Reimagining Academic Conferences to Advance Equity and Engagement in Higher Education

Reimagining Academic Conferences to Advance Equity and Engagement in Higher Education | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review Reimagining Academic Conferences to Advance Equity and Engagement in Higher Education Tiffany Winchester, Emma Price This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8322086/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Academic conferences serve as critical venues for knowledge dissemination and professional networking. However, despite widespread advocacy for active learning and digital engagement, traditional conferences remain passive and lecture-driven, reinforcing academic hierarchies and limiting meaningful participation. This paradox, where conferences "say the thing" but fail to "do the thing", raises important questions about whether conventional formats truly align with contemporary pedagogical theories and advancements in e-learning and digital equity. This paper presents a scoping review of the literature on alternative conference formats, facilitation strategies, and interactive technologies aimed at enhancing engagement, accessibility, and knowledge exchange. The review highlights that while a growing body of research supports the use of alternative conference formats such as flipped conferences, blended learning models, and back-channel communication tools, these remain underutilised in mainstream academic settings. Additionally, conventional structures can contribute to barriers related to cost, travel, and time, and can disproportionately affect early-career researchers, scholars from underrepresented regions, and those with caregiving responsibilities. By mapping existing research, this paper calls for a deliberate rethinking of conference design, advocating for participant-centred, digitally inclusive environments. The findings contribute to ongoing discussions about the future of academic conferences, urging organisers to embrace innovative, equity-driven approaches that align with modern learning practices. academic conference higher education pedagogical approaches equity scoping review Figures Figure 1 Background Academic conferences have long been central to the dissemination of scholarly knowledge, evolving from the formal structures of learned societies in the 19th and early 20th centuries [1]. These societies provided the original infrastructure for conferences as spaces where scholars could present findings, exchange ideas, and establish academic credibility [1]. This mutual revelation [2] from learning what new research is being done by others in your field, to presenting your research to others, can be an intellectually and socially stimulating experience within the research world. Therefore, conferences can offer many opportunities. They can allow conference attendees to gain new and valuable insights, engage with diverse perspectives via networking, and foster a more comprehensive understanding of the field [2]. Exposure to a variety of research approaches and expert insights can enhance one’s grasp of current developments, trends, and challenges in specific and wider discipline areas [3]. While publication can be a more formal channel of scholarly communication, conference presentations allow for early-stage dissemination, feedback loops, networking, and visibility within academic communities. In contrast, research in higher education has increasingly focused on the importance of learning environments in shaping engagement and outcomes. Studies have explored how formal learning spaces, such as classrooms, laboratories, and digital platforms, can be designed to support active, collaborative, and student-centred learning [4-6] as the learning environment significantly influences students' academic motivation and engagement levels. Students' preferences for informal learning environments reflect a broader shift from traditional, lecture-based instruction to more student-centred, active learning approaches in higher education [6]. This trend acknowledges the importance of knowledge construction over passive knowledge transmission, emphasising collaboration, flexibility, the integration of technology to meet diverse learner needs, and the recognition that effective learning spaces prioritise interaction, flexibility, and inclusivity. Academic conferences are increasingly recognised as valuable yet underexplored learning environments within the broader literature on professional development. Conferences serve as powerful spaces for disciplinary socialisation, knowledge exchange, and reflective practice. Educators often describe them as opportunities to engage with peers, receive feedback, and refine their teaching and research through dialogue and exposure to diverse perspectives [7]. Moreover, conferences are frequently embedded within broader systems of continuing professional development, where activities such as networking, presenting, and reflecting on practice are recognised as integral to lifelong learning and the development of professional identity and pedagogical insight [8]. Despite this, conferences have received comparatively little attention in the learning environments literature which indicates a significant gap as blended and virtual formats become more common. If designed with the same pedagogical intentionality applied to formal education, academic conferences could evolve into more dynamic, inclusive, and interactive environments for scholarly development [4]. This paper responds to that gap by examining how conferences are framed in the literature as learning environments, and what opportunities exist to reimagine their design in alignment with active learning and digital engagement. Literature Review Academic Conferences as Learning Environments Enders notes that engaging with diverse contexts and stakeholders beyond traditional academic boundaries is essential [9], suggesting that spaces like conferences may serve a valuable role in early-stage dissemination, generating feedback, and building visibility within scholarly communities. In this way, conferences serve not only as platforms for sharing research but also as spaces where knowledge is shared and professional relationships are formed, roles that are particularly important for early-career researchers looking to build visibility and connections within their field. Many academics and organisers are accustomed to the lecture or keynote-driven format, and this familiarity reinforces the status quo. Sweeting & Hohl suggest that the predictability of the traditional conference can make it easier for the participants to orient themselves to, and plan for, and that alternative conference formats are not necessarily better, just offer different possibilities and outcomes [10]. However, as a site of knowledge sharing, the traditional conference often provides a direct contrast to notions of active learning. This contrast is particularly striking given the strong and growing body of evidence showing that active learning improves student engagement, critical thinking, and academic outcomes in higher education contexts [4, 11-13]. This disconnect suggests a form of pedagogical inconsistency: where active learning is embraced in classrooms but overlooked in professional spaces that are also intended to support learning and development. Active learning as a pedagogical approach emphasises a shift from passive reception of information to active engagement, using strategies such as collaborative projects, problem-based learning and interactive discussions [12]. In this way, active learning is argued to help foster a dynamic and inclusive culture that encourages interaction and participation. Furthermore, the integration of technology in active learning has been shown to significantly enhance the learning experience: technologies such as online collaborative tools, virtual simulations and interactive platforms facilitate real-time feedback and encourage a more engaging and immersive learning environment [14]. The largely in-person attendance at conferences geared towards the absorption of information from presentations as lectures can be particularly at odds with conferences where innovation and development in learning are shared. The paradox, where conferences "say the thing" but fail to "do the thing", raises important questions about whether conventional formats truly align with contemporary pedagogical theories. The incorporation of active learning and technologies in conferences has focused on its enhancements to knowledge sharing and development, with the redesign of presentation formats and fostering connections through discussion and collaboration to create more engaging and effective knowledge experiences for participants [15,16]. The Paradox with Traditional Formats The format of information dissemination at a conference tends to follow the traditional formats of plenary sessions, panel sessions, oral presentations with PowerPoints, and poster presentations [17-19]. These conventional conference formats often prioritise a unidirectional flow of information, typically allowing limited interaction and brief question-and-answer sessions following presentations, focusing more on the transmission of information rather than how that information will be learned [10, 20]. Lecture-based presentations position speakers as the primary authority, which aligns with traditional academic hierarchies. Rom suggests that “these structures and incentives are governed more by authority and tradition than by careful consideration of how best to create stimulating and engaging environments for teaching and learning” ([21] p. 334). This hierarchical structure is further reinforced by the format of traditional academic conferences, where the emphasis is often on the dissemination of information from a select few experts to a largely passive audience. Also, in many disciplines, students and early-career researchers view conference participation as optional and unrelated to their academic or career advancement [22]. This perception raises concerns about whether traditional conference formats effectively serve as meaningful learning and professional development spaces. Traditional conference structures, which often rely on unstructured networking sessions or informal social gatherings, may fail to provide adequate support for early-career researchers. Blumenschein & Hannisdal suggest that academic engagement and innovation often stem from informal, networked interactions, particularly within research groups [23]. Applying these insights to academic conferences, we can see a parallel challenge: by maintaining rigid, lecture-based structures, conferences limit opportunities for the informal, dialogical exchanges that drive meaningful learning and collaboration, as they can limit interactions by structuring knowledge exchange through one-way, lecture-based presentations. Existing hierarchies, lack of facilitated interactions, and passive presentation formats create barriers to meaningful engagement. If academics can engage more frequently and meaningfully within their research groups [23], this could encourage greater participation, especially among early-career researchers. Proposed Alternatives and Missed Opportunities Ravn & Elsborg have proposed alternatives, such as turning the presentation into an interview, reflective conversations, mini-meetings, and activities that create a stronger focus on networking [17]. Jacobs & McFarlane suggest using back-channel technologies, such as an internet relay chat and blogging, during the conference to empower audience members to communicate among themselves but found little evidence that this increased knowledge building or sharing [24]. The idea of a (un)conference was suggested, implemented, and reflected on by Pather, Govender, and Scholtz, whereby the elements of open spaces, creativity, and challenging current norms and practices were focused on, and the (un)conference was presented online [25]. Endsley et al. trialled uploading virtual posters prior to the conference, then using of QR codes on posters to enrich the dialogue [19]. However, these are still not widely adopted, suggesting a broader resistance to reimagining conferences as intentional learning environments, and losing the opportunity to enhance learning and further foster meaningful engagement. Academic conferences have long served as essential platforms for disseminating research, fostering professional connections, and promoting knowledge exchange. However, despite widespread recognition of the benefits of active learning and digital engagement, conferences continue to rely predominantly on passive, lecture-based formats that limit participant engagement to the “question and answer” section or during informal discussions after the presentation. This reliance on traditional structures stands in stark contrast to the innovative technologies and alternative models available today, such as interactive digital tools, flipped workshop formats, and collaborative session designs. This is surmised by Burford et al. (p. 74) where research conference focus can be “more on ‘what’ would be presented and ‘who’ would present it than ‘how’ learning might occur” [26]. We argue that this reliance on tradition often comes at the expense of more engaging and interactive formats that could foster deeper learning and participant involvement. As noted earlier, these newer approaches are well-supported by educational research as effective for enhancing learning and engagement. A better understanding of existing strategies and technologies can bridge this gap, and we suggest are essential for aligning conference practices with modern principles of active learning and digital engagement. Aim and Research Question Therefore, this paper aims to explore how strategies, technologies, and alternative formats discussed in the literature aim to promote active learning and engagement at academic conferences. Methodology To explore the practices that promote active learning and participant engagement in academic conference settings, a scoping review of the relevant literature was undertaken. A scoping review is useful to “identify gaps in the evidence base where no research has been conducted” ([27] p. 7). The following sections outline how each stage was implemented in this study. Identifying the Research Question Using the five stages of the Arksey and O’Malley scoping review approach [27], we began with Stage 1, outlining the overarching research question guiding this review as: What strategies, technologies, and conference formats have been explored in the literature to enhance active learning and engagement at academic conferences, and in what ways do they address the persistence of passive, lecture-based presentations? Identifying Relevant Studies To achieve the answer to our overarching research question, we adopted a strategy that involved searching for research evidence via the following sources: Electronic databases specific to education: ERIC (EBSCO) and Academic Search Complete Electronic database to include multi-disciplinary subjects: Web of Science We included only those studies published in the last 15 years or between January 2010 and February 2025. This timeframe was chosen as it would mainly cover studies published more recently to ensure the relevance and currency of the information. Any materials not written in English were excluded because of the cost and time involved in translating materials. We identified relevant publications by using the search terms ("academic conference*" OR "conference presentation*" OR "professional conference*") AND (present*) AND (format OR design) AND (learn*). Running the search on EBSCO Academic Search Complete (35), ERIC (79), and Web of Science (134) returned a total of 221 unique articles (27 duplicates were removed). Artificial Intelligence AI-assisted research tools were employed to enhance the efficiency and breadth of the literature search. Elicit was used to generate and refine search terms and to identify thematically related studies, while Research Rabbit supported the exploration of citation networks and related research domains [28]. Our overarching research concept was entered into the “Find Papers” function in Elicit , which produced an initial set of potentially relevant studies. From this list, we identified five key papers for further analysis. These papers were subsequently imported into Research Rabbit , an AI-supported platform that visualises research networks and relationships by mapping connections among authors, citations, and related publications [29]. From the five seed papers, Research Rabbit identified 968 similar works. These were ranked in terms of relevance, and the first five full-text journal articles were reviewed to refine the search terms further. However, no additional search terms were added from this second round of analysis. Selecting Relevant Studies We created inclusion and exclusion criteria for our information sources and search strategy for the final scoping review, as seen in Table 1. Table 1 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Selecting Publications Inclusion Exclusion Peer-reviewed empirical publications Journal articles Conference papers Opinion Pieces Grey literature including theses Book and book chapters Reports Magazines Papers published within the last fifteen years Scoping reviews and systematic reviews as they would include literature not in our time frame Must address issues of conference presentation design and its impact on learning Publications not focused on issues of conference presentations and their impact on presentation design or learning and teaching of attendees Preference for studies conducted in higher education settings, but relevant research from other educational contexts (like adult education or professional training) can be included if they offer significant insights applicable to higher education. Studies conducted on K-12; studies conducted with the focus on students Due to language proficiency constraints, the review might limit sources to those available in English Non-English Publications Full text available Full paper inaccessible Once the title and abstracts were screened, 20 papers remained for discussion about whether they should be included in the final review. The two reviewers met to review the articles together and to discuss any conflicts. Once these papers were further screened, 8 papers were removed from further study, leaving 12 papers to extract for analysis. Charting the Data The software package Covidence was used for managing records, keeping track of articles, and excluding duplicates of our study. This software also made it simple to chart our results, as seen in Figure 1. The two reviewers conducted a detailed full-text review of the papers. Disagreements were resolved through discussion until a consensus was reached. The lead data analyst extracted key information from each of the 12 included studies into the structured summary seen in Table 2, below. Extracted data included author(s), year of publication, country, discipline, study design, and overview related to strategies, technologies, and formats at conferences. Following data extraction, the key findings were reviewed, and a thematic analysis was conducted to identify recurring concepts related to pedagogical approaches, conference environments, and equity. Results Following the framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [ 27 ], the results are presented in two sections: (1) a descriptive summary outlining the scope, characteristics, and distribution of the identified studies, and (2) a thematic synthesis of key findings and their implications. The thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s six-phase process [ 30 , 31 ], which involved familiarisation with the data, generation of initial codes, identification and refinement of themes, and final reporting. The 12 resulting papers [ 10 , 16 , 32 – 41 ] represent a range of geographic locations and collaborations, including India, USA, Germany, UK, Canada, Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, Australia, Denmark and Japan. Five of the papers drew on quantitative research to evaluate the experience of conference participants [ 33 , 35 , 37 , 40 , 41 ], with the remaining seven utilising a conceptual or autoethnographic approach to explore their perspectives and experiences of traditional and alternative conference settings [ 10 , 16 , 32 , 34 , 36 , 38 , 39 ]. The common thread throughout the articles was a recognition of the limitations of conventional conference practice and/or culture. From this basis, the articles could be identified into three themes: pedagogical approaches, alternative environments, and equity and inclusion. Table 2 Data extracted Author/s Year Country Discipline Study Overview Belliappa [ 32 ] 2020 India Women’s studies Autoethnographical/conceptual Pedagogical potential of large conferences, through critical and feminist pedagogy and incorporation of global south perspectives. Critique of conventional academic conferences for failing to create equitable learning environments and deep engagement, advocating for more participatory approaches as suggested by feminist literature. It highlights the potential benefits of eliminating keynotes and parallel sessions to foster meaningful interactions and collaborative exercises, enhancing well-being and deeper learning. The article also discusses the need to explore alternatives that promote diversity, inclusivity, and dialogue, encouraging collective action and authentic social interactions. Bhimani et al. [ 33 ] 2017 USA Nursing Quantitative: Pretest-posttest evaluation by conference participants Efficacy of multimodal strategies (storytelling, lectures, case presentations, and discussions). Application of multimodal teaching strategies within these conferences effectively addresses the cognitive levels of remembering and understanding. Corwin et al. [ 34 ] 2018 USA Science (Biology) Conceptual Using backward design for effective conference communication by enhancing engagement, fostering inclusive environment and facilitating constructive feedback. Advocates for a shift in conference culture to enhance engagement and learning by making conferences more inclusive and collaborative. It suggests using active learning strategies instead of traditional lecture styles to increase engagement, enthusiasm, retention, and idea exchange, while also building relationships. The article also highlights the importance of equity through accessibility, language, and inclusion, and suggests incorporating opportunities for feedback to maximise outcomes. Mulders & Zender [ 35 ] 2021 Germany VR & AR tech Quantitative Opportunities and challenges of a conference on SocialVR tech delivered via VR headset – efficacy of academic discourse and knowledge exchange through alternative delivery mode. Discusses the use of VR to create social presence in online conferences, allowing participants to experience proximity and multiple perspectives as if face-to-face. The conference structure was discussion-oriented, with personalised avatars and informal networking activities like a common room for social exchange. Despite some tech issues and decreasing attendee numbers, a survey indicated that SocialVR is seen as a viable alternative to in-person conferences, offering a unique online experience with enhanced social interactions. Raeburn et al. [ 36 ] 2022 Scotland, Canada, USA History Authethnographical / conceptual Experience of hosting online conference due to COVID. Discusses an online scholarly event that aims to break down barriers between the public and scholars, democratising knowledge exchange and addressing academic inequalities. It highlights the use of asynchronous panels with recorded presentations followed by forum-based Q&A sessions, and informal networking through virtual tables. The event's content is mostly open and free to the public, promoting greater accessibility and democratisation by encouraging conversations where different forms of knowledge are shared. Ram et al. [ 37 ] 2024 Ireland, Switzerland, Germany, Canada Respiratory medicine Quantitative: Survey of conference registrants Investigating preferred elements of hybrid conferences. Highlights the benefits of online conferences in terms of accessibility, inclusivity, and sustainability, while acknowledging the challenges of creating opportunities for interaction, networking, and collaboration in a virtual format. It suggests a hybrid model with virtual sessions spread throughout the year, focusing on skill sessions and expert plenaries to improve participant interaction. Preferences indicate that live skill sessions in face-to-face settings could be replicated online, with an emphasis on speaker quality, topic relevance, and greater interaction between participants, particularly for networking. Rich et al. [ 38 ] 2020 Canada Computational neuroscience Authethnographical Learnings from implementing a virtual conference during COVID. Emphasises the importance of conferences in the communication, critique, and development of new knowledge. It highlights how newer conferences have successfully pivoted to alternative delivery methods, creating unique virtual experiences rather than simply replicating physical events. This shift has democratised attendance, reduced overheads, and increased international participation, though challenges remain in replicating the organic interactions and collaborations of in-person events. Sanders [ 39 ] 2015 Belgium Visual art Authethnographical/conceptual Commentary added to [ 16 ] in relation to alternatives for art and design conference. Uses the metaphor of a construction site to describe conferences as a continuous working and thinking process. It suggests alternatives in conference conception, focusing on creating artefacts from singular works or studies and providing moments for reflection and feedback. The importance of presentation environment, diversity in panel members, and dynamic time-space organisation is emphasised to ensure equity and active participation for all attendees. The article encourages deconstructing traditional models to imagine new learning environments. Seidenberg et al. [ 40 ] 2021 Netherlands, Germany, Australia Ed tech, economics, social politics conferences Quantitative: Survey of conference participants Factors of perceived value of virtual conferences and alternative formats. Defines a virtual conference as a learning event that incorporates technology to support communication and interaction, emphasising the importance of designing with these elements in mind. Survey results highlight the perceived value in interaction and learning, though the article suggests that simply replicating face-to-face formats in an online setting may not be sufficient. Sweeting & Hohl [ 10 ] 2015 UK, Germany Authethnographical/conceptual Introduction to special edition reflecting on alternative format conferences. Questions the composition of conferences to encourage new ideas and exchange. Describes conferences as settings for sharing ideas and forming new thoughts but notes that they can often be passive experiences with limited time for in-depth discussions. The dominant presentation format, established in the 1660s, has many shortcomings, including constrained timetables, parallel sessions, and minimal formal discussion, which obstruct collaboration and exchange. While alternative formats offer different possibilities, conventional conference design provides predictability, advance planning, and opportunities to establish academic identity. Verbeke [ 16 ] 2015 Denmark Architecture Authethnographical / conceptual Reflection on design of academic conferences – settings and strategies that promote learning and knowledge exchange. Focus on interaction, discussion, active learning, reflection. Emphasis on conference design that fosters shared understanding and collective knowledge-building, with fewer presentations and a variety of session types such as demonstrations, brainstorming, and experiments. It highlights the importance of space and movement to encourage sharing, discussion, and group activities. The article also advocates for active participation to stimulate interaction and learning, shifting the presenter's role from an objective knowledge provider to a facilitator of shared experiences and understanding in a community of practice. Yagi et al. [ 41 ] 2022 Japan Healthcare Quantitative: Survey of healthcare workers Investigating preferences for online conferences during COVID. Highlights survey results showing a preference for hybrid conference formats, with a strong emphasis on Q&A sessions. Participants appreciated the increased ability to participate and the reduced financial burden, though some were cautious about sharing new data online. The majority of attendees indicated that their primary reason for attending conferences is to communicate with peers from other institutions, which is more challenging in online settings. Pedagogical Approaches Seven of the articles highlight the use of learning approaches and pedagogies to address the passive nature of traditional academic conferences, characterised by its “limited room for participation, dialogue and dissent” ([ 32 ], p. 103). This passivity is problematic in the potential of a conference as a site of learning. To address this, several of the articles advocate for participatory and inclusive approaches that align with quality learning practices [ 10 , 16 , 40 ]. Active learning and engaged pedagogies are proposed as strategies to foster greater interaction and knowledge exchange with an emphasis on opportunities for feedback and discussion. These are argued to reframe knowledge exchange away from ‘single direction’ to more conversational, shared and diverse opportunities [ 36 ]. Frameworks such as backward design [ 34 ] and strategies such as storytelling or case presentations [ 33 , 37 ] are suggested to promote deeper cognitive engagement compared to conventional lecture-style presentation. These shifts in approach have significant implications for the structure and expectations of academic conferences. For example, the metaphor of the construction site is used to describe conferences as a “continuous working and thinking process” ([ 39 ] p. 112), suggesting that conferences should include defined moments of reflection and feedback to build and extend knowledge. The emphasis on active learning and engaged pedagogies underscores the importance of creating authentic learning experiences. These approaches not only enhance the effectiveness of academic conferences but also challenge the traditional formats that dominate despite the availability of alternative approaches. While the persistence of passive formats can be attributed to their predictability and ease of implementation, this can come at a cost of deeper engagement and meaningful knowledge exchange. Alternative environments The exploration of alternative conference design is dominant in the articles to assess efficacy and impact. Traditional aspects such as keynotes, podiums, time allocations and parallel sessions are interrogated and often replaced to encourage different structures and expectations [ 16 , 32 , 39 ]. Many of these alternative modes are due to the changes required by COVID for wholly online connections, which provided an opportunity to assess the value of conferences and focus on the benefits still possible in virtual formats. Longer timeframes and asynchronous tools for presentations and discussions, along with avatars in virtual reality (VR) or other interactive platforms, provide distinct advantages for creating authentic interactions [ 35 , 36 ]. However, challenges are also present in concerns over the sharing of information and intellectual property (IP) in more ‘open’ online spaces [ 41 ], as well as limitations of technology and cognitive load for attendees online [ 35 ]. Virtual conferences are argued to require more consideration than “simply porting a physical conference into the digital space” ([ 38 ], p.2), and that replicating “organic interactions, discussions, and collaborations” from in-person events requires considered and innovative approaches ([ 38 ], p. 6). Examples such as a VR ‘common room’ (Mulders & Zender, 2021) or asynchronous panels of recordings followed by scheduled Q&A forums [ 36 ] highlight the potential opportunities to redefine conference formats and interactions through alternative designs. Equity and Inclusion Equity emerged as an unexpected but significant theme within eight of the articles, where traditional conferences are seen as “sites where academic inequalities are often felt especially keenly” ([ 36 ], p. 290). Feminist and global south perspectives critique the ‘canonised model’ of conferences that sustain traditional academic hierarchies and identities, of who gets to speak and when [ 32 , 36 ]. Alternative designs and strategies can enhance inclusion for academic conferences by providing more participatory approaches that foster diversity, as a ‘democratising effect’ [ 36 , 38 ]. Blended or virtual events are argued to decrease barriers to accessibility through the reduction in time, travel and financial burdens [ 38 , 41 ]. These factors are highly significant for conference attendance with the potential for ‘structural inequality’ due to geography, funding or institution status [ 36 ]. Widening the possibility for participation not only “foster[s] diversity, inclusivity and dialogue” ([ 32 ], p. 106) within the conference itself, but it also increases equity for conference networking and interactions that can be essential in academic career progression. The persistence of passive formats, despite these benefits, may be due to entrenched practices or resistance to change. However, the literature suggests that embracing alternative, more inclusive designs can lead to more equitable and effective academic conferences. Discussion This scoping review mapped the existing literature on strategies, technologies, and alternative conference formats discussed in the literature that aimed to promote active learning and engagement in academic conference settings. Our findings aligned with previous research that suggested pedagogically, conferences predominantly rely on passive, single-directional communication [17-19, 21], which contradicts the notion that a conference is a site of learning. Given this, many authors suggest that conferences focused on learning should have more active learning strategies to enhance knowledge exchange and engagement [10, 16, 34, 40]. Authentic learning experiences were highlighted as central to effective academic conferences [36] but the suggestions of how to do this in the literature are still seemingly the exception to the rule. Despite a small but growing body of research suggesting strategies for improving knowledge exchange and engagement, the conventional structure and approach continue to dominate. Our findings highlighted that traditional conference formats could reinforce continuing academic hierarchies [21] and inequity and contribute to ineffective exchange and learning [32, 36]. This study emphasises the need for alternative conference formats if the focus is on decreasing barriers to accessibility. Rather than fostering inclusivity, many conferences exacerbate accessibility issues by maintaining an in-person, lecture-driven approach instead of considering alternative formats, such as blended or virtual, that could enhance engagement and equity. A critical question emerging from this review is: Does the structure of academic conferences align with their intended objectives? If the primary goal is merely the one-way dissemination of research findings, then the conventional conference format remains suitable. Though, in such cases, the information could arguably be distributed more efficiently via digital communication (e.g., an email). However, if the intention is to cultivate an environment for learning, then traditional conference models fall short. As research indicates, simply translating in-person formats into virtual settings without structural changes is ineffective [42]. Similarly, adding a chat function to an online format without ensuring presenters can access, utilise, or moderate it may not be effective, as it fails to facilitate meaningful interaction and can result in the online audience predominantly communicating with each other instead of with the presenter. These findings contribute to the broader field of learning environments by highlighting how academic conferences, despite their informal and often overlooked pedagogical function, are central sites where learning design, participation, and equity converge. Prior research in learning environments has consistently emphasised the importance of learner-centred design, social interaction, and intentional structuring to support knowledge construction [4,6]. However, our review suggests that academic conferences remain largely disconnected from these principles, reflecting a significant underutilisation of their potential as dynamic, multi-dimensional learning spaces. The shift in academia from traditional, lecture-based instruction to more learner-centred, active learning approaches in higher education is highly relevant to planning academic conferences. These events can be reimagined as learning environments that extend beyond formal presentations and actively support dialogue, co-construction of knowledge, and inclusive participation. Thus, to align conferences with contemporary learning principles, there is a pressing need to move beyond traditional formats. This requires a deliberate rethinking of conference environments and an intentional focus on the conference format, ensuring that the communication structures foster engagement and interaction rather than perpetuating passive knowledge transfer. Conferences must transition from "doing the thing" (i.e., relying on traditional formats that reproduce conventional delivery modes) to intentionally designing events as interactive learning spaces that prioritise dialogue, participation, and inclusivity, and empower researchers to connect, collaborate, and advance their careers more effectively. By applying learning environment frameworks to the conference context, our work extends the field's application beyond classrooms and formal institutions, advocating for an expanded view of what constitutes a learning environment and for whom it must be designed. Implications and Recommendations Organisations wanting to intentionally cultivate a culture of learning should embed pedagogical design principles into conference planning to move beyond rhetoric and towards meaningful reform. This includes creating opportunities for informal dialogue, supporting multiple modes of participation (synchronous and asynchronous, in-person and virtual), and facilitating interaction before, during, and after sessions. Presenters should be encouraged and supported to adopt learner-centred practices, such as using pre-session materials, structured discussion prompts, or live collaborative tools. Through this kind of implementation, conferences could foster a more engaging and inclusive culture, both as a learning environment and through diverse participation. Without such changes, conferences risk remaining exclusionary – privileging those with institutional support, funding, and positional authority – rather than fulfilling their potential as dynamic, accessible, and equitable learning spaces. Declarations Disclosure Statement The authors report there are no competing interests to declare. Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process As well as the AI mentioned in the methodology, during the preparation of this work, the authors used ChatGPT and Grammarly to improve the readability and language of the work. After using these tools/services, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the published article. Funding Statement No sources of funding were acquired for this scoping review. Ethics, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish declarations: not applicable. References Hopkins, J. (2011). The role of learned societies in knowledge exchange and dissemination: the case of the Regional Studies Association, 1965–2005. History of Education , 40 (2), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2010.518161 McCarthy, J. F., McDonald, D. W., Soroczak, S., Nguyen, D. H., & Rashid, A. M. (2004, November). Augmenting the social space of an academic conference. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 39-48. Patel, A. U., Gu, Q., Esper, R., Maeser, D., & Maeser, N. (2024). The Crucial Role of Interdisciplinary Conferences in Advancing Explainable AI in Healthcare. BioMedInformatics , 4 (2), 1363-1383. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedinformatics4020075 Cayubit, R. F. O. (2022). Why learning environment matters? An analysis on how the learning environment influences the academic motivation, learning strategies and engagement of college students. Learning Environments Research , 25 (2), 581-599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09382-x Rusticus, S. A., Pashootan, T., & Mah, A. (2023). What are the key elements of a positive learning environment? Perspectives from students and faculty. Learning environments research , 26 (1), 161-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-022-09410-4 Valtonen, T., Leppänen, U., Hyypiä, M., Kokko, A., Manninen, J., Vartiainen, H., ... & Hirsto, L. (2021). Learning environments preferred by university students: a shift toward informal and flexible learning environments. Learning Environments Research , 24 , 371-388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09339-6 Ferman, T. (2002). Academic professional development practice: What lecturers find valuable. International Journal for Academic Developers 7 (2), 146-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144032000071305 Friedman, A. L. (2023). Continuing professional development as lifelong learning and education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 42 (6), 588-602. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2023.2267770 Enders, J. (2005). Border crossings: Research training, knowledge dissemination and the transformation of academic work. Higher education , 49 , 119-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-2917-3 Sweeting, B., & Hohl, M. (2015). Exploring alternatives to the traditional conference format: Introduction to the special issue on composing conferences. Constructivist Foundations, 11 (1), 1-7. Bonwell, C. and Eison, J. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. AEHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1 . Washington, D.C.: Jossey-Bass. Garnham, W. A., & Gowers, I. R. (Eds.). (2023). Active learning in higher education: Theoretical considerations and perspectives. Routledge. Hao, Q., Barnes, B., & Jing, M. (2021). Quantifying the effects of active learning environments: separating physical learning classrooms from pedagogical approaches. Learning Environments Research , 24 (1), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09320-3 Angelone, L., Warner, Z., & Zydney, J. M. (2020). Optimizing the Technological Design of a Blended Synchronous Learning Environment. Online Learning, 24 (3), 222-240. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i3.2180 Morton, G., Olson, L., Miranda, S., Griggs, A., Bailey, K., Pham, C., & Wright, K. (2020). Changing the habitat at academic conferences: Using a learning ecosystem with active learning during a panel presentation. Georgia Library Quarterly, 57 (2). https://doi.org/10.62915/2157-0396.2258 Verbeke, J. (2015). Designing Academic Conferences as a Learning Environment. Constructivist Foundations, 11 (1), 98-105. Ravn, I., & Elsborg, S. (2011). Facilitating learning at conferences. International journal of learning and change , 5 (1), 84-98. Knott, J. C., Taylor, D. M., & Simon, E. L. (2020). Conference presentations: A research primer for low-and middle-income countries. African Journal of Emergency Medicine , 10 , S158-S160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2020.05.002 Endsley, P., Martinkus, H., Chrisman, M., Marchello, N., & Skarbek, A. (2025). Why should you attend conference poster sessions?. Discover Education , 4 (1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00462-1 Hilliard, T. W. (2006, January). Learning at conventions: Integrating communities of practice. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 8( 1), 45-68. https://doi.org/10.1300/J452v08n01_03 Rom, M. (2012). The scholarly conference: Do we want democracy and markets or authority and tradition? Journal of Political Science Education , 8 (4), 333-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2012.729449 Horta, H., & Li, H. (2023). Nothing but publishing: The overriding goal of PhD students in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau. Studies in Higher Education , 48 (2), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2131764 Blumenschein, D., & Hannisdal, B. (2024). Social network analysis and educational change: Unravelling the role of innovative teaching staff in a higher education environment. Studies in Higher Education , 49 (12), 2827-2843. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2324346 Jacobs, N., & McFarlane, A. (2005). Conferences as learning communities: some early lessons in using ‘back‐channel’ technologies at an academic conference–distributed intelligence or divided attention? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 21 (5), 317-329 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00142.x Pather, S., Govender, R., & Scholtz, D. (2024). Shifting mindsets from conference to (un) conference: A collaborative reflective perspective on conceptual disruption. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning (CriSTaL) , 12 (si1), 62-78. https://doi.org/10.14426/cristal.v12iSI1.2095 Burford, J., Henderson, E. F., & Pausé, C. (2018). Enlarging conference learning: At the crossroads of fat studies and conference pedagogies. Fat Studies, 7 (1), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/21604851.2017.1360666 Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology , 8 (1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 Stapleton, A. (2024). How To Use Elicit for Literature Review: AI Research Assistant 101. Academia Insider. Retrieved from https://academiainsider.com/how-to-use-elicit/ Research Rabbit (2024), Research Rabbit . https://www.researchrabbit.ai/ Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 26 (6), 559-572. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: a practical guide. SAGE Publications Ltd. Belliappa, J. L. (2020). Extending feminist pedagogy in conferences: inspiration from Theatre of the Oppressed. Gender & Education, 32 (1), 101-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2019.1646412 Bhimani, R., Palluck, H., Moore, M. A. M., & Anderson, L. C. (2017). A Continuing Education Conference About Patients With Parkinson's Disease and Their Caregivers. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 48 (6), 270-275. doi:10.3928/00220124-20170517-08 Corwin, L. A., Prunuske, A., & Seidel, S. B. (2018). Scientific Presenting: Using Evidence-Based Classroom Practices to Deliver Effective Conference Presentations. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 17 (1) . https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-07-0146 Mulders, M., & Zender, R. (2021). An Academic Conference in Virtual Reality? -Evaluation of a SocialVR Conference. 2021 7 th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (ILRN), 1-6. Raeburn, F., Baer‐Tsarfati, L., & Porter, V. (2022). Out of the Ivory Tower, into the Digital World? Democratising Scholarly Exchange . History, 107 (375), 287-301. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-229X.13259 Ram, S. S., Stricker, D., Pannetier, C., Tabin, N., Costello, R. W., Stolz, D., Eva, K. W., & Huwendiek, S. (2024). Voices of conference attendees: how should future hybrid conferences be designed? BMC Medical Education, 24 (1) . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05351-z Rich, S., Diaconescu, A. O., Griffiths, J. D., & Lankarany, M. (2020). Ten simple rules for creating a brand-new virtual academic meeting (even amid a pandemic). PLoS Computational Biology, 16 (12), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008485 Sanders, M. (2015). The Design Conference Model and Its Learning Environment: A Construction Site. Constructivist Foundations, 11 (1), 112-114. Seidenberg, N., Scheffel, M., Kovanovic, V., Lynch, G., & Drachsler, H. (2021). Virtual Academic Conferences as Learning Spaces: Factors Associated with the Perceived Value of Purely Virtual Conferences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37 (6), 1694-1707. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12614 Yagi, K., Sato, Y., Sakaguchi, S., Goda, M., Hamano, H., Aizawa, F., Shimizu, M., InoueHamano, A., Nishimori, T., Tagi, M., Kanno, M., MatsuokaAndo, R., Yoshioka, T., Matstubara, Y., IzawaIshizawa, Y., Shimizu, R., Maruo, A., Kuniki, Y., Sakamoto, Y., Itobayashi, S., Zamami, Y., Yanagawa, H., Ishizawa, K. (2022). A web-based survey of educational opportunities of medical professionals based on changes in conference design during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (7), 10371-10386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11032-5 Winchester T., Price, E., & Groessler, A. (2023, July) Attention Under Pressure: The Impact of Technology-Enhanced Learning Environment on Teacher Presence. In ICICTE Conference Proceedings (pp. 128-141). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8322086","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":587840304,"identity":"d95e4930-11e6-4d08-a2f1-e44543e13a1a","order_by":0,"name":"Tiffany Winchester","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Federation University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tiffany","middleName":"","lastName":"Winchester","suffix":""},{"id":587840309,"identity":"bc2235db-7be5-427e-87cd-64e011d964c4","order_by":1,"name":"Emma Price","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Federation University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emma","middleName":"","lastName":"Price","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-10 02:09:15","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8322086/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8322086/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102310641,"identity":"53ee1151-28a1-49f8-b3de-11c8a7337beb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-10 11:55:34","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":58031,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResults charted from Covidence.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322086/v1/0e9e17ef2cc1f676e9c0281a.png"},{"id":106974023,"identity":"37dac049-7d1d-4e71-913f-38247d69b9fc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 10:30:31","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":897955,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322086/v1/4464badd-acce-4799-8245-b9058041c10b.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Reimagining Academic Conferences to Advance Equity and Engagement in Higher Education","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eAcademic conferences have long been central to the dissemination of scholarly knowledge, evolving from the formal structures of learned societies in the 19th and early 20th centuries [1]. These societies provided the original infrastructure for conferences as spaces where scholars could present findings, exchange ideas, and establish academic credibility [1]. This\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emutual revelation\u003c/em\u003e [2] from learning what new research is being done by others in your field, to presenting your research to others, can be an intellectually and socially stimulating experience within the research world. Therefore, conferences can offer many opportunities. They can allow conference attendees to gain new and valuable insights, engage with diverse perspectives via networking, and foster a more comprehensive understanding of the field [2]. Exposure to a variety of research approaches and expert insights can enhance one’s grasp of current developments, trends, and challenges in specific and wider discipline areas [3]. While publication can be a more formal channel of scholarly communication, conference presentations allow for early-stage dissemination, feedback loops, networking, and visibility within academic communities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, research in higher education has increasingly focused on the importance of learning environments in shaping engagement and outcomes. Studies have explored how formal learning spaces, such as classrooms, laboratories, and digital platforms, can be designed to support active, collaborative, and student-centred learning [4-6] as the learning environment significantly influences students' academic motivation and engagement levels. Students' preferences for informal learning environments reflect a broader shift from traditional, lecture-based instruction to more student-centred, active learning approaches in higher education [6]. This trend acknowledges the importance of knowledge construction over passive knowledge transmission, emphasising collaboration, flexibility, the integration of technology to meet diverse learner needs, and the recognition that effective learning spaces prioritise interaction, flexibility, and inclusivity.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcademic conferences are increasingly recognised as valuable yet underexplored learning environments within the broader literature on professional development. Conferences serve as powerful spaces for disciplinary socialisation, knowledge exchange, and reflective practice. Educators often describe them as opportunities to engage with peers, receive feedback, and refine their teaching and research through dialogue and exposure to diverse perspectives [7]. Moreover, conferences are frequently embedded within broader systems of continuing professional development, where activities such as networking, presenting, and reflecting on practice are recognised as integral to lifelong learning and the development of professional identity and pedagogical insight [8].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite this, conferences have received comparatively little attention in the learning environments literature which indicates a significant gap as blended and virtual formats become more common. If designed with the same pedagogical intentionality applied to formal education, academic conferences could evolve into more dynamic, inclusive, and interactive environments for scholarly development [4]. This paper responds to that gap by examining how conferences are framed in the literature as learning environments, and what opportunities exist to reimagine their design in alignment with active learning and digital engagement.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003ch3\u003eAcademic Conferences as Learning Environments\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnders notes that engaging with diverse contexts and stakeholders beyond traditional academic boundaries is essential [9], suggesting that spaces like conferences may serve a valuable role in early-stage dissemination, generating feedback, and building visibility within scholarly communities. In this way, conferences serve not only as platforms for sharing research but also as spaces where knowledge is shared and professional relationships are formed, roles that are particularly important for early-career researchers looking to build visibility and connections within their field. Many academics and organisers are accustomed to the lecture or keynote-driven format, and this familiarity reinforces the status quo. Sweeting \u0026amp; Hohl suggest that the predictability of the traditional conference can make it easier for the participants to orient themselves to, and plan for, and that alternative conference formats are not necessarily better, just offer different possibilities and outcomes [10]. However, as a site of knowledge sharing, the traditional conference often provides a direct contrast to notions of active learning.\u0026nbsp;This contrast is particularly striking given the strong and growing body of evidence showing that active learning improves student engagement, critical thinking, and academic outcomes in higher education contexts [4, 11-13]. This disconnect suggests a form of pedagogical inconsistency: where active learning is embraced in classrooms but overlooked in professional spaces that are also intended to support learning and development.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eActive learning as a pedagogical approach emphasises a shift from passive reception of information to active engagement, using strategies such as collaborative projects, problem-based learning and interactive discussions [12]. In this way, active learning is argued to help foster a dynamic and inclusive culture that encourages interaction and participation. Furthermore, the integration of technology in active learning has been shown to significantly enhance the learning experience: technologies such as online collaborative tools, virtual simulations and interactive platforms facilitate real-time feedback and encourage a more engaging and immersive learning environment [14]. The largely in-person attendance at conferences geared towards the absorption of information from presentations as lectures can be particularly at odds with conferences where innovation and development in learning are shared.\u0026nbsp;The paradox, where conferences \"say the thing\" but fail to \"do the thing\", raises important questions about whether conventional formats truly align with contemporary pedagogical theories. The incorporation of active learning and technologies in conferences has focused on its enhancements to knowledge sharing and development, with the redesign of presentation formats and fostering connections through discussion and collaboration to create more engaging and effective knowledge experiences for participants [15,16].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Paradox with Traditional Formats\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe format of information dissemination at a conference tends to follow the traditional formats of plenary sessions, panel sessions, oral presentations with PowerPoints, and poster presentations [17-19]. These conventional conference formats often prioritise a unidirectional flow of information, typically allowing limited interaction and brief question-and-answer sessions following presentations, focusing more on the transmission of information rather than how that information will be learned [10, 20]. Lecture-based presentations position speakers as the primary authority, which aligns with traditional academic hierarchies. Rom suggests that “these structures and incentives are governed more by authority and tradition than by careful consideration of how best to create stimulating and engaging environments for teaching and learning” ([21] p. 334). This hierarchical structure is further reinforced by the format of traditional academic conferences, where the emphasis is often on the dissemination of information from a select few experts to a largely passive audience. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlso, in many disciplines, students and early-career researchers view conference participation as optional and unrelated to their academic or career advancement [22]. This perception raises concerns about whether traditional conference formats effectively serve as meaningful learning and professional development spaces. Traditional conference structures, which often rely on unstructured networking sessions or informal social gatherings, may fail to provide adequate support for early-career researchers. Blumenschein \u0026amp; Hannisdal suggest that academic engagement and innovation often stem from informal, networked interactions, particularly within research groups [23].\u0026nbsp;Applying these insights to academic conferences, we can see a parallel challenge: by maintaining rigid, lecture-based structures, conferences limit opportunities for the informal, dialogical exchanges that drive meaningful learning and collaboration, as they can limit interactions by structuring knowledge exchange through one-way, lecture-based presentations.\u0026nbsp;Existing hierarchies, lack of facilitated interactions, and passive presentation formats create barriers to meaningful engagement. If academics can engage more frequently and meaningfully within their research groups [23], this could encourage greater participation, especially among early-career researchers. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProposed Alternatives and Missed Opportunities\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRavn \u0026amp; Elsborg have proposed alternatives, such as turning the presentation into an interview, reflective conversations, mini-meetings, and activities that create a stronger focus on networking [17]. Jacobs \u0026amp; McFarlane suggest using back-channel technologies, such as an internet relay chat and blogging, during the conference to empower audience members to communicate among themselves but found little evidence that this increased knowledge building or sharing [24]. The idea of a (un)conference was suggested, implemented, and reflected on by Pather, Govender, and Scholtz, whereby the elements of open spaces, creativity, and challenging current norms and practices were focused on, and the (un)conference was presented online [25]. Endsley et al. trialled uploading virtual posters prior to the conference, then using of QR codes on posters to enrich the dialogue [19]. However, these are still not widely adopted, suggesting a broader resistance to reimagining conferences as intentional learning environments, and losing the opportunity to enhance learning and further foster meaningful engagement.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcademic conferences have long served as essential platforms for disseminating research, fostering professional connections, and promoting knowledge exchange. However, despite widespread recognition of the benefits of active learning and digital engagement, conferences continue to rely predominantly on passive, lecture-based formats that limit participant engagement to the “question and answer” section or during informal discussions after the presentation. This reliance on traditional structures stands in stark contrast to the innovative technologies and alternative models available today, such as interactive digital tools, flipped workshop formats, and collaborative session designs. This is surmised by Burford et al. (p. 74) where research conference focus can be “more on ‘what’ would be presented and ‘who’ would present it than ‘how’ learning might occur” [26]. We argue that this reliance on tradition often comes at the expense of more engaging and interactive formats that could foster deeper learning and participant involvement. As noted earlier, these newer approaches are well-supported by educational research as effective for enhancing learning and engagement. A better understanding of existing strategies and technologies can bridge this gap, and we suggest are essential for aligning conference practices with modern principles of active learning and digital engagement.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAim and Research Question\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTherefore, this paper aims to explore how strategies, technologies, and alternative formats discussed in the literature aim to promote active learning and engagement at academic conferences.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo explore the practices that promote active learning and participant engagement in academic conference settings, a scoping review of the relevant literature was undertaken. A\u0026nbsp;scoping review is useful to \u0026ldquo;identify gaps in the evidence base where no research has been conducted\u0026rdquo; ([27] p. 7). The following sections outline how each stage was implemented in this study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIdentifying the Research Question\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing the five stages of the Arksey and O\u0026rsquo;Malley scoping review approach [27], we began with Stage 1, outlining the overarching research question guiding this review as:\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWhat strategies, technologies, and conference formats have been explored in the literature to enhance active learning and engagement at academic conferences, and in what ways do they address the persistence of passive, lecture-based presentations?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIdentifying Relevant Studies\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo achieve the answer to our overarching research question, we adopted a strategy that involved searching for research evidence via the following sources:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eElectronic databases specific to education: ERIC (EBSCO) and Academic Search Complete\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eElectronic database to include multi-disciplinary subjects: Web of Science\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe included only those studies published in the last 15 years or between January 2010 and February 2025. This timeframe was chosen as it would mainly cover studies published more recently to ensure the relevance and currency of the information. Any materials not written in English were excluded because of the cost and time involved in translating materials. We identified relevant publications by using the search terms (\u0026quot;academic conference*\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;conference presentation*\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;professional conference*\u0026quot;) AND (present*) AND (format OR design) AND (learn*). Running the search on EBSCO Academic Search Complete (35), ERIC (79), and Web of Science (134) returned a total of 221 unique articles (27 duplicates were removed).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eArtificial Intelligence\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAI-assisted research tools were employed to enhance the efficiency and breadth of the literature search. \u003cstrong\u003eElicit\u003c/strong\u003e was used to generate and refine search terms and to identify thematically related studies, while \u003cstrong\u003eResearch Rabbit\u003c/strong\u003e supported the exploration of citation networks and related research domains\u0026nbsp;[28].\u0026nbsp;Our overarching research concept was entered into the \u0026ldquo;Find Papers\u0026rdquo; function in \u003cstrong\u003eElicit\u003c/strong\u003e, which produced an initial set of potentially relevant studies. From this list, we identified five key papers for further analysis. These papers were subsequently imported into \u003cstrong\u003eResearch Rabbit\u003c/strong\u003e, an AI-supported platform that visualises research networks and relationships by mapping connections among authors, citations, and related publications\u0026nbsp;[29]. From the five seed papers, Research Rabbit identified 968 similar works. These were ranked in terms of relevance, and the first five full-text journal articles were reviewed to refine the search terms further. However, no additional search terms were added from this second round of analysis.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSelecting Relevant Studies\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe created inclusion and exclusion criteria for our information sources and search strategy for the final scoping review, as seen in Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Selecting Publications\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInclusion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExclusion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePeer-reviewed empirical publications\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJournal articles\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConference papers\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOpinion Pieces\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrey literature including theses\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBook and book chapters\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReports\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMagazines\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePapers published within the last fifteen years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScoping reviews and systematic reviews as they would include literature not in our time frame\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMust address issues of conference presentation design and its impact on learning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublications not focused on issues of conference presentations and their impact on presentation design or learning and teaching of attendees\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePreference for studies conducted in higher education settings, but relevant research from other educational contexts (like adult education or professional training) can be included if they offer significant insights applicable to higher education.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudies conducted on K-12; studies conducted with the focus on students\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDue to language proficiency constraints, the review might limit sources to those available in English\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-English Publications\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFull text available\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFull paper inaccessible\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOnce the title and abstracts were screened, 20 papers remained for discussion about whether they should be included in the final review. The two reviewers met to review the articles together and to discuss any conflicts. Once these papers were further screened, 8 papers were removed from further study, leaving 12 papers to extract for analysis.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCharting the Data\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe software package Covidence was used for managing records, keeping track of articles, and excluding duplicates of our study. This software also made it simple to chart our results, as seen in Figure 1. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe two reviewers conducted a detailed full-text review of the papers. Disagreements were resolved through discussion until a consensus was reached. The lead data analyst extracted key information from each of the 12 included studies into the structured summary seen in Table 2, below. Extracted data included author(s), year of publication, country, discipline, study design, and overview related to strategies, technologies, and formats at conferences. Following data extraction, the key findings were reviewed, and a thematic analysis was conducted to identify recurring concepts related to pedagogical approaches, conference environments, and equity.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eFollowing the framework proposed by Arksey and O\u0026rsquo;Malley [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], the results are presented in two sections: (1) a descriptive summary outlining the scope, characteristics, and distribution of the identified studies, and (2) a thematic synthesis of key findings and their implications. The thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke\u0026rsquo;s six-phase process [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e], which involved familiarisation with the data, generation of initial codes, identification and refinement of themes, and final reporting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe 12 resulting papers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR33 CR34 CR35 CR36 CR37 CR38 CR39 CR40\" citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e] represent a range of geographic locations and collaborations, including India, USA, Germany, UK, Canada, Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, Australia, Denmark and Japan. Five of the papers drew on quantitative research to evaluate the experience of conference participants [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e], with the remaining seven utilising a conceptual or autoethnographic approach to explore their perspectives and experiences of traditional and alternative conference settings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. The common thread throughout the articles was a recognition of the limitations of conventional conference practice and/or culture. From this basis, the articles could be identified into three themes: pedagogical approaches, alternative environments, and equity and inclusion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eData extracted\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthor/s\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYear\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscipline\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverview\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBelliappa [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen\u0026rsquo;s studies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoethnographical/conceptual\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePedagogical potential of large conferences, through critical and feminist pedagogy and incorporation of global south perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritique of conventional academic conferences for failing to create equitable learning environments and deep engagement, advocating for more participatory approaches as suggested by feminist literature. It highlights the potential benefits of eliminating keynotes and parallel sessions to foster meaningful interactions and collaborative exercises, enhancing well-being and deeper learning. The article also discusses the need to explore alternatives that promote diversity, inclusivity, and dialogue, encouraging collective action and authentic social interactions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBhimani et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNursing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuantitative: Pretest-posttest evaluation by conference participants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEfficacy of multimodal strategies (storytelling, lectures, case presentations, and discussions).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplication of multimodal teaching strategies within these conferences effectively addresses the cognitive levels of remembering and understanding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorwin et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2018\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScience (Biology)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConceptual\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing backward design for effective conference communication by enhancing engagement, fostering inclusive environment and facilitating constructive feedback.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdvocates for a shift in conference culture to enhance engagement and learning by making conferences more inclusive and collaborative. It suggests using active learning strategies instead of traditional lecture styles to increase engagement, enthusiasm, retention, and idea exchange, while also building relationships. The article also highlights the importance of equity through accessibility, language, and inclusion, and suggests incorporating opportunities for feedback to maximise outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulders \u0026amp; Zender [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGermany\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVR \u0026amp; AR tech\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuantitative\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpportunities and challenges of a conference on SocialVR tech delivered via VR headset \u0026ndash; efficacy of academic discourse and knowledge exchange through alternative delivery mode.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscusses the use of VR to create social presence in online conferences, allowing participants to experience proximity and multiple perspectives as if face-to-face. The conference structure was discussion-oriented, with personalised avatars and informal networking activities like a common room for social exchange. Despite some tech issues and decreasing attendee numbers, a survey indicated that SocialVR is seen as a viable alternative to in-person conferences, offering a unique online experience with enhanced social interactions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRaeburn et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScotland, Canada, USA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHistory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAuthethnographical / conceptual\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExperience of hosting online conference due to COVID.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscusses an online scholarly event that aims to break down barriers between the public and scholars, democratising knowledge exchange and addressing academic inequalities. It highlights the use of asynchronous panels with recorded presentations followed by forum-based Q\u0026amp;A sessions, and informal networking through virtual tables. The event's content is mostly open and free to the public, promoting greater accessibility and democratisation by encouraging conversations where different forms of knowledge are shared.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRam et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIreland, Switzerland, Germany, Canada\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespiratory medicine\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuantitative: Survey of conference registrants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvestigating preferred elements of hybrid conferences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHighlights the benefits of online conferences in terms of accessibility, inclusivity, and sustainability, while acknowledging the challenges of creating opportunities for interaction, networking, and collaboration in a virtual format. It suggests a hybrid model with virtual sessions spread throughout the year, focusing on skill sessions and expert plenaries to improve participant interaction. Preferences indicate that live skill sessions in face-to-face settings could be replicated online, with an emphasis on speaker quality, topic relevance, and greater interaction between participants, particularly for networking.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRich et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCanada\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComputational neuroscience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAuthethnographical\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLearnings from implementing a virtual conference during COVID.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmphasises the importance of conferences in the communication, critique, and development of new knowledge. It highlights how newer conferences have successfully pivoted to alternative delivery methods, creating unique virtual experiences rather than simply replicating physical events. This shift has democratised attendance, reduced overheads, and increased international participation, though challenges remain in replicating the organic interactions and collaborations of in-person events.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSanders [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2015\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBelgium\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVisual art\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAuthethnographical/conceptual\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommentary added to [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] in relation to alternatives for art and design conference.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUses the metaphor of a construction site to describe conferences as a continuous working and thinking process. It suggests alternatives in conference conception, focusing on creating artefacts from singular works or studies and providing moments for reflection and feedback. The importance of presentation environment, diversity in panel members, and dynamic time-space organisation is emphasised to ensure equity and active participation for all attendees. The article encourages deconstructing traditional models to imagine new learning environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeidenberg et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNetherlands, Germany, Australia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEd tech, economics, social politics conferences\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuantitative: Survey of conference participants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactors of perceived value of virtual conferences and alternative formats.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDefines a virtual conference as a learning event that incorporates technology to support communication and interaction, emphasising the importance of designing with these elements in mind. Survey results highlight the perceived value in interaction and learning, though the article suggests that simply replicating face-to-face formats in an online setting may not be sufficient.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSweeting \u0026amp; Hohl [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2015\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUK, Germany\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAuthethnographical/conceptual\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntroduction to special edition reflecting on alternative format conferences. Questions the composition of conferences to encourage new ideas and exchange.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescribes conferences as settings for sharing ideas and forming new thoughts but notes that they can often be passive experiences with limited time for in-depth discussions. The dominant presentation format, established in the 1660s, has many shortcomings, including constrained timetables, parallel sessions, and minimal formal discussion, which obstruct collaboration and exchange. While alternative formats offer different possibilities, conventional conference design provides predictability, advance planning, and opportunities to establish academic identity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVerbeke [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2015\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDenmark\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArchitecture\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAuthethnographical / conceptual\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on design of academic conferences \u0026ndash; settings and strategies that promote learning and knowledge exchange. Focus on interaction, discussion, active learning, reflection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmphasis on conference design that fosters shared understanding and collective knowledge-building, with fewer presentations and a variety of session types such as demonstrations, brainstorming, and experiments. It highlights the importance of space and movement to encourage sharing, discussion, and group activities. The article also advocates for active participation to stimulate interaction and learning, shifting the presenter's role from an objective knowledge provider to a facilitator of shared experiences and understanding in a community of practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYagi et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJapan\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHealthcare\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuantitative: Survey of healthcare workers\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvestigating preferences for online conferences during COVID.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHighlights survey results showing a preference for hybrid conference formats, with a strong emphasis on Q\u0026amp;A sessions. Participants appreciated the increased ability to participate and the reduced financial burden, though some were cautious about sharing new data online. The majority of attendees indicated that their primary reason for attending conferences is to communicate with peers from other institutions, which is more challenging in online settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePedagogical Approaches\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeven of the articles highlight the use of learning approaches and pedagogies to address the passive nature of traditional academic conferences, characterised by its \u0026ldquo;limited room for participation, dialogue and dissent\u0026rdquo; ([\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e], p. 103). This passivity is problematic in the potential of a conference as a site of learning. To address this, several of the articles advocate for participatory and inclusive approaches that align with quality learning practices [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. Active learning and engaged pedagogies are proposed as strategies to foster greater interaction and knowledge exchange with an emphasis on opportunities for feedback and discussion. These are argued to reframe knowledge exchange away from \u0026lsquo;single direction\u0026rsquo; to more conversational, shared and diverse opportunities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrameworks such as backward design [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e] and strategies such as storytelling or case presentations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e] are suggested to promote deeper cognitive engagement compared to conventional lecture-style presentation. These shifts in approach have significant implications for the structure and expectations of academic conferences. For example, the metaphor of the construction site is used to describe conferences as a \u0026ldquo;continuous working and thinking process\u0026rdquo; ([\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e] p. 112), suggesting that conferences should include defined moments of reflection and feedback to build and extend knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe emphasis on active learning and engaged pedagogies underscores the importance of creating authentic learning experiences. These approaches not only enhance the effectiveness of academic conferences but also challenge the traditional formats that dominate despite the availability of alternative approaches. While the persistence of passive formats can be attributed to their predictability and ease of implementation, this can come at a cost of deeper engagement and meaningful knowledge exchange.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlternative environments\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe exploration of alternative conference design is dominant in the articles to assess efficacy and impact. Traditional aspects such as keynotes, podiums, time allocations and parallel sessions are interrogated and often replaced to encourage different structures and expectations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Many of these alternative modes are due to the changes required by COVID for wholly online connections, which provided an opportunity to assess the value of conferences and focus on the benefits still possible in virtual formats. Longer timeframes and asynchronous tools for presentations and discussions, along with avatars in virtual reality (VR) or other interactive platforms, provide distinct advantages for creating authentic interactions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. However, challenges are also present in concerns over the sharing of information and intellectual property (IP) in more \u0026lsquo;open\u0026rsquo; online spaces [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e], as well as limitations of technology and cognitive load for attendees online [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. Virtual conferences are argued to require more consideration than \u0026ldquo;simply porting a physical conference into the digital space\u0026rdquo; ([\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e], p.2), and that replicating \u0026ldquo;organic interactions, discussions, and collaborations\u0026rdquo; from in-person events requires considered and innovative approaches ([\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e], p. 6). Examples such as a VR \u0026lsquo;common room\u0026rsquo; (Mulders \u0026amp; Zender, 2021) or asynchronous panels of recordings followed by scheduled Q\u0026amp;A forums [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e] highlight the potential opportunities to redefine conference formats and interactions through alternative designs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquity and Inclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquity emerged as an unexpected but significant theme within eight of the articles, where traditional conferences are seen as \u0026ldquo;sites where academic inequalities are often felt especially keenly\u0026rdquo; ([\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e], p. 290). Feminist and global south perspectives critique the \u0026lsquo;canonised model\u0026rsquo; of conferences that sustain traditional academic hierarchies and identities, of who gets to speak and when [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Alternative designs and strategies can enhance inclusion for academic conferences by providing more participatory approaches that foster diversity, as a \u0026lsquo;democratising effect\u0026rsquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBlended or virtual events are argued to decrease barriers to accessibility through the reduction in time, travel and financial burdens [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. These factors are highly significant for conference attendance with the potential for \u0026lsquo;structural inequality\u0026rsquo; due to geography, funding or institution status [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Widening the possibility for participation not only \u0026ldquo;foster[s] diversity, inclusivity and dialogue\u0026rdquo; ([\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e], p. 106) within the conference itself, but it also increases equity for conference networking and interactions that can be essential in academic career progression. The persistence of passive formats, despite these benefits, may be due to entrenched practices or resistance to change. However, the literature suggests that embracing alternative, more inclusive designs can lead to more equitable and effective academic conferences.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis scoping review mapped the existing literature\u0026nbsp;on strategies, technologies, and alternative conference formats discussed in the literature that aimed to promote active learning and engagement in academic conference settings. Our findings aligned with previous research that suggested pedagogically, conferences predominantly rely on passive, single-directional communication [17-19, 21], which contradicts the notion that a conference is a site of learning. Given this, many authors suggest that conferences focused on learning should have more active learning strategies to enhance knowledge exchange and engagement [10, 16, 34, 40]. Authentic learning experiences were highlighted as central to effective academic conferences [36] but the suggestions of how to do this in the literature are still seemingly the exception to the rule. Despite a small but growing body of research suggesting strategies for improving knowledge exchange and engagement, the conventional structure and approach continue to dominate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur findings highlighted that traditional conference formats could reinforce continuing academic hierarchies [21] and inequity and contribute to ineffective exchange and learning\u0026nbsp;[32, 36]. This study emphasises the need for alternative conference formats if the focus is on decreasing barriers to accessibility. Rather than fostering inclusivity, many conferences exacerbate accessibility issues by maintaining an in-person, lecture-driven approach instead of considering alternative formats, such as blended or virtual, that could enhance engagement and equity.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA critical question emerging from this review is: Does the structure of academic conferences align with their intended objectives? If the primary goal is merely the one-way dissemination of research findings, then the conventional conference format remains suitable. Though, in such cases, the information could arguably be distributed more efficiently via digital communication (e.g., an email). However, if the intention is to cultivate an environment for learning, then traditional conference models fall short. As research indicates, simply translating in-person formats into virtual settings without structural changes is ineffective [42]. Similarly, adding a chat function to an online format without ensuring presenters can access, utilise, or moderate it may not be effective, as it fails to facilitate meaningful interaction and can result in the online audience predominantly communicating with each other instead of with the presenter.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings contribute to the broader field of learning environments by highlighting how academic conferences, despite their informal and often overlooked pedagogical function, are central sites where learning design, participation, and equity converge. Prior research in learning environments has consistently emphasised the importance of learner-centred design, social interaction, and intentional structuring to support knowledge construction [4,6]. However, our review suggests that academic conferences remain largely disconnected from these principles, reflecting a significant underutilisation of their potential as dynamic, multi-dimensional learning spaces.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe shift in academia from traditional, lecture-based instruction to more\u0026nbsp;learner-centred, active learning approaches in higher education is highly relevant to planning academic conferences.\u0026nbsp;These events can be reimagined as learning environments that extend beyond formal presentations and actively support dialogue, co-construction of knowledge, and inclusive participation.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Thus, to align conferences with contemporary learning principles, there is a pressing need to move beyond traditional formats. This requires a deliberate rethinking of conference environments and an intentional focus on the conference format, ensuring that the communication structures foster engagement and interaction rather than perpetuating passive knowledge transfer. Conferences must transition from \"doing the thing\" (i.e., relying on traditional formats that reproduce conventional delivery modes) to intentionally designing events as interactive learning spaces that prioritise dialogue, participation, and inclusivity, and empower researchers to connect, collaborate, and advance their careers more effectively. By applying learning environment frameworks to the conference context, our work extends the field's application beyond classrooms and formal institutions, advocating for an expanded view of what constitutes a learning environment and for whom it must be designed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eImplications and Recommendations\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOrganisations wanting to intentionally cultivate a culture of learning should embed pedagogical design principles into conference planning to move beyond rhetoric and towards meaningful reform. This includes creating opportunities for informal dialogue, supporting multiple modes of participation (synchronous and asynchronous, in-person and virtual), and facilitating interaction before, during, and after sessions. Presenters should be encouraged and supported to adopt learner-centred practices, such as using pre-session materials, structured discussion prompts, or live collaborative tools. Through this kind of implementation, conferences could foster a more engaging and inclusive culture, both as a learning environment and through diverse participation. Without such changes, conferences risk remaining exclusionary – privileging those with institutional support, funding, and positional authority – rather than fulfilling their potential as dynamic, accessible, and equitable learning spaces.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch3\u003eDisclosure Statement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors report there are no competing interests to declare.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDeclaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs well as the AI mentioned in the methodology, during the preparation of this work, the authors used ChatGPT and Grammarly to improve the readability and language of the work. After using these tools/services, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the published article.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;Statement\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo sources of funding were acquired for this scoping review.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthics, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish declarations: not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHopkins, J. (2011). The role of learned societies in knowledge exchange and dissemination: the case of the Regional Studies Association, 1965\u0026ndash;2005. \u003cem\u003eHistory of Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(2), 255\u0026ndash;271. https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2010.518161\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMcCarthy, J. F., McDonald, D. W., Soroczak, S., Nguyen, D. H., \u0026amp; Rashid, A. M. (2004, November). Augmenting the social space of an academic conference. In \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work,\u003c/em\u003e 39-48.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePatel, A. U., Gu, Q., Esper, R., Maeser, D., \u0026amp; Maeser, N. (2024). The Crucial Role of Interdisciplinary Conferences in Advancing Explainable AI in Healthcare. \u003cem\u003eBioMedInformatics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1363-1383. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedinformatics4020075\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCayubit, R. F. O. (2022). Why learning environment matters? An analysis on how the learning environment influences the academic motivation, learning strategies and engagement of college students. \u003cem\u003eLearning Environments Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 581-599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09382-x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRusticus, S. A., Pashootan, T., \u0026amp; Mah, A. (2023). What are the key elements of a positive learning environment? Perspectives from students and faculty. \u003cem\u003eLearning environments research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(1), 161-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-022-09410-4\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eValtonen, T., Lepp\u0026auml;nen, U., Hyypi\u0026auml;, M., Kokko, A., Manninen, J., Vartiainen, H., ... \u0026amp; Hirsto, L. (2021). Learning environments preferred by university students: a shift toward informal and flexible learning environments. \u003cem\u003eLearning Environments Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e, 371-388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09339-6\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFerman, T. (2002). Academic professional development practice: What lecturers find valuable. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for Academic Developers 7\u003c/em\u003e(2), 146-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144032000071305\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFriedman, A. L. (2023). Continuing professional development as lifelong learning and education. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Lifelong Education, 42\u003c/em\u003e(6), 588-602. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2023.2267770\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEnders, J. (2005). Border crossings: Research training, knowledge dissemination and the transformation of academic work. \u003cem\u003eHigher education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e, 119-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-2917-3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSweeting, B., \u0026amp; Hohl, M. (2015). Exploring alternatives to the traditional conference format: Introduction to the special issue on composing conferences. \u003cem\u003eConstructivist Foundations, 11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-7.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBonwell, C. and Eison, J. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. \u003cem\u003eAEHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1\u003c/em\u003e. Washington, D.C.: Jossey-Bass.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGarnham, W.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eA., \u0026amp; Gowers, I. R. (Eds.). (2023). \u003cem\u003eActive learning in higher education: Theoretical considerations and perspectives.\u003c/em\u003e Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHao, Q., Barnes, B., \u0026amp; Jing, M. (2021). Quantifying the effects of active learning environments: separating physical learning classrooms from pedagogical approaches. \u003cem\u003eLearning Environments Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(1), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09320-3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAngelone, L., Warner, Z., \u0026amp; Zydney, J. M. (2020). Optimizing the Technological Design of a Blended Synchronous Learning Environment. \u003cem\u003eOnline Learning, 24\u003c/em\u003e(3), 222-240. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i3.2180\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMorton, G., Olson, L., Miranda, S., Griggs, A., Bailey, K., Pham, C., \u0026amp; Wright, K. (2020). Changing the habitat at academic conferences: Using a learning ecosystem with active learning during a panel presentation. \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Library Quarterly, 57\u003c/em\u003e(2). https://doi.org/10.62915/2157-0396.2258\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVerbeke, J. (2015). Designing Academic Conferences as a Learning Environment.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Constructivist Foundations, 11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 98-105.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRavn, I., \u0026amp; Elsborg, S. (2011). Facilitating learning at conferences. \u003cem\u003eInternational journal of learning and change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 84-98.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKnott, J. C., Taylor, D. M., \u0026amp; Simon, E. L. (2020). Conference presentations: A research primer for low-and middle-income countries. \u003cem\u003eAfrican Journal of Emergency Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e, S158-S160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2020.05.002\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEndsley, P., Martinkus, H., Chrisman, M., Marchello, N., \u0026amp; Skarbek, A. (2025). Why should you attend conference poster sessions?. \u003cem\u003eDiscover Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00462-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHilliard, T. W. (2006, January). Learning at conventions: Integrating communities of practice. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Convention \u0026amp; Event Tourism, 8(\u003c/em\u003e1), 45-68. https://doi.org/10.1300/J452v08n01_03\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRom, M. (2012). The scholarly conference: Do we want democracy and markets or authority and tradition? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Political Science Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(4), 333-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2012.729449\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHorta, H., \u0026amp; Li, H. (2023). Nothing but publishing: The overriding goal of PhD students in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(2), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2131764\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBlumenschein, D., \u0026amp; Hannisdal, B. (2024). Social network analysis and educational change: Unravelling the role of innovative teaching staff in a higher education environment. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(12), 2827-2843. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2324346\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJacobs, N., \u0026amp; McFarlane, A. (2005). Conferences as learning communities: some early lessons in using \u0026lsquo;back‐channel\u0026rsquo; technologies at an academic conference\u0026ndash;distributed intelligence or divided attention? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Computer Assisted Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(5), 317-329 \u003cstrong\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00142.x\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePather, S., Govender, R., \u0026amp; Scholtz, D. (2024). Shifting mindsets from conference to (un) conference: A collaborative reflective perspective on conceptual disruption. \u003cem\u003eCritical Studies in Teaching and Learning (CriSTaL)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(si1), 62-78. https://doi.org/10.14426/cristal.v12iSI1.2095\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBurford, J., Henderson, E. F., \u0026amp; Paus\u0026eacute;, C. (2018). Enlarging conference learning: At the crossroads of fat studies and conference pedagogies. \u003cem\u003eFat Studies, 7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 69\u0026ndash;80. https://doi.org/10.1080/21604851.2017.1360666\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eArksey, H., \u0026amp; O\u0026apos;Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. \u003cem\u003eInternational journal of social research methodology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStapleton, A. (2024). How To Use Elicit for Literature Review: AI Research Assistant 101. \u003cem\u003eAcademia Insider.\u003c/em\u003e Retrieved from https://academiainsider.com/how-to-use-elicit/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eResearch Rabbit (2024), \u003cem\u003eResearch Rabbit\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.researchrabbit.ai/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. \u003cem\u003eQualitative research in psychology, 26\u003c/em\u003e(6), 559-572. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2022). \u003cem\u003eThematic analysis: a practical guide.\u003c/em\u003e SAGE Publications Ltd.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBelliappa, J. L. (2020). Extending feminist pedagogy in conferences: inspiration from Theatre of the Oppressed.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Gender \u0026amp; Education, 32\u003c/em\u003e(1), 101-114.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2019.1646412\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBhimani, R., Palluck, H., Moore, M. A. M., \u0026amp; Anderson, L. C. (2017). A Continuing Education Conference About Patients With Parkinson\u0026apos;s Disease and Their Caregivers.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 48\u003c/em\u003e(6), 270-275. doi:10.3928/00220124-20170517-08\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCorwin, L. A., Prunuske, A., \u0026amp; Seidel, S. B. (2018). Scientific Presenting: Using Evidence-Based Classroom Practices to Deliver Effective Conference Presentations. \u003cem\u003eCBE - Life Sciences Education, 17\u003c/em\u003e(1)\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-07-0146\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMulders, M., \u0026amp; Zender, R. (2021). An Academic Conference in Virtual Reality? -Evaluation of a SocialVR Conference. \u003cem\u003e2021 7\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (ILRN), 1-6.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRaeburn, F., Baer‐Tsarfati, L., \u0026amp; Porter, V. (2022). Out of the Ivory Tower, into the Digital World? Democratising Scholarly Exchange\u003cem\u003e. History, 107\u003c/em\u003e(375), 287-301.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1468-229X.13259\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRam, S. S., Stricker, D., Pannetier, C., Tabin, N., Costello, R. W., Stolz, D., Eva, K. W., \u0026amp; Huwendiek, S. (2024). Voices of conference attendees: how should future hybrid conferences be designed?\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;BMC Medical Education, 24\u003c/em\u003e(1)\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05351-z\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRich, S., Diaconescu, A. O., Griffiths, J. D., \u0026amp; Lankarany, M. (2020). Ten simple rules for creating a brand-new virtual academic meeting (even amid a pandemic).\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;PLoS Computational Biology, 16\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008485\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSanders, M. (2015). The Design Conference Model and Its Learning Environment: A Construction Site.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Constructivist Foundations, 11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 112-114.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSeidenberg, N., Scheffel, M., Kovanovic, V., Lynch, G., \u0026amp; Drachsler, H. (2021). Virtual Academic Conferences as Learning Spaces: Factors Associated with the Perceived Value of Purely Virtual Conferences.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1694-1707.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12614\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYagi, K., Sato, Y., Sakaguchi, S., Goda, M., Hamano, H., Aizawa, F., Shimizu, M., InoueHamano, A., Nishimori, T., Tagi, M., Kanno, M., MatsuokaAndo, R., Yoshioka, T., Matstubara, Y., IzawaIshizawa, Y., Shimizu, R., Maruo, A., Kuniki, Y., Sakamoto, Y., Itobayashi, S., Zamami, Y., Yanagawa, H., Ishizawa, K. (2022). A web-based survey of educational opportunities of medical professionals based on changes in conference design during the COVID-19 pandemic.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Education and Information Technologies, 27\u003c/em\u003e(7), 10371-10386.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11032-5\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWinchester T., Price, E., \u0026amp; Groessler, A. (2023, July) Attention Under Pressure: The Impact of Technology-Enhanced Learning Environment on Teacher Presence. In \u003cem\u003eICICTE Conference Proceedings\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 128-141).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"academic conference, higher education, pedagogical approaches, equity, scoping review","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8322086/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8322086/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAcademic conferences serve as critical venues for knowledge dissemination and professional networking. However, despite widespread advocacy for active learning and digital engagement, traditional conferences remain passive and lecture-driven, reinforcing academic hierarchies and limiting meaningful participation. This paradox, where conferences \"say the thing\" but fail to \"do the thing\", raises important questions about whether conventional formats truly align with contemporary pedagogical theories and advancements in e-learning and digital equity. This paper presents a scoping review of the literature on alternative conference formats, facilitation strategies, and interactive technologies aimed at enhancing engagement, accessibility, and knowledge exchange. The review highlights that while a growing body of research supports the use of alternative conference formats such as flipped conferences, blended learning models, and back-channel communication tools, these remain underutilised in mainstream academic settings. Additionally, conventional structures can contribute to barriers related to cost, travel, and time, and can disproportionately affect early-career researchers, scholars from underrepresented regions, and those with caregiving responsibilities. By mapping existing research, this paper calls for a deliberate rethinking of conference design, advocating for participant-centred, digitally inclusive environments. The findings contribute to ongoing discussions about the future of academic conferences, urging organisers to embrace innovative, equity-driven approaches that align with modern learning practices.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Reimagining Academic Conferences to Advance Equity and Engagement in Higher Education","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-10 11:41:32","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8322086/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3de870c6-dc38-4f7d-a571-c3957f9e8fa2","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 10th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-15T10:25:42+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-10 11:41:32","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8322086","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8322086","identity":"rs-8322086","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}