In the ever-evolving landscape of scientific research, the venue where ideas are exchanged—the academic conference—remains an essential pillar of progress. Yet, questions concerning how inclusive and equitable these gatherings truly are have persisted. A groundbreaking study led by a research collective from Bielefeld University has tackled this issue head-on, providing robust insights into the dynamics of participation within scientific conferences. Published in the prestigious journal Ecology & Evolution, their work dissects the subtle social mechanics that influence who speaks and who remains silent, thus shaping the very discourse of science.
The impetus for this inquiry stemmed from the recognition that diversity fuels scientific innovation, yet this diversity is often not mirrored in the microcosm of conference interactions. The team, consisting of 25 interdisciplinary researchers and students from Bielefeld University’s Biology Faculty, seized the opportunity presented by the international “Behaviour 2023” conference—a major event in the behavioral sciences. Not content with merely organizing the conference, these scientists embedded experimental methodologies within the event structure to record and analyze patterns of social engagement, focusing intensively on question and answer sessions.
Their methodology was multifaceted and comprehensive. Over 1,300 audience questions were meticulously cataloged and analyzed for demographic patterns, speaker identity, and frequency. Parallel to this, surveys from over 300 conference participants provided qualitative and quantitative data concerning participants’ subjective experiences related to inclusion. By combining observational behavioral data with survey responses, the team crafted a nuanced picture illuminating both overt and covert barriers to equitable participation.
One of the pivotal revelations of the study concerns gender dynamics within scientific discourse at conferences. Women, despite being visibly present and not overlooked by session chairs, asked fewer questions than their male counterparts. The common belief that session chairs could remedy this imbalance by prioritizing women to ask the first questions proved unfounded. Instead, the issue stemmed from a lower propensity among women to volunteer questions in the first place. This subtle difference in initiative-taking unravels a critical flaw in conventional approaches to fostering gender equity.
Further layers of complexity emerged when examining participation by individuals identifying outside the traditional gender binary, as well as attendees from the Global South. These groups faced additional, less immediately visible hurdles to active engagement. Another dimension influencing participation was language proficiency; those who self-rated their English skills lower reported a less positive conference experience. Such findings reveal a confluence of social, cultural, and linguistic factors that serve to deter full involvement for significant segments of the scientific community.
The research also highlights that minor infrastructural and procedural adjustments can have disproportionately positive impacts. For instance, clearly displayed behavioral guidelines, often encapsulated in a Code of Conduct, foster more respectful and inclusive environments. The provision of free childcare represents another pragmatic measure that alleviates logistical burdens, enabling greater participation, especially among those with caregiving responsibilities. These findings demonstrate that structural facilitation is not merely a courtesy but a necessity for equitable engagement.
A notable attribute of the study is its interdisciplinary composition and methodological innovation. By partnering biology with social sciences, the team leveraged diverse analytical perspectives to interpret the behavioral data, enhancing the rigor and relevance of their conclusions. The integration of experimental elements with real-time data collection at a large-scale, live conference distinguishes this work as methodologically pioneering, as previous studies have often relied solely on retrospective surveys or qualitative interviews.
The logistical complexity involved in executing such a large-scale study during a live event cannot be understated. From organizing the conference to orchestrating simultaneous data collection streams, the research involved meticulous planning and coordination. Despite these challenges, the team’s efforts culminated in actionable insights with broad applicability, transcending the boundaries of biology and behavioral research to inform the organization of academic gatherings in all fields.
Central to the study’s contribution is its shift away from addressing inclusion as an abstract ideal toward treating it as a tangible objective achievable through intentional design. By illuminating specific social behaviors and structural impediments, the research reshapes the discourse around conference equity. Inclusion becomes a measurable phenomenon supported by data rather than an aspirational rhetoric, empowering organizers with the tools necessary for meaningful reform.
Looking toward the future, Bielefeld University’s research offers practical prescriptions for conference organizers worldwide. The authors underline the importance of proactive structures and policies tailored to accommodate diverse needs and identities. This range of interventions—from establishing behavioral codes, facilitating accessible childcare, to recognizing linguistic barriers—collectively fosters environments where diversity can thrive naturally rather than artificially imposed.
The implications of this study extend beyond immediate conference settings. They raise profound questions about the culture and mechanisms of scientific communication, challenging the community to rethink how voices are amplified or marginalized in knowledge production. As academia strives for democratization and inclusivity, this research offers an empirical foundation for transformative change, advocating for systemic redesign of customary practices.
Ultimately, the work from Bielefeld University stands as a call to action for the global scientific community. In a landscape where innovation depends on collaborative interaction, ensuring equitable participation is no longer optional—it is critical. The study’s synthesis of empirical data and thoughtful analysis charts a viable path for academic events to evolve into truly inclusive platforms, setting a new standard for conferences worldwide.
As science grapples with the imperative of diversity, this research affirms that inclusion is not a passive outcome but the product of deliberate, evidence-based strategies. By embedding these principles at the core of conference design, the scientific community moves closer to realizing a vision where every voice has the opportunity to contribute fully to the collective enterprise of discovery.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: How Can We Make Scientific Events More Inclusive? Insights From Q&A Sessions and Surveys From an International Conference.
News Publication Date: 13-Jul-2025
Web References: DOI: 10.1002/ece3.71588
References:
Chen, R., Rizvi, T., Berthelsen, A. L., Paijmans, A., Maune, A., Caspers, B., Sepers, B., et al. (2025). How Can We Make Scientific Events More Inclusive? Insights From Q&A Sessions and Surveys From an International Conference. Ecology and Evolution, 15(7). DOI: 10.1002/ece3.71588
Image Credits: Nele Elson
Keywords: Scientific Conferences, Inclusion, Equity, Diversity, Behavioral Sciences, Gender Dynamics, Global South, Linguistic Barriers, Code of Conduct, Childcare, Conference Design, Academic Participation
