Can I submit a proposal if I am new to AEA or early in my career?
Yes. Proposals are evaluated based on the quality of the submission—not on career stage or prior involvement with AEA.
We welcome submissions from first-time presenters, students, and early-career evaluators.
Do I need to be an AEA member to submit a proposal?
No. You do not need to be an AEA member to submit a proposal, though membership is encouraged.
Do presenters need to register for the conference?
Yes. All presenters are required to register for the conference. There is no fee reduction for presenting.
How can I create a high-quality proposal?
We encourage all submitters to watch the “Prepare, Set, Submit!” webinar, which walks through how to design and write a strong proposal under the new conference structure.
The webinar covers how to:
- Align your proposal with streams and session formats
- Clearly communicate your session’s purpose and value
- Design an engaging and feasible 60-minute session
If you are unsure where to start or want to strengthen your submission, this is the best resource available.
Should my submission align with the conference theme?
Submissions are not required to explicitly align with the conference theme. The primary focus should be on developing a clear, well-designed session that aligns with the selected stream and format.
However, proposals that thoughtfully connect to the theme may be considered for the Presidential Strand, which are highlighted in the conference program and scheduled in larger rooms to accommodate more attendees. Alignment with the theme will not negatively affect your proposal if not included.
How can I write participant objectives for my session?
Participant learning objectives should clearly describe what attendees will gain from your session.
Focus on what participants will learn, understand, or be able to do as a result of attending. Objectives should be written for a broad audience and reflect the value of the session from attendees' perspectives.
When writing objectives:
- Use clear, observable verbs (e.g., apply, analyze, design, interpret)
- Be specific about what participants will gain
- Avoid vague language unless it is clearly defined
You may list up to three objectives. These will be included in the conference program, so they should be written clearly and meaningfully for potential attendees.
Can I edit my proposal after submission?
You should submit your proposal as you intend to present it.
After acceptance, you may update presenters and make minor edits to your abstract as needed. However, substantive changes to the session structure, format, or overall content are not expected.
Do I need to have all presenters confirmed before submitting?
Yes. You should submit your proposal with all presenters confirmed.
We recognize that circumstances can change, and presenters may be updated after acceptance if needed. However, proposals should reflect your intended session at the time of submission.
Will proposals be moved between streams or session formats?
No. Proposals will be reviewed in the stream and session format you select at the time of submission.
Because alignment with the selected stream and format is part of the review criteria, it is important to choose the most appropriate options when submitting your proposal.
Proposals will not be reassigned to a different stream or format during review, even if another option may seem like a better fit.
What happens after I submit my proposal?
After submission, proposals will move through a structured review and decision process:
- Submission deadline: Friday, May 1
- Review period: May-June
- Anticipated notification of decisions: Wednesday, July 15
- Anticipated program released online: Saturday, August 1
How will submissions be reviewed, and by whom?
Proposals are reviewed through a centralized, stream-based review process. If you are interested in serving as a reviewer, please apply online by Friday, May 1.
Volunteer reviewers apply and are assigned to a specific stream. They complete a training and are provided with clear review criteria and guidance to support a high-quality and consistent review process. Proposals are evaluated based on factors such as alignment with the selected stream, clarity of purpose, and session design.
In addition, stream teams—a smaller group of experienced reviewers—conduct a second review of top-rated proposals within each stream. Their role is to help ensure the final program is cohesive, balanced, and aligned with the goals of the conference.
In simple terms: reviewers evaluate proposals, and stream teams select and curate the final set of sessions for the program.
What role will TIGs have in the proposal submission and review process?
TIGs do not manage proposal submission or review under the new structure. All proposals are submitted to streams and reviewed through a centralized process.
However, TIGs continue to play an important role by supporting members in developing proposals, facilitating connections among potential collaborators, and encouraging participation in the reviewer pool.
Will I receive feedback on my proposal?
Yes. Reviewers will be asked to identify strengths and areas for improvement, and this feedback will be included in acceptance or rejection notifications.
Who should I contact if I have questions about the submission process?
If you have questions about the submission process, please contact education@eval.org.
Streams FAQ
Why streams? What we have learned:
Post-conference surveys from recent AEA conferences consistently indicate that attendees—particularly first-time attendees—experience:
- Unpredictability in learning value
- Difficulty choosing between sessions across more than 50 TIGs
- Mismatch between session expectations and delivery
- Fatigue from navigating too many concurrent options
At the same time, financial and logistical realities now require a more coordinated and sustainable conference structure, including a centralized review process.
Streams were developed to provide a more coherent way to organize and structure the conference program. The Conference Advisory Working Group used post-conference evaluation data, past conference programs, and feedback from AEA members and TIG leaders to develop and refine the proposed streams.
In addition to improving navigation, streams are intended to support a more consistent and transparent review process by grouping proposals by their primary purpose and learning goals.
How do I select which stream to submit my proposal to?
Select the stream that best reflects the primary purpose and learning focus of your session—not necessarily your TIG affiliation or topic area.
Each stream description includes guidance on intended content. While many proposals could reasonably fit more than one stream, we encourage you to identify the stream that most closely aligns with your session’s central contribution. The review process will ensure proposals are evaluated using consistent criteria regardless of stream.
If your session could fit multiple streams, that is expected. You will select one primary stream, so focus on where your session’s core contribution fits best rather than trying to capture all possible connections.
When deciding, prioritize:
- The main takeaway for attendees
- The audience you most want to reach
- The type of conversation or learning experience your session is designed to create
Streams are not organized by TIG, and there is no one-to-one mapping of TIGs to streams. Instead, streams are designed around the purpose and focus of sessions. You should not choose a stream based on your TIG membership, but rather on what your session is designed to do.
As a result, there is no list of TIGs assigned to each stream. Proposals from any TIG, or from individuals not affiliated with a TIG, may be submitted to any stream, depending on fit.
Will choosing the “wrong” stream hurt my chances of acceptance?
No. Selecting a stream does not advantage or disadvantage your proposal in the review process.
However, choosing the most appropriate stream helps ensure your proposal is reviewed by individuals with relevant expertise and evaluated in the most appropriate context. Additionally, one criterion proposals will be rated on includes alignment with the chosen stream; poorly aligned streams will not be moved after submission, so choose the most appropriate stream for your session upon submission.
Why is equity, culture, and justice in evaluation a separate stream? Why isn't it cross-cutting all streams?
Equity, culture, and justice remain important considerations across all evaluation work. The dedicated stream signals that equity-focused approaches, cultural responsiveness, and justice-centered practice are essential areas of professional learning that deserve clear visibility in the conference program.
At the same time, equity-related proposals may intersect with methods, innovation, or professional development. Streams are intended to clarify learning intent, not limit how topics connect across areas of practice.
Proposals that integrate equity into other areas (e.g., methods, practice, leadership) are still welcome in other streams if that is the primary focus of the session.
Will streams replace TIGs?
No. TIGs remain vital communities within AEA. Streams are an organizing structure for proposal submission and conference navigation; TIGs continue to provide a professional community, curated sessions, reviewer expertise, and engagement throughout the year and at the conference.
TIG leaders and members are also encouraged to participate in shaping the conference program by serving as proposal reviewers and promoting high-quality submissions from their communities. Streams clarify how conference content is organized; TIGs continue to provide the community, expertise, and identity that strengthen the field.
TIGs may also support the conference by encouraging member participation (e.g., as reviewers or stream team members) and helping members develop strong proposals aligned with the new structure.
How does this new process reduce duplication in the program?
The combination of stream-based review and stream team curation allows proposals to be evaluated within a broader context. Stream teams review top proposals collectively, which helps identify overlap and ensures a more coordinated and coherent final program.
Are the streams permanent?
Streams will be evaluated after implementation. As with other conference structures, adjustments may be made based on member feedback and experience.
Eval26 will serve as an opportunity to assess how well the stream structure supports proposal quality, program coherence, and attendee experience, and refinements will be made based on what is learned.
Formats FAQ
What if my session doesn’t clearly fit a single format?
Select the format that best represents the primary structure of your session. Reviewers will evaluate how well your session design aligns with that format, rather than expecting a perfect fit.
How should I choose between a panel and a multi-paper session?
Select the format that best reflects how your session will be structured and how participants will engage.
Panel discussions are designed to explore a topic through facilitated conversation. In a panel, speakers briefly introduce their perspectives, but the primary focus is on dialogue—both among panelists and with the audience. This format works best when your goal is to examine an issue from multiple viewpoints, raise questions, or generate discussion rather than present detailed individual work.
Multi-paper sessions, in contrast, are organized around the presentation of individual research studies or projects. Each presenter delivers a structured overview of their work, typically followed by limited discussion or Q&A. These sessions are best suited for sharing findings, methods, or applied work in a more formal presentation format.
A useful way to distinguish between the two is to consider how time will be used. If your session includes multiple formal presentations, it is likely a multi-paper session. If the majority of time is spent in facilitated discussion and exchange of ideas, a panel format is more appropriate.
How should I choose between a skill-building workshop, a demonstration, and an expert lecture?
Select the format that best reflects how participants will engage with your session and what you want them to take away from the experience.
Skill-building workshops are designed for active learning and practice. In this format, participants are not just listening—they are applying a skill, tool, or method during the session. Workshops should include structured activities that allow attendees to try something out, receive guidance, and build competence. This format is most appropriate when your goal is for participants to leave with a skill they have begun to practice.
Demonstrations, in contrast, focus on showing participants how something works. Rather than practicing themselves, attendees observe a process, tool, or method in action. This format is best when your goal is to help participants understand how to apply an approach, without requiring hands-on participation during the session.
Expert lectures are primarily presentation-based and focus on sharing knowledge, insights, or innovations. In this format, the presenter leads the session by delivering content, with time typically reserved for audience questions or brief discussion. This format is appropriate when the goal is to communicate ideas or frameworks rather than to demonstrate or practice a skill.
A useful way to distinguish between these formats is to consider the role of the participant. If participants are actively practicing, it is a workshop. If they are observing how something is done, it is a demonstration. If they are primarily listening and engaging through questions, it is an expert lecture.
What happened to Ignite presentations and individual paper submissions?
For Eval26, Ignite presentations and individual paper sessions should either be submitted as posters or incorporated into another session format.
These changes are intended to improve consistency across sessions, reduce program fragmentation, and create more opportunities for meaningful engagement between presenters and attendees. Additionally, these changes eliminate the need to combine papers and Ignite sessions into larger, intact sessions.
If your goal is to share a single project or idea, a poster session is typically the best fit under the current structure. If your goal is to present alongside others, consider a multi-paper session or a panel, depending on the session's structure.
How many presenters should I include in a session?
Sessions should be designed to fit within 60 minutes. Including too many presenters may limit time for meaningful engagement and reduce overall session quality.
How can I find others to submit a multi-paper session or panel with?
Many strong multi-paper sessions and panels are developed through existing professional connections, but there are several ways to identify potential collaborators.
Topical Interest Groups (TIGs) are a natural starting point. TIG leaders and members can help connect individuals with shared interests, identify emerging topics, and facilitate conversations about potential session ideas. You may consider reaching out through TIG listservs, discussion spaces, or informal networking opportunities to gauge interest and build a session around a common theme.
You can also look to your existing networks, including colleagues, past collaborators, or individuals whose work complements your own. If you have seen presentations, papers, or projects that align with your interests, consider reaching out directly to explore whether there is an opportunity to develop a joint session.
Another approach is to begin with a clear session idea or theme and then invite others to contribute papers or perspectives that align with that focus. Strong sessions are typically organized around a shared purpose rather than assembled after the fact.
In addition, conference-related spaces (such as AEA communication channels or informal networking groups) may provide opportunities to connect with others who are also seeking collaborators.
If you are unable to identify collaborators, you can still submit your work as a poster. Poster sessions are designed to support individual submissions while still allowing for meaningful interaction and feedback.
Ultimately, the goal is to build a session that is coherent, well-designed, and aligned with a shared focus—whether that comes from an existing network, a TIG community, or new connections formed during the submission process.