First Scandinavian Conference on IS & The 33rd IRIS Seminar

I think the first SCIS in combination with IRIS really was a success. However, in the future I suggest that the conference is shortened by one day so that SCIS+IRIS in total “only” require 3 nights.

I also recommend that the conference runs from – say Wednesday to Sasturday – in order to be able to be back home with your family during at least one weekend day.

Jesper

I will argue that 10 papers on very differing topics is too much, there is less participation and discussion. By having two parallell tracks the conference (SCIS/IRIS) can be shortened, and increase the participation from the “audience”. I would still have the keynotes as plenary.

As a junior researcher I really appreciated the combination of paper presentations and workshops within the same community and a relatively short time. I gained great feedback and insights.

I would like the community /the board to consider a redesign of the IRIS conference. A redesign may keep the most, but since many new knowledge sharing and networking possibiliities on and off line has appeared the form of the conference may need some shaping to fit intensions and goals (and to utilize posibillities).
Thus I would suggest to “start all over” reconsidering the aims and based on this evaluate and redesign IRIS to stay a strong stone in the fundament of the IS comunity in Scandinavia. (In stead of redesigning it based entirely on practical issues.)

I agree with Karsten that the combination of paper presentations and workgroup sessions were great for providing insights and valuable feedback to the IRIS papers. But as Jespers mentions above I would also think that a shorter overall time periode would be nice.

Regarding the IRIS games I would suggest the organiseres to concider having a backup plan for outdoor arrangements in case of bad weather. Also, I would suggest that the games were moved to the first evening of the IRIS days since it was very apparent to me that the games were a great way to “shake up” the groups and create a more informal mood within the group.

This was my first IRIS conference and I enjoyed very much the group discussions. The feedback given directly to me was great, and I learned a lot also from the feedback given to the others, too.

Why IRIS could be discontinued

Yes, my suggestion that IRIS should be discontinued was a provocation, but still there is a reason. I see the soul of IRIS fainting away and now I will argue why, as I promised.

So, what do I mean with ”the soul of IRIS”? There are at least four parts in it. First, as Karlheinz mentioned: Good social relations manifested in parties, more or less wild, during the whole night. This can accomplished as long as IRIS is held at one site a bit away from the temptations in town. This part is easy to maintain and I have no doubt about that as long as IRIS is located a bit away.

The next part is the absence of presentations of the participants papers, but instead a detail discussion of it for at least 45 minutes. As somebody said, this is unique in the world. Well, I have been at conferences (Uddevallasymposiet) with a similar structure, but within the IS area I think it is unique. I think this is much appreciated by everybody so there is no doubt that this will continue in some form.

But what was not mentioned was the friendly, positive and constructive atmosphere in the working groups. There might be heavy critique of a paper, but it is always put forward in an encouraging and constrictive way. No sarcasm, no cynicism. I see a fear hear. If the SCIS conference becomes popular (and this is the intention I guess!) there might show up participants from other cultures, having much more unfriendly and hostile attitude. A few does not matter, but too many might ruin this part of the spirit.

The next part is the rebellious nature, which I think has disappeared to a great extend. I think it is connected to the maturity of the IS area. In the good old days (Yes, I know I’m almost a fossil!) we boldly challenged the establishment, we dared to use methods not accepted by the dominating professors. Today, it is perfectly accepted doing ethnographical studies, action research and other ”obscure” types of research. I might be wrong, but this year I saw a boring consensus all the time. Yes, I know, I could have provoked earlier, but it was actually during the last day I realised it.

My last remark about the IRIS soul concerns the area, IS, per se. One of the participants said: ”Why are they not writing papers about more funny things than IS, such as social media, digitalised society and such?” As I said earlier, IS becomes a more mature area and as such a set of established and accepted theories and methods emerge. It might be more boring, less challenging papers, more normal science and no crisis if I might use the terminology of Kuhn. In some sense I should be grateful for seeing a new area fight its way towards the hall of fame and be accepted as all the other Big Guys, but still I lack the old revolution.

So, this is why I think IRIS soon might die. In some way, I have get used to the thought but still, it is hard to see the babies grown up and be adult.

Still, we have had a good time and we have learned a lot. Time changes and old men like me might not always like it. How can we preserve the good things we have learned and avoid the bad things we saw 30 years ago? I think the suggestions coming up in the evaluation is pretty good. Mix the two conferences, be in a place a bit away, keep the friendly spirit and allocate much time for social activities. The thing that worries me is to squeeze it in to three days. If we stick to the traditional schedule IRIS should start Saturday lunch and end Monday lunch, since we have to allocate time for travelling. But if we could start Saturday morning and end Monday evening, this might work. However, I guess a lot of people will disappear after Monday lunch.

I’m not sure I will visit more IRIS, so this might be my thank you for 29 years with the IRIS community. It has been gorgeous, I love you all and wish you good luck in the future!

I think IRIS was a success, as was the introduction of SCIS. I enjoyed all days very much.

I wouldn’t be afraid of the critique Per presented. I am sure that most of us acknowledge the uniqueness of IRIS in comparison to most other conferences. The ability to reflect and socialize is an important aspect. IRIS is the reason why there is, and will be, a Scandinavian IS research community!

I haven’t felt there would be any discrimination towards any funny/weird/provocative methods, theories or research themes, in IRIS. Maybe nowadays research projects are generally more industry-defined, which might make the research papers also “boring”. But it is not the fault of IRIS, which I think is a very inclusive and open-minded community.

SCIS is a good addition, because it creates interest for mid-career researchers to come to the conference.

I created this figure of the paper process in both of these conferences: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4124/4982988498_9e339f3e08_z.jpg

What is interesting about this figure, is that no matter where you begin, it is possible to arrive as a winner. For example, I started with SCIS submission, got rejected, revised using SCIS review feedback, resubmitted to IRIS, revised using IRIS review feedback, presented and discussed at IRIS workgroup, revised using workgroup feedback, and now finally submitting to ‘Selected papers’. And my research idea has really improved in these iterations!

But I was also thinking about an improvement. Now the SCIS proceedings is in Springer’s format, IRIS has its own format, and IRIS selected papers is in Tapir format. Even though there is not a problem an sich with three different paper formats, as they all serve a different purpose, I think we could make the process more compatible in cases where you have to switch formats. At least all formats should have their own Endnote formatting template. This way of managing reference formatting would be very efficient. Maybe something could be done with style sheets as well?

Because there were many high quality papers that were presented and discussed with SCIS, perhaps there is not a need for 3 keynote speakers. One for each IRIS and SCIS would be sufficient.

In general, SCIS & IRIS was successful. One day shorter conference would decrease critical comments at home. I had some problems with travelling. I was not willing to wake up at 4 o’clock in the morning and hence I could not use the organized transportation from the Aalborg airport to the conference site. I was not willing either to arrive to Tampere airport at 1 o’clock at night, I must again use two times taxi at Aalborg in order to arrive at 9 o’clock in the evening to Tampere. If the organized transportation would leave 10 minutes earlier I would save tens of euros. – Any way, thank you for good conferences!

The SCIS is a welcome addition to the IRIS event. The one track format with discussants ensures a shared experience as well as qualified and lively debate.
Overall, however, the combined event was a little too long (exhausting) and the program somewhat packed.