Last changed 4 July 2003 ............... Length about 900 words (6000 bytes).
(Document started on 17 Apr 2003.) This is a WWW document maintained by Steve Draper, installed at http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/chi03/feedback.html. You may copy it. How to refer to it.

Web site logical path: [www.psy.gla.ac.uk] [~steve] [chi03] [this page]

Feedback on the CHI03 doctoral consortium

This page assembled by Steve Draper,   Department of Psychology,   University of Glasgow.

This is a supplement to a report on running the consortium.

Contents (click to jump to a section)

  • Steve (The request for feedback)
  • (Comments from:)     Heidi     Konstantinos     Tim     Bonnie     Hyunmo     Jack     Susanne     Jia     Pedro     Huatong (Hannah)     Anette     Jens     Hokyoung     Faustina    
  • Steve (Question on giving comments on methods / suggesting new studies)
  • (Comments from:)     Bonnie     Heidi     Tim    


    Steve Draper emailed 14 Apr 2003:
    I'd like some feedback on the doctoral consortium, since I wasn't organised enough to ask for it at the time. Although interested in it myself, I'll also pass it on directly to Jean and Liz who are running it next year.

    Since I think we now have a good enough atmosphere between us, lets just ask this straight out. Reply to everyone (so I may get an idea which points many agree with, which only some agree with) with your answers to:

  • What were the best one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?

  • What were the worst one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?

  • What would your recommend doing differently (if this isn't already covered by the last question)?

    For example, what I've already picked up is:
    1) Should have been ribbons on your conference badges identifying you, similar to the ones student poster presenters got. (But if you could say exactly why, this would be helpful).
    2) Tim might say that having special guests was both the best and worst for him: best because it was a good idea, worst because I wasn't clever enough to find someone specialising in his particular research area.


    From: Heidi Feng
    > What were the best one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    Knowing students from different countries and disciplines who are all interested in HCI. Interacting with other student members and comparing my own work with them is a big motivation.

    Interacting with faculties in the panel and during the lunch and dinner is especially helpful.

    > What were the worst one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    This might only happened to me since I was running back and forth to my baby and missed both lunches. I hope I had got more interaction with the other students.

    > What would your recommend doing differently (if this isn't already covered by the last question)?
    Include one photo of member students in the dossier sent out prior to the conference. I've seen the photos of the panel from their website before the conference, that helps to get accquainted easier and faster. And, as Jens has found, shiny photos promote trust!

    Changing seats not only on the second day, but every moring and afternoon so that every student could sit next to everyone else for a while.


    From: "Konstantinos Chorianopoulos"
    > What were the best one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    1. Meet people from around the world and from different disciplines, share experiences with them
    2. De-myth CHI conference and gain confidence that I may have some place in CHI and I may get a PhD someday...

    > What were the worst one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    Instead of answers, now I have more questions to tackle !!! Thank you!!! :-)

    > What would your recommend doing differently (if this isn't already covered by the last question)?
    (Bright colored fancy looking!!!) Ribbons would help identify each participant as a member of a distinct group in the conference -why all the others and not us?- and according to Don Norman's closing plenary it would just feel better to have them on the badge.


    From: Tim Butler Well, I've seen Heidi and Konstantios' replies and I agree with the points they've set out.

    > What were the best one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    On consideration I think I would like to add weight to Konstantinos points: Meeting people; and gaining confidence and knowledge of the CHI conference.

    I often feel quite isolated as my University does not have a distinct HCI group. Attending the conference gave me a much broader perspective on HCI and research as a career. I found this both encouraging and motivating. I probably would not have been able to attend CHI had it not been for the DC.

    > What were the worst one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    Honestly--the temperature of the room on Sunday! Then dealing with information overload the rest of the week.

    > What would your recommend doing differently (if this isn't already covered by the last question)?
    It would have been great if the information on conference duration had been a tad more specific. I left on the latest flight I could get out on Thursday evening, and consequently missed the closing plenary and closing party. I should've planned to leave on Friday morning. The information on the web site said:
    " * Arrange your travel and accommodation immediately, keeping receipts for use when claiming reimbursement for your expenses. (Typically, arriving in time for dinner Sat. 5 April, and leaving on the afternoon of Thur 10 April.) If you will require a visa for entry to the U.S.A, complete your application process immediately. " (http://www.chi2003.org/doctoral_consortium.html)
    Which is what I did, as a first time attendee I did not really know what to expect, so followed these instructions literally.

    > For example, what I've already picked up is: 2) Tim might say that having special guests was both the best and worst for him: best because it was a good idea, worst because I wasn't clever enough to find someone specialising in his particular research area.
    Oh that as well!


    From: Bonnie MacKay
    Like Tim, I thought that Heidi's and Konstantinos' points were very relevant.

    > What were the best one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    Just to build on the feedback point (especially on Tim's point of not having a major HCI group here at Dalhousie), it was also great to get additional and more diverse comments from those outside your immediate committee (both from faculty and other students). Also, an added bonus was to work with a small group of people in an intensive environment who you look forward to seeing again at future CHI's (or if anyone wants to come to Halifax).

    > What were the worst one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    You can count on being busy when you get back following up with new readings and searching for other topics (or at least I am). This can either be a positive or negative, depending on if you like to do readings.

    > What would your recommend doing differently (if this isn't already covered by the last question)?
    I thought that Faustina's idea to bring along handouts of her slides was great (in fact, I've been using them to show people Faustina's work). It provides more details than just the abstract. Perhaps we could also add our slides to the web page.


    From: Hyunmo Kang
    > What were the best one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    The best thing was that I could meet the doctoral students from all around the world with open mind and enthusiasm for their research...As well, I could get another academic network and share mine with them.

    > What were the worst one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    Yeah... I totally agree on Konstantinos' point... I got lots of questions to think about ... rather than getting the answers for my research questions... but still fine !!! And the other thing is not about DC itself but about the procedure to get there... I was a little bit confused by lots of contradictory emails coming from Steve untill I left for CHI... ;)

    > What would your recommend doing differently (if this isn't already covered by the last question) ?
    I wish I could have had a chance to meet people who are most highly acclaimed in HCI field both in acedemia and industry... since it is not easy for us to meet and talk to those people as a student... And it was very helpful for me to hear from the panels about the issues we were curious about... so it might be good to have more time slots for this.

    P.S. BTW, is there anyway to get some web space from ACM or SIGCHI or CHI2003 for our DC homepage instead of managing them in one of our homepages ? well... it's kinda usability issue I think... ;)


    From: Jack Muramatsu
    > What were the best one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    I pretty much agree with Konstantinos, Heidi, Tim, and Bonnie.

    However, since I concentrate primarily on CSCW issues I found the dc was a great opportunity to see the range of work being done within CHI. I also appreciated the fact that students were welcome perhaps even encouraged to provide feedback on other students' presentations.

    > What would your recommend doing differently (if this isn't already covered by the last question)?
    About the only suggestion I have is that the panel might want to focus not only on the substantive nature of someone's work (which was done quite well IMO) but also on more structural issues such as scoping a dissertation appropriately.

    Also, I agree with Bonnie's suggestion on putting up the presentation slides on the proposed dc website. I think it would strengthen a reader/viewer's sense of what people are working on.


    From: Susanne Bay
    Great hearing from all of you! As I volunteered for being the first who presented in the DC I let the others giving their feedback first, so I only have to agree to what has already been stated.

    > What were the best one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    Meeting people who are involved in similar areas and being motivated by the enthusiasm they have for their work. The panel with people from different fields. They highlighted diverse perspectives of our work. The idea of having visitors is great. Perhaps they could have been introduced/presented better to know what they do (maybe it was only me who missed that part..)

    > What were the worst one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    I also had some trouble with the information obout the DC being given rather late (e.g. regarding technical equipment of our room) and I was disappointed that the dinner on Saturday evening didn't take place. I took only the flight on Thursday because I knew I wouldn't arrive on time for the dinner if I had taken the flight on Saturday, and on Friday there was no cheap flight.

    > What would your recommend doing differently (if this isn't already covered by the last question)?
    Ribbons would have distinguished us from visitors who don't have any active part in the conference. Maybe this gives the DC participnats a status where other people can approach them more easily (??) Somehow the posters didn't get much attention. The second student poster session didn't take place because student volunteers told everybody to leave the commons and we were asked to take down our posters. I think that more people visited the posters during the Interactive Poster session. I don't know whether mentioning "Student and doctoral consortium posters" in the program would change anything.


    From: Jia Shen
    > What were the best one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    The doctoral consortium has been a energizer to my sometimes-lonely-and-lack-of-excitement road in the dissertation research. Through talking with fellow students and the panel, I have gain a new perspective about research and what I should do to make the best of my time as a ph.d. student. This new perspective is gained through talking with fellow students from all over the world who are passionate in doing what they are doing, as well as the encouragement from the panels. I definitely feel being recharged after the DC!

    > What were the worst one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    I have to agree with Tim about the misleading instruction on CHI website, which I followed literally and booked an EARLY flight at 3pm Thursday afternoon and thus missed the entire event in Thursday afternoon and the evening. I regretted even more when I found out (during check-out!) that CHI has already booked the hotel for six nights for me, and I only enjoyed it for five nights!

    > What would your recommend doing differently (if this isn't already covered by the last question)?
    1. We should have taken pictures together at the doctoral consortium, for knowledge sharing through storytelling later on when we get back to school!!! :-) Like many of you, my school just started a CHI program and most of the students don't know what doctoral consortium is and how it works. Photos will definitely help in this case!
    2. The poster size given to us is not exactly the size of the poster board - As far as I know, both Susanne and I designed our poster according to the 8*4 feet instruction, which ended being bent over and a bit messy!
    3. As everyone has pointed out, we should have a ribbon so we can feel proud (even more) for being selected to the doctoral consortium. It can also justify why we were such a loud crowd wherever we go.
    4. Invite more research folks in various areas to lunch and dinner.

    I just want to quickly add one thing to the like list: I really liked Lisa's idea of having all women at the DC gathered together during lunch at the second day and talked about balancing family life and one's career as a woman. Although I missed the four-mom seminar on Thursday afternoon due to my flight, I was able to get a better idea of what to expect to raise kids and doing research by talking with Lisa and Clarisse. The topics can also be expanded to other things that are applicable to women students in the research field, such as grant specifically for women researchers; what to wear/not wear at social events; what to consider in job hunting; etc.


    From Pedro Branco Apr 17 2003
    About the DC, I think most points were already mentioned, and I agree specially with the part of meeting just enjoyable group. Just adding one or two points that I didn't see mentioned and may help, one thing it can be done to maximize the time of discussion of the work is to limit more strictly the presentation time to the 10 minutes that Steve proposed in the beggining. Another thing, and I didn't do this, but now I guess I would is to come out for all the papers with 1 or 2 questions/topics of discussion and even present those before DC so we all know the different perspectives of the students and panel about the work and might help orienting the presentation or engage in more questions/comments.

    About the WebPage I also agree is a good idea, I can volunteer myself if you don't expect a really "usable" webpage ! :) Would be cool to have an updated News section with the research results of everyone of us, including the panel.


    From: Huatong (Hannah) Sun
    > What were the best one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    I agree with other people. Here are my two cents. I like the constructive criticism I got from the faculty and peer students. To speak frankly, I was kind of expecting harsh feedback from the DC due to my experience at another national conference last month. I noticed the atmosphere at DC was very different. I appreciate the nurturing environment the DC provided to us. Besides constructive feedback, I also refer to suggestions and strategies from the faculty about how to network with other people at conferences, how to present, how to look for jobs, and how to balance work and family life. People seldom talk about these topics at conferences, but they are very important, especially for graduate students. Thanks for your suggestions; I feel I had a very productive conference this time.

    I enjoyed the time of being together with DC participants at the conference. In my previous conference experiences I was kind of a loner most of the time because I was new or didn't know many people there. But this time was different. I had a lot of fun with all of you!

    I also think it's very helpful to invite other people to have lunch and dinner with us. In my case, Liz helped me analyze my pilot data, which was great. My suggestion is, please invite more people!

    To echo Jack's comments, I think it will be great if the panel could give us a short talk to map different areas in HCI. This will help us see interactions between different interests and envision our work in the next 5 or 10 years.

    > What were the worst one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    During the discussion session, I saw different research paradigms (e.g., cognitive model, social perspective, engineering approach) collide. I'm wondering whether it's meaningful at this stage (after a student has defended his/her prospectus and started to work on his/her project) to recommend another paradigm to his/her work. It looks like reinventing wheels to me. As an observer in some case, I'm not sure whether the student could get it or not since the recommended thing is different methodology which s/he is not familiar with.

    > What would your recommend doing differently (if this isn't already covered by the last question)?
    I agree with Bonnie and Jack that we should put our presentation slides online. I second Anette's idea of ribbon-thing and a more structured program. BTW, I think Lisa's idea of postdoctoral consortium is a great one. I didn't realize its value when Lisa proposed it, but since we had such a wonderful time together, maybe we should do it in the future!


    From: Anette
    > What were the best one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    Generally I must be boring and agree with what everyone else has said. It was fantastic to meet so many lovely like-minded people and it was really cool that we all got along so well. I sometimes feel rather lonely while doing a PhD, but feel less so now knowing a lot more other people doing HCI around the world. I found it really useful to hear what other people are doing, but also what comments people got. I learnt so much from the comments to the other students.

    > What were the worst one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    Definitely agree with the on some ribbon-thing for the doctoral consortium participants would have been nice. That might have explained to other people why we were walking around like zombies.

    > What would your recommend doing differently (if this isn't already covered by the last question)?
    I would have liked more information earlier, before the conference. I was really stressed the week before going, because I still wasn't sure what, where, how to do things (I am a compulsive organizer). Another comment would be to have a day between the doc cons and the rest of the conference presentations. It is very tiring to be in the doc cons, and a day to rest would have been great!


    From: Jens
    > What were the best one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    - It gave me an instant 'home' at the conference. Throughout the days that followed I bumped into familiar faces and could discuss the talks I just heared - well and socialise at the numerous receptions. Drinks on the first night and breakfast also helped a lot to that end.

    - Being steeped in your own research you sometimes forget the broader scope of the whole field of CHI - So the DC helped to correct my vision - I now know much better what the current research interests in CHI are, what methods are used - an where I plainly lack knowledge if I want to consider myself a CHI researcher - so that was very motivating and stimulating.

    - Our 'faculty' managed to create a very positive atmosphere that encouraged participation and constructive criticism - this is probably the most important point for a successful DC.

    > What were the worst one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    - not so much the DC but the poster sessions: There were two poster sessions at which we were asked to be at the posters. However, these sessions were apparently not very well advertised to the conference attendees - very few showed up. Interest was even worse for the the second session, when the coffee was served upstairs and thus the most important motivator for poster attendance was removed. Maybe there is a way of integrating the posters better in the conference traffic ... or maybe a ciruclar layout, rather than the cross-layout would help to create small 'rooms' with a shared interest - so people dont just run past.

    - with regard to guests: maybe it would be helpful to have a list of commitee members / experienced researchers who would be willing to attend. DC participants could 'book' them for short sessions with 2-5 people. I.E. the DC plenum is broken up DC SIGs that last let's say for one hour.

    - oh yes and ribbons of course ;)

    remains to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the DC and CHI and that I hope to see all of you again at future conferences.


    From Hokyoung:
    >What were the best one or two things about the DC (doctoral consortium)?
    As most of you have said, the best thing will be meet somebody and communicate to the greatest researchers.
    I think the best thing of DC is that the frill service and benefits from the conference. Practically...
    Also, "Originally", I have to say that it would help to establish a social network with ambitious researchers.


    From Faustina (1 July 03):
    It's a bit late for my two cents worth, especially as my "best" and "worst" lists are all pretty similar to everyone else's. I have only to reemphasise that one of the best parts was having an instant home at CHI (which I found quite intimidating when I first attended in 2002), and to add that this ongoing post-CHI dialogue (despite the fact that I haven't been part of it 'til now) is also one of the best parts as it ensures we're still in contact.

    I've just been reading Steve's report on the DC and have a couple of things to toss out...

    To get something that sounds negative out of the way first...financial support was certainly one of the big benefits, and not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I thought it less than ideal to insist that we all stay in the (not cheap) conference hotels and have it come out of the $1500 allowance. I understand that this was because of conference commitments, but particularly for people who need to travel long distances and already have expensive flights, staying in a cheaper hotel to keep the costs down should be an option.

    In response to comments that some people wished that more (or at least more relevant to them) "distinguished" guests had been invited, as well as to a comment that somebody else wished they had had a chance to meet people who are "most highly acclaimed in HCI", and in light of the fact that some people's work are inspired by certain inviduals, I wondered if DC participants could be invited to submit in advance names of people they would like to meet? Although I gathered from the report that Steve put a lot of work into tracking down people that we ought to meet, this might reduce some of that load.

    I thought that you gave a good pep talk, Steve, and appreciated how you made us feel welcome in the CHI community and encouraged us to seek out the "important" people that we felt we needed to meet. Despite this, I still find the prospect of marching up to somebody out of the blue quite daunting, especially since it seems these people are always already engaged in conversation (maybe by somebody who wasn't as chicken as me). So there was one recommendation in your report that caught my eye - and that was advice to the chair(s) to encourage people they know to approach the DC students during the poster sessions. I really liked that idea, and as you mentioned, the benefit goes both ways.

    During our two days, I think I would have liked some time devoted to "How to Write a PhD". Especially after reading Steve's response to Tim's email, I see I need to sort out quite a few more things in my head before it can all come together in any coherent form. Thanks for the web page devoted to this topic - I haven't read it through properly yet, but suspect it will be quite a valuable resource to me in the months to come.



    Steve Draper emailed 20 Apr 2003:
    Jack said:
    "...the panel might want to focus not only on the substantive nature of someone's work (which was done quite well IMO) but also on more structural issues such as scoping a dissertation appropriately."

    but Hannah said:
    "During the discussion session, I saw different research paradigms (e.g., cognitive model, social perspective, engineering approach) collide. I'm wondering whether it's meaningful at this stage (after a student has defended his/her prospectus and started to work on his/her project) to recommend another paradigm to his/her work. It looks like reinventing wheels to me. As an observer in some case, I'm not sure whether the student could get it or not since the recommended thing is different methodology which s/he is not familiar with."

    I suppose the common theme is making any advice practical, given the stage of the student: the last year of a PhD is hardly the time to propose learning a new method and doing a whole new kind of study. On the other hand, even if not practical, such comments do at least alert someone to the kind of criticism they might have to defend against ("why didn't you do X?" "Because life is too short to do everything, but as soon as I've finished my PhD ....").

    Any comments on this would be welcome.


    From: Bonnie
    After reading this, I have another advantage to add about the consortium... I found that by first applying to the consortium and then being accepted it helped me to focus on the actual question/s that I should concentrate on in terms of my research. However, these were not set in stone, so to speak. The timing of the feedback was actually quite helpful for me.

    After coming back from the consortium, my supervisor and I went through all the feedback and have acually made some revisions/additions to the testing and I'm looking to build on the research to date.

    I think that we are so close to our research that getting other view points at the most shows us areas that we hadn't thought about and should examine further and at the very least gives us the opportunity to discuss and compare our approach to others.

    My supervisor keeps reminding me that I want to graduate before I'm 90, so addressing all points to the fullest is just not practical. Still, we are keeping a list of all the feedback and will use it as a check list to make sure that we've at least addressed all points in the write up (as Steve pointed out, to even acknowledge that other methods of testing, view points and explanations exist, and why we've chosen the route we did).

    Overall, I found the comments to be quite valuable and relevant. Thanks to all!


    From: Heidi Feng
    About the pros and cons of sweeping comments on using alternative methods, I think since DC students are in different stages, such comments is still helpful to some of the students. Even if it is impossible to take another approach, we can consider it and include it in the future research session. Such comments are also helpful for sharp questions we might get in the defense.


    From: Tim
    It strikes me that both Jack and Hannah are saying the same thing, which as a goal oriented person, I agree with. I interpret what they have said as something like: "It would have been good to focus on the process of turning our research into a thesis. It's all good, important, and informative to look at the wider picture but at the end of the day it must be presented as a coherent argument." I have great difficulty in believing one of my supervisors who, to me, seems to subscribe to the view that this just happens! Any advice or points of view on what to do and how to deal with everything is gold dust.


    Web site logical path: [www.psy.gla.ac.uk] [~steve] [chi03] [this page]
    [Top of this page]