Sociology Convention Advice

It’s been a long time since we’ve shared advice about surviving the ASA convention, and maybe the advice has changed in recent years. Last year, too late to help, I saw worries people expressed about getting along at the convention, so I thought I’d start a thread for advice. Please add your advice and share this around different social media platforms. Here are answers to FAQs I saw last year. You will note that none of these are about how to do a good presentation.

1. Section business meetings are often good places to run into people in your area. This is definitely true at the CBSM business meeting. In my experience other sections vary, some are friendly and sociable, while nobody bothers to go to the meetings of others.
2. Off-site receptions hosted by ASA sections or other ASA groups are not “private” events any more than the receptions held in the convention center. If you are a member of a section, you are definitely welcome at that reception no matter where it is held. Receptions are held off site because the costs of a reception at a convention center or convention hotel is typically outrageous, like $40 for a bowl of chips. Groups get more and better food cheaper at a restaurant. You are welcome as a first year grad or an unemployed sociologist or whatever.
3. There is a time-honored tradition of crashing the receptions for groups you are not a member of. There are some ticketed events that people pay in advance for that are fundraisers, like the Minority Fellows program reception, that you cannot crash. But all the section receptions are open to anyone who shows up, and many receptions are jointly held by multiple sections whose members do not know each other. As long as you behave nicely and avoid acting like a drunken or otherwise offensive a** can go to any of these openly publicized events.
4. Receptions may or may not be good places to meet people. Don’t expect deep intellectual conversations over appetizers and drinks. If you are outgoing, just try to strike up conversations with people around you using your normal social skills. If you are, like me, more introverted and less good at small talk, the trick is to put on an act, act like you are comfortable and not worried about whether you know anybody. Find a place to sit or stand, make eye contact and say hi to the people around you, and respond if a more outgoing person tries to start a conversation. If you encounter “famous person” it is OK to say “oh, I’m excited to meet you, I’ve read your work.” It is, however, rude to then launch into a 10 minute criticism of their work. (No kidding, this actually happened to me at a reception at about 11 pm, 2 grad students–guess their genders–accosted me and wanted me to listen appreciatively while they told me what was wrong with my work.)
5. The person you try to talk to (famous or otherwise) may or may not respond to your conversational initiatives. Don’t take it personally if they don’t, just move on. Your own conversational initiatives can include asking their opinion of the conference or a panel or the convention city, you can certainly give the 30 second version of what you are working on (but avoid the 10 minute version as an opening gambit).
6. “This is more a comment than a question” is a standing joke. Trying to get noticed at someone else’s panel by giving an extended description of your own research just makes other people laugh at you. A short statement of the form “this session is so exciting, I am working on similar issues, here is an interesting question” and then trying to connect with people later to ask for their paper and offer your own goes over much better as colleagueship.
7. Advice about eating more cheaply at conventions. I usually find a grocery store near the hotel and have food in my room for meals I’m not sharing with others. There are also inexpensive food courts and sandwich type places where you can get food in most hotel districts (including near the convention center in Montreal). If you are flexible about what you eat, it is possible to get food by cruising receptions. There is typically lots of food at the opening night reception and at the reception after the presidential address. Section receptions vary in food quality and it is not uncommon to hear people passing the word about where the reception food is good. However, reception cruising is obviously easier when the receptions are near each other, and harder when they are scattered all around the city, as it seems like they will be in Montreal.
8. Although in my experience many senior people are generous about paying for meals for other people, there is another group of predatory diners (many quite affluent) who will order expensive food in a group and then at the end just say “let’s just split the check,” thus wrecking the budget of the low income person who ordered something cheap to keep their costs down. This is a warning. It is not easy to deal with this without “looking bad” to the predators, but I suggest that if you are worried about being stuck like this that you speak up right at the beginning and tell the wait staff and the table that you’d like a separate check.

malpractice or best practice? the fight over “rigor” in criminal justice reform

The following is a guest post by Jonathan Ben-Menachem.

Two criminal justice reform heavyweights are trading blows over a seemingly arcane subject: research methods. In a tweet, Jennifer Doleac, Executive Vice President of Criminal Justice at Arnold Ventures, accused the Vera Institute of Justice of “research malpractice” for their evaluation of New York college-in-prison programs. In a response posted on Vera’s website, President Nick Turner accused Doleac of “giving comfort to the opponents of reform.” 

introducing theory and social inquiry

The below is a letter from the editorial board of a new journal, Theory and Social Inquiry. Here is the statement in its original PDF form. While I had no hand in this, I wholly endorse the endeavor.

“where dada?”

Note: This is a post about why I am voting in favor of the ASA resolution sponsored by the Sociologists for Palestine.

how to run an article award committee

Last year, I had the honor of chairing two article award committees for ASA: the Granovetter Award for the Economic Sociology Section and the Junior Theorist Award for the Theory Section. Both committees ended up similar processes that worked fairly well, so I thought I would share a brief description in case it’s helpful to any future award committee chairs taking on the task for the first time.

asa defense of christina cross

Christina Cross, an Assistant Professor of Sociology, was recently subject to bad faith accusations of plagiarism by Christopher “incite a moral panic over Critical Race Theory” Rufo. Rufo leveraged similar allegations against Claudine Gay into forcing her resignation. Cross’s alleged plagiarism involves similar text to other articles… in the boilerplate description of large, commonly-used survey datasets like the PSID. Harvard Crimson discusses the story here.

The American Sociological Association has issued a response, reproduced in full below because I could only find it as a pdf linked from the site formerly known as Twitter and I thought folks might want to be able to link the text to a stable URL not requiring a login.

college and underemployment

The Strada Education Foundation released last week a major report, “Talent Disrupted,” on college graduates and underemployment. Trumpeted by the Wall Street Journal as demonstrating the importance of majors and internships, the large-dataset study claims to show that majoring in useful things like health sciences and quantitative-heavy subjects, along with having an internship, are the ways to avoid underemployment after college.

statements from the asa theory section council on t&s editorial changes

The ASA Theory Section Council just released two statements on the editorial changes at the journal Theory and Society. The first statement responds to the new editors’ statement of goals and addresses inclusivity and pluralism in social theory. The second addresses editorial independence and Springer’s handling of the editorial transition. The two statements are reproduced in full below.

2024 junior theorists symposium call for papers

SUBMIT YOUR PRÉCIS HERE

SUBMISSION DEADLINE: March 22nd, 11:59pm Eastern Time

The 18th Junior Theorists Symposium (JTS) is now open to new submissions. The JTS is a conference featuring the work of emerging sociologists engaged in theoretical work, broadly defined. Sponsored in part by the Theory Section of the ASA, the conference has provided a platform for the work of early-career sociologists since 2005. We especially welcome submissions that broaden the practice of theory beyond its traditional themes, topics, and disciplinary function.

guest post: some reflections on theory and society

The following is a guest post by Musa al-Gharbi.

In recent weeks, there has been significant turmoil around the journal Theory and Society. The previous editorial board has resigned en masse. A new set of lead editors was brought in. The journal is poised to relaunch with a new mission statement to accompany the new editorial board.

I am one of the scholars who joined that board. While reading about the controversy around the journal in recent days, I encountered Dan Hirschman’s post on scatterplot that included a handful of questions he’d like to have the new editorial board members answer.

I admire Hirschman and his work, and I think the questions are reasonable, and they present a good opportunity to reflect on the direction of the journal and the field more broadly – so I fired off some responses below.

Although it will probably be obvious as people read this, I should say at the outset that I did not consult at all with Springer, the new lead editors, or other members of the new editorial board in answering these questions. I’m speaking for and as myself alone and can’t speak meaningfully about how representative my answers are with respect to the rest of the board or other stakeholders.

guest post: springer nature response on t&s

The following is a press release from Springer, the publisher of Theory & Society. It was written for Retraction Watch (which is covering the story) and also shared with me.

they work hard for the money

The following is a guest post by Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra.

What do market incentives do to the structure and content of knowledge? Over the past few years, I have reflected on this question in various ways, both personally and professionally. Sometimes, they alter the distribution of power within our organizations. Sometimes, they indirectly shape the course of our careers. Sometimes they alter the mechanics of how knowledge is produced and disseminated. This last path is particularly relevant today, as editorial infrastructures fall under the increasing control of a small number of for-profit publishers.

This is what, I believe, sits at the crux of the recent changes to Theory & Society, a storied journal that offered a visible and respected venue for social theory.

questions for the new theory & society editorial board

Late last month, the senior editors of the journal Theory & Society announced their collective resignation. Springer, which owns the journal, had decided to replace the existing editor-in-chief and take the journal in a new direction without consulting the existing editorial team. These resignations were soon followed (on January 4th) by the resignations of the rest of the editorial board (the corresponding editors). The full text of both resignation letters is below.

The new editors-in-chief were then announced and recently posted a statement of goals which might be politely described as “controversial” and, at a minimum, very counter to the prior focus of the journal.

Today, the new editorial board was listed on the journal’s website. The timing suggests that this editorial board had already been recruited before the prior editorial team had resigned en masse. This timeline also raises the question of how much the incoming editorial board members knew and when. I would like to invite any of the incoming editorial board to speak to the process by which this transition (takeover?) occurred. Specifically, I would like to invite them to answer the following questions:

1. When were you asked to serve on the new editorial board? What was the pitch you were given when you were asked?

2. Did you the know the previous editorial board was not consulted about the change in editors?

3. Do you stand behind the statement of goals released by the new editors?

4. Given the way the transition happened, do you intend to stay on the board?

asa panel – the future of democracy

ASA 2023 has been a good meeting (thus far at least)! A well-attended session on the future of democracy featured Melissa Murray and Louise Seamster (ably moderated by Scatterplot’s own Dan Hirschmann). The conversation was great, and I learned quite a bit from both of the scholars. Recent court decisions by SCOTUS and the lower courts really do threaten democratic representation, and the talks explained just how these decisions are at once dangerous and ungrounded. Similar for other institutional questions, e.g., egregious gerrymandering.

That said, the panel raised a couple of issues I thought I’d raise here (after the break)….

guest post: why you should attend asa (yes, you)

The following was written by my colleague Ryan Calder to our JHU graduate students; I offered to post it as a guest post because I think the ideas are helpful to students elsewhere too, though some remain specific to JHU or Baltimore.

Dear JHU Sociology Grad Students,

ASA submissions are due soon:

American Sociological Association(ASA)

Submissions due: February 22, 2023 (extended abstract of 3–5 pages required; may submit full paper of 15–35 pages if you like)

Conference: August 17–21, 2023 in Philadelphia

Whether you are in your first year or nth year of grad school, I strongly encourage you to attend. Looking back, I wish I had attended every year of grad school.

REASONS TO ATTEND:

1. DEADLINES HELP. Real deadlines mean productivity. If your proposal is accepted, you’ll churn out a paper draft.
2. SAVE TIME. It’s often easier and more memorable to attend panels presenting scholars/topics that interest you than to locate the relevant reading yourself and find time to do it. You’ll get a quick sense of the latest scholarship on a topic and how experts discuss it.
3. LOWER STAKES THAN YOU THINK. There’s a very good chance you’ll be placed in a roundtable. This is a good outcome: a low-anxiety chance to share your research and, depending on the roundtable’s format, maybe to get feedback. If you’re placed on a panel, lovely. Either way, you should prepare and be professional, but you shouldn’t think of it as a massively high-stakes event. Most ASA panels don’t get too many people in the audience: three or four is pretty common.
4. MEET PEOPLE. ASA is the best time to set up meetings with scholars at other schools whose work interests you. Nobody thinks it’s weird to hear from an unknown person who wants to meet at ASA; that’s what ASA is for. In early July, write to at least three or four people who will attend ASA and ask to meet.
5. Don’t wait until you’re on the job market to do this. I wish I’d done it every year. The reason: Network effects and the strength of weak ties. If you meet Scholar A, who has many connections, that person will remember you as “that grad student at Johns Hopkins who studies X”—the racialization of lupus, for example. Then, anytime Scholar A hears someone mention something connected to your topic—lupus, the racialization of diseases and diagnosis, etc.—Scholar A will mention you in passing to Scholars B, C, and D. Who in turn may each mention you to another scholar or two, or who may look you up. Multiply this by every year of grad school and you have a network of people who associate particular topics with you. You’ve become a subject-matter expert.
6. LEARN ABOUT SECTIONS. Attend business meetings for the sections that interest you. Too few grad students do this. (For most of grad school, I didn’t know what section business meetings were.) Because few grad students attend, many sections are constantly hunting for more grad students to volunteer for section committees. Being on committees is a great way to meet people in your subfields of interest and learn about the latest research there. It will also give you a sense of ownership in the section, at relatively little cost of time and energy. Within a couple of years, you will be a familiar name and face in the section. As a post-doc or prof, you can continue to build your commitments to the section.
7. SINGLE… AND READY TO MINGLE. I know of more than one couple that first locked eyes at ASA. Just sayin’.
8. SUPPORT YOUR JHU COLLEAGUES. Attend their talks! Show up at business meetings when they win awards!

WHY YOUR REASONS NOT TO ATTEND ARE B.S.:

1. “ASA ISN’T MY KIND OF SOCIOLOGY.” You’d be surprised. Pretty much every faculty member in US sociology departments goes to ASA at least sometimes. Moreover, one of the most popular activities at ASA is to find kindred spirits and kvetch with them about the rest of ASA.
2. IT’S EXPENSIVE AND TIME-CONSUMING. Uh… it’s in Philly this year. And our department provides some conference funding. Share a hotel room or an AirBnb. You can even make it a day trip from Baltimore and not stay overnight. You don’t have to attend every day of the conference.
3. I’M SCARED TO PRESENT MY WORK. Again, the stakes are lower than you think. If you’re trembling with trepidation, remember that no one really cares what you have to say—unless you get placed on a rock-star panel, in which case you’ve hit the lottery, so be happy. Most importantly, it’s only by presenting that you’ll learn to present.
4. “I’LL GO NEXT YEAR” / “I’LL GO WHEN I’M ON THE JOB MARKET.” See Reason to Attend #3(a) above.
5. MY RESEARCH ISN’T READY YET. See Reasons to Attend #1 and #4 above.
6. “I’D RATHER DRINK LIGHTER FLUID THAN ‘NETWORK.’” Yeah, I understand. This is what kept me away from ASA for too many years in grad school. But it’s only “networking” if you think of it as the shallow and instrumental task of unctuously making faux friends. The image of “networking” I had in my head as an early-stage grad student was of walking up to someone illustrious at a reception and giving a sales pitch for my own relevance on this planet, only to be elbowed aside by some eager beaver and forgotten. What, I wondered, was the point of debasing myself like that? But the truth of making connections at conferences is sitting down, often by appointment, to explore your genuine interest in the work of others, talk about your current projects, ruminate about future ones, and work through ideas together. Isn’t that’s the whole point of academia? You’re not in it for the money, after all. You’ll discover that most sociologists are generous, curious listeners and caring humans: more so, on average, than academics in nearly any other discipline I can think of.