If we look at how much we spend attending an international conference, it can be very expensive.
We spend more money on travel, accommodation, meals, car rental and unspecified expenses. There is no way to reliably account for such expenditure, but it has accounted for 76% of conference costs in previous reckoning 3).
What is a 'reasonable' end-figure for attending a conference event, how do we judge their value, and does it make any difference if we are paying ourselves or a funding budget is used?
http://chronicle.com/article/2013-14-AAUP-Faculty-Salary/145679?cid=megamenu#id=table
http://systemdynamics.org/PolicyCouncil/2006/s06_vp-meetings-conf-cost-trends.pdf
https://www.ieee.org/documents/08s_OConnor_supplement.pdf
Assuming most conference attendance is paid for by some academic budget or other, then a reasonable end-figure would prob vary case by case, depending on overall budget available and how long you've got left on the project. And are you better off going to a conference early on in your project so you can learn and network, or late on when you have results you can present? Ideally, both, but only if you've got the money!
Judging their worth? Subjective really, did you meet some useful contacts and if so, how many make it 'worthwhile'? How much did you enjoy the talks, was the travel and hotel all comfortable?
Perhaps a measure of it being worthwhile - after it's all done, and if you had to make the choice again about attending that event or not - would you make the same choice in going? If yes, then worthwhile. So maybe a binary yes/no based on personal opinion?
The difficult thing I find here is 'value' ....
If my research budget is paying for all the main things, then it is going to tip the scales. If I pay for it out of my own pocket (& the ethicists may argue that there should be no difference), then I am going to have less tolerance for average presentations, limited networking etc.
Even so, we go all round the world on SOMEONES money, so what is 'reasonable', given what we realistically expect to achieve? If I sat in a 'budget approval office', I would have to have some form of strategy for making a decision. So where do we draw the line. E.g. fly to another country, 4 nights in a 3 star hotel, transport to/from airport, $425 conference fee, 10 work hours .... it soon mounts up.
Every where around the world, conferences are going on. The word " reasonable" stand different from different persons. So, you should select yourself.
'Reasonable' is indeed subjective, especially when we consider it from an international perspective. However, if the earlier figure is valid & subject to inflation, then conferences are very costly affairs for anyone. How do managers/budget holders work out who to approve/fund, who to partially support & who to reject?
These days conference fees seem quite hefty unless we use our research grants to fund it. We can judge the value if the fee is inclusive of publication. Then again as you pointed out, the accommodation and transportation if not supported by the grant can amount to quite a bit. Guess, may be a good idea to limit the participation each year.
Publication & exposure are seen as key issues. However, if we think about how many people will realistically attend our oral presentation, visit our poster, have a meaningful conversation about our work, actually read our abstract, actually find (or look for) the published proceedings, or place high value on conference outputs (especially abstracts Vs full papers), then the benefit/cost balance is influenced. If conferences charge fees that meet their expenditure, then they may still have to be high (& may thus exclude those who cannot afford to attend). Likewise, if the cost/benefit is individually prohibitive then is it right to use (perhaps public) funding?
Are there published papers on conference costs & benefits? 😕
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education
- Conferences