See all articles from this issue

Spring is blooming—the sky is blue, the birds are singing, the air is getting warmer, my daughter is playing kickball, and I am writing this article on my deck. It is the beginning of May 2020, as I write this article—many around the world continue to work from home and have kids learning online because of the coronavirus. A new way of life, for now at least.

While we are living in an unprecedented time, the 2020 NCFR Annual Conference is being planned. We have been able to maintain some of the same elements of the planning process but have also had to adjust others. I want share with you in this article the planning process thus far and how things have been adjusted.

Conference Program Planning Committee Training

The 2020 Conference Program Planning Committee consists of Conference Program Chair, Brad van Eeden-Moorefield, Ph.D.; Conference Program Chair-elect, Tammy Henderson, Ph.D.; 10 section chairs; the two representatives of the Students and New Professional program; the two Theory Construction Research Methodology cochairs; the Inclusion and Diversity Committee program representative; the Affiliate Councils program representative; and several staff (i.e., Cindy Winter, Judy Schutz, Diane Cushman, and myself). The conference planning begins one year in advance at the conference with a face-to-face meeting. Committee members learn of the conference theme and plenaries planned by the Conference Program Chair and begin discussing special sessions and invited symposiums related to the conference theme. During the next couple of months, the committee members receive training on how to organize their invited sessions, the submission and review process, forming the overall program, and much more. These trainings occurred as planned for the 2020 conference.

Submission and Review Process

The submission process is similar each year. The submission system, Oxford Abstracts, opens in early January and proposals are due on or around March 1 (depending on whether March 1 falls on a weekend). Although we do get a few submissions early on, most submissions come in on the last day, close to the final hour. The coronavirus emerged before the submission system closed. We wondered if and how COVID-19 was going to have an impact on the submission process. Although I cannot definitively say that the virus had an impact on the submission rate, the total submissions were about 200 fewer than the submission rate in 2019. There are likely to be other factors as well that decreased the submission rate this year.

During the time the submission system is open, we also invite members to sign up to review proposals submitted to the conference. Three reviewers are needed for each proposal, with at least two professionals reviewing the proposal, along with at most one upper-level graduate student. Occasionally, we have faculty members who use this opportunity to teach students about how to do quality reviews. For all reviewers, we offer a number of resources (written and video) to learn how to do quality reviews. An appropriate number of members signed up to review. We were not lacking in reviewers.  

Once the submission system closes, reviewers are automatically and randomly matched to proposals on the basis of subject codes provided by the author(s) and the reviewers. This is only the second year we have been able to do automatic randomized matching. This year, authors and reviewers were able to choose at least one keyword from three different codes: subject, primary population, and method and approach. Authors could choose up to three codes in each area. Reviewers were not limited in identifying their areas of expertise. This allowed for more possible reviewer matches for each proposal. The matching process also ensures that authors and reviewers are not employed at the same institution.

The matching process went very well this year. Only two proposals resulted in zero matches. In this case, the system is set up to randomly assign reviewers to the proposals. Section chairs review the matches and have the opportunity to change reviewers as necessary. There were very few of these changes this year. Reviewers are also instructed to let us know if they have a conflict of interest in reviewing the proposal. There were a few conflicts of interest noted this year, but this is typical, as it is impossible to catch all potential scenarios for conflict of interests before matching. All in all, the reviewer matching process is a great new addition and helps section chairs be efficient in their work.

Reviewers are given just over two weeks to complete their reviews. Inevitably, life happens and not everyone is able to complete their reviews within this period. When this happens, section chairs assign section officers and other backup reviewers to ensure that each proposal has three reviews. With the coronavirus ravaging the United States during the review period, many of our members (and thus reviewers) were moving their classes online and having to care for children while working from home and contending with a number of other new daily life challenges as a result of COVID-19. During that time, we needed to be flexible. Reviewers were given an extension to complete their reviews. The extension helped reviewers complete additional reviews. However, the section chairs did have additional proposals needing additional reviews than in the past. As in years prior, the section chairs relied on the backup reviewers to complete the reviews.

Forming the Conference Program

Every spring toward the end of April, the Conference Program Planning Committee comes together to form the conference program, which results in a fully organized program by mid- to late May. Initially, section chairs examine all the reviews and decide which proposals are accepted or rejected. After the section chairs accept proposals, they decide the presentation format that each proposal will have and form concurrent sessions. The format each proposal receives is determined by author preference, reviewer recommendation, and room on the program.

To form the program, each section is provided with a set number of concurrent sessions. This allocation is based on the number of proposals submitted to that section—the more proposals submitted to that section, the more concurrent sessions the section will have on the program. Section chairs fill their concurrent sessions with symposia, paper sessions, workshops, and—new this year—interactive papers and interactive workshops. Section chairs are also allotted a high number of posters spots.

While the section chairs are putting their sessions together, Conference Consultant Cindy Winter and I start organizing the rest of the conference schedule—for example, scheduling plenary presenters, special sessions, and invited presenter symposiums. As the concurrent sessions are formed, they are scheduled into the program. The draft program is thoroughly examined to minimalize overlap across sections, focus groups, presenters, and topics. At the end of April, the Conference Program Committee meets to review the draft program for overlap and necessary changes. The committee also schedules section and focus group meetings. We try our best to avoid all overlaps.

For the following few weeks after the Conference Program Committee meeting, tweaks are made to the program and poster presentations are scheduled. By June 1, authors are notified of their acceptances and rejections.

Responding to COVID-19

In response to COVID-19, we changed the 2020 spring conference program face-to-face meeting to an online meeting for the first time. We met through Zoom using a modified schedule. The logistics and training aspects of the meeting were recorded so committee members could watch at their convenience. We met live to discuss the most important aspects of the program to ensure the program is organized.

NCFR is closely monitoring news on COVID-19 and recommendations from the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We are currently proceeding with preparations for the 2020 NCFR Annual Conference, scheduled for Nov. 11–14, 2020. We will adjust plans as necessary to ensure the health and well-being of our members and attendees.

Gratitude

I want to thank each of the program committee members for their flexibility, commitment, and loyalty to the 2020 NCFR Annual Conference. The committee does an amazing job each year putting together the conference. This group of committee members had the added challenge of organizing the conference while working from home during unprecedented times and integrating work, family, and the conference. Thank you! We couldn’t organize the conference without you.