By Rose Trappes and TJ Perkins
With the optimism about the unprecedented development and distribution of a vaccine comes the hope for a return to normal. For many philosophers, this includes a desire to travel to attend conferences. But a return to in-person conferences doesn’t leave everyone jumping with joy. In this blog post we reflect on reasons why philosophers ought to make online conferences the new normal, keeping in-person events to a carefully considered minimum.
The Online Alternative
Late last year, we published “The Online Alternative: Sustainability, Justice, and Conferencing in Philosophy” (2020). Using survey data from attendees of four virtual conferences of varying sizes, we and our coauthors argued that online venues offer a valuable alternative to in-person conferences for presenting and engaging with research, and accessibility.
The mainly positive experiences of attendees indicate that online conferences are a good alternative to in-person events. But online venues lacked some of the much-desired social environment for networking. We consequently called for the continued development of ways to effectively network.
Luckily, the social aspects of online conferencing are becoming more enjoyable. As an example, C. Thi Nguyen notes the remarkable success of introducing structured zoom rooms to the American Society for Aesthetics Annual Conference, offering themes like “Show and Tell Room, 3 Minute Silly Talk Room, Talent Show Room, Joke Room, and Trivia Room.” These kinds of rooms may depart from the in-person status quo of grabbing dinner with a cohort after the day’s events. But they have offered many attendees a great experience in virtual settings.
Experimenting Online
If the pandemic had any positive effects, one of them was the benefits afforded by new and creative ways to be online. The natural experiment that was forced upon us revealed that many of the pressing issues to be resolved in the philosophical profession can, at the very least, be positively addressed by moving conferences online.
Cutting national and international travel has drastically reduced academic carbon footprints. Researchers in underfunded institutions around the world have been able to attend conferences they normally would have missed. Online conferences also circumvent venue accessibility issues and offer new opportunities with digital tools such as closed captioning.
The successful online conferences we have seen so far are an indication of the benefits of experimenting with new formats. Online conferencing might feel uncomfortable at first. But with a little patience and creativity, combined with the technological possibilities that grow by the day, even digital socializing can become more than a chore.
Part of this experimentation involves going beyond personal expectations and experiences. We need a broader view of how online conferencing affects the philosophical community at large.
Learning from Experience
In our paper we argued that online conferences should be the new normal even in post-pandemic times. Online conferences are more environmentally sustainable and accessible to those traditionally underrepresented in philosophy and those with financial limitations. These benefits were also borne out in the data from our surveys.
We are not alone in making these arguments. Philosophers across the globe are reflecting, as is their wont, on their experiences organising and attending online conferences and finding similar positive sides to the pandemic. So the likes of Helen de Cruz and the organisers of the Global Digital History of Science Festival join us in calling for more online conferencing.
The positive results of the pandemic experiment are especially important given the slow roll out of vaccines around the world as well as differential access within countries. We should be especially conscious of the “ghettoization of disease” and late vaccine distribution to developing nations. Philosophers from nations underrepresented in philosophy may be delayed in their “return to normal.” Conference organisers should not move on and forget the lessons we learned from the pandemic.
Asking the Right Questions
The idea of a new normal means that any departure from online conferencing should be well-justified and carefully considered. As Heather Douglas reflected, “the new normal should be online only events, with clear justifications offered for in-person events.”
With Douglas, we acknowledge that interacting with a particular ecosystem or visiting an archive or a museum will likely remain an in-person exercise. And creative participation or intense collaboration might need that extra push of being stuck in one place for days on end. But in many cases, existing and ever-improving online tools might be sufficient for the purposes of a meeting: to showcase and exchange research, make new connections and strengthen old friendships.
One of the most awesome things about travelling to conferences is, besides the activities related to the main purpose of the conference, the excursions in the area where the conference is held. To mention just three such great conferences I attended: one was in Crete, on hallucination, organized by Fiona MacPherson and Dimitris Platchias, where, after the talks, we could enjoy the beautiful beaches of Rethymno, the great seafood and lovely Cretan people; another was organized by me at my university, Bilkent, with big shots as well as young philosophers in philosophy of mind, after which we spent a few days in the fantastic, heavenly Cappadocia, and where everyone was simply amazed; finally, the ECAP in Bucharest in 2014, where I was taken, together with several smaller groups to the breathtaking Transylvanian countryside, where for two days we visited the otherworldly castles, including the Bran Castle (the “Dracula” Castle). These experiences make one’s life worth living, and no amount of online interaction can even get close to competing with them. The idea of a “new normal” where such great experiences of nature and people are somehow supposed to be “sinful” is very dangerous.
I don’t think anyone has argued that people should never spend personal time or money traveling. Rather, the suggestion may just be that universities that reimburse (and/or otherwise reward) faculty for traveling to presentations, conferences, workshops, and the like may unnecessarily contradict their values (e.g., sustainability) and the values of many of the community—e.g., faculty, students, etc. Evidence suggests that we can probably get most if not all of the academic benefits of these events remotely.
I find myself unable to rationalize employer reimbursements for global travel to a conference, workshop, or the like. The best I am can muster is a conservative appeal to the status quo.
The remaining limitation of remote academic events may be a potentially unique social benefit of in-person social interaction. I’ll address that and more in tomorrow’s post.
so you’ve had a lot of bougie travel experiences that your rich university paid for. good for you. a lot of people would love to enjoy such luxuries and can’t afford to. it’d be nice if people in universities and countries all had that kind of money to give out to everyone, but they do not. many people in non-western countries struggle to get a travel visa as it is. your mentality limits, say, someone in chile having access to ideas in america. if you care more about your personal travel experiences than the proliferation of ideas, how much can you really be said to care?
Well, what you say is not exactly relevant to our topic, is it? We are not talking here about the issue of money and global economic inequality. But since you raised it, here are a few things for you to think about. First, my university is not located in the West and is not rich by Western standards. Second, how would my university not giving me travel money benefit you in Chile? I think Turkey and Chile are independent countries and their economies are not connected by some umbilical cord. Third, since you seem to be concerned with global economic inequalities, think about this a bit: virtualization of education will lead to even more inequality, potentially destroying small and non-top universities globally. I’m not the first one to point this out. Globalization and moving everything online will have the effect of most students migrating to big name universities (Harvard, Princeton etc), because they now can. Finally, I’d appreciate if you were a bit more polite and not speculate about my intentions etc. Have a good day!
No one, including the university, forces you or anyone else to travel and get reimbursed by the university. My guess is that universities will offer travel money, just like they’ve been doing for decades, and those of us who think it is a very good thing will take the offer and travel. If I will organize events in the future, they will be old school events, with a lot of social, natural, and cultural interaction, because that’s the nice and meaningful way to do it. Also, my guess is that job openings that will also offer travel money for conferences will be very popular. I remember younger people in the field who chose to turn down offers (or leave to other places) that were not generous on travel and research money. Since you talk about yourself and your inability to rationalize travel reimbursements, I will also talk about myself and say that I am unable to see how artificial interaction through a screen, from a boring room, can ever be, in the long term, be a goof an valuable thing for human and professional development. I’m just presenting my honest opinion based on 21 years of experience in the field. People who prefer the new normal, of course, will be free to behave according to that paradigm, but should not impose their axiology on those of us who do not want to take part.
Istvan, you make some good points about the positive benefits of being able to travel to new countries and explore their natural and cultural offerings. Nevertheless, the environmental impact of global travel, both within Europe/America and around the globe, is enormous. We think it would be good for all academics to reduce most of this travel. Often in the end conference trips become fly-in fly-out business trips with little in the way of enriching experiences of the local environment. Perhaps when the number of in person conferences is greatly reduced, we will have less of such wasteful travel and more well-considered and meaningful conference experiences.
I’d also like to second Alfred’s point about inequalities. People in privileged situations who do have ample travel money and are able to use it without long and difficult visa application processes of course like the status quo of lots of in person meetings. But people who can’t easily access these spaces get marginalised when they are the dominant form of academic exchange, networking, and so on. Maintaining the status quo therefore means perpetuating systematic inequalities, continuously favouring the already privileged people in wealthier universities or in European and North American countries.
There is also a lot of evidence documenting how in person conferences are usually difficult for primary caregivers (often women) and people with disabilities. We make the point in the paper that shifting more conferences online might even out some of the gender gap in career progression and the marginalisation of philosophers with disabilities.
Basically, we see online conferences as a massive opportunity to deal with some of the major issues facing our profession at the moment. Continuing to organise in person conferences because you prefer it is of course ultimately up to you and your funders. But we should recognise that such events have a large environmental and social cost that should not be overlooked when comparing with an online option.
I agree with any reform of the way we do or used to do things if (a) it is based on cost-benefit analysis and (b) it does involve the affected people in the decision-making process, so that their interests are not simply neglected. Other than that, I think we should not exaggerate with the virtualization of our life, because it might bring serious long-term harms (e.g. to mental and bodily health: depression, loneliness, obesity, heart disease, stress). Also, I think that virtualization does not solve problems of global inequality, on the contrary, it might eliminate entire universities and academic communities in developing countries in the fierce global competition for online attention and money which will be untamed by any physical impediment.
An older post of mine on this topic:
https://biopoliticalphilosophy.com/2020/01/30/the-costs-of-flying-an-intersectional-analysis-guest-post/