Thank You To All Program Reviewers!
Volunteer reviewers help to weave the very fabric of the conference. The 2021 NASPA Virtual Conference program selection process engaged over 600 professionals in a peer review process to evaluate the 800 program proposals submitted for the conference.
Each program was reviewed multiple times by professionals in the field and then reviewed again by the Conference Leadership Committee. This rigorous process is part of our promise to provide exceptional professional development that is reflective of the needs and knowledge of the field. Our reviewers make all of this possible.
Thank you to all volunteer reviewers who spent time reading programs and providing thoughtful feedback! Your comments will help to shape the content of the conference, and provide valuable professional development for everyone who submitted a proposal.
Why does reviewing matter?
The NASPA Annual Conference is distinctive in that each program is first reviewed by 5-8 professionals in the field, and then reviewed again by the Conference Leadership Committee. This rigorous process is part of our promise to provide professional development that is exceptional and reflective of the needs and knowledge of the field. Our reviewers make all of this possible. Thank you to all our volunteers!
By spending just a few hours in the month of October to read and write feedback on our submitted programs, you will be a key player in shaping the conference content at this critical time in higher education.
Assignments will be ready for review beginning on Tuesday, October 13. You will receive an email with instructions for accessing the reviewer portal, where you will find the programs that have been assigned to you. Reviews are due on Monday, October 26.
Tips for Program Reviewers
Reviewers for the 2021 NASPA Virtual Conference will receive their assignments on October 13. As you prepare, Faculty Assembly Members provide six tips to think about when reviewing conference proposals.
#1: Start with the positive! Emphasize the proposal’s contributions.
- Try: This is a timely topic and the author made a compelling case for why this study is needed.
- Avoid: Here’s what’s wrong with this proposal: Everything.
#2: Evaluate what they did, not what you would do.
- Try: I’m not as familiar with this methodology, but the author(s) explained it well and it seems appropriate for their purpose.
- Avoid: This study examines the experiences of women studying abroad, but I think it would have been more interesting to talk to the study abroad advisors.
#3: Avoid harsh language—if you wouldn’t say it to a colleague face-to-face, don’t write it either.
- Try: I like where this is going and would suggest that the author(s) add more explanation about their methods and consider including more specific implications for practice since the results are so compelling.
- Avoid: This has absolutely no value or contribution whatsoever. The end.
#4: Be constructive — if there’s an area for improvement within the proposal, try to suggest how the author can address it.
- Try: I wasn’t sure how the “satisfaction” section of the literature review was connected to the study, so you might consider removing that part or include a few more sentences to provide that connection.
- Avoid: I didn’t really enjoy the literature review. It was not my favorite.
#5: Even though NASPA Annual Conferences usually have themes, do not disqualify a proposal simply based on whether it reflects the theme.
- Try: Although you did not draw a parallel to one of the stated conference themes, I appreciated how you showed the relevance of this topic to the field.
- Avoid: This presentation does not connect to any of the themes stated.
#6: Do not disqualify a proposal based on its methodology, especially based on your conventional understanding of its purpose.
- Try: Based on the aims of your research method, this information seems valid. Have you considered ways to broaden or support these findings further with additional resources or other research?
- Avoid: How are the results of a study with five folks representative or generalizable?