Skip to main content

Annual Meeting Survey Report (2019)

We distribute this survey every year to annual meeting attendees in order to gather feedback and use it in internal decision-making together with AIA. This year we are releasing some of the data for members to peruse for their own interest. We are also addressing some of the more frequent comments that we noticed in the survey. Any questions or comments can be sent, as always, to info@classicalstudies.org.

Post-Meeting Attendee Survey (Accessed as of March 11, 2019)

All told, the post-meeting survey was sent to 2056 people who attended the 2019 AIA/SCS Annual Meeting in San Diego. This number is lower than the number of actual attendees, since, in order to comply with GDPR, a number of EU-based attendees did not opt in to receive emails after the meeting. 414 responded – 20.14% of recipients – either in part or in full, and percentages mentioned below are relative to the number who responded to each question (maximum 414), not to the total survey population (2056).

By and large, the annual meeting summary graphs and tables (available for download here) give a self-explanatory picture of those who filled out the survey and their thoughts on the meeting. Below we highlight some interesting data, provide some contextualization of aspects of those data.

The number of AIA and SCS complimentary programs ordered (1242 AIA programs, 1281 SCS programs), suggest that there were more SCS members than AIA members present at the annual meeting. AIA members, however, made up a larger share of those who completed the survey. The survey results, therefore, may skew disproportionally towards AIA member preferences. This information will be useful in analyzing the responses to certain questions such as to Question 7, “Please let us know which events/sessions you attended”. Responses regarding attendance at the poster session relate more to AIA because AIA posters far outnumber those of the SCS.

A Note on Question 3:

The data graphic for Question 3, “Why did you attend the 2019 annual meeting?” was removed as it proved misleading in determining attendees' priorities for attending the meeting. Instead accurate results are presented in the table view which speaks to the personal importance of each reason for attending the annual meeting.

Some reasons like “make a presentation” and “see colleagues” remain important for most respondents, while “visit San Diego” peaks at a middling level of importance. It is also interesting to note the percentage of people for whom a reason does not apply. Nearly 50% of survey respondents did not find “make a presentation” applicable. 19% of respondents commented on the importance of “job interview/serve on search committee,” but with 133 interviewees and ca. 90 search committee members (18 institutions at 5 committee members per institution) that number should have been closer to 10%, suggesting that job candidates make up a larger portion of the annual meeting survey population relative to how many candidates and search committees actually attended the meeting.

A Note on Question 8:

The graph for Question 8, “Please answer the following questions about the Opening Night Reception”, was removed for reasons similar to Question 3. It provided an inaccurate representation of the data being conveyed, and as such, only the table view is presented.

Results indicate that the majority of respondents had no opinion about the Opening Night Reception. No opinion in this instance could represent indifference about the Opening Night reception, or a middling opinion between "Agree" and "Disagree," or a lack of attendance altogether.

Among the minority who assessed the Opening Night Reception, they found the timeframe to be appropriate, and were satisfied with the size of the room relevant to that of the crowd. They were unsatisfied, however, with the pricing and food.

The Conference App:

Usage of the conference app was virtually identical compared to 2018 numbers, which saw 31 more respondents in the survey than did the 2019 survey.

Preferred Meeting Dates:

Despite some vocal interest in the comments in moving the meeting back to a Wednesday-Saturday schedule, Thursday-Sunday still seems to be the preferred timeline for most.

Comments and Frequently Asked Questions:

Aside from the quantitative data presented above, members were encouraged to submit comments on the program and other facets of the annual meeting.

Below, we’ve summarized some of the most frequent and poignant comments from these questions to let members know that we, too, are thinking about the same issues. Though we are only able to respond directly to some of them, the annual meeting, now 150 years running, is still a work in progress. Every year your comments help us change and modify the annual meeting in ways that can best serve the field and you, our constituents.

  • Hotel Costs: Many respondents commented on hotel costs this year. As Past President Joseph Farrell noted last year in both his first and second Presidential letters, relatively few cities and hotels are able to accommodate a meeting of our size. We do try to keep costs as low as possible, and we realize that the hotel rate (excluding taxes) in San Diego was higher at $165.00 per night than in Boston, which had a nightly rate of $159.00. The rate in Washington DC in 2020 will be $159.00, marking a return to the 2018 rate. Additionally, we would like to note that should we move the meeting to a different time of year, hotel rates would be even higher.
  • Session Days: Several attendees noted that they liked the Thursday afternoon paper sessions and would prefer to see a Thursday session rather than a Sunday afternoon session. We will discuss this with the program committee but note that in San Diego, owing to the size of the SCS program, we were compelled to run sessions on both Thursday and Sunday afternoons.
  • Quality of Sessions: Comments on the quality of papers and sessions held at the annual meeting will be transmitted to the program committee.

In terms of improving instructions for presiders and panel organizers about keeping speakers to time and dealing with difficult situations in the question and answer session, we have a new memo for all presiders and panel organizers that we will circulate this summer. Many thanks to the new VP for Program, Cynthia Damon, for authoring the memo.

  • Inclusivity and Harassment: There were understandably many comments about the need to further promote inclusivity and diversity, with a focus on race and ethnicity, and to combat harassment and discrimination in all forms, including implicit bias and micro-aggressions. AIA and SCS staff have liaised with multiple Marriott officials and have already initiated a close working relationship with the General Manager and Head of Security at the Washington DC Marriott Marquis in order to ensure that all our attendees are treated with respect.

We are also working on a number of policies and new procedures with AIA to include a joint annual meeting harassment policy, addition of an ombuds onsite, a new disability accommodations policy and procedures, and better accommodations for parents who are attending the meeting with young children.

Additionally, while we will not be in a position to release the full program until the summer, we anticipate, based on program submissions, several sessions addressing inclusivity and anti-harassment training, and there will be at least one workshop on race sponsored by the SCS leadership.

  • Annual Meeting App: A number of respondents commented on the functionality of the Annual Meeting App, to including complaints about the poor quality of the maps within the app. These comments will be passed on to AIA as they oversee the app.

We wish to thank all of our members and attendees who have taken the time to complete the annual meeting survey and provide us with their constructive suggestions. We value your input on ways to improve the annual meeting and enhance the discipline on the whole.

More April 2019 Newsletter Content

Congratulate our many winners of SCS Scholarships, Fellowships, and Grants.

Read some responses to the recent anonymous letter oulining graduate student concerns.

Image
San Diego