So I went to Belgrade to my favorite conference, the CAT-ference. I consider this my home conference, if such a thing were possible – the place where I feel most comfortable. Honestly I love everything about it: the conference atmosphere is the best I’ve ever seen, and the themes are right up my alley. It’s always fresh, as it’s held in different sets of post-socialist cities each time, and composed of an interesting mix of influences as the local organizers blend with the requirements established by the founders.

In a way it’s kind of like a microcosm of the mega-events I study. You could argue that its organization is actually quite similar to the Olympics or the World Cup, only with vastly smaller sums of money of course. Anyway, the conference is filled with friends and, for me, the time spent there often blends the lines between work and play in a way that I find hugely productive. I always come back exhausted, happy, and full of new ideas and projects.

This time, I hosted a series of three sessions called Urban geopolitics, individual resistance, and the everyday: Evidence from post- socialism and beyond. In addition, I gave a separate paper in another session – We come in peace, you go in pieces: Mega-events and the creation of exclusion – which proved interesting for a number of reasons. It was a lot of work to organize so many sessions, but I’m glad the theme was popular. It was a diverse bunch of people, ranging from PhD students just starting on their projects, through postdocs looking for work, all the way to established professors working on some pretty large grants. A good mix!

The fact that I wasn’t presenting within that theme was an interesting twist, and in a way I really quite enjoyed the clarity of roles. It was probably more work at the outset, working in two different modes on two different topics, but the result for me was that when I was presenting, I didn’t have to worry about any of the pragmatic stuff of hosting, and when I was hosting, I only had to worry about hosting.

It also allowed me to focus on creating a supportive structure for the sessions. As I’ve progressed, it’s become increasingly clear to me how important it is to be be encouraging. This is true at any phase, I think, but especially so for the early career researchers who might still be finding their way. It might be their first or second presentation, after all, and in many ways they could be flying blind. I know I was, at least.

The trick, I think, is how not to be patronizing in this support and encouragement. A particular challenge is how to be critical of the parts that need criticism, while still maintaining an atmosphere of openness and support. It’s a tough balance!

In a way, then, the session organizer could be thought of as something of an orchestra conductor (if that’s not too pretentious of a comparison to make). You’re not really playing any instruments yourself, but you’re there to set the pace, the tone, and to keep everything moving in time.