Addressing the challenges of conference participation for the Pacific: a regional approach to maximise attendance and participation

ABSTRACT

This paper delves into challenges faced by individuals from remote regions accessing international conferences and proposes culturally appropriate solutions. It shares insights examining remote conference hubs designed to improve attendance and connectivity to online conferences in three Pacific countries. Commissioned by the South Pacific Educators in Vision Impairment (SPEVI), the research aimed to understand barriers faced by remote attendees and document a model for future remote hubs. The findings, including participant feedback and the hub model, are transferable to diverse contexts. Initiated for the SPEVI bi-annual conference, three Pacific hubs facilitated increased attendance and interaction among Pacific Islanders. These hubs provided a space with good internet, facilitated local language communication, and fostered engagement with both main conference activities and specific local events. The collective approach of these hubs resonated with Pacific cultural values, resulting in enhanced participation and satisfaction. This research offers a globally applicable model for remote community participation in conferences and professional development. It provides unique insights from a Pacific perspective, contributing to inclusive conference participation by embracing Pacific ways of understanding and being and advocates for reshaping future online education conferences. Support for professional development in remote locations, emphasising inclusivity and accessibility for all, is discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Conference participation
• pacific
• professional learning
• online
• equity

Introduction

Professional development is critical for educators to stay up to date with new research and practices in their field. Conferences provide an excellent opportunity for educators to engage with their peers, learn from experts, and share their knowledge and experiences. However, attending and participating in conferences can be costly and challenging, particularly for people from remote locations such as Pacific Island nations.

The difficulties and challenges of attending and participating in conferences are well documented in academic literature with common barriers including competing events, understanding the conference process, engaging in productive discussions, accessibility, limited internet connectivity, technological infrastructure, time zone differences, cultural and language barriers. Attending conferences can be challenging due to competing events such as work and family commitments (Bos et al. 2019), lack of understanding of the conference process (Timperley et al. 2020), difficulty in engaging in productive discussion (Rowe and Frewer 2004), or equity of access to the conference location, especially for people from remote regions, is frequently raised (De Picker 2020). Further to this, people from locations such as the Pacific, are at greater risk of travel interruption due to the uncertainty of the increasing number of natural disasters due to climate change, adding to the barriers in conference attendance for Pacific Islanders (Tao et al. 2021).

In addressing organisational issues of conference design, a recent project aimed to provide support for participants to attend and collaborate in an online education conference. The project has established a model for reimagined delivery of remote hubs in three Pacific countries to foster international conference attendance and to maximise learning in ways that are comfortable and meaningful for Pacific participants. Research findings have identified key components including a venue with reliable internet access, travel allowances, catering, local side events, pre-recorded presentations from hub locations, international and in country hub coordinators and opportunities for collaboration. The results of the initiative indicate that the adoption of co-designed Pacific Island hubs reflecting these components lead to an increase in attendance, interaction, engagement with conference topics and regional networks.

To consider the organisation of a conference from a Pacific perspective is significant. Ravulo et al. (2020) for example, discusses the low levels of participation with Pacific people because of the ideological clashes between the ways that western dominant thinking is presented which serves to isolate the voices from Pacific people. Further, the collectivist paradigm of Pacific people, influences ways of participation in remote conferences. In collectivist cultures such as those in the Pacific, group identity, obligations and priorities are determined as a collective rather than driven by individual perspectives (Rhodes and Antoine 2019). This in turn influences conference attendance, synthesis of knowledge and how conference content is collectively contextualised within each island group. In addition, participation between group members is more likely to be indirect with those in positions of power responding to calls for questions on behalf of the group (Rhodes and Antoine 2019). With this in mind, Pacific Islanders were invited to express interest in hosting and co-designing the hubs based on collectivist priorities and interest in the conference topic.

Conference attendance from developed countries outweighs that from developing nations, even though virtual conferences are more likely within the education field (Fraser et al. 2017). Attendance at conferences allows academics and practitioners to keep abreast of new developments, networking and knowledge sharing (Levine 2015). Ironically, it is the developing nations who are most likely to benefit from the global knowledge exchange in areas such as education. Current remote conference structures typically inhibit attendance from collectivist cultures due to the individualistic mindset of conference organisers who expect participants to log into a remote conference in isolation and synthesise content based on their personal career goals and employment context. In contrast, Pacific Island nations represent some of the most collectivist cultures globally (Rhodes and Antoine 2019). Conference committees seeking greater engagement from collectivist groups need to challenge existing ideologies to work within collectivist structures to achieve the desired outcome of increased participation.

Indeed, conferences are becoming increasingly innovative in their design from the traditional ‘chalk and talk’ approach (Spilker et al. 2019). Fraser et al. (2017), for example, examined various conference presentation formats. The authors compared in-person conferences against various virtual conference designs: pure virtual (traditional model where a series of external locations are connected to a central conference), one hub and node (a central hub and then streams to smaller external groups who collaborate between themselves and share with pre-recordings), multihub and node (replicated multiple ‘live’ conference sites and associated hubs who share with pre-recordings), and multi-lateral hub and node (replicated content across time zones and associated hubs who share with pre-recordings. The authors consider, although yet to be tested, that the one hub and node model and the multihub and node model are the most suitable for conferences in developing countries with collectivist cultures because they incorporate virtual conferencing with the benefit of a central location for gathering and coordination. This approach to organisation of the conference also addresses the barriers for developing nations such as cost to travel to another country, the concerns regarding IT knowledge and understanding of the complexities of internet capabilities (e.g. breakout rooms and their management) while facilitating locally led small group discussions. Such an approach would also maximise what Carpenter (2016) refers to as opportunities to learn based on informal collaboration meetings between like-minded professionals.

The disparity in attendance between the west and developing nations highlights the need for more inclusive conference design, particularly to reflect and respond to an ‘oceanic worldview’ to bridge and link the centre and the periphery (Underhill‐Sem 2020). A Pacific focussed conference aimed to address the inequity in Pacific Island attendance by providing a venue with the necessary structural support. The Pacific approach to maximising conference participation was designed to promote successful increased participation, opportunities for deep engagement and collaboration and a sense of belonging and ownership of local knowledge in conferences. Pacific cultures are collectivist, which means that people value group harmony, cooperation, and collaboration (Finau et al. 2022). The hub model ensures participants are in a shared space to jointly receive the same content at the same time and use break times to discuss their understanding of the content and its relevance to their context. This model also allowed structured and unstructured local sessions to be held either in place of less relevant online conference presentations or following the formal conference each day. By providing a centralised Hub with opportunities for collaboration, the model promoted greater participation and engagement in online conferences among Pacific Islanders. This increased participation is often evidenced through embedding conference content into local practices. Once again, this occurs in collectivist cultures through the social contracts between those in leadership guiding change on behalf of the collective (Rhodes and Antoine 2019).

While conferences are valuable professional development opportunities for researchers, the ability for people the Pacific to attend conferences and pay conference fees that are commonly situated in larger centres are often economically prohibitive (Damian 2021).

Further, Visa challenges can add an extra layer of difficulty where obtaining a Visa to travel is often costly and complicated for people from low-income countries (Doğan et al. 2023). These geographical inequities have served to marginalise developing nations and other countries on the periphery of popular conference sites. Researchers from these countries are also likely to be under-resourced. For example, the average lecturer salary in the Pacific is AU$54,300, strikingly lower than the Australian average of AU$110,000 (Glassdoor 2023). The lack of resources and opportunities available to researchers in developing countries can make it challenging for them to participate in conferences and stay up to date with new research and practices in their field.

Virtual conferences have emerged as a potential solution to some of these challenges. Virtual conferences can provide an opportunity for people from all over the world to participate in conferences and share their knowledge and experiences and eliminate the need for travel and accommodation (Johnson et al. 2021). However, virtual conferences also present other challenges, such as limited internet connectivity, technological infrastructure, and accessibility considerations. Best practice guidelines have been developed to maximise virtual conferences, and these guidelines recommend engagement strategies such as small group sessions to foster group discussion, using pre-recordings to avoid internet disruption, and providing language and accessibility support (Rubinger et al. 2020). By following these guidelines, conference organisers can promote greater participation and engagement in virtual conferences among Pacific Islanders and other under-resourced communities.

Theoretical framework

Participation, engagement and belonging are inextricably linked (Crawford and Mckenzie 2023) within collectivist Pacific values. Lewis et al. (2016) articulates that participation (defined by Dijkers (2010) as the involvement and interaction in a situation), engagement (defined by Martin and Borup (2022) having an investment in the shared activities that is influenced by the participants beliefs, attitudes and behaviours) and belonging (the extent to which people feel valued, accepted and a legitimate member of their domain) affects whether individuals will ‘fit in or opt out’ (p. 1).

Fostering a sense of belonging provides connections between people and facilitates sharing of knowledge (Knekta et al. 2020). A sense of belonging has been recognised in the virtual environment as a challenge, where people feel disconnected with their professional learning (Ahn and Davis 2020). Physical spaces offer opportunities for the development of relationships between professionals, and the sudden shift to online spaces during and after periods of lockdown presented the world with unexpected challenges of re-creating some form of connectedness in order for participants to maximise their learning experience (Samura 2018).

Belonging in this article, is viewed as a socio-cultural construct that creates a relationship between education space and participants. Baroutsis and Mills (2018) characterise three elements that relate to the concept of belonging that enhances engagement and participation with learning and connectedness in a learning setting such as a conference. These are relational, material and pedagogical spaces. Relational space refers to the aspects of design that facilitate social and emotional interactions. It also allows for learning that is group-oriented (Chatti et al. 2007). It is because of the importance of relational space that we have chosen to use this framework. Relationality is a key component of Pacific ways of knowing. Wendt (1999) describes Pacific relationality as ‘the space between, the betweenness, not empty space, not space that separates but space that relates, that holds separate entities and things together’ (p. 402). Relationality is generally understood as the basis of social interaction where interpersonal and social interactions set expectations of social norms and behaviours (Thaman 2008). It is maintained through family, community, and individual contexts. Maintaining relationships is important to maintaining harmony between different people, therefore relationality matters.

Material space refers to the physical form such as the physical isolation of attending conferences as an individual (Chametzky 2021). If participants have difficulty navigating online platforms or accessing online conferences, or using break-out rooms, they are more likely to feel disengaged and distracted from learning or contributing (Gillett-Swan 2017).

Pedagogical spaces create collaborative practices where participants feel connected with the learning environment and when participants are able to share their learning, deep connections are possible between learning and belonging (Te Riele 2018).

In addition, a third space exists in the intersection between relational, material and pedagogical space. This is referred to as education space and reflects the nature of the interplay between the structures that might occur (Baroutsis and Mills 2018). Knowledge is formed at this intersection, such as the construction of roles and identities of the participants that is inclusive of all people who attend the conference.

In summary, conferences provide a forum for researchers, scholars, and practitioners to share their ideas, research findings, and experiences. However, attending and participating in conferences can be challenging, particularly for people from Pacific Island nations. A Pacific focus in the design of a conference provides a potential solution to some of these challenges by providing a centralised Hub for collective gathering, reliable internet access, IT equipment and support, and opportunities for relationality to be realised. By promoting greater participation and engagement in conferences among Pacific Islanders and other under-resourced communities, we can develop a model of practice that supports culturally appropriate inclusive and equitable conference experiences.

Materials and method

This study has ethics approval for research from the [deleted for anonymous review]. The evaluation of a new Pacific approach to delivering conferences determined the effectiveness, uptake, strengths, opportunities for improvement, outcomes and future possibilities and recommendations for an online South Pacific Educators in Vision Impairment (SPEVI) conference. While both of the authors can be described as having a close relationship to the project making the evaluation challenging, the issues were mitigated by considering our role in the research. One of the authors is a current member of SPEVI and assisted with the design of the conference and did not contribute or interact with the data or data analysis. The other author, the lead researcher did not have involvement in the conference design or management of the conference delivery and so, was able to independently conduct and evaluate the findings.

The approach involved the co-design of centralised hubs in three Pacific countries. The second author, a member of the conference organising committee, was assigned as the international hub coordinator. The international hub coordinator role was created as a new initiative to support with promotion, hub logistics and communication with the selected hub local coordinators. The international coordinator invited Pacific Islands to express interest and capacity to host a regional hub including managing conference hub sponsorship funds. Three Pacific Islands, Kiribati, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, were selected as the three participating islands for a regional hub trial for the South Pacific Educators in Vision Impairment (SPEVI) 2023 Conference. SPEVI had identified an interest in increasing Pacific Islander attendance at their conferences due to their underrepresentation in past SPEVI conferences.

Local hub coordinators typically consisted of staff from the respective island ministries of education. These facilitators across each of the three participating Pacific countries sourced a relevant venue, promoted the event to people in the education and disability sectors, arranged transport, catering, technology and side events consistent with the conference theme. These staff also assisted in any troubleshooting of issues throughout the conference.

Conference themes included a focus on innovative research and approaches, technology, community, partnerships, transitions and families. Presenters were from America, England, Australia, New Zealand, Kiribati and Vanuatu. Typically, presentations were delivered live via Zoom however presenters were offered the option to pre-record their presentations. Two of the participating Pacific hub countries submitted presentations that were accepted for this conference. These presentations were pre-recorded to avoid any risks of technology barriers. Further to this, these presenters reported their increased sense of comfort in pre-recording their presentations as they were reluctant to present live in front of an international audience and wanted to relax and watch their presentation alongside their colleagues during the live streaming of the conference. This position is consistent with collectivist ideology where these Pacific presenters also expressed discomfort in presenting in front of senior ministry staff. In addition, this approach allowed the Pacific presenters to follow protocol and have their pre-recorded presentations approved by ministry leadership prior to the conference.

Each Hub was at a venue such as a Ministry of Education meeting room, hotel conference room or school meeting room, where there was good internet connection, seating, video projector and scope for catering. The local hub coordinators were able to manage their AUD$3,000 hub budget based on local priorities and all operated within this budget.

Promotion of Pacific Hub sponsorship of AUD3,000 per hub occurred through SPEVI and ICEVI (International Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment) Pacific region. The selected Pacific locations had demonstrated an interest in hosting Hubs and side events where participants could attend an accessible venue where they could gather together over food to learn, exchange ideas, hold side events with local presenters and discuss how new knowledge could be contextualised to improve educational participation and learning outcomes for their citizens with vision impairment. This approach aligns with collectivist cultural values and aims to address the inequity in Pacific Island attendance by providing a venue with IT (information technology) equipment and support. The South Pacific Educators in Vision Impairment (SPEVI) and the International Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment (ICEVI) met the costs that were associated with coordinating the Hub venues. These Hubs were located in Vanuatu (funded by SPEVI), the Solomon Islands (funded by ICEVI), and Kiribati (funded by ICEVI).

Method

A qualitative approach was used, enabling data to be collected and collated. This method is suitable for the Pacific and to answer the research question. The participants were asked to complete a survey, and then the Hub coordinators were interviewed, using tokstori.

The tokstori approach, identified as a culturally fitting technique for conducting semi-structured interviews, stems from Vanuatu culture. It is a method rooted in storytelling and gathering information, empowering individuals to become authorities on their own lives (Sanga et al. 2021). This approach functions based on principles of collaboration, informality, and adaptability (de la Torre Parra 2021), harmonising effectively with various semi-structured interview methodologies.

Originating from the Pacific Island region, (Bolinga 2023), tokstori, also recognised as ‘Talk Story’ or ‘Talk Story Time,’ involves a conversational storytelling technique where the storyteller engages with the audience, asking questions, evoking responses, and fostering active participation. Frequently employed in educational and community contexts, tokstori serves as a channel for conveying cultural values, knowledge, and historical narratives. It excels in involving individuals, creating an atmosphere that encourages sharing personal stories and experiences. Ultimately, the tokstori method emerges as a powerful tool for audience engagement and transmitting knowledge, values, and cultural heritage through interactive, captivating, and inclusive approaches.

The six Hub staff disseminated and collected the Conference Hub evaluation surveys that were part of the research data collection. These surveys were used to inform a follow-up interview with the six Hub staff. The interview questions informed from the survey results provided a richer context regarding the outcomes of the Pacific Hub Approach to Maximise Conference Participation. The survey consisted of questions to collect demographic information and 14 Likert Scale questions that asked about the impact of the Hub organisation in terms of its impact on attendance and participation. Questions included items that related to how the organisation of the Hub affected attendance and participation. Further, participants were asked about barriers limiting participation, as well as preferences relating to individual versus group attendance in conferences and the aspects of each Hub organisation that helped or hindered attendance and participation. These aspects included internet connectivity, sharing of ideas face to face, transport assistance, troubleshooting, side events and catering. The interviews were conducted to gather a summary of the coordinator’s experiences of Hub organisation and collated into themes.

Participants were provided with a paper survey as the internet was not available for each participant to engage in on an individual basis. Because time was allocated at the end of the conference, there was a 100% response rate for the survey. Ages of participants was not requested as it was not regarded as relevant to the research however the inclusion criteria for the study were that participants had to be over 18 years of age. The overarching research question of the study was: How does the organisation of a Pacific Hub improve attendance and participation in online conferences?

Data analysis

Qualitative feedback was collected from open-ended questions within the survey asking participants to comment on the benefits and challenges they found with the learning tools or features. The results were coded through NVivo (QSR International 2020) to identify the key theme outlined within the model that related to isolation. Both deductive and inductive reasoning was used through a thematic analysis approach, which considered themes based on the literature and the resultant interview data. Interviews were transcribed and coded according to Charmaz (2008), using preliminary coding, focused coding and then theoretical integration. During inductive preliminary coding, patterns and themes that related to the research questions were highlighted, with a more focused approach during the second stage of inductive coding, where data within categories were compared. To ensure anonymity of the participants, a code was assigned to each. These codes were p-1 for the first participant survey respondent of the 60 surveys collected and collated, and H-1 for the first Hub interview of 6 interviews.

Results

Demographic results

Demographic results indicated that 60 people participated in the research. Most of the participants were teachers (n = 47) from the Ministries of Education (n = 7) and members of education development programs (n = 6) such as in-country local staff working for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) or the Global Partnership in Education (GPE). Nearly all respondents (78%) attended for three full days, although a cyclone warning in Vanuatu affected attendance on day two of the conference. The Vanuatu local hub coordinators were able to liaise with the international coordinator to arrange early release of the recordings for this day with the participants gathering together the following week to watch these presentations.

The survey data was collected and summarised and the trends show that:

• 100% of participants preferred to attend a conference in a group rather than individually and preferred this ‘because we discuss and share ideas together’ (p-21). Collaboration within the group was highlighted in the survey, where collaboration, sharing of the new learning experience and networking was mentioned by 10 people such as p-56 who reflected on ‘the importance of understanding everyone’s roles and encouraging others was important’.

• 100% of the responses considered that providing a venue helped attendance and participation in the conference, even if they did prefer working as an individual or in a group. Given all preferred to attend as a group, this indicated that the venue facility needed to cater for participants gathering as a collective group.

• 80% stated that they knew about the conference as a result of the Facebook Social Media platform.

Additionally, participants were asked specifically to rate ‘how the Hub helped you attend and participate in the conference’. This item was of particular importance as it collected data regarding the organisational details of the conference. Participants considered the venue to be relatively important ‘because of internet issues’ (p-3) in their homes or communities, that affected accessing the online conference. Transport was regarded as helping ‘a lot’, by participants, especially as ‘I live out of town and we really would have had trouble with the money to get here today’ (p-6). Fifty-six percent reported the item ‘help with breaking into small groups during the conference’ was only helpful ‘a little’. One participant commented that ‘we were already in a small group, so it was not necessary to get help with anything, like IT support for this aspect of the conference’ (p-34). Sharing of ideas was also important, with many respondents (78%) reporting that sharing ‘helped alot’ a positive outcome of how the Hub was organised. Sharing enabled further group discussion that occurred through the conference members meeting as a group as one participant commented, ‘We were all excited to share (p-49), and another reported that they were ‘excited to hear what other friends in the Pacific are doing’ (p-58).

The table below table 1 depicts the strength of results across these survey items.

Table 1. Results across the survey items.

Question	Not at all	Very little	Neutral	A little	A lot
Rate how the Hub helped you attend and participate in the conference Participant total = 60
How much of the conference did you find beneficial to your understanding of the topic?				6 (10%)	54 (90%)
To what extent do you prefer to attend conferences in a group or by yourself?					60 (100%)
How much did the provision of a central location affect your attendance to the conference?					60 (100%)
How much did the provision of a central location affect your participation at the conference?					60 (100%)
How much did the conference hub allow opportunities for you to talk about what the conference ideas meant to your country?				20 (33%)	40 (67%)
How much did the conference hub allow opportunities for you to talk about how the conference ideas could be extended for your professional development?				25 (42%)	35 (58%)
To what extent did a local venue allow a conference to be made possible to fit in work commitments?				21 (35%)	39 (65%)
To what extent did a local venue allow a conference to be made possible that also fitted in family commitments?			3 (5%)	18 (30%)	39 (65%)
How important did you consider the free cost of the conference to be?		5 (8%)	10 (17%)	26 (43%)	19 (32%)
How important did you consider the addition of shared catering to be in a conference?					60 (100%)
Rate the importance of:
internet connectivity			6 (10%)	6 (10%)	48 (80%)
sharing of ideas between the people in the hub				13 (22%)	47 (78%)
help with transport to get to the conference					60 (100%)
help with breaking into small groups during the conference		6 (10%)	6 (10%)	34 (57%)	14 (23%)

Additional open-ended questions:

How did you hear about the conference?

What aspect of the conference did you consider important and/or what could be improved?

The Hub also assisted in providing opportunities for participants to discuss and review the conference content in a group which in turn assisted with sharing ideas about its relevance in each context. Participants stated for example, that ‘after each session we discussed a takeaway message’ (p-13); where participants also found value in ‘discussing the takeaway message as a group at the end of each day session’ (p-27); and specifically contextually related topics: ‘[we discussed] topics that relate to my country’ (p-41).

Interviews with hub coordinators

Several themes were identified from the interviews conducted with the 6 Hub co-ordinators to provide a richer context and validation of the participant reports regarding the outcomes of the Pacific Hub Approach to Maximise Conference Participation. Themes are summarised below:

Community of practice

Hub co-ordinators all spoke of their observations about how the conference organisation facilitated a community of practice, where participants were able to hear and learn what other people across the Pacific and Australasia were researching in the area of vision impairment. H-5 stated that ‘we came together, and we listened and shared an understanding. Everyone had time to share their understanding of each topic. Bringing people together and interacting is a good approach. I really appreciate this approach. Now we will extend our knowledge and develop a further meeting with the keynote speaker and talk about what [our country] specifically would like to hear’. Coming together for a focused topic was important for participants, as reported by the Hub co-ordinators. Participants valued the opportunity to have a single focus on vision impairment/blindness inclusion in education. H-2 reported that ‘it was not just a conference on learning about vision impairment but a chance for everyone who is also affected by these challenges to meet and this could not be possible if we went to say, Australia as it is not possible for all of us to go. This made the sharing all the more important – to have it held here’.

Shared space with internet access

The provision of a shared space affording certain features was reported as important. H-2 stated that ‘it was significant for each Island to select and secure a room that can hold a minimum of 20 people with the venue providing high-quality internet access, bathroom facilities, and space for the provision of food’. A central venue also provided an opportunity to promote the conference themes. Because all Hubs were located in Ministry offices, it allowed staff from the periphery of the conference topic to join in. ‘This was good as it meant more Ministry people could hear the speakers to motivate them and be more supportive about vision impairment’, stated H-4.

Catering

Providing meals is a key requirement for each conference day. Sharing food encourages people to gather in the one space and stay for the entire day of each conference day. One Island Hub coordinator (H-1) stated ‘food is currency’ and is a critical component when running events. Food ensures people will gather and make the most of their communal gathering as reported by another participant: ‘Providing the food was helpful. In our culture, food brings people together. If they know food is provided, it brings people to these events. Food made a difference’ (H-2).

Side sessions

Local presentations were a useful component of Pacific Hubs. Presentations such as people who are blind or vision impaired sharing their lived experiences, teachers sharing inclusion strategies or in-country international advisors providing a targeted session, were examples of side sessions. These can be held in place of an online session, after the conclusion of scheduled online sessions or at times that internet connection would not be working. For example, in Kiribati side sessions were held in place of day one of the conference as internet facilities were not working with a change of venue required for successful connection on the second and third day of the conference. Their pre-planned side sessions ensured that all invited participants meant that ‘we still had a focus for the day and the venue and catering did not need to be cancelled or our conference sessions and learning interrupted’ (H-3). This then also encouraged participants to coordinate an alternative venue for the following days and sustain their focus on the conference topic.

Co-ordination and organisation

All Hub co-ordinators spoke of the need of co-ordination and support. Local ownership was considered critical through a host organisation ‘taking responsibility to receive and manage all funds and arrange all of the things that are needed to get a conference sorted’ (H-2). In addition, each Hub was locally managed by two local Hub coordinators. These coordinators managed logistics, booked a suitable venue and selected and invited participants. They also managed catering and travel logistics and side events. The local Hub coordinators were in regular Zoom and email contact with the international coordinator for logistics and Hub promotion. Support from an international coordinator was also reported to be critical in all aspects of the conference Hub. This included communicating the Hub concept, sourcing a local agency to manage funds, troubleshooting queries and frequent communication with local Hub coordinators. The in-country co-ordinators ensured up-to-date access to alerts and be responsive to local variables such as a cyclone warning in Vanuatu that required all participants to stay at home on day two of the conference. The Ni-Vanuatu co-ordinators were able to communicate this information to the international co-ordinator who was then able to follow up on their request for conference recordings to be released early to the Vanuatu hub where they gathered together the week after the conference to collectively listen to day two of the conference.

Cost-free

The sponsorship by SPEVI and ICEVI Pacific ensured that Hubs were cost free to each Pacific Island. This sponsorship guaranteed the Hubs could operate and ensured a high level of attendance at each Hub, as well as invite the unexpected participation of others in the Ministry, as reiterated by H-4.

Additional funding was also mentioned by a Hub co-ordinator, to cover any in-country key-note speakers. H-6 stated that it would have been good to include disability-specific organisations such as the OPD (Organisation of Persons with Disabilities) to speak, but they would require a payment in accordance with local protocol.

Local focus

Despite the conference being international, a Pacific focus of the event was useful to engage participants in the content. Hub co-ordinators deemed it important for the conference to ‘have a Pacific focus’ (H6) with a range of presentations including reference to the Pacific context. Further to this, presentations from the Pacific were of significant interest to the Pacific participants. To ensure additional Pacific presentations, pre-recorded presentations are considered valuable as it gave Pacific speakers confidence to take ‘time to present a quality talk’ (H-1) prior to the conference dates. The option to pre-record also alleviated risks associated with poor internet connection when presenting live.

Discussion

To conceptualise the effectiveness of the conference organisation in accordance with the theoretical framework of Baroutsis and Mills (2018) model of belonging, the results are discussed according to relational, material and pedagogical space. In doing so, the framework highlights Pacific ways of relationality that we can then structure subsequent recommendations for the future.

Relational space

Relational spaces in conferences refer to the face-to-face affordances that were supported by the Hubs and recognised in the survey and interviews as important in bringing people together to participate and share. This was evident in reports such as ‘coming together’, ‘discussing and sharing ideas’.

Relational space also refers to the group activities that are enabled and regarded as essential in the Pacific and also includes the nature of interacting in a safe space. Relationality is a key concept in the Pacific and goes beyond collaboration and social connections. Relationality is significant across the Pacific and provides a key concept of value when considering relationality, innovation and educational space. Relationality is defined as ‘the space between, the betweenness, not empty space, not space that separates but space that relates, that holds separate entities and things together in the Unity-that-is-All, the space that is context, giving meaning to things’ (Wendt 1999). Relationality was reported in such statements that evoked the value in coming together and knowledge sharing for the community.

Material space

Material space refers to the provision of the physical space of coming together where connections are made. It also refers to the objects within that space, such as the effective way that the conference was advertised using ‘the coconut wireless’ of Messenger social media platforms (Khosla and Pillay 2020, p. 2), internet connectivity and transport that allowed the participants to be in that space. Material space is also about the inclusion of support people such as the Hub Co-ordinators who helped with trouble-shooting issues and who connected with the central hub. The use of material space by Pacific people is said to be holistic and spatial; divergent rather than linear; interpersonal, and supportive of co-operative and collaborative learning, oral versus written, demonstrating the and modelling of how it should be done rather than giving verbal instructions; and kinaesthetic, which lends itself to the use of space and using space differently (Koya 2016). This approach to how space is considered and valued was realised by the Hub Co-ordinators who in turn maximised its affordances by using the provided space to connect participants in the Pacific way. This included catering where it was reported to be important as ‘food brings us together’ (H-2).

Pedagogical space

Pedagogical space is the space that allowed for side events and discussions between Hub participants. The online pre-recordings are also examples of the use of pedagogical space. This allowed presenters to film their presentations in a relaxed and familiar environment rather than present live in front of peers in an unfamiliar venue. Pedagogical space aligns with Pacific ways of learning is where participants receive a lot of support, is communal, and all community members have an input into the delivery of the presentation or conference learning. Lagi (2015) reported on learning pedagogy that used presentation strategies that aligned with Pacific ways of learning and found that strategies such as group discussion and group presentation were highly relevant. When presentations implemented such approaches, learning was more effective, and participants were more task focused. Communication skills were seen as being effectively developed, alongside personal and interpersonal confidence. The international hub coordinator from the conference committee had an existing working relationship with the Pacific Islanders from Vanuatu and Kiribati. This enabled pre-recording of their presentations to occur with the international coordinator adopting culturally relevant conversational techniques to guide the presenters to deliver content important to them. Collectively, the video was then edited with each presenter reviewing and approving the final selection of content for the presentation. In both cases, this also allowed the presenters to follow protocol and have their presentations approved by their respective ministries of education prior to submission to the conference organising committee.

Koya (2015) found that pedagogical intentions across the Pacific do not always match pedagogical practice, largely driven by internal pressure to deliver content. This means that traditional conference styles of presentation needs to be reconsidered to match context, where conferences usually do not go beyond conventional transmission pedagogies in their delivery style (Al-Khatib 2009). In response, opportunities to pre-record, review and seek local approval; provides scope to encourage more presentations from the Pacific region to be seen at international conferences.

In summary, the study focused on the aspects of a design that enabled the attendance and participation of Pacific educators to become fully involved in their learning. We attempted to design the conference that focused on participant needs and not from the conference organisers perspective highlighted an important aspect that has been noted in the literature (Spilker et al. 2019). The sense of belonging aligned with Pacific ways of understanding (Lagi and Armstrong 2017). Belonging encourages the participation of a community of learners to develop the third space: the educational space. The educational space referred to in this article refers to the space provided for the delivery of the conference. The educational space was comprised of a relational space, a physical space, and pedagogical space.

The successful components of a venue with reliable internet access, travel allowances, catering, local side events, pre-recorded presentations from hub locations, international and in country hub coordinators and opportunities for collaboration are relevant for future conferences seeking to promote remote engagement. This Pacific approach to maximising conference participation is crucial because it addresses the challenges and difficulties that prevent people from attending and participating in conferences. The approach is especially relevant to Pacific Islanders, who often face significant barriers to attending and participating in conferences due to limited internet connectivity, technological infrastructure, time zone differences, language barriers, and lack of awareness (Sharma et al. 2020). By providing a centralised hub location reflecting these successful components can promote greater participation and engagement in online conferences among Pacific Islanders.

Conclusion

In conclusion we recommend that Pacific Hubs are organised in the same way for future online conferences to support the attendance and participation for Pacific people. These Hubs address the current inequity in Pacific Island conference attendance. In addition, the Hubs align with collectivist cultural values by allowing interested people to gather, hold side events and conversations, hear presentations and group together face to face to identify how the conference ideas can be transferred into their Island contexts through the development of group discussion and identification of next steps in their context.

The results support a conference presentation format of a multihub and node model that has been suggested as the most suitable for conferences in developing countries. Virtual conferencing also provided the benefit of a central location to serve as a centre for the administration function. We wish to add however, that the success of our findings also included a further recommendation: that conferences are adapting and shaped to reflect and meet local needs.

Other recommendations include financial input from the conference organisers to address transport, internet, catering and venue costs. Of note, the sponsorship amount for 20–30 people to attend remotely in their location is approximately equal to one person from the Pacific attending an in person SPEVI conference in Australia or New Zealand. Additional sponsorship funds would either increase the number of Hubs or increase the number of participants at each Hub. It is especially recommended that conference organising committees include an international hub coordinator who is able to work closely with in-country hub coordinators in each hub context with all co-ordinators familiar with the purpose of the conference and the context of the hubs.

While the survey did ask if anything else could improve the conference organisation, participants suggested course administration issues but not organisational improvements. Course improvements included a paper handout for each person, a conference that was a week-long rather than 3 days, and many participants mentioned follow-up conferences. Hub coordinators made several suggestions that, as mentioned earlier, included providing payment for guest speakers, and more local speakers with lived experience of vision impairment.

This Pacific approach to maximise conference participation aims to address the challenges and difficulties that prevent people from attending and participating in conferences. However, challenges and difficulties such as competing events, understanding conference processes, language differences, engaging in productive discussion, and accessibility remain significant barriers to conference attendance and participation. Addressing these barriers will require collaboration between conference organisers, policymakers, and attendees to ensure that conferences are genuinely inclusive and accessible to all.

While the audience is primarily of benefit to the Pacific people, as it brings together the Pacific ways of knowing, learning, being and belonging, other regional and remote developing countries globally will benefit from the research findings in terms of understanding that acknowledging local approaches will ultimately profit local audiences.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the South Pacific Educators for Vision Impairment and the International Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment.