How to talk about a presentation done multiple times on CV?

[Bopie5 424]

If I've presented a presentation at multiple conferences, how do I talk about that on my CV?

For context, I first gave this presentation at my undergrad institution. It was then presented by my supervisor with my permission at a different conference in Summer 2018. I'm now going to present it again at yet another different conference this February. 

Should I make a line for the first time I gave the presentation, with bullets underneath describing the other times it was presented, or should I make a separate line/description for each time it was given? 

Thanks!

[PsyDGrad90 276]

I'm not sure if this is discipline specific, but in psych, you can only list it once. Listing the same exact presentation multiple times is like double dipping. I would pick the most prestigious conference and go with that one. Now, if you added something different each time, like added more data which altered results or you added another variable which affected the data, then that's a different story. 

[Bopie5 424]

@PsyDGrad90 Thank you so much! That's helpful to know. The presentation changed names, but otherwise has remained the same, so I'll keep it with the single listing and add the details on the other instances underneath.

[PsyDGrad90 276]

Check with the professor who is the co-author, but traditionally you don't include any other instances or that presentation. It is just listed as the 1 presentation at that 1 conference. 

[AP 362]

In my discipline it is not frown upon. People do it a lot, especially in different contexts Eg, undergrad, then grad. I have a paper that have presented several times and is now becoming an article so it appears four times on my CV. 

Also, do not put in your CV that a professor presented your work unless it's accepted in your discipline. 

[Sigaba 1,260]

On 1/27/2019 at 5:33 PM, AP said:

In my discipline it is not frown upon. People do it a lot, especially in different contexts Eg, undergrad, then grad. I have a paper that have presented several times and is now becoming an article so it appears four times on my CV. 

Also, do not put in your CV that a professor presented your work unless it's accepted in your discipline. 

Please clarify. Did the work remain the same as the OP's did?

[AP 362]

On 1/29/2019 at 12:17 AM, Sigaba said:

Please clarify. Did the work remain the same as the OP's did?

No, it evolved. But the titles were almost the same (minus some dates). I make this comment because I've seen several job talks on papers people have in their CVs and I asked around about this because I was a little embarrassed that my job talk looked the same as my previous presentations. 

[Sigaba 1,260]

31 minutes ago, AP said:

No, it evolved. But the titles were almost the same (minus some dates). 

 

MOO, the former is an important distinction that mitigates the latter. IME, historians can give the same presentation/talk over and again only if they're reached the pinnacle of the profession and are presenting findings to a general audience.

[Fantasmapocalypse 15]

I see several possibilities:

1.) You talk about the same material to new audiences and in the process of doing that you (re) contextualize or (re) frame the content to be specific to them. This is a new presentation on existing data that is still exploring that data in new and interesting ways. You may have a ton of data on three months of work on international development among minority communities in the Phillipines, but how you present that to an international development class, gender studies, asian studies or pacific islander studies class will all be radically different. Your lens matter as much as your focus. You get multiple CV lines.

2.) You are iterating on your existing work, in which case you absolutely record this process of presenting, refining, and recalibrating your work. You get multiple CV lines.

3.) You have several different kinds of CV lines, one of which matters more than the others, in which case if you have the same exact slides and/or name, use the one that matters the most (as others have said before). In general, the hierarchy of talks goes thusly: (1) invited talks, (2) conference presentations, (3) campus/department talks... per Karen Kelsky...

6. Invited Talks. These are talks to which you have been invited at OTHER campuses, not your own. Give title, institutional location, and date. Year only (not month or day) at left.  Month and day of talk go into entries.

7. Conference Activity/Participation. Subheadings: Panels Organized, Papers Presented, Discussant. These entries will include: Name of paper, name of conference, date. Year (Year only) on left as noted above. Month and date-range of conference in the entry itself (ie, March 22-25).  No extra words such as: “Paper title:”   Future conferences SHOULD be listed here, if you have had a paper or panel officially accepted.  The dates will be future dates, and as such they will be the first dates listed.

7a.  Campus or Departmental Talks.  These are talks that you were asked to give in your own department or on your own campus. These do not rise to the level of an “Invited Talk” but still may be featured under the heading of Campus Talks or Departmental Talks.  List as you would Invited Talks.  Under no circumstances may guest lectures in courses be listed here or anywhere on the CV. That is padding.

https://theprofessorisin.com/2016/08/19/dr-karens-rules-of-the-academic-cv/

 

Edited March 10 by Fantasmapocalypse