John Kutsko, the Executive Director of the Society of Biblical Literature, wrote all the SBL student members an email today informing us of two new policies:
1. All students without a doctoral degree are required to submit to the Program Unit Chair the full text of the paper they will read. The paper will be submitted at the time of proposal. Student proposers will submit the paper they intend to read, not a full-length article intended for written distribution.
2. The number of sessions students can participate in will be limited to one. This policy pertains to participation as panelist, presenter, and respondent.
I think these are fine. I don’t see any reason for students to be upset about these regulations. We can still participate if our work qualifies. I think it is good for us students to have minimal face time and more learning time while working toward doctorates. Any thoughts?
December 9, 2010 at 11:53 am
No big deal, but it’s grabbing the wrong end of the stick, in my opinion. If scholars can’t police our own peer review process so as to select genuinely good papers, that’s not the fault of students. I don’t think this will help improve the quality of the conference. Blind peer review for all would be a better way forward.
December 9, 2010 at 11:59 am
@Daniel: True. I guess another thing I should consider is that I am farther away from the Ph.D. than some student members since I am only in my Th.M. Those who are active Ph.D. students, and especially those almost near finishing, may have a problem with the decision and I would understand that.
Pingback: Tweets that mention New SBL Student Members Policies « Near Emmaus -- Topsy.com
December 9, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I probably line up more with Brian here – simply because I am also still working towards my Masters and it will be a couple of years before PhD is on the radar. I got the email earlier today and didn’t have a big problem with it. I’m also relatively new to SBL and so I don’t have much experience to filter this news through!
December 9, 2010 at 12:31 pm
@Jon: I am brand new as well so I may not know what I am about to miss. Ignorance is bliss?!
Also, Patrick McCullough, who is a member of the Student Advisory Board, is taking feedback on his blog for anyone interested: http://patmccullough.com/2010/12/09/letter-to-sbl-student-members-from-director-kutsko/
December 9, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Though for any Ph.D student. This could be great experience in regarding their research and if it truly is sustainable.
December 9, 2010 at 1:01 pm
As I understand it Ph.D. students were already given the opportunity. I think there was the opportunity to give multiple presentations and your paper was selected, as Daniel mentioned, by peer review rather than a Program Unit Chair.
December 9, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Just to clarify, this is for the Annual Meeting. I’m not sure it would trickle down to the regional meetings, but it appears to apply only to the Annual right now.
December 9, 2010 at 1:03 pm
@JohnDave: Correct, I think the procedure remains the same for regional meetings.
December 9, 2010 at 1:13 pm
For Master’s students at the regionals, the papers presented are a portion of the thesis, so normally the thesis is just about done. I assume this is the same with doctoral students who present at the national. If a doctoral student who is nearly finished with the PhD can run with two implications to produce two papers to read in different SBL sections, then I think face time shouldn’t be much of an issue because the learning time is implied in writing those papers. At the same time, I don’t necessarily disagree with this policy at this point.
December 9, 2010 at 1:19 pm
As for being able to present or not present a paper…. isn’t this what Blogging is all about?
You have raised some interesting issues about study time and the necessity for it. This is something to truly take on board for future studies.
December 9, 2010 at 1:33 pm
While I obviously greatly enjoy blogging I don’t think it is on par with the standards set for academic papers.
December 9, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Definitely blogging hasn’t the same academic standards.
December 9, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Blogging is like a practice game of basketball with friends; SBL presentations will be like a game with a bunch of seasoned veterans waiting to smack the ball back in the rookie’s face!
December 9, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Or they’re waiting to steal the ball and dunk it on the poor, lowly student.
December 9, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Ha! O so true (and scary).
December 9, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Perhaps even scarier would be they would leave the ball and dunk the student….
So therefore we need some lowly student who can take on the guise of David and tackle the Goliath’s
December 9, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Hmm, mayhaps there were a few bad student presentations at the national conference this year?
December 9, 2010 at 9:37 pm
I think the problem is with the “full text” submission reqs. It’s easy enough to submit an abstract or a few pages of your work, but to have everything ready as full text over 6 months before the actual presentation might be asking a bit much from students.
Pingback: My Letter to Chairman John Kutsko about SBL Policy Changes « כל־האדם
December 10, 2010 at 7:49 am
@Andy: That could be it. Hmmmm, we need an investigation. Whose paper was so bad SBL changed their policies?!
@Mike: That is very true. I usually don’t maintain the same interest in a given subject for six months at a time. I can only imagine how I would do.
Pingback: My Letter to Executive Director John Kutsko about SBL Policy Changes « כל־האדם
December 10, 2010 at 10:24 am
Craig: Now that is scary. Good thing that at the sessions I went to everyone was gracious with each other.
Mike: The way I read it, the submission is to be a complete, but shortened paper (the paper-to-be-read in about 25 minutes), not the “full text” paper. Am I getting something wrong here?
December 10, 2010 at 10:53 am
@JohnDave: What would the difference be between the previous proposal, a shortened paper, and the actual delivered paper?
December 10, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Brian,
From what I can tell—or at least the way I’m understanding it—there can be a difference between the paper submitted and the paper read. The submitted paper can be quite long (in fact, from what I understand, one presenter submitted a 30-40 page paper) but it would also be impossible to be read in the allotted time, which is usually 25-30 minutes. Let’s call that the “a full-length article intended for written distribution.” I think these are usually published in the section’s volumes. For example, the John, Jesus and History group already has two of these volumes, which are compilations of presented paper at its sessions.
The paper-to-be-read would be one that is readable within the allotted time—somewhere around 5,000 words or something. Let’s call that “paper they intend to read.”
Is the difference clear? If someone has prepared a “full-length article intended for written distribution,” which I assume is what needs to be prepared if it is to be published in a section’s volume, then the paper-to-be-read would be much easier to prepare.
I don’t know have first-hand experience with this. I know someone who, when preparing for the SBL presentation, did an 18-page paper. I assume that paper was the submitted paper, but I haven’t checked.
What I’m trying to understand is the distinction between “full-length” and “paper they intend to read.” If students have been producing full-length articles and submitting them, then I don’t see why chopping that down to a 5-page paper to read would be a problem. Then again, maybe I’m not understanding what’s going on here.
December 11, 2010 at 9:04 am
@JohnDave: So one has to submit the paper as it will be read or the paper as it would be published??
December 11, 2010 at 1:43 pm
The email it says, “the full text of the paper they will read.” So JohnDave maybe right, but it still means by March, your paper has to be basically finished and ready to go.
December 11, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Brian and Mike,
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, the change would mean that the paper has to be ready to go, but isn’t that what the expectation has always been? I had been under the impression that for the Annual Meeting, the submission is always a full text of something.
The paper they want submitted appears to be the one that will be read within the allotted time—the “paper they intend to read.” This seems to be the shortened form if the way I’m reading it is correct.
Pingback: The Biblical Studies Carnival LVIII « כל־האדם