Justin Weinberg wrote an interesting post today at Daily Nous on "invite-only and clique-y conferences." The post was a response to a bunch of questions that have arisen recently on journal practices, networking, and merit. Basically, a lot of people–myself included–have worries about how meritocratic our discipline is (or, rather, isn't). There have, for instance, been some disturbing revelations recently about journal practices–about how some journals do not appear to respect anonymized review, engage in favoritism, etc. A new study just came out showing prestige bias in hiring. Finally–and this is the subject of Justin's post–some have suggested that certain conferences provide an unfair leg-up to friends of people in important places.
I have to confess that I'm a bit surprised that Justin's post hasn't generated a bit more uptake (it has only received four comments). In part, I'm surprised because (A) I find Justin's analysis puzzling, and (B) the issue seems to me to be an important one. Let me begin with (A). Justin writes:
My view is that conferences are sufficiently different from journals, such that the reasons for wanting nearly all professional journals to work via anonymous review do not cleanly apply to conferences. Rather, when it comes to conferences, all that is needed is a sufficient number of high quality conferences so that everyone has a decent shot at going to “enough.” This can be accomplished by having some conferences that operate largely according to anonymous review, such as the American Philosophical Association (APA) meetings and others, but can also be accomplished by increasing the number of conferences, even ones that are invite-only or do not use anonymous review.
Justin then gives several grounds in support of his view. He writes:
- Access to publishing opportunities in a journal is much more important for a philosopher’s career than opportunities to present papers at conferences, and so it is much more important that access to publishing in journals not be denied to those who don’t know the right people.
- There are many conferences—more and more high quality ones each year, it seems, and they are easier to put on compared to starting a new journal. So, if the proliferation of new opportunities mitigates the unfairness of access to existing opportunities, then such mitigation is easier when it comes to conferences than journals.
- Journals just need a good paper from you. At conferences you are there for more than just your paper. You are there as a speaker. You are there as a listener and commenter and questioner in other people’s sessions. You are there to talk philosophy outside the sessions, during meals or other events. To some extent, you are there to be social. In general, you are there to help the conference be a worthwhile experience for those involved. Anonymous reviews of papers tell conference organizers only about the quality of your paper. The importance of the various roles you’ll play at a conference besides “author of paper” varies according to the aims of the organizers, but it does not seem unreasonable for the organizers, to some extent, to deviate from strict anonymous review in order to achieve such aims.
Okay, but here are my concerns.
My concern with rationale (1) is that I think–properly understood–it is internally inconsistent. Journal publications are surely intrinsically more important for a person's career success than conference presentations. But here is the problem: networking at conferences may substantially increase one's publishing prospects–and in several ways. First, you may get feedback from really sharp, top-flight people. Second, those people may well turn out to be your reviewers should you submit to a top journal (and, as recent discussions of journal practices have made plain, there are few, if any, widely accepted practices for disclosing/preventing conflicts of interest). So, if the first part of Justin's rationale is correct–if publications are super-important–then the latter half (conference presentations are not so important) is false. Presenting work at top-flight conferences with a really sharp, in-group of people may (may!) substantially increase one's access to the former (publishing)!
My concern with (2) is a bit different. Justin's claim here is that as long as there are plenty of conferences to go around, there's no real harm, no foul with in-group conferences. But now consider an analogy. Suppose you worked at a corporation and although there were a good number of career-advancement opportunities, there were nevertheless special annual "workshops" for sons, daughters, and friends of The Boss. And suppose that on top of that, those sons, daughters, and loved ones tended to get promoted more often. I take it the run-of-the-mill employee wouldn't say, "Ah, well that's okay. There are plenty of opportunities for others!" At least, I hope they wouldn't say that. Favoritism is favoritism–and, I want to say, in a professional context we should aim to minimize it. Insofar as we work in a competitive environment–one where there are nowhere near enough jobs for qualified applicants–I want to suggest we have a duty to one another, and particularly those in vulnerable career positions, to aim to promote meritocratic practices where we can. And, I submit, we should do it everywhere: with journal practices, conference practices, etc.
My concerns about Justin's third rationale are similar. That rationale, again, is that, "The importance of the various roles you’ll play at a conference besides “author of paper” varies according to the aims of the organizers, but it does not seem unreasonable for the organizers, to some extent, to deviate from strict anonymous review in order to achieve such aims." Fair enough–but I'm not sure how being friends with people and having in-group connections is reasonable given the many ways in which our discipline already fails to approximate a meritocracy.
More broadly, I want to say that given (1) how competitive academia is, (2) how many people are in vulnerable career positions, and (3) recent revelations about how non-meritocratic academia appears to be, we have professional obligations to take active steps to combat favoritism and conflicts of interest wherever these things arise: in journal review processes, in hiring, and yes, in terms of conferences.
Or so say I. What say you? I'm happy to reconsider my position…if you have a good argument! 🙂
Leave a Reply