Editorial: Multiple Experiences at the Annual ConferenceAuthor(s): Michael BradshawSource: Area, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Dec., 2003), pp. 339-340Published by: Wiley on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of BritishGeographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20004339 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 02:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:35:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Area (2003) 35.4, 339-340

Editorial: multiple experiences at the Annual

Conference

It is customary for the editorial immediately following the RGS-IBG Annual Conference to reflect on the activities at the meetings. Before turning to the essential facts of the September conference, I

want to reflect on my own multiple experiences of the event.

Following the recent discussion on the Critical Geography Forum, I should acknowledge that my first experience was as a white male with no disabil ities, and with a partner at home willing to take on all the childcare duties while I was away. I did not initially perceive the conference venue as problem atic; obviously, I am familiar with the RGS building. But I soon realised that it was far from ideal as a conference venue, but then it wasn't designed to be one. There are clearly lessons to be learned if we are to return in the future. Hopefully, the new build ing will provide greater access to all.

My second experience was as a Head of Depart ment. As of 1 September, I became Head of Depart ment at Leicester and attended the Head of Department's Meeting on the Tuesday afternoon. Against a backdrop of battling pneumatic drills, we discussed the implications of the Roberts Report on the future of the RAE and shaped a response to the consultation paper. The consultation process has resulted in over 300 responses and we must now

wait and see how the next RAE will be conducted. The key lesson that I took away from our delibera tions was the realization that (regardless of current RAE standing, old or new university or Russell Group member or not) the future status and location of the discipline in the University system will rest on the outcome of this consultation exercise and that we need to agree a common sense of purpose to defend the discipline. To further that cause, the RGS-IBG has also submitted a separate response to the Roberts Report. No doubt, once the outcome is known we will all be subjected to a new round of RAE strategy meetings and have to justify why we do what we do. Ask yourself what contribution you as a geographer and geography as a subject makes to contemporary university education.

My third experience was as the Editor of Area. Being the Editor of one of the Society's journals always results in a busy meeting: there are book launches to attend (the RGS book series for one), receptions to host, sessions to introduce (the Census and Society session), theme issues to arrange (the June 2004 issue will be drawn from the Census and Society sessions), authors to encourage and referees to thank or cajole. No wonder I didn't get to many paper sessions. A less savoury aspect of being an Editor is that some still fail to recognize that it is unreasonable to hold you responsible for the views expressed by authors in the journal. As I complete my fourth year, and enter my final year as Editor (the conference pack contained a call for applica tions), I am pleased with how the journal has con tinued to develop. This issue is yet another first, as the majority of papers are environmental or physical geography, testament to the hard work of my Co Editor, Heather Viles.

My final experience of the conference was as a paper presenter and an economic geographer who specializes in the study of Russia (I was one of the few who knew who Roman Abramovich was before he brought Chelsea). I participated in a series of ses sions organized by Kathy Mcllwaine and Roger Lee, both at Queen Mary, that aimed to develop dia logue between economic and development geogra phers, though the first session was gatecrashed by post-socialist geographers. In the first paper session of the conference, we rattled around in the Onda ajte lecture theatre. There must be a general law applicable to all conferences that states the size of room allocated a session is inversely proportional to the expected audience. I later tried to attend a ses sion on post-colonialism only to find the audience of a smaller room overflowing into the corridor, another reason why I didn't get to many paper ses sions. I must admit that I was disappointed by the audience in our session (not those who turned up), not just the small numbers, but because most of them seemed 'related' in one way or another, department colleagues, former postgraduate students and fellow

ISSN 0004-0894 ? Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2003

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:35:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

340 Editorial

travellers. How can one establish dialogue when the audience you want to address doesn't turn up? This has happened before when I have organized joint sessions with a similar aim. Perhaps false advertis ing is the only way forward! Nonetheless, I enjoyed the session and benefited from the questions and discussion. On reflection, my experiences of the conference were very mixed: at times I was enter tained (Peter Dicken's 'this is your life'); inspired (Peter Dicken's plenary paper); bemused (no com

ment); depressed (discussion of the RAE); stressed (running between sessions, receptions etc., etc.); disorientated (I blame the numerous book launches and the uneven floor at the Dalmore Whisky recep tion) and annoyed (see above on being an editor).

For those interested in the vital statistics, a total of 1 130 delegates registered for the event over the three days. This made it one of the best-attended RGS-IBG conferences for many years. Of those who registered, 87 per cent did so before the 31 May

early-registration deadline, 23 per cent of delegates were from non-UK locations (I particularly enjoyed the panel on European Geography that challenged the dominance of Anglophone journals), 28 per cent of delegates were postgraduates (thanks to those that attended the Area reception) and 74 per cent of

delegates registered for the full three days. During those three days, 784 papers were presented across 129 sessions. There were 17 plenaries with 56

speakers. To my mind, the profusion of plenaries, together with the extended (but well catered) lunch breaks, forced too many papers into the remaining

session slots (20 parallel sessions). Plenaries are all well and good (and some were), but most of us want to present our research and discuss our work with our peers (particularly the 28 per cent of dele gates who were postgraduates), not spend all our time being lectured at. If one adds the papers and plenaries, a total of 840 papers (assuming that each plenary presenter was equivalent to a paper) were presented. The plenaries represented less than 7 per cent of the papers being presented, but had a far more prominent share of the conference programme. The conference enjoyed excellent press coverage and more publishers (23) attended than has been the case in recent years. Being in London meant that the Conference was able to reach out and include many non-geographers in our sessions. This not only helped raise the profile of the discipline, but also provided fresh perspective. Inevitably there were problems, but the vast majority of the people I have spoken with, both at and after the conference, considered it a success. This is largely due to the hard work of those at the RGS, all of whom got involved (includ ing those in the Journals Office), as well as those in the wider Society who helped organize the event.

Next year's conference will be different again, as it is held in the midst of the International Geogra

phical Conference, to be held in Glasgow, 15-20 August 2004 (visit: www.iguglasgow2004.com). Those nights spent in freezing halls of residence in January seem a distant nightmare.

Michael Bradshaw Editor

Editorship of Area The Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) wishes to appoint an editor to the journal Area. The current editor, Professor Michael Bradshaw, University of Leicester, completes his five-year term at the end of 2004.

Area is one of the world's leading journals of geographical research. Since 2000 Professor Bradshaw has had a co-editor, Dr Heather Viles. Professor Bradshaw deals with the human geography papers, and Dr Viles, the physical and environmental papers. The human geography editor is the senior editor. The editor is responsible for the editorial process, working with an editorial assistant based at the RGS-IBG in London.

For further details of the post please contact Dr Lorraine Craig at the Research Division of the RGS-IBG (tel 020 7591 3020, email: rhed@rgs.org). The deadline for application is 15th January 2004 and the term

will be for 5 years. Please feel free to contact the editor for further information.

Professor Michael Bradshaw, email mjb4l @le.ac.uk; telephone 0116 252 3842

Please send all correspondence to: Dr Lorraine Craig Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) 1 Kensington Gore

London SW7 2AR Telephone 020 7 591 3020; email rhed@rgs.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:35:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions