In this letter to the members, Nico Carpentier provides a thoughtful reflection on the Lyon 2023 conference, sharing insights about both its successes and challenges. He emphasizes the valuable lessons we've gained as we turn the page and prepare for future conferences.
Now that 2023 is almost coming to an end, and the preparations for the 2024 Christchurch conference are gaining momentum, it is time to look back—for one more time—at the Lyon conference. It might not come as a surprise, especially for those who attended the 2023 conference, that I look back at this endeavour with mixed feelings. Content-wise, we have many reasons to be pleased. The numbers were spectacular: 3,691 abstracts were submitted (2,867 for the face-to-face meeting in Lyon and online, and 824 Online Conference Papers (OCP), and we had an acceptance rate of 70%. Papers that were eventually submitted came from 86 countries and territories, and 1,111 IAMCR members registered for the Lyon conference.
Looking at the results of our participant survey (based on the responses of almost 500 participants), we can see that the academic content of the conference was highly appreciated. Respondents rated the Section and Working Group sessions high – awarding an average of 4.1 points (out of 5) to the sessions they attended. Also the conference papers were positively rated (with an average of 3.9 points out of a possible 5). The plenary panels also received high scores, with both the plenary panel on international communication and the panel on the contribution of academia to peace-building receiving 4 or 5 points (with 5 the maximum) by 68% of the attendants. The closing plenary received a 4 or 5 from 59% of the attendants; only the score of the opening plenary was a bit lower, with 49% giving a 4 or a 5.
So far the good side of the story.
But the logistics of the conference were quite miserable. We should of course keep in mind that we were unlucky to be caught in a heatwave (and we can be reasonably sure that also in the future the weather will not always be on our side), but that is only part of the story. One of the conference suppliers –the Cellule Congrès of Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1—did not provide the services we had agreed upon (and paid for), resulting in problems with the signage, the Wi-Fi, the air circulation in the conference rooms, and, not in the least, the food. This is also reflected in the results of the same participant survey: When asked how satisfied the participants were with the venue, on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 being very satisfied), 62% offered a negative rating of 1 or 2 points out of 5. In our previous four (pre-pandemic) conferences, negative ratings were offered by only 7% (2019), 6% (2018), 3% (2017) and 7% (2016). On-site logistics and food at the conference were rated with a 1 or a 2 out of 5 respectively by 61% and 64% of respondents. Based on these numbers, and on our own evaluation, we sent a formal complaint to the general director of services of Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Mr. Pierre Rolland. We are still waiting for his response.
During the closing ceremony in Lyon, I communicated my own evaluation to those present, and the conclusion that we had failed the conference participants. I want to repeat that apology here, in this newsletter. At the same time, we should not forget what was good about the Lyon conference, and we should not forget the hard work of our main partner, Science Po Lyon. Moreover, we, as conference organisers, should see this as a learning opportunity. One major lesson we learned is that, with the current resources and staff, we cannot combine a face-to-face conference and an online conference (through OCP). After the COVID pandemic we were hopeful that we could keep the online component as we developed it during the pandemic, but this has turned out to be unfeasible. We will still open a channel allowing people who cannot attend in person, in order for them to contribute to the conference, but this channel will have to be less ambitious than in 2023. This strategy is currently being developed together with the Local Organising Committee for Christchurch 2024. Moreover, we will still keep Flow34—the stream of audio-visual (and audio) contributions that move beyond the regular academic video presentation, and that add more artistic dimensions to our work. Another lesson that we have learned is to ensure that the logistical dimension receives more attention during the planning stages of the conference organisation. For instance, we created a logistics taskforce within the Conference Organising Committee, to keep a better eye on that component.
Even though the Lyon conference was not the complete success we hoped it would be, it still combined great intellectual debates with the opportunity to tackle some of the problems that have appeared on our radar. This will ensure that—as a learning organisation—we do things better next year (and in the years to come). That’s exactly why we appreciate your trust, loyalty and patience.
Nico Carpentier
President, IAMCR