Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Analysing panel co-attendance in scientific conferences

Analysing panel co-attendance in scientific conferences

Presentation at the #Sunbelt2020 virtual session on 𝘽𝙞𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙚 𝙉𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙨 & 𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨, #NETCONF research project

MarionMai

June 10, 2021
Tweet

More Decks by MarionMai

Other Decks in Research

Transcript

  1. Analysing panel co-attendance
    in scientific conferences
    A new avenue to explore academic sociality
    #Sunbelt2020 virtual sessions on 𝘽𝙞𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙚 𝙉𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙨 &
    𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨
    Empirical Insights from Bipartite and Multipartite Networks
    July 15, 2020
    François Briatte · ESPOL, Catholic U. of Lille, France
    Marion Maisonobe · Géocités, CNRS, Paris, France

    View Slide

  2. View Slide

  3. Background (network science + science studies)
    ● Research on scientific collaboration and networks
    mainly relies on co-authorship data
    ● Many other types of interactions contribute to the
    circulation of ideas between scholars and to the
    emergence of scientific groups
    ● Among them, social links derived from participation to
    conferences and panel co-attendance
    ● Interesting to explore, with conference programmes and
    lists of participants often openly accessible on the Web

    View Slide

  4. ● Panel co-attendance in two scientific conferences about
    green chemistry (ISGC) and political science (AFSP)
    ● Conference structure (sessions, topics, etc.) and its
    evolution can inform specialty/discipline dynamics
    ● Panel co-attendance used as a proxy for knowledge
    circulation between participants/places
    ● Common methodology applied to both conferences,
    through several conference years
    T (ISGC) = 6 years, T (AFSP) = 10 years (every odd year)
    Goals of the project

    View Slide

  5. Project summary
    ● NETCONF project, 2020–21 (funded by URFIST GIS)
    ● Participants: CRIEF (EA, Univ. Poitiers), ESPOL-LAB (Univ.
    Catho. Lille), Géographie-cités (UMR CNRS, Univ. Paris 1,
    Univ. de Paris, EHESS), CESSP (UMR CNRS, Univ. Paris 1),
    ELICO (EA, Univ. Lyon), INCREASE (FR CNRS)
    ● Intended outputs: (1) clean network data, and measures
    of (2) internationalization and (3) geographic span for
    both studied specialties/disciplines
    ● Groundwork for inclusion of additional conferences
    (possibly from different fields)

    View Slide

  6. View Slide

  7. View Slide

  8. Comparable properties
    ● Both conferences count ~ 700–1,000 participants i, with
    most attending a single panel j
    ● Attending several years is frequent but not the modal
    behaviour (return rate ~ 25% for ISGC, ~ 30% for AFSP)
    ● ISGC (green chemistry, organised in La Rochelle) is much
    more internationalized (50–60%) than AFSP (French or
    Francophone political science, itinerant, max. 20% intl.)
    ● Yet both conferences attract participants from roughly
    the same number of countries (~ 60)

    View Slide

  9. Geographic ties based on panel co-attendance
    Francophone countries

    View Slide

  10. Each tie captures one
    panel co-attendance in
    the panel/participant
    bipartite graph.
    We used all ties > 1
    (2+ panel co-attendance
    at the same conference)
    to extract the backbone of
    each graph.
    Universal method used,
    but perhaps edge
    distribution justifies
    another approach?
    Edge weight distributions of one-mode projections
    1 tie 2 ties 3 ties 4 ties 5 ties
    ISGC 2015 17080 122 6 4
    ISGC 2017 20444 230 26 4 2
    ISGC 2019 18230 358 24 8 4
    AFSP 2009 14478 230 8
    AFSP 2011 9538 34
    AFSP 2013 15364 100 2
    AFSP 2015 17476 114
    AFSP 2017 9934 52
    AFSP 2019 15180 82

    View Slide

  11. View Slide

  12. Next steps (suggestions welcome)
    ● Weighting scheme of the ( Participant i × Panel j )
    bipartite adjacency matrix: 1/N
    i
    weights?
    ● Additional data on participants (e.g. affiliations,
    publications, dissertation committees) — ongoing work
    ● Characteristics (socio-demographic, geographic) of the
    nodes connected by the network backbone
    ● Temporal analysis with TERGMs? (institution-/city-level
    homophily sustained through conference years; cohorts)
    ● Additional data from similar conferences?
    see experimental takes at epsa2020 and statconf

    View Slide

  13. ● ISGC conference data shared by its managing company
    ● AFSP conference data scraped from the AFSP website
    see congres-afsp for the code and (preliminary) data
    ● Graph visualizations performed with igraph (Csárdi),
    ggraph (Pedersen) and graphlayouts (Schoch)
    ● Backbone extraction performed with backbone
    (Domagalski, Neal and Sagan)
    ● References for final report on Zotero
    Sources

    View Slide

  14. Thank you for your attention
    Slides at frama.link/netconf-2020-sunbelt
    [email protected] · @GeoMaisonobe
    [email protected] · @phnk

    View Slide