Traveling the Third Place: Conferences as Third Places

Introduction and Statement of Purpose—Washington, D.C., November 2013

The lobby was packed and as full of noise as it was of people. I scanned the blur of faces as I searched for an empty table in this crowded place.

“See anything?” asked Darlene, my best friend for decades. It was Darlene’s first time accompanying me to an academic conference, and we were both ready for a drink after a long day navigating the maze of DC traffic.

“Over there,” I nod, grabbing Darlene’s arm, spotting and waving to Sonja, a colleague from my time in graduate school in Tampa. I introduce Sonja to Darlene, and she introduces us to her two colleagues, Steve and David. We all find a table, order drinks, and begin laughing together as we share Tampa stories, while Darlene grumpily and good-naturedly teases me as only a best friend can do. David, on the job market, is interested in upcoming positions at the university where I work, and we exchange contact information and promise to keep in touch, a common yet seldom remembered vow at some scholarly conferences.

Throughout our time at the conference, Darlene and I felt more and more connected, more and more at home, each time we saw David and Steve: there, waving to us from the escalator; there, all huddled together in the cold, sharing restaurant tips in front of the hotel’s valet station; there, dashing across the lobby for a quick hug as we rushed to a panel or presentation. The job at my university failed to be a good fit for David, but the collegial and personal relationships that began at the conference have since grown into warm friendships, and for David and I, an exciting new collaboration.

According to Putnam (2000), we are worse off today due to a lack of involvement in our communities. It is through involvement/interaction that we create a sense of belonging. It is that sense of being a part of something more than one’s self that began our interest in looking at conferences as third places. We have experienced firsthand and have had many colleagues confirm how conferences are more than a place to share research—they are a place to reconnect with peers that are part of your community. This study explores the unique phenomenon of conferences to make an inquiry into the classification of conference gatherings as third place (see Oldenburg, 2000) and their concomitant occurrences of increased community interactions/involvement among participants.

The space of a conference “functions as a safe, relaxed space outside the home [and] can actually lead to a deeper investment” (Tate, 2012, p. 280) by attendees via third-place qualities. The third-place quality offers a space within which human connections supersede a space’s designated purpose and become multipurposed, durable, and long-lived, spanning space, time, and distance. We suggest that the conference becomes transformative, altering a nonplace (Auge, 1995), a generic place (Yakhlef, 2004), into a third place (Oldenburg, 1999, 2000) containing the eight elements of third place: accessible, conversations abound, neutral site, third places act as a leveler, have regulars, low profile, playful, and homelike. We review literature that connects third place and conferences through the types of interactions that occur at conferences. We hope to expand the concept of third place as spaces that both create and are created within place, arguing that while these processes are symbiotic, they are not mutually dependent. All conferences aren’t third places; third places don’t always emerge at conference. Instead, we conceive of third place as a constructed environment emerging from a place that often has another purpose entirely, similar to the ways that concert parking lots become “little cities” (Cunningham Breede & Erdely, 2017). We argue that the use of place [italics added] and its significance to attendees rather than the designated purpose of the structure” (Purnell, 2015, p. 54), or the purpose of place, becomes a transformative element in the creation of third place (see Tate, 2012). We concur with Smith (2000), who states that place is “. . . a setting for individual activity and social interaction” (p. 45) and extend this argument to suggest that such individual activity and social interaction—that is how a place is used—can create third place. The use-based designation for the classification of third places is further supported by the case studies used by Tate (2012). Each study demonstrated how the classification of third place is applied to the situation discussed even though variations exist in how third place theory is applied to each case.

The purpose of attending conferences is instilled into each aspiring grad student. Graduate students are expected to go to conferences to make connections and to present their work. Yet the most important aspect of third place is rarely given as a reason to attend—to build community. The use-based model focuses on not just the presentations and conversations but also the interactions that create social capital. Furthermore, social network theory emphasizes the importance of social capital and its role in the routines of daily life (Putnam, 2000), of trust and its relationship to social bonds (Jones & George, 1998), and of conformity to the action of attending communal events (Galaskiewicz, 1991) like conferences. By looking at the interactions that take place between the presentations and meetings as community nourishment, connections between the creation of bonds and the production of social capital occur, strengthening the community of conference attendees.

We are therefore responding to Waxman’s (2006) call for further study of third place criteria and how that criteria can be applied to different situations. Often, gatherings that occur within communities take place at bars, coffee houses, or another type of fixed third place (Oldenburg, 2000). For the attendees of conferences, the community formed during the social interactions that take place within the bars and restaurants, lobbies and meeting rooms, allows a third-place environment to emerge at the conference, further adding to the idea of the constructed environment of third place. It is significant that while hotels have bars and lobbies that are or can be third places, we are specifically talking about an event as a third place. This is neither a physical nor digital space. Purnell (2015) discusses the event of a “family dinner” transforming the home into a third place. It is the event of the conference, especially the interactions that form community, that transforms the hotel, not just the spaces within the hotel itself.

Methodology, Between Conference Communications

This work is an ethnography of space. Using written and oral notes, observations, journals, and subsequent conversations, we write thematically from the data and then reflexively construct and co-construct narratives that we then revise collaboratively. We accomplish this through e-mail exchanges and continued meetings at conferences. In the e-mail exchange, we share and analyze our document, making additions and subtractions to the working text. This is the method in which this project was born, and we consider it to be the one in which it is completed. We work in the following manner. First, applying Richardson’s (2000) “writing as a method of inquiry,” we both write individually on the topic of conferences as third places. Selecting different colored font for areas on which we want the other to focus, we exchange these writings until we meet at another conference. We then collaboratively work on merging the work, which we begin doing individually before the conference. Second, it is at the conference that we have our reflective meetings over a glass of wine and discuss/ponder/analyze what we have created thus far. We decide what is working and what is not working and make plans on how to proceed further with the project. Last, we apply the results of our collaborative efforts to our future individual writings. We will repeat this process until we are both satisfied with the result.

Our method not only focuses on reflection and dialogue but also combines individual analysis with mutual reflection in the process and development of our results (Davis & Breede, 2015). Our collaboration is constructed through interactions at various conferences. We take these experiences and interpret their meaning and interjection into our stories as part of our narrative (see Curry & Walker, 2001; Ellis, 2008). These interpretations are reflective moments in time of multiple experiences used to understand and explain our conceptualization of conferences as third places (see Denzin, 1997).

As our project became more tangible, so too did our methodology. We began to see that our friendship become part of our method. We began to adapt “friendship as method” (Tillmann, 2003), even though we are not researching participants/friends. However, we did recognize the importance of friendship in our collaboration and began to understand that our increasingly friendly relationship both affected and enabled our research, as described by Rawlins (1992). We began referencing this project as duoethnography (see Sawyer & Norris, 2013).

Within this duoethnographic and reflective collaboration, we seek to understand our collective and individual conference experiences as they relate to the building of community through third place theory. Our observations of how conferences have increased our academic community and exemplify third place theory are intertwined into our narrative through individual field notes, conversations, and negotiations with one another. We hope this provides readers with an understanding of how community is strengthened by incorporating a use-based definition of third place and how it relates to conference attendees.

Review of the Literature—New Orleans, LA, April 2014

Sunshine warms my face as I stretched my legs after the plane trip to New Orleans. After a long, cold winter, I’m delighted to be wearing shorts and sitting outside under the bougainvillea in the courtyard of the restaurant where I’m meeting David for lunch. I’m eager to catch up, especially since we’ve talked a bit about our shared interest in third place communities. For his dissertation, David studied the formation of third place during the neighborhood potluck dinners that he and Steve hosted, so I feel as though I’ll be able to learn a lot from him. A shadow cuts across the dappled sunlight; it’s David, and I get up to give him a hug. We exchange niceties and order lunch. David glances around the courtyard. Leaning forward, he remarks, “This was meant to be a third place, wasn’t it?”

I glance around at the wrought iron tables placed close together, piled high with crawfish and oysters. Conversation is animated; the waiters seem almost synchronized. “Yeah,” I laugh. “Third place criteria can really be applied to a lot different situations.”

David chuckles appreciatively.

We’ve talked about conferences as third place and her we are! Third-place quality includes not only the informal seating areas of conference hotels but also traditional third place settings near the conference hotel such as this restaurant. This is why there is such a need to view third places by their use of spaces rather than their designated architectural purpose. Like Stokowski [2002] says, space is really “created and reproduced through interpersonal interaction [p. 372].”

“Absolutely,” I agree, buttering a roll from the breadbasket.

We’re making the same argument in our tailgating piece that examines the formation of community at concert tailgating events [Cunningham Breede & Erdely, 2017]. Space is transformed via use. But it doesn’t seem like many folks are researching third place anymore, especially in emergent contexts.

I offer David some bread.

David waves off the basket of bread and says,

Yeah, you’re right. Currently, work expanding Oldenburg’s concepts of third place to include community and social events is rather limited. However, there is support for the use of the term third place as a referent to the use of place and that use’s significance to attendees, rather than the designated purpose of the structure in which people are gathering. Libraries [Audunson, 2005; Harris, 2007], museums [Tate, 2012], sports stadiums [Jacke, 2009], festivals [Hawkins & Ryan, 2013], bookstores [Spector, 2005], grocery stores [Palley, 2012], restaurants [Rosenbaum, 2006], farmers’ markets [Tiemann, 2008], “virtual” environments [Cull, 2012; Ducheneaut, Moore, & Nickell, 2007; Rao, 2008; Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006], “hybrid spaces” [Rosenbaum, Sweeney, & Windhorst, 2009], and homes [Purnell, 2015] have all been explored as third places. Each of these spaces are the center of the communities that are created. In my work on homes as third places, the community comes together with each dinner that is held. While activities take place that stem from the dinners, it is the dinners themselves that create the environment allowing for the interactions that become the building blocks of community. It is the same with conferences. The interactions we have discussed that take place at conferences are the building blocks of our academic community.

David leans back as the server approaches with our food.

I deeply breathe in the steam rising from my gumbo and smile. “I wonder what components create and/or facilitate third-place community? Seems like good food has to be one!” I gently blow on my first spoonful of gumbo.

Oldenburg [1999] has suggestions for the classification of third places. They’re not rules; I like to think of them as guidelines. And yes, food and drink are very much a part of the conference—and a third place. But they also provide meeting spaces that are accessible to attendees, have a welcoming and comfortable (at least in the lobbies) atmosphere, and both old and new friends can be located having conversations and interactions that strengthen community.

“But that basically describes every high school reunion I’ve attended, and those aren’t necessarily third places.” I scoop the last bit of roux from the bottom of my bowl, and push the plate away with a satisfied sigh.

True, but that is why Oldenburg [1999] says that if people “have a third place it is apt to make them feel more a part of community [p. 45].” Oldenburg conceptualizes third places via their shared qualities: They are neutral sites that act as a “leveler”; they are conversational, accessible, and accommodating. They have regulars, a low profile, and tend to be playful and homelike.

He pushes his plate away and scoots his chair away from the table. The server picks up our dishes and drops off our checks.

“Seems like ‘homelike’ needs some unpacking,” I remark, fishing through my purse for my wallet. “We’ve talked about conferences as third place, but they don’t seem to be very homelike.”

David puts his credit card inside the bill and closes the folder.

Well, think about hotels, for example. A standard definition of hotels might be a business that provides short-term lodging or something along those lines. Even when I stay in hotels, I rarely consider them anything more than a place to rest my head at night, but, when I attend conferences, hotels are more than a place providing lodging. My hotel room becomes a refuge, an escape. Increasingly, with the ever-expanding mediated world in which we live, hotels are becoming “third places.” Constant connectivity and mobile technologies are blurring the lines between our professional and personal lives, and this has increased the importance of “third places,” whether a hotel room at the conference or the conference itself.

“That’s true,” I respond, pushing my chair way from the table.

Scholars continue to revise and re-envision our understandings of place and space, especially space previously conceptualized as “generic,” such as branded hotels. Yakhlef [2004] suggests that these “generic spaces are, in fact, a lived and embodied experience [p. 239].” Distinguishing between “spatial practices” and “spatial conceptualizations” opens the space to inhabitants and users, allowing for change, appropriation, and new spatial uses to emerge [p. 240]. Let’s think more about how to apply spatial use and third place criteria to the space that we’ll call “academic conferences.

Theoretical Application—Chicago IL, November 2014

“Eww, I hate having the conference in Chicago!” I exclaim, dropping my bags and embracing David and Steve in a giant bear hug. “It’s so cold, and so crowded, and so, well, such a horrible time of the year!” David and Steve laugh, and Steve excuses himself from the hotel’s lobby bar so that David and I can work.

David turns to me.

You know, Deb, Oldenburg [1999] would remind you that “there must be neutral ground upon which people may gather [p. 22].” Conference locations are often alternating locales that are typically chosen way in advance by planning committees. These locations often have no ties to the conference other than courting the business generated by the planned event. In order to gain the business of the conference planners, host hotels generally make accommodations to best serve the needs of the event. Thus, conferences are held on what would be considered neutral ground.

“I know that our national, regional, and even state organizations try to alternate locations and sites to provide convenience and diversity of location for our members.” I take out a lined, white legal pad and begin taking notes. “What other criteria are important for us to apply third place to conferences?”

“Oldenburg suggests that third places, by their very nature, do ‘not set formal criteria of membership and exclusion’ [Oldenburg, 1999, p. 24],” replies David.

“That’s a tough one,” I respond. “Conferences are expensive, and one has to be a member of the organization in order to attend. The very nature of conferences has an exclusionary component. Is this not problematic for the consideration of conferences as third places?”

“The nature of conferences is something that needs to be addressed, this is true,” remarks David,

I would argue that the interactions reflect the social and personal bonds found in the academic community. The tradition of attending conference reflects on the “hierarchy, inclusion and exclusion, boundaries and transactions across the boundaries” [Douglas, 1972, p. 61] that are a part of attending conferences and strengthening bonds. The social implication of conference interactions is greatly associated with building personal bonds, and with the establishment of hierarchies. Thus, it touches the basic status and relationship dimension, and becomes a primary or secondary way of creating and resolving these usually incompatible relationships. So, while academic rankings still exist at conferences, they are not as formal as they are in academic institutions. While there is more of a leveling experience, it is important to keep in mind that third places form community. However, community is a term that is both exclusive and inclusive at the same time [Butchart, 2010]. In order to form third place, there has to be this exclusion juxtaposed against a welcoming environment. Even though Oldenburg states a third place criteria of not being exclusive, the mere capacity limitations set by city codes for occupancy limits the amount of inclusion making all third places simultaneously exclusive while maintaining an atmosphere of inclusivity.

“Yes!” I interrupt, excitedly. “In his work examining the creation and maintenance of hospitality at a bar in England, Lugosi [2009] unpacks the dialectics of inclusion and exclusion, suggesting that exclusion is a necessary and competing tension inherent in inclusion.”

“Exactly,” agrees David. “There must be exclusions and limitations in order to create inclusivity; otherwise, inclusivity becomes too large and fails.” David sips his wine and continues.

For example, in the case of the academic conference, while organizational membership is required and conference fees have to be paid, you may easily become a member and attend the conferences. While these fees do exclude some, they are not an intentional mechanism to do so; rather, the fees help make the conference possible. While there are additional processes in place to be allowed to present at conferences, anyone paying the conference fee may attend the presentations and be a part of the discussions. Conferences are also a place to make connections with more notable voices in your field. A newly graduated PhD can often find himself/herself in a one-on-one conversation with a published author whose work was instrumental in their area of research. Such opportunities help elevate junior researchers, expand their academic community, and serve to level the playing field. And that brings me to another of Odenburg’s criteria—conversation.

David grows more animated.

While listening to presentations and going to discussion panels are major components of the conferences we attend, the most interesting, informative, and community building moments are not spent in the sessions themselves. Interactions taking place at conferences have been the catalyst for conversations that led to realizing mutual interests. The conversations that stemmed from the mutual interests discovered create stronger community through collaborative academic writings/projects for many attending the conferences and encourage continued support of conferences as third places.

I begin chewing on my pencil and musing aloud.

Like us. We met at a conference, and began developing our friendship around the mutual research interests that emerged in our scholarly conversations. At each conference, it feels as though our research—and our friendship—becomes stronger, as does our academic community.

“Yes,” observes David. “Oldenburg often described the conversations occurring in third places as ‘lively, scintillating, colorful, and engaging’ [Oldenburg, 1999, p. 28]. Like us!” He grins. His grin turns into a serious look.

I’ve always wondered more about the notion that a third place must be accessible and accommodating. Third places are usually characterized as being available “almost any time of the day or evening.” Oldenburg [1999] also asserts that “third places that render the best and fullest service are those to which one may go alone . . . with assurances that acquaintances will be there [p. 32].

My enthusiasm bests me, and I interrupt David yet again. “Yes, but think about it. You can go to that hotel bar pretty much any time, day or night, and someone you know or feel comfortable talking will be sitting there.”

True, and while conferences are not around every day, they are still places that one can go alone and run into many acquaintances. Colleagues from graduate programs who are now professors in colleges and universities across the nation have the opportunity to have face-to-face conversations and get reacquainted after months of not seeing one another, keeping you and your research accessible to your colleagues.

“Yes,” I respond, “and that really creates regulars in a third-place sort of way. Oldenburg states that ‘the third place is just so much space unless the right people are there to make it come alive, and they are the regulars [p. 33].’” I’m writing furiously.

In Oldenburg’s reference to regulars, he also states that regulars do not have to make daily appearances. The “regular” at a conference would be seen just once a year (if that is the only conference he/she attends), but that still meets Oldenburg’s condition of being a third place. There are many “regulars” that attend conferences. Several of the regular attendees go to multiple conferences, making the interactions with conference attendees more commonplace. Attendees can be established as “regulars” without that distinction being conditional on the frequency of attendance, as long as there are acquaintances present that welcome their return.

“Hmmm,” I muse.

That’s like other scholars’ contention that “regulars” don’t have to be present to provide regularity [Lugosi, 2009], but there must be “frequent interaction” [van Lieshout & Aarts, 2008]. But what about low profile? Our national conference has thousands of attendees and is a large event, not only for our members but also for the city we stage it in.

David is shaking his head.

But Deb, it’s a part of our job expectation to go to conferences, and they are a necessary component for getting tenure. As such, it is “an expected part of life” [Oldenburg, 1999, p. 37]. Oldenburg describes third places as “plain.” While hotels may not be too plain, it is not the accommodations of the facility that make a compelling argument for third place; it is the connections that are made through the conversations that take place. It is the interaction that takes away from the luxuries of the hotel environment and produces the low-profile component of third place.

“And that interaction is often playful!” I exclaim, excited to be connecting the dots in this third place.

Right! The playfulness and light banter that is exchanged among and between colleagues creates engagement among the attendees of the conference. This connection that occurs through the playful nature of the banter encourages new attendees to become regulars and try to replicate their experience for other new comers. It also strengthens the existing communities emerging from the third place.

“That’s what makes it homelike,” I murmur, gazing at my notes and thinking hard. I think about David’s and my conversations about feeling “othered” in our traditional families. I think about Steve’s father’s recent death, and my disclosures to them both about my family’s struggles with aging, dementia, and death of loved ones. I think about our shared gripes about housework, travel, time allotment for relationships when time has become a luxury. I think about how nice they both were to my best friend, Darlene, who had neither been to an academic conference before nor was an academic but feels welcomed, comfortable, and “at home” in this space. I think about home, in all of its connotations, and how Robert Frost (1914/2012) declared, “Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in” (p. 6). I think about Oldenburg’s contention that, “[T]he third place is remarkably similar to a good home in the psychological comfort and support that it extends” (p. 42). I smile at David.

David smiles back.

Extending that ideal image of home to third places, we want to be able to relax in our own skin among the patrons of third places. Conference attendees often learn more about each other in the relaxed environment of the playful nature of the conversations, the low profile of the place being occupied, the regulars that you know that accept you as a part of their growing academic community; these all work together to strengthen the idea of conferences as third places.

“And serves to bring conferences into the relationship separate and apart from the conference location,” I note, reflecting on our original notion of third place as uncontained. “That’s why I’m so excited to visit your home in April,” I finish, putting my pencil in my bag and closing my notebook.

Analysis and Discussion—Tampa, FL, April 2015

Where should conferences fit in the conversation about third place criteria? They are right in the thick of these conversations. Conferences should promote the third-place quality of their event to possible draw more participants. Conferences need to be seen as more tangible third places and need to seize the opportunity to become a third place for attendees by offering workshops (as most do) that are relevant to a wide range of attendees. The appeal needs to attract people from different research interests so that we can grow and learn as a community and feel free to be active participants. The eight elements of third place help us to reach that goal of a stronger academic community.

Conferences create opportunities for conversation with others that help make new connections and reconnect with past connections, even nonscholars can become a part of the community created at conferences. The conversation can be about anything from current research interests to the latest news on the career front to the interview by Diane Sawyer with Bruce Jenner. Not only do these conversations take place on an equal footing with all participants but they also allow connections between new scholars and those considered experts in their fields (typically) without newly graduated scholars and graduate students feeling intimidated or isolated. These interactions have a profound impact on the future direction and decisions of new graduates. Many times, these conversations provide a roadmap for the success or failure of a new colleague (Ugrin, Odom, & Pearson, 2008). Therefore, the concept of conferences as third places creates an interesting approach to Oldenburg’s (1999) elements of third place.

These eight elements of third place offer ways in which we can view Oldenburg’s concepts and answer the call by Waxman (2006) to further study third place criteria by looking at the use-based model versus the purpose-based model for designating the label of third place. For us, third place is defined by more than a designation based on physical elements; it is defined by the interactions and attachments held by those who are in attendance that help create and strengthen community. Haas and Olsson (2014) assert that spatial planning often is of two types: “dynamic processes [that] are characterized by flows of people, their interactions . . .” or “static processes [that] are defined by the permanence of their assemblage . . .” (p. 61). Our conceptualization of third places based on the use of a space rather than the physical structure reveal a dynamic process of place as “created and reproduced through interpersonal interaction” (Stokowski, 2002, p. 372).

Components of Third Place

Oldenburg and Brissett (1982) discuss how the components of third place change as the world changes. Despite this earlier claim, Oldenburg holds firmly to the exclusion of some newer definitions of third place. For example, in an interview with Orsini (in 2011), Oldenburg states, “I have objected to the common idea these days that there can be virtual third places, that you can do it electronically” (para. 2). But if the components of third place can change over time, then so should our application of the term.

Such applications allow for third place to be revealed in not only expected places and situations but also unexpected. In rethinking third places, we first examine the definitions offered by Oldenburg and then expand on those definitions. We draw on and reflect on our joint conference experiences and weave in examples from it. Third places remain as meeting places, but people’s connection to physical structures are being seen by some researchers as less significant than the uses and interactions that occur within those spaces (Hass & Olsson, 2014; Karnik, 2011; Lugosi, 2009; Rao, 2008; van Lieshout & Aarts, 2008; Yakhlef, 2004).

Third place theory is not just about spaces and their use. It is also about meeting the needs of those in a growing academic community. We have discussed the qualities of third place: They are neutral sites that act as a “leveler”; they are conversational, accessible, and accommodating. They have regulars, have a low profile, and tend to be playful and “homelike.” What does this mean to us collectively and individually as conference attendees?

All the qualities listed above make up a personal experience. This personal experience creates an attachment. This attachment is not to the place itself, put to the event. Milligan (1998) states, “Place attachment is significantly based on the meaningfulness of the interaction itself (which then imbues a site with meaning), not on the inherent meaningfulness of the place in which it occurs” (p. 28). In other words, people are attached not to brick and mortar but to the interaction that takes place within that physical structure. It is the personal experience of the conference that creates the environment necessary to create the third-place qualities of conferences.

Conclusion

In his book The Great Good Place (1999), Oldenburg demonstrates how and why third places are essential to community and public life, arguing that bars, coffee shops, general stores, and other third places are central to community growth. In exploring how these places work and the various roles they serve, we show, through the eight elements given by Oldenburg, how each element relates to the conference experience.

Through reflection and analysis, we present a case for the designation of third place related to the use of a place as opposed to the purpose of the structure. It is the community building interaction that is the key component of a third-place designation. Oldenburg’s work remains interesting and important. However, we need to consider the recent literature previously discussed that suggests that use of space instead of structure of place as a needed consideration for the designation of third place. To consider different aspects of third place theory and continue to expand Oldenburg’s concept, it is important that we continue asking for further study of third place criteria and reveal how that criteria can be applied to different situations, such as conferences. The idea of third places should be viewed as being spaces that are dynamic, or as Oldenburg and Brissett (1982, p. 270) are quoted, “[changing] with the shifting patterns of life style” rather than being static. Additionally, third place should not privilege structure-based designations but must consider use-based designations that consider relational interaction as the formation of a third-place qualifier. In other words, it is in the interaction within places and not the places themselves that set the criteria of a third place.