Page 13 - Summer 2006

identifying these two purposes. For example:
• By job product—Basic research vs. Technology
• By workplace—University (.edu) vs. Industrial
(.com) or Military (.gov)
• By job title—Scientist (Physics, Psychology) vs.
Engineer (E.E., M.E) or Practitioner
If there is single topic within the Society that has been discussed with more intensity (or longer) than its purpose, it is not apparent. The founders of the Society, Vision 1929 (see Appendix A), specified “increase and diffuse...” and “pro- mote...” as THE Purpose of the Society in the Bylaws of the Society. Members of Vision 1955 cited the lack of “pro- mote...” as a serious deficiency within the Society. The loss of members as well as their technical areas of interest to other societies and journals was an issue for Vision 1994. Members of Vision 2010 still see the purpose and its fulfillment as an important issue. It is clear that a concerted effort must have ensued over the past seventy-seven years that allowed the increase and diffusion of the knowledge of acoustics to domi- nate the purpose of the Society. In the survey taken of the retreat attendees, 77% of those who responded to the survey also answered the question, “Do you think the Society should encourage practitioners and the practical applications of acoustics more than it presently does?” Of that group, thirty percent said no with comments that ranged from the Journal should get research papers (only) to there are other journals more suited to this. Seventy percent, however, were in favor of doing more than we currently do (special sessions, joint meetings, accept more papers, etc.) Some of these members still wanted to keep the two purposes separated (e.g., place the articles in Acoustics Today or in a separate section of the Journal).
Further, there are areas of acoustics that are not well represented or are no longer well represented in the Society. This is due to loss of a scientific area (e.g., bioresponse to vibration, acoustical physiology, or computational model- ing), absence of an area that is typically represented by other scientific societies (e.g., virtual acoustics, brain imag- ing, cognitive neuroscience, or sonochemistry), or have appeal essentially to practitioners (e.g., clinicians or audio engineers).
We now look toward the year 2010. For the Society to flourish it must be dynamic and it must grow, not necessari- ly in numbers, but certainly in intellect. It was observed that there had been a large decrease in the field of acoustical phys- iology, but on the other hand new areas of signal processing, biomedical acoustics, and animal bioacoustics are clearly successes. It was also suggested that the process of members changing professional associations might be a good thing for the Society. It provides new people and new directions for the Society as well as its peer societies.
Issue: Promotion of a balanced, dynamic Society
The concepts proposed by the Vision 1955 Group were correct for what they wished to accomplish but not in how they proposed to get there. Their suggestion of reor- ganization into new, autonomous, technical sections would have been too abrupt a change for the Society and
very threatening to incumbents. However, much of what the Vision 1955 group suggested has happened over the years. The key to the issue of creating a balanced, dynamic Society is in the hands of the Technical Committees. They can look outward for new develop- ments in acoustics and new prospects. They can organ- ize special meeting sessions and workshops at Society meetings on emerging areas, especially those that have not found a scientific “home” and invite leaders of these fields to present high-profile lectures. (e.g., Distinguished Lectures and Tutorials). They can work with the Editor-in-Chief of the Society to broaden the scope of the Journal’s Associate Editors’ topic areas and with the Editor of Acoustics Today to present articles and tutorials to whet the Society’s appetite. Education of our membership and outreach must be done at the grass roots level. It requires strong leadership, patience, and a willingness to try new ideas.
• By geographic location—North America vs. Elsewhere
Acousticians from outside the United States represent a large and growing portion of the Society’s member- ship. In addition, approximately 40% of first authors of Journal articles are from outside the United States; however, many of these authors are not members of the Society. Those who are members have limited rep- resentation in Society activities and have difficulty in attending meetings. These members have much to offer the Society and conversely, the Society has much to offer them. Granted that these members are physi- cally separated, they are still certainly well within communication range. VoIP allows inexpensive, audio communication, and the web allows visual, audio, and written communication, understandably, not to all, but to many.
Issue: Encouragement of international acousticians who show interest in the Society to become members and participate in the Society’s business and management. There are many ways that the Society can encourage international acousticians to become members of the Society. For example:
• Continue to encourage non-member authors to con- sider ASA membership. This might now be done as part of the Peer Express process. A letter can be sent to non-member authors whose paper has been accepted inviting them to apply for membership. The letter should include an application and an accompa- nying flyer. Although the language of record for the Society is English, the flyer could be written in other languages.
• Continue joint international meetings, especially in cities with easily accessible airports.
• Encourage technical committees and meeting organ- izers to consider international invited speakers.
• Increase the number of nominations of international acousticians to positions on the Executive Council and Technical Council.
• By level of professional activity—Students vs. those
Vision 2010 Committee 11