An observational study of conference participants
By Prof. Mark Griffiths
Psychology Division, Nottingham Trent University, UK.
Twenty-three years ago, Edwards (1982) wrote a paper concerning “The psychology of the conference” in which he outlined tentative descriptions and observations of participants attending psychology conferences.
Edwards constructed a classification outlining the behavioural characteristics of (i) the speakers, (ii) the audience and (iii) the questioners. For instance, speakers were categorised as belonging to such groups as the readers (i.e. those who read out their paper verbatim), the machine-oriented (i.e. those who use a variety of accessories including projectors, tape recorders and other audio-visual equipment) and the journal presenters (i.e. those who are unaware of the communication differences between imparting information at a conference and imparting information in a published article).
Edwards reported that his analysis was “essentially a taxonomic effort” (p.91) and went on to say:
“....I leave it to others to carry the torch for the next analytical lap. Perhaps, I might, however, point to what would seem some fruitful directions. First, considering the general categories of speakers, audience and questioners, it should be possible to ascertain personal characteristics associated with given varieties. Apart from having intrinsic academic value, findings here could allow a degree of prediction which would be useful in an applied sense.... readers are encouraged to push further in what promises to be a fertile field of study” (p.91).
With this in mind, what follows are my own tentative observations in which I have attempted to identify clusters of individuals and their respective behaviours.
When attending a conference many people take on multiple roles as presenter, audience member and question-asker. It is here that I hope to advance on the work of Edwards by examining the range of behaviours within individuals and identify particular sub-types of conference participants.
I must reiterate that my observations (based on attendance at over 100 conferences) are observational and impressionistic and thus need more rigorous examination and confirmation.
The typology
‘The Delegate’
• Primary motive for attending conferences: To catch up on the latest research, to exchange ideas and thoughts and to (hopefully) learn something. Occasionally is there to give a paper of their own but prefers coming to listen to other people.
• Attendance at papers: Attends every paper possible as well as enlisting for optional workshops etc. Despises parallel sessions because they always want to be in two or more places at once.
• Behaviour while listening to others’ papers: Spends an inordinate amount of time taking notes while trying to comprehend and assimilate all the incoming information. Will sit anywhere in the lecture theatre.
• Behaviour during question time: Often tries to think of a question to ask every speaker although rarely gets the chance because the ‘Rebels’ and the ‘Careerists’ always seem to get in first (see below).
• Behaviour during their own paper: Usually feels highly nervous but always give a competent performance. Uses a lot of overheads and has a propensity to overrun their allotted time. On the whole dreads being asked questions but nevertheless ends up answering them adequately.
• Behaviour during the session breaks: Will be found talking to anybody, usually about the contents of the paper they have just attended.
• Other features: Often attends a particular conference each year and leaves with a copious mass of notes many of which never see the light of day again.
‘The Careerist’
• Primary motive for attending conferences: To increase their own standing by “hob-knobbing” with the established names and/or to give the latest in a long line of seemingly never ending research papers.
• Attendance at papers: Minimal. Will only attend those papers that are in their own session or are directly relevant to their own research.
• Behaviour while listening to others’ papers: Takes little notice of what is being said and resorts to either reading the ‘Abstracts’ and ‘Delegates List’ and/or going over their own paper. Usually sits at the back of the lecture theatre and never takes notes. Is an expert doodler.
• Behaviour during question time: May begin to perk up a little here and has been known to ask the occasional (difficult) question to let the audience register his/her presence. May also begin to rouse with their own presentation being imminent.
• Behaviour during their own paper: Usually confident and self-assured. Likes to use all the latest technological gadgets at their disposal to give a slick, well-prepared presentation. Their main aim is to impress the audience using presentation skills to gloss over the occasional superficialities in the paper. Rarely overruns their allotted time as they usually have everything planned down to the nearest minute. Enjoys question time and like most politicians has an excellent strategy for deflecting difficult questions into something they do have an answer for.
• Behaviour during the session breaks: If not engaged in conversation with the conferences’ “big names” will already be on the train back home.
• Other features: Often turns up at the conference shortly before the giving of their paper and if no-one is keen to speak to them after about their paper will leave. Often lives by the motto “Never attend a conference paper unless you are giving it yourself”.
‘The Social Climber’
• Primary motive for attending conferences: To increase their own standing by “hob-knobbing” with the established names and to meet up with all their “conference circuit” friends.
• Attendance at papers: Attends most papers particularly those of their friends, colleagues and those deemed to be important people.
• Behaviour while listening to others’ papers: Listens attentively somewhere in the front of the audience occasionally taking notes.
• Behaviour during question time: Rarely asks a question inside the session preferring to save them for the coffee breaks as a way of opening up conversations with people.
• Behaviour during their own paper: Only gives the occasional paper but when they do it is usually well prepared and well presented. Uses presentation accessories effectively but like ‘The Delegate’ prefers to get the questions over as quickly as possible.
• Behaviour during the session breaks: Always to be found either talking to one of the session’s preceding speakers or a member of the Conference Committee.
• Other features: Eventually ends up being well known and well liked although no-one is entirely sure of their research area.
‘The Rebel’
• Primary motive for attending conferences: Because they have been invited by the organising committee to give the ‘keynote’ address or is there to add a little controversy to the event.
• Attendance at papers: Depends on the subject matter but on the whole attends most of the sessions.
• Behaviour while listening to others’ papers: Listens attentively throughout in the hope of identifying an ideological, theoretical and/or methodological weakness in the paper. Usually sits somewhere near the front of the lecture theatre and rarely takes notes.
• Behaviour during question time: Renowned for asking extremely difficult questions and takes great pride in constructively criticising any paper (especially those described as “mainstream”). Always asks a question whether they liked the paper or not, just to let the audience register his/her presence. The question is often so long or contains so many sub-questions that no-one else gets a look in.
• Behaviour during their own paper: Appears to be little pre-planning (i.e. talks off the top of their head around a few salient themes) but because they are confident and self-assured will usually deliver a good paper although it is often heavily laden with rhetorical and polemical statements. Minimal use of presentation accessories although occasionally will stretch to using a couple of illegibly hand written overheads. Nearly always runs out of time even when they are given an hour to speak. Views question time as a challenge and will argue to the nth degree.
• Behaviour during the session breaks: To be found talking at great length with other ‘radicals’ about the future of science or “discussing” ideological and theoretical “sticking points” with their academic opponents.
• Other features: On occasions may be described by other delegates as an “academic terrorist”.
‘The Novice’
• Primary motive for attending conferences: Quite often a post-graduate either giving their first paper and/or have been advised by their supervisor(s) to go along for the “experience”.
• Attendance at papers: Attends every paper possible in the hope of academic enlightenment and/or to report back to their supervisor(s).
• Behaviour while listening to others’ papers: Listens attentively in the hope they will actually understand some of the papers. Will occasionally take notes but only in the areas of direct academic interest. Often sits right in the middle of the audience.
• Behaviour during question time: Often leaves the question asking up to someone else but are highly delighted if they ask a question or make an astute observation.
• Behaviour during their own paper: Often highly anxious especially if it is their first major paper. Their major aim is to get to the end of question time with their academic credibility still intact.
• Behaviour during the session breaks: Often found reading the poster papers because they know very few people there and do not want to monopolize the coffee breaks of the people they do know.
• Other features: Usually do not enjoy their first conference and start to question if they really want to do a Ph.D and/or stay in academia. Often highly critical of their own presentation.
'The Specialist'
• Primary motive for attending conferences: To attend a particular session or symposium in their own area of research. May or may not be giving a paper at these symposia.
• Attendance at papers: On the whole only attends those papers of direct relevance to their own work although will occasionally sit in on other papers if they like the sound of the title or know the person who is presenting.
• Behaviour while listening to others’ papers: Since they only attend papers they want to go to, they are usually quite attentive and have no preference as to where they sit as long as they can both see and hear the speaker. Only take notes in areas of direct relevance (which is a lot of the time).
• Behaviour during question time: Always asks something although it may only be a point of clarification rather than a bona fide question.
• Behaviour during their own paper: Usually confident about their paper but may wander off the point and overrun on their allotted time. A small sub-section of this group will actually read out their paper verbatim (in journal style). Enjoys the question time which will usually carry on with a small group after everyone else has left for the mid-session coffee breakBehaviour during the session breaks: To be found engrossed in conversation with other like-minded ‘specialists’. May not have even left the lecture theatre to go for coffee.
• Other features: Only stays around as long as something interests them. It is not unknown for them to turn up for just one session only to leave again after it.
Concluding remarks
Observational analysis does lead to the tentative conclusion that there do appear to be particular sub-types of conference participant. However, it must be added that the typology only contains the extreme cases within each category.
The categories themselves may not be mutually exclusive at any particular cross section in time and are certainly not mutually exclusive across time as ‘The novice’ will obviously develop into one (or more) of the others (assuming they are not put off academia in the formative stages).
Longitudinal work needs to be carried out to see if, for example, ‘The Careerist’ develops into ‘The Specialist’. As Edwards concluded in his own paper, this is indeed a fruitful area for research and that the psychology of conference attendees and attendance “may hope to achieve an autonomy and respectability which will one day result in its own courses, journals and, indeed, conferences. Let us look forward to this ultimate goal” (p.91).
References
Edwards, J.R. (1982). The psychology of the conference. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 35, 89-91.
Share this
