Example Conference

Oct 16, 2030, 9:00 AM → Oct 18, 2030, 5:00 PM Europe/London

-1 (Example Building)

Christopher Gutteridge

This isn't a real conference.

• We have created this conference as an example of the features in Indico.

Wed, October 16

12:40 PM → 1:00 PM Registration

1:00 PM → 2:00 PM Panel 1

Convener: Mr X X (X)

1:00 PM I wonder how AI will change authoritarian governance and development

Researchers and advocates have noted the growing use of artificial intelligence technologies in daily authoritarian governance. I am collaborating with former colleagues in China and the United States on a new survey project. We aim to investigate how technologies such as facial recognition, tracking apps, and generative AI powered by large language models (LLMs) have reshaped the functioning of the Party-state apparatus. Preliminary qualitative evidence from focus groups suggests many local officials are concerned that the increasing presence and use of artificial intelligence could undermine their discretion and influence. Meanwhile, we are working on a new project to explore how different LLMs in the United States and China, through exercises such as prompt engineering, fine-tuning and simulations, can aid in studying public opinions in dictatorships and other politically challenging environments.

Speaker: Juan Blanco De Los Santos

1:40 PM I wonder how we could operationalize everyday organizational practices

This session explores how abstract concepts of everyday organisational practices, drawing on Schatzki and Reckwitz, can be translated into measurable and comparable entities. It considers the challenge of moving from descriptions of routines, embodied know-how, and material arrangements to a level of systematicity that allows for benchmarking practices across different organisations. The talk outlines potential approaches such as ethnographic observation, process mapping and other mixed-methods setups, that could systematically capture the frequency, sequence and material context of practices to be operationalised. The session aims to open a discussion on which methods might best illuminate such routine actions in a way that is sufficiently objective for comparative examination. Ideally, participants’ practical experiences and ideas will enrich the session and contribute to methodological development during the interregnum.

Speaker: Mr Iikka Meriläinen (University of Oulu)

2:00 PM → 2:20 PM Lunch break

2:20 PM → 3:35 PM Panel 2

2:20 PM I wonder how we can better understand behaviour in a fast-changing and complex world?

This session discusses the need to evolve our methods of conceptualising, capturing, and examining behavioural data in real-life environments, if we are to meaningfully understand, predict and change how people behave. The emergence of a wide range of exciting new behavioural datasets presents great promise, alongside both valid and at times exaggerated ethical and public concerns. I wonder how we can better use available data while building and maintaining public trust? We additionally need to discuss how to maximise opportunities as a community to design and deliver research that can move us past traditional blocks and failures (e.g., how to drive sustainable behaviour change; how to change population behaviour at scale) to prioritise research pursuit based on global and local needs, rather than data availability (or lack of). Lastly, we aim to discuss whether our methods are ‘up to scratch’ in exploring behaviour when the environments, places and spaces in which behaviour happens are often rapidly and radically changing.

Speaker: Dr Emily Oliver (Newcastle University's Centre for Behaviour)

2:20 PM I wonder if words are entirely the problem?

Was Foucault on to something when he said words are entirely the problem? Did Lyotard prepare us for the language game? The more time I spend in creative research spaces the more I hear about the heaviness of words and the problems of using existing language structures. In this lightening talk, using other means of communication, we will think with what could happen if we relied less on words and more on making tools to dismantle the master's house.

Speaker: Ms Charlotte Marshall (Nottingham Trent University)

3:45 PM → 4:45 PM Workshop 1

5:00 PM → 7:00 PM Optional Dinner

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum accumsan pretium est ut sagittis. Phasellus ac sodales risus. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia curae; Proin scelerisque mattis laoreet. Curabitur id laoreet massa. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Phasellus maximus lacus mauris, id fringilla urna congue sit amet. Fusce quis lacinia dolor, ut tincidunt neque. Morbi in tristique nulla, in tristique sapien. Sed ultricies odio ac venenatis rhoncus.

Thu, October 17

8:00 AM → 9:00 AM Panel 3

8:00 AM I wonder how to TRULY flip the Research Model - allowing the community to lead, decolonise, and do the research

This session explores if we as ‘visibly white’, traditionally imperialistic, assumed-to-be-privileged researchers can ever truly flip the research model in circumstances where decolonisation and reparation is on the table. Specifically, how might we do ethnography and oral history when surrounded by theoretical, systemic and interpersonal barriers. This talk also addresses the disparities and inequalities in research administration that further act as barriers to longitudinal and public engaged research. This presents us with a ‘double bind’ as these are key priorities for most our institutions and for UKRI now. Central to this talk is the failure of my own research projects to engage communities, emancipate participants through action, or co-produce methods and objectives. Nevertheless, this data stands as an impactful argument for a systemic shift within the academy and in how, it insists, research is conducted, funded and measured.

Speaker: Holly-Gale Millette (University of Southampton)

8:20 AM I wonder how we might break the link between wealth and health?

We pay for poverty with years of our life. In patterns seen within and between countries, people with less money and fewer resources tend to have poorer health & shorter lives than their wealthier counterparts, with differences that can span years or decades. This seems a fundamental injustice which demands action. Through this wondering, I want to explore: Are health inequalities inevitable, for as long as wealth inequalities exist? If so, what does that mean for those of us working in public health and related fields, in terms of what issues we put our energy and resources into resolving? Or if this link is not inevitable, what could we be doing better now, so that money matters much less for people's life chances? And what are the ethical issues at stake, in either way of approaching this challenge?

Speaker: Emilie McSwiggan (University of Edinburgh)

9:00 AM → 10:00 AM Panel 4

9:00 AM I wonder when (or if) ‘fieldwork’ really begins or ends

We will revisit some of our fieldwork experiences to interrogate - through introspection – when our respective engagements with the ‘field’ really began. We argue that often in field-based qualitative research, there is a tendency to treat the ‘field’ as a finite and distant space (and time), that is separate from the researcher. This seemingly also extends to the people, objects, and phenomena we study. However, often, in practice, we find ourselves leaning on our predilections and past experiences to reframe and look at the ‘field’ in our own way. Our emotions often even dictate what we choose to study in the first place, bringing the ‘field’ into the fold of our affective world. Consequently, maybe fieldwork does not really only begin when we ‘enter the field’ (the geography we set out to study), nor does it end when we leave it.

Speaker: Lucrezia Gigante (University of Glasgow)

9:20 AM I Wonder: Whose Story Gets Told in International Law?

In this lightning talk, I explore how methodological choices shape the narratives we construct in international law - and how more inclusive approaches might help amplify marginalised voices. Using Australia’s engagement with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) during the 1996 nuclear weapons advisory proceedings as a case study, I draw on archival research to examine its support for a preliminary objections’ procedure - an approach shared only with France. This move, often seen as a legal technicality, also functioned as a narrative strategy, which influenced the outcome of the case and how it has been remembered in legal scholarship. Through a combination of archival research, critical legal studies, and discourse analysis, I trace how procedural arguments and dominant narratives elevated certain state voices - particularly those of Australia, France, the UK, and Japan - while sidelining or silencing others, such as the Marshall Islands. This talk invites reflection: What kinds of stories do dominant legal methodologies allow us to tell, and which ones do they leave out? And how might we develop more inclusive, critical approaches to international law - approaches that engage not only with its narratives, but also with its silences and absences?

Speaker: Emma Nyhan (University of Manchester)

10:00 AM → 12:00 PM Break

Fri, October 18

11:00 AM → 1:00 PM Optional activity 1

Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Aliquam eu vulputate elit. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Mauris commodo vel diam ut consectetur. Etiam aliquam purus turpis. Quisque neque justo, porttitor eu dictum sollicitudin, tincidunt in magna. Donec tristique in metus ac auctor. Mauris sagittis tincidunt orci, in posuere velit sollicitudin non. Sed a ex varius, gravida ipsum pharetra, pharetra arcu. Pellentesque eget ligula nunc. Nam sodales feugiat est, nec posuere orci gravida et. Praesent quis lacus augue. Curabitur pretium turpis vitae massa luctus sodales ac eget erat. Aenean eget erat tellus. Proin ac posuere ligula.