Virtual Technologies and Conferences Attendance: Perceptions of YCT Academic Staff

Virtual Technologies and Conferences Attendance: Perceptions of YCT Academic Staff

Abiose E. AKHADEME¹, *Emmanuel M. IKEGWU², Lucky E. AKHADEME³,
¹Department of Office Technology and Management, Yaba College of Technology, Yaba Lagos
²Department of Statistics, Yaba College of Technology, Yaba Lagos
³Department of Surveying and Geoinformatics, Yaba College of Technology, Yaba Lagos
*Corresponding author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2023.70702

Received: 26 October 2022; Revised: 16 November 2022; Accepted: 21 November 2022; Published: 24 July 2023

ABSTRACT

Academic conference was majorly face-to-face gathering for sharing new knowledge, disseminating research findings, establishing networks among team members and for social interaction. However, holding virtual meetings is not completely a new phenomenon but conference virtualisation was not in place before the year 2020. But the current widespread adoption of virtual conferences was facilitated by the global outbreak of the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, which struck almost the whole world and forced nearly all sectors to resort to online activities. This study seeks to examine the acceptable level of virtual conferences using the most popular web conferencing tools such as Zoom, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams. Three research questions were raised with three corresponding hypotheses. The design adopted was a survey, the population comprised over 800 academic staff in Yaba College of Technology, Lagos and a sample size of 206 was selected. A structured questionnaire was used to collect data and was analysed with frequency distribution and Chi-square test of association. The finding of the study revealed high awareness about virtual conferences (88.1%), high attendance (76%), and high preference for virtual conference attendance (62%)and these stemmed fromthe opportunity to build networks, security concerns, time management, and cost-effectiveness. It also showed that Zoom was the most preferred virtual technology (50%).The study concluded that virtual conferencing has come to stay because of its high awareness, attendance and preference among academics and Zoom technology is the key driver as the world is moving towards a global community.

Keywords: Academics, Conference attendance, Technologies, Virtual conferences, Zoom.

INTRODUCTION

An academic conference is a meeting, a congress, or a symposium, where participants present their research findings. It is a gathering where professionals meet and interact to increase knowledge. Falk & Hagsten (2021) stated that academic conference is used generally for networking, collaborating, mentoring novice researchers, sharing research findings, and socialising with colleagues. An academic conference is also an instrument for assessing the visibility of lecturers and their institutions (Sá, Ferreira & Serpa, 2019).  The researchers stressed that conference attendance improves the quality of academic papers and the chances of publishing in high-impact journals. To this end, an academic conference is a meeting where researchers connect with their colleagues to share current opinions. There are two modes of academic conferences, namely, the traditional face-to-face or in-person conference and virtual conference.

The traditional mode of academic conferencesis face-to-face attendance or in-person conference.The face-to-face conferencebrings like-minded participants together to explore themes. Experienced keynote and lead paper speakers are invited to share knowledge with participants. It makes researchers visible in their field. Lecturers physically socialize, converse and discuss with colleagues from sister institutions. This agrees with McCulloch, (2018), there is live interaction among participants. They make trips to exotic locations, visit recreational centres, have fun, do shopping and meet with key personalities (Bhandari, 2018; Finnegan, McGhee, Roxburgh, & Kent, 2019).

Some undeniable challenges of the face-to-face academic conference include lack of funds to cover conference expenses, traveling to long distances, and accessibility and safety of participants. In-person academic conferences require participants to make trips, and travel distances to physically present their papers(Mair, Lockstone-Binney, & Whitelaw, 2018). These physical and financial barriers conventionally prevent conference attendance. Consequently, to model the in-person conference, virtual conferencing emerged as a result of the invention of more sophisticated technologies coupled with the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Rubinger Gazendam, Ekhtiari, Nucci, Payne, Johal, Khanduja & Bhandari (2020) posited that an upsurge in virtual meetings became a part of the 2020 work setting. A virtual conference is described as an online presentation through the internet to synchronously interact. Haji-Georgi, Xu and Rosca (2020) described the virtual conference as the act of sharing, discussing, and learning new developments in a field within a community of practice. In this digital age, there are many free and cost-based virtual technologies that academics can use. These technologies have unique features and reasons for their preference.

The most common virtual technologies include Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet and To Go Meeting. An effective virtual conference has the potential to reduce the costs associated with booking venues, catering, and traveling across geographically dispersed areas and reduce environmental footprints. Despite the enormous benefits of the virtual conference, there are many challenges, especially in the face of dwindling infrastructure in our country, Nigeria. Participants may experience technical issues connecting online, poor internet connection, bandwidth issues, background noise, muting and unmuting, lack of time, lack of social interaction and not having sophisticated devices up to like 4g plus makes it tough to successfully participate in virtual conferences.

To establish the missing link in existing literature, this study seeks to examine the awareness and attitude of academic staff about the two modes of academic conferences, the preference for conference attendance, the reasons for such preference, the preference for mode of virtual technologiessuch as Zoom, Google Meet and Microsoft Teams, the reasons for the mode of preference and the challenges of virtual conference attendance.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The face-to-face or in-person conference isa traditional mode of the conference. The benefits of attending and participating in the traditional conference have implications for lecturers and their institutions (Bhandari, 2018; Rowe, 2018; Chai & Freeman, 2019; Finnegan, McGhee, Roxburgh, & Kent, 2019). Sa, et al. (2019) reiterated that it provides ideas, knowledge and development opportunities for lecturers and their institutions. The traditional in-person conference involves the inconveniences of traveling long distances, insecurity, lack of funds to book hotel accommodation and other conference expenses.

During the Covid-19 period, restrictions such as closed local and international borders, travel bans and public gatherings, resulted in the cancellation of many face-to-face meetings, workshops, seminars and conferences, which made academic communities adopt virtual conferencing (Abbott, 2020; Achakulvisut, Ruangrong, Bilgin, Van Den Bossche, Wyble, Goodman, Arnal, 2020;Vargo, Zhu, Benwel, & Yan, 2021).A virtual conference is an event staged and attended online by participants who interact synchronously (Vargo, Zhu, Benwel & Yan, 2021). The researchers maintained that in a virtual conference, participants remotely join the meeting from any part of the world.

According to Haji-Georgi et al (2020) virtual conference entails utilizing technologies to deliver papers in an online environment. Furthermore, they maintained that virtual conference has the advantage of eliminating the logistics associated with face-to-face gathering. Consequently, the virtual conference turned out to be the ad hoc measure for an academic conference(Haji-Georgi, Xu & Rosca, 2020).The virtual conference has become the global new normal situation and has drawn the attention of lecturers and institutions (Withington, & Kolivand, 2022). Thus, it is significant to determine the awareness and attitude of lecturers and the preference for virtual conference technologies and their features.

There is a long list of virtual conference technologies, which include Microsoft Teams, GoToMeeting, Google Meet, Zoom, Apache Open Meetings, TeamViewer, TeamLink, ezTalks Meetings, and Join.me, Skype for business, and many more.  This study focused on three of the most common use ones, namely, Zoom, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams. Zoom requires a participant to create an account and generate the meeting ID that qualifies a participant to join the conference. It has easy-to-use features such as calls, chat, quality audioand MP4 video recording. Zoom is accessible in free and paid descriptions. The free plan lasts for only 40 minutes and allows a maximum of 100 participants while the paid plan, a large meeting add-on hosts up to 500 participants. Microsoft Teams is part ofthe Microsoft Office 365 bundle that requires a sign-up email address. It has free and paid plans that allow the subscriber to host 250 -300 participants. There is no time limit or duration for meetings. The features of Microsoft Teams include phone calls, a chat box, video conferencing, a calendar and sharable files. Google Meet is an app within Google workspace. It has paid subscription that can host 100 to 250 participants depending on the subscription. Usually, the participant dials the number and enters the pin code available in the Meet invite. It can record, live stream and encrypt videos.

Empirical Review

Chen et al. (2020) described the benefit of the virtual conference as increasing the exponential dissemination of new knowledge, reducing the cost and risks of traveling, optimising time, and encouraging international research collaboration. van Ewijk & Hoekman (2021), reduce carbon footprint and other travel inconveniences. Virtual conference improves attendance status and saves valuable time and money (Zhang, Qin, Wang, & Luo, 2020).  In a study titled academic conferencing in 2020: a virtual conference model, Haji-Georgi, et al (2020) reviewed the opinion of conference attendees and their findings revealed that virtual conference attendance skyrocketed, especially those at far distances. The researchers equally observed that about 95% of the respondents said their involvement in virtual poster sessions was the same as face-to-face participation, about 54.55% reported that they had better experiences with the virtual format.

Erickson, Kellogg, Shami, and Levine (2020), showed similar findings that virtual conference increases the number of attendees to the conference. In addition, the researchers observed that majority of their respondents agreed that the virtual conference was a good experience and they would like to use the platform again and again when the opportunity comes. Erickson et al. (2020) also drew a comparison between face-to-face and virtual conference attendance based on information sharing and social affiliation. Most of the respondents agreed that both modes are satisfactory, representing 96.3 and 98.2%. However, the comparison between the two modes in-person and virtual revealed that in-person (98.2%) while virtual (63.0%). This meant that they found more satisfaction in face-to-face conferencing. Other advantages of the virtual conference include cost-effectiveness, the virtual conference can hold everywhere and anywhere in the world, saves time, causes less stress and anxiety, enhances collaboration, increases creativity and is more inclusive.

Most human activities have advantages and disadvantages, and so do virtual conference technologies. The virtual conference is like a put-off to some presenters, they develop cold feet because they are not technically savvy. Virtual conferences cost a lot of money because of data usage. Poor networks in Nigeria make virtual conferencing almost impossible as presenters keep muting and unmuting. A poor power supply is a major hindrance to virtual presentations. Technologies for virtual conferences can be technologically challenging, internet connection may fail (Lopes, 2019). This is in agreement with the assertion of Diethart, Zimmermann and Mulà, (2020) who stated that virtual conferences present technology-oriented challenges.  Similarly, in a study titled virtual conference design: features and obstacles, Hurst et al. (2022) observed that virtual conference attendance is limited by internet connectivity which means, the network is often an issue with virtual conference systems.

Sam, (2022) carried out a study titled effective virtual platform for an online meeting. The researcher stressed that in virtual conferences, in-person or physical face-to-face communication, eye contact is lost. According to her, eye contact is essential because it creates a link between the presenter and the listeners. The other challenges she identified include the requirement of high-speed gargets, hacking of information and misuse by hackers, and health-related back and joint pains from sitting in the same place for a long time.

Theoretical Review

This study was built on the process virtualization theory put forward by Overby (2008) who described how processes are conducted without people interacting physically or interaction between objects and people. He posited that process virtualisation thrives on the adoption of the virtual process and the quality of the outcomes or outputs of the process. Overby noted that process virtualisation is built on sensory, relationship, synchronism, and identification and control requirements. This implies that a continual decrease in these concepts in society has made virtualisation in processes a possibility. The event of the Covid -19 has accelerated the process of virtualisation due to the lockdowns and social distancing that resulted coupled with the complex nature of society today. This gave impetus to the argument of Overby (2012) that certain processes have proven more appropriate and agreeable to virtualisation. Other authors also agreed that virtualisation as a mode of organising is inspired by process onto logies in social settings (Peters, 2020). In Nigeria for instance, the risk of journeying from the place because of the danger of kidnapping and terrorism which in the recent time had skyrocketed giving rise to fears of traveling and boosting the attendance of virtual meetings and conferences.

METHODOLOGY

This study adopted a survey design to ascertain the perceptions of academics about virtual conference attendance and the technologies used therein. A convenience sample of 206 academic staff was drawn from the over 800 academic staff of Yaba College of Technology, Yaba Lagos and a well-designed questionnaire was administered to them to collect the necessary data used in the study. The instrument was personally administered to the academic staff members of the institution and retrieved instantly by the researcher. Frequency distributions were obtained from the data collected on the key concepts of the study and Chi-Square tests were performed to test the hypotheses stated with the aid of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 26.0). The hypotheses ascertained the association between academics’ awareness of and attendance of virtual conferences with their demographic characteristics, their preference for virtual conferences and the technologies used therein and their reasons for such preferences. Ethics was observed in this study as the consent of the academic staff was obtained before they participated in the study.

The Chi-square test compared the observed frequencies with the expected frequencies as the opinion of the academic staff on the key concepts of the study were considered. The Chi-Square test statistic is given as:

Where O_i is the observed frequency, e_i is the expected frequency, v = n – 1, and n is the number of cells in the contingency table. The test is conducted at a 5% level of significance.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Academic Staff

Table 1 shows that 52.7% of the academic staff who participated in the study are male while 44.3% are female while 3.0% did not respond. Also, 30.8% of the academic staff were 50 years and above, 38.3% were 40 – 49 years, 18.9% were 30 – 39 years and 9.0% were below years and 3.0% did not state their age. It further shows that 44.3% of the academics were in applied sciences, 37.8% in the Management sciences and 5% were in the Humanities while 12.9% did not respond. Lastly, 20% of the academics had worked for below 10 years, 47.85 had 10 – 19 years of experience and 26% had put 20 years and above while 6.5% did not respond.

Table 2: Academic staff awareness and attitude to virtual conferences

Table 2 shows that 88.1% of the academics were aware of virtual conferences, 75.9% had ever attended conferences virtually, 74.1% attended virtual conferences nationally, 14.3% attended internationally, and 11.6% attended both locations. Also, 66.8% of the academics viewed virtual conferences as a welcomed development, 30% saw it as innovative and only 3.2% view it as below expectation.

Table 3: Academic staff preference for mode of conference attendance

Table 3 shows that 38.1% of the academics preferred to attend conferences in person (face-to-face) while 61.9% preferred virtual attendance. Also, 71.7% had used Zoom for virtual conference attendance, 33.0% had used Google Meet and only 6.6% had used Microsoft Team for conferences. Lastly, half of the academics preferred to use Zoom for conference attendance, 21.1% preferred Google Meet, 23.4% preferred Microsoft Team and only 5.5% preferred Go To Webinar.

Table 4: Reasons Academic staff prefer the mode of conference attendance

Table 4 shows the reasons for the preferences of the academics and it reveals that 52.7% had their preferences because they want to build their networks, 33.3% because of security concerns, 32.3% for its cost-effectiveness, 29.9% to manage their time, 0nly 8.0% do for the estacode involved and 21.4% for the travel experience it offers.

Table 5: Challenges of virtual conference attendance

Table 5 considered the challenges of attending the virtual conference. It shows that 69.2% of the academics agreed or strongly agreed that virtual conferences attendance is for those who are technologically savvy, 65.8% agreed or strongly agreed that virtual conferences attendance costs much in terms of data usage, and 3 in every 5 academics agreed or strongly agreed that networks in Nigeria make attending conferences virtually almost impossible.

Also, 46.2% agreed or strongly agreed that attending virtual conferences when sponsored makes retirement of advancements difficult, 71.2% agreed or strongly agreed that building social networks is limited by virtual conferences attendance and 71.1% agreed or strongly agreed that inconsistent power supply hinders virtual conferences attendance.

In addition, 70.1% agreed or strongly agreed that having devices that are not 4g plus enhanced makes it difficult to participate in virtual conferences, 39.8% agreed or strongly agreed that they don’t feel they have attended a conference when it is virtual, 39.7% agreed or strongly agreed that their institution does not recognise conferences attended virtually and 45.5% agreed or strongly agreed that papers presented virtually are not always criticised and discussed thoroughly.

Hypotheses Testing

The hypotheses of the study were tested using the Chi-Square test of associations at a 5% level of significance.

Hypothesis One

H₀¹: There is no significant association between academic staff attendance atthe virtual conference and their demographic characteristics.

Table 6: Chi-square test of association between ever-attended conference attendance and academics’ demographic characteristics

The results show that the proportion of males (80.6%) was lower than that of females (90.4%) but the association was not significant (χ² = 2.114, p > 0.05). Also, there is no significant association between age and having ever attended the virtual conference (χ² = 2.638; p > 0.05). Lastly, there is a significant association between ever-attended virtual conferences and the professional field of academics (χ² = 7.161; p < 0.05).

Hypothesis Two

H₀²: There is no significant association between academic staff preference for mode of conference attendance and their demographic characteristics.

Table 7: Chi-square test of association between preferred mode of conference attendance and the reasons Academic staff prefer the mode

Table 7 shows that 68.8% of those that preferred virtual conference attendance and 38.8% of those who preferred face-to-face attendance do so to build networks and the association is significant (χ² = 15.273; p < 0.05). It shows that those that preferred to attend virtual conferences are 3.5 times more likely to do so to build networks than those that preferred face-to-face attendance [OR = 3.48; 95% CI = 1.84 – 6.58)]. Also, 47.7% of those that preferred virtual conference attendance and 17.9% of those who preferred face-to-face attendance do so security concerns and the association is significant (χ² = 15.920; p < 0.05). It shows that those that preferred to attend virtual conferences are over 4 times more likely to do so to security concerns than those that preferred face-to-face attendance [OR = 4.18; 95% CI = 2.02 – 8.67]. In addition, 42.2% of those that preferred virtual conference attendance and 17.9% of those who preferred face-to-face attendance do so because of its cost-effectiveness and the association is significant (χ² = 11.082; p < 0.05). It shows that those that preferred to attend virtual conferences are over 4 times more likely to do so for cost-effectiveness than those that preferred face-to-face attendance [OR = 3.35; 95% CI = 1.61 – 6.95].

Furthermore, 46.8% of those that preferred virtual conference attendance and 10.4% of those who preferred face-to-face attendance do so because of its time management and the association is significant (χ² = 24.803; p < 0.05). It shows that those that preferred to attend virtual conferences are 7.5 times more likely to do so for time management than those that preferred face-to-face attendance [OR = 7.54; 95% CI = 3.16 – 17.96]. However, 11.9% of those that preferred virtual conference attendance and 40.3% of those who preferred face-to-face attendance do so because of travel experience and the association is significant (χ² = 24.803; p < 0.05). It shows that those that preferred to attend virtual conferences are 80% less likely to do so for travel experience than those that preferred face-to-face attendance [OR = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.09 – 0.43]. Lastly, more male academics preferred virtual conference attendance to those who preferred face-to-face attendance do so while the females converse and the association because the preferred mode and gender are significant (χ² = 5.396; p < 0.05). It shows that female academics were 60% less likely to attend virtual conferences than males[OR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.17 – 0.87].

Hypothesis Three

H₀³: There is no significant association between academic staff preference for virtual technologies and their demographic characteristics.

Table 8: Chi-square test of association between academic staff preference for virtual technologies and their demographic characteristics

Table 8 shows that more females preferred Google Meet and Microsoft Teams for virtual conferences while more males preferred Zoom but the association is not significant (p > 0.05). Also, there is a significant association between the most preferred technology for use in virtual conferences and the age of the academics (p < 0.05). Lastly, the most preferred technology for use in a virtual conference is not significantly associated with the number of years of experience of the academics (p > 0.05).

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

This study found that 88% of the academics were aware of virtual conferences while 76% had attended virtual conferences either nationally, internationally or both and 2 in every 3 academics welcomed the development. It can be seen that the proportions are indeed very high which portends that virtual conferences have come to stay as it has become very popular. These findings agreed with the submission of Withington, & Kolivand (2022) that virtual conference has become the global new normal situation and has drawn the attention of lecturers and institutions.

Secondly, the study also found that 62% of the academics preferred to attend conferences virtually and half of them preferred Zoom to the other technologies in use. This is in line with the submission of Erickson,et al. (2020) who reported more attendance via virtual means but differed slightly from their report as the percentage found in this study was lower than that of Erickson,et al (2020) and Brennan (2021) who posited that Zoom and other platforms offer tools that encourage deep engagement and achievement of outcomes of learning. The lower percentage can be attributed to the regional differences and challenges of using virtual technologies in Nigeria where power shortage and unstable networks are still being grappled with by the populace and more so that individuals use their private networks as opposed to the use of institutional facilities in the most developed world. The findings also differed from Medina & Shrum (2022) who found overwhelming preferences for in-person or face-to-face attendance for conferences held within a 500 km distance but virtually for distances above that. It also resonated with the recommendations of Cui, Du, Wu, & Xu (2022) that conferences should go virtual because of slow economic growth and other factors considered.

In addition, the study found that attending virtual conferences is associated with the professional field of academics showing that more management sciences go for virtual while the least was from applied sciences. This also agreed in part with Falk & Hagsten (2021) who found that a greater proportion of virtual conference attendants are from management sciences but differed with their submission of the least proportion from the humanities.

In the same vein, building networks, security concerns, cost-effectiveness and time management were significantly associated reasons while academics preferred virtual conferences while travel experience offered was the only significant associated reason while face-to-face conference attendance was preferred. This goes to show that attending conferences virtually affords academics the opportunity of connecting to persons even in regions they may not be able to reach physically in their lifetime, keep them safe from the security hot point, especially in the country presently, help them attend conferences and disseminate their research findings at very minimal costs financially and opportunity-wise and use their time efficiently while continuing to deliver their services in their offices and still participate in conferences, especially in distant locations like international conferences. This finding is in agreement with Chen et al. (2020) and Medina & Shrum (2022) who listed an increase in the exponential dissemination of new knowledge, reduction in the cost and risks of traveling, time optimisation, and encourage international research collaboration as the benefits of virtual conference attendance.

Lastly, it found that technology preference is significantly age-dependent. This is because technically-savvy experience is indeed age-dependent as younger people tend to be more accustomed to the technological advancement of their age than their older compatriots. This finding disagreed with Staddon (2020) who found no age influence in attitude difference between mature and non-matured users of technology. However, the findings aligned with the conclusions of Odigwe & Owan (2020) who reported that younger academic staff significantly utilise technology more than older ones in research, recordings and teachings.

CONCLUSION

The study sought the perceptions of academics on the new normal virtual conference attendance using a survey of academic staff from Yaba College of Technology, Yaba Lagos. From the findings discussed above, it concluded that awareness and attendance of virtual conferences were very high, and most academics welcomed the innovation of attending conferences virtually for network building within and across nations, managing security concerns, managing their time efficiently and cost-effectiveness. The study also concluded that Zoom technology is the major driver of virtual conferences presently as a majority of academics have used and also prefer it.

REFERENCES

1. Abbott, A. (2020). Low-carbon, virtual science conference tries to recreate social buzz. Nature, 577(7788), 13.
2. Achakulvisut, T., Ruangrong, T., Bilgin, I., Van Den Bossche, S., Wyble, B., Goodman, D. F., & Kording, K. P. (2020). Point of view: Improving on legacy conferences by moving online. eLife, 9, e57892.Doi:doi.org/10.7554/eLife.S7892
3. Alqurashi, Emtinan. (2019). Technology Tools for Teaching and Learning in Real Time. In J. Yoon & P. Semingson (eds.)Educational Technology and Resources for Synchronous Learning in Higher Education, 255–278. IGI Global.
4. Armitage, R., & Nellums,L. B. (2020). COVID-19 and the Consequences of Isolating the Elderly. The Lancet Public Health 5: e256–e257.
5. Barryab, D. M., Kanematsuc, H., Ogawad, N. & McGratha, P. (2021). Technologies for teaching during a pandemic. Procedia Computer Science 192, 1583–1590
6. Bayham, J., & Fenichel, E. P. (2020). Impact of School Closures for COVID-19 on the US Health-Care Workforce and Net Mortality: A Modelling Study. The Lancet Public Health 5: e271–e278.
7. Berry, S. (2019). The Role of Video and Text Chat in a Virtual Classroom: How Technology Impacts Community. In J. Yoon and P. Semingson (eds.) Educational Technology and Resources for Synchronous Learning in Higher Education, 173–187. IGI Global.
8. Bhandari, B. (2018). Attending an academic conference: Story of a first-time attendee. Journal of Education and Research, 7(1), 65–69. https://doi.org/10.3126/jer.v7i1.21241
9. Brennan, J. (2021). Engaging Learners through Zoom: Strategies for Virtual Teaching Across Disciplines. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass (a Wiley Brand).
10. Chai, S., & Freeman, R. B. (2019). Temporary colocation and collaborative discovery: Who confers at conferences? Strategic Management Journal, 40(13), 2138–2164.
11. Cohen, J., & Kupferschmidt, K. (2020). Countries Test Tactics in ‘War’ Against COVID-19.Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
12. Cui, Q., Du, Z., Wu, Y. & Xu, X. (2022). Rethinking Academic Conferences in the Age of Pandemic. Applied Sciences, 12: 8531. Doi: https.//doi.org/10.3390/app12168351
13. Diethart, M., Zimmermann, A., &Mulà, I. (2020). Guidelines for virtual conferencing—inspired by the COPERNICUS Alliance Online Conference 2019.
14. Edelheim, J. R., Thomas, K., Åberg, K. G., & Phi, G. (2018). What do conferences do? What is academics’ intangible return on investment (ROI) from attending an academic tourism conference? Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 18(1), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2017.1407517.
15. Erickson, T., Kellogg, W., Shami, N. S., & Levine, D. (2020). Telepresence in virtual conferences: An empirical comparison of distance collaboration technologies.
16. van Ewijk, S., & Hoekman, P. (2021) Emission reduction potentials for academic conference travel. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25(3): 778 – 788. Doi: doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13079
17. Falk, M. T. & Hagsten, E. (2021). When international academic conferences go virtual. Scientometrics, 020-03754
18. Finnegan, A., McGhee, S., Roxburgh, M., & Kent, B. (2019). Knowledge translation and the power of the nursing academic conference. Nurse Education Today, 73, 38–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.10.014.
19. Fraser, H., Soanes, K., Jones, S. A., Jones, C. S., & Malishev, M. (2017). The value of virtual conferencing for ecology and conservation. Conservation Biology, 31(3), 540–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12837. Gavilanes
20. Gilbert, M., Pullano, G., Pinotti, F., Valdano, E., Poletto, C., Pierre-Yves, B., d’ Ortenzio, E., Yazdanpanah, Y.,Eholie, S. P.,& Altmann, M. (2020). Preparedness and Vulnerability of African Countries against Importations of COVID-19: A Modelling Study. The Lancet 395 (10227): 871–877.
21. Gittlen, S (2021). The enterprise guide to video conferencing. Editor at Large, Search Unified Communications. 1 – 17.
22. Haji-Georgi, M., Xu, X., & Rosca, O. (2020). Academic conferencing in 2020: A virtual conference mode. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1-9.
23. Hurst, W., Withington, A. and Kolivand, H. (2022). Virtual conference design: features and obstacles. Multimedia Tools and Applications. 81, 16901–16919
24. Islam, C. (2019). Using Web Conferencing Tools for Preparing Reading Specialists: The Impact of Asynchronous and Synchronous Collaboration on the Learning Process. InternationalJournalofLanguageandLinguistics,6(3):1–10.
25. James, J. (2019). Confronting the Scarcity of Digital Skills Among the Poor in Developing Countries. Development Policy Review 39 (2): 324–339.
26. Johnson, A. M., Jacovina, M. E., Russell, D. E., & Soto, C. M. (2016). Challenges and solutions when using technologies in the classroom. In S. A. Crossley & D. S. McNamara (Eds.) Adaptive educational technologies for literacy instruction (pp. 13-29). New York: Taylor & Francis. Published with acknowledgment of federal support.
27. Karachiwalla, N. (2019). A Teacher unlike Me: Social Distance, Learning, and Intergenerational Mobility in Developing Countries. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 67 (2): 225–271.
28. Li, S., Wang, Y., Xue, J., Zhao, N., & Zhu, T. (2020). The Impact of COVID-19 Epidemic Declaration on Psychological Consequences: A Study on Active Weibo Users. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 (6): 2032.
29. Lloyd-Sherlock, P., Ebrahim, S., Geffen, L., & McKee, M.(2020). Bearing the Brunt of Covid-19: Older People in Low and Middle-Income Countries. London: British Medical Journal Publishing Group.
30. Lopes, C. (2019). Virtual conferences. UIST’19: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 3-3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3332165.3348236.
31. Mair, J., Lockstone-Binney, L., & Whitelaw, P. A. (2018). The motives and barriers of association conference attendance: Evidence from an Australasian tourism and hospitality academic conference. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 34, 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2017.11.004.
32. McCulloch, A. (2018). Dress codes and the academic conference. McCulloch’s Iron Laws of Conferences. Australian Universities’ Review. 60(1): 50–53
33. Medina, L. R. & Shrum, W. (2022). Going virtual: Academic Conferences in the age of Covid-19. First Monday, 27(4): e12571. Doi: doi.org/10.5210/fm.v27i4.12571.
34. Odigwe, F. N. & Owan, V. J. (2020). Academic Staff Personal Variable and Utilisation of ICT for Research, Teaching and Records Management in Higher Education. Official Conference Proceedings of the European Conference on Education: 107 – 123.
35. Oloyede, A. A., Faruk, N. & Raji W. O. (2022) COVID-19 lockdown and remote attendance teaching in developing countries: A review of some online pedagogical resources. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 14(3): 678-696, DOI: 10.1080/20421338.2021.1889768.
36. Remuzzi, A., & Giuseppe, R.. (2020).COVID-19and Italy: What Next? The Lancet, 395 (10231): 1225–1228.
37. Richards L. D. (2015) Designing academic conferences in the light of second-order cybernetics. Constructivist Foundations 11(1): 65–73. http://constructivist.info/11/1/065.
38. Rubinger, L., Gazendam, A., Ekhtiari, S., Nucci, N., Payne, A., Johal, H., Khanduja, V., &Bhandari M (2020) Maximizing virtual meetings and conferences: a review of best practices. International Orthopaedics 44:1461–1466
39. Rowe, N. (2018). When you get what you want, but not what you need: The motivations, affordances and shortcomings of attending academic/scientific conferences. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 4(2): 714–729. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.438394.
40. Sá, M. J., Ferreira. C. M., &Serpa, S. (2019). Virtual and Face-To-Face Academic Conferences: Comparison and Potentials. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 9(2), 35 – 47.
41. Sousa, B. J., & Clark, A. M. (2017). Getting the most out of academic conference attendance. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1): 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917740441.
42. Staddon, R. V. (2020). Bringing Technology to the mature classroom; age differences in use and attitudes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher education 17: 11. Doi: https.//doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00184-4.
43. UNCTAD, (2018). Harnessing frontier technologies for sustainable development. Technology and innovation report, E.18.II.D.3. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Printed in Switzerland.
44. Sam, R. (2022). Effective virtual platforms for online meetings. High Technology Letter. 26(7): 1034 – 1041.
45. Vargo, D., Zhu, L., Benwel, B., & Yan, Z. (2021). Digital technology use during COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid review. Human behavior and emerging technologies. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/257818633, Issue 1 p. 13-24.
46. Viglione, G. (2020). A year without conferences? How the coronavirus pandemic could change research. Nature, 579(7799): 327–328.
47. Viner, R. M., Simon, J., Russell, H. C., Packer,J., Ward, J., Stansfield, C.;Mytton, O., Bonell, C., & Booy, R.(2020). School Closure and Management Practices During Coronavirus Outbreaks Including COVID-19: A Rapid Systematic Review. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4 (5): 397–404.
48. Warf, B. (2019). Teaching Digital Divides. Journal of Geography 118 (2): 77–87.
49. Zhang, M., Qin, F., Wang, G. A., & Luo, C. (2020). The impact of live video streaming on online purchase intention. The Service Industries Journal, 9(10): 656–681.