Home

Officers

By-Laws

Meetings

Program

Membership

Journal

Newsletter

Listserv

Committees

Student Bulletin Board

Prizes

Operations Handbook

Archives

Site map

Educational Resources

Links

2007-2009
Abraham, Tara, Chair
Barker, Gillian
Brochhausen, Mathias
Elliott, Kevin
Garcia, Vivette
Gayon, Jean
López-Beltrán, Carlos
Shapiro, Adam
Smocovitis, V. Betty
Taylor, Peter
Villela, Alicia

This committee is charged with soliciting, judging, and awarding the Grene Prize at the ISHPSSB meeting.

• Kelly Smith, Clemson University, Chair
• Pamela Henson, Smithsonian Institute
• Edna Maria Suarez Diaz, National University of Mexico

The following notice was posted in the Fall ISHPSSB Newsletter:

As of January 24th, the committee had received exactly one submission. Worried that we would not get enough submissions for a legitimate contest, we took the following additional steps:

1. We extended the deadline to March 1st.
2. We asked ISHPSSB Board members to encourage student submissions.
3. We individually contacted all the grad students we could find who had given papers at the last meeting and encouraged them to submit.
4. We sent out a mass email reminding all grad student members of ISHPSSB of the award and the new deadline.

Problems

1. The submission rate:

   This initially looked to be a disaster, with only two papers having arrived a week before the original deadline (which was when we started lighting fires). However, by the time the original deadline arrived, we had gotten 6 submissions. Ultimately, our efforts resulted in a final tally of 11 submissions, 9 of which were considered (one arrived 7 days late and another was not a paper presented at the ISHPSSB conference). Considering the submission rate in previous years (6 last year, for example) and the number of grad student papers delivered at the conference, this was quite a success, if delayed.

2. The quality of submissions:

   The quality of submissions, as in past years, was erratic – everything from truly excellent papers suitable for publication (2-3) to write ups of talks with no clear coherent argument (1-2). Ultimately, however, the committee agreed that two of the papers were head and shoulders above the rest and both were well qualified for the award.

Suggestions for Improvement

The committee received or generated the following suggestions for improving the award. I have tired to categorize them and lay each out briefly, followed by the committee's analysis:

1. Make it an award for the best presentation.

   This would be a major change in the nature of the award. Depending on exactly how we work it, we would likely get more students to participate in the process, at least at some level. It's a lot of effort for a student to submit a full-fledged paper and this sort of rewriting is often overlooked given that the deadline for the award is almost a year after the conference.

   It would be a bit of a challenge to make this practical, however. Some suggested that we ask students to submit an abstract of their paper along with a detailed prospectus. These could then be subjected to an initial screening by a committee. The committee would then attend each of the presentations and vote on a winner. It might even be possible to arrange for all the Grene finalists to present their work in the same conference session (perhaps in addition to the original session in which they were accepted). Alternately, we could develop some kind of system where regular members (or perhaps committee members) nominated grad student presentations and then voted on a winner. The practical problems with this last idea do seem fairly daunting, however.

   Then there is the fact that the award would have to be based on far less information, since the committee would only have an abstract and a 45 minute presentation rather than a paper.

   Recommendation: The committee feels that the practical obstacles to making this work are such that we should not enact this change right now. Perhaps in another few years, if other recommended changes do not help, it can be reconsidered.

2. How to help insure an ample submission rate:

   This is critical, since having a dozen papers rather than 2 mitigates other problems like erratic quality. Several "advertising" suggestions were made along these lines:

   • Making the deadline later (i.e., in March). This does make it difficult to finish the judging before the final pre-conference newsletter is published, however.
   • Sending out a series of email solicitations, both to full ISHPSSB members asking them to encourage student submissions and to students asking them to submit. It would be especially helpful to send out a reminder email about 2 months before the deadline arrives.
   • Track all the grad students who make presentation at the ISHPSSB (maybe by having them check a box upon registration) and then solicit their papers individually.
   • Include a flyer about the award with the registration packets mailed out before the conference.
   • Make it clear to students that submissions can be in the form of papers already accepted for publication. We had one of these this year and one last year, however some students may simply assume such papers are not qualified and not submit. We should also make it clear that one only needs to have been a grad student at the time of the presentation to be qualified.
   • Increase the size of the prize and make it in the form of a check rather than reimbursement for expenses incurred months ago. If possible, it would be wonderful to pay all travel expenses for the winning student.

   Recommendation: Better advertising can serve both to increase the number of submissions and enhance the prestige of the prize. The committee thus feels that ISHPSSB should take aggressive measures along these lines, implementing as many of these suggestions as possible.

3. How to increase the prestige of the award

   If this prize process is to be successful, then it must to be seen as a major part of the ISHPSSB conferences. At the moment, this is clearly not the case. The prize is not awarded in a conspicuous way, advertising is minimal and mostly after the conference is over, etc. Several suggestions were collected on how to improve matters in this respect:

   • If possible, we should somehow identify Grene award finalists from one conference, not just the winners, at the next conference. Perhaps we could, for example, have a session just for the presentation of finalist papers or mark such papers on the program with an asterisk, etc.
   • We really should present the Grene award, not at the business meeting (which almost no students and very few regular members attend) but either at the plenary session or, even better, at the dinner. We should also make a moderately big deal about the award when it's bestowed, etc., etc.
   • We should do something inventive about the new plaque with winners names on it so that people see it and comment on it – place it someplace prominent like at the book exhibit or registration desk, etc., etc.

   Recommendation: Again, the committee feels that ISHPSSB should implement as many of these suggestions as possible.

4. Miscellaneous

   Several interesting suggestions/issues did not fit neatly into the categories above, so are listed here, followed by comments:

   • A blind review process does not seem necessary. Indeed, it might be helpful not to blind it since this might work to the advantage of non-English speakers.
     • The committee did not have strong feelings about this. However, it was agreed by the committee members as well as many former members that blind review was not necessary.
   • It might be advisable to place limits on the length and style of papers in keeping with the journal to which they are to be submitted.
     • The instructions already make it clear that the entry should be in the form of a manuscript ready for submission to a professional journal. Perhaps we could emphasize this a bit more, but the more specific we want to be along these lines, the more complex the instructions become.
   • Establish a fund to richly endow the prize for all eternity.
     • The committee feels this is an excellent idea and heartily endorse the immediate commencement of a search for a wealthy patron!
   • Discontinue the practice of saying in the ad that ISHPSSB will assist students in getting the winning essay published.
     • This should definitely be done in the future. There's really not much the committee can do other than provide a set of feedback and perhaps write a letter, neither of which really constitutes a significant level of help. In fact, previous discussions already identified this as something to change, but this decision was lost in the shuffle.

Acknowledgements: This ideas in this report reflect the collective effort of many dedicated ISHPSSB members including Keith Benson, Dick Burian, Lindley Darden, Christiane Groeben, Jane Maienschein, Rob Skipper, Terry Sullivan, and Chris Young

2001 Committee report

Phil Pauly thanked the other members of the committee, Dave Rudge and Ron Amundson, and described the winning paper, written by Rasmus Winther, Indiana University.

1999 Committee report

Did not award Marjorie Grene Prize due to insufficient submissions.

Past Recipients