Hi, folks,
Much discussion about SIGs has ensued on the WPA-L list, but this post, from
Cheryl Glenn, clears up the confusion about how to get the SIG proposal
accepted.
Hope this helps,
Marcy
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cheryl Glenn <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mar 28, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: SIGS
To: [log in to unmask]
Dear Colleagues,
I am hopeful that this post about the SIGs will help folks plan for CCCC
2007 in NYC:
The CCCC Officers and Executive Committee are responding to a long-standing
complaint that the proposal form says "one speaking role" (with the emphasis
on *speaking*!) but that many people find ways to have two or three speaking
roles. At a time when getting a place on the program is tough, those folks
who are rejected in the review process do not look kindly on the folks who
manage to have multiple speaking roles. They wonder (often aloud and loud)
about issues of fairness, and I believe they are right to do just that.
Speaking at a workshop (where folks pay registration separate from the
convention registration) has never been a problem--nor has participating in
a SIG. But for a number of years now, a number of SIGs have transformed into
panels (as we all know). So the CCCC Officers and Executive Committee
decided that SIGs should be SIGs (conducting *whatever kinds of
gatherings*work best for each SIG, save a panel of speakers), and
panels should be
panels of speakers.
Please know that I'm aware that whatever I write here can and will be argued
against--and, in some cases, rightly. But I'm not prepared to go against the
decision of the officers and EC, when that decision was made after much (and
I repeat, MUCH) deliberation and always in a democratic spirit. What I am
prepared to do is advise SIG proposers to do their yearly thing:
apply for a SIG spot,
explain (briefly) how the mission of the SIG aligns with the mission
of the CCCC,
explain the uniqueness of this SIG as opposed to other SIGS,
mention the history--or emerging importance--of this SIG,
estimate the number of SIG participants.
The important thing is this: get the SIG proposal accepted, and get on the
program (with the conveners/leaders listed, if anyone's listed at all). In
this way, no one will be exceeding the one-speaking-role-only rule.
As Sue McLeod mentioned in an earlier post, meeting space is always at a
premium. If there's plenty of space for evening SIGs, so much the better for
us all. If there isn't enough space, then things become more competitive.
Rarely, however, is any SIG asked to leave a room after an hour. Usually,
the SIG goes on (and sometimes on and on) into the evening.
I know well that speaking roles often guarantee funding. I know, I know.
Therefore, I am especially drawn to Sue's idea of expanding more panels into
round tables, which is a wonderful way to invite more participants onto the
program. And, of course, there is the idea of expanding the days we're in
sessions.
With all goodwill,
Cheryl
Cheryl Glenn
Professor of English
Assistant Chair, Conference on College Composition and Communication
232 South Burrowes Building
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
(o) 814/863-0271
(f) 814/863-7285
(This e-mail is confidential and should not be shared without permission.)---
You are currently subscribed to cccc-officers as: [log in to unmask]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[log in to unmask]
Cheryl Glenn
Professor of English
Assistant Chair, Conference on College Composition and Communication
232 South Burrowes Building
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
(o) 814/863-0271
(f) 814/863-7285
(This e-mail is confidential and should not be shared without permission.)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
[log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]
For the list archives and information about the organization,
its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to
http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
