RESPECT 2021

6th IEEE STCBP Conference for Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology

Submission Instructions

Submission Information

All submissions are due by 23:59 AoE (Baker Island, UTC-12h) on the deadlines specified for each submission type.

RESPECT 2021 Important Dates
Research Papers and Experience Reports 

  • TBA

Panels, Posters, and Lightning Talks 

  • TBA

All Submissions must adhere to the following criteria:

Please review specific track submission instructions below to find the best fit for your work and to ensure your submission meets track expectations.

Conference Presenter Policy

All submissions accepted for presentation at RESPECT (e.g.,  paper, panel, workshop, lightning talk, etc) require registration and conference attendance by at least one of the authors to present the work. Failure for at least one author to register for the conference by the end of early registration will result in the submission not being included in the conference proceedings and program schedule.

No Show/Substitution
If, after registering, unforeseen circumstances prevent the presenting author from attending and presenting, it is his/her responsibility to notify the conference program chairs regarding the situation as soon as possible. It would be most preferable to arrange for a substitute presenter.

Submission Types

RESEARCH PAPERS

Research papers (8 pages full/4 short) should describe empirical studies of broadening participation research. Paper submissions are expected to be original and polished work. All papers should explicitly state their motivating research questions, review relevant literature, and adhere to rigorous standards for reporting qualitative and quantitative research. Authors submitting to this track are strongly encouraged to provide a review of previous related work and to identify and build upon a foundational theory throughout the research design, data analysis, and discussion of the author’s research. Broadening participation research is inherently interdisciplinary; as such related literature and theory may be drawn from computer science education, education, learning sciences, cognitive or social psychology, social sciences, and other related disciplines. Papers reporting on empirical studies must leverage appropriate research methods, and explicitly state research questions, hypothesis/researchers’ biases/assumptions, methods, analysis, and discussion of results/findings.

Authors are highly encouraged to follow the guidelines for reporting research outlined by CSEDResearch.org https://csedresearch.org/reporting-activities/, including student and instructor demographics and program components.

Abstract submission is required for all papers and is due one week before the full or short paper is due.

Review Process

  • Research Papers will undergo a blind peer-review process. Please fully anonymize your submissions abstracts and papers.
  • All submissions submitted to the Research Paper track will be evaluated by the above criteria.
  • All submissions, regardless of the type, will be reviewed for the track they are submitted to and will not be moved between tracks.  Please ensure that you submit to the correct track.

Page Length Requirements

  • Full papers must not exceed eight pages in length, including references.
  • Short papers (work in progress) must not exceed four pages in length, including references.

EXPERIENCE PAPERS

Experience reports (4 pages) should describe an educational or outreach approach, curricula, program, or initiative that focused on and impacted at least one underrepresented minority population in computing (e.g., women, African-American, Latinx, Native Americans, LGBTQ+, rural, community college, socio-economically disadvantaged, first-generation college student). Experience reports differ from research papers in that they usually lack rigorous research design methodology and/or analysis to support the evaluation of the impact of the experiences reported. 

An experience report must clearly state (1) targeted audience, (2) context of implementation (e.g., curricular, extracurricular, other),  and provide (3) sufficient details about the purpose, goals, and implementation of the educational or outreach approach/curricula/program/initiative, and (4)  supporting evidence about the impact. All papers in this track should provide a rich reflection on what worked, what didn’t, and possible explanations as to why in enough detail to allow for others to adopt the approach/curricula/program/initiative. 

Novelty of the intervention is not required but all experience reports should make a claim about the broadening participation impact of the activity and provide evidence to support the claim. Anecdotal evidence will be acceptable, provided that it is well argued and the author explains the efforts made to gather and evaluate evidence. The most convincing evidence often includes comparisons of situations before and after the introduction or discontinuation of the broadening participation efforts, student feedback about the efficacy of the activity/intervention, and other impact indicators such as persistence/retention, success, and/or enrollment in subsequent courses. Acceptance will be based on whether the reviewers find the evidence to be convincing and if other submission criteria were met.

Authors are highly encouraged to follow the guidelines for reporting research outlined by CSEDResearch.org https://csedresearch.org/reporting-activities/, including student and instructor demographics and program components.

Abstract submission is required for all Experience Reports and is due one week before the full or short paper is due.

Review Process

  • Experience Reports will undergo a blind peer-review process. Please fully anonymize your submissions abstracts and reports.
  • All submissions submitted to the Experience Report track will be evaluated by the above criteria.
  • All submissions, regardless of the type, will be reviewed for the track they are submitted to and will not be moved between tracks.  Please ensure that you submit to the correct track.

Page Length Requirements
Submissions for the Experience track must not exceed four pages in length, including references.

PANELS

A panel session brings together multiple perspectives on a different topic to discuss, present, and debate. Ideally, panels will consist of no more than four panelists and one moderator. The panel submission should clearly indicate how the positions of each of the panelists come together to create an interesting discussion about a topic. Panel proposals must not exceed two pages in length. We expect to allot 45-60 minutes for accepted panels.

Panel Proposal Structure

  • When providing author information, indicate which of the panelists is the moderator by placing the word “Moderator” in parentheses after their name.
  • Abstract: Provide a brief summary of your panel.
  • Summary: The first section should be titled Summary and provide an expanded summary of the panel’s goals, intended audience, and relevance to the RESPECT community.
  • Position Statements: The subsequent sections should contain the position statements of each panelist and a brief description of their expertise and background as it relates to the panel. Title each section by identifying the author.
  • Panel Structure: The panel structure should include a full breakdown on how the panel plans to utilize the time allotted. The structure should include adequate time for questions followed by a list of questions that the panel plans to cover. 
  • References: Citing relevant work where appropriate is encouraged, but not required. Relevant work will allow reviewers a better understanding of its relevance for the proposed panel. If included, then references should be placed in a separate section titled “References” and should follow the formatting guidelines.

Review Process: Panel proposal review is NOT double blind, i.e., author names are visible to the reviewers, but reviewer names will not be visible to authors. Criteria used in reviewing the proposals include the likely level of interest of the topic, the presence of panel members with multiple perspectives on the topic and significant expertise and experience, and the likelihood that the panel will leave sufficient time for audience participation.

If the proposal is accepted, all presenters listed in the panel description will be required to register for the conference and to participate in the session.

POSTERS

Posters describe work at any phase, work in-progress to completed projects, that have not been published. The poster session allows authors to present their work to and gather feedback from conference attendees through one-on-one dialogues. Any topic relevant to the conference focus areas is suitable for presentation as a poster. However, the topic should lend itself to presentation in poster format and encourage discussion at RESPECT.

Poster Proposal Submission Requirements

  • Poster proposals are to be submitted in PDF format.
  • The poster proposal is limited to 1 page. 
  • The abstract is limited to 250 words and needs to appear in two places: in the PDF proposal and in a text box on the submission page.
  • The poster itself should not be submitted.
  • See additional requirements for all submissions at the top of this page.

Poster Proposal Details (Limited to 1 page):

  • Title: A title for the poster.
  • presenter(s): Include name(s), affiliation(s), and email address(es). The corresponding author will receive most of the correspondence related to the conference via email. Please check spam filters in case expected notifications are not received.
  • Abstract: Limited to 250 words. The abstract should summarize the major aspects of the work and serve as an advertisement for the poster. Some aspects to include are the objective(s) of the work being presented, preliminary results, future work, and intended audience. The same abstract must also be submitted via the text box on the submission page. Please be sure that the description is accurate and identical in both submitted copies (i.e., the poster proposal and the submission text box).
  • Engagement Goal: Briefly explain your goals for engaging with the community at the poster session. Reasons may include, but are not limited to: gathering feedback about a project or study results; sharing a new program; or connecting with attendees doing similar work.
  • Project Type: Identify your project as either: (a) an empirical study; (b) an educational or outreach approach, curricula, program, or initiative; or (c) other, with a brief description of the project type.
  • Project Phase: Identify the phase of the work you will present on the poster (e.g., initial stages; ongoing project; completed but unpublished project).
  • Relevance to RESPECT: Briefly explain the significance of your work for the RESPECT community.
  • Keywords: The EasyChair submission form will also ask you to identify keywords and topics for your submission.

Optional Extended Abstract (Max 2 pages)

Submissions may include an optional extended abstract (not exceeding 2 pages) that will be included in the program, if accepted. The extended abstract should be formatted using the IEEE format. The sections for these extended abstracts will vary with each poster, but they are expected to describe the main topic of the poster and its significance for the RESPECT community. The following sections are suggested but not required: 

  • Introduction: A description of the problem addressed, relevant background information, related work, and significance to the RESPECT community. 
  • Project Description:
    • Empirical Projects: A description of the motivating research questions, relevant literature, the research design, and, if applicable, data analysis and findings.
    • Experience Report Projects: A description of the targeted audience, context of implementation, details about the purpose/goals/implementation, and supporting evidence about project impact.
    • Other Project Types: A description of the project and, if applicable, data collection, data analysis, and results. 
  • Conclusion: A brief discussion of the project’s contributions to the field and plans for future work.
  • References: References may also be included.
  • Review Process: Poster proposal review is not blind, i.e., author names are visible to the reviewers, but reviewer names will not be visible to authors.

LIGHTNING TALKS

Lightning talks provide an opportunity to present ideas, project opportunities, or works in progress in a brief way to spark follow-up conversations. Any topic relevant to the conference focus areas is suitable for presentation as a two-minute pitch. Lightning talk abstracts are limited to 250 words, if accepted. Lightning talk presentations will be a maximum of 2 minutes in length, which will be strictly enforced. Note: Presentations of mature work will not be considered.

Lightning Talk Proposal Submission Requirements

  • Lightning Talk proposals are to be submitted in PDF format.
  • The Lightning Talk proposal is limited to 1 page. 
  • The abstract is limited to 250 words and needs to appear in two places: in the PDF proposal and in a text box on the submission page.
  • Presenters may also include an optional extended abstract (no longer than 2 pages) in addition to their proposal in their submission (full submission not to exceed 3 pages). 
  • See additional requirements for all submissions at the top of this page.

Lightning Talk Proposal Details (Limited to 1 page):

  • Title: A title for the Lightning Talk.
  • Abstract: A summary of the Lightning Talk.  (250 words max)
  • Description: Describe your talk in more detail including how you plan to present your topic in 2 minutes. Try to capture why you are excited about the topic and why you think others will be interested too. Providing a detailed description of your talk will strengthen reviewers understanding of the relevance of the talk.
  • Relevance to RESPECT: Briefly explain the significance of your work for the RESPECT community.

Optional Extended Abstract (Max 2 pages)

Submissions may include an optional extended abstract (not exceeding 2 pages) that will be included in the program, if accepted. The extended abstract should be formatted using the IEEE format. The sections for these extended abstracts will vary with each lightning talk, but they are expected to describe the main topic of the lightning talk and its significance for the RESPECT community.  

Review Process: Lightning talk proposal review is not blind, i.e., author names are visible to the reviewers, but reviewer names will not be visible to authors.

Scroll to top