EPSS Belfast 2026 Post-Conference Survey – Summary (with narrative summaries)
Overview
This report summarizes responses to the EPSS Belfast 2026 Post-Conference Survey.
385 people responded to the survey.
Attendance and overall assessment
Overall, how satisfied were you with EPSS Belfast 2026?
How would you rate the overall value for money of the conference?
What do you see as the biggest hindrances to coming (whether or not you attended)?
The scientific programme
Thinking about the median panel you attended, how would you assess its quality?
Overall, how satisfied were you with the quality of the scientific programme?
How would you assess the topical diversity of the programme?
How would you assess the methodological diversity of the programme?
Were there particular topics or approaches that were overrepresented?
Respondents were near-unanimous that quantitative and experimental work dominated the programme. Survey and conjoint experiments and causal inference were named far more than anything else; substantively, political behaviour, the far right and populism, elections, climate, and AI/LLM text methods recurred.
Opinion divided sharply on whether this is a problem. A large share treated the skew as natural self-selection or a discipline-wide fashion rather than an EPSS issue, and several were emphatic that the quantitative identity is a strength worth protecting. A vocal minority worried it gives the conference a narrow feel and crowds out qualitative and theory-driven work. A sizeable group simply answered ‘no’ or ‘about right’.
“It’s clearly a conference for quant researchers, but this is fine to me.”
“Survey experiments, but that is a problem of the whole discipline and not your fault … like all methodological fashions will pass.”
“Quantitative work was heavily overrepresented (compared to qualitative or mixed-methods work).”
“I think there’s too much focus on causal inference … that said, this is a general criticism towards the field rather than towards the conference itself.”
Tendency: the overrepresentation of quantitative/experimental methods is a settled perception; the real disagreement is whether it should be corrected or embraced as the conference’s identity.
Were there particular topics or approaches that were underrepresented?
Some respondents noted that qualitative, interpretive and mixed-methods work was less visible than quantitative approaches. Others mentioned IR, IPE, conflict and security studies, formal and normative political theory, political economy, public administration/policy, and area coverage (Global South, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa); a few instead wanted more AI.
These comments were often framed as observations about the current shape of the programme rather than as a call for EPSS to change direction. Several stressed that the conference’s quantitative core is a strength, and that any broadening should be deliberate rather than open-ended.
“In my opinion, there was a well-balanced representation of different topics.”
“I would say they were all well represented.”
“Qualitative methods felt underrepresented … though this has continued to improve from the EPSA days.”
Tendency: a minority of respondents saw scope for broader topical and methodological representation, but many were satisfied with the balance or treated the pattern as a reflection of the field rather than a conference shortcoming.
EPSS included several society-wide panels on substantive and methodological topics. Should there be:
Do you have suggestions for EPSS wide roundtables for future years?
The single most requested theme was AI and its impact on the discipline — on research, data collection, teaching, publishing, and the future of the field. A second strong cluster concerned careers and the academic job market, especially the precarity facing early-career researchers. A third concerned structural and geographic inequality in the profession (Central and Eastern Europe, the Global South, inter-university disparities).
Respondents also praised and wanted to continue host-country/local-politics roundtables and topical ‘hot issue’ sessions, and several called for engaging non-academics — policymakers, NGOs, practitioners. A recurring meta-point: roundtables should generate genuine disagreement and not clash with paper panels; one warned they can get ‘clubby’.
“The future of teaching and academic publishing in the age of AI are the most pressing topics for the community to discuss.”
“More realistic assessment of the job market for PhDs … more realism would contribute to better expectation management.”
“Unequal regional representation of scholars at EPSS, e.g. from Central Eastern Europe.”
“A roundtable with NGO practitioners or policy actors about applying our research to policy would be great.”
Tendency: strong appetite for forward-looking, community-facing sessions (AI, careers, inequality, local politics) rather than more research showcases; keep them substantive and distinct from paper panels.
Did you attend the diversity roundtable “Tackling Barriers in the Discipline”
If you attended the diversity roundtable how did you rate it?
Do you have recommendations for future themes for the diversity round table?
Suggestions clustered around four themes: gender and women in academia (family and caring responsibilities, discrimination); disability and neurodiversity, voiced with particular urgency and concrete asks; geographic and institutional inequality (a North-Western-Europe/US bias and a narrow set of elite universities); and first-generation, class and economic barriers. Race/ethnicity and political diversity were also raised.
Several accessibility points doubled as diversity themes — microphones for all speakers (including for attendees with hearing disabilities), larger rooms, and time to open discussion to the audience. One respondent flagged that the roundtable’s rating scale was reversed relative to the rest of the survey. A small number were sceptical of the format itself.
“Neurodiversity in PolSci and how we could facilitate integration and support of neurodiverse colleagues, PhD students, employees.”
“The diversity roundtable could focus on the relatively small number of universities that generate the majority of EPSS participants. It’s a rather narrow club in practice.”
Tendency: broad support for the roundtable with a push to widen its scope beyond gender to disability/neurodiversity, geography and class — and to fix the practical logistics (room, microphones, discussion time).
Did you have concerns regarding panel composition? (Check all that apply)
EPSS size: Overall the EPSS is meeting is
Would you like to see a change in the set of sections at EPSS?
Opinion leaned toward satisfaction with the current sections — many answered ‘no’ and praised the balance — but a substantial number offered concrete additions. The most requested new sections were political theory (normative), legislatures/parliaments/institutions, and AI and politics / a digital information environment. Others proposed business & politics, political psychology, autocratic politics, and a teaching section.
A parallel set of comments was really about structure and scheduling rather than the section list: too many papers per panel (five or six), sections too broad, and same-section panels scheduled in parallel. A minority wanted fewer or smaller, more coherent sections.
“No. I think EPSS (and EPSA before it) has found a great balance. I hope it maintains it.”
“There was no clear option for people studying the institutions of democracy (parliaments, executives) vs judicial politics having their own section.”
“I would love to have more political theorists around … EPSS being the flagship European PolSci conference should cater to all parts of PolSci.”
“Avoid scheduling panels from the same section in parallel when other slots are available.”
Tendency: broadly happy with the sections, but with a clear minority wish list (theory, institutions/legislatures, AI) and persistent concern about panel size and parallel scheduling.
Workshops, organization and logistics
Did you attend any pre-conference workshops?
Which workshop(s) did you attend?
This was a factual listing rather than an evaluative question. Attendance concentrated on a handful of pre-conference workshops.
The most mentioned were the Qualitative Analysis with LLMs workshop (referred to variously as ‘Quallmer’/‘qallmer’) and the IPCC / Climate Politics meeting, followed by How Paramilitaries End: Lessons from Academia and Practice and workshops on the urban–rural divide / evidence-based policy and regional political trust.
“Qualitative Analysis with LLMs.”
“Assessing Climate Politics Research in the next IPCC Report.”
“How Paramilitaries End: Lessons from Academia and Practice.”
Tendency: workshop demand centred on applied methods (LLMs for qualitative work) and policy-facing/locally rooted topics (IPCC/climate, Northern Ireland, urban–rural).
Overall satisfaction with pre-conference workshops
Additional comments on pre-conference workshops
One issue dominated overwhelmingly: the workshops were announced far too late. Many respondents had already booked flights and accommodation by the time calls or programmes appeared, and could not rearrange travel to attend.
The second recurring concern was cost and accessibility for early-career researchers — both the personal expense of attending and the requirement to bring a budget to organise one. Where respondents commented on content, they were very positive and wanted the format repeated.
“These need to be advertised months earlier (before attendees from overseas make travel plans).”
“The need to bring an own budget to organize one felt a little off … maybe something EPSS could put part of the budget into to make it more accessible.”
“Do this again!”
Tendency: a strong, easily actionable message — keep the workshops (they are valued) but announce them much earlier, ideally with the call for abstracts, and lower the financial barrier to organising and attending.
Please rate communication from conference organizers.
Which, if any, issues did you experience with communication? (Check all that apply)
How would you rate the attention given to diverse needs in the EPSS community (for instance with respect to disabilities, inclusion, childcare)?
What additional steps should EPSS prioritize to ensure EPSS is an inclusive community?
Respondents read ‘inclusion’ broadly and gave detailed, practical answers. The loudest clusters were physical accessibility (step-free rooms, wheelchair access, microphones, and quiet/sensory spaces for neurodivergent attendees) and financial inclusion (travel grants, cheaper and more central locations, support for scholars from less-wealthy institutions and regions, and free coffee/food given the fees).
Childcare and breastfeeding facilities recurred repeatedly, as did dietary inclusion (clear allergen labelling, more and better-signposted vegan/vegetarian, halal/kosher, and alcohol-free options). Several raised gender balance (fewer all-male panels) and geographic diversity.
“As a wheelchair user, I would ask you to provide information on accessibility on the EPSS website … and to respond to those who flag their needs, even if it’s just ‘Noted, you’ll be fine.’”
“Why not organise child care for babies and small children? Then young mothers could also attend.”
“Quiet/rest rooms for neurodivergent folks … inclusive food in terms of allergies.”
Tendency: the strongest and most concrete demands are on accessibility and affordability, with childcare and dietary provision as clear secondary priorities. Many suggestions are low-cost and immediately actionable.
Please rate the ease of navigating the conference.
