Using video-conferencing in a workshop: the case of Rethinking Formal Methods in Philosophy

I recently attended the workshop Rethinking formal methods in philosophy  (RFMP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. It was organized by Samuel Fletcher and Nathan Lackey. The topic of this conference was unusual and exciting, asking deep metaphilosophical questions about how formal methods might contribute to philosophy, and what place it has in graduate and undergraduate teaching. I came away from this conference feeling energized and with lots of new ideas, and I commend Samuel and Nathan for coming up with this topic and for their organization. 

Here I want to focus on one specific aspect of this conference, namely the extensive use of video conferencing technology and other forms of online augmentation. Three of the invited speakers, Branden Fitelson, Joshua Knobe, and Catarina Dutilh-Novaes, participated with video conferencing technology. The university has a specific room to facilitate this. It not only has the standard technology to stream Skype but also microphones in the ceiling that pick up whenever someone is speaking so the person skyping in can hear questions clearly. These talks worked very smoothly with (except one very minor occasion) no technical glitches. Moreover, the technology also permitted remote participants to sit in on other talks, for example, Joshua Knobe saw my presentation on teaching experimental philosophy for undergraduates.

To give you a sense of how it worked, the image shows Branden Fitelson, Skyping in from what appears to be deep space, and the image at the top (tiny) shows the workshop room. Image credit: Liam Kofi Bright on Twitter. 

In addition to this, Liam Kofi Bright live-tweeted the conference (see here and here), and I also contributed a few twitter threads on some papers (e.g., here).  Moreover, Liam took questions from the Daily Nous initial post on this blog during the roundtable discussion. Overall, technology helped to augment and supplement, and draw in a wider range of people to the discussion than would otherwise be able to participate. For example, following the workshop I asked on Twitter whether philosophy graduate programs should still have a logic requirement and it generated this fascinating discussion. 

In recent discussions I've had with academics, motivated by climate change and the role of flying in it, people have wondered whether we should just stop flying altogether for conferences, or at the very least drastically reduce how often we fly. This prompts the need for more possibilities for remote participation. As Catarina said, "to fly so far for a talk for two days, I can't really justify it anymore." 

There is also the problem of people with disabilities and chronic illness who need to restrict their participation at conferences for health reasons. More than one early-career disabled academic I talked to about this has expressed worry that a reduced ability to present their work in conferences and workshops might damage their career prospects. There is also the problem of financial barriers, as many conferences do not pay all expenses even for invited speakers, and some only pay back expenses months after they are incurred. Using the hybrid model provides the possibility for disabled and less well-off participants, as well as people who are worried about their carbon footprint to engage in conferences that would otherwise require extensive travel. If the room is well equipped, remote presenters can not only present their work but also sit in with other talks. 

This is not to say there are no costs. The three remote presenters apologized at the start of their talk that they could not be there in person, and also motivated why they were absent. Maybe in the future, if hybrid remote/physical conferences become more common, the norm will shift and people do not need to make apologies. This would be less burdensome for, e.g., folks who do not wish to disclose health-related reasons for not attending in person. The norm has not shifted yet, though. I am going to participate in a PhD defense across the Atlantic, where I will ask the candidate questions for an hour - I insisted on being Skyped in. They were resistant at first but are now happy to do so. I have also heard on more than one occasion that an invited speaker who requested to be Skyped in was uninvited, because conference organizers insisted everything has to be done in person. 

Another cost is that those three remote presenters were not able to socialize with the rest of us. We did miss them at this conference (though were very grateful they could present via Skype). I don't want to underestimate the importance of live and face-to-face interactions. For example, at this conference I met three people I have known for a long time but had never before met in person, and we had some good discussions over breakfast, coffee, lunch and dinner. Realistically, I do not think that is an advantage that will ever go away. I can't really speak to how we should balance the goods of being able to meet other people of the profession in person with the demands action in the face of climate change, but at the very least, conference organizers can make sure that people at least have the option to participate remotely. Moreover, the use of Twitter and other forms of online augmentation can mitigate some of the problems of lack of in-person interactions. Like with other problems of actions about climate change, individuals taking individual action can only provide modest contributions to the solution, whereas larger structural changes (such as how conferences are organized) can potentially have more impact.  The question of to what extent online interactions enrich or impoverish our lives continues (with recent studies showing no negative effect for teens). Still, hybrid and augmented conferences such as RFMP indicate we perhaps do not need to choose, we could, for instance, have people who live closer by come over in person while people who are further away skype in. 

Comments

[antiskype]

Having some presenters attending in person and others via skype seems to me highly unfair. The people who show up in person dedicate much more time and effort (and possibly money) for the conference, while those who skype in spend just two hours of their time, while sitting at home. In my experience this shows an imbalance of power: the bigshots enjoy the conference from their living room, while the lowlies have to travel and pay to attend.

If the skype-presenters reply that they also have a cost, namely missing out on the fun, socializing, etc., then they should not have accepted the invitation, but made room for an alternative invited speaker who would have been willing to show up in person. Since they cannot usually attend other talks, attending via skype seems to me a cheap way to feed one's ego.

Sorry for the rant.

[Helen De Cruz]

Yes, I see where you are coming from. I'm hoping this model would lower barriers (for people who cannot travel easily), but I can see now how the model would in fact just make it easier for senior folk to add a line to their CV. One might be able to mitigate this as follows:
(1) Don't just make skyping in something for senior folks, but offer the option to more junior people too
(2) Ask the people who skype in to commit to follow most of the workshop/conference. With videoconferencing technology it is possible for them to sit in at the other talks (from the comfort of their own home). It may be tricky due to time zone differences, though.

[we live in the future]

I don't think the antiskype "rant" is fair to those who video-conference into workshops/conferences. Many people would prefer to be there in person and would spend the time/effort/money if they could. For example, as a junior researcher on the job market, I recently had to back out of attending a workshop because I got a last-minute interview. I was really bummed, both because I'd looked forward to the workshop and because I had to back out on an organizer I respect very much. However, I was still able to present and attend some talks via Zoom, which was great. It came at a pretty high financial and time cost too, as I ended up booking another night at a hotel and dealing with an 8-hour time difference, just so I could present online the day after my job interview (before traveling back home) and hear some other talks.

Many other people prefer (or need) not to travel because of health issues, commitment to reducing their carbon footprint, lack of child care, or the mere fact that they can't afford (financially or timewise) to be there in person. I also know people who don't feel safe attending certain conferences. In these cases, I think video conferencing presents a viable alternative and should be promoted, despite the unfortunate side effect of not being able to socialize (or socialize in the same way).

[a philosopher]

The socialization stuff is a cost for speakers who choose to use Skype, and perhaps also for the attendees who now lose the opportunity to socialize with that speaker. But I would worry a little more about those don't make the choose: early career people who use Skype for financial reasons, potential future conferences which are online-only, or traditional conferences with so many people Skyping that only a few people show up.

The loss of social opportunities seems important to me. A presentation looks okay on a CV, but of more value for an early-career person are the in-person networking opportunities. Then there are the philosophers who work at schools not in major urban areas who don't regularly have opportunity to socialize with other philosophers, see old friends, get out to somewhere besides that one pub on the corner, etc. It seems kind of sad to me to think of these opportunities potentially drying up if more and more people and conference organizers make the shift to an online conference format. I don't think online interactions are bad, but I also don't want every aspect of my life to just be some app on my phone or mediated through a camera in my office.

[al]

I am not anti-skype/video conference, but I want to share some negative aspects that I experienced recently. Perhaps they are outweighed by the many possible positives.

I attended what was in some sense a "big" event that was partially via Skype. 'Big" in the sense that it was well funded, on a popular topic, well advertised, and at a major research center. Some of the speakers were via Skype and there was an ability for people to join a live discussion board and have their questions answered. This was largely in the name of environmental concerns. The event was physically close to me so I felt fine about attending in person. The technology aspect worked pretty well and there was IT support on hand.

1. The event space was very large, but few people were in the room. This was odd feeling to say the least. The event felt poorly attended even though it was perhaps really well attended online. I felt like this had a deflating effect on the whole thing. It just didn't feel like the big lively event I thought it would be. I'm not sure if the registration page didn't take note of who would be in person and who wouldn't or if perhaps the room was just the very best one for the tech, but it felt disappointingly poorly attended.

2. I was shocked at how much harder I found it to pay attention to a talking head on a screen. Happy to chalk this up to my own idiosyncratic failings, but I'll just register that I very clearly got less out of the remote talks.

3. There definitely was a negative effect on the networking. Half the speakers who are the super experts on the topic weren't around for follow ups or socialising. I usually like to social things at an event and on this occasion it again felt disappointing.

For the time being I don't think I'll bother going to events that are in the 50/50 range of online and in person. Maybe I'll try being online next time (I suspect this will be my point 2 on steroids for me). I do think we should take very seriously the various costs that come from traveling all over the place for a short talk and a day or two at a conference, but many of the things that make me a conference/workshop enthusiast were lost at this event. I think for the time being I'm more inclined to being selective and mindful about which events I travel to, how I get there (plane, train, etc), and who I invite to events.

[a philosopher]

I agree with al's point 2. I recently participated in an online seminar series with bimonthly web presentations. During the first 3-4 I studiously paid attention to the video stream on my screen, properly read the paper before hand, etc ... but by the 5th or 6th one I was half paying attention while cooking breakfast or scrolling through facebook. If I had to sit through a whole workshop via the web, I doubt I'd really be engaged.

I also wonder how much of this is a function of the number of conferences visited. I really don't know: how many flights can I take a year before I should start worrying about my carbon impact? Is it a waste to fly to give a short talk at a few-day conference 1-2 times a year? I certainly know people who fly a dozen-plus times a year to give talks. That seems, to me, more of a real environmental concern, but perhaps it's just as bad to do a few a year.

[Helen De Cruz]

A philosopher:
I have no idea about what is acceptable. It strikes me that we have no good norms about what we should personally do, and it can't just be up to individual people. Just to give an example: now I live in St Louis my carbon footprint has expanded dramatically. My house is not built to withstand heat and has airconditioning. The windows don't even open properly. It would be possible to build housing with thick walls, small windows, good natural ventilation etc. and to reduce the need for airconditioning. There is no good public transport here, so that's also increasing my footprint. It would be totally possible for the metro link to be expanded here but lots of factions etc. resist that. I just say these things to illustrate that individual virtue will only bring us so far. What needs to change are structures, hence my thinking about how we can change norms/ways to interact.
I know people who fly a dozen times or more per year to conferences. I also had a colleague (extinction rebellion proponent) who said transatlantic flights are never justified. I know people who have cut down their flying to a few times a year. Since any flight, long or short, is going to have a negative impact and you can't entirely offset with carbon compensation measures (also these cost and would thus impact junior people), it is unclear to me what a sustainable norm would look like, particularly as we live in a world with little concern for implementing sustainable norms and measures in lots of areas of life (e.g., transportation)