I’m torn on this, because on the one hand I love the accessibility and the de-biasing that comes with this kind of blinding. On the other hand, I think the quality of the talks would go down, if due to nothing else then a sort of regression to the mean scenario. I may be able to write a good proposal for a talk, but that doesn’t mean that I am an engaging and charismatic public speaker.
I think I’d be happier with blinding if it is for a journal submission or something in writing, but it is REALLY hard to judge how good a presentation/talk/workshop will be based off of a piece of writing.
If I am very experienced in running workshops, then I’d want to refer to that in my proposal, but mentioning the previous workshops I’ve done would de-blind the process.
But I do think that there are decent options that the CEA events team could explore for adding more un-conference aspects to EAGs and EAGxs, such as a certain number of spaces and time slots set aside as “open,” and then a whiteboard set up for anyone to sign up for a time slot and a space to offer a workshop.
EDIT: I just read other comments on this post and I realized that I am basically just repeating what Nick Laing has already written. I guess I should have just upvoted that comment rather than writing out my own. Haha.
I think I’d be happier with blinding if it is for a journal submission or something in writing
Another important difference in this case is that the reviewer can evaluate the entire article as it would appear to the audience, while with a conference talk they only have the proposal.
Could the finalists be trialed out at EAGx, local/university group events, or other medium-stakes venues to reduce the risks involved with deciding on written work product rather than the actual talk in question?
I’m torn on this, because on the one hand I love the accessibility and the de-biasing that comes with this kind of blinding. On the other hand, I think the quality of the talks would go down, if due to nothing else then a sort of regression to the mean scenario. I may be able to write a good proposal for a talk, but that doesn’t mean that I am an engaging and charismatic public speaker.
I think I’d be happier with blinding if it is for a journal submission or something in writing, but it is REALLY hard to judge how good a presentation/talk/workshop will be based off of a piece of writing.
If I am very experienced in running workshops, then I’d want to refer to that in my proposal, but mentioning the previous workshops I’ve done would de-blind the process.
But I do think that there are decent options that the CEA events team could explore for adding more un-conference aspects to EAGs and EAGxs, such as a certain number of spaces and time slots set aside as “open,” and then a whiteboard set up for anyone to sign up for a time slot and a space to offer a workshop.
EDIT: I just read other comments on this post and I realized that I am basically just repeating what Nick Laing has already written. I guess I should have just upvoted that comment rather than writing out my own. Haha.
Another important difference in this case is that the reviewer can evaluate the entire article as it would appear to the audience, while with a conference talk they only have the proposal.
Could the finalists be trialed out at EAGx, local/university group events, or other medium-stakes venues to reduce the risks involved with deciding on written work product rather than the actual talk in question?
Yes, that could work. I think there are a variety of methods that could be used to assess/evaluate potential speakers.
Or the application process could initially only be used for a few slots rather than all EAG speaker slots, and CEA could see how it goes?