We're looking for about 100 more reviewers for NASPA 2020. Can you find a few hours of time in your schedule to make our field even stronger?
We are keeping our reviewer system open for a few more days, so please considering completing your profile and program type selections today.
Why does reviewing matter? The NASPA Annual Conference is distinctive in that each program is reviewed 5-8 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 professional development that is exceptional and reflective of the needs and knowledge of the field. Our reviewers make all of this possible.
If you can find just a few hours between September 13th and September 30th to read and write feedback on our submitted programs, you will be a key player in shaping this amazing event.
Log on to the NASPA Engagement Portal and sign up to be a reviewer.
- First, complete your Reviewer Profile
- Then, select the Types of Programs you want to review - you must do BOTH of these steps to be able to review!
- Expect an email with your assignments in the days following
Selected reviewers will receive notification via email in September, and assignments will be ready for review beginning on Friday, September 13. Reviews are due on Monday, September 30.
Reviewers of pre-conference workshop proposals have a slightly different timeline, with assignments available on Friday, September 6 and reviews due on Monday, September 16.
Tips for Program Reviewers
Reviewers for the 2020 NASPA Annual Conference will receive their assignments in early September. 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?