What is the point of conferences?

  First let’s dispose of the obvious one – they are only of limited benefit as places to acquire detailed knowledge – you’d normally learn much more from reading the papers on which the presentations are based and in the international ones, half the people are usually too jetlagged to take in much anyway. So here’s an alternative. Conferences play a crucial role in the formation and renewal of ‘epistemic communities’ – transnational networks of knowledge-based experts who define for decision-makers what the problems they face are, and what they should do about them (in this case, aid and development). At these tribal gatherings, two main processes occur. Firstly, evolution of the system of ideas and opinions: think of the conference as an intellectual ecosystem full of competing ideas. A conference brings them together and allows them to interact – some grow stronger, others weaker. Following the ecosystem analogy, the random mutation of ideas is subject to selection, and the winners multiply. This matters because, as James Ferguson wrote in ‘the Anti-Politics Machine’, ‘the thoughts and actions of development bureaucrats are powerfully shaped by the world of acceptable statements and utterances in which they live’. Hostile ideas (‘aid is bad’) are rapidly surrounded by the conference equivalent of white blood corpuscles and killed off. The assassination [caption id="attachment_2773" align="alignright" width="127" caption="dealing with heretics"]dealing with heretics[/caption] is usually polite (speakers ignored, academic putdowns about opinions being ‘counterintuitive’, that sort of thing), but more vigorous epistemic communities (economists for example), can be quite brutal. The second process is about individuals and their institutions. Conferences are beauty parades where pecking orders constantly evolve. This happens at all levels – speakers, questioners, and the networking over long coffee breaks and meals. ‘That was a good question’ ‘Loved your presentation, could you send me the powerpoint?’ ‘Didn’t think much of X’. By attending them, you brush up your language and buzzwords, find out what’s in and what’s out. Apart from the strokes/slaps to individual egos, re-positioning in the pecking order affects research funding (for academics), consultancies (for consultants) or your access to decision-makers (for NGOs). And if you work for an organization like Oxfam, you try and influence that evolution by nudging things in a certain direction – last week, stressing how much political trust Europe would lose if it breaks its aid promises was probably more important than my more evidence-based presentation of our research on the global economic crisis (our final paper on that is now out by the way – see here). If you think of the epistemic community as an organism, conferences thus help it evolve, develop cohesion and adapt to shifting external threats and opportunities, fending off hostile attacks and improving and renewing ideas and pecking orders. Without them the community would atrophy. Just don’t expect to learn much.]]>

Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our .

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.


4 Responses to “What is the point of conferences?”
  1. Gabriel Pons,
    Ha! 🙂
    Great post. I agree, I think, about the epistemic communities point. Although, to put it in less fancy terms: the strength of academic conferences is that (a) they’re a good way of exposing yourself to a whole heap of new ideas and research that you would have otherwise missed (much quicker than reading the papers and would you really have spotted that in the Australasian Journal of Social Anthropology); and (b) they expose ideas to challenge and debate.
    All of this is less important in the age of the Internet, but once upon a time I’m assuming it would have been essential.

  2. The central idea of the ‘epistemic community’ (writing from an international relations perspective) is precisely that it’s not just a synonym for ‘the scientific expert/academic community’ where opinion can be all over the place.
    Instead, to speak of an epistemic community is to say that not only that the experts and policymakers within it share a common diagnosis and analysis of the problem and solution at hand, but also that they do have an impact on the outcome in question.
    The ‘evidence’ rarely speaks for itself; the epistemic community is exactly about narrowing the range of choices out of which decisions are made, offering clarity and assurances even when a good deal of uncertainty remains.

  3. Through my day job with Catholic Relief Services, I am part of a Leadership Group planning the Fair Trade Futures conference in Boston this coming September (Oxfam America is also a financial contributor). While I’ve been a bit frustrated by how the agenda is being planned, speakers selected, I do expect to learn quite a lot and not just because I am good at avoiding powerpoint poisoning.
    I think there is a lot more in the 2nd part of your ecosystem analogy than beauty parades. These events refresh relationships, serve as a rallying point for projects (and yes papers) to be completed, expand networks and provide important context for the work we do. At least that is how it works for me in the diverse and diffuse Fair Trade world. Sure we do hear the occasional boring speech, but more often we do learn about how Fair Trade has transformed a producer–or consumers–outlook on the marketplace. Or what the flaws in the system are, which serve to galvanize the system so the community roles represented can respond.
    In fact, if we don’t come together regularly, I think the Fair Trade movement in the States particularly is in danger of being quite a polluted ecosystem. Hope to meet you at the Futures conference Duncan!