Issues Related to Publications
Summary of what follows. Mark Filippi here questions that the journal NDPLS of the Society should be compulsory, especially since it uses $55 of the $75 dues. His letter to the editor just published in the Newsletter follows, and then some email correspondence, and a perspective representative of Robin Robertson’s view of the make-up of the Society, as related to this issue.
Dear Editor [submitted 10/09/2005) and published in
the SCTPLS Newsletter, Vol. 13, No. 1, October 2005].
Having had some brief experiences working within the committee structure this
past year, I'm more aware of the inequities and incongruities that exist
between the membership, the greater NDS world, and the SCTPLS leadership,
vis-a-vis, the Executive Committee. Here's an example.
I am struck by this one line
in the renewal forms as it appears on the SCTPLS website...
$55 per membership year is allocated toward the subscription to NDPLS.
That's
a huge percentage of my annual contribution to the Society! Not knowing the
production costs and other monetary aspects of the NDPLS journal, I'm not
quibbling about the $55 amount.
My issue is how implicit membership renewal is in 'funding' it's publication. I
wonder if every year I was told that my $75 entitled me to two NDS books on the
SCTPLS bookshelf, a choice of five NDPLS articles from the prior year and the
obligatory annual poster, I'd actually look forward the renewal letter
to see what's in the package this time? Maybe I'd get bounced to an NDS product
page and have the option of purchasing $55 worth of software, CD's, e-books,
and other member-generated material/services. Why is my renewal so bound
to just NDPLS? Since we have such a prolific membership, wouldn't it serve our
interests to market our 'wares' to 'our own' first, and let those that
truly desire to fully fund the NDPLS personally chose to do that? Is it time to
ask this?
I'm all for what the NDPLS has achieved, although my work and it's focus often
don't cross paths.
My concern is that we are bypassing an opportunity to broaden our base for the
NDPLS' benefit.
I requesting we explore the option of letting members reallocate their $55 to
benefit our members.
With Turbulence,
Mark R. Filippi, DC
www.markfilippi.com
SCTPLS member since 1997
Some other comments from earlier correspondence
with Mark. His questions to me are in blue, my responses to those in red, and his responses to
mine in black. Some editing occurs now:
At
04:58 PM 10/5/2005, Mark wrote:
For example, the CHAOPSYC/SCTPLS membership ratio? What is it? Not good. About
30% of chaopsyc are members.
About 30% of the Society is on Chaopsyc, last time I checked (with Mary Ann’s
help).
[This is in error. The figure is closer to 10% or about 30 members
of the Society, which also translates to 30
out of just over 300 members of the CHAOPSYC list as well. Thus in
Mark’s comments next, it is 9/10, not 7/10 people not interested FDA-11/15/05]
That's telling. So 7/10 people interested enough in NDS aren't drawn to join a
Society that studies it? Seems like we're not attractive to people IN our
circle, let alone ones outside of it. It goes back to the fact that as it
stands, SCTPLS appears to be an academic/theory/research-driven organization
and the NDS community is more interested in applications and the
cross-pollination of NDS' many tools.
Since the structure of the SCTPLS binds the reformation of the way it presents
itself (What will the IRS say???), we are faced with the more informal process
of figuring out a way to enroll the listserv members in some fee-for-service
events/virtual memberships or some other means to include
them.
The NDPLS subscriber/SCTPLS membership ratio? I'd love to know the
percentage of non-SCTPLS members are using the listserv and 'reading' the
journal. As a start...I think all the members get the journal. [yes]
I doubt that there are too many readers of the journal outside of the
membership. There must be a fair number. Steve could report on the number of
subscribers that are not members. The institutional (library) list is fairly
short.
It's an important # to obtain. If Steve's argument involving steering the
Society toward the tone of the NDPLS journal, he has no basis in reality [from
which to make such a claim]. If this is presented to him from a standpoint of
fact, not opinion, no personalities need to clash. The NDPLS is a fledgling
journal, plain & simple.
It, like all fledgling journals, needs to listen to it's readership and in this
case non-readership. To let the NDPLS siphon [all but]
$20 [$55 out of $75 dues according to the above] from SCTPLS members who have
no interest in it [and it] only distorts the numbers. The NDPLS needs to become
a more academic-bound journal and not a Society member throw-away.
I'm upset that we wasted the opportunity in DEN, had a 'protested'
conference the year before and are becoming an elitist academic group more and
more.... Well frankly, I am to blame leaving strategy to [others], and for
missing the previous year, but [no one planned] any strategy. My putting it on
the society list was stopped, we should have put it out for a mail vote instead
of waiting until Denver, it never should have come at the end of the conference
and the end of the business meeting, which is why I didn't confront anything
much at the time. The effort was over. Only one person saw the absurdity of
claiming the sentence saying other things could be allowed other than dynamics.
Dan Miller pointed it out. I could have mentioned that it was important to
expand the original definition as too confining, and the context made it clear
that expansion should be dynamics-related. Better wording could be made. I
wrote that sentence, and should have expanded it. There is no way to write a
perfect document no matter how you approach it, but looser is better than
tighter, which can be too limiting. By the time that discussion was over, it
was too late to do anything else.
[snip] Do we want to 'hope' the
members get involved or take a course where every renewing member gets to tell
SCTPLS their interests, expertise and their
applications of NDS in their work. That information could make our conferences
better next year. Do we want to continue to have all these lousy overlaps
between the listserv, the NDPLS journal & the SCTPLS members? Do we want a
site so butt ugly no one in the public media knows it's up there? :)
My 3 cents, MRF 10.06
Robin Robertson View:
Robin has long been concerned
about a tension between those in the society with a more metaphorical bent and
those with a more technical bent. He and I have been dialoguing in the society
about a rapprochement. Mark deepens the issues and again looks for solutions
that might help. These solutions have an impact on the journals and governance
of the society. (fda’s note).
We suggest that if you have
questions or opinions concerning this policy of the society, that you
communicate them to us and to the President of the Society.
Page created 10/13/2005, last updated 11/15/05 fda