Management Research Revisited: Prospects for Theory and Practice

11-12 September 2012,Cardiff University

By Joe Campbell

Executive Summary

The BAM2012 Conference was held in Cardiff City Hall from 11th - 13th September 2012. BAM2012 was the largest Conference to date, with 835 papers submitted, 660 papers presented and 815 delegates registering to attend.

Significant changes that were made in 2012 included the change to a 3 day format to include Professional Developmental Workshops (PDWs) and an afternoon of SIG networking activities. The feedback from these has been overwhelmingly positive, and it encouraged over 70% of delegates to arrive on the Tuesday.

Of the 815 people that registered for the conference, 205 delegates (25%) of delegates have been kind enough to provide BAM with their feedback of the event. The feedback has been very positive with the majority of satisfaction scores improving on 2011.

1.1Key Demographics

26% of delegates attended the PDWs
282 different institutions from 44 countries were represented at the conference
27% of the conference delegates are based internationally
35% of delegates were either full-time or part-time students
32% of delegates were first time delegates

1.2Key Considerations for Future Conferences

The 3 day format should be adopted as standard practice
BAM should consider hosting the new members breakfast on Tuesday morning to enable new delegates to meet people and find out about how to get the most out of their attendance.
Communications need to be improved; the message being that delegates went less emails, with more content, earlier.
Documentation Updates:
Authors Guidelines
Update submission guidelines / formats for different paper types
Create advice on how to be an effective audience member
Ensure Track Chairs are aware of what is expected of them
Ensure reviewers are aware of what is expected of them
Ensure session chairs are aware of what is expected of them
New members – how to get the most out of the conference
SIGs should be encouraged to run social gatherings on the Tuesday/Wednesday.
Best papers should be highlighted in the programme, in communications and on the website to showcase the best research.
BAM should consider alowing members to opt-in to being added to a private attendance list (delegates only) to enable pre-networking
BAM should consider how to release papers to delegates before arriving at the conference.
BAM should consider promoting cultural events /attractions to overseas visitors.

Conference Demographic report

This section is based on registration data, not from the feedback survey (unless stated)

1.0Statistics at a Glance

Number of Delegates Registered: 815
Number of Delegates Attended: 781 (96%)
Number of 1st time conference attendees (approx.): 260 (32%)
Number of papers submitted: 835
Number of papers presented: 660 (79%)
Number of delegates registered to attend PDWs: 211 (26%)

Number of Institutions Represented: 282
Number of Countries Represented: 44
Number of UK Based Delegates: 564 (73%)
Number of Overseas Delegates: 211 (27%)
Number of students: 282 (35%)
Full-time students: 218 (27%)
Part-time students: 64 (8%)

Number of Conference Tracks: 26
Number of conference sessions: 225
Number of PDWs Presented: 11

2.0Number of BAM Conferences Delegates Have Attended

3.0Institutions that sent the most delegates

20 institutions sent 10 or more delegates, in order they are:

University / Number
Cardiff University / 44
Aston University / 20
University of Strathclyde / 17
Brunel University / 16
University of Nottingham / 16
Lancaster University / 15
University of Reading / 14
Cranfield University / 13
University of Hull / 13
University of the West of England / 13
University of Bath / 12
Manchester Metropolitan University / 11
University of Edinburgh / 11
University of Manchester / 11
University of Southampton / 11
Newcastle University / 10
Open University / 10
Plymouth University / 10
University of Leeds / 10
University of Surrey / 10

4.0Gender of Delegates

This is based on feedback of 194 delegates.

5.0Career Stage

This is based on feedback of 195 delegates.

6.0Delegate Positions

These are the top positions that constitute 1% or more of the total delegates.

Position / % of Total / Number
Doctoral Student / 29% / 213
Lecturer / 16% / 119
Senior Lecturer / 15% / 115
Professor / 14% / 104
Associate Professor / 4% / 32
Research Fellow / 3% / 24
Reader / 3% / 19
Director of Research / 2% / 15
Head of Department / 2% / 12
Research Officer / 2% / 12
Director / 1% / 9
Principal Lecturer / 1% / 8
Associate Dean / 1% / 7
Dean / 1% / 7
ESRC/SAMS MBD Fellow / 1% / 7
Director of Doctoral Programme / 1% / 6
Consultant / 1% / 5

7.0Country of Work / Study

These are the top countries that constitute 1% or more of the total delegates. There were 44 countries represented in total.

Country / Number / % of Total
United Kingdom / 564 / 73%
Australia / 30 / 4%
France / 15 / 2%
Ireland / 15 / 2%
Germany / 13 / 2%
Netherlands / 11 / 1%
South Africa / 11 / 1%
Brazil / 10 / 1%
Greece / 9 / 1%
Finland / 7 / 1%
Sweden / 7 / 1%
Malaysia / 6 / 1%
United States / 6 / 1%
Poland / 6 / 1%
Hong Kong / 5 / 1%
Denmark / 5 / 1%
Bahrain / 4 / 1%
United Arab Emirates / 4 / 1%
Pakistan / 4 / 1%
Japan / 4 / 1%
Spain / 4 / 1%

8.0Days Delegates Attended the Conference

9.0Number of BAM Conferences Attended in the Past

Conference Feedback Report

Full results for each question can be downloaded from:

1.0Pre-Conference Report

Delegate satisfaction with the pre-conference administration has improved in every area year on year, with all scores averaging between “good” (3/4) and “excellent” (4/4).

Paper Submission Satisfaction

On the whole feedback for the new submission system was good, with only 6% of delegates scoring less than “good” (3/4). Suggestions for improvement include:

Automating reviewer chasing emails
Give track chairs ability to thank reviewers from the system

Ensure Call for Reviews is made clearer in communications
Finalise reviewing process on time

Improve acceptance/rejection notifications

Improve submission guidelines
Improve reviewing guidelines, in particular related to the different types of submission
Provide guidelines on how presenters should also give feedback to others in their session
Ensure papers have at least 2 reviewers

Pre-conference Information Satisfaction

The satisfaction for pre-conference information has improved on previous years; however this is the area of administration that received the most negative feedback.

The main message was send fewer emails, with more content, earlier.

Suggestions for improvement include:

Provide a digest email with links to all the relevant information at least 2 weeks before the conference
Paper schedules / Programme to be released earlier
Avoid schedule changes
Provide guidance for first-time delegates
Provide delegate lists to enable pre-event networking
Give delegates an opportunity to view/download papers before the conference
Make more of the best papers
Improve communication from SIGs detailing AGM and social gatherings
Provide more information on additional sessions, PDWs and workshops that will be available for delegates to attend
Provide taxi numbers for delegates
Provide location of post-dinner venue so delegates can plan homeward journey.
Provide information on how to cite conference papers
If there is a lunchtime start/finish then information on luggage storage and hotel/checkout to be provided

Pre-conference administration Satisfaction

Although few comments were made about the pre-conference administration, the scores suggest that this is an area that needs improvement, with 11% of delegates rating this poorly.

Areas for improvement include:

Responding to emails in a timely manner
Providing a FAQ on the website
Reducing website glitches
Improving membership signup procedures
Provide session chairs with emails of their delegates so that they can make prior contact
Provide confirmation of PDW booking with room details

Usefulness of BAM website for conference information Satisfaction

The satisfaction for the website received the biggest increase in the administrative scores with a 10% increase to take the satisfaction average above “good” (3/4) for the first time. The main changes that were made for 2012 included providing all the information on one page to make it easier to find relevant information, and including a section on key dates.

Suggestions for improvement include:

Improve website navigation
Provide access to download papers pre-conference
Update the information more regularly, & earlier
Enable delegates to register for membership and conference at the same time
Improve location information

Conference Registration Procedure Satisfaction

The scores for conference registrations procedures were very high, with only 5% of delegates scoring below “good”. Improvements were made this year to speed up the process by having badges in trays – which helped reduce the time required registering each delegate.

Suggestions for improvement:

More stands at registration displaying more in depth conference information
A welcome session before the conference starts for new delegates – This would enable new delegates to meet people and hear about how to get the most out of the conference before the sessions begin
Ensure staff are kept up-to-date on all aspects of conference
Keep the boards at the conference up-to-date

Conference Desk Support Satisfaction

The scores for conference desk support were very high, with only 5% of delegates scoring below “good”.

Negative comments were made about staff not knowing about:

Track Changes
Dinner Ticket Arrangements
Local information

It should also be noted that it was appreciated by delegates to have Cardiff staff on the desk for “local” knowledge.

Delegate Pack Satisfaction

The scores for the welcome packs scored ok with only 8% of delegates scoring below “good” (3/4), but this is an area that provided a number of suggestions.

Suggestions for improvement include:

Include maps for conference buildings / rooms
Simplified conference programme
USB stick instead of CD
Less host institution material
Have a desk for flyers rather than putting in all delegate packs
PDWs in the programme
Remove mistake from programme
Ensure that packs aren't incomplete
Ensure final copies for CD aren’t incorrectly formatted, have spelling mistakes or have missing authors

Why Delegates choose to attend the BAM Conference over alternatives

The following reasons were commonly cited as reasons delegates attended:

Reputation of the conference
The quality of the conference
The multi-disciplinary nature and wide range of papers
The size – largest in UK but smaller than AOM. This is seen as manageable
Opportunity for feedback on research
Opportunity to meet other scholars & network
Strong SIG communities
Career development
It provides a diverse, friendly supportive environment to develop
The convenient location
The timing of a) the paper submission and b) the event
Recommended by colleague, supervisor or school.
The academic forum
Because their paper was accepted
It is well organised
It is not as pretentious as other conferences (eg. not using titles on name badges)

2.0Event Feedback Report

2.1Venue Satisfaction

Location

The location for BAM2012 has proved to be a huge success. Delegates liked the fact that the venue was in a nice setting and located centrally near the town and hotels. The only slight negative was the need to use two buildings.

Quality of Conference Rooms

On the whole the scores for the conference rooms were ok, but there were a large number of suggestions for improvement, including:

Allocate rooms based on size / acoustics / facilities rather than on the grand setting.
Ensure all rooms have enough chairs
Provide PowerPoint facilities for roundtable discussions, including remote if possible
Don’t use round rooms in future, difficult for presenters
Provide breakout space for delegates
Provide a prayer room
Try to keep rooms close to a central communal area
Improve signage and room location information
Improve allocation of rooms for size of audience – some too big, some to small
Set up chairs and tables to encourage group atmosphere and discussion
Ensure venue has adequate wifi reception
Ensure technical setup is done on time
Try and keep SIG sessions in the same room/s if possible
Avoid basement rooms

Catering

Catering was the only area of venue satisfaction that on average scored below “good” (3/4).

Catering Suggestions

BAM Organisation
Ensure coffee and tea available in the mornings
Try to keep refreshments close to rooms
Have refreshments in all buildings
Have seated communal areas for delegates to congregate.
Have nibbles at welcome reception so alcohol doesn’t go straight to your head
Repeat number of water coolers – this was good
Have all sessions in one venue
Venue Organisation
Have labels on food to allow easy identification of food (especially vegetarian and dietary)
Ensure staff knows what the food is. Particularly with dietary requirements.
Ensure SIG refreshments arrive on time
Ensure morning and afternoon refreshments do not run out
Standard
Improve the quality of the food
Type of food
Less “British” catering
Less Carbohydrates for lunch
Less repetitive food
Move away from battered food.
Have some fresh salad bases, yoghurt & fruit
Have food that is easier to eat standing up
More vegetarian/vegan options

Gala DinnerSuggestions

Ensure that the ability to talk is not sacrificed for nice surroundings.
Have dancing in venue or closer so that it is easier to find/get home
Better quality food for £56 per head

Have a venue that allows red wine
Have dinner venue so more delegates can attend
Start the dinner earlier
Have a shorter dinner speech

Accommodation

The scores for the accommodation were on the whole very good, but it seems that the student accommodation was very poor. Delegates have reported that these were uncomfortable and unclean, with one delegate even having to move rooms due to a bed bug.

Suggestions to improve the accommodation include:

Ensure that accommodation meets a minimum standard
Try to negotiate better prices
Ensure accommodation has catering onsite
Ensure that it is clear if Wi-Fi is available

Information About the Local Area

Information about the local area has scored very well, with only 8% of delegates scoring this below “good” (3/4).Improvements that were made this year include:

More tourist information was provided online
Cardiff staff were on the registration desk to provide insider knowledge of the local area
A tourist desk was set-up near registration desk

Suggestions for improvement:

More information could be circulated to delegates, including:
3D tour of city
Pictures and descriptions of “Sights” with approx. distance from venue
Locations of hotels and accommodation
Have local people on the desk again, this was appreciated
Distribute a map of the buildings used in the conference
Organise trips / cultural events for overseas delegates as part of the programme
Provide restaurant information
“Perhaps it would be nice to host a sports event as an add-on to the program. I just attended the German Psychological Society annual meeting, which had such an event, and I really enjoyed it! Also, the 5k runs at e.g. the APA and the SIOP meetings in the US are very popular”.
Specifically for Liverpool
Have a ferry trip across the Mersey
Play into the Beatles association

2.2Conference Sessions

PDWs

There were many comments in support of the PDWs with only 10% of delegates scoring these as below good (3/4) and 45% of delegates rating them as “Excellent” (4/4). Delegates overwhelmingly in support of them being run again.

The suggestions for improvement include:

Don’t hold these simultaneously
Have more options
Have materials (slides etc.) for delegates during PDWs
Ensure all speakers are relevant to the topic

Paper Sessions

The feedback for the paper sessions was on the whole positive, with 94% of delegates rating full papers “good” (3/4) or above and 87%of delegates rating developmental papers “good” (3/4) or above. This is one of the main aspects of the conference, and as such has received a large number of suggestions for improvement.

Suggestions for improvement

Pre-Conference
Develop guide on how to get the most out of presentations as both a presenter and audience member
Increase ratio of full to developmental papers
Try to improve room size allocations – some too big, some too small
Avoid basement rooms
Try to keep track sessions together geographically
Try and avoid schedule clashes
Remind speakers to inform the office team if they are not planning on attending.
There should be a best paper stream to highlight the high quality work
Classify papers based on methodology
Ensure papers link to the theme.
Encourage more “top tier” academics to present and attend session to comment
Ensure chairs are prepared to host adequate discussion at the end of sessions
Improve the “matching” of papers within paper tracks.
Have session for each paper so delegates are not locked into a session with papers they are not interested in.
Have more papers per slot to increase audience
At the event
Ensure plenaries and sessions stick to time
obtain more inputs from sponsoring universities or established researchers
Ensure session chairs are up-to-date with changes
Squeezing in extra papers at the last minute shouldn’t be allowed, especially if the paper is not in keeping with the theme of the session.
Improve room setup to aid interaction
Developmental papers specifically
Provide PowerPoint facilities for developmental papers
Encourage developmental paper presenters to consider their research question before attending
Give speakers 30 minutes rather than 20.
Try to improve turn out for developmental sessions to foster more discussion and feedback
Have a maximum of 3 papers per session to allow more time for feedback.

Variable Paper Quality:
Ensure paper titles match the title – this can be addressed at review stage
Encourage rejection of papers
Less PhD papers
Separate Doctoral Students from main stream – they have different needs and in many instances reduces the perceived quality of the stream
Provide guidelines for what constitutes a full or developmental paper
Separate qualitative and quantitative papers

Workshops / Symposia