NVC
Chicago IL ~ 2004
Nonverbal Communication Division
1st Business Meeting
November 13, 2004
Attendance:
Ross Buck, Valerie
Manusov, Susanne Jones, Claude Miller, Cindy White, Jack
Sargent, Nancy Jackson, Georgios Triantis, Ashley Duggan,
Yuanyuan Zhang.
Meeting Minutes Prepared by:
Susanne Jones (January 2005)
Revised: July 29, 2005
Introduction:
Manusov called the
meeting to order and welcomed the attendees to the first NVC
divisional business meeting. She reported that the NVC division was
granted divisional status at the Legislative Assembly meeting and
then discussed the goals of the NVC division. Specifically, Manusov
generated ideas how to organize panels and forums that are
innovative, creative, and cross-disciplinary for the 2005 NCA
convention in Boston, MA. Dan O’Hair promised at least 6 panels for
the 2005 convention.
Following are several
suggestions for panels/panel formats:
1.
White suggested a methods panel. That is, a panel that
highlights particularly the diverse methods that are used to examine
NVC. Jack Sargent’s panel submission (advances in technology) could
serve as useful template for such a panel.
2.
Miller suggested a panel that targets affect and
emotion-related research in NVC.
3.
White suggested a spotlight panel that features influential
NVC researchers, such as Rosenthal or Hall.
4.
Jackson suggested a panel on material culture, settings, and
environmental features. Such a panel might rely on performance,
visuals, and/or “showing things.” Buck then raised the question of
organizing projectors and computers to feature a performance-based
panel. He also pointed out that it might be good to panel all panels
in the same conference room in Boston so that technology could be
stationary.
5.
Duggan suggested a panel format that would consist of
presentations that consists of “stations;” panel attendees would
visit stations or each presenter would be given 15 to present
his/her performance or demonstration at his/her station.
6.
White suggested a high density (> 5 presenters) and/or a low
density (< 5 presenters) panel.
7.
Triantis suggested to schedule respondents’ responses right
after each individual presentation. That way, each article would
receive more targeted attention.
8.
Manusov suggested a panel for her upcoming Handbook of NVC
to be sponsored by Sage.
9.
White suggested putting together 3 co-sponsored panels and 3
panels of a special nature (e.g., 1 spotlight, 1 technology, 1
methods panel).
10.
One suggestion was made to generate various topics (e.g.,
methods, technology, affect) relevant to NVC.
11.
Triantis suggested a formal session to introduce the new NVC
division in Boston.
12.
It was suggested to hold the Sage Kick-off party either
Thursday or Friday.
13.
It was suggested to hold the NVC business meeting after
3:30pm (to save a panel slot?).
It was also suggested to
provide Manusov with ideas about putting panels together.
Finally, it was suggested
to prepare evaluation sheets for each panel and have attendees
evaluate the panels they attended.
Several questions were
raised:
1.
A question that was raised was “Should we accept papers or
should we work solely with the liaison people to generate panels?”
The general consensus was to not accept papers for the 2005 NCA
convention but possibly for the 2006 NCA convention.
2.
Another question that was raised was “How to communicate to
program planners from other division what kinds of papers to accept
(i.e., papers that would potentially be relevant to NVC)?”
Several comments
targeted the communication between division liaisons and the NVC
division, as well as NVC’s acceptance process.
1.
It was suggested that the chair contact all divisions
planners and inform them about the NVC division for the purpose of
establishing liaisons. The liaison and/or the program planner of the
division will then forward papers potentially relevant to the NVC
planner.
2.
The role of the liaison should be to act as a PR person and
to communicate activities in the NVC division to his/her own
division. In case the liaison person is not the program planner, the
liaison should also send a reminder note around paper submission
time to remind program planners about the NVC division.
3.
It was also suggested to send a note to CRTNET about NVC’s
goal to panel NVC papers from other divisions.
4.
We should communicate with all academic that NVC can
be checked off as a division.
5.
We should generally aim for “best quality” papers. That means
that if we don’t deem a paper “good enough,” we should hand it back
to the division.
Several other comments
targeted NVC division administration and officer structure:
- It was suggested to
develop a webpage, possibly through NCA. It was suggested to
have officer terms be two-year terms until the division is
established, and until by-laws are written and approved.
- Responsibilities:
Jones agreed to write the minutes and the bylaws, Miller agreed
to prepare a webpage.
****************************************************
At the conclusion of
the business meeting we elected officers (for a 2-year term
beginning 2004 and ending 2006. New officers are to be elected at
the 2006 business meeting).
Chair: Ross Buck (U.
Connecticut)
Vice Chair: Valerie
Manusov (U. Washington)
Executive Committee: Jack
Sargent (Keene U.), Claude Miller (U. Oklahoma), Georgios Triantis
(U. Connecticut)
Web Master: Claude Miller
(U. Oklahoma)
Secretary: Susanne Jones
(U. Minnesota)
The meeting was
adjourned.
Following are
additional notes from a meeting held prior to the business meeting
with Burgoon, Manusov, and Jones. We held this meeting because
Burgoon was unable to attend the business meeting
Several points were
made:
- Papers should have
been accepted already by respective divisions.
- Panels should be
scheduled during prime time.
- At the beginning of
the panel planning process, communication needs to be
established with the division chair.
What panels/programs
would be especially useful? What are can we create in NVC that we’re
usually not seeing at NCA?
- A panel consisting
of respondents who have read ALL papers and who then talk to one
another.
- A brown bag panel
- A problem panel
- Anything that
generates multiple discussions in one room
- Anything that
captures a small conference feel
- Anything where we do
not impose our view
- Panels that fit
together topically, not only because they are nonverbal
Additional questions
were raised but remained unanswered:
1.
Should we focus on all divisions when establishing liaisons?
2.
How should the liaison structure be set up?
3.
Should we develop a pre-conference?
