Comments from Participants
APT Conference 2005, Washington University in St. Louis, 21-23 October 2005
Note: The Program Committee asked conference participants for their comments and suggestions on this conference, as well for their ideas about how to improve future conferences. A printed survey was distributed at the conference in St. Louis. After the conference, a web-based survey was also sent to all participants. Participants A-G responded to the print survey, with the rest responding to the web survey. The questions were the same in both surveys, though the formatting of the web-based survey differed from the print one. As a result, question 2 was split into three separate questions. Here, the three answers have been combined into one, each as a separate paragraph.
All responses were shared with the officers of the Association, as well as with the members of the Program Committee. The version appearing on the APT website is edited slightly: all references to individuals have been eliminated. In addition, typographical errors have been corrected and a relatively consistent formatting has been introduced.
1. Which sessions did you attend? What is your general impression of the quality of the presentations and of the discussion?
Participant A
Rethinking American Narratives
Community & Capital
Judgment and Action in Democratic Politics
Responding to Violence
Roundtable on American Conservatism
Good presentations, excellent discussion -- responsible discussants and great audience input.
Participant B:
Excellent
Participant C:
Limits of Liberalism
Race & Reparations
Debates on Deliberative Democracy
Participant D:
Linguistic Politics
Limits of Liberalism
Race, Reparations, etc.
Plenary -- Etzioni
Participant E:
Practice and Method in Political Theory (Roundtable)
Religious Conversations and the Limits of Pluralism
Autonomy and Feminist Ethics
Debates in Deliberative Democracy
Presentations: mixed quality. Overall discussion: high quality. Discussants are doing great work drawing out interesting questions; good quality audience participation.
Participant F:
Rethinking American Narratives
Community and Capital, Social and Economic
Judgment and Action in Democratic Politics
Responding to Violence
Linguistic Politics
Race, Reparations, Reform, and Revolution
Participant G:
Rethinking American Narratives
Religious Conversations and the Limits of Pluralism
Natural Law, Then and Now
Religion and the Grounds of Political Authority
Linguistic Politics
Theorizing Policy
Where there's light, there also is some shadow. Overall, I was highly impressed by the quality of most presentations and the discussions. And I in particular appreciate the focus on leaving time for discussion.
Participant H:
Accounting for Time in Democracy
Religious Conversations and the Limits of Pluralism
Judgment and Action in Democratic Politics
Responding to Violence
Linguistic Politics
Approaches to Contemporary Political Theory
Plenary A: Political Theory and Civic Education
This was a very well organized and strong conference, once again. The only weakness was created by no shows. The panel on "Linguistic Politics" was particularly good, as was the panel on "Contemporary Political Theory."
Participant I:
Practice and Methods in Political Theory (Roundtable)
Drama, Resistance, and Political Theory
Autonomy and Feminist Ethics
Responding to Violence
Prospects for American Conservatism (Roundtable)
Race, Reparations, Reform, and Revolution
Plenary B: Author Meets Critics: Amitai Etzioni
I attended a panel during every time slot and thought that they were all worthwhile. In my estimation, the few lapses with quality at the first conference have disappeared. Having just returned from the Northeastern, I can say that APT is the only conference that I will definitely attend in the future. I've been to all three, and, while I had hopes for the Northeastern PSA, it was poorly organized and participants and audience members did not seem committed to making the conference a site of inquiry as is the case with APT.
Participant J:
Rethinking American Narratives
Religious Conversations and the Limits of Pluralism
Judgment and Action in Democratic Politics
Linguistic Politics
Rethinking Classical Critiques of Democracy
Approaches to Contemporary Political Theory
Overall, very good. Absolutely CRUCIAL is the full two hours given for panels. In several cases, the discussion only got really good in the last twenty minutes or so. This is because it took some time to "lift" the discussion from the often somewhat too-disparate individual papers to wider questions.
Participant K:
Community and Capital, Social and Economic
Autonomy and Feminist Ethics
Religion and the Grounds of Political Authority
Prospects for American Conservatism (Roundtable)
Race, Reparations, Reform, and Revolution
Plenary B: Author Meets Critics: Amitai Etzioni
Excellent quality, though tendency for discussion to hone in on one paper. Perhaps chairs/discussants could intervene to broaden conversation to elicit comments or make links to other papers.
Participant L:
Rethinking American Narratives
Problems of Nationality and Identity
Judgment and Action in Democratic Politics
Responding to Violence
The Practical Import of Utopianism
Race, Reparations, Reform, and Revolution
Plenary B: Author Meets Critics: Amitai Etzioni
At any conference there is unevenness. In general though, the quality of the presentations was good. The discussion was better still.
Participant M:
Practice and Methods in Political Theory (Roundtable)
Community and Capital, Social and Economic
Responding to Violence
Early Modern Thought in Political Context
The Limits of Liberalism
Rethinking Classical Critiques of Democracy
Plenary A: Political Theory and Civic Education
Pretty good. There was little of the usual "let me stand here and read my paper to you" presentation style that unfortunately political theorists seem to enjoy.
Participant N:
Accounting for Time in Democracy
Community and Capital, Social and Economic
Responding to Violence
The Practical Import of Utopianism
Race, Reparations, Reform, and Revolution
This was easily the most interesting conference I've attended so far. On the whole, the presentations were of high quality, and the 2-hr length of the sessions allowed for substantial discussion afterwards.
2. What is your evaluation of the conference overall, and what would you suggest to improve future conferences? Are there topics in or areas of political thought that you would be interested in seeing represented (more) at the conference?
Participant A:
Very good conference--well organized, good papers, conscientious participants.
Participant B:
Excellent. More postmodern. More feminist theory.
Participant C:
A very good conference that provides a good opportunity to theorists/philosophers to discuss their work. I'd like to see more topics on empirical democratic theory.
Participant D:
It's a great conference. Make presenters use PowerPoint, as presentations often not as good as papers. Only one discussant, only three papers per panel?
Participant E:
Still a great conference. The 1/2 hour coffee break/social time between panels is excellent. The paper archive is really important for informed audience participation. Some of the panels still have clear outliers. Perhaps this is unavoidable.
Participant F:
I'd like to see more feminist theory at the conference--I know from conversations with colleagues elsewhere (non-attendees) that their impression of the program is of a very mainstream/straight version of political theory. I don't think that's an entirely fair characterization, but I understand where that impression is drawn from.
Participant G:
If the schedule allows starting the conference the day after the dinner a bit later would be of some benefit. However, APT is my favorite conference. Any chance to put in a bit more non-Western stuff?
Participant H:
This remains the conference and organization I feel most affinity for and commitment. I am very grateful to the founders and organizers to create such a nice atmosphere for theorists to meet, talk, argue, and support one another.
Language and Politics; panels devoted to aspects of the thought of pioneering/innovative theorists; theorizing in the age of globalization; and environmental political theory.
I think we have struck the right mix and number of panels, time between for informal discussions and meeting people, and workshops.
Participant I:
Conference is excellent. Program was very good. People who attend are committed to attending, participating, engaging with other theorists (as opposed to doing the minimum and skipping off to see the sights). The meals are essential for creating this sense of commitment and on-going discussion. In addition, the attention of the organizers to well-conceived panels AND to the details of the conference (down to accommodating last minute changes and generally caring about everyone's experience) is exceptional and to be commended! Also, I'd definitely keep the longer panels (longer than at most conferences). Every panel that I attended had no problem filling the time with interesting discussion.
I think that future program comm. should think about representing feminist thought a bit more. I liked the round table on American conservatism -- it worked well as a roundtable and offered well-prepared and diverse commentaries on a subject that I think deserved inclusion. Perhaps having such roundtables INSTEAD of plenaries (as the "special" presentations) would be worth considering.
Participant J:
The conference is an excellent idea that has been working out very well in practice. As mentioned in #2, the relatively long time for panels is key. Also, the common meals, receptions and social opportunities are a big benefit, so unlike the "x-PSA" conferences.
Could there be more room for communitarian, civic republican, Aristotelian, Hegelian, or other perspectives which challenge the liberal democratic consensus (while remaining committed to various versions of freedom and equality)? I was shocked by the overwhelming support for "Democracy" (even if it means different things to different folks), even in papers that started off with an appearance of radicalism; even the postmoderns are being denuded and tamed; where is the aristocratic radicalism?
Looking at the array of papers accepted and presented, I can see that the conference committee had a very large and difficult task. I therefore offer this in all due humility, in recognition of the complexity of the issue, and of the fact that as the conference grows in popularity, it will become even more intractable. I would ask that the committee be very careful in breaking up or forming panels. My own panel was composed of papers taken off their proposed panels, and I talked to several other people who had the same experience. I fully appreciate and support the goal of "mixing it up," and of preventing the self-ghettoizing tendencies of many scholars, but there were quite a few cases of nearly unbridgeable gaps between papers. The discussion ended up being devoted to one or two papers (I am speaking of panels I attended as well as my own), while one or two others sat quietly until some gentleperson tried to bring them in. These gaps were at times beyond the reach of even very skillful discussants. Solutions? I don't know. Possibly decide on a rule in some way qualifying or prohibiting panel proposals. Let it be known that the mixing and matching is going to be done by the APT. That creates more work for the committee, however, and may not necessarily lead to success -- indeed, it may exacerbate the problem. Encourage panel proposals and then exercise the mixing prerogative moderately and infrequently, only to prevent the worst 'cliquing' while allowing for the spontaneous ordering of most. Encourage the principle of mixing in the call for papers and APT 's various public expressions; make a well mixed panel a criteria (or a more weighed one than it is) for acceptance. Possibly, approach the problem indirectly: Limit all panels to three papers (and keep the two hour time). With three papers, and lots of time, the hard-to-discover links could emerge; and, there might be less chances of fragmentation in the first place, with fewer topics on the table. Here is another suggestion. Allow, encourage or even require the panelists to comment on each other's work. Maybe only five minutes...three minutes, even. The discussant on my panel did as good a job as can be expected for someone not a specialist in any of the papers' topics. However, I had several notes in each of the papers concerning specific points of intersection that I had noticed, things a non-specialist probably wouldn't see, but which bore on the other writer's arguments as well as my own. Naturally, I tried to work these in when I could, but the discussion tended to bounce around a bit too much. Of course, giving presenters the chance to respond directly to each other could lead to disaster, unless civility was absolutely insisted upon. In general, keep up the good work. It is no easy task, and this criticism is meant to help the APT move from very good to great.
Participant K:
Overall, this is a fantastic conference for political theory, especially in light of great conversation in panels and in between. That said, I was surprised and disappointed that the panel I was on, on religion and political authority, had no audience. Not sure why this was. Possible reasons--early on Saturday, religion and politics fatigue, and/or only vaguely related papers (i.e. not a clear theme other than "religion"). But, surprising in light of my prior experience at APT, and disappointing as I was looking forward to some feedback on this project at APT.
Global Governance; more Feminist Political Theory.
Improve proximity between hotel and conference. Distance was a bit frustrating, along with some initial confusion about transportation between sites.
Participant L:
There is far more intellectual engagement at this conference than others. In part, I think this degree of engagement hinges on the small size of APT, the caliber of the discussants, and the common meals.
Law and legal theory.
I was disappointed that one panel I attended on Nationalism and Identity only had one paper and, as a result, drew a small crowd. The paper and the discussion it elicited were terrific. The author deserved a larger audience and a full(er) panel of papers. APT's organizers can't control last minute cancellations, of course. But, I do think it would have been wise to move the paper and the discussant to a different panel.
Participant M:
Very good.
I hope the conference will continue to be mindful of work done on the borderline between political theory and other fields, as with much work done on rational choice theory.
Occasionally, I felt that there were panels in conflict with each other that really appealed to the same audience. Panels like that ought to have separate time slots.
Participant N:
[No comments.]
3. Would you be interested in participating in future APT conferences?
Participant A: Absolutely.
Participant B: Yes.
Participant C: Yes--in fact, I will!
Participant D: Yes.
Participant E: Yes.
Participant F: Absolutely.
Participant G: Yes.
Participant H: Definitely yes.
Participant I: Definitely yes.
Participant J: Definitely yes.
Participant K: Probably yes.
Participant L: Definitely yes.
Participant M: Definitely yes.
Participant N: Definitely yes.
4. Did you make use of the conference paper archive? What do you think of the pre-circulation and archiving requirements? Should future conferences require the pre-circulation and/or archiving of papers?
Participant A:
Yes. Great job of getting participants to have papers posted on time. I plan to make use of the archive further when I return home. Definitely continue to require pre-circulation & archiving.
Participant B:
No--it did not work.
Participant C:
The conference archive was very helpful. Future conferences must require pre-circulation.
Participant D:
Yes, archive is excellent. Yes, require pre-circulation and archiving.
Participant E:
Yes. Keep the pre-circulation requirement! I get much more out of the presentations when I've had the opportunity to glance through/read the papers in advance. When others have read the papers, their questions are also more engaged.
Participant F:
Yes! The pre-circulation/archiving requirements result in far better papers and discussions. That makes a tremendous difference and is huge part of why the quality of APT is so high. Better questions & answers when people have had a chance to read over papers in advance.
Participant G:
No, but I will enjoy the opportunity to track down some of the paper when I am back home. Actually, it [pre-circulation/archiving] is a good thing, since it gives a bit more pressure to produce in a timely fashion. Yes [the conference should require pre-circulation/archiving in the future].
Participant H:
Yes--I used or attempted to use the archive after the conference. This is just great. I know my work on panels is best when I have a chance to read the papers of the other presenters beforehand.
Participant I:
Yes--I used or attempted to use the archive before or during the conference. I don't have strong thoughts on this subject, although most seem to think that this has contributed to higher quality papers (or at least papers that aren't completed at the last moment). For those who have time to consult the papers that interest them beforehand, and can then discuss the papers with authors more thoroughly, it is clearly useful, and may contribute to more sophisticated discussions than are often possible with knowledge only of what has been briefly presented.
Participant J:
Yes--I used or attempted to use the archive before or during the conference. I think pre-circulation is excellent; essential. The Association should make even stronger exhortations to both the panelists and others planning on attending to read the works before hand. We are all so terribly busy. It is hard, but it would be an improvement on the already fine experience. I met no-one this year who had pre-read a paper, though there must have been some. Last year, I met several people who had. For my own part, I printed out about twenty papers before hand, but a flu and other problems kept me a little too busy in the weeks prior to the conference to read anything but my fellow panelists. Archiving is less essential but convenient and well justified for all the reasons given in the APT's various statements on the point. Having the archive accessible only to members is crucial, and having the "opt-out" available respects the formal conditions of agency with which any modern institution must reckon.
Participant K:
No--I haven't used the archive, but I intend to use it. In general, I think it's a good idea--a good option to have, though time constraints tend to limit how much I read other papers on the panel.
Participant L:
Yes--I used or attempted to use the archive before or during the conference. Both requirements are beneficial. I do think that the option not to archive one's full paper should remain, however.
Participant M:
Yes--I used or attempted to use the archive before or during the conference. I think it's a good idea, but I understand the concerns of those who are worried about archiving papers.
Participant N:
Yes--I used or attempted to use the archive before or during the conference. Yes; both requirements contribute to the quality of the conferences.
5. Please feel free to add any other comments or suggestions you may have here.
(Note: Some did not reply to this question.)
Participant A:
I notice there were a number of professors from Haverford and Swarthmore here. They may be a good resources for a future conference site.
Participant B:
Thank you.
Participant C:
Good job. Sheraton Hotel had problem with airport shuttle Saturday a.m. Plus no provision for early check-in.
Participant D:
Great conference. Please keep the size small so that is can remain an atmosphere where people can meet one another and feel comfortable. The meals together are crucial, as are the extended breaks. Thank you to all the planners, program committee members, Andrew, Wash. U. students, etc. Great job!
Participant E:
Thank you for the great conference!
Participant F:
Let's try to include time for voting and evaluation at the final luncheon. I can never seem to make the business meetings on Sunday mornings. Travel from my home is always a time consuming process due to its remoteness.
Participant G:
APT should retain its concern with serving theorists not well served by other conferences, and those who would most benefit from interacting with other theorists (those not at large research institutions with more faculty, more visiting speakers, graduate students). Given that the conference will continue to attract attention and submissions, perhaps (as someone mentioned to me) consider instituting an eligibility requirement for presenting a paper (e.g., if one presents two years in a row, he/she is ineligible to present the third year but can be chair/discussant, and then is again eligible to present in fourth year). You shouldn't do this unless necessary, but it could be a way of distributing the relatively few slots for presenting (which will be increasingly fewer relative to number of submissions given the strengths of the conference). AND/OR try to find time for another round of panels. THANKS for a great conference! Let me know what I can do to help for 2006.
Participant H:
I've pretty well emptied my mind of all the relevant thoughts in previous boxes, thanks!
Participant I:
I hope the conference size is kept manageable. It's a great size right now. Also--it doesn't make sense to hold two plenary sessions simultaneously. I would have probably attended both had they not been in conflict this year.
Transcribed by DMc, 7 December 2005; reset: 22 May 2009