On Monday, some of the committee met to discuss the current proposals about the plans from MeCCSA to create a new structure which would be split across networks, divisions and working Groups. Thanks all to those who could make it and to those that weren’t able, you were missed!

Here are some of the notes and feedback from the meeting for those who couldn’t make it.

The move would see networks more focused as groups which would focus upon supporting members with shared experiences/demographics/identities, with divisions more topic/thematically focused. Working Groups, as far as we understand, would be for groups with a shorter-term focus.

In the meeting the below captures some of the conversation and queries raised:

• The term “division” is confusing/vague. There were suggestions to rename this as research groups or special interest groups to be more in line with wider naming practices for these kinds of groups.
• There were concerns raised about how the Women’s Network may be split, as currently its remit is both to support women members, but also has a special interest in feminist and/or gender studies across media, communication and cultural studies. The women’s network could continue as normal if we chose to do this, with divisions taking a more specific research focus, such as girlhood studies, while the network could still take a research focus if there was no overlap. The details of how the divisions would work with networks is something to be further discussed.  
• Concerns were raised about the duplication and doubling of work/support/administration which might be too much for members if they are spread across too many groups.
• Concerns were also raised about funding and funding being diluted. Suggestions were made about having a bidding system for the divisions.
• Queries were also raised about the blurring of boundaries where divisions became networks etc.
• More detail is needed about what would make a division in terms of how much support was needed (such as a critical mass).