Virtual academic conferences: A mixed-methods study of equitable participation according to gender and country-income level

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2250662/v1

Download PDF

Article

Virtual academic conferences: A mixed-methods study of equitable participation according to gender and country-income level

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2250662/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Scientific conferences are crucial to fostering knowledge exchange, career development, and transdisciplinary research to address complex problems. Recent transitions to virtual formats are shown to increase attendance and potentially address equity concerns by mitigating structural, financial, and logistical barriers. However, the social, behavioural and intellectual implications of moving conferences online are less well understood. We examine participation in a well-established scientific conference in its second year fully online, according to gender and country income level of videoconferencing attendees. We interlink these data with rich qualitative insights to look beyond attendance and to understand the nature and experiences of actual participation. We find that virtual conferences facilitate equitable access for women and researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) through removing visa requirements and travel costs, and by enabling attendance alongside family care obligations. Alongside technological advances, this contributes to disrupting power dynamics in academia. However, loss of human connection and multi-dimensional stimulation of in-person attendance may be detrimental to collaboration and sense of community. Advancements in the equity, diversity, and inclusion of scientific exchange are accelerating but organisers must ensure that transitions to virtual or hybrid conferences does not create a two-tiered system in which researchers with limited access to resources are excluded from the rich intellectual and social benefits of in-person conferences.

Scientific community and society/Agriculture

Scientific community and society/Scientific community/Events/Conferences and meetings

The COVID-19 pandemic forced academic conferences to embrace virtual formats in a short space of time. This step change was long overdue, as evidence indicates that in-person conferences present inequitable barriers to attendance; in the form of high registration fees, travel and subsistence costs, time-away from work, childcare and ability assistance ^1–3, as well as well as vaccination requirements ⁴ and discriminatory visa restrictions ^5–7 . Researchers and institutions facing these barriers are less able to participate in scientific exchange fora, thus perpetuating inequities in scientific debate ^8,9 and jeopardising plurality in scientific enterprise ^10–12 at a time when collaboration across geographies, disciplines and sectors is urgently needed to solve the most pressing global and local challenges. In an era of renewed commitment to equity and decolonization of science, there is moral, just and pragmatic imperative to ensure that scientific fora become fertile and flat grounds for scientific exchange.

The transition to virtual COVID-19 pandemic has been credited with a range of benefits, including reducing aviation-related carbon emissions^13,14, increasing absolute attendance and improving the diversity of conference attendees – including people with physical disabilities, women and researchers from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) ^2,5,15–17 . Furthermore, some studies show that virtual conferences provide less hierarchical environments which may foster democratized and decentralized scientific exchange ^18–20 and may be equally effective for learning¹⁵.

However, virtual formats also present new barriers to inclusive participation - or the quality thereof - including inequities in internet and technology access ^21,22 and unequal and gendered domestic demands in home environments ²³. The loss of in-person interactions may constrain peer-to-peer exchange due to the relatively less immersive nature of virtual learning environments vis a vis in-person learning environments, screen fatigue, and limited opportunity for networking and informal exchanges of ideas and skills ^24–27.

While virtual conferences are shown to increase absolute numbers of attendees – including among historically underserved groups – little is known about the nature of this participation and how attendees behave in virtual spaces. Amid ongoing calls to continue virtual conferences in order to address climate change impacts and advance equity and inclusion in scientific fora ^8,10,26,27 a critical examination of evidence is needed to understand the full range of emerging benefits and barriers to participation¹⁶ . This information is critical to scientific conference convenors who seek to ensure, eliminate or minimize trade-offs.

In this mixed methods study, we look beyond the metric of ‘attendance’ and investigate ‘participation’ in virtual conferencing. We conceive of ‘participation’ as the process of active emotional and intellectual engagement with conference material and attendees that may lead to learning and the formation of community²⁷.

Using the 2021 Agriculture, Nutrition & Health Academy Week Research Conference (here onwards: “ANH2021”), we investigate the drivers, enablers and barriers to active participation and related outcomes in terms of self-reported learning, scientific knowledge exchange, and the formation of meaningful social and academic connections. We paired ANH2021 attendee registration information with Zoom videoconferencing data and conducted a series of focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with conference attendees (Figure 1). In order to analyse the diversity of attendees and the nature of participation in conference sessions we participation compare across gender and country income level subgroups. Together, this furthers our understanding of the barriers and enablers to attending, actively participating in, and reaping social and academic benefits from a virtual conference, as described by participants.

Attendee Characteristics and in-session observations

In total, the virtual ANH2021 Research Conference attracted 566 unique attendees from 62 countries (Figure 2) and a wide range of disciplinary backgrounds (App. 2). There were an equal number of attendees from HICs (n=257) and LMICs (n=257) (Figure 3). Figure 3 shows that more than two-thirds of attendees (n=368; 65.0%) were women and none identified as non-binary. This proportion was greater among HIC attendees, of whom 82.2% (n=211) were women compared with 61.1% (n=157) of LMIC attendees.

The following values are presented as sample average accompanied by minimum and maximum values: mean (min, max). On average, attendees took part in an average of 2.4 sessions (min:1, max: 12) of the 14 on offer (17% of all sessions) (Figure 4) over three days. They remained in virtual sessions for an average of 65.4% (min, max: 0.8, 100%) of the total session duration (Figure 5). Forty percent of all attendees contributed to the chat (n=220) over the entire research conference (Figure 6). Among those who contributed to the chat at least once, the average number of posts per person was 2.1 per person per session (min, max: 1, 12) (Figure 6).

Women participated more than men: women attended on average 2.7 sessions (min, max: 1, 12 )(Figure 4), for 69.6% (min, max: 0.8, 100%) of the full session duration (Figure 5), and 44% of women (n=161) contributed to the chat box at least once (Figure 6). Meanwhile, men, attended on average 2.0 sessions (min, max: 1, 12) (Figure 4), for 63.6% (min, max: 0.8, 100%) of the duration (Figure 5), while 38% (n=161) contributed to the chat box at least once (Figure 6).

Grouping by country income category, our data show that HIC attendees joined more sessions and for longer, with a larger proportion contributing to the chat than LMIC attendees. HIC attendees joined 2.7 sessions each (min, max: 1, 11) (Figure 4), for 73.2% of the total duration (min, max: 0.8, 100%) (Figure 5), and 47% contributed to the chat (n=120). (Figure 6) LMIC attendees joined 2.3 sessions (min, max: 1, 7) (Figure 4), for 62.8% (min, max: 1.3%, 100%) (Figure 5) of the session durations, with 38% posting to the chat (n=97) (Figure 6).

Participants’ perceptions

In total, 14 ANH2021 attendees, six from HICs and eight from LMICs and 11 women (W) and 3 men (M), took part in the qualitative component of this study. Ten had previously attended in-person (AIP) and four attended online only (AOO). Participation characteristics are detailed in Table 1. No new codes arose from the fourth FGD data, thus we felt confident that thematic saturation had been achieved, in line with previous studies on thematic saturation³¹. Abbreviated characteristics of study participants follow each quote. Select quotes, unless otherwise stated, represent lager patterns in the data.

*Table 1:* Participation characteristics of qualitative sample
	Women (n=11)	Men (n=3)	Total (n=14)	ANH2021 (n=566)
Mean sessions attended (min-max)	4.1 (1, 8)	2.3 (1, 5)	3.7 (1, 8)	2.4 (1, 11)
Mean duration of attendance/session	77.7% (45.8%,96.9%)	83.9% (73.3%,100%)	79.1% (45.8%,100%)	65.4% (0.8%,100%)
Contributed to the chat (n, %)	(6, 54.55%)	(1, 33.3%)	(7, 50%)	(225, 40%)
Previously attended in-person (n, %)	(7)	(3)	(10)	-

Attending online from different geographies and work environments

Making virtual conferences accessible across multiple time-zones, retaining attendees online and fostering meaningful social connections are key challenge for organisers, which can be partially tackled through innovative use of technological platforms. ANH2021’s programming catered for those in central and moderately Western and Eastern time-zones who could join during, before or after work, “The time zone, especially for those people where it was after five when the conference started, it helped them. They were finished with their office work, and they were still able to attend.” (FGD3, W, Uganda AOO) but created a geographical barrier to participation for people in far-Western and far-Eastern hemisphere time-zones, “It started sometimes at two or three in the morning. So, from a person living in the Western US, it wasn't great. Then think about all the West Coast and Latin America. You missed all that, too.” (FGD2, W, USA, AIP).

Limited institutional recognition of the value or legitimacy of virtual conferences meant that their managers were not likely to grant them time away from work to attend, “These virtual conferences, it's almost like they're just seen as you're watching Netflix at your desk or something” (FGD2, W, Zimbabwe, AOO). While several barriers to attend were lowered, attendees noted that the advantages came with challenges to active participation. For example, distractions due to simultaneous work and family obligations made scientific exchange less immersive.

“While I was effectively attending the session, somebody or my boss may call me and I might interact while attending side by side. On the other hand, if it was in-person, I may fully depart from my work. But in this case, I was handling both side by side. It has its own distracted nature.” (IDI3, M, Ethiopia, AIP).

Flexibility and equitable access

Despite challenges presented by time-zones and concentrating online, the flexibility to attend from one’s own home was unanimously perceived as an improvement for equitable access. Attending alongside existing work and family obligations and reduced cost of attending made it easier for women to attend,

“Online, for the ladies like myself with kids, you're still able to attend. So, I'm also thinking that ladies who are pregnant at that time were also able to participate. If it was face to face perhaps maybe they would not travel” (FGD4, W, Uganda, AOO).

In addition to gender equity, participants commented that the virtual format may reduce racial inequities, “So in as much as possible, I see some barriers -especially with regards to equity- reduced from the women's perspective, but also if you look at other social barriers in terms of race, colour, I think that [the virtual format] helps.“ - (FGD4, W, Uganda, AO). But this was also attributed to the strong sense of community fostered by the ANH Academy over time "I think there's some kind of power asymmetry that is slightly decreased in this particular conference compared to other conferences, and it might just be by the fact that not everybody is one colour.” (FGD4, W, USA, AIP).

With no travel-related barriers -including geopolitics, visa and vaccination requirements, and cost of travel- it was easier for researchers and practitioners from LMICs to attend. Geopolitics was a barrier for in-person conference attendance, as represented by substantial barriers to cross the borders between India (where ANH was held in 2019 in-person) and Pakistan (where ANH2021 was intended to be held, were it not virtual). Participants speculated that “In India, I've been denied visas to go to Pakistan before in the past for work… that may have been a barrier for me to travel there.” (FGD4, W, USA, AIP) and related previous experiences of visa-rejection, “I haven't attended any in person. Unfortunately, I couldn't get a visa for India the last time [for ANH 2019].” (FGD3, W, Pakistan, AOO).

Online participation substantially reduced cost of joining the event, which particularly enabled early-career and LMIC researchers who have limited access to funding and travel support to attend, “Definitely, financially it reduced barriers. I mean, I was a student through to the last one… all of those administrative issues of getting the support for travel and conference attendance and all of that was ... not even existent,” (FGD4, W, USA, AIP).

Technology

In assessing the use of technology, no study participants viewed it as an adequate replacement for in-person connectivity, but they appreciated advancements in technology that enhanced interactivity, improved the efficiency of exchanging resources, or afforded them confidence to pose questions live or through the chat box. Respondents noted that the extent to which people could benefit from technological innovations depends upon age, technological competency, internet quality and stability.

Study participants agreed that, on a functional level, the Zoom chat box increased the efficiency of exchanging resources and assisted knowledge exchange, “The knowledge sharing happened more, and it was quick, and the links were available in the chat box immediately, so you can access the links and articles.” (FGD2, W, India, AIP) but were ambivalent about the experience of contributing to the chat. Some participants voiced substantial concerns, signalling a sense of detachment and inability to form lasting connections online:

“In most cases, when I see that guy from his profile and I wanted to chat with him or with her I was not able to chat like I wanted to talk in-person. That was a problem which I faced. So the virtual platform may not be as such effective in creating colleagues which you are communicating face to face or in-person. It is for short period. For the moment, you may chat, you may talk, but it may not be long lasting” (IDI3, M, Ethiopia, AIP)

Other participants believed that the chat created attendee-led discussions offering insights from a greater volume of people “there's a lot of people comment to other questions, so it's not the speaker that answers… there's actually strangely more of a group interaction” – (FGD2, female, Zimbabwe, AOO) compared with in-person, “I think it was easier with these chat box, like everyone could give an input... I think you can share more than when you are in person …when you are in person you speak with the one, two, three people, but not with 100 at the same time.” (FGD2, W, Italy, AOO). The anonymity online afforded early-career researchers the confidence to pose questions and present their research findings, actions which they reflected would have been limited by seniority power dynamics in-person:

“Yeah, it was easier to ask questions or put our comments in the chat box than in person, because social desirability, social acceptance issues. Like should I ask this question? Will it look not good or is the question not very relevant? So these kind of thoughts, definitely the inhibitions came down and yes, even for presentation when you are not facing the real audience you can be more-free to put your posters and express, definitely. These are the advantages of virtual mode, definitely” (FGD2 , W, India, AIP)

The ability to benefit from technological connections was influenced by the quality and stability of their internet connection, “Internet can be a barrier by itself. There are certain times during the day where attending a conference becomes almost impossible because your Internet access is really bad“ (FGD4, W, Uganda, AOO). Internet access has geographical implications for equity of access, “Being in a developing country and having Internet challenges maybe limits your participation, but also the time zone [limits your participation]” (FGD4, W, Uganda, AOO,) with another noting that this was particularly apparent during lock-down when colleagues did not have access to internet services through their university or place of work, “I work with an international Institute. A lot of our national partners are still unable to join the meetings because they need airtime or bandwidth, particularly during the lockdown.” (FGD2, W, Zimbabwe, AOO).

Meaningful social and academic connections

Study participants agreed that it was difficult to concentrate for extended periods online, “By the time you start holding people online for more than two hours, the law of diminishing return will set in, the fatigue will set in.” (IDI2, M, Nigeria, AIP) owing to the monotony and social detachment of virtual setting, “Online it became so monotonous like each and every day we will be having virtual conferences… or review meetings online. So, it was boring” (FGD3, W, India, AIP). Consequently, they were very selective about their participation and most felt they had limited capacity to authentically engage with the full duration of presentations and with other attendees. This contributed to virtual interactions feeling more transactional or functional than in-person. The lack of opportunities for informal follow-up interactions limited intellectual exchange, as illustrated by one study participant:

“There's a knowledge of insights that come from interaction and discussion after the session, by which, the attendees, probably, in their own private and more relaxed interaction, they could dish out their respective understanding and go on with individual facts that may even shape their research objectives later on…And that way, it's more productive than being restricted to a virtual session that has a time slot” ( IDI2, M, Nigeria, AIP2)

Participants who previously attended ANH conferences in-person agreed that, in-person conferences present long-term benefits for networking and learning by situating one’s own and colleagues’ research in cultural and social knowledge exchange, “When we attend such events in-person, you are learning a lot, you know, the geography, the demography and the other social aspects of the community, or the attendee, or the hosting country.” (IDI2, M, Nigeria AIP) and “you get a sense of what people are working on, what excites them, frustrates them, you know who the players are. You can't do that online. So, that entire layer of a conference just disappears, and that's sad. So, to me, that's the biggest loss.” (IDI1, M, Belgium, AIP).

Most perceived networking as more effective in-person, “I know that there were a lot of efforts to replicate a networking environment, but it just wasn't the same [virtually].” (FGD4, female, USA, AIP); some found it very challenging, “The idea of trying to network online was just like, yeah, I can't do this. I tried once and it was very awkward for me” (FGD4, W, USA, AIP) or made no attempt to network in the virtual platform, “So nobody was reaching out to me and I didn't want to reach out to anybody. There was nobody.” (FGD1, W, USA, AIP ). Thus, the ability to form meaningful connections was limited:

“Creating a friendship or the professional intimacy is very important in-person rather than online. I made friends from Nepal [in-person conference, Kathmandu, 2017] and still we are communicating. But in case of virtual meeting platform, I attended two of the ANH academy weeks which were online and I didn't get such intimacy” (IDI, M Nigeria, AIP Hyderabad, India 2019).

There was a perceived dissonance between increased volume of attendance in the virtual conference alongside reduced strength and value of connections, “What you lose, because the intention of this is really mentorship and linkages, is more than what you gain. You increase access to the material [online], but you really want to strengthen linkages and have an enduring effect” (FGD1, W, USA, AIP).

While study participants noted the importance of connecting in-person, some made meaningful connections virtually. Two early career attendees recounted meeting their fellowship mentors at the virtual conference, “In my case it is definitely meaningful because I got my host [ANH Academy] mentor” (FGD4, W, Italy, AIP) and another recounted applying for a grant with other conference attendees.

The virtual setting was perceived to disrupt traditional hierarchies of in-person conferences – particularly across seniority – by increasing the number of early-career, LMIC, and women researchers and reducing their inhibitions to communicate with more senior experts. Disrupted hierarchies in the virtual setting was perceived by a few participants as enabling them to connect and network more freely, “Online, it did break down barriers and it also allowed me to connect to people and find out more, which I wouldn't have had. So I think it was much more inclusive that way.” (FGD2 , W, India, AIP). It contributed to a valuable repositioning of broader academic power:

“We’re also in a space, I think, in the world where there's a bit of pivoting towards academia to just not be all about connecting with seniors and all of that. It's been empowering to meet other people that I feel inspired by in my same sort of level of career, to apply for things together that you find other people are also interested in. The idea is not entirely shut down by a senior colleague who may or may not have interest in that field. So, in that way it's been meaningful.” (FGD2, W, USA, AIP).

Several study participants reflected on the positive dimensions of disciplinary and geographic diversity, early-career representation, and a sense of pre-existing community through in-person conferences both among attendees and organisers that was maintained virtually “I think there's an effort obviously to create a certain kind of community and culture for this particular conference that is clear even in the virtual space.” ( GD2, W, USA, AIP). However, participants noted that some predominant power dynamics of in-person conferences persist online, arising from disproportionate HIC institutional decision-making power and seniority, “And I think that power definitely lies in geography of institution and seniority” (FGD3 , W, USA, AIP) and English-language dominance, “Language, whether you're online or in person, can be a barrier of participation regardless” (FGD2, W, USA, AIP).

Despite the limitations, participants were unanimous that the virtual format must continue because of its potential to widen participation in scientific knowledge production:

“I think this is the only community which does such kind of a thing in virtual mode and keeping our interests in mind. I could have never imagined this sort of a thing. For me, it's a blessing really. I don't know why LSTHM, or anybody is doing it, but for me, it's a real blessing. So, I couldn't have asked for anything better. And please never stop the ANH. I always put this request please never stop it because it's really a blessing.” (FGD2, W, India, AIP).

In this mixed-methods study, we investigated the nature of participation in virtual academic symposia through the lens of a well-established international conference- the ANH Academy Week- by innovatively linking attendee registration information with Zoom videoconferencing data and drawing on nuanced insights from focus group discussions and interviews. We discuss how, firstly, the virtual format improves diversity and inclusion of scientific fora and, secondly, disrupts dogmatic knowledge exchange by providing a non-hierarchical learning environment, but, thirdly, presents challenges to forming rich and meaningful personal connections.

Firstly, the ANH2021 virtual conference attracted equal proportion of HIC and LMIC attendees, with a larger proportion of women than men. This represents a substantial increase from previous in-person ANH Academy Weeks [1]. In-person conference travel – and its associated visa, vaccination, time and costs – is untenable for many groups without adequate funds or time, including early-career researchers³² and those with family and domestic responsibilities ^33,34. Among our qualitative study participants, there was a consistent view that the virtual conferences removed such barriers and enabled attendance alongside family and care obligations. This may explain in part the quantitative data showing equitable attendance across income groups and a strong turnout of women at ANH2021, which is consistent with an analysis of ANH2020 ¹³ and other virtual conferences ^16,17,27 . Importantly, this diverges from trends of in-person conferences globally in which high income country attendees⁵ and men are overrepresented³⁴.

When examining active participation, our findings that more HIC attendees asked questions and attended for a greater proportion of the session than LMIC attendees, could arise from issues in accessing internet^21,22 , connecting whilst on the commute home owing to time-zone differences, or English-language dominance³⁵. Women’s active participation in the virtual conference complements growing evidence that virtual conferences not only facilitate women’s attendance ^20,36 but their engagement and participation³⁷ compared to in-person formats where women have been shown to ask absolutely and proportionately fewer questions ^38,39. At the intersections of disadvantage, women of colour and ethnic minority are at particular risk of exclusion from academia because inequities surrounding race or ethnicity and gender interact to impede career trajectories in predominantly white and male dominated spaces ^7,34. Therefore, our evidence of near equal participation among LMIC women and HIC women online indicates that virtual scientific exchange fora could counter persistent exclusion of marginalised knowledge, contributing to necessary structural changes^8,10.

Secondly, our findings suggest that virtual environments – including Zoom chatboxes –may facilitate rapid, efficient knowledge exchange, while offering opportunities for less confident participants to seek advice from experts. That participants from different backgrounds felt able to drive discussions at ANH2021 mirrors descriptions of virtual conferences as democratising, multi-functional, and complex ^18,19,40 and supports evidence that virtual settings may reduce power dynamics between gender, seniorities, ethnicities, geography and income ^9,24,25. However, on the flip side several study participants found interacting online awkward, alienating, and unproductive. This ambivalence reflects mixed literature, where some perceive virtual settings to enhance interactivity and social networking opportunities^15,37,41 ; while others perceive the opposite ^24,42,43.

The home or work environments in which virtual conference attendees join from emerged as an influential factor for active participation, with many study participants describing a struggle to engage adequately alongside home distractions, work obligations and reduced recognition by employee institutions of the legitimacy of virtual conferences. Together with age-related technological challenges which may impede ability to socially connect or learn online ³⁷ and intermittent internet access which globally runs along income lines and disproportionately impacts LMICs ³ – these factors may explain why less than half the conference participants did not post in the chatbox, echoing quantitative findings elsewhere of chat-box inactivity ⁴⁰.

Thirdly, the sense of community and enabling environment for interacting in a conference lays the foundation for networking and social connection. Our findings show this as particularly challenging to emulate in the virtual setting. Virtual fora risk alienating people from these academic and professional communities because the multi-dimensional experience of in-person conferences – i.e. sharing meals, holding spontaneous conversations, ability to set-up immediate impromptu follow-up discussions and embedding professional relationships in colleagues’ cultural contexts – is lost in the online environment. It is critical that conference organisers make intentional and proactive efforts to facilitate connections across seniorities and geographies.

Yet the potential benefit of interacting with a greater diversity of participants in the virtual ANH conference was not fully realized because the time-bound and linear nature of virtual interactions led to fleeting, less-productive or transactional relationships. While there was evidence that some participants formed lasting connections, the lack of in-person interaction and spontaneity presented a barrier. Other studies also found this critical to forming long-lasting and impactful scientific exchange and community ^3,16,27and cite it as the primary loss of virtual conferences^17,24,25,42. Among those study participants who had attended in-person conferences in the past, all expressed a marked difference between the rich, informal, and productive nature of human interactions versus that of the virtual setting; seeing virtual-only settings – in their current form – as an inadequate and temporary replacement of in-person events. Informal interactions in-person allow for attendees to learn from the rich diversity of attendees’ backgrounds and experiences that contribute to their research which is also an important mechanism for unlearning dominant thinking and practices⁴⁴.

Taken together, virtual conferences can reduce emissions, increase gender, geographic, and career-stage diversity of participation, and democratize the discussion through chatboxes that enable rapid sharing of information. But building lasting scientific community while maintaining this diversity requires us to continue to design and test approach that combine best of both. Hybrid conference formats – which are partially held in-person with live screenings for virtual attendance- present an opportunity to continue to experiment with achieving a balance between the benefits of in-person and virtual scientific fora. It is critical to continue to investigate what these new formats can offer to optimise benefits for the climate, equity of opportunity and building nurturing scientific communities cutting across multiple divides.

Strengths and limitations

This study contributes to a small but growing area of literature detailing the seismic shift in academic knowledge exchange and production wrought by transitioning to virtual formats ^10,16 and literature using videoconferencing data as a proxy for participation and engagement in virtual conferences ^37,40. We advance existing literature by linking attendee numbers and demographics with rich insights from qualitative findings detailing the challenges and benefits of virtual conferences. Focus group discussions were limited by a lack of male participants and limited geographic diversity. Quantitative data limitations include the lack of detailed information on participants’ career stage, inferences made about gender and country location data from information available online, and a lack of data from previous virtual ANH events due to absence of ethical approval. Furthermore, the terms LMIC and HIC are rudimentary classifications that obscure and homogenise inequities within income groups and fail to recognise that LMIC is a heterogenous group of countries that periodically move between income groups⁴⁴.

[1] Previous analyses of the in person versus online ANH Academy Weeks compared total attendee data from both Learning Labs and Research Conference elements. This study only explores Research Conference data, attendance at both elements of the event remained larger than in person formats.

Our findings provide new evidence on the nature of participation in virtual academic conferences, indicating that important variations exist beneath the simple metric of ‘attendee’ or ‘participant’. Looking beneath these metrics has revealed a whole new set of enablers and barriers to active participation, experienced in nuanced ways by different groups, with particular implications for those at the intersections of disadvantage or inequities.

The benefits of virtual conferences for absolute attendance and environment are clear, and therefore such offerings must continue. While virtual settings widen attendance, enable the exchange of web-based resources, knowledge and contacts, in-person conferences appear better equipped to facilitate lasting connections and productive knowledge exchange through unbounded and informal interactions. These divergences must be tackled to ensure that people attending solely virtual conferences – likely women, early-career, older, disabled, and low- and lower-middle income researchers – are properly included in the research community and reap the social and professional benefits of conferencing. Without this, hybrid events, or the co-existence of in-person and virtual conferences will create a two-tiered system with its own new inequities. Increasing access to academic conferences is crucial but improving access alone does not solve existing inequities in academia. Organisers and curators of symposia must look carefully at participation to better understand how to remove barriers for all types of attendees, to ensure that scientific debates, evidence-generation, knowledge sharing and solutions to the challenges of our world are inclusive and effective.

Study Setting

The Agriculture, Nutrition & Health (ANH) Academy (www.anh-academy.org) was established in 2015 as an interdisciplinary platform for researchers, practitioners and policymakers working at the nexus of agriculture, food systems, nutrition and health. ANH Academy has grown into a global community of over 8,000 members in over 140 countries. Membership is free and registration for the ANH annual meetings, ANH Academy Weeks, which were in-person before COVID-19 outbreak, have been free or subject to a nominal and voluntary charge for those who can afford it. Registration for virtual ANH Academy Weeks since 2020 remained free to all.

The ANH Academy Week was co-hosted by and rotated between institutions in African and Asian countries from 2016 and 2019 in order to lower barriers to participation. In 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the conference moved fully online for the first time. In 2021, the conference was held virtually for the second time, in partnership with research institutions in Pakistan. Over 2,100 people registered for the event. ANH Academy Week comprises two elements; interactive workshop-based ‘Learning Labs’ and a ‘Research Conference’, which in addition to research conference presentations included virtual spaces for networking, socialising and poster presentations.

This paper explores attendance and participation at the ‘Research Conference’ element of ANH2021, which hosted 566 unique attendees and took place across 14 sessions over three days: 4 plenary and 10 parallel abstract-driven sessions. Social and poster sessions are not analysed in this study. Quantitative data on in-session participation were only collected for ANH2021 because owing to the rapid transition online in 2020 organisers had insufficient time to obtain ethical approval for data collection in 2020. Although focus group participants reflected on experiences from 2020 and 2021, the quantitative elements pertain solely to 2021, when organisers were able to obtain ethical approval for data collection.

Study Design

We implemented a mixed-methods methodology that included: 1) quantitative measures of ANH2021 research conference attendance and Zoom chat activity by attendee characteristics to analyse the diversity of participation; and 2) focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with ANH2021 attendees to investigate perceptions of the challenges and benefits of achieving meaningful participation, learning, and networking in the virtual conference format.

Data collection and sampling

We utilised sign-in and chat box transcript data collected by Zoom videoconferencing software. Upon closing a session, Zoom allows automatic download of 1) a timestamp of when an attendee logged in or out of each session to compute the duration of each attendee’s participation, and 2) the full chat transcript to compute the total number of chat box posts per attendee.

Data from the Zoom sessions were linked to the registration database by each attendee’s email address using VLOOKUP function in Excel and transformed using Stata SE.16’s ‘reshape wide’ function to total 566 unique attendees of the ANH2021 Research Conference[2]. From this we computed the total number of sessions each person attended across the three-day conference.

For a fraction (<5%) of attendees who were not able to be automatically matched to registration data (missing or incorrect email in Zoom or Registration data), we manually updated their country location and gender based on institution location and gender of pronouns used to refer to them in information retrieved through Google searches of their registered name, though the data remained anonymous. A remaining 52 attendees could not be matched with gender or location data.

Participant characteristics

In the registration portal for ANH2021, registrants were asked to report their country location and gender (Male, Female, or Non-binary) by selecting from a drop-down menu. Country location was computed into World Bank country income classification for Financial Year (FY) 2021 and grouped into High-Income (HIC) and Low- and Middle-Income (LMIC) groups. Linking these data to the Zoom database enabled us to analyse whether participation differed by geography and gender.

Number of sessions attended and in-session observations

To quantify participation, we compute the total number of sessions an individual attended across ANH2021 virtual research conference, and the average attendance duration and average number of chat box posts over the total number of sessions each individual attended.

Participants’ perceptions: Focus Group Discussions and In-depth Interviews

We used qualitative methods to explore how conference attendees perceived the relative barriers to and enablers of active participation, learning environment and knowledge exchange, and for making meaningful social and academic connections. Because some study participants had previously attended in-person and at least one virtual ANH conference, we also had the opportunity to compare experiences between both formats, which cannot be explored in the quantitative data. Small Focus Group Discussions (FGD) were chosen to capture a range of perspectives and experiences on the study topic from a diversity of purposely selected participants, which generate conversation about shared and differing experiences and opinions²⁸. We followed these by in-depth interviews to further explore the emerging themes ²⁹ and ensure adequate representation in the sample. Smaller groups were more realistic when arranging across multiple time-zones and larger virtual discussions may have become unwieldy.

We purposively sampled interview participants from the 566 unique conference attendees by creating a sampling matrix to capture at least one male and one female attendee from each a) geographic region, b) attendees who did and did not contribute to the chat, and c) who attended either one, versus multiple sessions. The sampling matrix produced 129 candidates and was intended to capture the diversity of attendee and participation characteristics to elicit a range in opinions. We sent email invitations to join a FGD to 112 attendees (the remaining 17 had contributing roles to the event and may have presented a conflict of interest). We conducted three in-depth interviews of men because the available focus group participants were all women. All FGDs and interviews were held over Zoom in English.

Participants of the qualitative study were asked a series of open-ended and semi-structured questions to prompt discussions on the barriers to participate, on 1) equity of access, and inclusion in virtual conference formats; b) enabling learning environment and knowledge exchange; c) meaningful social and academic connections; and d) overall enjoyment (see App. 1). Probes were used to clarify particular topics raised or conflicting views between FGD participants conflicting views between FGD participants.

FGDs and interviews were transcribed by a private company. After the first two FGDs, the transcriptions were reviewed, and the interview guide adjusted according to emerging themes to ensure that the data could aid us in achieving the study aims.

Data Analysis

Mean values for all attendee and participation metrics were computed for the whole sample, grouped by gender or country income group, and grouped by gender within country income group. Quantitative data are presented in text as mean (min, max) or proportions (n=x%).

Thematic analysis of FGD and interview transcripts was used to identify key themes guided by qualitative data analysis guidelines^28,29. Interview transcripts were loaded into Excel and coded manually in an iterative process of deductive and inductive coding to ensure that both a priori and emergent themes –those raised by participants- were covered.

Deductive techniques were used to code the data against a coding framework composed from existing literature’s discussions on the technical, political, and logistical barriers and enablers to attending virtual and in-person symposia; and the consequences for active engagement, learning, enjoyment, and social and networking opportunities from moving online. Inductive techniques such as open-coding and in vivo coding were used to capture emerging themes. After grouping the codes into themes and sub-themes, we explored emerging patterns and connections in relation to attendee participation characteristics.

Qualitative study design and reporting of results was conducted in accordance with published guidelines³⁰.

EW coded and analysed the data; LB checked and was consulted about the analysis and JY conducted a random check of the thematic coding to ensure consistency across interviews. Discrepancies were resolved through discussions and the coding revised accordingly.

[2] For this study we do not include attendee data for the Learning Lab element of the ANH Academy Week 2021, which would bring the total attendance to 1040.

Ethical approval

Two-part informed consent was collected during conference registration for attendees to be contacted for subsequent focus group discussions and for the content of the chat transcript to be coded and analysed. Where consent was missing, chat box data have been excluded. Once both registration data and videoconferencing data were linked, all attendee data were anonymised for the purpose of analysis and data management.

Ethics approval was granted from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Interventions Research Ethics Committee, reference number 26511.

Acknowledgements

The Agriculture, Nutrition & Health Academy – and its annual meeting, the ANH Academy Week – is a workstream of the Innovative Methods and Metrics for Agriculture and Nutrition Actions (IMMANA) programme, funded by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The funders had no role in the design, execution or write up of the study. We thank the organisers, attendees and volunteers of all ANH Academy Weeks, without whom this study would not have been possible.

Contributors

JY conceptualised the study. JY, EW, LB and SK designed the methodology. EW and JY curated and analysed the data. LB carried out the focus group discussions and EW the in-depth interviews. JY supervised the project. EW created the figures. EW and JY wrote the original draft, and SK, JW and LB reviewed and edited it.

Positionality statement

The authors acknowledge that as research practitioners educated in high-income country institutions - some of us white, able-bodied and in stable employment in a high-income research institution-, we benefit from the power asymmetries described in this study and thus may be blind to other mechanisms of overt or covert discrimination at play in virtual and/or in-person academic environments.

Data availability statement

All primary quantitative and qualitative datasets will be made available upon request.

Declaration of competing interests

EW, SK, JW and JY are staff at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) who organise the ANH Academy Week conferences. Together, they are continually interested in understanding how to design equitable and accessible conference experiences. LB has delivered sessions and participated/attended in earlier ANH Academy Weeks. Other than this, the authors declare no other competing interests.

de Picker, M. Rethinking inclusion and disability activism at academic conferences: strategies proposed by a PhD student with a physical disability. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1619234 35, 163–167 (2019).
Sarabipour, S. Virtual conferences raise standards for accessibility and interactions. Elife 9, 1–9 (2020).
Niner, H. J., Johri, S., Meyer, J. & Wassermann, S. N. The pandemic push: can COVID-19 reinvent conferences to models rooted in sustainability, equitability and inclusion? Socio-Ecological Practice Research 2020 2:3 2, 253–256 (2020).
Mathiesen, K. Climate talks face rich-poor coronavirus vaccine divide – POLITICO. POLITICO https://www.politico.eu/article/cop26-climate-talks-rich-poor-coronavirus-vaccine-divide/ (2021).
Velin, L. et al. Conference equity in global health: a systematic review of factors impacting LMIC representation at global health conferences. BMJ Glob Health 6, e003455 (2021).
Waruru, M. African and Asian researchers are hampered by visa problems. Nature (2018) doi:10.1038/D41586-018-06750-1.
Wilson, J. W. & Biggs, D. Passport power: Entrenching inequality. Science (1979) 353, 1216 (2016).
Ebrahimi, O. v. Why scientific conferences must mitigate structural barriers. Nature Human Behaviour 2022 6:8 6, 1032–1033 (2022).
King, L. et al. Diversity in geoscience: Participation, behaviour, and the division of scientific labour at a Canadian geoscience conference. Facets 3, 415–440 (2018).
Sarabipour, S. et al. Changing scientific meetings for the better. Nature Human Behaviour 2021 5:3 5, 296–300 (2021).
Sarabipour, S. et al. Evaluating features of scientific conferences: A call for improvements. bioRxiv 2020.
04.02.022079
(2021) doi:10.1101/2020.04.02.022079.
Rowe, N. E. The Economic Cost of Attending Educational Conferences. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences 1, 30–42 (2019).
Yates, J. et al. Can virtual events achieve co-benefits for climate, participation, and satisfaction? Comparative evidence from five international Agriculture, Nutrition and Health Academy Week conferences. Lancet Planet Health 6, e164–e170 (2022).
Tao, Y., Steckel, D., Klemeš, J. J. & You, F. Trend towards virtual and hybrid conferences may be an effective climate change mitigation strategy. Nature Communications 2021 12:1 12, 1–14 (2021).
Stein, M. K. et al. COVID-19 as a disruptor: innovation and value in a national virtual fracture conference. OTA International 4, e117 (2021).
Niner, H. J. & Wassermann, S. N. Better for Whom? Leveling the Injustices of International Conferences by Moving Online. Front Mar Sci 8, 146 (2021).
Raby, C. L. & Madden, J. R. Moving academic conferences online: Aids and barriers to delegate participation. Ecol Evol 11, 3646–3655 (2021).
Achakulvisut, T. et al. Towards Democratizing and Automating Online Conferences: Lessons from the Neuromatch Conferences. Trends Cogn Sci 25, 265–268 (2021).
de Saá-Pérez, P., Díaz-Díaz, N. L., Aguiar-Díaz, I. & Ballesteros-Rodríguez, J. L. How diversity contributes to academic research teams performance. R&D Management 47, 165–179 (2017).
Black, A. L., Crimmins, G., Dwyer, R. & Lister, V. Engendering belonging: thoughtful gatherings with/in online and virtual spaces. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2019.1680808 32, 115–129 (2019).
Mathrani, A., Sarvesh, T. & Umer, R. Digital divide framework: online learning in developing countries during the COVID-19 lockdown. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2021.1981253 20, 625–640 (2021).
Ngware, M. Delivering education online: coronavirus underscores what’s missing in Africa. The Conversation https://theconversation.com/delivering-education-online-coronavirus-underscores-whats-missing-in-africa-134914 (2020).
Peetz, D. et al. Sustained knowledge work and thinking time amongst academics: gender and working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. https://doi.org/10.1080/10301763.2022.2034092 32, 72–92 (2022).
Estien, C. O., Myron, E. B., Oldfield, C. A. & Alwin, A. Virtual Scientific Conferences: Benefits and How to Support Underrepresented Students. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 102, e01859 (2021).
Foramitti, J., Drews, S., Klein, F. & Konc, T. The virtues of virtual conferences. J Clean Prod 294, 126287 (2021).
Kuehne, L. M. et al. Benefits of permanent adoption of virtual conferences for conservation science. Conservation Biology 36, e13884 (2022).
Meyer, M. F. et al. Virtual Growing Pains: Initial Lessons Learned from Organizing Virtual Workshops, Summits, Conferences, and Networking Events during a Global Pandemic. Limnol Oceanogr Bull 30, 1–11 (2021).
Hennink, M. M. Focus Group Disucssions. New York: Oxford University Press. (2014).
Cope, M. Transcribing, Coding, and Analyzing Qualitative Data. (2020).
CASP Checklists - CASP - Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/.
Guest, G., Namey, E. & McKenna, K. How Many Focus Groups Are Enough? Building an Evidence Base for Nonprobability Sample Sizes. Field methods 29, 3–22 (2017).
de Winde, C. M. et al. Towards inclusive funding practices for early career researchers. Journal of Science Policy & Governance 18, (2021).
Jöns, H. Transnational academic mobility and gender. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2011.577199 9, 183–209 (2011).
Timperley, C., Sutherland, K. A., Wilson, M. & Hall, M. He moana pukepuke: navigating gender and ethnic inequality in early career academics’ conference attendance. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2019.1633464 32, 11–26 (2019).
Hommes, F. et al. The words we choose matter: recognising the importance of language in decolonising global health. Lancet Glob Health 9, e897–e898 (2021).
Davids, R. et al. Towards the Three Dimensions of Sustainability for International Research Team Collaboration: Learnings from the Sustainable and Healthy Food Systems Research Programme. Sustainability 2021, Vol. 13, Page 12427 13, 12427 (2021).
Wu, J.-Y., Chen-Hsua, L., Cheng, T. & Nian, M.-W. Using Data Analytics to Investigate Attendees’ Behaviors and Psychological States in a Virtual Academic Conference on JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26977858 (2021).
Carter, A. J., Croft, A., Lukas, D. & Sandstrom, G. M. Women’s visibility in academic seminars: Women ask fewer questions than men. PLoS One 13, e0202743 (2018).
Hinsley, A., Sutherland, W. J. & Johnston, A. Men ask more questions than women at a scientific conference. PLoS One 12, e0185534 (2017).
Moore, C., Fisher, T. & Baber, E. Virtually unknown: teacher engagement in an online conference. ELT Journal 70, 200–211 (2016).
Dunn, E., Lok, I. & Zhao, J. Can Virtual Conferences Promote Social Connection? (2021) doi:10.31234/OSF.IO/37N6U.
Woodruff, P., Wallis, C. J. D., Albers, P. & Klaassen, Z. Virtual Conferences and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Are We Missing Out with an Online Only Platform? Eur Urol 80, 127 (2021).
Spilker, M., Prinsen, F. & Kalz, M. Valuing technology-enhanced academic conferences for continuing professional development. A systematic literature review. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1629614 46, 482–499 (2019).
Khan, T., Abimbola, S., Kyobutungi, C. & Pai, M. How we classify countries and people—and why it matters. BMJ Glob Health 7, 9704 (2022).

Yes there is potential Competing Interest. EW, SK, JW and JY are staff at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) who organise the ANH Academy Week conferences. Together, they are continually interested in understanding how to design equitable and accessible conference experiences. LB has delivered sessions and participated/attended in earlier ANH Academy Weeks. Other than this, the authors declare no other competing interests.

AppendixWaltonConferenceParticipationNov22.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Virtual academic conferences: A mixed-methods study of equitable participation according to gender and country-income level

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Methods

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1