How to write a great proposal
For every ATypI conference we receive between two and three times as many proposals as we can accommodate in the schedule. This means that there is a considerable proportion of proposals that represent good concepts, but are expressed in a way that it becomes very difficult for our reviewers to rate them highly. This may happen because the proposal does not explain the subject of the presentation well, or why it is an important subject, or what may be original or interesting about the subject, or what the role of the presenter is, or that is is even possible to do all that is promised within the time limits of the presentation. Such proposals make reviewers uneasy, who have to take into account the risk that a proposal that is unclear is highly likely to result in a presentation that is also off the mark.
Experienced reviewers will not be surprised to read that that this applies most to proposers with not much experience of writing proposals. This impacts on the diversity of the speaker list, prejudicing especially against first-timers. The programme committee must correct for this (and you can read how we do this in our Note on the review process). However, this is trying to fix things after the fact, and we’d like to support proposers at the stage that they are first writing their texts. So, here are some pointers for putting together a good proposal. We have about two weeks to go until our deadline for the Tokyo 2019 Call for Papers; if you are considering putting in a proposal, this is probably the time that you are putting together your 200 words.
Executive summary: we are looking for clear, accessible, relevant, and confident proposals that will lead to enlightening, visually engaging presentations.
Clear: a proposal where it is easy to understand what is the key point/observation/argument of the presentation, how it will be developed, and what is the role of the proposer in the work.
Accessible: a proposal that recognises that reviewers may not have specific expertise on its topic, but does not talk down to them. And does not use unnecessary jargon.
Relevant: a proposal that recognises the broad interests of the Association, and, if appropriate, makes connections to the audience, the region, or current concerns in typeface design and typography.
Confident: a proposal that respects the limits placed by the duration of the presentations. Also, one that does not promise that a substantial amount of new work remains to be done between the submission date and the conference itself.
Enlightening: a proposal that indicates the new knowledge, experience, or work that will be presented, and clarifies whether this is an original presentation, an extension of prior work, a modification, or repeat.
Visually engaging: a proposal that suggests what kind of material may be shown in the slides, if relevant (in the case of research involving archival materials, or the development of new designs). In the case of theoretical presentations, an indication of what visual material will accompany the presentation.
Good luck, and see you at ATypI.
Postscript: this note is one of the ways we want to support members to submit proposals. We’ve got some ideas for other actions, and we will roll them out as soon as we can. In the meantime, if you’ve got suggestions, leave a comment here.
