Please tell me about conference presentations.

[Yetanotherdegree]

Talk to me as if I know nothing at all about academic conferences

Why would I want to participate?

Is it worth the effort?

Who typically presents at these sorts of things? (Something like the Duke grad student conference, the ones geared to students rather than faculty -and yes, I know the answer is "students, of course!" But what types and levels etc etc)

What would I get out of the experience?

Have you done it? Would you?

I'm kind of tempted, and kind of not. Trying to decide whether I should put together a submission. Too soon/wait? Or go for it?

Thanks!

[AbrasaxEos]

Conferences, especially those such as graduate ones are great places to go and present your research and recent thinking on a given topic to others who can hopefully give you some feedback, both positive and critical.  This to me is the real purpose of a conference, along with meeting folks in your field and such.  This is why you should want to participate - not because it will give you some nice additions to a CV, or because someone told you that a paper you wrote was really good (again, unless you are looking to turn it into something bigger and more focused).  Papers of either of these sorts are usually boring, uninspired, and not worth the effort.

 

So, conferences are great places to present an initial idea that you may be hoping to turn into something bigger, like a article, or perhaps thesis or doctoral research.  If your idea for a paper falls outside of those criteria, why would you expend the effort and time to write something up and present it?  This is not to say that every paper I have presented has turned into some great article.  In fact a number of papers I simply scrapped or drastically altered due to some really helpful criticisms at a conference.  Likewise, I have also been able to enter into a number of great working relationships with other PhD students or scholars because they happened to have a really interesting idea that was presented well at a conference.

 

In terms of the who, it really depends.  I would say that it tends towards doctoral students, but I have also seen plenty of papers by those in their M* programs (although these do tend to be CV padders).

 

To reiterate, I think a conference is perfectly legitimate and worth the effort of putting together a proposal and writing a paper if you truly and honestly have something that bears presentation in this context.  It can be something you explored in a paper for a course, but you should rewrite it for a conference audience and oral delivery.  Simply reading a paper which was written to be read as opposed to heard is typically hard to follow, has lots of gaps that are filled by footnotes (which you are obviously not going to read aloud) and is also too long and in depth for a 15 minute presentation.  You can usually recognize these papers by the frequent answer that is given in response to questions about these gaps: "Oh, I have a much longer version of this in which I go into much greater detail on that..."  Start short and without a "longer version" that you have to refer to so that when you do get a difficult question that you hadn't really through about you can just say, "you know, that is a great point, and something I hadn't considered, what do you think its implications might be for my argument?"

 

I think one needs to be circumspect about conferences at the M* level.  I did none, my M* degree was a time during which I focused on gaining the necessary tools to begin PhD work, learning how to write well, and trying out a bunch of different approaches and methods to see which I jived the best with.  I have done more now that I am in my PhD program, but usually not more than 1 per year.  I would rather do 1 really well-written, well-thought-out presentation than a bunch of crappy ones.  Plus, profs in adcoms know what a graduate conference is, and may be impressed by your desire to work hard in getting a paper together, but unless you have a line that traces from your paper at the conference to an actual publication or other forum for those presented ideas, are probably not going to consider your contribution terribly ground-breaking.

[Yetanotherdegree]

Thanks, AbrasaxEos!

I do have an idea that I am interested in potentially pursuing that would work for the Duke conference I posted earlier today. I just found out about the conference though, and the idea/direction is relatively new for me. I would need to do a lot of work to get it to the stage where I could submit, especially since I'm not quite sure what that stage looks like, never having done this before.

I'm torn. I have an idea that I would genuinely like to pursue, the conference is easy/convenient for me since I'm at Duke, and I am interested in the conference itself, in engaging with and learning from fellow students, as well as in exploring academia and testing out whether or not this direction is a good fit for me. However, I'm just about to start a masters-level program and would need to submit a completed paper in a week, on a topic I have not fully developed or researched. I write fast but that might be asking a bit much...

I do have quite a bit of teaching/presenting experience and can write for oral delivery. I suspect the format (writing for presentation) means that I might be able to get something together by August 1, but on the other hand, I might just do better if I could plan for something that doesn't require submission next week...

Decisions, decisions...

[dr. t]

I don't necessarily see why you can't present at a conference for the purpose of boosting your CV. That's never prevented someone from writing a good or original paper which they otherwise wouldn't have. If I'm researching a subject, and I see a call for papers that I want to answer, I will see if I can't spin off a small part of my current project into something presentable. I'd be lying if I said I was doing this for any reason other than my CV, either directly through another item on it, or indirectly, by increasing familiarity with my name and my work. Of course, if you present a boring and derivative paper, it doesn't help you with the latter. Nor are boring and derivative papers the exclusive domain of MA students; you'll get plenty from full professors, in time.

 

Conferences, both Grad and not, are almost always worth the time to attend and present, particularly if they're close to home. I would submit- the worst thing they can say is no, and it's great practice and a great experience.

 

Asking MA students for the full paper in lieu of an abstract is not a practice I've previously seen.

[Body Politics]

 

 

Asking MA students for the full paper in lieu of an abstract is not a practice I've previously seen.

 

I'm pretty sure I've seen sections at SBL/AAR do this.

[AbrasaxEos]

SBL does ask you to submit an entire draft of your paper if you have not previously presented, I am not sure on AAR.  It also usually depends on the conference, most I find don't ask for the whole thing, especially for a grad conference, as the organizers usually know they won't get enough submissions to actually put it on if they do.

 

If it for the sole reason of boosting your CV why do it? It seems a lot like scholarly autoeroticism, a lot of fun perhaps, but not benefitting anyone other than yourself.  The other reasons mentioned are worthwhile - name recognition, meeting new people, and it being a part of existing research you are doing. 

[dr. t]

If it for the sole reason of boosting your CV why do it? 

 

Because it boosts your CV? I'm seriously confused as to why you wouldn't see this as a valid reason.

 

As one of my professors said at the start of a seminar course last semester: "We all know why you're in grad school, right? To get tenure!"

Edited July 25, 2013 by telkanuru

[Body Politics]

I think the point is: don't present crappy papers just to boost your CV. Write good ones, which have (in addition to other things) the added benefit of boosting your CV.

[dr. t]

I think the point is: don't present crappy papers just to boost your CV. Write good ones, which have (in addition to other things) the added benefit of boosting your CV.

I took that point, thank you, and if you can do it, then of course a good paper is more worthwhile. That doesn't mean a mediocre paper isn't.

 

"Just to boost your CV" seems to me a perfectly valid reason to do something, be it a conference or anything else.

[AbrasaxEos]

I still think that being a scholar (or an aspiring one) isn't about engaging in the solipsistic production of CV additions for the sake of putting them there or making it look better because you have quantitatively more presentations.  I think it is about making contributions to the greater understanding of your field.  Yes, an adcom or potential employer is likely not going to know that the piece of junk you churned out and gave a clever title during your M* or PhD so that you could pad a short presentations section was better left unwritten - but why play the game of needless scholarly production?  I am not advocating some kind of "pure way" in which every decision is wholly and solely for the betterment of your field, I think that most would recognize an element of the selfish egoist behind every presentation, and of course, having worthwhile additions to your CV is important - though I think reiterating Body Politics' comment puts it more succintly than I have here.    

[dr. t]

I still think that being a scholar (or an aspiring one) isn't about engaging in the solipsistic production of CV additions for the sake of putting them there or making it look better because you have quantitatively more presentations.  I think it is about making contributions to the greater understanding of your field.  

I don't think you're wrong, I just think you're talking about something totally different, because you can engage in the solipsistic production of CV additions AND make contributions to the greater understanding of your field. Just don't neglect the former because you're intent on the latter.