16 Feb 2021
16 Feb 2021
The Future of Conferences
- 1European Geosciences Union, München, Germany
- 2School of Biological Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Australia
- 3Division of Earth Sciences and Geography, RWTH Aachen University, Germany
- 1European Geosciences Union, München, Germany
- 2School of Biological Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Australia
- 3Division of Earth Sciences and Geography, RWTH Aachen University, Germany
Abstract. In the spring of 2020, as the coronavirus swept across the globe, millions of people were required to make drastic changes to their lives to help contain the impact of the virus. Among those changes, scientific conferences of every type and size were forced to cancel or postpone in order to protect public health. Included in these was the European Geosciences Union (EGU) 2020 General Assembly, an annual conference for Earth, planetary and space scientists, scheduled to be held in Vienna, Austria, in May 2020. After a six-week pivot to an online alternative, attendees of the newly designed EGU20: Sharing Geoscience Online took part in the first geoscience conference of its size to go fully online. This paper explores the feedback provided by participants following this experimental conference and identifies four key themes that emerged from analysis of the questions: what did people miss from a regular meeting; and to what extent did going online impact the event itself, both in terms of challenges and opportunities? The themes identified are: connection, engagement, environment, and accessibility; and include discussions of the value of informal connections and spontaneous scientific discovery during conferences, the necessity of considering the environmental cost of in-person meetings, and the opportunities for widening participation in science by investing in accessibility. The responses in these themes cover both positive and negative experiences of participants and raise important questions about what conference providers of the future will need to do to meet the needs of the scientific community in the years following the coronavirus outbreak.
Hazel Gibson et al.
Status: open (until 13 Apr 2021)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gc-2020-49', Anthea Lacchia, 24 Feb 2021
reply
Dr Anthea Lacchia (lacchiaa@tcd.ie)
I really enjoyed reading this paper. The topic is one that will be of interest to any geoscientist or scientist today. The survey captured the views of scientific audiences at a unique moment in time, when virtual conferences had not yet become the norm (91.5% of participants said they had never attended a virtual conference before). The qualitative analysis employed in this paper is entirely appropriate. The paper is well written and the method is clearly explained, with subject-specific technical terms defined (e.g., lines 259-260 and Section 2.5). The quotes selected in the paper are engaging and appropriate to the themes. The results and conclusions clearly follow from the analysis, and the ending of the paper is poignant (lines 706-722). I particularly appreciated the self-reflective tone of the paper and think this work brings up some important issues for geoscientists to reflect upon.
My main suggestion to the authors is to ensure it is clear, especially in the title, abstract and conclusions, what the results mean for the EGU assembly, and what they might mean for other future conferences. The title of the paper is very effective in that it immediately draws the reader in, but it also seems to promise that a solution will be offered in the paper. What might the future of conferences look like? Can EGU's experience help light the way ahead for others? The recommendations provided at the end of the paper (line 672) are stated as valid for 'future general assemblies', but are some also likely to be valid for conferences in general? I suggest that to elaborate on this question (limitations of the sample in mind) would be useful in terms of aiding the scientific community in organising future events.
Minor notes:
Suggest inserting '(SIC)' in the tables as well as the quotes in the main text, where appropriate.
Line 17: suggest removing 'of its size' as you have not yet described the size of the conference.
Line 21: suggest writing themes in italic or using another way of differentiating them from the rest of the text. Suggest doing the same in the rest of the paper.
Line 22: suggest rewording and starting a new sentence from where you say 'and include' to make sentence structure clearer.
Line 48: change 'make' to 'made' to account for new year.
Line 149: 'among others': should this read 'among other things'?
Line 210: change ':' to ','.
Table 2: In the definition of 'lack of engagement', should read 'fewer opportunities'.
Line 522: Missing word "made" after "been".
Hazel Gibson et al.
Hazel Gibson et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
355 | 115 | 5 | 475 | 1 | 2 |
- HTML: 355
- PDF: 115
- XML: 5
- Total: 475
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1