Speaker 1:
Thank you all for coming to this session, which is at the most ridiculous time slot of the conference. Basically, what we're going to do is this is designed to give you some information and guidelines about the paper proposal process for the annual meetings, looking at it, especially from the side of the meetings with proposals. So, some of the stuff [inaudible 00:00:23] proposals. But like I said, I'm going to be looking at this very specifically from within the context of the AAR system, what it looks like, what a reviewer is looking for and all of that stuff. So, I am [Alyssa Cutter 00:00:45], as you can see, I've been a member of the AAR since 2007 and in 2012 I joined the [inaudible 00:00:54] of the Religion in Europe unit and then took over as co-chair of that unit in 2015. So, part of what I'm going to be talking about in this presentation is basically based on having read proposals for the last eight years and kind of reviewing and evaluating all of those proposals.
Speaker 1:
Also, since I've joined the AAR, I haven't submitted things every single year, but generally I've gotten my proposals accepted about 70% of the time [inaudible 00:01:27]. Pretty good, pretty good. Great. I don't claim perfection to my own proposals at all, but I am going to use one of my successful proposals as an example highlighting some of the points that I [inaudible 00:01:41]. Finally, I've also done several workshops [inaudible 00:01:45] throughout my career.
Speaker 1:
So, basically what I'm drawing on is all that experience. My own experience writing proposals, my experience with reviewing proposals and these workshops that I've done before. So, basically I'm going to give you some tips on what to do to improve your chances of acceptance as much as that is in your control and I'll say more about that particular point later on. So, for today, I'm going to have a very brief presentation and I'm going to start off by walking you through the different parts of the proposal then I'll give you some do and don'ts for writing proposals. And then I'll talk more specifically about what the review process is like. After that we'll have time for questions, discussion, anything that you to talk about. I, in no way, envision this to take the entire 90 minutes.
Speaker 1:
It's such a long session for what I have to say, but we can go as long as you need. So, in writing your proposals for the AAR, there are basically these three main parts that you need to consider versus the title. Second is the description, the description space gives you a maximum of a thousand words. And the third part is the abstract which is a maximum of 150 words. So I'm basically going to talk about all of those sections and their importance, but I do want to walk you through the different parts of the proposal system first.
Speaker 1:
So, when you start out with your proposal, in the paper system, you have to select the type of proposal that you're making. So, the options are the paper, the paper session, and the round table session. For the individual paper, you're going to be selecting paper, the first option. That is the selection most people will be using. Then in the second section, sorry, you have to select which program units you want to submit your proposal. And the notes that are in here have really important information that not everyone pays attention to, which leads to frustration on my part. So, the first thing is you should select your program units in your order of preference.
Speaker 1:
And this basically comes down to if two units want to accept your proposal, it'll go to the one that is listed first. They have kind of first dibs in a sense on that. Then the second, if you were submitting your proposal to a potential co-sponsored session, you should not choose both individual program units. So, the AAR allows you to submit up to two proposals each year. And basically if you select the two individual program units that uses up all of your possible proposals. As you can see from this image, this is the Religion in Europe call from 2019. And we had, as you can see at the bottom, several potential co-sponsored sessions. And these are ones that [inaudible 00:05:12] unit that you can submit to both of those.
Speaker 1:
Now, if your proposal was about one of these topics, you should use that co-sponsor unit. And this is important because it ultimately makes the reviewing process more difficult [inaudible 00:05:44]. When you select units that you want to submit to, you're basically deciding who gets to read your proposal, who has even access to your proposal. So, there are things that we can do after the fact, but it makes it a lot more difficult if it's not done that... Sent to the post [inaudible 00:06:07]. So, following these selections, we have the title section, the description section, again, I'll talk more about these, and the abstract section. Then there are some other options following that I'm not going to go over. And then on the following page, once you submit the first page, you have to select the authors of the paper.
Speaker 1:
After that, there's several things that you can select as needed. You can see audio-visual requirements on there, but there's a few other options that follow that. The sections that I just talked about though, the paper type, program units, title, description, abstract and author, are basically the key sections that you need in order to submit an AAR proposal. So, I'm going to start by talking about the description section. This is very important. So, the description section is the one where you have a thousand words, and this is the space to basically make the case for your paper, for us to accept your paper.
Speaker 1:
This is generally where the focus of the review process happens. This is where we're focusing our discussion and our conversation about the papers. You do not have to use the full a thousand words if you don't need it. But given that you have that much space, you do want to use as much of it as you need so that you can explain your paper and argue for its significance.
Speaker 1:
And I want to talk about a few key aspects, things to consider and things to include basically in your description section. So first, make the thesis of your paper abundantly clear. It's not enough to just describe your general topic of research or your general area of research. You'd be surprised at how many do that. What the reviewers are looking... When we read this section, first and foremost is there a clear argument and is it an argument that can be made in a 15 to 20-minute presentation? Also in this section, you should set your paper in the state of the field. So, you want to show that you know scholarship in your primary area of research, but one of the things to also keep in mind, especially with AAR proposals, is that it's not a guarantee that anyone on the committee is going to be an expert in your specific area of research. So, in showing the state of the field, you do have to kind of keep that in mind as well.
Speaker 1:
Show why your paper matters, what are the stakes if your argument is successful? Why should we, as the reviewers, be interested in your paper? And also very, very importantly show clearly how your paper relates to the topics in the call for papers. I normally do this by basically just borrowing language directly from the call for papers. So I have an example, my paper from last year for the Theology and Religious Reflection Unit, they'd asked for papers based on the topic or answering the question, what is the discipline of academic theology?
Speaker 1:
So, my description, as you can see here in response to this says, "In this paper, I will look historically at theology in the 17th century. Comparing methods of qualifications that made someone in academic theologian with more general understandings of theology to draw insights from our understanding of academic theology today. My underlying question is what happens to our understanding of the discipline of theology when we look at it historically? What happens about our understanding of theology today When we look historically at the academic context of the university, which by its nature prohibited women's contributions?" So, as you can see here, I have reflected the exact language of the question in my proposal. So, I talk about an academic theologian and academic theology, which was the main topic. I also use the language of the discipline of theology. So, I'm showing very clearly that I'm responding to the call for papers by echoing the language that they use there.
Speaker 1:
So, my general approach, and obviously you don't have to follow this but I found this works fairly well, is to set up my description section using three paragraphs or three sections. And so, in the first, I connect my topic and paper directly to the call for papers. The quote that I had on that previous slide came from basically my opening section of my proposal from last year. In the second section, I provide a historical context for my topic, and this is where I connect my paper to relevant scholarship in the field. So, to again give you an example from my proposal from last year, and I will read this whole thing to you. But I basically demonstrate that I understand the scholarship on the development of theology in 17th century France. So, looking both at the academic context of the universities and the rise of mystical theology and theology based on experience, so as you can see, I have the first one about kind of general scholastic theology, scholasticism in the university context, then one that's specifically about the Sorbonne during this period. And then the last text is about mystical theology.
Speaker 1:
Yes. So, and then in the last paragraph of the section, I outlined my argument and its significance. So here, in this case, you can see my main argument was that academic theology benefits from a broader understanding of its nature, which we can find by looking into the 17th century to compare the locations and methods of theology produced by men and women. And then the significance is not just rooted in history for me, but as I show here, has a broader significance for the understanding of women's voices today. So again, just be very clear about what your argument is and what the point is that you want to make. Above all, of course, in your proposals, be formal, professional, and clear in your writing. So, if the reviewers cannot understand what you mean, whereas, with my students, I will often try very hard to understand what they meant.
Speaker 1:
We will not always give the proposals that benefit of the doubt. And we will probably not accept your proposal if it's not clear. Oh, and the one thing I wanted to say, sorry, about the citations of the scholarship, you can do that however works for you. I find just giving the author, title and the date is sufficient. Some people include a bibliography because they have the space so you don't have to necessarily do exactly what I do in that case. Okay. Now the second part that I want to talk about together is the title and the abstract. I'm going to focus a little bit more on the abstract. Now, for the abstract, you have this maximum of 150 words.
Speaker 1:
And although, as you saw in the... When I went through the structure of the proposal system, the proposal system is set up so you insert the title, your description, and then the abstract. However, when we get your proposal, we see your title, abstracts, and then the description. So, the abstract is very important in that way. The title and the abstract together are the first thing that we're going to read from your proposal. So, it'll ultimately set the tone for reading your description. And so that's why it's of such important. Think of the abstract as the opportunity to get people interested in your paper.
Speaker 1:
And this is not only getting the reviewers interested in your paper, of course, but this is what goes into all of the AAR publications. So, it's also about getting people considering attending your presentation interest in coming to your session. And I will say on a few occasions, I've left comments about the papers, the other proposals that I'm reviewing, that the description seems really good and really interesting, but that abstract is just so dull and uninteresting that if we accept this paper, we should have the person rewrite the abstract, but we'll also say that ultimately on all those occasions, we opted to go for other papers.
Speaker 1:
So, take from that what you will. So, a good abstract includes key information, basically, about what your paper is about. Namely, I would say the context, subject, claim for significance, the theoretical framework or method that you're using, argument and evidence, and evidence, of course, could include texts to be analyzed, the sources of your research. So, you want to write something up that includes all this key information, but also makes it interesting in bugging for people to come to. So again, I will show you my abstract from last year, and I'm sorry for the color of the argument section is a little bit light, but you can see that I've tried to include all of the key information in this abstract.
Speaker 1:
So, I start off with the subject, where I say, I'm comparing academic to nonacademic theology in the context then of 17th century France and the Jansen's controversy. My evidence, I'm not as specific in this as I could have been, but I'm comparing Antwan Arnos's writing to the nuns at Port Royale specifically, actually his sister. And then my method is comparing it in two ways, locations and conditions in which the theology was produced and the method and contents of that theology. Then my argument, clearly stating I argued is based on these comparisons, that academic theology benefits from a broader understanding of its nature, because my claim for significance, I'm concerned about women's voices.
Speaker 1:
So, you could see how I included all of those things in this very short, 150 word abstract. So, these are the basic components of a proposal. What I want to give you is a few do's and don'ts that are important. And some of these are based on the bad proposals that I've read. So, first, do include references to scholarly literature, rather than just speaking vaguely about the state of the field. People want to know that you know-
Speaker 2:
This is in the abstract? Is this in the abstract or in-
Speaker 1:
No, in the description.
Speaker 2:
Oh, okay.
Speaker 1:
Yes, definitely in the description. Yes. Most of my do's and don'ts here are focusing on the description section, not the abstract. So generally, your paper's going to end up rated lower if you don't show that you're setting your argument in a specific field of scholarship. Second, do show that you can explain your argument to someone outside of your discipline area, strive very much for clarity in this.
Speaker 1:
Generally, as I said, you cannot guarantee that the reviewers will be familiar with your specific disciplinary area. Also, at the AAR correspondence for sessions is often going to be mixed. You're not necessarily only speaking to specialists in your area. So, you want to show in your proposal that you can speak to those unfamiliar with your discipline about your research. Third, do show that your paper has enough focus, especially that you can present it in only 15 to 20 minutes.
Speaker 1:
A good approach for this, of course, is presenting your research as a question to be answered or a puzzle to be solved as long as it can be reasonably done so in the timeline. So, the meaning of life might not be a good puzzle to be solved, but the way one specific author in a specific context approach the question of the meaning of life might be fair game. Fourth, as I said, previously, you do not have to use the full 1000-word description. Don't force yourself to make it longer than you need, but do make sure that you fully explain your paper. As I said, if the reviewers still have questions after reading your proposal, it will likely not be accepted. And finally, do not just copy the 150-word abstract into the description field. This is more common than you might think. It is quite possibly my biggest pet peeve as a reviewer. I wrote here, there is almost no chance that we will accept a proposal done in this way. I can tell you from Religion in Europe, we will not accept a proposal done this way.
Speaker 1:
I can't speak for the other units, but I will say that they probably won't because basically, you're competing against people who took this long description fields to fully explain their paper. So, there's no comparison in that sense. They explained their argument, they explained the relevance. So, there's not enough to kind of put your paper above theirs in that case. Okay. So, I've mentioned acceptance and ratings of papers a few times so far. So, what I want to end with is basically explaining the review process. So, you can understand basically what the reviewers are looking at when we evaluate your papers and the different units do have slightly different processes for review. I know some units get together via Skype to talk about the papers. My unit does everything by email in part, because we're in such drastically different times zones. We have people in the United States, we have people in Europe, we have someone now in Australia. So, we do everything by email, but this is generally how the process goes.
Speaker 1:
So, the first step is the steering committee reads all the proposals and then ranks them on the scale of one to five stars and the numbers associated with these stars correspond to poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent options. When we review the papers, we can also leave comments about the paper. I always do this so that I can jog my memory later when we're having conversations about the paper, but I know not everybody does. The comments tend to focus first on the paper itself. So, does maybe the argument needs to be developed more? Does the paper needs to be more clear? Does it need a more specific connection with scholarly literature? It can also address the connection with the unit or the call for papers or other papers that we've already received and reviewed.
Speaker 1:
For example, with the Religion of Europe unit, in particular, we're often noting, well, maybe the connection to Europe isn't entirely clear, or it's not central enough to the proposal for us as a unit to be sponsoring this paper. So, that's the first part of the review process. After everyone has read and ranked the proposals, we then put together sessions based on common themes of the proposals that we received. So, what we do in Religion in Europe is I put together a list of the proposals, according to rankings from highest to lowest. In general, we will not pick any papers that were rated an average of less than three stars. We generally try and only pick ones that are ranked even higher than that, but there are actually other factors that come into play at this point in the process. So first, we're often negotiating with other units about co-sponsorships.
Speaker 1:
So, I talked about the ones that we proposed in advance, we can create new proposed sponsorships depending on the papers that we receive as well. We have to decide whether we want to pursue the ones that we initially proposed. And in this case, the general rankings of the proposals on that topic is a huge factor in making those decisions. It's really important not to take rejection, your AAR proposal personally, necessarily [inaudible 00:23:46]. So, if you follow all of this advice and write a really good proposal, you can still be rejected based on what other proposals we've received.
Speaker 1:
So, and this has happened, you can receive one really excellent proposal on a topic that we had on our call for papers is up at the top of our rankings, but every single other proposal we received on that topic was awful or we didn't receive any other proposals on that topic. So, a good proposal could very well be rejected, not because it was your fault, but because there just weren't enough good proposals that we could put together a good session on the topic. So, this is, unfortunately, the point where your acceptance is no longer in your control. It does depend on what other people submit as well as what you do for your proposal.
Speaker 1:
So, at this point, I'd like to open up the space for questions. I will answer them to the best of my ability and we can just have a conversation for however long you want about this. So, yeah.
Speaker 3:
What role does the title play in the review processes? Like a catchy title, will it make any difference?
Speaker 1:
It can, yes. It's similar to the abstract. I definitely, especially now that I've been doing this for a year, if it's a dull title, I'll be like, "Ugh, I don't want to read this." So, yes. It goes along with the abstract, having a good title and abstract is very good, it helps, definitely. It sets the tone for how you read everything else. [inaudible 00:25:40].
Speaker 4:
[inaudible 00:25:33] does overly provocative titles tend to [inaudible 00:25:47]?
Speaker 1:
I think it depends. I don't know that I've ever felt that the proposal [inaudible 00:26:03] provocative title. I'm sure some of the other units may have. Yeah. Again, it depends on a little bit on who's reading it, if it's something they take offense at. All of the reviewers try not to let their bias [inaudible 00:26:22] obviously, but [inaudible 00:26:23], yeah.
Speaker 5:
[inaudible 00:26:30]. But, can you give a sense of the percentage of say three star proposals or greater [inaudible 00:26:39]? I mean, for particularly with three star proposals what's the... Can you guess the... How many of those [Inaudible 00:26:52]? [inaudible 00:26:57].
Speaker 1:
I mean, it's so dependent on year to year, on what other proposals we accept and there's the other thing too, for each unit we get [inaudible 00:27:09] and the different units have a different number of sessions that they can accept. So, one could have more sessions, you might have a higher percentage of acceptance but it's not necessarily... So, it depends [inaudible 00:27:44].
Speaker 6:
[inaudible 00:27:48].
Speaker 1:
It does happen in some context [inaudible 00:28:09] but-
Speaker 6:
And if that happens, is there any way to know [inaudible 00:28:13]?
Speaker 1:
Correct. Our unit [inaudible 00:29:12] we very much find [inaudible 00:29:12] to improve the proposal system. So, we haven't... The only people we've invited has been correspondence [inaudible 00:28:28].
Speaker 7:
[inaudible 00:29:00].
Speaker 1:
Yeah, well. So, yeah, that's is correct. It has been a common [inaudible 00:29:15].
Speaker 8:
[inaudible 00:29:36].
Speaker 1:
Yeah, I do think [inaudible 00:29:41].
Speaker 9:
[inaudible 00:30:10].
Speaker 1:
So, we actually [inaudible 00:30:28] this year but it [inaudible 00:30:30], it kind of depends. The one thing to think about is that, you want to make sure that with the [inaudible 00:31:28] you're going to have the session proposal but also the individual paper proposal and if the individual paper proposals are not [inaudible 00:31:40] strong, that can be problematic. So, if you are arranging something in an [inaudible 00:31:46] paper, we want [inaudible 00:31:49].