Surprisingly little information is known about common parts of the science eco-system:
Can you help us understand more about scientific conferences and why people go to them?
Please take a minute to do this crowdsourced survey on conferences: here
Your response would be extremely helpful to understand more, whether you are a scientist or not!
We plan to develop further surveys on other parts of the science ecosystem. Please feel free to let us know what parts you think would benefit from more data.
In my experience there are essentially two types of conference. There is the large ‘jamboree’ type conference, which in my subject might be every 4 years or so, and have 1,000 – 2,000 delegates. It is usually a week long, stacked with Plenary Sessions, and Keynote Addresses, many of which are ‘polItical’ choices (ensuring that countries x,y and z are represented). This type of conference serves a mainly networking role. It is usually accompanied by a large exhibition with relevant industries showcasing their new technologies (which can be useful)..
And then there is the ‘specialist’ type conference, which might be every 2-3 years focusing on a specific range of topics. The conference would have up to around 250 people, last about 3 days, with Keynote Adresses from the top people in the field (not chosen for ‘political’ reasons). This type of conference usually is much more informative, with delegates attending in order to hear, present and discuss the latest technical developments.
Good question, Jeremy!
a) In an established research area: to meet colleagues, see where the current emphasis is, hear some of the more speculative ventures before they reach publication, pick up small tips in the detail that often don’t make it to the publication, try out our latest thoughts on colleagues while they have time to give to them – even if only with a bottle of beer in front of a poster.
b) In a research area that we’re on the fringes of, or in which we’re newcomers: to learn the ‘scenery’ – established ideas and techniques, make new contacts.
Your question prompts the further question about what conferences give that publications, say, don’t: a sense of proportion, as viewed by the community; where the current focus or imagination lies; and bits of important detail that are either omitted from or not readily apparent in formal publications. Conference talks can include intriguing tentative, preliminary or not-yet-understood findings, of the sort that used to make it into ‘letters’ journals a century ago before everything had to be polished and complete. Similarly, looking round other researchers’ labs is less about the grand purpose of the experiment but the technicalities: where do you buy those mounts from…?
In my role as a supervisor, I take PhD students to conferences to give them some perspective, experience the standards elsewhere, and get practice at poster presentation and discussing their work with experts.
Without conferences, we would become isolated, insular, probably get things out of proportion, and benefit less from the detailed knowledge of colleagues elsewhere.
In terms of number: I don’t go to that many. The larger ones are good for going a little outside one’s own research area, though they’ve become rather predictable with the same speakers each year, mainly at the keynote level with everything else left to posters; smaller conferences are better for making new links and discussing detail.
An emerging factor, which I hope doesn’t grow much further, is that the university is now regarding ‘presenting your research at major conferences’, ‘invited talks’ etc. as appraisal points. This is presumably already a factor behind the plethora of predatory conferences run for money and aimed at luring younger or desperate researchers with the offer of a guaranteed talk.
A conference is an opportunity (even now there’s easy wifi) to concentrate on physics for a few days and banish the usual interruptions to the ‘out of office’ reply.
I wish, though, that conferences were organized with more thought about their purpose. They are often too condensed, challenging everyone’s endurance and hence sapping the thoughts they should be encouraging. Poster sessions are commonly held late, when everyone’s particularly knackered. Great talks, which should be followed by proper discussion or a period for digestion and reflection, are swiftly followed by the next presentation. Less ‘content’, more time for thought and discussion, would make conferences more valuable. And wouldn’t it be great to have the time to gather your PhD students for the odd ‘journal club’ discussion after something particularly interesting?
I think many of us agree that most meetings could be better, and Tim Freegarde makes most of the points well. I have tried out a number of things to try and see if meetings can be improved – a few thoughts follow.
For me a succesful scientific meeting is about (i) learning new things, (ii) interacting with colleagues (new and old) (iii) spending the time at the meeting immersed, rather than distracted by other calls on time. The mark of a succesful meeting is that what I do in the future will be different to what I had in mind (in some way) before I went to the meeting, and that I know people (new and perhaps old) better than I did before – science is a very human activity.
1. dense vs. sparse. There will always be a tension between covering a lot of material (giving lots of people the opportunity to present) and having enough time to think/digest/talk. I like meetings that involve plenty of interaction time outside talks, whether that’s frequent breaks, one or more walks, a visit to a sight etc… Where people are all staying at one venue/hotel its good tp provide plenty of time for breakfast. Discussions over breakfast are often some of the best. So, I would opt for sparse – it can work, but the number of people is limited if you want everyone to have a chance to be ‘heard’.
2. Annimation. Why meet at all if there is no discussion? Getting good discussion going is essential, and getting people to know each other quickly can help them interact. Its worth setting some ground rules, and trying to get a couple of people who are good at animating things involved early on, to set the tone.
3. Presentation style. Meetings are dominated by powerpoint, but is it best. An illustrious colleague in another ocuntry suggests that invited speakers are asked to present via posters, and the usual ‘pecking order’ is reversed – interesting. Cerytainly I have tried different styles, and they can work well.
4. Shake it up. It can be very effective to move things around, change venue (even if only slightly), put coffee/tea breaks a few mins walk away etc.. A bit of activity can help keep us awake and alert, and moving about – making things more dynamical – gives more opportunities for interactions etc..
A final thought – perhaps we (!) need to be bolder in putting an end to a series of meetings that no longer really work, but seem to have gathered their own momentum