Comments on: #acrl2009 http://www.megholle.com/2009/03/acrl2009/ Friend of books and bytes Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:58:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Meg http://www.megholle.com/2009/03/acrl2009/comment-page-1/#comment-53 Meg Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:51:21 +0000 http://www.megholle.com/?p=356#comment-53 As a native Midwesterner, in the company of Canadians, the thought of walking out on a presenter was mortifying--I stuck it out for most of them, though I think I may position myself near the exits next time. I agree with Jill, though--I did see some things I hadn't planned to that ended up being interesting indeed, including the poster sessions. I knew what posters were and what they entailed... but still *didn't really know.* And... "...Oh!" Yeah, totally doable. :) Tremendously slammed with school, I did not have time to stake out which sessions I wanted to attend beforehand, much less to research the researchers--next time (for ACRL and other conferences) I'll have a better action plan (and perhaps more guts to get up and leave when deemed necessary). And yes, Marilyn, networking is key. It is not my strong suit, but I have a better sense of how it's done now (and there are so many opportunities and ways of doing so--even right now, as I type, come to think of it). As a native Midwesterner, in the company of Canadians, the thought of walking out on a presenter was mortifying–I stuck it out for most of them, though I think I may position myself near the exits next time. I agree with Jill, though–I did see some things I hadn’t planned to that ended up being interesting indeed, including the poster sessions. I knew what posters were and what they entailed… but still *didn’t really know.* And… “…Oh!” Yeah, totally doable. :)

Tremendously slammed with school, I did not have time to stake out which sessions I wanted to attend beforehand, much less to research the researchers–next time (for ACRL and other conferences) I’ll have a better action plan (and perhaps more guts to get up and leave when deemed necessary).

And yes, Marilyn, networking is key. It is not my strong suit, but I have a better sense of how it’s done now (and there are so many opportunities and ways of doing so–even right now, as I type, come to think of it).

]]> By: Marilyn http://www.megholle.com/2009/03/acrl2009/comment-page-1/#comment-50 Marilyn Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:38:42 +0000 http://www.megholle.com/?p=356#comment-50 For future reference: getting up and leaving in the midst of a presentation that doesn't meet your needs (for whatever reason) is a time-honored practice. I'm glad ACRL is every other year, because it gives us all more time to reflect, experience, and do better presenting at the next one. As someone who ran a round table discussion, I agree that they can be some of the most effective parts of the conference. Even more so is networking, networking, networking! For future reference: getting up and leaving in the midst of a presentation that doesn’t meet your needs (for whatever reason) is a time-honored practice. I’m glad ACRL is every other year, because it gives us all more time to reflect, experience, and do better presenting at the next one. As someone who ran a round table discussion, I agree that they can be some of the most effective parts of the conference. Even more so is networking, networking, networking!

]]> By: Jill http://www.megholle.com/2009/03/acrl2009/comment-page-1/#comment-49 Jill Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:29:42 +0000 http://www.megholle.com/?p=356#comment-49 Wow, Meg, I am really amazed by how similar our experience of this conference was. I found myself extremely disappointed in some of the sessions that I thought would be most interesting. I commented on one of them that the presenter was either completely unprepared or terrified of the audience. I have a feeling that we may be thinking of the same session. But I have to admit to being guilty of expecting better merely because of the prestige of the institution involved. I learned a valuable lesson about expectations from that! However, because of the set-up of two papers per session, I did end up seeing some really interesting presentations that I probably would not have chosen to see. The next time I go to a conference, I'm going to look for presentations by Char Booth, Steven Bell, Peter McCracken...These guys were engaging, prepared and on-point. I'm not altogether discouraged about conference attendance. I think in some ways, we have to be tolerant of the bad presentations for the sake of not censoring out the good ones. I have a feeling that, for any presenter that we feel might have wasted our time, well, they may get paid back on the professional development front. They weren't just on-stage in front of library students like you and I, they were in front of deans and administrators and people-in-charge. (And those people paid more money than you and I, so they're probably even more upset about a waste of their time.) And now that I really know what's involved in poster sessions and round tables, I feel like that's something I might be able to accomplish in 2011. Like you, I also found twitter to be amazingly useful during the conference. Charging problems kept me from tweeting as much as I wanted to, but the whole experience of using twitter from my iPod Touch started me really thinking about the usefulness of mobile technologies for the library. (The Penn State pres at the Zed Shed on that topic was pretty interesting!) It was just thoroughly amazing to be able to stay informed about what was happening in other sessions while I was there. Not only that, but it also gave me an opportunity to meet some people. Thanks for posting your thoughts, Meg, and for giving me a place to share mine as well! Wow, Meg, I am really amazed by how similar our experience of this conference was. I found myself extremely disappointed in some of the sessions that I thought would be most interesting. I commented on one of them that the presenter was either completely unprepared or terrified of the audience. I have a feeling that we may be thinking of the same session. But I have to admit to being guilty of expecting better merely because of the prestige of the institution involved. I learned a valuable lesson about expectations from that!

However, because of the set-up of two papers per session, I did end up seeing some really interesting presentations that I probably would not have chosen to see. The next time I go to a conference, I’m going to look for presentations by Char Booth, Steven Bell, Peter McCracken…These guys were engaging, prepared and on-point.

I’m not altogether discouraged about conference attendance. I think in some ways, we have to be tolerant of the bad presentations for the sake of not censoring out the good ones. I have a feeling that, for any presenter that we feel might have wasted our time, well, they may get paid back on the professional development front. They weren’t just on-stage in front of library students like you and I, they were in front of deans and administrators and people-in-charge. (And those people paid more money than you and I, so they’re probably even more upset about a waste of their time.)

And now that I really know what’s involved in poster sessions and round tables, I feel like that’s something I might be able to accomplish in 2011.

Like you, I also found twitter to be amazingly useful during the conference. Charging problems kept me from tweeting as much as I wanted to, but the whole experience of using twitter from my iPod Touch started me really thinking about the usefulness of mobile technologies for the library. (The Penn State pres at the Zed Shed on that topic was pretty interesting!) It was just thoroughly amazing to be able to stay informed about what was happening in other sessions while I was there. Not only that, but it also gave me an opportunity to meet some people.

Thanks for posting your thoughts, Meg, and for giving me a place to share mine as well!

]]>