Organizations of any duration develop norms of behavior. A few are codified in organizational rules but many remain informal, transmitted to new members through socialization mechanisms. All norms, informal norms in particular, are resilient but not permanent. They change if socialization instruments are no longer effective or if members are aware of established norms but opt to no longer follow them.

Our discipline appears to be currently undergoing a transition of norms as they relate to conference papers. Those of us completing our degrees in the 1980s or earlier tended to abide by the expectation that every conference paper one presented was to be a different product. This never meant different in all respects, but rather that papers constituted research in progress and should evolve. Once presented, the author could continue to refine the paper and present the revised version later at another conference, often with a title change reflecting the revisions. To present the same paper more than once was considered bad form.

Over the last decade this expectation has begun to fade away. There is a growing tendency to present seemingly unchanged papers at multiple conferences. Though hardly of earth-shattering importance, this evolution of new standards for conference papers deserves attention. As old norms lose their potency there is often a period of anarchy while the community grapples with whether it is transitioning to a revised version of the norm or no norm at all. During this unsettled period new members entering the community receive little guidance. They perceive only the absence of a norm while the reality may be movement to a new one.

Informal observation suggests this is exactly where our discipline is at the present time. In discussing this evolving practice with colleagues holding faculty positions I receive mixed opinions about the change, some sup-porting it and some not. But even the supporters would usually describe some conditions that justify duplication. That is, they accept that standards exist—situations where duplication is acceptable and others where it is not—even if the community has not yet determined what those standards will be. When raising the same topic with graduate students, however, the modal reply was a blank stare—a lack of comprehension that presenting the same paper as many times as you wished would be viewed by anyone as an unusual or questionable practice.

It is time to raise this issue for broader disciplinary discussion. The purpose of this symposium is not to advocate luddism in opposition to anything different, but rather to engage in a conversation on what the limits, if any, should be. There may yet be insufficient consensus to establish a revised norm, but a broader discussion will both help move us closer to that point while also informing our current members-in-training that conference paper duplication ad infinitum is not automatically acceptable.

I begin in the first paper to both describe the change taking place and argue that the new practice should be limited, rather severely so. In contrast, Christopher Cooper makes the case that the change is a desirable trend in our discipline. Following this beginning debate, Cynthia Bowling presents a perspective on paper duplication from a public administration scholar, while Julie Harrelson-Stephens and Steven Galatas do the same from the viewpoint of those working at non-research institutions. The competing positions are then wrapped up by Lee Sigelman, who has considerable reservations, followed by Saundra Schneider and William Jacoby who see little to lose and something to gain from the emerging custom. But regardless of their position on the original question there is strong sentiment among the authors in favor of transparency in what we do and how it is reflected in vitas.