During the month of January 2019, I conducted a Google Survey of the costs of attending the Joint Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America and the Society for Classical Studies. Here's the text of the survey's introduction:
"What are the costs of attending our big annual conference each year? Whether it is for a job interview, presenting your current research, networking, or keeping up with the state of the fields of archaeology and Classics, the AIA/SCS is an annual tradition but can be a logistical and financial challenge for many. This survey is meant to gauge the financial costs of attending the AIA/SCS in January 2019 and who foots the bill. A rough estimate for each category is fine. Please provide amounts in your applicable currency ($, CAD, €, £, etc.). All results will remain anonymous, but feel free to contact me (Jacquelyn Clements) at jacquelynhelene@gmail.com if you have any questions. The survey will remain open until January 31, 2019."
I had a remarkable 134 responses to the survey, although that's still a small percentage of attendees (maybe 5%? I will look for an official figure) - but enough to gauge a variety of responses, sources of funding, and thoughts about the acknowledged burden of what it costs to attend the meetings each year, especially whilst job hunting or building a professional network and portfolio.
It will take me some time to tabulate the data. For one, I left every response field mostly open, so I have a wide range of monetary figures - some estimates, lots without currencies indicated, lots of various explanations for individual dollar amounts, etc. This is good in my opinion - it allows the survey respondent to give nuance to their answers - but it, of course, makes my job more complicated. I've therefore downloaded the survey results and made a copy of the Google Sheet that will be cleaned and standardized to format into workable and visual data.
In the meantime, you might like to see a breakdown of who answered this survey:
It will take me some time to tabulate the data. For one, I left every response field mostly open, so I have a wide range of monetary figures - some estimates, lots without currencies indicated, lots of various explanations for individual dollar amounts, etc. This is good in my opinion - it allows the survey respondent to give nuance to their answers - but it, of course, makes my job more complicated. I've therefore downloaded the survey results and made a copy of the Google Sheet that will be cleaned and standardized to format into workable and visual data.
In the meantime, you might like to see a breakdown of who answered this survey:
It's fairly evenly balanced, but even here, I had to make choices about the data I have at hand. The "other" category, a free form field, includes undergraduates and emerita/retired faculty, for example. I could divide this data further, but for now I'll leave it be. I also created a new category that wasn't part of the original survey, for "multiple" positions, as some people ticked more than one box (for example, I had a respondent who is both contingent faculty and works outside traditional academia).
Data has the capacity for telling stories, and I hope that this survey gives an accurate but also personal picture of what the costs are of the AIA/SCS Annual Meeting - literally as well as figuratively. I look forward to working with this data more in the coming weeks, and sharing the results with you. Until then, thanks again to all who responded.
Data has the capacity for telling stories, and I hope that this survey gives an accurate but also personal picture of what the costs are of the AIA/SCS Annual Meeting - literally as well as figuratively. I look forward to working with this data more in the coming weeks, and sharing the results with you. Until then, thanks again to all who responded.
As ever, if you think this work is valuable, please consider buying me a ko-fi; every little bit helps.
RSS Feed