
After two mandates as Chair of the Digital Divide Working Group, I concluded my role at IAMCR 2025 in Singapore. A stimulating and intense experience that allowed me to witness the evolution of this research field over time. I met colleagues from across the globe, explored emerging directions in digital inequality research, and engaged in valuable discussions that I hope will lead to long-term collaborations. Some of these exchanges have already materialised in co-authored articles and forthcoming projects.
The conference itself confirmed a trend I had suspected. Reviewing abstracts this year was significantly more difficult, not because of a lack of quality, but perhaps because of too much of it. Theoretical frameworks were sharp, empirical data were solid, and the methodological designs were impressively structured.
Is this a sign that AI tools are making proposal writing more polished and strategically crafted?
If so, what are the implications for peer review and academic gatekeeping?
Are we simply reading cleaner texts, or are we mistaking form for substance?
Paradoxically, the high quality of the abstracts did not always translate into compelling presentations. I attended sessions outside of my working group, and the contrast was at times striking. In particular, some undergraduate students, while enthusiastic and welcome presences, delivered poorly structured presentations, often skipping theoretical grounding entirely, speaking for four or five minutes instead of the allotted fifteen, and in some cases reading slides likely generated by ChatGPT/DeepSeek.
I am glad to see more early-career scholars participating, but how do we reconcile inclusivity with academic rigour? How do we maintain the intellectual density of a conference while supporting those at the beginning of their journey?
This issue goes beyond IAMCR. It raises broader concerns about the role of academic conferences. Are we attending to exchange ideas, challenge assumptions, and build new research directions, or merely to collect content for social media? When the performative aspect of conference attendance overtakes the intellectual one, what remains of scholarly engagement?
Some questions I leave open for debate:
- Should conferences introduce minimum criteria for presenters, especially in competitive streams?
- How can chairs and reviewers distinguish between genuinely strong abstracts and AI-assisted superficial ones?
- Is it time to rethink presentation formats and set clearer expectations for theoretical discussion and critical depth?
- Are we witnessing a shift from conferences as academic spaces to events as stages for visibility?
I remain grateful for the role IAMCR has played in fostering meaningful academic dialogue. But if we want to preserve the spirit of critical inquiry, we must confront these structural and cultural challenges openly and collectively.
Conferences or Content Studios? The Rise of InstaScholars and ChatGPT Academics
There’s a shift happening, and it’s hard to ignore. Conferences increasingly resemble content studios. Picture-perfect photos, well-edited Instagram reels, polished performances. Less time for questions, more time for selfies.
Welcome to the era of the InstaScholar: a scholar more invested in visibility than debate, more focused on the aesthetics of participation than the messiness of argument. And next to them, the rise of the ChatGPT Academic: able to generate an abstract in minutes, with elegant phrasing and fake precision, but with little capacity for deep engagement during a live Q&A.
Of course, not everyone falls into these categories. But the cultural trend is clear: conferences are becoming more about presence than contribution. The logic of the feed is replacing the logic of discussion.
- Should conferences set minimum academic standards for presenters?
- Can we develop a way to flag AI-generated submissions without becoming reactionary?
- How do we protect conferences as spaces for critical thinking, not just academic branding?
We can’t reverse this shift by pretending it’s not happening. It’s time to confront it.