Growth of the ASB meeting

[Claire Honeycutt]

Re: Growth of the ASB meeting

Summary: Lots of posters allow for great discussions but more talks (or thematic posters) allow for new investigators to highlight their work to a larger audience that would be unlikely to come by their poster. My vote is for more posters in general - but with the caveat of picking several great established investigators talks and reserving a few talks from new investigators that are up and coming in the field - and/or their work compliments the keynote talks in theme.

Discussion: SFN prides itself on the poster sessions and no one is disappointed to get a poster. The 4 hour sessions provide invaluable feedback from great face-to-face conversations which I prefer to the large audience podiums in terms of serious discussion. I always come back from SFN with new ideas about my research!

The major drawback of SFN (and lots of posters) is there is a loss of a platform for young/new investigators to present their research to a larger audience. Established investigators don't need this type of platform nearly as much but it is critical for new faculty trying to build a brand new research platform. Some of us (like me) are working into a brand new field and conference audiences. I learn a lot at SFN but I rarely meet new faces (aside from students). I go to smaller conferences like NCM or ISEK where a podium talk significantly increases my audience and brings my research to the attention of established investigators. NCM in particular has made a point of including new investigators in their podium talk line-up in recent years. They have also made a point of adding a new investigator to their board.

I think there is a place and a need for both styles of conferences (as well as a mix between the two). My vote is for more posters in general - but with the caveat of picking several great established investigators talks and reserving a few talks from new investigators that are up and coming in the field - and/or their work compliments the keynote talks in theme.

Thanks for putting such great energy into an interesting discussion!
~Claire Honeycutt, ASU

Hi Steve,

Among those options I like #1 the best (more posters). I've not been to SFN or ORS but I've heard the posters are a centerpiece at those meetings; maybe folks who attend those meetings often can comment on what (if anything) they do that's different from ASB.

I've always really enjoyed the thematic poster sessions at ASB and would be in favor of having more of those and reducing the podiums to only the keynotes, submitted sessions, and awards, but I guess that wouldn't necessarily help with the meeting size issue.

Ross

[Brian Umberger]

Re: Growth of the ASB meeting

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion on this important topic.

An issue that has been raised more than once is the idea of limiting each attendee to one (or two) first-author abstract submissions, which is the practice for some other conferences. Steve Piazza, immediate past-program chair, was kind enough to pull together the relevant numbers from the recent conference in Boulder. If attendees had been restricted to one first-author abstract there would have been ~70 fewer abstracts, relative to our total of around 800, or a 9% reduction. Only a few people were first author on three or more abstracts, so limiting people to being first author on two abstracts would not have much effect.

If the results from that one meeting generalize, it looks like this could be one of the possible strategies for reducing the total number of presentations, while (likely) not affecting the number of attendees. However, it is not a large enough effect to get us back to a manageable number of presentations to allocate among traditional podium and poster sessions using our historical model for the conference. We will still need creative and effective programming strategies from among those more recently added to the meeting (thematic posters, lighting podiums) and the great ideas that have been put forward in this venue.

As others have noted, the "problem" of the growth of the annual conference is a good problem for us to have as it reflects the growth of biomechanics as a scientific discipline.

Brian

--
Brian Umberger, Ph.D.
President-Elect, American Society of Biomechanics
Associate Professor, Department of Kinesiology
University of Massachusetts, Amherst

[Wendy Murray]

Re: Growth of the ASB meeting

Thanks for the nice summary. The Executive Board will be discussing in our fall conference call, and we will likely follow up with some sort of poll, given the suggestion! People are still welcome to comment on the thread - but, expect more info about how to add to the discussion in the December newsletter!

[Clare Milner]

Re: Growth of the ASB meeting

Don't forget the poster tours suggested by Antonia! I haven't heard of them before, but it sounds like a great idea to make sure poster presenters have an opportunity to interact with a larger audience.

We've heard so many new and exciting ideas for the meeting, agree that a poll would help to identify which ones really resonated with the membership.

Clare

[Ross Miller]

Re: Growth of the ASB meeting

Not sure if this would just duplicate the information/efforts of the post-ASB surveys, but would it be worthwhile to create an online poll of the various suggestions from this thread? The membership could indicate their support for things like:

(1) Increasing poster/podium ratio
(2) More speedy-length podiums
(3) Limit of N first-author submissions (and what N should be)
(4) A day of only posters
(5) More poster awards
(6) Topic-based grouping of posters
(7) More thematic posters and various adjustments to their session format
(8) Adding a extra day to the program
(9) Maintenance of quirkiness/entropy
(10) Others? Apologies if I missed any.

Ross

[Erika Nelson-Wong]

Re: Growth of the ASB meeting

Hi - I meant to reply to this right after the meeting and then classes started! I loved the Boulder meeting with the rapid podiums, thematic posters, symposia, regular podiums and regular posters. There was a really nice mix, and the programming was done so well with concurrent sessions that made sense (ie; 'low back pain' wasn't scheduled against 'spine' as has happened at some other meetings).

Traditional posters can be really difficult depending on the physical layout of the space - if it isn't done well, or is too crowded, it can be really hard to navigate and I think sometimes people give up so some posters get very little traffic - super discouraging to a student. The thematic posters are very engaging, and I feel like they have gotten better every year as people have learned more about what to expect and how to prepare for them (as a presenter and moderator). They are my favorite sessions.

As others have mentioned, part of the great appeal of this meeting is its smaller size, but I also recognize growth will happen and should be viewed positively. I appreciate that you are asking the membership for opinions on how this should be handled. APTA has grown tremendously over the past several years, and they limit authors to submitting as 1st author on 2 abstracts. That seems like a reasonable approach to me - only allowing a single submission could be very limiting to someone just finishing their degree who may have a lot of work to put forward, but allowing 2 submissions could allow them to showcase their best work. I'm curious what the numbers are though - would an approach like this accomplish the objective?

If we are to expand, I would be in favor of keeping the poster/podium ratio similar to what was done in Boulder rather than just increasing the poster session, with possibly converting all podiums to the rapid format and including several thematic poster sessions. I do actually know people who would choose not to submit if we got rid of the podiums for regular posters only. Rodger's idea of having a poster day and a podium day is also interesting.

Thanks for a great meeting in Boulder - looking forward to 2018!

Erika

[Don Anderson]

Re: Growth of the ASB meeting

Hi all,

I feel very conflicted on these discussions, which I am very happy to see taking place on this forum.

Much of what Ajit posted previously resonates for me, so I won't repeat his words. I think that it is inevitable that we will continue moving toward more posters presented in larger venues, likely hotels or convention centers. The space that is provided for posters in these spaces is almost always superior to what can be provided in a campus setting. I have enjoyed many of the thematic poster sessions, but I really prefer having posters up longer, which generally requires more space. Another subject that hasn't been mentioned (I suspect because the focus has been more on programmatic elements) is exhibitors and the space that they require. Again, the space in hotels or convention centers is almost always superior to what can be provided in a campus setting. I see nothing wrong with having exhibitors be happy contributors to our conference.

One of the reasons that I feel conflicted is that while I understand the shift in focus toward posters, I have always enjoyed having ASB meetings be the first place for a person to experience presenting from the podium. I say this because the audience at ASB has always been kinder, gentler, and more understanding than at some other meetings (that I shall not name here). I hope that we will all continue to foster the casual, open atmosphere that I have always loved about ASB.

Finally, I have to say that one of the quirky things I have always enjoyed about ASB is that each year brings a new conference location, a new local meeting organizer, and a new program chair. This makes the meeting feel fresh and unique each and every year. I know that there have been years where someone's vision hasn't necessarily been realized, but I applaud (and unequivocally support) each and every local meeting chair and program chair for the courage to try new things. Again, whatever direction we go, I hope that we don't ever lose that quirky feeling.

Stay quirky, my friends,
Don

[Cara Lewis]

Re: Growth of the ASB meeting

It is sounding like there is support for expanding the number of posters / poster sessions. I do think this is a better alternative to accepting fewer abstracts. Rejecting abstracts simply because of the number of available slots (and not because of the science) can really discourage individuals from participating in a conference, especially when it happens to a student. I speak from experience.

That said, I admit that I have not always found the poster sessions to be productive for me or my students. When a “good” poster presentation session means that two or three people actually talked to you during the time, it seems like a lot of work for little impact. This is in contrast to the well-attended podium sessions at ASB. The disparity in audience number could contribute to the “second place” status of having a poster. For one of the other conferences I regularly attend, people actually prefer posters because they are unopposed sessions with lots of interaction compared to the multiple concurrent podium sessions where you typically present to the other presenters in your session and two of their friends, if you’re lucky.

An idea that seemed appealing to me could make the poster sessions feel more productive. As suggested by Young-Hui Chang, posters would be grouped by theme area. As Young-Hui suggests, this organization “leads to small groupings of like-minded scientists that can engage in discussions”. To me, this would facilitate more interaction between scientists, especially students, who might otherwise be left standing alone the whole time. I do understand, and should mention, Ajit Chaudhari’s counter point on this: why have a big meeting if all you’re going to do is talk in your subgroups? To me, having the groupings reduces the likelihood that anyone is left alone, and facilitates productive interactions within your research area. We each would have to make sure that we still find time to be exposed to other areas.

I do commend our society for 1) having the “problem” of increased attendance at our annual meeting, and 2) thoughtfully engaging the membership to find the best solutions.

Cara Lewis, PT, PhD
Associate Professor
Boston University

[Antonia Zaferiou]

Re: Growth of the ASB meeting

I echo the previous sentiments that prefer to grow the poster session volume vs. increasing (1) number of parallel podium sessions, (2) days at the conference, or (3) rejection rate. I hope we can come up with a creative and forward-thinking way to do so strategically. Limiting each author to one first-author could work so these sessions don't become too large, but I'm curious about how often this happens historically for this regulation to be worth-wile.

The ideas previously mentioned that blur the lines between poster and podium presentations may be our most effective way forward. It is important for ASB to foster student growth. By providing a spectrum of ways to present material, we may be more effective mentors to students as they develop.

Here's a summary of these hybrid presentation modalities:
1. Rapid podiums ~ 6 min each (ASB 2017)
2. Rapid podium/posters ~ 1 min ("elevator pitch") with a supporting slide projected, followed with a poster session (this format could become a larger thematic poster session?)
3. Poster "tours" At ISEK2012, there were scheduled tours through the poster sessions. These tours (1) allow students the ability to practice a short (~1 min) presentation and (2) provide an opportunity for planned crowd-control to make the sessions physically more manageable. At ISEK, tour members were able to loop back and talk to certain poster presenters. ASB could offer multiple tours per poster session to keep people "flowing" through in a timely manner and accommodate large poster session attendee volume.
4. Thematic posters these have been great to attend, but it is incredibly dificult to see the posters if you arrive in the middle of the session. I think the ASB2011 version of these sessions worked well because posters were displayed in the room for smaller follow-up discussions, but when it was each person's time to talk, a limited number of slides were projected. If the intention for the presentation part is to practice the ability to describe research without visuals, then we can leave these as they are.

Antonia Zaferiou, PhD
Director, Sports Medicine Motion Analysis
Rush University Medical Center

[Jill Mcnitt-Gray]

Re: Growth of the ASB meeting

Hi

How did the 6 minute presentation experiment go at Colorado?
It seems that shorter presentations with slides on a theme and perhaps questions to the audience by the presenters as often done in thematic poster sessions may be a way to let the authors present the content, let the audience "see" what they are talking about ( which is tough in the thematic poster format), and promote discussion with the audience

Jill McNitt-Gray
Professor
USC Biomechanics Research Lab

[Tom Kernozek]

Re: Growth of the ASB meeting

I like the idea from Roger. Poster sessions seem to provoke more discussion with the authors.

The speed podium sessions seemed to work very well. Consider leaving the longer talks for keynotes and award papers.

[Ross Miller]

Re: Growth of the ASB meeting

I also really liked the speed podium sessions. Great way to fit more content into a session and also give more speakers some exposure.

[Rodger Kram]

Re: Growth of the ASB meeting

Here is a fairly radical proposal.

ASB annual meeting is currently a partial day on Tuesday, full days Wed, Thurs and about 3/4 of Friday.

If the facility permits (Boulder did not), all posters could be up the whole meeting.
Thursday could be only posters and no podium talks (well, maybe one Keynote on Thursday morning to get people out of bed?)
This plan would allow a few more podiums on Wednesday (but obviously fewer (zero) podium on Thursday).
Moreover, it would focus our attention on posters, posters, and more POSTERS on Thursday.

I also think more podium sessions should be "speed" sessions like was tried with success in Boulder.

[Clare Milner]

Re: Growth of the ASB meeting

Dear All,


I'm a bit late to the table here, but just wanted to add another voice to the discussion.


I agree with the sentiments that one of the major pluses of ASB is the smaller size that makes for a friendly conference where it is easy to meet people.


I am not a fan of increasing the poster sessions ad infinitum, and agree that some way to slow growth is needed. I like Ajit's suggestion to limit people to only one submission as first author. As Ajit indicated, this will encourage submission of the author's best work and will limit the overall number of abstracts without reducing opportunities for students to present at the conference.


I am not a fan of having only symposia/ invited speakers for podium sessions. I think it is important for the current work of scientists at all levels to be exposed to large audiences for dissemination and feedback.TO this end, the rapid podium sessions were great in allowing more people to present in a session.


Best regards,
Clare


--
Clare Milner, PhD
Drexel University

[Louis DiBerardino]

Re: Growth of the ASB meeting

Hi all,

I'm going to have to agree with Ajit on this one. Reading some of the earlier posts got me feeling good about emphasizing posters, and maybe having podiums only for the plenaries, awards, and curated symposia. However, Reading Ajit's response reminded me how overwhelming it was to navigate the poster sessions in Boulder, and I would fear an even larger poster session. It seems that we may have a difficult choice in either uncomfortably expanding the conference, or uncomfortably decreasing the abstract acceptance rate.