Meeting the Survey
After the 2007 History of Science Society meeting in Crystal City, we asked registrants to fill out an electronic survey on the meeting. Those surveyed were asked to rate various aspects of the meeting experience, including the city, the hotel, ease of registration, the program, receptions, dinner, book exhibit, and the session rooms. HSS also asked for general comments and suggestions. Many of you were pleased with the choices made by HSS; others wished the conference were held closer to downtown DC or in a hotel with more amenities. Without addressing all of the specific concerns of location, we want to assure our members that when the Executive Office and the Committee on Meetings and Programs decide on a location they do weigh many variables, including location, airport service and expense, convenience, amenities, and cost. Quite often the hotel that is most convenient to local attractions is also the most expensive. For 2007 we tried to get a reasonably priced hotel convenient to DC landmarks via the Metro system.
For most questions, respondents could choose between poor, below average, average, above average, excellent, and not applicable. In the city category the most popular category rating – with approximately 43 percent of respondents – was excellent. When averaged over all respondents, Crystal City came out as “above average.” Ratings for the hotel were similar, with 36.5 percent choosing “above average” and 37 percent “excellent.” The written comments that accompanied the statistical rankings generally reflected this trend, although respondents who had a negative opinion of the location were better represented in the qualitative replies than in the quantitative. While many respondents agreed with the attendee who wrote that the conference was “very well located,” with “easy access to public transportation and affordable food options,” other commenters thought that, “Crystal was too far out of town to take advantage of DC,” and the hotel had, “pompous décor, unsuitable meeting rooms, and poor, overpriced food and drink.”
Other aspects of the conference were rated equally well. Of those who registered on site, most ticked the “excellent” category. The vast majority of members rated the online registration as “above average” or “excellent.” Two thirds of respondents rated the program as “above average” or “excellent.” However, many respondents thought that too many sessions with similar themes conflicted with each other.
The response to receptions was more mixed, with almost a quarter saying it was not applicable. Almost 37 percent said the receptions were average, almost 23 percent said they were above average, and 5 percent said they were excellent. The main comment was a plea for “better food” and “open bars.”
About 72 percent of survey takers rated the book exhibit as either “average” or “above average,” with the overall average being “average.” Those who cited the book exhibit in their comments mostly liked the selection, though some wanted more publishers, but many had problems with the hours. “8 a.m. is ridiculous,” responded one member, while another wanted, “extended hours of the book exhibit…stay open late on the second to last day of the meeting and open earlier in the morning on the last day.”
Session room results were similar to the exhibit results with 43 percent reporting them “average” and 39 percent claiming they were “above average.” By far the highest number of comments on session rooms, aside from calls for “more consistent room temperature controls” and “better acoustics,” were complaints about room capacity relative to session popularity. We try to stay on top of the temperature issue, though this is usually out of our control, and we will reinforce in our instructions to session chairs to encourage speakers to use microphones. As for room scheduling, attendees can help the Executive Office with this issue. Each year we ask those who pre-register to identify which sessions they plan on attending. This helps us better match sessions to room capacities. Traditionally, however, few attendees fill out this portion of the registration form, making our predictions a little tenuous.
Only about 19 percent of respondents attended the Society Dinner. Of those attending, over 60 percent thought the dinner average or better. Many liked the addition of the jazz band, but almost everyone decried the volume of the music and/or the acoustics in the room. HSS received compliments on the idea of live music with low marks for implementation.
When it came to rating the awards ceremony, 85 percent (out of those who attended) found the separation between the awards and dinner an improvement. A little over half of respondents said they would be interested in sightseeing tours at future meetings.
Only 12.6 percent of respondents said they would apply for dependent care grants if they were available. However, of those who replied that they would not apply, many agreed that such support should be offered to those who do need it.
Finally, we asked respondents for ideas for future meeting locations. Most American cities received repeated mention. The most popular cities were St. Louis, New York, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore, and Atlanta. Other choices included Madison, San Juan, and Sante Fe. Many respondents asked for college towns to be included on the list of future meeting cities, with some listing specific towns like Missoula, Billings, Princeton, Austin, and Boise. Three respondents asked for cities in Europe.
Matthew White
HSS Research Assistant