Mick P. Couper, 5/31/05

This document briefly expands on the points I made during the keynote address in May 2005. It is intended to generate discussion, rather than as a blueprint for the future of the organization. I expect disagreement and argument, but believe it is good for the organization to tackle some of these issues, regardless of the outcome.

What’s good about IFD&TC? There are a lot of very good things about the organization. I personally owe much to IFD&TC, and treasure its role in the survey research profession.

· It’s a unique organization filling an important niche in survey research.
· It’s not an academic conference; it’s practice-focused.

These two points go hand-in-hand. IFD&TC is not a discipline-based conference. Its diversity is a major strength (but also a potential weakness). The conference attracts practitioners talking about the practical details of conducting surveys. Whatever IFD&TC does, it should not try to replicate other conferences, and should strive to maintain the professional diversity that is its hallmark.

· Its size
· Its informality

Again, these are valued elements of the conference, as they permit members to interact with others in similar fields and to deal with similar issues. The importance of the informal exchange of ideas should not be under-estimated, and the conference should not get over-programmed, leaving no time for such exchange. While IFD&TC is becoming uncomfortably large for many, it is still much smaller than conferences such as AAPOR’s (with almost 1,000 attendees) or the Joint Statistical Meetings (with several thousand attendees).

Another good thing about IFD&TC is that it blends the technical and operational staff—two groups who, in my view, need to interact much more. I believe that the technical folks cannot do their job well without an appreciation of how the systems they develop and maintain are actually used. Similarly, the operational people need an understanding of the technical challenges their decisions and strategies may generate. But if the Field Technologies and Field Directors sides of the organization simply go their separate ways at the conference, this synergy is lost. If that is the case, separate meetings may be in order, but I don’t think this is a good idea.

What’s bad about IFD&TC?

· Its size

Managing growth is one of the biggest challenges facing the organization. For some, it is already too big, while for others the limits on numbers constrain participation. The artificial limits on the number of participants from each organization has two consequences: 1) it creates a perverse incentive to present papers in order to attend, and 2) it may produce more within-organization rotation than necessary, reducing continuity of attendance over time. The large number of newcomers is a strength of the organization—this is where people get socialized into the profession. But, this only makes sense if there is a clear path for progression after several years at IFD&TC.

· It’s too practice-oriented

Here my point is that one danger of trying not to be an academic conference is that one can go too far. One can certainly be practice-oriented but still be aware of previous research on the topic and relevant theoretical insights. I believe that discussion can be relaxed and informal, but still rigorous. A greater focus on evidence-based practice, as opposed to anecdotal or impressionistic views, would be good.

· The exclusion of the "money-grubbing, secret-sucking" commercial types

Here’s a secret: they’re just like us. I’m not talking about market researchers, who do mall intercept surveys on packaged goods and the like. I’m talking about social researchers from large for-profit corporations like Westat, Gallup, and Mathematica. We can learn something from them, and they can learn something from us. Many of them have worked for academic and government organizations in the past, and there is something odd about the same person being allowed to attend one year, but not another. As with growth, this could be done on a controlled basis.

· Its name :-)

IFD&TC is a veritable tongue-twister. It makes it hard to establish an identity. The name also no longer reflects what the conference is about, both the "Directors" part (the conference is mostly attended by more junior personnel) and the "Field" part (does this exclude Web surveys, for example, or even telephone?).

The strength of the organization—and its principal challenge—is that it is comprised of a wide mix of constituents. Some of the tensions include:

· Senior management versus junior staff
· Technical versus operational staff
· Newcomers versus old timers
· Large organizations versus small shops
· Government versus academic versus nonprofit

The organization started as a group of Field Directors gathering around a table to talk about issues of mutual interest. The organization has changed greatly, but there are still some who long for the "good old days." When I say we should embrace the past, I don’t mean try to turn the clock back. It is too late for that. But base plans for the future on lessons learned from the past.

There may be too much churning. It’s great that there are so many first timers, but the ratio of newcomers to regular attendees may be out of whack. It has evolved to the place to introduce and socialize people to the profession—which is not bad in itself—but if this is the goal, we are not doing a very good job.

The Future: This is a Good Organization but it is Time to Change

I’m overstating these points to get attention. But I believe there is a measure of truth in each of the points below:

The same topics are discussed year after year with little apparent progress.

Admittedly, some topics are unlikely to go away (nonresponse being a key one), but it seems that little knowledge is carried forward from one year to the next. This may be in part explained by the high churning—staff coming to the conference for the first time without knowing what has been done by others in previous years.

Many of the discussions seem devoid of theory and/or research evidence.

Again, my point is not to make this an academic conference. I’m just arguing that presenters should acquaint themselves with the literature on a topic before they present their ideas.

A number of presentations are done to fill time or to justify travel.

Several organizations appear to have adopted this rule. I think this is not a good idea because it 1) encourages presentations that may not be of great interest to the audience, 2) may raise the bar too high for newcomers, and 3) puts pressure on the program chairs to have more presentations and fewer genuine discussions. One solution is to have more of an education focus (e.g., offer workshops on various practical topics) and have attendance be viewed as training or professional development.

Senior staff or old-timers are not finding enough to attract them.

Those with the institutional memory and broad experience remain the backbone of the organization, and have much information to impart, but unless they can get something out of the conference for themselves, may be hard-pressed to attend.

Junior staff or newcomers aren’t getting the learning experience they need.

This year’s conference has already made improvements in this direction, by offering workshops for training of junior staff. I believe much more could be done in this area.

Again, these are just to get us thinking about new ways of organizing this conference. Try something different. Figure out what people want, and what they need. It’s not my intention to dictate, but to get you to think about what you want this organization to be, what your goals and ambitions are for IFD&TC, and to start working toward those goals. There are many senior people in the profession who I’m sure will give of their time to help make this work. I’m not telling you what to do, I’m suggesting that those who value this organization (and the profession more broadly) and its future—and I hope that’s all of you—get serious about where to go and what to do.

Get serious about the organization of the conference; consider forming a professional association.

Survey researchers have no professional association or organization. AAPOR is the closest thing for many of us. I’m not sure whether IFD&TC is the place to start, but I believe the field has matured enough that it is time to start having this discussion. We are not represented by one profession, and it is not my intent to try to define one. However, we are all professionals, drawn together by the work that we do—surveys. So, how about the (International) Association of Survey Research Professionals (or Practitioners)?

The burden of organizing the conference is increasingly large for a small group of organizers. I can imagine various tracks or streams, with each track being developed by a small group, with a leader who is a member of the larger organizing committee. While this may run the risk of balkanization, it may also help to distribute the workload. I would also urge being more proactive in putting the program together. I know the organizers put a lot of effort into the program, but enlarging the conference committee may help.

Seriously consider opening up the organization to others who do social (as opposed to market) research.

This can be done in a measured way if there is the will to do so. I firmly believe that if we do so, we will gain much and lose little.

Develop practice-oriented training sessions on specific topics for junior staff.

Here the focus should be on education and training, with workshops on specific topics. I believe that senior survey professionals would be willing to give of their time to help in this regard. For many, just being asked is sufficient.

Try to dissuade organizations from making attendance conditional on presenting. More specifically, don’t have first-timers chair sessions, and don’t have people chair a session in which they are presenting. This usually results in longer presentations, and hence less discussion, than desired.

Develop specific sessions for senior management, on topics of relevance to them.

These could be more interactive than presentation-based, but give senior folks a reason to continue coming to IFD&TC.

Expose survey managers to technical issues, and technical staff to data collection issues.

There is research evidence that birds-of-a-feather networks are less productive or creative than those comprised of multiple disciplines with different perspectives. Of course, technical people will need to attend technical sessions, but I’m arguing for a balance, or at least some specific sessions that engineer such an interaction. One way this could be done is through streaming or suggested "itineraries" (i.e., a set of sessions suggested from those with particular interests). Alternatively, offer sessions that deliberately cross boundaries (e.g., survey management for programmers; case management design for managers).

Don’t try to replicate AAPOR, but supplement it.

Assume that people will attend both, or migrate from one to the other. The overlap between the two conferences does not appear to be as strong as it once was. Part of this is AAPOR’s fault—they may have forgotten about the focus on field issues on the last day. But part of it could also be IFD&TC’s part—making attendees aware of the deal by which they can attend some AAPOR sessions for free. Both sides could do more to come together.

Manage growth, don’t try to ignore it or fight it.

Simply continuing to cap the number of attendees on a first-come-first-serve basis may not be a good strategy. IFD&TC needs to think ahead about growth—at least 2-3 years out, given hotel contracts. We can’t go back to the old days of 30 Field Directors sitting around a single table. But, the conference could still be organized that there are times when 30 Directors could sit around a table and discuss issues of the day.

Finally, my hope is that these comments will help initiate a dialogue within the organization. IFD&TC has grown to a point where it is time to take stock and plan for the future of the organization. The organization has been very successful in the past, and I see no reason why it should not continue into the future. But we need to think of what kind of profession we are building and how IFD&TC fits into that mission.