August 9, 2015

Making the Most of ICPhS: Presenting Your Paper

Posted in icphs tagged , , , at 1:28 pm by mariawolters

If you are an author presenting a paper at ICPhS, you have all received detailed instructions on what to do. In this post, I want to give some of the rationale behind the requests. Most of these remarks are aimed at first-time presenters or presenters who feel relatively inexperienced, but experienced presenters might find some interesting nuggets, too.

First of all, the poster presenters are restricted to A1 / portrait, no landscape. This is very tight, and it is much easier to tell a visually beautiful and complete story to an audience if you have A0 landscape.

However, it allows us to leave your poster for longer. That makes life a lot less hectic for you. No rushing out of the last oral session before your poster to put it up, no missing the start of the next session before your poster needs to be taken down.

In order to make the poster sessions less cramped, we are also alternating posters between morning and afternoon, so that when you are at your poster to present, you essentially have double the space.

Best of all, it gives your poster a much bigger audience. Whenever attendees have a spare half hour, when they are having coffee or lunch, when they are unfortunate enough to miss one of the breathtakingly amazing oral session, they can wander around the posters and absorb your poster in peace.

Finally, if you have been assigned a poster, but were hoping for a paper, you will hopefully be pleasantly surprised at how deep and useful discussions at posters can be. In paper sessions, time for discussion is necessarily limited, and people need to rush off afterwards or are not necessarily comfortable making their comment in front of a crowd of their peers.

The paper presenters appear to be similarly restricted at first: 10 minutes for presentation, 3 minutes for discussion, and 2 minutes for changing over.

However, what these restrictions do is ensure that everybody gets a fair hearing. Imagine having travelled halfway around the world to present your paper to an audience who wants to hear what you have to say. You are the last speaker in a three-paper session. But then, the first speaker overruns. And the second speaker not only overruns, but sparks a heated ten minute discussion. At the end, all that is left for your carefully rehearsed talk is 5 minutes, no discussion, because people are heading to the next session.

While 10 minutes is not enough to present your work in detail, it is more than enough to tell people why your work is interesting, why it matters, and what your main findings are (and by the middle of Day 2, your audience won’t be able to absorb much more information, anyway).

Strict timekeeping also makes it easier for the audience to switch between sessions. This is particularly important in a large multi-session conference as this, where sessions are compiled according to many different criteria, and people are likely to pick and choose where they go.

Finally, the two-minute change-over time allows us sufficient time to deal with the vagaries of technology, especially when talks rely on the sound system working.

Related posts:

  • The Oral Programme
  • The Poster Sessions
  • Finding Interesting Papers
  • Timing ICPhS
  • The Discussant Sessions

ICPhS Behind the Scenes: The Discussant Sessions

Posted in icphs tagged , , at 1:27 pm by mariawolters

In this series of blog posts, I would like to take you behind the scenes of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS) in Glasgow. All posts are written to be accessible to both phoneticians and non-phoneticians.

Discussant Sessions are an innovation that have become quite common in conferences that deal with speech and speaking. The papers in each session are hand-picked by a senior, highly respected researcher, who provides an introduction and facilitates discussion. These sessions replace Special Sessions which typically have dedicated calls for papers.

Bert Remijsen and Pavel Iosad organised the Discussant Sessions at ICPhS. Ten outstanding scholars agreed to be Discussants, covering a range of basic and applied phonetics. Once the original acceptance notices had gone out on April 1, these discussants had three to four weeks to put together their sessions from all those papers whose authors had indicated they would like to be considered for these sessions – an extremely challenging task. Discussants had access to both abstracts and full papers.

Scheduling these sessions was governed by several constraints. First and foremost, Discussant Sessions are longer than normal sessions, to allow for the discussant’s introduction and a subsequent discussion, after all papers have been given. This means Discussant sessions had to be scheduled as far as possible in parallel, while making enough space in the programme for 72 additional oral sessions and leaving the now traditional Wednesday afternoon free for workshops, sightseeing, and recovery. As a result, Discussant sessions are in two blocks, one on Monday, and one on Friday.

This decision also allows us to have Discussant Sessons in rooms with sufficient capacity.

The next constraint was speaker availability. Some discussants were not avaiable on Monday, some speakers were not available on one of those days, and some lucky people were coauthors on papers that had been selected for two different Discussant sessions – and we wanted them to be able to attend both sessions.

Finally, we attempted to separate Discussant Sessions that were of interest to the same group of people, but that proved next to impossible while making sure that speakers (and authors) could attend the sessions where their papers would be given.

We are hoping to at least partially address this scheduling issue by the fashionable remedy of crowdsourcing.

So if you are on social media and in a discussant session, please tweet, facebook, and blog it – share the findings, share the excitement, and maybe we can even get some discussion going across sessions!

Related posts:

Making the Most of ICPhS: Finding Interesting Papers

Posted in icphs tagged , , , at 1:26 pm by mariawolters

The 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS) is easily the largest yet, with over 770 oral and poster presentations, if we count the plenaries as well. All of those papers were accepted based on a full, four-page paper that represents a substantial piece of completed work and can be 1500-2500 words long, as long as a brief communication in a journal. This is very different from conferences in medicine, psychology, or the life sciences, where authors merely submit a 300-word abstract.

So, how can you as authors ensure that their papers are seen and heard?

In a sense, you have already completed the most important steps, which are to choose appropriate subject areas, create a good title and write a suitable abstract for your paper. The PDF version of the abstract book is easy to search, and we would like to encourage all attendees to use the search function liberally.

Remember that many criteria were used to create sessions: Not all ultrasound papers are grouped together, not all papers that deal with voice onset time are in the same sessions, and not all papers that address bilingualism are in dedicated bilingualism sessions.

If you are on social media (or know somebody who is on social media), we would like to encourage you or your colleague / friend / marketing accomplice to tweet your paper and session. For example, if you paper is an ultrasound study of consonants that involve a complete break in airflow (stop consonants) in people who are fluent in two languages (bilingual), you may want to tweet:

stop #articulation in #Korean/English #bilingual speakers – #ultrasound study. Alsh 1, 11am, Tues. #icphs2015

Finally, if somebody really should have been at your paper, and wanted to be at your paper, but missed it – they have the contact email of the corresponding right next to your abstract in the abstract book.

Related posts:

ICPhS Behind the Scenes: The Oral Programme

Posted in icphs tagged , at 1:25 pm by mariawolters

In this series of blog posts, I would like to take you behind the scenes of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS) in Glasgow. All posts are written to be accessible to both phoneticians and non-phoneticians.

In this post, we will look at the way in which the oral programme was assembled. This is not just a peek behind the scenes, but should also go a long way to explain why your paper (of all papers) got stuck in that particular session.

First of all, ICPhS is much bigger than it used to be, which also makes it more tricky to organise and schedule For example, the 16th ICPhS in Saarbrücken, Germany (2007) featured around 450 oral and poster presentations. At this ICPhS, the attendees have the choice of around 750 papers, split almost equally between oral and poster sessions.

Phonetics has also become both more diverse, with specialisations upon specialisations. This is particularly true for the prosody community (or should I say avalanche?) where every single aspect of rhythm, stress, and intonation will be discussed in great detail. Methods range from corpus-based studies (i.e., you speak, we record and annotate) to intricate perception experiments.

The prosody avalanche is almost matched in sheer impact by the language acquisition (in particular second language acquisition) tsunami. Pretty much every oral session features either papers or full sessions on bilingualism or second language acquisition.

Needless to say, this made the task of putting together the programme a challenge, and some of the resulting sessions are best approached with a spirit of discovery.

(After all, each paper has to fit somewhere, and if it fits, it sits. Even if one has to be a little creative sometimes.)

In order to help with this process, we relied on the people who know their papers best – the authors. On submitting a paper to ICPhS, each author (or author team, in most cases) was asked to categorise their paper into 27 scientific areas. Authors could specify up to three areas for their paper. All papers also had keywords that describe key aspects of the content, a meaningful title, and an abstract, which could be consulted in case of confusion (or despair).

All oral papers were first grouped by the scientific areas that the authors had indicated. After some checking, we found that papers were described best by the combination of areas specified, and took this as the starting point for the next step.

The initial grouping yielded around 40 groups of oral papers. Some of them fell neatly into sessions, and there was much rejoicing. Others were more complex. For these papers, keywords were consulted. Sometimes, frequently used keywords suggested themes (such as rhotics). If that approach was not fruitful, groups of papers were inspected for meaningful clusters.

The overall approach was what us computer scientists would call greedy – coherent sessions emerged first, and were fixed in the structure. The remaining papers were then grouped into sessions that were as coherent as possible, until all papers had been assigned to one of 72 sessions.

As a result, sessions can be grouped by topic (coronals), method (ultrasound investigations of speech), area of phonetics (speech perception), or language group (Arabic Phonetics), and therefore, one paper can easily fit into several different sessions.

Related posts:


ICPhS Behind the Scenes: The Poster Sessions

Posted in icphs tagged , , at 1:25 pm by mariawolters

In this series of blog posts, I would like to take you behind the scenes of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS) in Glasgow. All posts are written to be accessible to both phoneticians and non-phoneticians.

In this post, we will talk about the way the poster sessions were assembled.

This task was somewhat more straightforward than the oral sessions, because each poster session could hold up to 60 papers (a little more if the other poster session of the day was below 60 papers).

Authors had assigned one to three subject areas to their paper, and we used the main subject area to group papers initially. We then created sub groups for all of the larger subject areas, so that posters in an area were spread over several days. This gives people who are interested in an area more time to look at the posters carefully and talk to presenters; it also makes poster sessions more diverse and interesting for those attendees who like to browse and who prefer variety.

When we saw clear thematic links, subgroups were named (for example Speech Perception), when the group was very mixed, subgroups were just numbered (for example Phonetic Psycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics).

When assigning poster sessions to specific slots, we worked around the following constraints:

  • timing of relevant plenaries, such as Simon King’s plenary on speech technology
  • timing requests by attendees that reached us in the first few weeks after acceptance
  • the original position of discussant sessions, which shifted slightly as additional scheduling constraints became clear
  • ensuring that different sessions from the same subject area were on different days
  • no more than 120 posters per day, which avoids poster overload.

Related posts:

ICPhS Behind the Scenes: Timing ICPhS

Posted in icphs tagged at 1:24 pm by mariawolters

In this series of blog posts, I would like to take you behind the scenes of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS) in Glasgow. All posts are written to be accessible to both phoneticians and non-phoneticians.

Having created the oral and poster sessions, there was the small matter of timing. The key constraints are the same for both oral and poster presentations: available space, available time, and coordinating with plenaries and Discussant Sessions.

For the oral programme, we had far tighter temporal and spatial constraints than for the poster sessions.

The first constraint was space.

The maximum number of sessions that could be accommodated was fixed at a very early stage – in mid March, when we decided how many papers could be accepted as oral presentations. The number of rooms available provided an upper limit on the number of oral papers and therefore also the number of sessions.

In order to accommodate the large number of high-quality submissions we received, many sessions had be housed in split rooms with a capacity of less than 100 people. On Wednesday, all oral sessions had to be in the low-capacity rooms in order to ensure we had enough time slots, on all of the other four days, we managed to secure at least one large room per oral session slot.

Next, time came into play. First, we used the overall schedule to work out the number of three-paper and four-paper sessions that we could fit in. These numbers were used to determine the allocation of paperes to sessions.

Once all sessions had been created, we slotted them into space. We started with author requests, and we were fortunate to be able to accommodate all authors who contacted us with scheduling requests before early May. Next, we tried to place sessions near thematically related Discussant or Plenary Sessions.

We also worked hard to avoid session conflicts. Working from the author names as originally entered during submission, we identified sessions with coauthor conflicts and ensured that these sessions were not placed in parallel. This took care of almost all of the conflicts; the few remaining ones were settled by hand-scheduling time slots.

Finally, we tried to ensure diversity in each slot of 6-8 parallel sessions, so that no two sessions about the same topic were in parallel.

This was the basis of the preliminary schedule that was released to everybody in June.

Finally, in order to decide which sessions should get the honour of the larger spaces, the committee voted, and lo and behold, rooms were assigned.

Last but not least, once all changes, last-minute withdrawals, and session corrections were finished, each paper was assigned a final time slot. At this stage, we also balanced those sessions where we had unwittingly required two people to be in the place at the same time, or where one person was heroically going to give two papers in the same session. (Both issues were thankfully very rare.)

Et voilà – a programme.

Related posts:

May 29, 2015

Active on Social Media? ICPhS Needs You!

Posted in icphs tagged , , , at 12:00 am by mariawolters

I swear – the first person to develop instantaneous human cloning will be a frustrated attendee of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS).

ICPhS is the biggest gathering in phonetics. Every four years, phoneticians and speech scientists from all over the world (except Antarctica) meet for five days of phonetics, phonetics, and yet more phonetics.

The programme is usually packed. This year alone, we will have fifteen time slots for oral presentations, with up to 8 parallel sessions. Around 380 papers will be presented orally, the same number as posters.

This year, we have a new feature, organised by Bert Remijsen and Pavel Iosad – ten discussant sessions, where eminent phoneticians pick four particularly interesting papers and discuss them in a thematic session. For reasons I will explain in a later post, these sessions are organised in two blocks of five parallel sessions.

All of this is a surefire recipe for many, many frustrated phoneticians. One way of mitigating at least some of the frustration is social media.

I know from ICPhS 2011 in Hong Kong that many people are already prepared to tweet the sessions they attend, but I wonder what we could do if we were a bit more organised this time around.

Specifically, I am wondering whether people would be happy to commit in advance to reporting specific sessions on social media. This could be through live tweets, a blog post, a LinkedIn entry, a Facebook summary, a MySpace song … you get the idea.

What do you think? Could you help?