Human Communication & Technology Division

• This year we received 77 competitive papers 26 competitive panels. Frankly, we had expected more. The division has grown in membership. We had expected about 120 submissions this year and recruited reviewers with that expectation. 42 reviewers were recruited from last year’s volunteers and reviewers from prior years.
• We processed the papers differently than the panels. All panels were reviewed by a pool of four reviewers. All but two were reviewed by the same three reviewers. Two were assigned to a fourth reviewer because of a conflict of interest in which one of the three reviewers was listed as an invited participant on two of the panels. Panels were not reviewed blindly. We only had the ability to accept 5 to 7 panels (we started with the presumption of five, tried for more, and got two additional slots.) We were both of the opinion that panels should be treated as attractions; that the marquee value of a participant should be a factor in panel selection; and that we should, as much as possible, endeavor to accept panels that featured
  • a high level of diversity in panelists
  • Compelling and diverse perspectives on current issues
  • Explorations of theory, and especially of competing viewpoints
  • Diverse schools
  • Diverse geographic locations
  • Diverse perspectives
• The papers were subjected to a standard blind review process. With 39 paper reviewers and 77 papers we were able to allocate four papers per reviewer and fully cover the set. We had a number student reviewers. For each paper, one reviewer was typically a graduate student and two were degreed professionals within the field. There were no cases where two papers shared even two of their three reviewers. We generally found great consistency among the reviews. Indeed, it appears that only one reviewer that was consistently out of synch with other reviewers. We needed to take account of that inconsistency in accepting one paper. It did not present a problem for other papers. Only a couple of reviewers failed to deliver on their reviews. We were able to distribute the remaining reviews within the existing pool. We were pleased, moreover, with the number of people who supplied
  detailed feedback to the authors of the papers they reviewed.
• But we would have liked to have accepted more panels and, perhaps, one more panel of competitive papers. Frankly, we think the NCA allocation method is broken. Divisions and caucuses are treated exactly the same way
  • even though we pay (and sometimes pay extra) for division and section memberships but not for caucus
  • even though the biggest caucuses have parallel divisions that are about the same size
  • even though conventions and submitted papers are mostly about the competitive papers that are primarily the focus of divisions
• Divisions and sections should be allocated based on membership. Caucuses should be allocated based on the needs associated with advocacy of that caucus. Its hard to imagine any condition in which a caucus should have more than the number of slots that can be scheduled without overlap. I say that not only as a frustrated convention planner but as an organizer of what may be NCA's next caucus. The needs of each are different and this change in allocation is the primary reason why this division has almost doubled in size over the last two years but has less slots than it had two years ago. We would propose that this an issue that needs to be raised in the legislative assembly and I hope we do so.
• That said: Thank you to everyone who submitted a paper. This year’s pool of submissions was extrordinarily strong and we feel bad that we couldn't accept at least five more papers.
• Thank you to everyone who reviewed papers this year. You all did a great job. Thank you to everyone who has committed to chairing or responding on panels this year. We have a respondent on every panel. That is increasingly unusual these days but its important. We don't submit papers just because they help with promotion and tenure. We submit papers because we are exploring ideas and want the feedback that comes from having other people look at our work. Respondents are, in many ways, the most important role at the convention, and I applaud all of you for making the commitment, reading the papers, and providing informed feedback on how a good paper can be
  even better.
• Thank you all.

• Two online newsletters were sent, one in February and one in October. Xia and Scott would like to thanks the other officers for their contributions. Comments or feedback from any member would be appreciated for future editions of the newsletter. As Scott and Xia move to their next position, they are startled that the division is increasing in size but is getting fewer panel slots from NCA (-43% panels since 2002 despite membership +74%). Currently, the division has the 13th most panels (even the women’s caucus is ahead of us). In fact, even a smaller division is ahead of us in panel slots. Xia and Scott report a change in types of submissions for poster sessions. Those kinds of submissions are now retitled "scholared sessions." In addition, "scholarly sessions" will be more competitive, have reviewers, and be set aside for times where there are scheduled fewer panels. For submitting papers, Scott and Xia ask the members to consider whether they are willing to give their paper as a poster/scholarly session and if so to submit as such. They are also asking future reviewers to indicate whether they think a submitted paper could be presented as a poster.
• Question from the audience: If one only submits for a poster presentation, is a full paper still needed? Answer: Most likely yes, but even full papers that were submitted as such can be recommended to be posters by reviewers. The future program chairs remind the members that papers should be ready by February, at least first drafts. Xia and Scott want to decrease abstract submissions in panels.
• Scott and Xia report that in the planning meeting it was emphasized one should submit only one first-authored paper per division. Davis clarified that in the past year, only one author submitted two papers, and both were accepted (both in top 20) so this doesn't seem to be a large problem for the division. Nonetheless, members should keep this rule in mind when sumbitting papers to any division.

Reports from Vice Co-Chairs of Membership

• The co-chairs reported that they put together 2 panels from student submissions of which one was accepted. They report that at this panel, the presentations were well done and there was good discussion. The co-chairs also sent an email to NCA-affiliated departments to be sent on to student lists inviting students to attend HCTD panels and to come to the business meeting for information on how to become involved.

• JD states that those meetings are “mind numbing.” However, they are important as small things can have big implications. He will report and comment.
• Financial report of NCA: There is a shift inthe basic financial philosophy from cash/cash equivalency to investment (equity position). Some bumps still needed to be smoothed out in last 2-3 years in the search for additional revenue streams. JD recommends that all of us be creative. He points out that you can give a student an NCA research award for $75. Also, we now have a new journal publisher (Taylor and Francis), which guarantees certain finances to NCA, with lowered cost. In addition, NCA has taken scholarly materials and sold them to Ebsco. In conclusion, NCA's financial situation is sound.
• The Legislative Assembly put forth a budget and long term position which includes increasing convention cost for the membership over the next three years (about $10 a year). There will also be some increase for students. One might wonder why NCA is increasing cost to membership if overall cost is going down and NCA has additional revenue. The answer is because we need the investment fund. Attendees said to the legislative body that they should be more sensitive to the membership and not just look at them as a “cash cow." NCA's a accountant said the organization needs a better cash position, but a few years ago we invested our cash in DC real estate based on an accountant's advise. Now we seem to need cash again and this is somewhat confusing to the members of the legislative assembly.
• JD reports on the creation of a communication-zine to present scholarship. Everyone at the assembly seemed to be in favor of that idea. The details are still being worked out.
• There was a question of standards for certification that NCA could award to departments. To determine such standards representatives went to regional conferences with proposed standards and brought input back to the legislative assembly. There was disagreement on what NCA was doing: if we are going to govern every junior college and every 4 year university, shouldn’t we ask whether they want that governance and whether they want to participant? Apparently, the proposed standards were not coming from the universities, but were just something the main office put together. The assembly agreed that the main office needs to ask the people. The amendment for such standards was withdrawn, but could be brought up again next year.
• There was discussion about open access to scholarly materials (such as electronic versions of journals). Scholars would like that for maximum exposure but the publishers have a different point of view. NCA thinks of the scholarly materials as a revenue stream. The assembly acknowledged that the implications of the different models need to be investigated.
• JD encourages HCTD members to read the next issues of Spectra to be informed about open access, scholarship, and technology developments. Legislative issues are still to be worked out. NCA's position is not yet fully clear. At the legislative assembly it was more a status quo announcement, not a call for discussion.
• Finally, JD pointed out to the newcomers at the division meeting that the division is unique because of its large presence, but also because it has a 5-year process as officers move through their positions which allows for better understanding and insight.