The Future Of Conferences Is Unconferences

Header of academic paper: The Future Of Conferences Is Unconferences: Exploring a Decentralized Network of Regional Meetups FORUM | MEANINGFUL DESIGN PROCESSES This forum is dedicated to exploring the notion of meaningfulness in design processes, taking the perspectives of community groups, nongovernmental organizations, and those who are marginalized in society as starting points. Authors will reflect conceptually and methodologically on practical engagements. — Rosanna Bellini and Angelika Strohmayer, Editors Soya Park, MIT, Eun-Jeong Kang, Cornell University, Karen Joy, Rutgers University, Rosanna Bellini, Cornell University, Jérémie Lumbroso, University of Pennsylvania, Danaé Metaxa, University of Pennsylvania, Andrés Monroy-Hernandez, Princeton University Meetings and conferences are perhaps one of the most important fundamental ways in which people come together and change happens. Yet this topic is rarely the focus of much academic study. So I’m pleased to discover an academic research article paper about unconference — especially since its title is: The Future Of Conferences Is Unconferences! The paper appears in the October 2023 issue of the venerable Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Interactions journal. ACM is the world’s largest educational and scientific computing society.

Now, I’m not a fan of the term “unconference” because:

Nevertheless, I’m happy that at least some in academia see the value of participant-driven and participation-rich conferences.

Here’s a summary of the paper [read and/or download the full paper here].

The Future Of Conferences Is Unconferences

The paper begins with a critique of traditional conferences that will be familiar to regular readers of this blog: one-sided communication, high costs, environmental impact, and time away from other obligations.

Consequently the authors propose a new model: locally grouped unconferences, that prioritize informal connections and participant-driven content over formal presentations, challenging the hierarchical structure of conventional conferences.

An unconference-style event for local researchers

To assess the feasibility of this model for academic research, a group of researchers in the northeastern U.S. organized an unconference-style Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) event for local researchers. This event was free to attend and focused on interactions between researchers, with an emphasis on dynamic and meaningful interactions.

This one-day event was restricted to 70 participants, and included World Café and three 45-minute panel sessions, each featuring four panelists presenting their research findings. The panel sessions received positive feedback, though some participants noted challenges in selecting panelists and finding relevant papers for discussion.

The World Café table topics and the panelists were chosen in advance, so this wasn’t really a true unconference. However, participants reported “unanimous satisfaction”, “making meaningful connections”, and “interest in attending future similar events”.

The key elements of the unconference program included socialization, dissemination, and event organization. Socialization activities, such as an icebreaker and World Cafe-style discussions, were highly appreciated by participants for promoting engagement. However, they were less effective at identifying collaboration opportunities. [The peer conferences I’ve been running since 1992 are far more effective in this regard.] Participants found the smaller size of the event and unstructured socializing to be conducive to meaningful connections.

Size and location

The authors say that the size and location of the event are crucial. A right-sized event allows for meaningful networking without overwhelming attendees. Participants expressed a willingness to travel to other locations, provided they were easily accessible. They proposed that regional meetups should occur between quarterly and biannually to provide more regular contact with researchers. They should complement official conferences rather than compete with them. The goal is to make conferences more accessible and enjoyable, especially for junior scholars and those with fewer resources.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the paper states that a decentralized regional meetup model offers a promising alternative to traditional academic conferences. Its cost-effectiveness, emphasis on interactions, and potential for more regular contact among researchers make it a valuable addition to the academic conference landscape.

The authors believe that the success of this local unconference model suggests it can mitigate the drawbacks of traditional conferences. To promote more local gatherings, organizers can leverage the lower cost and preparation time of such events. They can also create a portal for organizers to share their experiences and knowledge, enabling others to learn from their experiences.

The authors offer these key insights:

  • A localized unconference model for academic conferences can serve as a viable alternative to mitigate the inherent drawbacks of conventional conferences.
  • Key to the success of such regional meetups is lower friction of organizing.
  • Such regional meetups should focus more on interactions between researchers than the dissemination of knowledge.

—Soya Park, Eun-Jeong Kang, Karen Joy, Rosanna Bellini, Jérémie Lumbroso, Danaë Metaxa, Andrés Monroy-Hernández , The Future Of Conferences Is Unconferences

A potential drawback to hybrid events

drawback to hybrid events: an illustration of a virtual audience of avatars. Image attribution: http://www.flickr.com/photos/public_diplomacy/ / CC BY-ND 2.0

There’s still a lot of buzz in the events industry about hybrid events where there are two audiences: people physically present, the local audience, and people connected to the event remotely, via Twitter, chat, audio, and video streams, the remote audience. But there’s a potential drawback to hybrid events.

Event planners are excited about this new event model because it has the potential to increase:

  • overall audiences
  • interaction between attendees
  • exposure for the event
  • exposure for event sponsors and the hosting organization
  • the value of attendee experience through new virtual tools
  • the likelihood that a remote attendee will become a face-to-face attendee in the future

Because of these positives, I expect that events that include local and remote audiences will become more popular over time. Especially, as we gain experience in what formats work and become proficient at resolving the technical issues involved in successfully hosting these event environments.

But there’s one thing we may lose if we add a remote audience to our events.

A potential drawback

At the face-to-face conferences I run, attendees start by agreeing to a set of ground rules. These ground rules create an environment where participants can speak freely and ask questions. They don’t need to worry that others will reveal their statements or viewpoints outside the event.

It’s hard to convey the difference this assurance makes to the climate at Conferences That Work unless you’ve attended one. The level of intimacy, learning, and community is significantly raised when people feel safe to ask “stupid” questions and share sensitive information with their peers.

I doubt it’s possible to create the same environment of trust when an unseen remote audience joins the local participants. Believing that everyone will adhere to a set of ground rules is risky enough when everyone who agrees is in the same room as you. To sustain the same trust when an invisible remote audience is added is, I think, a significant stretch for many people. If I’m right, the result of opening up a conference to a remote audience may be a reversion to the more common environment of most conferences today, where asking a question may be more about defining status than a simple request to learn or understand something new.

Do you think that hybrid events can be designed so that they are still safe places for people to ask questions and share sensitive issues? Or do you think I’m over-blowing the whole issue?