tenure applications loaded up with virtual conferences

[Ruralguy]

Why not just be direct with a member of the committee and ask how they feel about any issues regarding virtual presentations? Don't bring it up with regards to a active case.

[lightning]

Why not just be direct with a member of the committee and ask how they feel about any issues regarding virtual presentations? Don't bring it up with regards to a active case.

Great idea!

[mahagonny]

We all agree that Shakespeare was a genius.

[lightning]

We all agree that Shakespeare was a genius.

And that's because ice cream doesn't have bones.

[fuwafuwa]

We will see a permanent shift towards increased virtual conferences, especially international ones. It just doesn't make sense to spend all that money, burn all that CO2, and fly overseas to give talks on a regular basis. These past two years, I gave a lot of talks at international meetings and universities in Asia and Europe, including in developing countries that I would normally not visit to give talks. It's a good development.

[mamselle]

What kinds of hybrid offerings could evolve, as well?

Online papers presented wide-screen, along with in-person papers read in the same room might work.

In fact, I'd forgotten, but a conference I attended awhile back had just that configuration.

M.

[Sun_Worshiper]

In my field there are two types of virtual conferences:

First, conferences that have moved online due to COVID. Presumably most of these will go back to in-person at some point, although they may continue to host virtual panels as well.

Second, conferences that are entirely online, where one person gives a presentation to a virtual room full of listeners. These tend to feel more like virtual job talks, as there is typically one presenter per week who is given 1-2 hours to present and field questions from a large group of listeners. These conferences pre-date COVID, but they have been ramped up during the pandemic.

Presenting at the first type should count for as much as presenting at a regular conference (which doesn't count for much); presenting at the second type is a pretty intense experience that should count for as much as a regular conference and should also carry some additional benefits, in terms of networking and building a reputation in the field. Neither type of conference should count against someone at tenure time.

[Ruralguy]

I also think that some conferences will convert to all virtual or give the option of live or virtual, but as most people will probably take the virtual option (even with the prospect of networking at all at a live conference) it will be harder and harder for societies to book the big conference spaces.

[bio-nonymous]

I just noted that one of my professional societies is having a hybrid conference this fall and the registration for in person is 20% less than for the on demand version--NEITHER is cheap. That surprised me and may be a harbinger of future developments. I guess they figure if you aren't traveling you can pay a lot more since your total out of pocket is less--seems a bit like a cash grab to me.

[darkstarrynight]

This makes me feel less excited about my "international" conference presentation I did from my basement in the U.S. when the conference was based in Australia.

[mamselle]

Why less excited?

You still did the work and it was accepted, probably with appreciation, perhaps even enthusiasm.

It may 'count' for less in some ways, but it's not unimportant, and doing it with that level of international connection is not nothing.

The work needed you to do it, and you did, and you did it in an unusual context.

Don't let externals steal your joy.

M.

[pgher]

I just noted that one of my professional societies is having a hybrid conference this fall and the registration for in person is 20% less than for the on demand version--NEITHER is cheap. That surprised me and may be a harbinger of future developments. I guess they figure if you aren't traveling you can pay a lot more since your total out of pocket is less--seems a bit like a cash grab to me.

I was responsible for the virtual aspects of a major conference that had to pivot from in-person to virtual. (Seemed like a good idea last summer, ton of work this spring.) If all you're doing is putting some papers on a web site, a virtual conference is cheap. If you are trying to reproduce the live experience AT ALL, it's expensive. No, you don't have the venue or food & beverage, but you do have an online platform and Zoom and other stuff.

Another big cost is contracts that cannot be negotiated away. This year's conference was contracted in 2016. The only way we were able to get out of a few things was to commit to returning to the jilted host city in 2028. Back in 2016, we planned for continued growth, which of course didn't happen. What is 2028 going to look like? Who knows?

Lower cost for in-person? Do they have an expo? Ours does. One way we can charge companies to come exhibit is by promising foot traffic. If people stay away, we can't fill the expo hall.

[Mobius]

This makes me feel less excited about my "international" conference presentation I did from my basement in the U.S. when the conference was based in Australia.

Don't think one conference will make or break a tenure case.

[jerseyjay]

In the distant past, I have heard of teaching-oriented schools counting conferences as scholarly engagement for tenure. There are some full professors at my school who never published anything beyond a book review or so but who regularly presented at conferences. That has not been the case for at least 15 years; we need to have peer-reviewed publications. (The funding situation has not changed, though: we have a yearly allowance for conferences but none for research trips, which has caused me to plan my conferences near archives I am working at.)

As a historian coming up for tenure, it is my impression that conferences are nice, and can be used to show engagement with the field and esteem by peers. I am certainly highlighting my conference presentations (including one at the AHA) to show that I am a respected historian. But it is my book and articles that will get me over the line. I was hired with almost no conference presentations (because, which adjunct has enough money to go to conferences on his own?) and have only gone to conferences when the school pays for them or I am invited (i.e., have expenses paid) to speak. 

As a historian, I see what LarryC is saying. At the same time, I have found conferences useful to make connections and to float ideas that later lead to publications. If a historian's CV is full of conference presentations, and few publications, that is a bad sign. If a historian has lots of presentations that later turn into publications, then that looks good. And if a historian has a bunch of publications with few presentations, it looks somewhat odd, but I don't think I would draw any negative conclusions.

I personally have not "gone" to any conferences online, although I have made a few other types of presentations about my research via Zoom. Virtual conferences seem to combine two of my least favorite activities, sitting in front of a screen and listening to poorly prepared presentations. That said, I would treat virtual conferences in the last two years exactly the same as regular conferences before that.

In general, if I were on the P&T, I would try to take into account the difficulty of research over the last two years. So while I would not expect it, having more virtual conferences with fewer publications over the past period would not be a red flag in the same way it would be otherwise. But I am a tenure candidate, not a member of the P&T committee, so take it for what it is worth.

The last two years have really distorted my research productivity. I just published a book, but the manuscript was submitted in January 2020. I also have written four papers and one chapter for an edited volume I am co-editing. So one hand, that has been a lot of productivity. On the other hand, all of the articles are either based on research I did before the pandemic, or based on sources that I have found online. This has meant a lot of published material and newspapers, and less archival materials. (Some archives have sent me scans of material, but not enough to structure an entire article.) I have had to postpone plans for research I had made, because of archives being closed. So on the one hand I have been much more productive (because for at least part of the pandemic, I was sitting at home with little else to do, interspersed with periods of intense professional and family demands) but I am not really sure if the material I have produced is as good as my other material from before the pandemic.

[lightning]

In the distant past, I have heard of teaching-oriented schools counting conferences as scholarly engagement for tenure. There are some full professors at my school who never published anything beyond a book review or so but who regularly presented at conferences. That has not been the case for at least 15 years; we need to have peer-reviewed publications. (The funding situation has not changed, though: we have a yearly allowance for conferences but none for research trips, which has caused me to plan my conferences near archives I am working at.)

As a historian coming up for tenure, it is my impression that conferences are nice, and can be used to show engagement with the field and esteem by peers. I am certainly highlighting my conference presentations (including one at the AHA) to show that I am a respected historian. But it is my book and articles that will get me over the line. I was hired with almost no conference presentations (because, which adjunct has enough money to go to conferences on his own?) and have only gone to conferences when the school pays for them or I am invited (i.e., have expenses paid) to speak. 

As a historian, I see what LarryC is saying. At the same time, I have found conferences useful to make connections and to float ideas that later lead to publications. If a historian's CV is full of conference presentations, and few publications, that is a bad sign. If a historian has lots of presentations that later turn into publications, then that looks good. And if a historian has a bunch of publications with few presentations, it looks somewhat odd, but I don't think I would draw any negative conclusions.

I personally have not "gone" to any conferences online, although I have made a few other types of presentations about my research via Zoom. Virtual conferences seem to combine two of my least favorite activities, sitting in front of a screen and listening to poorly prepared presentations. That said, I would treat virtual conferences in the last two years exactly the same as regular conferences before that.

In general, if I were on the P&T, I would try to take into account the difficulty of research over the last two years. So while I would not expect it, having more virtual conferences with fewer publications over the past period would not be a red flag in the same way it would be otherwise. But I am a tenure candidate, not a member of the P&T committee, so take it for what it is worth.

The last two years have really distorted my research productivity. I just published a book, but the manuscript was submitted in January 2020. I also have written four papers and one chapter for an edited volume I am co-editing. So one hand, that has been a lot of productivity. On the other hand, all of the articles are either based on research I did before the pandemic, or based on sources that I have found online. This has meant a lot of published material and newspapers, and less archival materials. (Some archives have sent me scans of material, but not enough to structure an entire article.) I have had to postpone plans for research I had made, because of archives being closed. So on the one hand I have been much more productive (because for at least part of the pandemic, I was sitting at home with little else to do, interspersed with periods of intense professional and family demands) but I am not really sure if the material I have produced is as good as my other material from before the pandemic.

The higher-ups at my university are encouraging college P&T committees to allow a narrative from a candidate that explains how COVID-19 impacted their research trajectory. I think that is fair, especially if the university did not allow for pausing someone's six-year tenure clock during COVID-19. Of course, now the committee members with the attention span of goldfish will have an additional document to read.