Who can propose a session

Staff or faculty members from all AMICAL member institutions can propose sessions. Because the AMICAL Conference is intended to cultivate peer-to-peer knowledge sharing and community building, this call is restricted to consortium members.

Co-presenters. The number of speakers or facilitators allowed in a session depends on the session format, as described below. Any speakers beyond the first must be major partners in the development and delivery of the proposed session. We understand that some presentations represent the work of several people (co-authors or project collaborators) who do not fulfill this criteria. You are encouraged to recognize them in your presentation description and materials you share, but they cannot be listed formally on the schedule, as that exclusively represents the speakers who will be delivering the session.

What we’re looking for in a proposal

You may propose a session on topics pertinent to libraries, technology and learning at AMICAL member institutions. Proposals are encouraged to relate to the theme of “Digital transformation at international liberal arts institutions: Innovation, collaboration & sustainability,” AMICAL’s consortial mission, or the Mellon grant supporting this event.

To help you out, the Program Committee has developed a list of topics they are looking to include in the program:

• Digital pedagogy & digital humanities
• Information literacy & digital literacies
• Innovative & effective library and technology leadership
• Interdisciplinary and inter-institutional collaborations
• Innovative & effective teaching
• Open learning & scholarship
• Civic engagement & social justice
• Digital collections
• Assessment & data

More detailed topic ideas are available in the “Suggested topics” appendix.

Target audience

The event aims for a balance of participation from among librarians, technologists and faculty from member institutions. Proposals should aim for direct relevance to at least one of these roles.

More specifically, attendees will likely be represented by librarians, faculty development coordinators, disciplinary faculty, instructional technologists and designers, IT directors, and academic leadership. Among the attendees are often heads of libraries, IT or instructional technology services, academic departments or programs, and so on.

Proposals that involve or discuss collaboration across professional roles are encouraged, but not required. If a session is focused on a relatively narrow audience, we will schedule differently focused sessions in parallel to minimize the overlap of their audiences.

Particularly encouraged are proposals that clearly target AMICAL members – that speak to issues of special relevance to AMICAL institutions, with their American-international liberal arts environments.

Session formats

Session proposals should use one of the formats listed below, keeping in mind that duration and other details may be adjusted later by the organizers due to planning constraints. The Program Committee is looking for proposals that are tailored to these formats, respecting their limitations and taking advantage of their strengths.

Format	Duration	Speakers	Round 1 submission strongly encouraged?	Approx. number of expected sessions
Community Idea Exchange	10 min presentation repeated over 1 hour	1-2	No	24
Presentation	15 min	1	Yes	12
Discussion	55 min	1	Yes	4
Workshop	2 hours	1-2	Yes	3
Other formats	55 min	?	Yes	0-2

Community Idea Exchange (posters & technology showcases)

• Informal presentations given with the help of a poster, computer or other visual aid.
• The subject may have a relatively sharp/narrow focus on:
  • Local initiatives, projects, resources (technology-focused or otherwise)
  • Research
  • Challenges for which you’re seeking assistance
  • Any material likely to be of interest to expected attendee profiles
• Make sure to suggest concrete takeaways for the session’s attendees.
• Presentations are delivered simultaneously in a space shared with other presenters, each with a poster or computer to present their topic or project to attendees that come and go freely.
• The flexibility in presentation time allows for longer, detailed discussions to happen if that’s of interest to both presenter and attendees.
• Presenters: 1-2
• Duration: 10 min presentation repeated over the duration of the session (1 hour) and adapted in response to attendees’ questions and interests.

Presentation (Round 1 strongly encouraged)

• A short presentation that focuses on action-oriented topics. Communicate ideas or information with the purpose of inspiring, provoking, sparking questions or proposals in ways potentially constructive for a relatively broad subgroup of AMICAL members.
• The focus should be sufficiently broad or of shared interest to capture the attention of at least 15-20 attendees.
• Avoid the lecturing impulse of rushing through substantial amounts of information.
• Make sure to suggest concrete takeaways for the session’s attendees.
• Presentations will be grouped in hour-long sessions by common topics and/or intended audience so make sure that both of these are clear in your proposal.
• If you’re aware of another presentation proposal you’d like to be grouped with, let us know in your proposal.
• Moderators will be assigned to each presentation group to facilitate timekeeping and the Q&A.
• If your proposal is focused on reporting on activities or other narrow subjects, consider using the “Community Idea Exchange” format instead.
• Presenters: 1
• Duration: 10-15 minutes

Discussion (Round 1 submission strongly encouraged)

• Discussion on a topic of shared interest, guided by a facilitator with either expertise or strong interest in the topic.
• The format of the discussion should not be a Q&A to the facilitator.
• The role of the facilitator:
  • The facilitator should provide a brief introduction to the topic and the scope of the discussion and then encourage the active participation of attendees in the discussion, guiding the conversation when necessary to stay on track.
  • The audience-led discussion should take the majority (about ¾ of the session). The facilitator should not present for more than a quarter of the total session time (about 15 minutes).
• Follow-up:
  • In their proposal, the facilitator should include the topic, the scope of the discussion, and one or more possible follow-up activities (whose impact may be at the individual, institutional or consortial level).
  • The facilitator should encourage participants to undertake one of the prepared follow-up activities (or any others that develop during the session) whether as individuals or as a group.
• If the session’s material is better suited to being presented without a substantial structured discussion, then choose the “Community Idea Exchange” or “Presentation” formats instead.
• Facilitators: 1
• Duration: 55 min

Workshop (Round 1 submission strongly encouraged)

• Hands on, participatory workshops focused on helping participants build practical skills on a given topic.
• Proposals should focus on achieving one or two important outcomes for the attendees, instead of trying to cover several broads targets or to disseminate a lot of information.
• Proposals must identify the exercises, activities or hands-on practical components of the session.
• If the session’s material will be presented without a substantial hands-on component, choose one of the other formats instead.
• Facilitators should plan for things taking more time than you thought they would, especially when technology is involved.
• Facilitators can optionally:
  • Request pre-workshop requirements from attendees, including: readings, account creation or software installation, etc.
  • Ask questions from attendees during enrollment to their workshop
  • Restrict the workshop to specific roles or attendees with a specific level of skills
• Facilitators: 1-2
• Duration: 2 hours

Suggest another session format (Round 1 submission strongly encouraged)

You have the option of proposing a 55-minute long session format not listed above during Round 1, if you can provide a compelling argument for using it instead of the ones listed above. If we’re unable to accommodate the proposed format, but the proposal is of interest on other grounds, we may suggest changing to one of the formats above.

Review criteria

The Program Committee is looking for proposals that fulfill the following criteria:

• The speaker(s) are:
  • qualified to speak on or facilitate the proposed topic
  • in a role at their institution that aligns appropriately with the topic or session objective proposed
• The proposed session:
  • represents an original or innovative contribution in some useful context. E.g., in the context of their own institution, institutions of similar sizes/environments, among AMICAL members, etc.
  • appears likely to have an impact on actual practice or resources at other AMICAL institutions or at their own institution.
  • addresses the Conference’s theme or suggested topics. (See the “What we’re looking for in a proposal” section)
  • relates to collaboration across institutions or across professional roles.
  • uses a session format appropriate to the proposal E.g., in terms of topic, session plans, breadth of audience, expected outcomes, interactivity, depth of detail, etc. (See the “Session formats” section)
  • targets an audience coherent with the event’s expected attendees. (See the “Target audience” section.)

The following are not requirements but will be considered when applicable:

• All things being equal, priority will be given to speakers from an institution or professional role that is underrepresented in AMICAL programs, including the anticipated program for this year’s Conference.
• For sessions with multiple speakers, a balance of speakers from different institutions and/or roles is preferred.

Prepare and submit your proposal

The Call for Proposals will be held in two Rounds:

• During the Round 1, the Program Committee will provide feedback to all submitted draft proposals. Submitting in Round 1 is optional, but encouraged, as there won’t be an opportunity to revise your proposal after submitting it in Round 2.
• During Round 2, the committee will review final proposals for all formats.

We recommend you review the “What we’re looking for in a proposal” section of this call, which provides guidance on suggested topics, the target audience, available session formats and the criteria that the committee will use to review proposals.

We also recommend consulting the submission forms and preparing your proposal content as a separate document before entering it in the proposal forms.

Summary of important dates

• Round 1: (optional, but encouraged)
  • Opens: 8 July 2019
  • Deadline: 11 August 2019
  • Responses sent by: 2 September 2019
• Round 2: (required)
  • Opens: 2 September 2019
  • Deadline: 15 September 2019
  • Responses sent by: 7 October 2019

Round 1: Feedback on draft proposals

Draft proposals for all formats may be submitted during Round 1, but we especially encourage the following longer formats to submit in this round:

• Presentation
• Discussion
• Workshop
• Member-proposed alternative formats

Each draft proposal will be reviewed by one or more members of the Program Committee and a response sent out within two weeks of the Round 1 deadline. This response will include:

• An Indicator of how well your proposal is aligned is with the “Review criteria”:
  • Well-aligned: The proposal is well-aligned with the review criteria. The committee may suggest minor revisions to strengthen the proposal even more. This is an invitation to submit this proposal in Round 2.
  • Partly aligned: The proposal is partly aligned with the review criteria. Major revisions will be suggested, including potentially a change of format, that the committee believe would make the proposal stronger. This is an invitation to submit a revised proposal in Round 2. Proposers don’t have to implement the suggested revisions, if they feel they can submit a stronger proposal with a different set of revisions. But an unrevised proposal is unlikely to be accepted into the program.
  • Not well-aligned: The proposal is barely aligned with the review criteria, if at all, and cannot be accepted into the program. The committee will not offer revision suggestions, but the proposer may submit a proposal in Round 2 if it is fundamentally different and better aligned with the review criteria.
• Brief feedback contextualizing the committee’s Indicator. In the case of “well-aligned” and “not aligned” proposals, this response may be very brief. Proposals suggesting revisions will likely be longer.

Be aware that during Round 1 the committee is looking at each proposal individually and offering suggestions to make each as strong as possible. Round 2 is a competitive process where proposals will be evaluated against each other for the available space in the program. It is possible that even a well-aligned proposal may be declined in Round 2 if stronger proposals in the same format are submitted.

Round 2: Reviewing of final proposals

Final proposals for all formats should be submitted during Round 2 to be considered for inclusion in the program. Your final proposal should take committee feedback into consideration, if applicable.

Each proposal will be evaluated by several members of the Program Committee on the basis of the “Review criteria.” A response will be sent out within three weeks of the Round 2 deadline, which will include:

• The committee’s decision regarding the proposal inclusion into the program:
  • Accepted: The proposal will be included in the program as-is.
  • Accepted with revision: The proposal will be included in the program if the suggested very minor revisions are implemented.
  • Decline: The proposal will not be included in the program. This may be due to the proposal not being well-aligned with the review criteria, insufficient space in the program, or both.
• A list of requested revisions for proposals “Accepted with revision.” The committee will not offer any other feedback during this round. We apologize about this, but the volume of proposals in recent years has become too large to allow the committee to draft individualized responses for all proposals. Nevertheless, we do maintain internal review notes about each proposal. If your proposal is declined and you’d like to find out more about the reasoning behind the decision, you may ask us and we will share our notes with you.

Scheduling (for accepted proposals)

Accepted proposals may be scheduled for any day or time during the planned conference dates (15–19 January). Tentative scheduling will be communicated to speakers as early as possible (by the end of October at the latest).

Speakers should inform the organizers as early as possible of any scheduling constraints; we cannot guarantee that these constraints will be accommodated, but we will do our best if given sufficient notice.

Financial support for speakers

Full information about financial support for members to attend AMICAL 2020 will be announced later, but we can note the following:

• Being the “primary speaker” (i.e., the one who submits the proposal) on an accepted proposal will be one of the primary criteria for Full and Affiliate AMICAL members seeking travel support.
• Financial support for “additional speakers” (i.e., speakers beyond the first) may also be made partially available, budget permitting.

---

Appendix: Suggested topics

• Digital pedagogy & digital humanities
  • Faculty, students and librarians as content creators in the digital liberal arts
  • Collaborative learning and developing student agency through Digital Liberal Arts initiatives
  • Students as co-researchers
  • Curating and showcasing student learning and scholarship (E-portfolios, Domain of One’s Own, etc.)
  • Digital citizenship
  • Teaching digital tools and integrating digital methods in the syllabus
  • Skills and support required for digital humanities teaching and research
• Information literacy & digital literacies
  • Teaching information & digital literacy skills
  • Integration of information & digital literacies into course design
  • Program development of information/digital literacy initiatives
  • Gen Ed and other institution-level commitments to information/digital literacies
  • Data visualisation, visual literacy and meta-literacies
• Innovative & effective library and technology leadership
  • Managing change and innovation
  • Organizational development and restructuring:
  • Strategies for cross-professional and/or cross-institutional collaboration
  • Strategic professional development
  • Changing roles within evolving liberal arts institutions
  • Re-envisioning curricula for the digital present and future
  • Collaborating on learning space design
• Interdisciplinary and inter-institutional collaborations
  • Collaborate across disciplines and institutions to improve research and teaching
  • Community outreach in teaching and research
  • Collaborative course design to incorporate information and digital literacies, digital humanities, etc.
  • Course-integrated cross-institutional digital collaborations
  • Collaborative and sustainable digital humanities projects
  • Collaborative teaching and learning platforms
  • Expanding the classroom to improve the student experience
  • Sharing common core/general education courses across the consortium
• Innovative & effective teaching
  • Student-centered learning experiences
  • Students as creators, authors, agents
  • Hybrid learning (blending online and face-to-face learning)
  • Collaborative teaching
  • Experiential learning in the digital age
    • Faculty/librarians collaboration
    • E-portfolios and digital projects
    • Authentic/real world assignment design
• Open learning & scholarship
  • Creating, disseminating and raising awareness about Open Education Resources (OER)
  • Open Access (OA) publishing
  • Open educational practices
  • Copyright, licensing and author rights
  • Open data in research and teaching
  • Curating digital academic/professional/scholarly identities
  • Implications of open learning and scholarship
  • OA and OER within the liberal arts
  • Library support for open scholarly commons (The 2.5% commitment)
• Civic engagement & social justice
  • Issues of diversity, inclusion, equity and access.
  • Empowering new voices, students, or marginal knowledge
  • Maintaining the human element as we integrate technology into learning processes (online learning, learning analytics, digital libraries, etc.)
  • Helping students overcome and subvert Western and US dominance in scholarly and public discourse
• Digital collections
  • Integration of local or consortial digital collections within the curriculum, such as in the form of student-curated course-embedded digital exhibits
  • Designing digital collections
  • Institutional policies and practices in managing born-digital collections
  • Oral history and archives in liberal arts institutions
  • Existing systems within AMICAL
• Assessment & data
  • Assessment of institutional programs & initiatives
  • Digital collections
  • Scholarly research impact metrics
  • Predatory journals and conferences
  • Research data management