17³Ô¹ÏANNUAL MEETING FUTURE SITE SURVEY
As many 17³Ô¹Ïmembers know, the 2007 17³Ô¹Ïdecision to continue to hold our annual meeting just prior to the SBL meeting and in the same city needs a fresh look. Although our meetings have been successful, the combined SBL-AAR meeting has grown and swallowed up prime hotel space, and we have been pushed increasingly to and beyond the outskirts of the meeting cities. In order for the Board to make an informed decision regarding this at their April 2019 meeting, 17³Ô¹ÏMember input is need NOW.
We now face uncertainty about when and where the 17³Ô¹ÏAnnual Meeting will be held in the future. The Ad Hoc Committee on the Annual Meeting was formed to provide a recommendation to the Board. It must be understood that the Board is empowered to make this decision – and intends to do so at its Spring 2019 meeting. Thus, it is now time to provide the input necessary to create a decision that is in the best interests of the membership. It is YOUR meeting we need YOUR input…. Again.
The Ad Hoc Committee (Gary Arbino, Chair: garyarbino@gs.edu ) has sought input from individual members (via a 2016 17³Ô¹ÏMember Survey, a November 2018 Forum and Straw Poll -results below, and personal email comments) and continues to solicit feedback from a variety of constituencies (including, exhibitors and booksellers, Overseas Center Directors, those with insights from other learned societies’ meetings, 17³Ô¹Ïleadership, and foreign attendees). The seven-person Committee has members from a diversity of opinions on the issue and ranges from Early Career Scholars to Senior Professors. Committee members are Arbino, Kent Bramlett, Bill Caraher, Sidnie Crawford, Erin Darby, Karen Rubinson, and Eric Welch.
We want to make sure that EVERY member has a chance to be heard on the issue. To that end in the coming weeks we will be posting a second Membership Survey. We encourage ALL 17³Ô¹Ïmembers to read and respond to this survey. The only way we get a broad picture of membership needs and desires is to hear from members.
Thank you in advance for your thoughtful participation.
Earlier Results:
In 2016 a survey of the entire 17³Ô¹Ïmembership was sent out; we received about 240 responses (about 12% of the membership; 2/3 of respondents regularly attend the Annual Meeting and about ½ of respondents had been members of 17³Ô¹Ï10 years or less). The results showed that 25% of respondents said they prefer to meet with SBL, while 33% preferred to not meet with SBL (42% were in the middle). Other questions were asked regarding the dates and days of the meeting and whether 17³Ô¹Ïshould try and meet with another learned society. For most, a change in the November date (59%) or days of the week (71%) would make NO difference to their attendance. Most respondents were ambivalent about 17³Ô¹Ïmeeting conjointly, but of those giving a preference for the second organization, 71% chose AIA.
At the most recent Annual Meeting a forum was held on the matter and a Straw Poll was taken. Many helpful comments were made. The Straw Poll consisted of 4 main options (1: Stay with SBL however possible; 2: Spilt from SBL in terms of cities but not dates; 3: Spilt entirely from SBL cities, possibly meeting at other dates; 4: Alternate between meeting in SBL city and meeting elsewhere), with sub-options in each. Respondents (about 120; roughly 9% of attendees) were asked to rank their choices.
First rank votes fell out as follows: #1 – 45; #2 – 9; #3 – 44; #4 – 20. This illustrates the split of opinions held by 17³Ô¹Ïmembers. Details of the rankings provide additional insights.
Of those who wanted to stay with SBL (both city and date AKA first option), the second most popular option was alternating years and meeting “close enough” to SBL. Generally, those who ranked the first option (stay with SBL) the highest also ranked the third option (total split) the lowest. The stay with SBL option received both the most first place rankings as well as the most fourth place rankings.
Of those who ranked the second option highest (Split from SBL in terms of city but not dates), the first option (stay with SBL) was ranked the lowest. These people also wanted to split to a different city, but generally had no preference whether that city was near or far to SBL city.
Those who rated the third option (full split) the highest tended to vote the first option (stay with SBL) the lowest. Even though they ranked staying with SBL low, they would prefer earlier days of the week if 17³Ô¹Ïstayed with SBL. They were also interested in meeting with another group/society and had a number of comments.
Those who rated the alternating year option the highest were all over the place in terms of what their second choice would be and/or which option they considered the worst.