An inclusive, online, global conference
After a few months from the DMCA22 conference, attendees still talk about it. It was, after all, the first all-inclusive conference, designed to be online, to be global, to be diverse and open in the field of Interactional Linguistics, Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (ILEMCA). Attendees were not only given platform to present their research contributions, but were also presented with valuable training opportunities; these ranged workshops and keynotes on current research areas in ILEMCA to events on the practical and broader matters of grant writing, publishing in, connecting, and surviving academia. ECRs could propose their own panels presenting emerging research communities in the field and connect with senior researchers. Participants could also use the platform to post about upcoming conferences and events. It felt like a truly recipient-designed and inclusive event!
This high level of interactivity (not only appreciated by interactional linguists!) was possible and favored by the platform chosen for the conference: Whova. Whova does more than just enhance the interaction of the registered participants among themselves and with the platform, it also rewards it. This is done through a scoring system that displays the active participants in a ranked list and assigns points for the activity they carry out in the platform (a.k.a gamification): points for responding to others on the platform message board, for posting questions, for suggesting events, and so on. This set-up seemed, during the conference, to encourage people to take actions they maybe would have not taken without the prompt. However, the ranking system seemed also to create a level of stress for other participants who found themselves overwhelmed by the notifications.
To take a real, emic participant’s perspective, Virginia, who has taken charge of this piece as the leader of the interactive board at the end of the conference, has also asked two other attendees to join her voice and give their unique perspectives on the pros and cons of the platform, and on the possibilities offered by it: Elisabeth W. Apicella and Søren Sandager Sørensen. Both participants are keen to point out that their words come from how they experienced the conference and the platform, without aspiring to generalize the experience.
The Whova Platform according to Elisabeth W. Apicella: pros and cons
This is my account of how I experienced DMCA, and what part the Whova platform played in how (much) I interacted with other participants.
If I say that I enjoyed DMCA very very much, I’ll have to regretfully add that this was rather in spite of the conference platform the organizers had––after much consideration, numerous demos and sales meetings [1]––settled for.
But let’s start with the positives: I enjoyed looking through people’s answers to the ice breaker questions the platform suggested, which ranged from playful to philosophical. It made me get an impression of the wide range of personalities and nationalities present at the DMCA, take interest in researchers I had not yet come across, and discover something new about people I already knew.
The trouble, however, started when I was logged out whenever I switched devices and had to reset my password every single time to get back in. And at least that worked (hat tip to Sam Schirm for the remote tech support via the Whova group “Ask the organizers”), because my email to Whova’s support (the people actually paid to do this job…) remains unanswered to this day.
Having logged in, I found myself alerted that my most urgent interaction with the platform was required––or at least that is how my brain translates red notification badges with three-digit numbers the kind of which Whova kept bombarding me with. I really would have liked an option to turn these off, even though I know that the kind of “urgent interaction” the platform wanted me to partake in was “Look, this researcher choose the same keywords as you––can you believe they are interested in ‘Conversation Analysis’, too?!” or “Somebody posted a question to a talk that takes place at 02:30 your time, go check it out!” Admittedly: The “interested in” keywords did help me become aware of a few ECRs working on topics similar to my research focus. So, it was not completely useless to work through the notifications.
What I did not foresee nor intend when trying to keep the sticky notifications in the one- to two-digit range was that this behavior would be “rewarded” by the gamification mechanisms of Whova thought to encourage interaction, propelling me on top of the “leaderboard” for everyone to see. Which for me felt rather like a board of shame, to be honest, because amidst all those productive researchers being busy from morning till eve with serious science work I was displayed as the one having enough time to waste to do this dawdle dance with Whova.
I know it is difficult to upscale solutions, and for an innovative, multiple time zones, digital event like DMCA at that. Still, for the next DMCA I wish we could find a way to replicate or refine the Discord situation that was implemented for ECCA 2020––which undoubtedly had its downsides, but which left me at least less of an easy prey to the interactional gamification strategies of platforms like Whova.
[1] see the Thread on Twitter where Lucas Seuren and Emily Hofstetter give some insights in the selection process: https://twitter.com/lucasseuren/status/1584523206920384512
Celebrating a special birthday by Søren Sørensen
The conference was scheduled to take place during my birthday, November 3rd. And not just any birthday, but a round one, as I turned 30. Since I found the gamification of conference participation embedded in the Whova platform an interesting touch, I used the opportunity to gain points there by arranging an event — my birthday party. It fit perfectly with Thursday evening (CET) before the last day of the conference, so I scheduled a meeting in the system. I announced it in various places and made sure people were told they were welcome, and we chatted about different activities and games we could play. I had also insisted that we should regularly meet up before the programme started (as we did at ECCA), where I would let people know about it. When the party took place, we had a very cozy time. I think most people who came knew me in advance, but some definitely did more than others. And for many of them, it was a long time since I had seen them and talked to them in this relaxed way, outside of online conference questions and discussion. I don’t think we ever managed to play any of the games we talked about. Instead, we talked about people’s Halloween decorations, onion cake and our feelings as part of the academic precariat. Some people also figured out how to do various funny filters and avatars on Zoom, and we had some great laughs. I was very happy to be able to celebrate this special day with my colleagues. I was going to have birthday parties with family and friends later (outside of conferencing and computers), but this felt like the conference dinner that wasn’t otherwise planned for the conference. It’s nice that online conferences mean that we can organize our own activities in this “bottom-up” fashion, and I can only urge people to use that opportunity!
What do the participants make relevant?
Although the online format leaves people skeptical (of course, screen-mediated communication – i.e., meeting people through a box – cannot compare with the embodied possibilities of being co-present in a physical space), there are new and unique features of online conferencing that can be learnt and appreciated as relevant to this specific type of interactions. Beyond pros and cons of the platform and the testimonial of a birthday celebration happening on that screen, online conferences have affordances that in-person events do not allow. To mention just a few… First of all, everybody can adjust the timing more to their specific needs, participating how and when they can without being held accountable for their absence. Secondly, online conferences allow people to bring friends home and bring a bit of home to the conferences, opening up parts of themselves that would remain distant and unknown, favoring a new type of intersubjectivity. Third, the global scope of an event can really be perceived and enhanced: economic and geographic barriers can be brought down, at least a bit. Fourth, the set-up can always be changed and readjusted, and technological tools, seen by some as limitations, can be integrated, reshaped and even changed a bit more freely than physical venues. The amazing team behind the organization of DMCA22 showed flexibility in allowing people to use a main platform but also embedded Zoom links to present. Examples like this make all experience more inclusive, as it makes it more tailored to participants with different needs and possibilities.
All voices taking part in this testimony wish, then, to celebrate more birthdays, to have more interactions like the ones they had at DMCA22, and maybe to find even better solutions together.