Blogs can be volatile, can't they? One of the my 'things I'd do differently' posts has stirred things quite a bit. There was another one, which stirred things even more which I have removed because yes, it ought not to have been written and published by the conference chair.
Anyway, this particular post, which I am leaving since it has created a minor eddy of resistance which has been productive, needs clearing up a bit, doesn't it. The issue about 30+ references isn't the number of references. It was about saying that for future conferences it would be good to mentor new researchers away from the habits they have to learn and perform in their role as PhD students (a role that is markedly different in Australia and Europe to that in the United States). What I was alluding too, indirectly and crudely, was that in a 4 or 10 page conference paper there is no need to (sometimes) spend a quarter of your time doing a literature review. This is what you do when writing a thesis, a necessary and important part. But as you mature as a writer and researcher then you tend to find that good conference papers are opportunities to explore your ideas. Of course this means you do have to contextualise them appropriately, but that is a very different process and method (or manner or style) to opening with a literature survey. In this conference all the papers are generally excellent, and everyone has something worthwhile that they believe they want to say. That is where the effort and time in the writing ought to go. That is what I wanted to write the other day, and it is something I would try to do if I ever tried to host a conference again (and right now the answer to that would be a resounding no way).Posted by amiles at May 15, 2003 11:41 AM