IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/got/gotcrc/210.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How to attract an audience at a conference: Paper, person or place?

Author

Listed:
  • Isabel Günther

    (ETH Zürich)

  • Melanie Grosse

    (Georg-August University Göttingen)

  • Stephan Klasen

    (Georg-August University Göttingen)

Abstract

We analyze the drivers of the size of the audience and number of questions asked in parallel sessions at the annual conference of the German Economics Association. We find that the location of the presentation is at least as important for the number of academics attending a talk as the combined effect of the person presenting and the paper presented. Being a presenter in a late morning session on the second day of a conference, close to the place where coffee is served, significantly increases the size of the audience. When it comes to asking questions, location becomes less important, but smaller rooms lead to more questions being asked (by women). Younger researchers as well as very senior researchers attract more questions and comments. There are also interesting gender effects. Women attend research sessions more diligently than men, but seem to ask fewer questions than men. Men are less likely to attend presentations on health, education, welfare, and development economics than women. Our findings suggest that strategic scheduling of sessions could ensure better participation at conferences. Moreover, different behaviors of men and women at conferences might also contribute to the lack of women in senior scientist positions.

Suggested Citation

  • Isabel Günther & Melanie Grosse & Stephan Klasen, 2016. "How to attract an audience at a conference: Paper, person or place?," Courant Research Centre: Poverty, Equity and Growth - Discussion Papers 210, Courant Research Centre PEG.
  • Handle: RePEc:got:gotcrc:210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www2.vwl.wiso.uni-goettingen.de/courant-papers/CRC-PEG_DP_210.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marianne A. Ferber & Michael Brün, 2011. "The Gender Gap in Citations: Does It Persist?," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 151-158, January.
    2. Borghans, Lex & Romans, Margo & Sauermann, Jan, 2010. "What makes a good conference? Analysing the preferences of labour economists," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 868-874, October.
    3. Andreas Haufler & Johannes Rincke, 2009. "Wer trägt bei der Jahrestagung des Vereins für Socialpolitik vor? Eine empirische Analyse," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 10(2), pages 123-145, May.
    4. Maliniak, Daniel & Powers, Ryan & Walter, Barbara F., 2013. "The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(4), pages 889-922, October.
    5. Charles F. Manski, 1993. "Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 60(3), pages 531-542.
    6. Rhoten, Diana & Pfirman, Stephanie, 2007. "Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 56-75, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guenther, Isabel & Grosse, Melanie & Klasen, Stephan, 2014. "Attracting Attentive Academics. Paper, Person or Place?," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100392, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    2. Lisa Geraci & Steve Balsis & Alexander J. Busch Busch, 2015. "Gender and the h index in psychology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2023-2034, December.
    3. Beaudry, Catherine & Larivière, Vincent, 2016. "Which gender gap? Factors affecting researchers’ scientific impact in science and medicine," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1790-1817.
    4. Maria De Paola & Michela Ponzo & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2017. "Gender differences in the propensity to apply for promotion: evidence from the Italian Scientific Qualification," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(4), pages 986-1009.
    5. Wai Ching Poon & Gareth D. Leeves, 2017. "Is there gender gap unequivocally? Evidence from research output 1958–2008," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1687-1701, June.
    6. Michelle L. Dion & Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Jane L. Sumner, 2020. "Gender, seniority, and self-citation practices in political science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 1-28, October.
    7. Fabrice Gilles & Sabina Issehnane & Florent Sari, 2022. "Using short-term jobs as a way to find a regular job. What kind of role for local context?," TEPP Working Paper 2022-07, TEPP.
    8. H Peyton Young, 2014. "The Evolution of Social Norms," Economics Series Working Papers 726, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    9. Ruomeng Cui & Dennis J. Zhang & Achal Bassamboo, 2019. "Learning from Inventory Availability Information: Evidence from Field Experiments on Amazon," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 1216-1235, March.
    10. Gautier, Pieter & van Vuuren, Aico & Siegmann, Arjen, 2007. "The Effect of the Theo van Gogh Murder on House Prices in Amsterdam," CEPR Discussion Papers 6175, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Dostie, Benoit & Jayaraman, Rajshri, 2006. "Determinants of School Enrollment in Indian Villages," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(2), pages 405-421, January.
    12. Mekonnen, Daniel Ayalew & Gerber, Nicolas & Matz, Julia Anna, 2018. "Gendered Social Networks, Agricultural Innovations, and Farm Productivity in Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 321-335.
    13. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    14. Toni Mora & Beatriz G. Lopez‐Valcarcel, 2018. "Breakfast choice: An experiment combining a nutritional training workshop targeting adolescents and the promotion of unhealthy products," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 306-319, February.
    15. Peter Bergman, 2020. "Nudging Technology Use: Descriptive and Experimental Evidence from School Information Systems," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 15(4), pages 623-647, Fall.
    16. Ali Palali & Jan C. Van ours, 2017. "Love Conquers all but Nicotine: Spousal Peer Effects on the Decision to Quit Smoking," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1710-1727, December.
    17. Sandy Fréret & Denis Maguain, 2017. "The effects of agglomeration on tax competition: evidence from a two-regime spatial panel model on French data," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(6), pages 1100-1140, December.
    18. Francesco Amodio & Miguel A. Martinez-Carrasco, 2023. "Workplace Incentives and Organizational Learning," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 453-478.
    19. Wei He & Qian Wang, 2020. "The peer effect of corporate financial decisions around split share structure reform in China," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 474-493, July.
    20. Kiichi Tokuoka, 2017. "Is stock investment contagious among siblings?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1505-1528, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economists; Conference; Preferences; Gender Differences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists
    • B54 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Current Heterodox Approaches - - - Feminist Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:got:gotcrc:210. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dominik Noe (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/82144.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.