I’m Celebrating The Return of In-Person Meetings, But Wondering, Who Will Be Left Out?
Studies make it hard to deny that virtual meetings are more diverse
I’m still revving up for 2024, but one of the things I’m looking forward to this year is journalism meetings. In-person meetings! Last year I attended my first since having a kid and the pandemic, and it was just nice.
I’m excited because I feel like in-person meetings deliver all the goodness of the early-pandemic virtual meetings and more! I can meet new editors—honestly, so many of my freelance “breaks” have come from these meetings, whether in person or virtual—and I can also pay much better attention at sessions because I’m sharing actual physical space with other humans.
My excitement faded a bit, though, when I saw a recent article laying out how in-person meetings are less inclusive than virtual.[1] Here are some of the groups that in-person meetings can leave out: those with kids to care for, transgender people, people who have limited mobility, people who are neurodivergent. And that’s a problem because conferences, whether virtual or in person, make careers. They’re clutch opportunities to exchange ideas and build connections.
The article focused on scientific conferences, but I bet the same would apply to meetings about journalism. Or economics or education or fill-in-the-blank with your favorite profession.
But science, I’m looking at you in this newsletter. Your lack of workforce diversity is worse than in other professions, and some suggest that being shut out of scientific conferences because of the barriers to attending is partly to blame.[2]
It turns out that a sub (sub)-field of research has spun up in the last few years to explore the benefits and downsides of virtual meetings. Many scientists have been advocating for going remote to reduce the sizable carbon footprint of moving hundreds to thousands of people from around the world to a meeting site.[3] But many others resisted such a break with the status quo. Then the pandemic started and served up the perfect chance to compare in-person (pre-pandemic) and virtual (2020 and after) meetings.
When you think about it, it’s not that surprising that virtual meetings might allow for a more diverse group of attendees. But the actual differences are pretty striking.
More scientists overall attend virtual meetings, representing a greater number of countries, including low-income countries. One study found that there were more attendees overall, from many more countries, at 2020 virtual meetings than 2019 in-person meetings. This was the case for all the nearly 20 meetings the study included, spanning biomedicine, life science, chemistry, ecology and other fields.[4] Taking a closer look at a few of them showed that, whereas 2019 meetings were predominantly attended by North American scientists, the geographical distribution was more even in 2020, with a greater proportion of attendees from Asia, Latin America and other regions.
Another study suggested that a big reason more scientists attend virtual meetings is because they don’t have to spend money on airfare and other expenses.[2] In the case of one North American-based scientific organization, attendees from Africa, Asia and other overseas regions paid a whopping 90% to 210% more to attend in-person meetings (at U.S. meeting sites) than U.S. scientists.
More women and scientists of color attend virtual meetings. An analysis of three meetings—in astronomy, computer science and material science—found that the percentage of women attending 2020 virtual meetings shot up from 60% to 260% compared with previous in-person meetings.[2] In addition, the Keystone Symposia, a series of conferences in the biomedical and life sciences, noted that women represented 53% of attendees at their all-remote eSymposia compared with 44% at previous in-person meetings.[5]
These findings make sense when considering a study that found virtual meetings made it easier to manage caregiving duties[6], and others showing that women have fewer economic means to travel to meetings.[7]
Another analysis found that attendance at a computational biology meeting spiked tenfold between 2019 and 2020.[3] Although the percentage of women didn’t change, the study saw an increase in Black and Hispanic scientists attending. But still, the research group pointed out that these groups were underrepresented within the meeting delegation, making up only 10% in 2020 (compared with 6% in 2019).
But, but, but…
Ok, these studies make a strong case that virtual meetings can encourage more diverse delegates in terms of geography, gender and race. But what about the quality of the meetings? Attendees of a virtual ecology meeting reported in post-meeting surveys that the setting lacked the “conference spirit” and was “soul destroying.”[6] Others say remote networking events can feel forced compared with those casual and spontaneous in-person chats.[2] [6]
I get that remote meetings can feel, well, remote. But I also feel that we shouldn’t give up all hope. I’ve grown much more comfortable with Zoom meetings over the last four years, and I actually think our brains will probably grow even more accustomed to these settings. And technology to trick our brains into feeling like we’re in-person will probably get better. A few months into the pandemic, meeting organizers had already started using apps that allowed attendees to assume an avatar and interact with other colleagues’ avatars in a virtual space.[2] It’s also important to note that meeting organizers are working hard to connect people virtually—for example, through mentoring groups, small “science cafes” for researchers with similar interests and microcommunities.[6] [8] And last, but not least, some attendees report feeling more comfortable interacting online.[6] I definitely get that too.
For many, there is another downside to in-person meetings. In a number of states in the U.S. and other places in the world, scientists who are transgender may face discrimination and scientists who need emergency reproductive care may not be able to get it. Is it fair to expect them to travel to in-person meetings in these areas? On the other hand, is it fair to avoid all these areas and commit the many scientists based there to traveling greater distances? It is a very tough dilemma that the Science for Everyone Substack thoughtfully explored recently.[9]
The best of both worlds?
Looking ahead to the future of scientific meetings, many think hybrid meetings would be ideal.[3] [8] [10] [11] Give each person the option of attending in person or virtually. I worry, though, that the hybrid approach could create an “us versus them” scenario. There could be less motivation to help scientists attend in person by offering travel grants or childcare, because they have the virtual option, and less effort to improve virtual meetings because many will attend in person. Organizers of meetings that go hybrid will need to work hard to integrate the in-person and virtual audiences and continue to make in-person meetings as accessible as possible to those who prefer them.[5] [8]
I’ll close with one last idea I read that’s one of my favorites. Some meetings are now taking place in multiple “hubs.”[2] [12] Instead of traveling halfway around the world, scientists can go to a regional site, where there are in-person presentations and activities, as well as virtual events with the other sites. It feels as close to a “best of both worlds” scenario as I’ve seen. And it just hit me, I’m probably excited about the meetings I’m attending in person this year because they are in my area. I don’t have to spend more than the cost of a subway or train ticket to get there, I don’t have to twist my and my husband’s schedules around to figure out childcare, and I can still feel the “conference spirit,”at least the kind that I’m used to.
Image Credit: Dion Hinchcliffe, flickr
References
1. A.J. Foxx, A. Adeniran, Virtual conferences improve inclusion in science. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 22, e2699 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2699
2. M. Skiles et al., Conference demographics and footprint changed by virtual platforms. Nature Sustainability. 5, 149-156 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00823-2
3. J. Wu et al., Virtual meetings promise to eliminate geographical and administrative barriers and increase accessibility, diversity and inclusivity. Nature Biotechnology. 40, 133–137 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01176-z
4. S. Sarabipour, Virtual conferences raise standards for accessibility and interactions. Elife. 9, e62668. https://elifesciences.org/articles/62668
5. D.L. Johnson, Virtual conferences democratize access to science. Nature Medicine. 28, 1335 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01849-5
6. C.L. Raby, J.R. Madden, Moving academic conferences online: Aids and barriers to delegate participation. Ecology and Evolution. 11, 3646-3655 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7376
7. H. Jöns, Transnational academic mobility and gender. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 9, 183-209 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2011.577199
8. C.O. Estien et al., Virtual Scientific Conferences: Benefits and How to Support Underrepresented Students. Ecological Society of America Bulletin. 102, e01859 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.1859
9.
11. R. Gregor et al., Building a queer- and trans-inclusive microbiology conference. mSystems. 8, e0043323 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1128/msystems.00433-23
12. S. Sarabipour et al., Changing scientific meetings for the better. Nature Human Behaviour. 5, 296–300 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01067-y