Thoughts about conferencing

I spent the weekend at one of my favorite conferences – the Northeast Region conference of the International Studies Association.  It took me several years to actually work out for myself:

1.        What the purpose of an academic conference is/was

2.       How to choose an academic conference to attend and

3.       How to use your time effectively at an academic conference

As the Bible tells us in First Corinthians: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

Similarly, I would argue that my views towards academic conference have matured as I myself have matured.  Graduate students in particular seem to think that an academic conference is a jousting tournament – where one goes to spar with colleagues and competitors.  The point of the conference, to a graduate student, sometimes seem to be that one can sit in a room while colleagues give papers thinking some variant of the following thoughts:

a.      I have read more on that subject than this guy has.  How dare he think he knows something about that subject?

b.    My paper is better than his.  Just wait until I give my paper!

Or (my favorite)

c.      I can’t wait until the Q and A session, so I can ask my well-prepared question, which will drill into my opponent like a missile, exposing his weaknesses and humiliating him.

(Another popular thought is something along the lines of:  “Haha, this guy only had fourteen people show up to listen to him read his paper.  I had TWICE THAT MANY at my paper session.  I’m the best!”)

Nope!  If you’ve ever had any of these thoughts at a conference, then you are missing the point.

Another thought that one sometimes has as a graduate student (or even as a young academic) is that the point of an academic conference is that you will bring your work to a forum where older, wiser colleagues will mentor you and ultimately ‘fix’ your work for you, bringing it to a publishable standard.  Particularly as a young academic, I remember feeling disappointed when this exchange didn’t magically happen at any of the conferences I attended.  Sometimes I got some good feedback on my work – an audience member perhaps suggested expanding on some minor point I had made in my paper and I ended out fleshing it out more in the final draft;  someone suggested an article that I hadn’t yet read;  someone (probably a grad student) pointed out some problem I had in misunderstanding a theorist and I was able to go back and fix it – but ultimately one’s work is one’s own.  Your journey as a academic is sometimes a lonely one, and often it feels like you actually ARE the only person in the world we cares about some topic like “the comparative discourse of internet addiction.” 

That’s where it becomes important to choose the right conference.  ISA-NE (to the cognoscenti) is an international relations conference with a particular “flavor” to it.  I think this is largely because of some of the awesome people who have stepped forward to lead this organization.  Laura Sjoberg and Rosemary Shinko are two wonderful feminist international relations theorists.  They, along with Rene Marlin-Bennett, have consistently mentored grad students and shared their expertise on a growing body of literature about “issues of the body” in international relations.  As a result, the conference probably attracts more women academics than a lot of IR conferences.  It’s also one of the least competitive and most supportive environments I’ve ever seen at a conference.  I was awed to see the ways in which the panelists interacted with each other, cooperatively giving feedback and encouraging young academics – who are well represented at this conference.  Patrick Jackson is a top-notch IR theorist who also makes a point of mentoring new grad students.  He has set up several events at the conference specifically for young academics, and strives to include them and welcome them to every aspect of the conference.  (Many of the ISA-NE members blog at "Duck of Minerva", which links at the bottom of this blogpage.) 

Finally, the conference has a significant representation by academics interested in “doing” critical theory and constructivism within international relations.  At some mainstream conferences, it’s possible to encounter a certain amount of hostility by mainstream (positivist) theorists when you announce that:  you think that language matters, that you think that popular culture matters, and that you think that power resides outside of traditional political institutions.  In contrast, there were a number of wonderful papers given at this conference on subjects as varied as “the language of international relations in Battlestar Galactica,”  the politics of creating war memorials and beauty contests as the subject of contestation between nations.   Here's the conference program, if you're interested. 

I’ve also come to realize that a conference is, to some degree, like a support group.  Often I think that as academics we just want to know that we are not wasting our time and that we are not alone in our “quirky” weird research interests.  I was thrilled to get to know so many fine academics who are also interested in the politics of disease – from the University of Toronto, from Bridgewater College and from Harvard University.  I’m excited about putting together a panel specifically on the politics of disease at a future ISA session.