined over the past
three conferences, with 297 attendees in Dresden, 102 in San Francisco and only 75 in Montreal.
The data also revealed significant changes in the number of attendees from East/Southeast Asian countries.
There was an increase in the number of attendees from Singapore and Hong Kong, with Singapore being the
sixth largest group at the Montreal conference (along with Israel), and Hong Kong having 17 representatives,
compared with 12 participants in San Francisco and one in Dresden. At the same time, there was a gradual
decrease in the number of attendees from Korea and China over the past three conferences.



                                                    Languages


20. ICA is considering the idea of multiple language submissions for the conference, in order to
accommodate submitters who are not well versed in English. Please list all languages you know other
than English, and for each language please indicate your level of proficiency in reading and writing
(fluent, good, fair, poor), and whether you would be willing to evaluate a paper written in this language.

Respondents listed 46 different languages that they knew other than English, with 340 participants (three fifths
of the survey respondents) listing one language and 10 participants listing five languages. The first table below
presents the overall willingness of respondents to evaluate a paper in another language.

Willingness to evaluate a paper          Language 1    Language 2       Language 3     Language 4     Language 5
Willing to evaluate a paper in the            69%            44%             20%          15%             10%
indicated language
Not willing to evaluate a paper in            31%            56%             80%          85%             90%
the indicated language
                                     n        340            204             90            27              10
                                                                 ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-20


Nearly 70% of the respondents who know another language said they were willing to evaluate a paper in this
language, with the willingness to evaluate a paper in another language decreasing for languages that were
further down the list.

The data about the respondents’ level of proficiency in each language suggest that the willingness to evaluate
papers in the indicated language was strongly associated with the level of proficiency in reading and writing the
language. For example, the table below presents the willingness to evaluate papers in other languages among
fluent writers of these languages. We see that 86% to 100% among fluent writers of the language are willing to
evaluate a paper in this language. Correspondingly, 0% to 14% of fluent writers were unwilling to evaluate a
paper in the indicated language. This suggests that among fluent writers of the language, there is a very strong
willingness to evaluate a paper in that language.


Willingness to evaluate a paper            Fluent        Fluent          Fluent         Fluent          Fluent
                                          writers in    writers in      writers in     writers in      writers in
                                         Language 1    Language 2      Language 3     Language 4      Language 5
Willing to evaluate a paper in the          92%            86%            88%            100%            100%
indicated language
Not willing to evaluate a paper in          8%             14%            12%              0%             0%
the indicated language
                                     N      220             43              8               2              1

It should be emphasized, however, that the willingness to evaluate a paper does not necessarily mean an
approval of the idea of multiple language submissions (respondents were not asked about their position on this
matter). In addition, the qualitative comments in question 21 suggest that there was at least some resistance to
the idea. Of the 17 comments that addressed this issue, 13 were against the idea of multiple submissions,
arguing that it would reduce the quality of the conference, the accessibility of papers, and the level of
communication among ICA members (for the full comments see Appendix A). However, many of the negative
comments assumed that the papers would not be available in English and focused on the disadvantages of
presenting rather than submitting papers in other languages, as demonstrated by the following two comments:

          “I am not a native English speaker, but we need a lingua franca to communicate. If you
          introduce other languages you split the ICA into subgroups. French speakers will go to
          French spoken sessions and speak French and the same would apply to Spanish etc.
          You might as well develop separate conferences.”

          “Removing the English-only policy is a bad idea. Allowing non-English papers would take
          away from the quality of papers at ICA and the accessibility to most ICA members. Also,
          even if reviews in other languages could be procured, would anyone attend such panels
          if they were also in that foreign language?”

Of the two comments that supported the idea, one was a general statement of support (“I strongly support the
idea of multiple language submission!!!”) and the second assumed the presence of translators in the conference
itself:

          “It would be great to have translators present for researchers wishing to present their
          work in Spanish, French, Cantonese or other languages to make the conference truly
          international.”


Finally, the table below presents the languages listed by more than one respondent, the number of people who
indicated that they knew a given language and the number of people who were willing to evaluate a paper in this
language. The most popular language was French, followed by Spanish, German, Dutch, Chinese, Hebrew,
Russian and Portuguese.
                                                            ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-21



  Language       Number of         Number of
                respondents       respondents
                who know the     who are willing
                  language        to evaluate a
                                  paper in this
                                    language
French              155                51
Spanish             108                35
German               95                52
Dutch                29                26
Chinese              24                14
Hebrew               12                10
Russian              16                7
Portuguese           13                6
Korean               11                9
Swedish              10                4
Italian               8                3
Japanese              7                5
Hindi                 7                4
Arabic                7                2
Danish                5                3
Finnish               4                1
Mandarin              4                3
Norwegian             3                2
Polish                3                3
Bengali               2                1
Sinhala               2                2
Thai                  2                1
Turkish               2                2
Ukrainian             2                2


In response, we will be taking steps to further ascertain how the idea of multiple language submission
might work. A task force is in the process of being established to evaluate the workability of the issue
and establish a plan for its trial implementation.
                                                                  ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-22


                                              Additional Comments


Q21. Please add any additional comments you have about the Montreal conference in the box below
and/or suggestions about other types of programming you would like to see at future conferences (for
the exact answers to this question see Appendix A).

Participants appreciated the following aspects of the Montreal conference:
    The city. Participants agreed that Montreal was a wonderful location, among other things because of its
    multiculturalism. As one participant wrote, “I found this a varied, stimulating and informative conference in a
    wonderful setting, where two cultures are part of everyday life and experience.”
    The high (and some say improved) quality of the papers and sessions.
    The “innovative programming like the mini-plenaries.” The mini-plenaries were appreciatively mentioned by
    several participants.
    The preconferences. Participants mentioned favorably “The long history of the new media,” “What is an
    organization,” and “Analyzing media industries and media production.”
    The local organization team, which was “friendly and absolutely competent.”
    The top paper sessions.
    The availability of LCD projectors in all rooms.
    The travel grants for international participants.


However, they considered that there was room for improvement in the following areas:

a) Hotel and meeting rooms (see also question 9, p. 12)
      Some of the meetings rooms were too small, particularly the rooms on the seventh floor, the room of the
      presidential address and sessions with renowned scholars.
      Poor public spaces.
      Room quality “was not worth the price.”
      “Ridiculously expensive” drinks.
      Hotel was too expensive, particularly for graduate students.
      Uneven temperature in the meeting rooms (some too warm, some too cold).


b) AV equipment and internet access (see also question 9, p. 12)
      Internet access was very expensive – should be free.
      People without laptops could not access the internet.
      Participants had to pay for audio equipment.
      MAC adapters were not available.
      ICA should also provide the laptops for the presentations.
      Printing was costly.

c) Programming, sessions, presentations
      Poster session - too many posters, little discussion, bad layout (some presenters got little traffic), tips for
      poster presenters were given very late, the label “interactive paper/poster session” was misleading, the
      decision to accept a paper as a poster was made without consulting the submitter.
      Having one person present two papers in the same session is a bad idea.
      Ten minutes for a presentation is not enough.
      “Unplugged” roundtable sessions (5 minute presentations without AV equipment, repeating the
      presentation to alternating audiences) – exhausting and frustrating.
      A need for “a session devoted to furthering contacts with the industry and panels aimed at helping job-
      seekers both in the industry and academia.”
      Not enough panelists from outside the academy.
      Not enough plenaries and papers related to the conference theme.
      The sessions are in most cases “advertisements for papers that are already on their way to publication,”
      limiting possibilities for discussions. Consider sessions devoted to works in progress.
                                                               ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-23


        Presentations without visual aids (like PowerPoint presentations) are problematic for participants whose
        first language is not English.
        The plenary events were less inspiring than in previous conferences.

d) Receptions, graduate student lounge, social events
      Bring back the reception following the presidential address.
      Bad layout of the graduate student lounge (“set up like a boardroom”).
      Not all participants were aware of the graduate student lounge, the graduate student reception, and the
      new members’ orientation.
      Not a well-chosen location for the students’ reception.
      Not enough social events like local tours and dinners.
      A need to coordinate and facilitate multi-division receptions for smaller divisions/interest groups.

e) Submission, review and dissemination of papers
      The different terminology and submission rules of different divisions/interest groups are confusing,
      particularly for newcomers or people from non-communication departments.
      Not all of the presenters upload their papers to the conference website.
      The archive search engine is very limited.
      There are often widely disparate reviews; in some cases reviewers seem not to have read the papers
      carefully.
      Problems with the accessibility of papers after the conference.
      Acceptance rate is too low.

Participants disagreed on the following issues:
    The idea of multiple language submissions, although comments mostly dealt with presentation and not with
    submission (see question 20, pp. 19-20)
    The high density poster session (five-minute overviews of papers, followed by interaction around posters) –
    one respondent said that there was not enough time to present and that the “flashier” presenters got more
    feedback, another respondent wrote that “that was the worst idea that I have ever heard or been part of,”
    and a third participant said that it was a very good experience, and that ICA should consider having more
    such sessions.
    Magnetic badges. Some really liked them, others didn’t.

Other suggestions:
   Longer registration hours on pre-conference days.
   Bags. Make bags optional; use less expensive bags, like messenger bags or canvas totes.
   Allow people to choose not to receive the printed program.
   Add a “code of conduct” regarding session audience participation (“discussing the responsibility of every
   scholar to support and guide others toward the best possible work leading to publication would work”).
   Include the new member orientation as part of the registration email confirmation.
   Avoid holding the conference on Memorial Day weekend.
   Have the conference papers on CD or in a printed format.
   Provide babysitting services.
   The 2010 Singapore conference. Reduce fees (because of the other costs); avoid “countries with
   oppressive political regimes for conferences.”
                                                                ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-24


                                     Appendix A: Exact answers to Q21


Hotel

 -   The hotel had poor public spaces, which always seemed cramped. This was especially true of the lobby,
     which had virtually no public space, but needed it badly. The meeting rooms were a bit noisy. Location was
     fine, though.

 -   The hotel was in a nice location and did a nice good with the receptions, but the lobby was not conducive
     to meeting people. We also had trouble receiving the conference rate for the hotel.

 -   I thought the hotel was one of the poorer locations for the conference in recent memory. The layout was
     bad on several fronts.

 -   This was the worst hotel ICA has used since New York. ICA has a serious programming crisis reflected in
     suppressed acceptance rates it is not yet willing to acknowledge. I have no interest in Chicago, or Phoenix,
     I will not be able to afford Singapore, so goodbye for a while

 -   The drinks at the Sheraton were ridiculously expensive--I have never EVER paid so much for beverages.
     The bar staff were not at all clear on the dollar conversion rates and several of us ended up spending over
     $100 per day at the bar for just a few drinks--absolutely shocking.

 -   The conference hotel lacked places to sit and meet with colleagues (apart from the bar).

 -   Hotel was a bit expensive.

 -   I thought the sessions I attended were the best in a number of years. However, Montreal and LeCentre
     Sheraton should not be considered for future ICA conferences. Room quality was not worth the price, front
     desk staff were not helpful or friendly, lobby area was cramped and dark. Overall, Montreal as a
     conference site is over priced for what you get

 -   On the conference hotel, I don't think that the org could have done much better for the price at a Sheraton,
     but perhaps there could be 2 hotels, one with higher prices and better facilities (the AC and AV were the
     biggest complaints I heard) and one very close by with lower prices for those on a bigger budget. It's such
     a delicate balance and I know everyone is trying to get the most for the money from one place.

 -   This was a popular conference site, but the hotel rooms setting was not easy to find ways around.

 -   I enjoyed Montreal very much. The only thing was that Sheraton was an expensive hotel. It discourages
     graduate students attendance when the convention hotel is very expensive. Only 2 students (out of 100+
     students) from my department attended ICA this year. If there was a different student rate which is
     cheaper, I think it would have made a difference, even for those who attended. Thanks.

 -   While I enjoyed the conference, the hotel was sub-par this year. For example, there wasn't any water at
     many panels and the meeting rooms were messy. Room temperature was also a problem.

 -   The conference hotel was too small for the numbers now attending ICA. The bar/lobby area (important for
     meeting and talking to people)got very congested.

 -   I wish ICA had negotiated a better student rate at the conference hotel. It was too high for me as a grad
     student, so I stayed off-site in a different, cheaper hotel

 -   I thought that Montreal itself was an excellent location for the conference, but I found Le Centre Sheraton
     to be below standard - broken equipment and lighting in bedrooms, shabby decor, often unfriendly staff,
                                                                ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-25


     poor menu (esp. for vegetarians), and extortionate prices - especially for Internet access, which has been
     gratis at every other conference I've attended.

 -   Hotel was too expensive

 -   I would like to see ICA pay closer attention to the cost of the hotel (as successfully negotiated for next
     year). It was an expensive year for the conference and Singapore looks to be over the top in terms of cost.

 -   I realize this seems like a minor issue, but it actually is something that is widely discussed at ICA and has
     broader implications: if we are to have "social" events on site (such as divisional receptions) can ICA not
     negotiate lower drink costs with the hotels? 8 or 9 dollars for a glass of wine might be OK for someone with
     an endowed chair, but grad students (which I am NOT) and faculty on lower travel budgets usually wind up
     standing at these meetings with empty hands, or blow half of their meal allowance on a glass of cheap
     wine. It really creates a divide, and leads to quite a bit of ill-feeling. The receptions would really be much
     better if the hotel did not insist on making a 600% profit on their alcohol sales (OK at the bar, but not the
     receptions!) Also the room for the opening reception was far too small!


Meeting Rooms

 -   The small rooms were a big problem. I like that divisions retain the same rooms throughout the
     conference, but it is a problem when 100 people show up for a room that holds 50. Perhaps allow each
     division to have one or two "spotlight" panels in a large ballroom, but keep the rest of the panels in the
     smaller room. You could even make a Spotlight Ballroom, where all conference long the biggest names
     and most important panels appear. Also, I prefer lanyards over magnetic nametags.

 -   The hotel was not adequate and the assigning of rooms was not done with forethought. I could not get into
     the presidential address and missed it. Other sessions were also overcrowded. The lobby was not
     conducive to seeing people and meeting them.

 -   Several of the rooms were very small and too hot, while others were much too big and very cold. The
     elevators did not work well which was a problem since several of the rooms were on the 7th floor and it
     was not easy to take the stairs.

 -   All but two of the instructional and developmental division's panels were in the same room (728). Every
     session I attended in the room was overcrowded--people were standing and sitting on the floor--and there
     wasn't enough room for all the presenters to sit together at the tiny table at the front. The room also reeked
     of smoke. I was really disappointed that the instructional and developmental division panels were relegated
     to such a terrible room.

 -   Please take care that there are no more meetings in front of the conference rooms during a panel session,
     as this is very disturbing to the presenters (was the case for one of the panels in the game studies interest
     group)

 -   The reception and meeting rooms at the Sheraton were too small to accommodate the numbers of people.
     It was impossible to attend many sessions unless one arrived 10-15 minutes early. We need larger
     meeting and reception rooms in the future!!

 -   Most sessions were too warm. With the numbers of attendees in rooms of the size we had, thermostats
     need to be set much lower than would typically be comfortable in anticipation of the increased temperature
     due to body heat.

 -   Some of the rooms were much too small this year - I got closed out of several sessions I wanted to attend.
     These were sessions held one flight below the reception level. But I love Montreal as a city and overall the
     hotel was fine
                                                                ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-26



-

-   Some of the meeting rooms were way too small.

-   Unfortunately some plenaries had to do with rooms too small to accommodate all the interested people,
    while others where in one of the auditoriums with 10-20 persons attending. Admittedly hard to know on the
    forehand. At IAMCR they are better at making last minute changes, which irritating, but allow everybody to
    participate. I could not attend the presidential address/business meeting as i t was too crowded. Finally I
    found the shift in room temperature (cold in the auditoriums and warm in the plenary rooms) quite irritating.

-   Some of the panel sessions took place in small hotel rooms. These rooms were crowded and there was
    not nearly enough room for people to sit. I would suggest not holding sessions in hotel rooms in the future.

-   Overall the city was great, the conference facilities could be more 'open' and less convoluted in layout (it
    was tricky finding rooms at times), and the conference itself was quite stimulating

-   airco was terrible - sometimes much too warm, sometimes much too cold (last sessions on the last day so
    cold that I got a cold from it)

-   I went with grad students who all commented that the grad lounge was hopeless- set up like a boardroom.
    It missed an opportunity for them to meet other grad students.

-   There did not seem to be adequate rooms for all the panels at the conference, and many panels were set
    up in hotel rooms on the 7th floor, which were too small and uncomfortable. Also, AV equipment such as
    audio speakers (for playing video presentations) were provided at a charge--such equipment should be
    provided for free.

-   Several of the sessions I attended were in rooms that were not large enough to hold all the attendees. The
    Instructional/developmental "room" was particularly small. So were several other sessions I attended, one
    of which I could not even get into because the crowd spilled outside the door (Future of Media Effects
    panel). Better signage about where different rooms were in the hotel would have helped too.

-   The "conference rooms" were extremely inadequate, considering the fact they were simply converted hotel
    suites/rooms. I feel this strongly affected attendance as well as comfort levels in a negative fashion. For
    example, those who arrived early were forced to wait clustered in the narrow hallway and very few seats
    were available which, in turn, forced interested members to leave or else disturb the presenters due to
    hallway noise.

-   There were some sessions held in a downstairs hallway which actually blocked access to other rooms.
    That was pretty ridiculous.

-   I would recommend against the use of hotel rooms for conference sessions. The rooms on the 7th floor
    were too small and crowded and did not have as good AV capabilities as the more traditional conference
    rooms.

-   The reception room was TOO SMALL for the size of the group. It made it impossible to talk, meet new
    people, or even eat and drink. I had to leave the reception just to have a conversation. Likewise, the area
    about the poster session was quite tight. It made it difficult to browse the posters and speak with the
    presenters.

-   Some better consideration could be given to matching sessions with appropriately sized rooms. Holding
    the Radway/Bird/Henderson/Born session -- i.e., something pretty much guaranteed to draw a big crowd --
    in a repurposed guest room was a shame. When there are as many people sitting on the floor as there are
    in chairs, a session has clearly been placed in too small a space...
                                                                 ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-27



 -   Many of the rooms were too small at the last conference -- and they were arranged awkwardly in some
     cases, so that the people entering would have to walk immediately in front of the presenters. This,
     obviously, should be avoided if possible.

 -   Many rooms were far too small for the sessions. When you have a group of internationally known scholars
     presenting it seems obvious that they will attract a large audience. This needs to be recognised when
     allocating rooms.

 -   Some of the conference rooms hard to locate and not even on the conference map. Having only 1:15
     minutes for panels often left no time for discussion whatsoever, this was the biggest disappointment beside
     the fact that there was no decent plenary or keynote.


Language

 -   Don't do any other language than English....it's the academic language.

 -   The idea of multiple language submissions is NOT a wise one. One universal language is vital to fostering
     a level of communication and cohesion despite the obvious disadvantage it renders to some.

 -   Regarding languages, something I learned at this conference is that effective use of PowerPoint or
     handouts is extremely helpful for audience members with limited knowledge of the language of
     presentation. A French Canadian colleague whose English is not strong complained to me with some
     anger that too many presenters failed to use PowerPoint with the result that he had great difficulty
     understanding those presentations. I had the same experience attending a preconference in which many
     of the presentations were in French. Good PowerPoint slides even in French (which I don't read well or
     speak at all) were extremely helpful. Bottom line: as ICA internationalizes, presenters should be strongly
     encouraged to use slides or handouts and in general should try to adapt their presentations to the needs of
     a multilingual audience.

 -   Removing the English-only policy (summaries in item 20) is a bad idea. Allowing non-English papers would
     take away from the quality of papers at ICA and the accessibility to most ICA members. Also, even if
     reviews in other languages could be procured, would anyone attend such panels if they were also in that
     foreign language?

 -   I strongly support the idea of multiple language submission!!!

 -   I wish I were proficient in my French and Spanish, but what little I have is conversational; it's inadequate to
     the task of comprehending, let alone reviewing, academic papers.

 -   I do not think the idea of multiple language submissions is a good one, for numerous reasons, despite the
     fact that my own first language is not English.

 -   I am not a native English speaker, but we need a lingua franca to communicate. If you introduce other
     languages you split the ICA into subgroups. French speakers will go to French spoken sessions and speak
     French and the same would apply to Spanish etc. You might as well develop separate conferences.

 -   I think the idea of accepting non-English submissions is problematic -- if the panelist is not able to write
     effectively in English, what is the chance that s/he will be able to present effectively in English? Are we
     going to have separate conferences for English and non-English speakers?

 -   I believe all submissions should be in English.

 -   I don't like the idea of multiple language submissions.
                                                                ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-28



 -   multiple language submissions to the conference may turn it into a Babylon issue and, besides, may
     deteriorate the quality of the materials. Submitting the papers in English only makes this process more
     competitive.

 -   If ICA wants to be international in reviewing, it needs to be VERY clear about the translation facilities and
     the expectations of presenters should there not be simultaneous translation. The short length of panels
     means either non English panels should be longer or translated abstracts/powerpoints should be provided
     alongside the program and presentations. This will perhaps both efficient and just should the high price of
     translation be unavailable.

 -   It would be great to have translators present for researchers wishing to present their work in Spanish,
     French, Cantonese or other languages to make the conference truly international.

 -   I don't think the multiple language submission is a good idea. We should keep it international and use
     English as the lingua franca.

 -   I suggest not to include other languages at the ICA. Other associations (like WAPOR) have not benefitted
     from this.

 -   a bad idea.



Sessions

 -   I was extremely unhappy with the interactive poster session where I presented. There were too many
     posters, few people who took the time to stop and talk to me (and other presenters) about the research,
     and very little stimulating discussion about what the posters had in common within our divisions. I will not
     submit to the interactive poster session again.

 -   Panel fewer sessions. There is too much happening simultaneously. This would increase attendance in
     any given session

 -   Maybe you should "imagine" what a typical researcher in each division would like to attend, an arrange for
     the different sessions to be scheduled so that they are not concurrent.

 -   The Presidential Address should be in a large ballroom to accommodate all members. I arrived early at it
     and still was not able to hear it. I like others was forced to stand outside the door and could only get an
     occasional glimpse at Sonia Livingstone's slides. It was an insult to her and to the membership to hold it in
     such a small room. Furthermore, why was there no reception after her address, as was done in Germany
     and Korea? Couldn't ICA get some outside sponsor to provide a reception or meal as was done at these
     conferences? We pay a lot for the conference, and especially this year, seem to get very little in return.

 -   I did not appreciate the intensive sessions that were half presentation half poster. There was less time to
     present and ultimately the "flashier" presenters got more feedback.

 -   I participated in an "intensive panel session" -- it was a very good experience (8 presenters, each 5
     minutes, and then "posters" for one-on-one talks). You should have more.

 -   Leave more time for discussion in panel presentations

 -   I had to present my two papers submitted to the 2008 conference in the same session (Digital news). I'd
     prefer if the same author is not allowed to have two (or more) papers in the same session as it decreases
                                                                ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-29


    the chance to reach a bigger audience (assuming that the audience varies somewhat from session to
    session).

-   In some sessions some speakers get only 10 mins to explain their research project, which can be too little
    for more complex setups (e.g. multiple experiments, complex findings, or complex statistics). A minimum of
    15 mins speaker time would offer at least a little more time for speakers to explain their study set up and
    findings.

-   I would like to see more panelists presenting rather than reading their paper.

-   Not sure whether I understand what you mean by 'plenary' and 'mini-plenary' sessions

-   Up grade the plenary (one or two more in the program)

-   I found this a varied, stimulating and informative conference in a wonderful setting, where two cultures are
    part of everyday life and experience. This is an important reminder for the majority of our members who
    are from the US.

-   I was interested in the formative events for the children and adolescent interest group, but was
    disappointed not to have been able to attend any of those events. Yhe room where they were held was too
    small to accommodate more than a few people! It was a regular sized hotel guest room!!

-   I took part in the "high density poster session" on Saturday of the conference. That was the worst idea that
    I have ever heard or been a part of. The moderator for that session was dreadfully awful. He never kept
    time, so some presenters talked for about 20 minutes (well past the 8 minute time frame we were given).
    Due to that, we did not have much room to talk in front of our posters. Also, there was no place to put our
    posters in that room, and had to cram to find wall space. It was very unpleasant. Also, since we went over
    time, the moderator left before the poster portion of the session was over. Rather than staying to converse
    about our work in front of our poster, as soon as the session time ended, the cleaning people came into
    the room, which was left very messy from the previous session. Overall, the high density poster session
    was a joke. I was very disappointed in our moderator, the fact that we did not have any place to put our
    posters, and the fact that we were kicked out of the room immediately after our time ended. I hope that
    whom ever is in charge of making such sessions seriously rethinks their position and does not have any
    high density poster/paper sessions again. It was a waste of my time and money to go to ICA, which is
    disappointing for me to say considering that I have attended the one in San Francisco and it was the best
    conference that I have ever been to.


-   I liked the more relaxed daily schedule. With fewer sessions scheduled each day and a one-hour lunch
    break, people can enjoy the conference more and have more opportunities to network with colleagues

-   Add better instructions to sessions (the floor and room locations where difficult to find) –

-   Please organize the poster session better. I was marooned far from the other presenters in my division and
    hardly saw any traffic concerned with the topic of my poster.

-   No "Unplugged" roundtable sessions please!!!! As it was the case in the PR Division, this format (a small-
    group 5 minutes presentation without the use of visuals, powerpoints, or overhead projectors, presenting
    the same content up to nine times to alternating audiences) is really exhausting and frustrating for the
    presenters. Also, this format was not announced when submitting the papers. It is rather impossible to
    present a 20-pages paper including theory, method and results in 5 minutes AND have time for discussion
    at the table with changing audience each 7 minutes...
                                                               ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-30


-   I like our idea for mini-plenary sessions - you need to develop it for next conferences. I guess you need to
    include in your program some business meetings for affiliated and other national communication
    associations

-   Overall, Montreal was a wonderful conference experience! In the future, I would like to see a session
    devoted to furthering contacts with the industry and panels aimed at helping job-seekers both in the
    industry and academia. Thanks!

-   more plenaries and papers related to the conference theme, ie. this year was my first year attending but I
    had expected more discussions and presentations related to Social Change

-   The conference was excellent. I was very impressed with some of the innovative programming like the
    mini-plenaries.

-   This comment pertains to the role of Chairs of sessions. Some excelled at creating a coherent panel from
    (often) very different papers by drawing attention to opportunities for comparison and contrast between
    them. These Chairs also tended to be particularly good at facilitating discussion at the end of the session
    and left enough time for that to happen. Other Chairs took the disturbing approach of dominating the
    discussion time with detailed and pointed criticism of papers from their particular areas of expertise, which
    both undermined the presenters and made the session less informative.

-   The conference seemed very warm and inviting. The miniplenaries were fabulous and well attended. The
    receptions had plenty of food and good attendance. The quality of all panels I attended was phenomenal.
    As always, the ICA staff and officers were wonderful.

-   The conference is a great way to see current research in the field, but I think it should be acknowledged
    that the sessions are really advertisements for papers that are already on their way to publication, often
    they are in press. This limits the possibility for discussion. Maybe a few sessions devoted to promising
    works in progress where feedback and discussion are emphasized by changing the format?

-   The only thing I might suggest is a code of conduct added to the program regarding session audience
    participation. I recognize that everyone has a different idea as for what conferences are intended, but it's
    really frustrating to me when I go to a session and the presenters get nothing but "chop shot" questions
    and/or mundane methodological questions that are more appropriate for independent discussion. Perhaps
    something discussing the responsibility of every scholar to support and guide others toward the best
    possible work leading to publication would work. Perhaps this is far fetched, but I've left too many sessions
    thinking something to the effect of "I traveled thousands of miles to discuss the assumptions of structural
    equation modeling?!" Thanks

-   The tips for poster presenters were given very late - it would be better to get those with the paper
    acceptance. The whole conference website could be better designed and structured. The local
    organisation team was great, friendly and absolutely competent! Thank you!

-   I submitted a paper for the conference, but was surprised to find that this had actually been accepted as a
    poster! I am still unclear as to how this decision was (could feasibly have been) made without consulting
    the original submitters. I found the poster session to be pretty pointless, as there were far too many people
    there for any meaningful discussion to take place. I also felt that there was also some confusion in the pre-
    conference communication as to the exact nature of this event - i.e. labelling it an 'interactive paper/poster
    sesion'. Had I known that I would have been simply presenting a poster, I would have thought twice about
    travelling from the UK to do so

-   the presidential address was great...but the room was unbearable.

-   Mix students and professors in panels. Do not keep them separate. Or provide discussants for student
    panels. Ivy league panels are problematic, too.
                                                                   ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-31



 -   ICA is always overwhelmingly about academics talking to themselves. Any chance of bringing in more
     people from outside academic ... the media, for instance?

 -   I was not aware that there was an event for new members, perhaps this could have been part of the
     registration email confirmation as an invitation. thank you

 -   I did not like the student reception very much this year. The location was not really nice and well chosen..

 -   I found the plenary events less inspiring than at previous conferences, in particular compared to 2006.

 -   There is usually no division to submit papers relating to studies of the field itself.

 -   I enjoyed the conference, thought it was well planned and that the sessions were of higher quality than
     previous meetings. I enjoyed the distribution of top papers across various sessions - I ended up hearing
     most top papers in sessions that had more papers of interest to me and this also raised the levels of some
     panels. Thank you.


Montreal

 -   Yay! The city was great -- better than SF (and I used to live in SF...)

 -   I loved the Montreal conference and look forward to more in the future.

 -   Montreal is a great cultural site - more conferences in Montreal

 -   ICA Montreal was the best ICA conference I have attended. The conference and city were first rate!!

 -   I'd like to meet in Montreal more frequently, but also, in light of how many colleagues are from Europe, let's
     meet in Amsterdam. It's a really stimulating city. Main obstacle: Lack of large venues. But we could be
     creative, and link smaller ones. U of Amsterdam would be an awesome conference site! They have many
     meeting rooms.

 -   Delightful location...standard conference -- enjoyed myself and got to some interesting panels

 -   Montreal is a great city. I have attended every ICA conference but two since 1997 and this was one of the
     very best. Thank you for having it in Montreal and I hope we can return there soon.

 -   Montreal fit the bill for an international site that easily accommodated the vast majority of ICA members
     who live in North America.

 -   Montreal is a wonderful city for a conference.

 -   I loved the conference site, though it was expensive as my department offers graduate students almost no
     funding to go to conferences. However, the cost was worth it. I saw a lot of interesting panels, made some
     new friends, explored a beautiful city, and had a great time!

 -   Montreal was much too expensive. It is an expensive place anyway, and with the bad exchange rate vs.
     USD the prices were just ridiculous. I know ICA wants to have regular non-US conferences, but dwindling
     university travel support and bad exchange rates are making it a challenge for me to attend.
                                                                   ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-32


Audio Visual Equipment & Internet Access

 -   The rooms for the sessions were very nice, but the audio visual equipment was only useful for PC
     computers. Those of us with Macs had to borrow or find adapters...none were available from the hotel.

 -   Charging a fee for audio facilities but not for video facilities prioritizes visual over audio information, which
     is problematic within some disciplines.

 -   ICA really needs to make computers accessible for attendees to check their email. Providing wifi is not
     enough. Not everyone has a laptop, and laptops are not always convenient to bring on an airplane or lug
     around all day just to be able to check email for a few minutes. Not having a few computers available is
     unacceptable.

 -   For its next conferences, ICA should provide audio equipment, OR warn presenters before the conference
     that audio equipment is not available. Many presenters showed audio fragments or video clips, but due to
     the absence of speaker boxes, the audience could not hear them.

 -   Please CONSIDER to have a hotel that has a WIRELESS internet connection and prepare several PC
     work stations for attendees. At least having a free wireless for conference attendee would really help!

 -   The audiovisual material was simply not there. I thought it quite rude that participants were expected to
     bring there own laptops. Especially since organisation had claimed before that AV would be available
     (including internet access). Personally I don't own a laptop, and I was forced to hand over my presentation
     to someone else who uploaded my presentation (including all kinds of information that is quite personal) to
     his laptop.

 -   The ICA should ensure access to the Internet.

 -   Speakers (for lap top) should be available, if not in all seminar rooms so at least to borrow for
     presentations. To play visual and audio files must be possible at a media and communication conference.

 -   I constantly had trouble accessing the wireless internet service throughout the conference. Assuming this
     is a service ICA paid for, the association should ensure it is getting what it paid for.

 -   Dear colleagues, As a non-US members, we wish to bring to your attention a trend we found increasing
     growing - especially at the last Conference in Montréal: many people don't use any visual support (like
     PowerPoint or other visual media) for their communication; often choosing instead to read aloud a written
     text - head bent over the document. In our opinion. This trend (probably accentuated by the absence of
     computers in rooms at the last conference) affects the claim to be an international association since it does
     not take into account the fact that English is a second language for most of its non-US members. Visual
     support is of tremendous help for non-English listeners (and we would say for English ones as well) - it
     prevents you from losing some basic information and it also creates less fatigue on the long run (after two
     days of listening to presentation in a foreign language you get tired and sometimes bored for lack of proper
     understanding). Moreover, we have notice that the tendency of not using visual support lead to a loss of
     content in the oral presentation since some presenters seems to cause a loss of content by a shift towards
     the transformation of presentations in a "preview" where people talk about their paper, rather than
     presenting search results.

 -   Maybe push harder for hotels with free in-room internet access

 -   I was pleasantly surprised to find that all of the presentation rooms had LCD projectors. While I was able to
     put together a powerpoint for my presentation, advance notice of this very nice provision would have been
     appreciated.
                                                                ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-33


 -   item 1g (g. Accessibility of AV equipment in all rooms) is poorly worded. I was not in all rooms. Thanks for
     evaluating the conference!

 -   A powerpoint show should be compulsory for every presenter. -Some presentations were very poor;
     maybe less presentations, but stronger ones. -Maybe recall presenters that all ICA members are not
     american and that, actually, Montreal is not in the US.

 -   Problematic that there were no convenient wireless access (very expensive) and also very costly printing.
     It would be at least somewhat helpful to provide information/reconnaissance about wireless and printing
     options at and near the conference site.

Submission, review and dissemination of papers:

 -   The paper submission process was very confusing (especially for newcomers and those not necessarily in
     Communications departments). All areas seem to have different rules and varying terminology for
     submissions. We had requested to be in a poster session ("interactive papers") but got roped into
     presenting a full paper on a panel. We did not realize a mistake had been made as you refer to all
     presentations as "papers" which does not really distinguish the mode by which that paper is disseminated
     to the conference attendees (presenting it on a panel, a poster session, etc.) So when we received the
     email stating "your paper was accepted!" we assumed you meant "interactive paper" and not an actual
     stand-up-and-talk presentation. In the end the presentation went fine, but it caused some strife and anxiety
     in our office (plus we already had out "interactive paper" poster designed and printed, which was rendered
     useless).

 -   Very disappointed at people not uploading PDFs of their presentations, and the paper archive search
     engine is very limited.

 -   I think that ICA really needs to review the review process...I know from personal experience, and from the
     experience of colleagues, that the reviews that come back can be wildly differing on the same paper. In
     some cases, the reviewers seem not to have read the paper at all. If we have a peer-review system, then
     the reviewers must be asked to put as much care into the reviews as the authors put into the papers...not
     time, of course, but care.

ICA Business Meeting

 -   I think we should separate the presidential address from the business meeting and the awards
     ceremony...that way we can skip the address and still support colleagues and hear ICA business.

 -   I strongly support having a separate meeting for ICA business, and allowing the membership to participate.
     Resolutions on matters of compelling interest to our field should be allowed to be presented, discussed
     and voted on by the membership.

Offsite Reception

 -   AEJMC once had its reception off site. It was a huge pain in the butt.

 -   I strongly believe that social events should happen off-site. Most junior faculty and grad students can't
     afford to stay in the conference hotel anyways, so it's not an issue to move elsewhere; what IS an issue is
     the extortionate prices for drinks that ICA hotels always charge. Go figure why the average age at these
     parties is usually higher than the ICA norm -- the junior academics are priced out of them. So help us out,
     and go somewhere where a beer costs less than $8, please
                                                                  ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-34


Preconferences

 -   Unfortunately, I had to leave the conference early on Saturday morning. But I just wanted to say that
     preconference on the History of New Media was fantastic. I thought the organizers did a great job. I
     thought the format led to some great discussions.

 -   I attended a pre-conference room/hall (in McGill U) that was poorly lit and aired. hope ICA could pre-check
     all rooms prior to the next conference. Tnx

 -   Remapping public media is an awful preconference. They charged us and no any presentation even ask
     people give them idea to develop their center. Too silly.

 -   The 'What is an organization'-preconference was absolutely the best conference I have ever attended. The
     rest of the conference was very disappointing. Everyone seems to enjoy socializing with friends/colleagues
     (I did!) much more than attending the broad range of poor quality sessions.

 -   More history please! The Communication History pre-conference was terrific.

General Conference Comments

 -   Looking forward Chicago next year ;)

 -   This was my first ICA and well worth it, look forward to the next one, thank you.

 -   I enjoyed it and would like to congratulate the organization

 -   Thank you for starting the granting program for international participants. It is the great opportunity to
     attend ICA conferences.

 -   I always enjoy the way ICA conferences are laid out, esp. the ease with which I can usually find sessions
     in my thematic areas. It's very helpful to keep these in same location. Also, offering discount at the
     Sheraton was very helpful. Excellent location, conference, and sessions

 -   Thank you for a lovely conference!

 -   Great conference but a huge one. Maybe a few more organisational strategies to preempt people bumping
     into each other. Create more opportunities to meet as smaller interest groups

 -   Regrettably, the conference has become increasingly irrelevant to my interests--more interpersonal than
     anything....as ICA has gone international, the mass communication aspects have become more and more
     dominant. not bad, but just less relevant to my interests. I find myself attending other conferences more
     than ICA nowadays where years ago ICA was a must attend.

 -   Montreal was a lovely city and great conference venue. In addition the sessions that I attended - from the
     wonderful preconference on Cultural Production onwards - were almost all of a high standard. However I
     do not think the hotel was conducive to the kind of informal and accidental meetings that directly spill over
     from the conference sessions and contribute greatly to the overall atmosphere. I've been to all of the
     conferences since New York in 2005, and if I had to rank the hotels or conference centres in terms of the
     way the spaces contributed to serendipitous social encounters and professional networking, I would rank
     Dresden the highest, followed by New York, San Francisco with Montreal last. Finally I think that the
     imbalance between North American and the rest of the world is still too biased in favour of the latter. A
     more equitable balance would be 2 out of 4 conferences to be held outside North America (rather than 1
     out of 4): I realize that this has ramifications for the bulk of the membership who are still North American,
     but the current policy also has ramifications for the mission of making the ICA more seriously international.
                                                              ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-35


-   Great effort. On a micro level I was very disappointed with the interaction, information and coordination
    with the PR leadership. I presented a paper and the lead up to and follow through by the PR leadership in
    generating feedback, garnering details and even being able to see my paper with remarks and feedback
    has been a frustrating experience.


-   I am a graduate student and first time attendee. I found the conference to be very confusing and
    information was poor. It was more difficult to meet people than at other conferences due to the size. I was
    not even aware that there was a grad student lounge and because i arrived at 6:30 was not able to have a
    name tag or tickets for the opening reception. Overall I was very disappointed and I doubt I will submit a
    paper this year.

-   The acceptance rate of paper acceptance at 42% (as I recall) strikes me as rather stiff for a conference.
    Consider accepting more papers & having a larger conference

-   ICA should discourage people from presenting more than one paper. Multiple presentations get repetitive,
    block other voices and needlessly expand the size of the conference without any real addition to diversity.

-   This was my first ICA Conference, and I loved very minute! Thank you all so much.

-   Provision of lunches should be included

-   Registration should be open after 5pm on preconference days. Many of us finished our pre-conference at
    5pm (offsite) and wanted to register but were unable to do so. Name change requests (i.e. my badge name
    was incorrect): instead of waiting for the badge, have the person provide the information, and then have
    standard times for people to check back (e.g. if put in by 10:30, we'll have it ready by 2:30), that way
    people don't have to wait - they can use their misprinted one until then Make bags optional (perhaps
    people can check when they register) - or have a place to donate bags. I don't tend to reuse mine and it
    seems wasteful. More targeted marketing about events - e.g. graduate student lounge and reception for
    graduate students - would be helpful. The magnetic badges were wonderful. Overall an exceptional
    experience I really really enjoyed myself. The best professional communication conference that I have
    attended.

-   It was a fine conference. Don't muck it up with too many changes.

-   I was disappointed at the lack of social events such as local tours and expeditions, conference dinners,
    etc., which, again, I take to be an accepted aspect of large conferences. I also expected that (even a
    minimal) conference lunch would have been provided (although I have since learned that this is not ICA
    policy). The last ICA conference that I attended was in Dresden 2006 and - apart from the location;
    Montreal is wonderful - I have to say that, for me, the 2008 event fell far short of 2006.

-   Great conference and very well organized... I am looking forward to the next one!

-   PLEASE!! Avoid Memorial Day weekend. It conflicts with graduations, family vacations, and holds the
    association hostage to airline strikes which are selected for their maximum impact over the holiday
    weekend. The ICA convention in Hawaii was nearly destroyed by the 1985 airline strike over memorial
    day.

-   The online log-in access to the papers is available for temporary period. So, it would be a good reference
    for us all if we can have the proceedings of the presented papers in other forms such as CD and printed
    format.

-   allow people to choose to only receive the web version of the program. While the printed version is easy to
    follow, it is a waste of trees and not needed or wanted by all participants. - It was a great conference!
                                                                 ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-36


     Montreal was one of the primary reasons I attended, but then found the content and networking to be
     fabulous. - love having access to paper on the web site.

 -   Student membership is very expensive; international travel is not cheap; it is difficult to attend as a student

 -   I know very few people at ICA and we all at all our conferences are pretty cliquish...I would like more ways
     to get to know more people. I literally went the whole conference without knowing anyone. I felt isolated
     and less involved...I need to get to know more people and most of that onus is on me--however, it would
     be nice to have more opportunities to meet people. Most of the panels I wanted to go to in Org Com and
     Instructional hit against each other.

 -   I thought the conference was very well organized. I had a great time and really enjoyed exploring Montreal.
     The quality of the panels and attendance was strong all the way to the end of the conference. Great Job
     Conference Planners!!

 -   There is a need to coordinate multi-division receptions for smaller divisions. Hotel costs for receptions for
     smaller divisions is prohibitive. ICA headquarters and conference programmers need to take the lead in
     planning and facilitating opportunities for all divisions and interest groups to have receptions.

 -   I love that the conference has take home items, but for me the briefcase is a waste of conference money. I
     would rather spend the money on expanded programming and/or funds to award winners than on another
     briefcase souvenir. If you want to do a carry-case of some sort, use the messenger bag format (as at BEA)
     or a canvas tote.

 -   This was the worst conference I have been to in years. I have attended ICA for years, but this year will
     probably be my last. Fewer and fewer people are attending, only leaving the cadre of " academic elites"
     who were so unfriendly and dominated every presentation in my area that I am just not interested in
     subjecting myself to them again.

 -   The quality of the papers continues to improve; however teh 43% acceptance rate will cause problems
     eventually for attendees.

 -   It was my first large conference as a grad student, so I can't complain! Great work and looking forward to
     the next!

 -   I thought it was an excellent conference

 -   More free drinks.

 -   Keep the grad student lounge!

 -   It's too big and too diverse. It lacks focus. Communication is not everything. Cut out the theme, theme
     sessions, plenaries and most special panels. Focus on social science research. Limit the number of
     divisions to those topics that focus on social science. ICA has grown too large with too many peripheral
     interest groups. It might as well be NCA. It has no special identity.

 -   I thoroughly enjoyed the conference - well done to the organising committee

 -   Great job, ICA staff. I could only attend for a couple days so missed some of the opening and plenary
     events. Wish I could have stayed longer!

 -   Papers were supposed to be accessible online after the conference but they were not. I e-mailed about
     this and never received a reply. Very unhappy about that.

Other Comments
                                                              ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-37



-   My spouse and I are both in communication and would both like to attend ICA but babysitting has and
    continues to be a problem. Would like better accommodation for that. Thanks

-   Two of my credit cards were apparently stolen from my billfold which I had left in my hotel room early one
    morning when I was swimming. I did not discover this until I had returned home, and did not inform the
    hotel of the theft. Probably occurred either on May 22 or 23.

-   I was unable to attend for medical reasons and i requested a reimbursement of the registration fees well
    before the conference but have not heard from anyone at the ica-headquarters. please credit me the fees i
    paid in vain

-   Is it possible to reduce the fees of the 2010 Conference? Singapore is far from Europe/USA and the flights
    are not cheap.

-   Canada's one-entry VISA policy is a problem.

-   Avoiding countries with repressive political regimes for conferences would be ideal.
                                                                                    ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-38


                                                    Appendix B: The questionnaire


This survey asks for your reactions to the recent ICA conference in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, May 22-26,
2008. As with prior conference evaluation surveys, we hope to learn how to improve the format and
organization of future ICA conferences. By answering these questions you will help make ICA’s annual event as
attractive, effective, and well-organized as possible.

Completing this web questionnaire will take you only a few minutes. In most cases you just have to click a
button on the screen to make your selection. If you feel you cannot answer a question (not applicable, no
opinion) just leave it open.

Click the [Submit My Response] button at the bottom of each question page to go to the next page.

Your responses are completely confidential. This web survey does NOT collect ANY information about you,
your computer, your institution, or your institution’s server.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. How much did you enjoy each of the following aspects of the conference?

7 points: Not at all … Neutral…Very much

     a. Location
     b. Organization, preparation and information
     c. Overall quality of all sessions
     d. Social atmosphere, meeting with colleagues
     e. Social program, events and outings
     f. Accessibility and convenience of travel to the conference city and hotel
     g. Accessibility of AV equipment in all rooms

2. When you decided to attend the Montreal conference, how important were the following motivations
for you personally?

7 points: Not at all important…very important

     a.   Improve my academic record through paper presentation or other activities
     b.   Job market, (i.e., get in touch with potential employers/employees/colleagues)
     c.   Keep up with recent research
     d.   Seek opportunities for research cooperation
     e.   Meet or socialize with colleagues, friends
     f.   Travel to an interesting place
                                                              ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-39




3. Which of the following roles did you play in the Montreal conference? (Check all that apply.)

•   Award Winner
•   Chair
•   Discussant
•   Divisional/Interest Group/ICA officer, committee or Board Member
•   Paper Reviewer
•   Preconference (organizer, presenter)
•   Presenter (paper, panel, poster; includes non-presenting co-author)
•   Volunteer (student, staff)
•   Attendee (any sessions or meetings, but not any of the prior roles)
•   Other (please describe): [ ]

4. Which of the following events at the Montreal conference did you attend (other than those for which
you had a formal role, such as presenter/committee member)? (Check all that apply.)

•   Divisional/interest group panel
•   Opening plenary session (Filmmaker-in-Residence)
•   Plenary poster session
•   Mini-plenary (Friday and Saturday, noon-1:15 pm)
•   Theme panel (not a plenary or miniplenary session)
•   ICA Business meeting with presidential address
•   Affiliate organizational panel
•   Division/interest group business meeting
•   Division/interest group reception
•   University/Institutional reception
•   First night’s ICA reception
•   Graduate student reception
•   Pre-conference workshop
•   New members orientation
•   Graduate student lounge

5. How much did you enjoy each of the following events offered at the conference?
7 points: Not at all … Neutral…Very much, Not Applicable

•   Divisional/interest group panel
•   Opening plenary session (Filmmaker-in-Residence)
•   Plenary poster session
•   Mini-plenary (Friday and Saturday, noon-1:15 pm)
•   Theme panel (not a plenary or miniplenary session)
•   ICA Business meeting with presidential address
•   Affiliate organizational panel
•   Division/interest group business meeting
•   Division/interest group reception
•   University/Institutional reception
•   First night’s ICA reception
•   Graduate student reception
•   Pre-conference workshop
•   New members orientation
•   Graduate student lounge
                                                            ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-40


6. Were there events at the Montreal conference that you did not attend but that you wish you had
attended? (If so, check all that apply. If not, please continue on to question #9.)

•   Divisional/interest group panel
•   Opening plenary session (Filmmaker-in-Residence)
•   Plenary poster session
•   Mini-plenary (Friday and Saturday, noon-1:15 pm)
•   Theme panel (not a plenary or miniplenary session)
•   ICA Business meeting with presidential address
•   Affiliate organizational panel
•   Division/interest group business meeting
•   Division/interest group reception
•   University/Institutional reception
•   First night’s ICA reception
•   Graduate student reception
•   Pre-conference workshop
•   New members orientation
•   Graduate student lounge


7. Please indicate the divisions or interest groups whose sessions you attended in any role. (Check all
that apply.)

•   Information Systems                        •   Public Relations
•   Interpersonal Communication                •   Feminist Scholarship
•   Mass Communication                         •   Communication Law and Policy
•   Organizational Communication               •   Language and Social Interaction
•   Intercultural and Development Comm.        •   Visual Studies
•   Political Communication                    •   Journalism Studies
•   Instructional and Developmental Comm.      •   Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender
•   Health Communication                           Studies
•   Philosophy of Communication                •   Intergroup Communication
•   Communication and Technology               •   Ethnicity and Race in Communication
•   Popular Communication                      •   Game Studies
•   Global Comm. and Social Change             •   Communication History

8. Please indicate the divisions or interest groups of which you are a member. (Check all that apply.)


•   Information Systems                        •   Public Relations
•   Interpersonal Communication                •   Feminist Scholarship
•   Mass Communication                         •   Communication Law and Policy
•   Organizational Communication               •   Language and Social Interaction
•   Intercultural and Development Comm.        •   Visual Studies
•   Political Communication                    •   Journalism Studies
•   Instructional and Developmental Comm.      •   Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender
•   Health Communication                           Studies
•   Philosophy of Communication                •   Intergroup Communication
•   Communication and Technology               •   Ethnicity and Race in Communication
•   Popular Communication                      •   Game Studies
•   Global Comm. and Social Change             •   Communication History
                                               •   Children, Adolescents and Media
                                                              ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-41



9. How much do you agree with the following descriptions of logistics at the Montreal conference?

7 points: Strongly disagree…Neutral…Strongly agree

Location and organization
   a. Montreal was a stimulating conference location.
   b. Le Centre Sheraton Montreal was a good conference site.
   c. The local organizing committee did a good job of providing special events throughout the conference.
   d. The layout of the meeting rooms made it easy to get to sessions.
   e. The meeting rooms were comfortable.
   f. Audio visual needs were met effectively.
   g. The printed program was easy to follow.



10. How much do you agree with the following descriptions of events at the Montreal conference?

7 points: Strongly disagree…Neutral…Strongly agree, Not Applicable

    a.   Too many interesting programs were scheduled opposite one another.
    b.   The pre-conference workshops were stimulating and valuable additions to ICA.
    c.   The plenary sessions were valuable.
    d.   The mini-plenary sessions were valuable.
    e.   The theme sessions were valuable.
    f.   The quality of the papers I heard at panels was first-rate.
    g.   The quality of the posters I saw at the poster plenary was first-rate.
    h.   Adequate time was available for audience discussions at the end of sessions.
    i.   I was bothered by the number of no shows among panelists on the program.
    j.   The book exhibit area was very useful to me.
    k.   The calls inviting submissions for publication in the Montreal theme book were straightforward.
    l.   Publication of the theme book based on the Montreal conference should be a valuable resource to
         communication researchers.


11. Has the fact that the 2008 conference took place in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, made it easier for you
to participate, more difficult, or did it make no difference compared with previous conferences?

•   Easier
•   No difference
•   More difficult



12. The activities and services ICA provides for its members at the conference are always evolving. Of
the following types of activities and services, which would you like to see more of? (check all that apply)

•   Social events
•   Professional activities (workshops, mentoring sessions)
•   Pre-conferences
•   Plenary sessions
•   Mini-plenary sessions
•   Poster sessions
•   Cross-divisional/interest group programming
•   Tours and activities outside of conference venues
                                                                              ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-42




13. ICA is experimenting with ideas for different types of programming. To what extent would you be
interested in attending the following types of programming?
3 points: very interested, somewhat interested, not interested

•    Cross-divisional/interest group programming, discussing topics of shared interest
•    Programming devoted to academic professionalism
•    Programming devoted to developing media skills for academics
•    Programming devoted to fellowship opportunities
•    Programming devoted to grant-making opportunities
•    Programming devoted to junior career opportunities

14. ICA is considering having the opening reception in a location outside the conference hotel. What is
your position on this matter?

•    a. ICA should not consider going off site for a reception
•    b. ICA should consider going off site for a reception

[if you answered (b) continue to question 15. if you answered (a), skip to question 16]


15. Would you be willing to walk ten to fifteen minutes to an off-site reception?

•    I would not mind walking to the reception site
•    I would prefer not to walk to the reception site


16. ICA is considering separating the ICA business meeting from the presidential address and awards
ceremony. What is your position on this matter?

• Retain the current format (the three events together)
• Separate the ICA business meeting from the presidential address and awards ceremony
• It does not make a difference to me either way
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We would like to ask a few questions about you. This helps us to understand diversity in needs, experience and
preferences, and to see how well the survey responses match the overall ICA membership.

17. Are you…

•    Junior Faculty (untenured and/or assistant professor)
•    Senior Faculty (including also emeritus, dept. chair, dean, university administrator, etc.)
•    Researcher (coordinator, scientist, director, administrator, not faculty or student)
•    Student (undergrad, master, Ph.D., postdoc, prospective)
•    Non-University Professional (journalist, publisher, librarian, government official, foundation)
•    Other (please describe)


18. What is your gender?

•    Male
•    Female
•    Other
                                                               ICA 2008 Montreal Conference Evaluation, p-43



19. Where do you currently reside?

•        Africa
•        Asia/Pacific
•        Australia/New Zealand
•        Central and South America
•        Europe
•        Middle East
•        North America


20. ICA is considering the idea of multiple language submissions for the conference, in order to
accommodate submitters who are not well versed in English. Please list all languages you know, and for
each language please indicate your level of proficiency in reading and writing (fluent, good, fair, poor),
and whether you would be willing to evaluate a paper written in this language.

[A table with 7 rows and 4 columns. The first column is open-ended. The other columns are closed questions]


    Language                  Reading proficiency     Writing proficiency        Willing to evaluate a
                                                                                 paper written in this
                                                                                 language?
    1)                        fluent/good/fair/poor   fluent/good/fair/poor      Yes/No
    2)                        fluent/good/fair/poor   fluent/good/fair/poor      Yes/No
    3)                        fluent/good/fair/poor   fluent/good/fair/poor      Yes/No
    4)                        fluent/good/fair/poor   fluent/good/fair/poor      Yes/No
    5)                        fluent/good/fair/poor   fluent/good/fair/poor      Yes/No
    6)                        fluent/good/fair/poor   fluent/good/fair/poor      Yes/No
    7)                        fluent/good/fair/poor   fluent/good/fair/poor      Yes/No


21. Please add any additional comments you have about the Montreal conference in the box below
and/or suggestions about other types of programming you would like to see at future conferences.

[Open-ended ]


……After this final response, present:

Thank you for your participation!

Please click the arrows below to FINISH and EXIT this survey to ensure that your survey responses will be sent
to ICA.

Please note that, because this survey is anonymous, there will be two reminder emails sent out to everyone. If
you have already completed the survey, please just delete those reminder emails.

A summary and analysis of this 2008 ICA Conference Evaluation will be available through the ICA Newsletter,
the Website, and the Chicago 2009 Conference Website.

								
To top
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/40506395/Evaluation-of-the-2008-ICA-Conference-in-Montreal
www.docstoc.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2015-27
312738
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:SV45P34DJXGGHC4VZP5QTAMMQJST73EN
<urn:uuid:5f527f1f-2e7f-48c9-b50a-3403cc449472>
2015-07-07T05:39:34Z
72.172.88.41
sha1:SIEFOMV7YOG5E5SV5JEMFFFMLFDTL7FI
<urn:uuid:f703ea94-9d34-4465-94dd-83266a107b7e>
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/40506395/Evaluation-of-the-2008-ICA-Conference-in-Montreal
response
<urn:uuid:96f27a6e-a539-40cc-95c8-8f6a10ef3350>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-179-60-89.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-27
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf