- I enjoyed VICEPHEC this year. I like meeting friends and colleagues and hearing about what people are doing.
2. Everybody has a different view on what VICEPHEC is. The two parent organisations need to outline some overarching guidelines as to what VICEPHEC is (and isn’t).
3. These guidelines can then frame abstract calls and conference themes, with local hosts free to offer initiatives such as the (reportedly excellent) Labsolutely Fabulous.
4. I detected several instances of quite pointed commentary this year disregarding/dismissing any sense of evaluation of output or serious data. In my view this is anti-intellectual.
5. Sharing good ideas is a valuable part of the meeting; but we have an ethical responsibility to consider evaluation. Do you want to be the next “Learning Styles”?
6. Evaluation does not necessitate diving into the pedagogical glossary. But let’s not dismiss those who chose to do this. After all Variety is in the name.
7. But should we change the name? I think the combined meeting should have a new name. It is only physicists and chemists for historical reasons.
8. Sponsorship is welcome and beneficial. But we need to keep clear boundaries between sponsors and the academic programme. See 2.
9. Disagreement and debate within a community is healthy. But let’s do it respectfully. We are all on the same side.
10. MICER is a very different and much more niche affair than VICEPHEC. If I thought for a minute that MICER meant that talks at VICEPHEC became evaluation-free, I’d shut up shop.
While I have you… MICER18 is on 14th May 2018 🙂