Skip to main content

Nominating Committee Report, 2022-2023

Submitted by Serena Connolly and Katherine Lu Hsu

March 20, 2023

Co-chairs: Serena Connolly, Katherine Lu Hsu

Members: Ronnie Ancona, Pramit Chaudhuri, Shelley P. Haley (ex-officio), Arum Park, Nancy Worman

In 2022-2023, the Nominating Committee held four virtual meetings to nominate individuals to serve as President-elect (two candidates, to elect one); Vice President for Communications and Outreach (two candidates, to elect one); Directors-at-large (five candidates, to elect two); Nominating Committee (four candidates, to elect two); Program Committee (six candidates, to elect three); Goodwin Award Committee (four candidates, to elect two).

Committee members were tasked with suggesting individuals for each position (twice the number of names on each ballot) while giving special consideration to representing the SCS membership across type of institution, geographic area, gender, race and ethnicity, career stage, and academic specialization. In addition, they were asked to review the information provided by volunteers. During our meetings, each candidate/volunteer was discussed, with members advocating for candidates’ relevant experience and strengths for each role, asking questions, and sharing information.

After a discussion of candidates, committee members ranked their top 15 to 20 candidates, and the ranked lists were then combined and assessed. At this stage, we reviewed the lists to ensure that they maintained the member representation as outlined above.

The committee co-chairs then contacted individuals on the various lists in the order ranked with an invitation to discuss via Zoom the possibility of standing for election and to answer any questions they might have. The co-chairs also communicated to each potential candidate that they should carefully consider the time commitment of SCS service and also the potentially high-profile nature of that service, especially in the online environment.

The slates resulting from these conversations are overall a good reflection of the initial representation of the SCS membership on our initial lists. As they review the slates, we remind SCS members that there are many reasons why an individual might agree to accept or decline an invitation to stand, some of which may be connected to broader issues of representation and the distribution of service roles across the academy. The Committee therefore has only a limited ability to determine the final composition of a slate. We are grateful to those who have agreed to stand; we’re also grateful to those who considered our invitations, but found themselves unable to stand.

We thank Helen Cullyer for her patience and thoroughness in preparing materials to support the committee’s work and in answering our many queries.

The nominating process frequently served to remind the co-chairs of the SCS’s dependence upon the time and support of its membership; we encourage members to consider volunteering for any position in which they feel they may make a contribution.