Dhe contact restrictions during the Covid-19 pandemic meant that physical co-presence encounters had to be replaced technologically in schools, universities and companies: distance learning, online seminars and zoom meetings were intended to compensate for the fact that encounters in the classroom, lecture hall and company were impossible . The balance sheet is very mixed: While one still came to usable results with thematically interested and focused participants of a team meeting, the taming of a group of adolescents via the screen was more difficult than successful. It is therefore not surprising that the majority of people have now returned to the old model and appreciate face-to-face encounters again.
In some areas, however, the forced substitution of co-presence by video conferences has led to a rethink: if there was previously no alternative to arranging a physical meeting, there is now another option that can be used if necessary. The virtual alternative may be attractive in the case of a long and costly journey or other obligations on the part of those involved. Of course, this substitution option also interests those who have had reservations about meetings for a long time, for example the critics of large scientific conferences, for whom the not inconsiderable CO2 footprint of a conference with thousands of participants is a thorn in their side. If you put this in relation to the scientific output, the online conference represents an alternative.
A recently published study by the sociologist of science Harry Collins and his colleagues Willow Leonard-Clarke and Will Mason-Wilkes deals with the question of whether virtual formats could and should replace co-presence. Even before the pandemic, there were advocates of online conferences. They not only argued for climate protection, but also that a faster and less complicated exchange with remote colleagues is possible online; the low thresholds for online participation also encouraged a broadening and greater equalization of the scientific community, as people are included who were previously excluded due to costs or visa regulations, health reasons or family responsibilities. In contrast, the authors argue that conferences are important places for scientific socialization and for networking between scientists. The omission of these elements would impair research fields in which “adventurous”, new path-seeking and therefore risky science is pursued.
Better than no meetings
In order to determine the advantages and disadvantages more precisely, two groups of physicists who deal with the measurement of gravitational waves or with photonics were interviewed. In photonics in particular, there were already initiatives for online formats before the pandemic. In addition to two written surveys six months apart, long-term observations and interviews were included in the analysis. Many respondents confirmed the assumption that some functions of face-to-face interaction can hardly be mapped in the virtual world: Due to the limitation to a few audiovisual impressions, non-verbal communication is neglected, which means that there is no channel for resolving conflicts; Trust cannot be based on joint activities; and, as the authors expected, newcomers found the barriers to entry into a specialized field higher and access to the luminaries of the field more difficult. Nevertheless, many were pleasantly surprised at how well online conferences worked after overcoming the initial difficulties. And: “Zoom-like meetings are far better than no meetings.”
These results confirm that online formats can definitely replace the officially planned, but not the unplanned, but by no means undesirable, functions of co-presence. Unlike video conferencing, face-to-face interactions can never be fully focused on just one topic and one goal. But precisely the “abuse” of the situation for other purposes, such as social ones, makes it possible for something to emerge from coincidences in the situation. One does not have to share the researchers’ optimism that this will consistently benefit scientific knowledge. In any case, it is an argument to exercise caution when not co-present.