Was small “n” a bad thing? Recollections on a conference with 30% attendance.

As a graduate student, I’ve learnt about the problems with a small “n” sample size. Problems include lack of generalizability, risk to study subjects and, arguably, an inefficient use of time and resources.

As a first-time attendee at the George Wright Society (GWS) conference, I also heard concern about a small “n” in attendance. I heard how the conference may have decreased significance, because researchers couldn’t share results with federal managers. I heard how much time is required to arrange travel, prepare presentations and attend the conference. And I heard how attending may not be “as worth it” as if it had had its regular number of attendees.

However, I believe a small “n” may have added some value to this year’s conference. I engaged in thoughtful one-on-one and small group discussions with some of this countries’ leading scientists and policy-makers. I met other like-minded graduate students from a diversity of backgrounds and geographies. I regularly struggled with which concurrent session to attend. I found a few pockets of time to keep up with family back home and not fall behind on school work. These qualities were maintained or even enhanced by a smaller number of attendees than usual.

I know the benefits of a large conference attendance. The last conference I attended in Denver was organized by the Geological Society of America (GSA), and nearly 6,000 people attended. This conference was a significant experience for me, but its significance was easy to achieve. From 8:00AM to 5:30PM each day, an attendee had the option of attending one of twenty-five or more concurrent sessions at any given time. It was impossible not to find something meaningful.

This year’s GWS conference didn’t have the intrinsic benefits of a large attendance. It had 2-6 concurrent sessions at any given time instead of its regular 12-18. But maybe that was okay. 

As a first-time attendee, I’m glad I attended during a low “n” year. My conversations were intimate, my fear of missing out (“FoMO” in conference lingo) was moderate rather than severe, and my memories of people and their ideas were distinct. Perhaps the benefits of events with smaller number of attendees is something that the Society can think about as it strategically brainstorms for the future. Increasing diversity and frequency of offerings may pair well with these benefits of a small “n”.