jofish22 (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} jofish22) wrote,@ 2006-02-25 14:23:00 |
|
CHI fees redux
I just posted the following at
http://bulletin2.sigchi.org/news/vp_fin
in the attempt of starting a public discussion about this. Interested parties might wish to weigh in.
jofish
------------------------
Rob --
I'm glad to hear that SIGCHI's finances are in good shape. However, perhaps you can explain why this doesn't seem to be reflected in this year's conference fees. In particular, looking only at the early registration fees, member registration is up 40% or so, and student registration is up an enormous 88% on last year. Here's a look at those increases in context:
I realize that this year the tutorials are included in the conference price. I'm afraid I've never been to a tutorial, so perhaps you can fill me in: are they particularly widely frequented by students, thus the increase? I realize, also, that the conference itself is a day longer, which is great, and can arguably count for an increase of, say, a third on last year. But I'm still a little confused by the scale of the increase.
Is Montreal a particularly expensive city for conferences? The cost of living seems to be roughly the same as Portland (both around the 100th most expensive cities in the world), but much less than Vienna two years ago -- and student fees are up 142% from that CHI.
I see a few problems with this situation, and perhaps you can respond to some of these questions.
First off, there seems to be a problem of transparency. Where does my conference fee go? I have a lot of respect for those that take on the difficult task of running SIGCHI, and particularly the thankless task of running the finances. But when my fee goes up 88% -- something I find out *after* I've committed to going to the conference to present accepted papers and the like -- I want to understand what's happening.
Second, there seems to be a problem of accountability. Others interested in this issue have contacted Gary Olson as conference chair, and apparently he's only peripherally involved in setting the fees. Who makes these decisions, and who takes responsibility for looking at the whole package? Again, this is an issue of transparency more than anything else: I'm definitely not accusing anyone on the committee of having anything other than CHI's best interests at heart, but without the transparency and accountability it's hard to know what to do.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, is the issue of access to the conference. HCI, more than many fields, recognizes the importance of interdisciplinarity. I believe that year's emphasis on the different HCI Communities is an effort to open up CHI to those with different interests within the larger field. I know that as a workshop co-chair, we were encouraged to use the workshop as a way to attract people to CHI who might not normally come. But with fees at the levels they are, it's a very hard sell. Fees at the levels they are exclude not just my colleagues in the arts, in anthropology, science and technology studies and the humanities in general, but pose a significant barrier to any participation from practitioners or researchers in India, or China, or Russia, say. To give a personal example, one of my fellow students, an ethnographer and researcher in a critical discipline, is attending a workshop and the main conference. The combined fees, $575, *exceed* her monthly living expenses for rent, utilities and food.
Finally, I feel there's an issue of even having a space for this discussion. Perhaps this forum will become a place for this to occur, but the communication I've seen so far on the topic has been limited to private blog postings, emails, and face-to-face discussions. I realize that running a site such as CHIPlace is a difficult and tiring job, but I feel that it can filled an important need, such as providing a way for the community to discuss issues like this. If it's difficult to find volunteers for such a position, then I for one would be willing to add an extra dollar - a mere 0.2%! - onto my conference fee to have it professionally hosted and run, as to provide an opportunity for this discussion.
Rob, I hope you will take these comments in the spirit they are written. I consider myself an enthusiastic member of the CHI community, and, much as you and the other members of the committee, I'd like to see the conference and community continue to grow and be strong. But the changes that I can see, from my limited viewpoint, don't support that and seem to run the risk of having the opposite effect.
Yours, respectfully,
Joseph 'Jofish' Kaye
Cornell University
I just posted the following at
http://bulletin2.sigchi.org/news/vp_fin
in the attempt of starting a public discussion about this. Interested parties might wish to weigh in.
jofish
------------------------
Rob --
I'm glad to hear that SIGCHI's finances are in good shape. However, perhaps you can explain why this doesn't seem to be reflected in this year's conference fees. In particular, looking only at the early registration fees, member registration is up 40% or so, and student registration is up an enormous 88% on last year. Here's a look at those increases in context:
I realize that this year the tutorials are included in the conference price. I'm afraid I've never been to a tutorial, so perhaps you can fill me in: are they particularly widely frequented by students, thus the increase? I realize, also, that the conference itself is a day longer, which is great, and can arguably count for an increase of, say, a third on last year. But I'm still a little confused by the scale of the increase.
Is Montreal a particularly expensive city for conferences? The cost of living seems to be roughly the same as Portland (both around the 100th most expensive cities in the world), but much less than Vienna two years ago -- and student fees are up 142% from that CHI.
I see a few problems with this situation, and perhaps you can respond to some of these questions.
First off, there seems to be a problem of transparency. Where does my conference fee go? I have a lot of respect for those that take on the difficult task of running SIGCHI, and particularly the thankless task of running the finances. But when my fee goes up 88% -- something I find out *after* I've committed to going to the conference to present accepted papers and the like -- I want to understand what's happening.
Second, there seems to be a problem of accountability. Others interested in this issue have contacted Gary Olson as conference chair, and apparently he's only peripherally involved in setting the fees. Who makes these decisions, and who takes responsibility for looking at the whole package? Again, this is an issue of transparency more than anything else: I'm definitely not accusing anyone on the committee of having anything other than CHI's best interests at heart, but without the transparency and accountability it's hard to know what to do.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, is the issue of access to the conference. HCI, more than many fields, recognizes the importance of interdisciplinarity. I believe that year's emphasis on the different HCI Communities is an effort to open up CHI to those with different interests within the larger field. I know that as a workshop co-chair, we were encouraged to use the workshop as a way to attract people to CHI who might not normally come. But with fees at the levels they are, it's a very hard sell. Fees at the levels they are exclude not just my colleagues in the arts, in anthropology, science and technology studies and the humanities in general, but pose a significant barrier to any participation from practitioners or researchers in India, or China, or Russia, say. To give a personal example, one of my fellow students, an ethnographer and researcher in a critical discipline, is attending a workshop and the main conference. The combined fees, $575, *exceed* her monthly living expenses for rent, utilities and food.
Finally, I feel there's an issue of even having a space for this discussion. Perhaps this forum will become a place for this to occur, but the communication I've seen so far on the topic has been limited to private blog postings, emails, and face-to-face discussions. I realize that running a site such as CHIPlace is a difficult and tiring job, but I feel that it can filled an important need, such as providing a way for the community to discuss issues like this. If it's difficult to find volunteers for such a position, then I for one would be willing to add an extra dollar - a mere 0.2%! - onto my conference fee to have it professionally hosted and run, as to provide an opportunity for this discussion.
Rob, I hope you will take these comments in the spirit they are written. I consider myself an enthusiastic member of the CHI community, and, much as you and the other members of the committee, I'd like to see the conference and community continue to grow and be strong. But the changes that I can see, from my limited viewpoint, don't support that and seem to run the risk of having the opposite effect.
Yours, respectfully,
Joseph 'Jofish' Kaye
Cornell University
