At a conference I recently attended, a sizeable wave of paper presenters failed to attend. The papers were submitted back in February, but travel funds had since vanished and, in some cases, wages had been cut and the presenters could not afford to pay for the airfare/hotel out of their pockets. In the past, a no-show was the kiss of death toward future presentations, but I had the definite sense that most of the attendees felt genuine empathy toward the folks who were unable to attend.
As I pondered this reality, I also remembered that next year’s travel budgets are already gone. The academic conference as we know it is about to undergo a substantial transformation. After all, how long can we support giving faculty members $1,000 to read a paper to a half-dozen other professors in a small conference room in a distant city? Note that I’m not saying that it’s a worthless experience: this is where book chapters, grant proposals, and career networking all are honed and improved. What I am saying is that it is, sometimes, an inefficient way to do these things. My hunch is that some conferences will be forced to move to a biennial or triennial rotation and that someone will figure out how to run online conferences in ways that are productive.
What do you think the future of the academic conference will be? What will they look like 10 years from now?
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
9 Responses to The Rise of the No-Show
a1broom - November 25, 2009 at 3:35 pm
My guess is that as video-conferencing becomes ubiquitous (and cheap compared to travel costs), we will see the current trend to smaller specialty conferences expand through the use of electronic communication. It will take time to get used to it, and travel budget funds will have to be reallocated to electronic media, but an old guy like me finds it hard to believe that people are using Twitter in the classrooom. As is the case with loss of the browse factor as libraries switch to electronic journals and books, the greatest loss will be in the interpersonal interaction with folks you would only meet over a beer at the bar after an interesting talk. Oh, well…Art
11200222 - November 25, 2009 at 3:58 pm
At the last MLA conference I attended, which was in the early 1980s, I remember being at a session at which 5 or 6 speakers gave papers. One by one, as each one delivered his paper (they were all men, by the way), each one left–there was no sense of a need to provide an audience for the rest of the speakers, or to be courteous, or interact, or experience anything new or interesting–only a need to be able to put on the resume that they gave a paper at MLA. This is one of the things which drove me out of English. Such conferences are not much of a loss.
wisensale - November 25, 2009 at 5:37 pm
No-shows are not new. They occurred at a pretty good clip even in economic boom times. I often wondered how (or should I say if?)the no-shows reported their absences in their end-of-the year faculty reports and whether their “presentations” are listed on their CVs. Then again, there are the “phantom papers” presented by those who actually show up at the conference but their “paper” consists of a page or two of notes and perhaps a flimsy PowerPoint presentation. Interestingly, the paper never seems to arrive via e-mail or snail mail after the conference ends and despite multiple requests being made for it by energized members of the audience.
cwinton - November 25, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I’ve increasingly found large multi-session conferences to be a waste and am now basically boycotting them in favor of targeted symposia or similar. Perhaps budget realities will get rid of these relics from a bygone era.
22028881 - November 25, 2009 at 10:49 pm
As an historian (and administrator) I understand both sides of what is happening to the travel funds vs the need to give a paper. Yet, perhaps because I remain active in my field, I understand the intrinsic worth of attending a conference. It is not just giving the paper, but the opportunity to interact with others interested in the same area that makes conferences worthwhile. I will admit that I’m finding the AHA and the OAH conferences less worthwhile–but I still attend my smaller subspeciality national meeting without fail each year. Interestingly, big adminstrator conferences have the same issues–is giving a paper on how your college assesses Gen Ed necessarily worthwhile? Again–it is the hallway/coffee/glass ofwine/ occasions where one gets to network and really talk that is the true value of the conference occasion.
jshervais - November 25, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Anyone who thinks the point of going to a conference is to give (or hear) papers is missing the point. A presentation is just an excuse to go. The POINT of a conference is to confer with your colleagues, formally and informally. The most important discussions take place in the hallways and at local bars. Nothing can replace this face-to-face exchange. Video conferencing only works well if the participants already know each other and have a level of trust. Even then its iffy for more than a few people. Regional meetings are OK for regional contacts, but if you have colleagues from across the country, only a national conference will get them all together.
22228715 - November 27, 2009 at 10:52 am
…and by meeting and getting to know a scholar, you get a sense of his or her background, personality, biases, pet peeves, sense of humor (or lack thereof), scholarly heroes, next projects, wishes and dreams, and perspectives, which makes his or her writing vastly easier to understand, interpret, critique, and build upon. To me, this seems to make the process of getting to know other scholars (in whatever form that may take) essential to the quality of the scholarship of a topic.
englishwlu - November 30, 2009 at 7:53 am
In defense of the MLA: the huge hall dedicated to displays set up by all the academic publishers give me and my colleagues a unique chance to see the new publications in our fields: books we would likely never see inside a bookstore, even if we live in NYC, Berkeley, or Cambridge, MA. Then there’s the face-to-face conversations with editors. Both of these opportunities are irreplaceable.
superdude - November 30, 2009 at 1:15 pm
More than a decade ago, my PhD advisor and mentor remarked to me that “at a conference, I’ll do more for my career in the bar than in the panel room”. He was right. Those bar-room contacts have turned into speaking invitations, articles and chapters, a book, and a network of supporters across the country for whenever I need advice, information, or a letter of reference.Thus, conference will always be useful, and as a department head, I’m always happy to fund faculty travel to them.