Summary
Drawing on social studies of science, this paper contrasts two conceptual models of scientific communication: the algorithmical model (emphasising information transfer) and the enculturational model (emphasising socialisation into scientific communities). The authors argue that whilst remote platforms might seem to address the logistical and environmental costs of in-person conferences, the enculturational perspective suggests that abandoning face-to-face interaction would undermine the development of cross-national trust and mutual agreements essential to scientific progress and democratic governance. The paper provides both theoretical analysis and empirical evidence against proposals for permanent wholesale replacement of conferences with virtual alternatives.
UK applicability
The findings are applicable to UK science governance and funding policy, particularly regarding research council priorities and university strategies for supporting early-career scientists' networking and professional development. The argument has implications for UK climate goals, as it challenges the assumption that virtualisation of conferences is a straightforward environmental win.
Key measures
Comparative analysis of algorithmical versus enculturational models of scientific communication; examination of conference attendance and remote interaction patterns during Covid-19 pandemic
Outcomes reported
The study examined the theoretical and empirical implications of replacing in-person scientific conferences with remote communication platforms, exploring sociological models of scientific communication and their relationship to scientific practice and democracy.
Topic tags
Dig deeper with Pulse AI.
Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.