1/ It’s interesting that no one is defending academic conferences on the basis that attending allows engagement with transformative, brilliant papers they would not otherwise have encountered. The limited pushback is that people like meeting colleagues in person and sharing ideas

2/ Which is fine. I like that too. But is our collective imagination so limited that we think the classic big conference of parallel panels each with three ‘talking head’ papers is the best way of doing this?

3/ Sure, I built some of my network in the social events around conferences. And there’s nothing quite like meeting or catching up in person. But I’ve also sat through lots of mediocre panels, been too jet lagged to learn anything, had the guilt of being away from family, etc.

4/ basically, conferences are *often* a terrible way of achieving the outcomes around them which people actually like. Especially the really big ones. I feel like I can actually recall attending maybe 6-12 panels or papers at big conferences genuinely worth travelling for.

5/ Of course, #notallconferences ... and smaller workshops are often better, and yes I may well be a hypocrite on a plane before too long. Again: I’m not calling for a conference ban, or a no flight pledge – just a rethink.

6/ And that we remember how potentially exclusionary big international conferences based around the freedom to travel really are for colleagues with caring responsibilities, or who are far from academic centres, or who have passports that require expensive visas ...