Unpacking Conference Site Selection
Late last year, the SIGCHI Executive Committee (EC) formed the Site Selection Working Group (SSWG) to unpack the challenges faced by conferences when selecting sites to host academic meetings. Choosing a location involves thinking about many different aspects: besides finding a venue of appropriate size and infrastructure, we must also ensure accessibility and ease of access, engage with existing local communities, and assess visa restrictions. These and more are elements that can come into play when deciding on a venue.
This past February, during the Futures Summit, the SSWG had the opportunity to engage with Steering Committee (SC) chairs to discuss the issue of site selection. In one breakout session, one plenary session, and a pilot questionnaire, we sought to gain a better understanding of these challenges, and also to look into what elements come into play when participants are deciding whether to attend a conference.
Right at the outset, it became very clear that conference size makes a difference, and challenges (and solutions) will vary accordingly. Thus, solutions cannot be one-size-fits-all: they should be tailored to each specific conference’s needs and characteristics.
Analyzing comments from the sessions and answers from the pilot questionnaire pointed us to a few key themes, split between concerns of attendees and of organizers.
Attendee Concerns
Travel and Access: How easy is it to get to? Proximity and ease of access seem to play an important part for our participants. Multiple respondents mentioned preferring to take the train, or not needing to fly long distances. This seems to have been the case for CHI 2016 in San Jose and CSCW 2016 in San Francisco: both were convenient locations for Silicon Valley-based workers, who, despite not having travel funding available, were able to attend given the proximity. Same parallel can be drawn for CHI2023, which drew a large European crowd who was able to attend given the ease of travel.
Research has made clear the negative impact of conferences on climate change (eg.: 1, 2), as air travel to get to the conference usually entails CO2 emissions. The SIGCHI Sustainability Committee has been working on a CO2 calculator to help conferences calculate emissions resulting from conference travel.
Infrastructure: The availability of restaurants, pharmacies, alternative hotels (at different price ranges), and public transportation all came into the conversation at some point. Notably, ease of getting to the conference site, from hotel and/or from airport. These are elements of local infrastructure that respondents look for when attending a conference. A common question for a workshop organizer might be where to take the group for a post-workshop dinner. Another that we might not think of until the moment strikes is how to handle emergencies, especially when knowledge of the locale and local travel is involved, when attending a conference away from home. Accessibility naturally came up, as certain locations will be more accessible than others on different measures of access, e.g., nationality, disability, gender.
Visas: Multiple people mentioned visa requirements played an important part in deciding whether to attend a conference. For any given country, different passports have different visa requirements, and obtaining a visa is a lengthy and costly process for some (and stressful). Being conscious of who is affected and having someone in the organization committee to assist with visa letters (and any other requirements) might help ease the process. Some sites provide information on how “visa-friendly” each country is and could be used as a resource. It should be noted that VISA rules change frequently, so it’s always important to be up to date with the latest rules for any given site.
When calculating statistics, organizers routinely look at where participants are traveling from but not necessarily what their country of citizenship is. This means an important aspect might be overlooked – foreign students or scholars are often at a disadvantage, as visa rules might (1) not allow them to travel outside their host country, (2) make it hard to enter certain countries, and/or (3) make it difficult to leave a country or re-enter a country. When thinking about visa requirements, organizers should also remember that many more people might be affected than what is immediately apparent.
Organizer Concerns
Volunteer Burden: independent of size, SC chairs reported having a hard time finding Local Chairs willing to host their conferences, given the heavy workload involved. This has also made it hard to elicit bids to host events. SCs often have to either choose from very few options or use their contact networks to find someone willing to host their conference. Looking for ways to reduce or ease this burden might make it easier to find volunteers willing to host a conference.
Some conferences adopt the strategy of always returning to the same location, thus developing a relationship with the venue, which makes it easier to run the conference year after year. This comes at the cost of rotating locations, something many conferences are keen to do, as it allows them to approach new communities.
Organization Support: A range of comments were made regarding support. Some SC chairs mentioned that some conferences do not have Professional Conference Organizers (PCOs) to support their events. Some mentioned that PCO services are prohibitively expensive. Others mentioned that organizational support is limited when outside the US.
Some conferences have experimented with hiring a local PCO, with experience handling local arrangements, and who knows how to find suitable service providers, understands how to communicate and sign contracts with them. These PCOs can work with ACM on identifying venues and getting contracts signed. Likewise, identifying a local chair (either through bidding or in some other way) prior to signing contracts seems to have helped some events run more smoothly outside the US. The local chairs can work with local providers and PCO, visit and select sites for the conference. Naturally, these PCOs come at a cost, so they need to be factored into the conference budget.
Local Communities: Local communities have come into discussion. We’ve identified two types that conferences need to consider: the local research community and the local community at large. The research community might benefit from interacting with the conference participants (and vice-versa), and might also be able to provide local support for the conference. The community at large is affected when a conference visits, as participants generate business when visiting (3), but also have a local footprint that should be considered. It is important to balance any positive economic effects with the negative effects large gatherings might have on the environment and the local community, including the disruption of everyday life for locals.
Final Thoughts
Site decisions are usually made about two years before the conference, which means that the situation may change in between the decision being made and the conference date. Natural disasters, geopolitical instability, unexpected changes in laws and more can require a sudden change in plans. Organizers also need to be able to quickly respond to these situations. They do not always have guidance on how to do so.
In general, participants acknowledged that there is no perfect answer, that there are many tradeoffs to be considered. Different people will benefit from different site choices. Sites that benefit a certain group might exclude another, so the challenge is to try to strike a balance between who benefits when and not always exclude some portions of our community.
Lastly, we should note that we’re not the first ones to think about these issues. Other societies have faced these problems and have come up with site selection criteria that we might borrow from as we move forward (4, 5).
Was something forgotten? What else should we be thinking of? Let us know your thoughts! You can email us at sigchi-4all@acm.org.
