Comments from Participants

1. "Kudos!! This is a great idea, long overdue. I liked that there is no plenary and you stayed away from one particular approach to political theory. I did notice a wide range of topics in modern thought but almost no papers in ancient theory – I would encourage you to reach out there. Also, maybe a few panels that address recent book[s] (author meets critics), but I would suggest somehow limiting/refereeing which books get selected."

2. "I liked the 2-hour length of the panels. Slightly longer breaks in between might have been nice. The small size of the conference helped facilitate conversation. Meals were handled well, although too much meat & cheese…."

3. "I thought the conference was a great success. The audience for panels was larger and better than most I’ve seen at large conferences (APSA). I didn’t like the food (looked good, didn’t taste good). But that’s not so important. I’d probably come again … maybe not in Michigan."

4. a. Assessment: "I thought the conference was very good." b. Another conference? "Thanksgiving weekend? Chicago?" c. Governance Committee: "Committee a good idea." d. Relations with APSA/Foundations: "Yes, promote political theory connections wherever you can." e. Other initiatives? "Promoting employment."

5. "Plus: 1) The common meals and coffee breaks were great; 2) Very well organized; 3) Very nice facilities. Minus: 1) Stronger requirements for presenters to get papers in on time; 2) Fewer graduate student papers, if possible."

6. "The discussant was an excellent addition to the panels; added clarity and interest. Thank you!"

7. "I can’t think when I have enjoyed intellectual exchange more. Certainly not since graduate school. I hope you retain the interdisciplinary aspect of the conference. There are so many of us out there that are isolated vis-à-vis what really concerns us."

8. "Good conference. Very good organization and organizational communication. Three-speaker panels are better than four-speaker panels, which leave too little time for presentation and Q/A. Non-alcoholic conference centers are to be avoided."

9. "This was a great conference! Terrific organization and communication in the months and weeks leading up to the conference. The proceedings were substantive and the participants were hard working and generous, and above all constructive. Great facilities also, and it is especially nice to attend an affordable conference. I’ll be sure to put in for next year. Also, thanks again to Emily and Dennis for their hard work and dedication."

10. "Do it again, please."

11. "Very well organized and focused conference, thank you! Suggestion: set up at an initial and/or closing plenary session to pull things together, especially when panels are so diverse."

12. "Great conference. Good variety of papers. But I would have liked to have seen a panel on critical theory."

13. "I enjoyed myself immensely – but it seems there might have been too much of a 'Calvin College' influence in too many of the discussants/papers topics. Too often, I saw Christian discussants dismiss out of hand other 'non-Christian' works, while lauding 'Christian' view, rendering the conference unimaginative and uncritical in many areas. In some ways, I expected this, so I cannot claim surprise or disappointment. Would help to see more atheistic works, neo-Marxism, Bataille, Derrida – deconstructionism – particularly in the discussants in the future."

14. "This was a great conference. Many thanks for your hard work."

15. "Suggestion for improvement: 1) More emphasis should be put on constructive criticism. 2) Discussants should be more critical. I enjoyed the conference: thank you!"

16. "I thought it was successful. A good number of people showed up and the quality of discussion was high. Very broad and diverse panels. I think it was a good beginning. Congratulations!"

17. "Great job! I’m extremely impressed."

18. a. Assessment: "Excellent conference." b. Another conference? "Yes. Next year. Same time. This location is fine." c. Governance Committee: "Yes. Senior faculty should serve." d. Relations with APSA/Foundations: "Any connections would be good with other 'political theory' groups." e. Other initiatives? "A journal? We need more journals in political theory."

19. "Very nice conference. Good variety of papers, but a bit light on contemporary analytical work. Organization should make clear if the goal is to remain open to all approaches within theory (historical, analytic, etc.) Meeting site that isn’t alcohol-free?"

20. "1) This was a very enjoyable conference. 2) Yes, let's do it again. Perhaps have more roundtables. Location should rotate – perhaps find a college (with facilities) that is closer to a major hub airport (e.g., St. Louis, Denver, Chicago….) 4) I think it should remain relatively small – slightly more participants is fine; if it gets much bigger the conference would: a) have too many concurrent panels; or b) would have to be three days. 5) Let's keep the mix of ABDs and PhDs. It is unique and helpful for the future of the discipline."

21. "1) This has been a positive experience. I found the level of discussion quite high, and the opportunities and environment for participation excellent. Paper presenters, discussants, and audience participants were well prepared. Better than at some higher profile conferences. I’d like to see this become an annual or bi-annual event."

22. "Conference went exceptionally well, and was impressed with the organization and audience. Could be somewhat closer to restaurants, etc. Location was biggest issue."

23. a. Assessment: "The conference was wonderful on all counts." b. Another conference? "Absolutely. Next year. We can support an annual conference." c. Governance Committee: "I have to catch an early flight, so I shall have to miss the meeting. But I would be interested and happy to serve APT in any capacity – program committee/planning/other." d. Relations with APSA/Foundations: "Too early in the organization’s development." e. Other initiatives? "Perhaps we should consider a journal – perhaps an electronic journal – for the organization. I’d be happy to participate in a committee for this, too." f. "Many thanks to the founders. I wish I had been among you."

24. a. Assessment: "Great!" b. Another conference? "Yes – next year." c. Governance Committee: "I’d be happy to serve."

25. "Excellent! I learned a great deal and some remarkable conversations!"

26. a. Assessment: "Great!" b. Another conference? "Yes; same time; a venue that's accessible." c. Governance Committee: "I will volunteer." d. Other initiatives? "Interviewing job candidates."

27. a. Assessment: "Very well. Good panels, serious papers." b. Another conference? "Yes – October is an excellent time. Like meals coordinated with the conference." c. Governance Committee: "Yes." d. Relations with APSA/Foundations: "Limit. Don't let this become part of annual meetings." e. Other initiatives? "Find a way to make papers available. Archiving through APSA (as regional associations are doing) might be a solution. How about an electronic listing of people, interests, research projects."

Excerpts from e-mail messages concerning the conference:

28. "The discussants were equally good in their remarks and the panels were on the whole excellent. In short, this was an excellent conference and you are to be commended. If in the future you are looking for people to help, I'd be more than happy."

29. "I very much enjoyed participating in the APT-conference. I made many new contacts and learned a lot about the research and thoughts of my American colleagues. I just submitted my membership application. I wish Dennis and Emily all the best. May the future history of the APT be as successful as its beginning."

30. "Thanks for all of your work on the conference!! Everything seemed to go so smoothly. The main concerns that I heard were about the quality of the papers -- too many didn't meet expectations or standards. Presumably, the program committee for the next one will be grappling with this issue. Some but not all of the lower quality papers were from graduate students (although some of the best papers I heard were graduate student papers), and someone at the meeting on Sunday suggested something along the lines of a panel on how to present a paper. I strongly suggest that we don't go that route -- the last thing that we need, in my view, is to become or be perceived as a staging ground for graduate students, the pre-conference training before the 'real' conferences. I think that our focus for the next conference should be on quality and content. Please see me as someone willing to fill in as needed, on the program committee if you want me there or elsewhere if that would be more helpful. Thanks again for all of your work in founding APT and following it through."

31. "I just wanted to thank you [Emily and Dennis] for all of the work that you put in on the conference. I unfortunately had to miss the business meeting because of my flight out, but I wanted to let you know that I was quite impressed with the panels that I attended, the feedback when I presented, and the general atmosphere, which I thought was quite welcoming to younger scholars like myself. I do hope that the organization continues to sponsor these conferences. If there is anything that I can do to help with the organization, please feel free to ask."