Reflections on the 2009 ResNet Symposium: Part 2
The next session that I “attended” was the program I presented on Monday morning. The program was entitled Playing Well With Others: Understanding ResLife, Housing, and Student Affairs. Its abstract:
ResNet professionals work hand-in-hand with residence life, housing, and student affairs professionals. These professions share common histories, traditions, and professional and personal cultures. Learning about these professions and their cultures, particularly their specific histories and relationships with technology, will make your work easier, more efficient, and more effective. Attendees will learn how to interact with, collaborate with, and better understand these non-IT professionals.
The program was relatively well-attended and it seemed to go pretty well. I left a lot of time for questions and discussion and the amount of time I left seemed just right. I could tell that some of the attendees were a bit bored but I know that this topic isn’t one that speaks to all of the ResNet Symposium attendees, particularly those who are more focused on technical issues such as network management. But it’s important and often overlooked.
I believe that not only are there different personalities attracted to technology and student affairs but that the two groups have very different histories and cultures. For these two groups to work well together, they should have some understanding of the history and culture of the other group, something that many successful professionals pick up on informally and through hard-earned experience if not through more direct training and education. This program spoke to the technology professionals, introducing student affairs to technology professionals. (In part spurred by a question asked by an attendee at my program, I’m currently working with several other members of NASPA’s Technology Knowledge Community to put together a program that does the opposite: presenting the culture and history of technology professionals to student affairs professionals so they can more effectively collaborate.)
The second event on Monday was the Town Hall Meeting. Dee Childs stepped down as President and handed over her duties to Sheila Crowe. A few other positions were shuffled around before I was handed the floor to give a brief plug for the RARG, the symposium’s research arm. Afterward, the meeting was devoted to discussing the future of the symposium with questions and comments being taken from the floor. I had hoped this would be an expansive discussion but the entire conversation focused on whether or not there should be a membership fee. I really didn’t understand or follow the discussion, particularly as it seemed to go round in circles with no firm conclusion or consensus. The proposed “membership fee” seems to be an ill-defined solution in search of a problem.
The remainder of the symposium was dedicated to the vendor fair, t-shirt exchange, and closing ceremony/dinner. They all went over very well and were enjoyable.
I wonder about the longevity of this organization and its annual event. Attendance was down significantly this year and while that is probably largely reflective of the economy I don’t see that (the lower attendance or the economy) changing in the next year or two. Moreover, now that many of the bigger challenges of residential computer networking have been solved (standards are more developed, equipment is more prevalent and standardized, successful support models are in place and easily copied and modified, etc.) I’m not sure that the event as it exists has enough to offer attendees, particularly newcomers. Much of the draw seems to be based on friendship and community, conditions that are difficult to advertise and extend to those who have not attended multiple times and become familiar with those involved in the event. I believe that the ResNet Symposium must shift or widen its focus, perhaps taking as its purview a broader view of student technology support and student supervision, if it is to remain relevant and viable.
Comments(4)
While I agree with you on the circular pattern of the membership fee discussion, I understand what the board needs. I had the ability to discuss it with one of the members of the board prior to the town meeting. I believe the membership fee, if laid out properly, is necessary for the group to continue. I think the board should have thought through the membership fee a bit more before just dropping it on everyone, but with the right benefits, I think it could work. I know I’d be more than willing to pay it myself.
As for the organization as a whole, it’s really the only one that focuses only on student support and supervision (especially the supervision part). I don’t get a chance to go to many other conferences other than single day programs. I have been to many NERCOMP single day sessions on various topics, but they don’t always cover the exact issues that I, and many others in my position, face on a day-to-day basis. The beauty of ResNet is that it is about those people. I spoke with many newcomers this year who all really seemed to enjoy the conference and got quite a bit out of it. I also don’t think the low attendance is necessarily a bad thing. While I’m sure they would like to see it back at the 300 attendees level, the smaller conferences make it easier to meet more people without feeling overwhelmed. The biggest problem with the smaller size is the programs. It can tend to get tough to get presenters when there are only 140 people attending (I know, being on the program committee this year). But I have to say that of the past few ResNets, the presentations I attended this year were the best.
So maybe the organization should change its name and/or mission statement, but I disagree that it’s falling into irrelevance.
Thanks for the insightful comments, Jim!
Although I understand the need for additional funding I’m still not at all sure why it has to be in the form of a “membership.” I agree that it would have been helpful if it had been more carefully defined and described prior to opening the floor to an unstructured discussion with such a large group.
I also agree that the de facto focus of the conference is student support and supervision with a relatively strong focus on network management. And I think that is a very needed, welcome, and viable niche. But I don’t think that those foci are clear to those who – unlike you and I – have not attended the conference several times, hung out on the listserv, and otherwise been engaged and involved with the community for a lengthy period of time. If that is what we do well and what we want to continue doing then let’s make it official and explicit so we can more effectively attract new members who share our interests but haven’t lucked into this group.
I think a big part of the problem is advertising and getting the name out there. It’s always been word of mouth for the most part (and there’s something to be said about the fact that the listserv is so huge and we still get a large number of newcomers each year through just our word of mouth advertising). I think we should be represented at similar conferences, much in the way that SIGUCCS and ACUHO-I have tables at ResNet. That requires money to cover the cost of the booth.
Hopefully, they’ll be thinking seriously about the membership and what it means, along with other ways of raising funds (selling those water bottles was a good start, but obviously not enough).
I think you’re right, Jim. But I wonder if we really know and can articulate what we’re about. I think we do and we can but I don’t know that we’ve ever actually done that, now or in the past. And that seems to be necessary before we can promote ourselves more effectively.
(And selling the water bottles was literally a last-minute seat-of-the-pants decision. I ended up helping out because I was already there representing the RARG and everyone involved knew and trusted me to some degree. If you had stood still long enough you might have gotten roped in, too. :) )