ICON•S Brasília: By the Numbers

—Evan Rosevear, Lecturer in Public Law, University of Southampton & Deputy Secretary-General of ICON•S

The preliminary schedule for ICON•S Brasília (28-30 July 2025) is now available to members of the Society. This year’s parallel panel sessions feature 1,407 papers submitted by 1,183 individual scholars based at institutions in 58 countries organized into 339 panels. In addition to these sessions, the Conference includes two plenary panels, one on Digitalization, Democracy and Authoritarianism and the other on Inequality and Climate Change, receptions for Early Career Researchers, Women, LGBTQ+ members, and an Anti-Racist Scholars as well as opening and closing events. All members are invited and encouraged to register to attend at their earliest convenience.

In addition to setting the stage for an exciting event, the submission and collation of papers and panels provides us with a window into the Society’s membership and activities. A summary of this data is presented in Table 1. Of the scholars submitting papers this year, 45% identify as Early Career, 49% as female, 0.3% as non-binary, and 59% as being from the Global South.[1] The average scholar is involved in 1.5 panels as a chair, discussant, speaker, or some combination thereof. Graduate students are somewhat less prolific (1.3 panels) and full professors somewhat more (1.7 panels). Although the latter tend to present fewer papers, they are more likely to act as discussants and chairs.

Table 1. Characteristics of First/Submitting Authors

	Grad Student	Postdoc	Assistant	Associate	Full Professor	Practitioner	Total
Characteristics (Self-Identified)
Early Career	87%	73%	65%	15%	5%	34%	45%
Female	54%	50%	45%	52%	43%	54%	49%
Global South	68%	49%	65%	54%	44%	85%	59%
Participation Averages*
Total Panels	1.3	1.4	1.5	1.5	1.7	1.3	1.5
Papers	1.2	1.2	1.3	1.2	1.2	1.1	1.2
Discussant	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.2
Chair	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.4	0.6	0.1	0.3
Individuals	290	126	181	178	300	84	1,159
% of Total	25%	11%	16%	15%	26%	7%
* As an individual may serve more than one role on a panel (e.g., Chair & Discussant), the sum of the relevant subcategories will not necessarily equal the average Total Panels.

The proportions of individuals identifying with each of the three measured characteristics—Early Career (ECR), female, and Global South—show a general decline as academic rank increases. This, of course, is to be expected with respect to ECRs. Indeed, it is somewhat surprising that so many individuals above the rank of assistant professor (15% of associate and 5% of full professors) identified as ECRs, something that may suggest that a more precise definition is in order, at least as it relates to the Society’s commitment to mentorship and development of the next generation(s) of public law scholars.

With respect to gender, it is heartening to see that the Society’s commitment to inclusion and is effectively met in the aggregate, with 49% of submitting scholars identifying as female. However, it should be noted that female-identifying scholars are disproportionately junior, accounting for 54% of graduate students but only 43% of full professors who submitted papers. While not reaching statistical significance,[2] the difference may well be indicative of the relatively slow march of gender equality up the academic hierarchy. It is also noteworthy, that the lowest proportion of female-identifying full professors come from Western Europe, North America, and Eastern Europe—31%, 36%, and 36%, respectively. 

The academic rank of submitting scholars identifying as being from the Global South also skews junior, with 68% of graduate students and 65% of assistant professors as compared to 44% of full professors identifying in this way. It should, however, be noted that a comparatively low number (49%) of postdoctoral scholars identify as being from the Global South. While no reason for this is immediately apparent, one speculative explanation is that this is the result of a regional norm of transitioning straight from a doctoral degree to a permanent academic post.

With respect to geography, submissions were received from individuals based at institutions in 58 countries. This includes 389 scholars from Brazil, 111 from Italy, 88 from the USA, 46 from Germany, 42 each from Chile and Poland, and 41 from the UK. In regional terms, 1.4% of submitting scholars are based at institutions in Africa, 1.5% in Australia & New Zealand, 5% in Asia, 9% in Canada and the USA, 36% in Europe, and 47% in Latin America. While the number and geographic diversity of participants is pleasing, these data—particularly with respect to regional representation—do warrant additional consideration.

First, scholars from the Global South are studying, teaching, and researching at institutions in the Global North. For example, 34% of submitting scholars based at institutions in OECD countries identify as being from the Global South. This suggests that, although far from proportional, the views and priorities of Global South scholars are better represented than reference solely to institutional location would suggest.

Second, the comparatively high numbers of Latin America-based scholars, particularly Brazilians, highlights the importance of keeping the conference a truly “global” one in terms of location. In addition to the symbolic importance of doing so, regularly holding the conference outside of the standard confines of Western Europe and North America means that a large number of scholars—particularly junior scholars—who might not otherwise be able to do so as a result of cost, visa issues, and similar, are afforded the opportunity to attend ICON•S in person. This strategy, of course, is not without its costs to both individual members who attend (or who may not be able to attend due to increased transportation costs) and to the size of the conference overall. While this year’s event is by no means small (indeed, it is set to be the second largest in the Society’s history), it is notably smaller than last year’s event in Madrid.

One possible way to balance these competing considerations would be to adopt a “hybrid” approach, similar to the one employed at the Wellington, NZ conference in 2023. While the “in person” essence of the conference would continue, a limited number of participants on a given panel could be permitted to contribute virtually in order to reduce the costs (in both time and money) associated with physical attendance. In operationalizing this hybrid approach, however, it would be important to protect and promote the additional benefits associated with in person conference attendance, particularly the development of networks and collaborative relationships through face-to-face interactions. This would mean ensuring that ECRs have the opportunity to attend in person and that senior members of the Society, capable of providing guidance and mentorship, continue to physically attend when possible.  

Table 2. Characteristics of Panels by Type

	Submitted Panels	Assembled Panels	Book Talks / Roundtables	Interest Group Panels	Total
Size and Geographic Diversity
Panellists (#)	5.0	5.5	5.2	5.3	5.2
Countries (#)	2.7	3.7	3.1	4.2	3.1
Gender
Female Chair	51%	50%	54%	33%	51%
Female	52%	48%	44%	44%	50%
Global South
Global South Chair	26%	6%	11%	33%	17%
Global South	57%	61%	49%	69%	58%
Non-OECD Institution	43%	49%	34%	25%	44%
Experience
Early Career	35%	53%	22%	54%	40%
Graduate Student/Postdoc	29%	40%	16%	41%	31%
Full Professor	35%	18%	45%	18%	30%
Number of Panels	179	117	37	6	339
% of Total	53%	35%	11%	2%

As many readers will be aware, proposals for ICON•S can be submitted in the form of both individual papers and fully-formed panels. Of the 339 parallel panels scheduled for this year’s conference, 222 were submitted fully-formed (28 in Spanish) and 117 were assembled from 634 individual papers (42 in Spanish) into thematically linked panels. Fully-formed panels can be further divided into traditional, thematically linked panels involving the presentation of individual papers on the one hand, and book talks or roundtable discussions addressing a specific publication or prescient issue on the other. This year also saw the piloting of a delegated panel assembly mechanism whereby the Convenors of the Constitution-Making Interest Group aggregated and assembled individual papers into a series of panels.

The general characteristics of each type of panel are presented in Table 2. The average number of total participants (speakers, chairs, and discussants) is comparable across all types of panels, but the number of different countries represented is notably higher on panels assembled from individual papers.[3] At the panel level, gender parity is present in the aggregate. With the exception of the Interest Group panels (which account for a very small proportion of the total panels), the percentage of female chairs is 50% or better. The number of female participants in both submitted and assembled panels is also approximately 50%, but is slightly below parity (44%) for Book Talks and Roundtables.

One point of concern is that Global South scholars are substantially underrepresented as panel chairs (23% in contrast to the 59% of scholars identifying as being from the Global South). This is particularly true of panels assembled from individual papers. In that case, the markedly low number is likely a result of the method use to select the chair: once the individual panels had been assembled, chairing duties were allocated to the panellist with the highest academic rank who had indicated a willingness to act as chair.[4] In combination with the substantially lower proportion of individual papers submitted by associate or full professor Global South scholars, this resulted in a particularly low number of Global South chairs on assembled panels. The overarching cause(s) of the general trend, however, remain(s) unclear.

Unsurprisingly, scholars identifying as ECRs are overrepresented on panels assembled from individual papers and underrepresented on fully-formed panels. A similar pattern is present when ECR status is measured by academic rank (i.e., graduate students and postdocs are less likely to be a part of fully-formed panels). This fits with the expectation that junior scholars have less-developed professional networks. It is this expectation that underlies both the piloting of the Interest Group-assembled panels and the process by which individual papers are assembled into panels in general. With respect to the latter process, the Society’s commitments to gender parity and the development of early career scholars are factored into the process, with a strong preference for female representation and the inclusion of at least one senior scholar (associate or full professor) at the individual panel level. In this respect, it should be noted that all of the panels assembled from individual papers feature at least one female presenter and 91% feature two or more. Additionally, where the panel did not contain an Associate or Full Professor, a member of the Executive Committee or General Council was asked to chair the session.

The use of Interest Groups as a means of assembling panels from individual papers also shows promise and may well be rolled out more widely in the future. In addition to distributing the somewhat onerous task of assembling panels, it also creates an institutional channel by which emerging scholars can both establish connections with leading scholars in their areas of specialization and develop relationships with their early career peers. In doing so, however, the Society must be careful to avoid sub-field siloing and retain the welcoming and inclusive nature of the event as a whole. 

In combination, the acceptance of individual papers and the methods used to assemble them into panels support the inclusion of emerging scholars in the ICON•S community. Nevertheless, personal connections remain an essential component of the Society’s (and the field’s) continued vitality. Established scholars are strongly encouraged to continue to reach out where appropriate and remain receptive to the approaches and requests of emerging scholars when they can in order to ensure the continued vitality of public law scholarship.

Ultimately, these numbers—nearly 1,200 scholars, of which more than a third are graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, half female, and three-fifths from the Global South—suggest both that the Society is in good stead (albeit with work to do) and that Brasília 2025 promises to be a vibrant, engaging, and insightful event.

Suggested citation: Evan Rosevear, ICON•S Brasília: By the Numbers, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, May 6, 2025, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/icons-brasilia-by-the-numbers/

---

[1] These percentages do not include respondents who answered “prefer not say” or “prefer not to identify” which accounted for 4.9% of responses to the Early Career question, 1.1% to Gender, and 4.7% to Global South. Additionally, 2.1% of submitters did not indicate their professional status/academic rank and 1.0% did not indicate the country of their primary institution.

[2] The difference is statistically significant at the 90% level, but not the more commonly accepted 95%.  

[3] As described above, the “country” of a submission is determined by the home institution of the submitting author. The number of countries represented on Interest Group assembled panels is also quite high, but the lower number of observations makes drawing meaningful inferences problematic.

[4] In the case of a “tie,” the role was assigned to a female scholar where there was a gender split and on the basis of the best judgment of one of the panel assemblers if not.