The 63rd Annual Conference of ICA lived up to expectations. In spite of being the conference of all records, held in a venue that was not necessarily proportioned for the magnitude of the event, all went remarkably well. We owe this success to the professionalism of the staff of ICA and of the Hilton Metropole, as well as to the hard work of theme chair Leah Lievrouw (U of California - Los Angeles) and the leadership of all Divisions and Interest Groups, and to the constructive and understanding attitude of the more than 2,800 delegates.
The unprecedented magnitude of this conference was a stress test, but also an invitation to reflect on the aims and expectations associated with our annual conferences. While the membership of ICA is relatively stable, the number of people who express interest in participating as well as the number of people who ultimately attend the conference tend to grow over the years. This trend presumably stems from two factors.
First, the academic community appreciates ever more the importance of these gatherings. It is not just a great opportunity to travel, share your work, and get acquainted with that of others. It is also an unparalleled way to build and maintain one's network of colleagues, initiate, plan and materialize collaborative projects at a time when collective and international research has become prominent and imperative. Second, ICA has acquired a robust reputation for the quality of its annuals conferences, not only at the level of logistics and organization, but also at the level of substance of the panels and presentations.
Yet this success has implications, some of which might become problematic. The planning of each annual conference starts several years in advance by identifying locations based on a number of criteria, including the capacity of a venue to hold a given number of sessions. As a result, the number of sessions and the number of presentations offer very little flexibility. The venues selected are usually booked at their maximum capacity and it is therefore improbable that ICA can obtain more conference rooms than agreed originally. So as the number of submissions grows, the acceptance rate inevitably decreases, down to a point where very valuable proposals have to be rejected not because their quality is seen as insufficient, but because there is not enough space in the program. While the overall quality of the conference will likely be boosted accordingly, the increase in selectivity creates a lot of frustration among members. It also amplifies the tendency for members to submit more than one paper as a way to increase the chances of selection. It also interferes with all efforts deployed consistently for many years now to improve the inclusiveness of the association and of its activities.
There are ways to make more space for more people at the conference. But each of these ways comes with potential drawbacks. Making the conference longer would make it more difficult (and more expensive) for people to attend. Encouraging more presentations per session could weaken the depth of discussions. Investing in technology to allow people to follow bits of the conference from afar has proven expensive and inefficient so far. Using congress centres as venues instead of conference hotels would increase the cost dramatically. Encouraging more preconferences and postconferences would risk fragmenting the annual conference into a constellation of smaller thematic conferences at the expense of the overall sense of community within ICA and communication scholarship.
No solution is perfect, yet the issues are real. Year after year, the creativity and resourcefulness of ICA and of its members will be called upon to adapt and innovate in the best interest of all. ICA remains committed to making every possible effort to keep supporting and magnifying the creative energy of its community. As ICA's new president for 2013-2014, I will make sure that we preserve and build upon the extraordinarily powerful London momentum.
