Au Revoir Montréal: A Post-Meeting Report

Vol. 40, No. 1, January 2011
Printer friendly version of Newsletter

by Greg Macklem, Society Coordinator

Above: Buckminster Fuller’s Geodesic Dome was designed for Canada’s Expo 67 in Montréal. Despite a fire in the 70s, the shape is perfectly preserved and still stands as a landmark for the city. Photo by caribb (Doug), Flickr.

One of the most satisfying aspects of the 2010 HSS-PSA Meeting in Montréal was the compliments and congratulations we received on Sunday from numerous attendees. It was our hope that everybody would find the conference enjoyable and stimulating, and it was gratifying to hear that for many we had succeeded. A large part of the credit goes to our graduate students, John Cirilli, Manuela Fernández Pinto, and Matt White, and the other volunteers who helped us during those four days. Of course, there were several errors and missteps along the way, and it is my hope and expectation that we will learn from those mistakes and make future conferences better.

Part of that learning process will involve the results of the meeting survey, and I want to say thank you to those who took the time to participate. We have looked at all of the results, including the comments, and will continue to review them as part of our planning for Cleveland (2011), San Diego (2012), Boston (2013) and beyond. We received a total of 343 responses, which represents more than one-third of the total attendance. If you were not one of those who participated in the survey, but have a suggestion to pass along, please do not hesitate to do so.

As you read the information presented below, please keep in mind that the percentages indicated are of the responses for that particular question, not of the entire population of respondents. You can view more detailed information at www.hssonline.org/Meeting/surveyresults.html.

In his program acknowledgements, Jay indicated that Montréal had created a bit of buzz among members, and apparently it did not disappoint, as 61% of respondents were very satisfied with downtown Montréal, with an additional 21% being somewhat satisfied. Only 11 respondents registered a degree of dissatisfaction.

The hotel received more mixed, although still generally positive, results: 48% of attendees were satisfied with the Hyatt Montréal, although 27% were dissatisfied, with the hotel layout and the on-going construction being the targets of the most criticism. The session rooms themselves were generally viewed positively, with 29% of respondents reporting being very satisfied, and 37% being somewhat satisfied. However, 26% reported some degree of dissatisfaction. The most frequent complaint was that PSA meeting rooms were too small and seating too limited for some sessions. Respondents were also generally positive about meeting space, with 28% indicating they were very satisfied, and 35% somewhat satisfied. The layout of the hotel and the impact of construction on open spaces came in for criticism from some respondents.

Several people asked at the meeting about the provision of LCD projectors/beamers for every room. As Jay noted in the program, the use of PowerPoint has become de rigueur at many conferences, including HSS-PSA. This is the second year that the projectors have been part of every room setup for the HSS meetings, and as we indicated in the survey, the cost was roughly $20 per participant. 83% of the survey respondents reported being satisfied (over 50% were very satisfied) with the audio-visual services, although there were some unfortunate glitches that we will try to anticipate and correct at future meetings. When asked if the benefit was worth the cost, 80% of respondents agreed that it was. Several expressed surprise that the A/V services are so expensive, and I would recommend reading Jay’s notes on A/V services in the program for more information.

The registration process is always an important element of the meeting experience, and one that we take seriously. Efforts in the past to improve the pre-registration process are paying dividends, as 62% were very satisfied with the pre-registration process, with an additional 22% being somewhat satisfied. The on-site registration process was also successful, although not as definitively so. 45% rated the on-site registration as very satisfactory, while 24% were somewhat satisfied with their experience. Only 3% were dissatisfied. Many of the problems that attendees experienced can probably be attributed to having a volunteer crew being led by a rookie Society Coordinator.

When asked about the HSS Program, respondents were generally satisfied: 34% reported being very satisfied, while 33% were somewhat satisfied. 8% reported some degree of dissatisfaction. The PSA program had fewer dissatisfied respondents (7%) and a satisfaction rate of 57%. Some respondents expressed concern over scheduling of similar sessions during the same time period, sessions taking place during receptions, and overly-narrow focus.

As for the receptions themselves, reaction was largely neutral to positive, although it’s unclear how many respondents selected “neutral” intending to mean “no opinion.” The joint HSS-PSA reception on Thursday night received a satisfactory rating from 49% of the respondents, while 10% were unsatisfied. The Friday night reception for the HSS, held at the Canadian Centre for Architecture garnered a 28% satisfactory rating and 11% unsatisfactory, while the Friday night PSA reception had a 34% satisfactory rating and 9% unsatisfactory. More details about various aspects of the receptions can be seen at the survey result site, www.hssonline.org/Meeting/surveyresults.html.

The Saturday night HSS-PSA dinner was generally viewed positively by respondents. For quality of food, 31% were very satisfied and 32% were somewhat satisfied; 25% expressed some degree of dissatisfaction. Similar percentages were recorded for variety of food options and quality of beverages. The venue was not as pleasing to respondents, with 35% expressing satisfaction, but 48% dissatisfied. Although there was not a specific question about the ticketing for the dinner, it was clear both at the event, and from the comments on the survey, that the procedure needs improvement. As the “doorman” for the event, I can assure you that we are all interested in making sure the ticket procedure is more clear, and that there are no unpleasant surprises at the event.

The book exhibit, from our perspective, seemed to get a lot of traffic and ran smoothly. The survey results support our initial opinion, with 78% reporting some degree of satisfaction with the book exhibit. 4% were dissatisfied in some way with the book exhibit.

The survey included several questions intended to provide us with additional information to help us plan for future meetings. Respondents were generally cool on the idea of sightseeing tours offered during the meeting, with only 36% indicating they would like such an option. 16% of respondents anticipated needing a childcare provider at future meetings. Although this may not seem like a large percentage, it represents a significant number of meeting attendees. There was a planned childcare cooperative for the meeting in Montréal, although, to my knowledge, it was deemed unnecessary. It is clear, however, that we will need to keep in mind the needs of members with small children.

When asked about the most important factor in choosing whether to attend a conference, the program was identified the most often, with 48% of the responses. The host city was next, cited 22% of the time. Cost of attendance was selected by 14% of the respondents; the proximity of dining and entertainment and affiliated/co-located meetings only received a combined 3% of the responses. 13% indicated “other” as the most important factor in deciding whether to attend a conference; many of these responses indicated a balance among factors like cost, host city, and participation.

Meeting costs was cited most by respondents as an obstacle to attendance in Montreal, with obtaining funding, covering classes, excessive travel time, and family care issues representing the rest of the top five obstacles.

One of the difficulties inherent in selecting sites for future meetings is balancing the desire for interesting and exciting locales with the concern over high costs. Cost was cited as the biggest obstacle in attending the 2010 meeting, and survey respondents are generally hesitant to pay $200 or more per night for a hotel room. Of course, meeting registration costs will also tend to be higher in more expensive cities, as the direct meeting costs are higher. When presented with various cities as potential future meeting sites, respondents selected Chicago the most often, with San Francisco and Toronto close behind. Louisville, Detroit, and Indianapolis were selected least often. In the comments, some respondents advocated meeting again in Canada, or elsewhere outside of North America, while others expressed concern that some regions of the U.S. have not hosted a meeting in a long time. It should not be too surprising that the most selected cities are among the most expensive. Striking a balance between cost and excitement is one of many factors considered in selecting a site, and the survey helps illustrate the challenge that can present.

Experience can be a tough teacher, and I’ve tried to learn as many lessons from Montréal as possible. I do appreciate those who made suggestions, both through the survey and in-person at the meeting. Making the meeting satisfactory for everybody is still an important goal for the HSS office, and those comments will help us move towards that goal. Once again, thank you to those of you who attended the meeting, and to those who took the time to participate in the meeting survey and to leave feedback. We were pleased with the meeting overall, and while we are gratified that many attendees had a good experience, we want to make sure that your experience is as positive as we can make it. If you would like to see more details on the survey results, please go to www.hssonline.org/Meeting/surveyresults.html.

History of Science Society

Au Revoir Montréal: A Post-Meeting Report

Quick Links....

Primary Navigation

Search

History of Science Society

Frequently Used Sites