Conferences in times of crisis

By Agnese Benzonelli, Associate Editor for Archaeometallurgy

For this summer’s issue, I would have liked to have written about a number of archaeometallurgy conferences that should have taken place over the last 6 months, including “The 43rd International Symposium on Archaeometry” in May, “Accidental and Experimental Archaeometallurgy 2.0” in June, and “BUMA X” in September. Unsurprisingly though, these and many other conferences, seminars, and meetings in the field of archaeological science have been cancelled, postponed, or moved to an online platform.

According to Nature, almost 8 million researchers travel each and every year for conferences and seminars. Almost overnight, this was suddenly no longer possible. In less than 6 months we had to shift away from the familiar trend of in-person conferences and find brand new ways to share scientific knowledge, engage in debates, and keep connected with one another through these difficult times. Have we been successful in making the huge new changes we’ve all become accustomed to? Was it possible to transform this period of crisis into an opportunity to build something new?

I have interviewed a number of colleagues from all over the world of different ages, positions, and seniority and asked about their experience with online conferences and seminars, whether as organisers, speakers, or as attendees. All of them used tools such as Teams, Zoom, YouTube live or Facebook live and tried different formulas (both organisers and attendees online, organisers in presence from the hosting institution and audience online. All of the answers were very similar, with a general feeling of positivity overall.

First and foremost, they were all grateful that we could do something that it would not have been possible only 20 years ago, such as the sharp turn toward the online domain to replace en masse what was previously only possible in person This has all been thanks to the presence —no matter how slow or fast— of internet connectivity in the household of each and every candidate that was interviewed.

What appeared from everyone I spoke to, is that this crisis joined all of us globally, giving us a sense of understanding of one another’s personal circumstances, but also provided a newfound patience when it comes to adapting to the new situation, thanks to us all being in the same unknown, unstable, and wholly unpredictable boat. I have also received very little in the way of complaints regarding predictable connection issues, system crashes, or the early alarm set for those in different time zones. Moreover, the conferences still managed to retain a communal feeling, with many of those involved simply happy to have some kind of interaction that can help keep their minds away from the anxiety and sense of on-going uncertainty. 

It was also very comforting to see so many stressing how remarkable it was that the organisers had the ability to adapt to the situation quickly, turning the event on a dime into a virtual one, to help and guide the attendees, and how they did their best to make it exciting and a success while limiting the losses of a physical conference.

From the organisers’ perspective though, many reported high levels of stress, mainly due to the lack of training or support when it came to the online technology platform. While most noted how this quickly became a “learn as you go” experience, they also reported an easier and more effective use of time, a reduction in time loss resulting from displacements, a cut in venue costs and an overall increase in participation to the sessions, especially from those overseas. 

For speakers and attendees, virtual conferences offer many great opportunities that are not otherwise possible, and these have helped many to see it as a positive, even preferential experience. The ability to attend events that would have otherwise been hindered by physical, financial, work-related and numerical constraints, was the most commonly cited reason. Other reasons were the ability to attend several events (or just parts of them) at the same time, be present at events in locations that would have been impossible to visit (where diplomatic or political differences between certain countries would make travel difficult, for example), to multitask more efficiently, to perform easier reference and fact checks, and have simpler access to and production of the recordings and minutes of an event.

The ability to attend conferences from the comfort of their home gave researchers the opportunity to leave more time for personal commitments and family duties—especially for those with young children or care responsibilities; this has led to a reduction in the stress and sense of guilt that many can feel when their work keeps them away from their home and their loved ones. 

The reduction in costs for those attending online conferences (due to the reduction in both conference fees and the waiving of travel and sustenance costs) was also raised frequently, especially from PhD students and young researchers who often do not have all of their costs covered by the institutions. Scholars and researchers, already overwhelmed by additional bureaucracy, meetings and duties during these hectic times, appreciated the time saved by not having to take time-consuming trips to reach conferences all over the world. Many were also pleased when it came to the reduction in environmental impact too, thanks to the lack of necessary travel cutting down on carbon emissions—a growing concern for many researchers in recent years. Finally, one of the most surprisingly common statements among interviewees was, “if someone is an incredibly boring speaker, or you don’t agree with what he/she is saying, you can simply mute them”. 

There were a few points of contention though, mainly when it came to the talks themselves. For some, being alone in a spare room—or in the least inauspicious part of the house—looking only at your presentation with the possibility of hiding all the small squares with peoples’ faces was seen as a positive, less intimidating and more informal and relaxed environment. Others, whilst sympathising with the request of turning the videos off not to overload the system, felt a feeling of frustration for not being able to see the people they were talking to and who was asking questions. Similarly, all of the visual non-verbal communication—that according to studies accounts for 55% of all language interpretation—was lost. People interviewed can however ascertain that the online system led to much better quality of discussion, with more focused and thoughtful questions, especially for those attending the mixed formula of organisers present in person and attendees available online. 

Now, the drawbacks. I will not dedicate time to the already much talked about topic of the isolation, of the commercial aspects that this shift is having, of infrastructure faults and differences among countries. Focusing on personal responses only, what arised most, and the factor that we all saw were the “less replaced and replaceable”, is the lack of the conviviality of a physical event, of the networking. The past time strolling in a conference venue, meeting face-to-face with far away colleagues and new shareholders, hearing (and overhearing) people talking, making new contacts, eating and drinking with people and simply getting out and away from one’s own usual sphere is now unfortunately missing. This kind of social experiences are a given at physical events, while, if they can even happen at all, are much less spontaneous online and have a completely different impact on participants. The pure randomness of certain events, circumstances, meeting sand coincidences is almost totally lost when moving an event online, where the presence to each single portion of it is based on a pure choice. Because of this, online events are unfortunately deprived of those immeasurable factors that make each and every edition of a physical event unique.

After this summary, aside from personally holding any definitive position either in favour or against this paradigm shift and its causes and effects, something that I find very  interesting and worth noting is all of the points that it brings to our attention     along with all that we can take away from the experience.

It is clear that the lockdown, university closures and travel restrictions have shown us that it is possible to make things in a different way, along with pointing out what the advantages and disadvantages are. A fairly huge moment of crisis has led us to seek alternative methods to things we previously thought could only work and function in one way, and we had to do it incredibly quickly too. All of us now have a valuable practical demonstration of new methods, new experiences and new necessities, and an incredibly strong starting point to add to our analysis of our times and society, along with the decades-long debate regarding societal and technological influences. So what’s next?

I believe it is now vital that we do not confine the new method to the emergency situation that brought about its necessity and determined its diffusion, and that we analyse the physical and virtual models to find a blended approach, where we can take the best parts of each and maximise all potential advantages while trying to minimise the disadvantages.

Although it is still very much early days, we have had a good taste of what the internet can offer us, as many are heralding this point as the moment we finally left the 20th century for the 21st. Much change still needs to occur in the near future though, especially from an organisational perspective, such as to infrastructure and access, rules and rights, architecture, and the sharing of culture and knowledge. One thing that is also clear is that true social connections cannot be substituted by the web alone, and this will be a much more difficult conversation. 

We need to really take the time to re-think, discuss and understand our access to conviviality, compresence, spur-of-the-moment human interaction, along with their environmental impact and really take the time to learn from one another’s experience of these months.

In conclusion, almost all of the interviewees believed that the only true way forward will be through a format mixing both the physical and the virtual, with greater emphasis on IT training, quality live-streaming capabilities for online audiences, as well as presentations to audiences in-house, so that those who are unable to attend a conference for one reason or another are not left out and unable to contribute. Ultimately, this should only help to widen the audience, opening up the topics of discussion and making the curriculum available to all.

Most importantly though, it is vital that we continue to share our opinion in the scientific community, be open to these new changes, and keep all of the positives of this new momentum moving forward.

As for the archaeometallurgy… there will be more in my next post. I promise!