Overall Meeting Experience

The overall meeting experience had little downside for attendees: 95% of responses were positive or at least neutral about the experience. There is still room for improvement, though, since just one third felt very strongly that the meeting was enjoyable.

Men and women generally reported the same positive reactions to the meeting experience: 96% overall reported that they felt welcome at the meeting. A slightly higher percentage of men strongly agreed they felt welcome (31%) than women (27%). Attendees type of home institution—B.A., M.A., or Ph.D.-granting—also was not much of a factor, with attendees from each place feeling similarly welcome. While professors and students expressed positive feelings overall towards the meeting (both 97%), professors were much more likely to express a high level of comfort at the meeting. Many more full professors strongly agreed they felt welcome (42%) than students (17%).

Meeting as a Networking Site

Nearly the same percentage of men and women (92% and 91%) expressed satisfaction with available opportunities for networking. Faculty from M.A.-granting institutions showed the strongest satisfaction with the networking opportunities at the meeting, compared with those either from B.A.-or Ph.D.-granting schools. Faculty were happier with the networking opportunities at the meeting than graduate students—something we will well take into account in planning aspects of future Annual Meetings.

Pre-Meeting Planning

More than three-quarters of our attendees said they planned their schedules ahead of attending the conference. We found that use of the Online and Final Programs heavily outweighed use of the Preliminary Program published in the July issue of PS, which was not used at all by 30% of responding attendees. Fewer than half make use of a PDA or other electronic personal organizer when planning their schedules for the meeting.

Travel, Accommodations, and Financial Issues

The respondents were asked to identify the extent of the financial assistance they receive from their institutions to travel to scholarly meetings and which roles make them eligible for financial assistance. Almost 80% received some departmental, institutional, or grant funding to attend the 2004 APSA Annual Meeting. Some attendees expressed concern that conference hotel rates through the housing bureau were not competitive with rates found through other sources, mainly through Internet travel sites.

Nearly 90% reported that presenting a paper on a panel qualified them for financial assistance, while only about 50% received funding to present a poster paper or serve as a chair or discussant. There did not appear to be a significant gap between levels of funding for attendees who hailed from Ph.D.-vs. M.A.-or B.A.-granting institutions. In fact, responses indicated that attendees from B.A.-granting institutions received the most funding, even over Ph.D.-granting institutions. Attendees from non-degree granting or other institutions also indicated comparable levels of funding to attend the meeting.

We are well aware that the attendee universe represents those political scientists who had the resources to attend the meeting. Indeed, given the high percentage of attendees who had funding to travel, it appears that access to funding more than institutional characteristics themselves may define opportunities to come to the meeting. However, it is important to consider the overall institutional characteristics of our attendees; 79% of attendees at the meeting hailed from Ph.D.-granting institutions, 10% from M.A.-granting institutions, and 11% from B.A.-granting institutions, with less than 1% attending from non-degree granting institutions. There is much anecdotal evidence to corroborate that travel support opportunities may be defining a new divide in higher education. We will explore this resource question for the professoriate as a whole in the upcoming Departmental Survey.

Exhibit Hall

The APSA exhibit hall was praised for its variety of exhibitors and relevance to attendees' professional needs, though some found the sheer number of exhibitors overwhelming and navigation less than ideal. Suggested improvements included placing maps of exhibitors at the entrance to the hall to reduce confusion and placing publisher listings in a more prominent location within the Final Program. Attendees also expressed some interest in expanding the types of exhibitors to include products such as online-courseware and teaching software

Special Events and Plenary Sessions

Over the past few years, APSA has seen the attendance level at some of the plenary sessions drop. Through the survey we hoped to ascertain which time slots would most likely draw a larger audience. The results show that the most popular time-slot for a major speaker plenary was from 12:30 to 2:00 PM, versus evening slots at 7:00 or 8:30 PM. Only 9% of responding attendees said they would be likely to attend a speaker from 8:30 to 10: 00 PM. Most meeting attendees demonstrated limited interest in attending a feebased luncheon in conjunction with the Awards Ceremony on Thursday. Others expressed interest in a less formal event that could be held either in conjunction with the presidential address on Thursday evening or on Saturday evening of the meeting.

Use of Technology

Approximately half of respondents report that they used the APSA Cyberstop Internet access check email and review papers before panel sessions. Sixty percent said they would bring laptops if free wireless access were available. The traditional-style message center was not utilized to the extent of previous years; fewer than 50% of the responding attendees made use of the message center. These results indicate that the types of technology that APSA membership utilizes to communicate and network during the meeting in transition.