How many conference presentations in a year is normal?

[WhyPhD]

I come from a field in humanities/social sciences. I plan to attend 2-3 conferences this year, if more than that, I might not be able get travel grants.  

 

I was wondering what other PhD students think when it comes to deciding how many conferences to attend in a year? Of course, it depends on having the time to prepare the papers, the generosity of the travel fund in your program and probably the disciplinary culture.

 

My advisor once said, instead of too much conferencing, grad students should try to to work harder on their publications. But he said 2-3 conferences a year is not too much.

 

What do you guys think? ....by the way, have you ever went to a conference on your own money?   

[TakeruK]

I think 1-3 per year is a good amount. I would say that I'd like to go to one general annual conference that happens every year (e.g. the annual meeting for your discipline's national society) just to keep in touch with other people in the field and see what else is going on. Usually, these meetings are very wide in breadth so you won't find a lot of depth on your topic but you can meet a variety of people and also stay up to date on what else your field does. Then, I think it's a good idea to go to one or two more focussed meetings where you can really explore and learn about specific issues in your field. 

 

I think 3 is a good upper limit because it takes like 1-2 weeks to fully prepare for a meeting, then a week for the actual meeting, and probably some time afterwards to catch up on what you missed. So any more than 3 meetings and it's potentially 2 months a year where you are just doing meetings instead of advancing your research. But I think if there is a good opportunity, then no need to stick to the 3 meetings/year rule.

 

I have never paid for a conference out of pocket and I would probably never choose to do so (i.e. if I can't find funding for it and/or my supervisor does not think they should pay for it, then I won't go). I don't think it's ever worth the cost, unless you can get most of it covered through small grants and/or volunteering at the meeting for free registration (or if the meeting is close enough that you can just commute).

[Bleep_Bloop]

I'm also in the humanities and have always been advised similarly, i.e. better to invest the time it would take you to prepare for 2 or 3 conferences in producing an excellent article for a top journal. I tend to agree with this. I think one presentation in your subfield each year at the national conference of your discipline should be sufficient to slowly build a network and should suffice until you're dissertating and on the market, in which case you might want to go to more and be more aggressive about getting your name/scholarship out there. Honestly, I wouldn't really bother with regional conferences, except maybe if you've never presented before and want a low-pressure practice talk before you present at a more important conference. I also agree with TakerUK in that you should never, ever pay for a conference out of pocket unless it just so happens to be in your city or something.

[fuzzylogician]

It depends on lots of things, not least of which is how much funding you'll have to attend conferences. I try not to pay out of pocket unless there is a very good reason, though unlike some sciences it's not the case that you can always expect your advisor to pay so you need to decide whether it's worth it. In addition, how long it'll take you to prepare for the conference is another consideration. If you are able to present different aspects of the same project or you can discuss it at different points in its progression, it's different than presenting separate new projects at each conference. Also if it's ongoing and you have a good handle on it, or if it's brand new and requires a lot of prep work. Distance to the conference / travel time is another question, and also who you expect to meet while at the conference. One of the most important aspects of attending is the ability to network. I'd pass on conferences, even if prestigious, if they are in the middle of nowhere and you don't expect many people you would like to network with to attend. I'd rather spend my time and money on a conference that I know will be well-attended, or that's expected to have an audience that I know will particularly appreciate my work.

 

I think it also matters what stage of your career you're in. I don't think anything will happen if you don't attend any conferences in your first year. The time to be visible starts in your second and third years, when I think going to conferences and starting to get your name and work out there is important. I went to 4-5 conferences each year in those years, and that was on the high end. It would have probably been fine to just go to 3. You should continue to have a presence at major conferences in later years, as you approach going on the job market, but in your late third, fourth, and fifth year (assuming you graduate in five, adjust accordingly otherwise) I think it's more important to write projects up for submission to peer-reviewed journals and get actual publications out there. I've dialed back my conference presentations this year and last. Going on the job market, I had less time to travel and I didn't want to give a half-assed presentation as I suspect that would hurt more than help. I went to one major conference early in the year that was around job applications deadlines, which was great, and I went to my field's society conference. I haven't applied to anything in the Spring, and perhaps not for next Fall either. There are too many other things that need to happen. I am continuing to churn out journal papers, though! Also, I have papers that will be presented in conferences in the summer by co-authors, without me having to actually attend. It may be less common in the Humanities and some Social Sciences, but for me it's been a great way to keep a flow to my CV without all the travel. 

[jmu]

If you are presenting one a year seems to be normal pre-dissertation, just attending you can extend that to two or three. It tends to take a while to conduct and write research in the social sciences and humanities, longer than in the STEM fields, and people generally know that. It's better to go when you are prepared, have original research to show, and have the depth of knowledge required to answer tough questions. You don't want to jump in too early and be known as the unprepared person. That might be a hard label to shake.

 

I would also say to make conferences work for you. Conference lines on a CV don't mean much so make sure you are getting something more out of it. Whether that is networking or getting feedback on a paper you want to turn into an article or something else, don't go and present just to add that line to your CV. One thing I've heard in job search discussions are "conference travelers," people who go to a lot of conferences but don't actually publish their work as often as they could if they have that many papers. A lot of conferences and few publications gets applications placed lower on the lists. When only the top-3 or so candidates are getting interviews and there are 400 applicants you need to float to the top. The ones that do have a good publication record in top-tier journals.

[TakeruK]

If you are presenting one a year seems to be normal pre-dissertation, just attending you can extend that to two or three. It tends to take a while to conduct and write research in the social sciences and humanities, longer than in the STEM fields, and people generally know that. It's better to go when you are prepared, have original research to show, and have the depth of knowledge required to answer tough questions. You don't want to jump in too early and be known as the unprepared person. That might be a hard label to shake.

 

If it's the norm to attend conferences but not present in the social sciences and humanities, then this is a really good point too! In my field, it's basically only undergrads hoping to network that will attend a conference but not present. Usually when you don't have a fully completed project, you just present a small part of it as a poster and give people a sneak peek on what you're doing. Obviously, you have to take precautions to avoid being scooped, but in my discipline, a lot of the originality of the work comes from the fact that you are the only one with access to the data, so no one else can do it anyways (you tend to present something you've at least worked for 6 months - 1 year on, so you have a head start over anyone who is trying to scoop you). 

 

I think it's important to present something because the most interaction I get during a meeting is directly related to my presentation. For example, I've found that during the coffee break right after my talk, that's when I get the most amount of random people interested in my work coming up to talk to me. Similarly, during the multiple hour long poster sessions, I get to talk to many people. I feel that at a large meeting with ~1000 people, it's hard to really get people to notice you if they haven't seen your work and know that they are interested in you! Of course, my field is different, but I am just wondering if there are similarities in the humanities/social sciences.

 

I would also say to make conferences work for you. Conference lines on a CV don't mean much so make sure you are getting something more out of it. Whether that is networking or getting feedback on a paper you want to turn into an article or something else, don't go and present just to add that line to your CV. One thing I've heard in job search discussions are "conference travelers," people who go to a lot of conferences but don't actually publish their work as often as they could if they have that many papers. A lot of conferences and few publications gets applications placed lower on the lists. When only the top-3 or so candidates are getting interviews and there are 400 applicants you need to float to the top. The ones that do have a good publication record in top-tier journals.

I agree with this a lot! The real value of the conference comes from getting feedback/networking during the meeting, not adding a line to your CV. If you were an invited speaker (rare for grad students) then it might be pretty impressive though. I also don't list every single conference on my CV--I just write "Selected Presentations" and basically pick the most prestigious conference I present for each project/paper, and limit it to only the 3 most recent projects if I need to reduce space etc. I agree that having a ton of presentations and not many publications near the end stage of your PhD is a bad sign, and I would say to not list more presentations than publications.

[fuzzylogician]

 If it's the norm to attend conferences but not present in the social sciences and humanities, then this is a really good point too! In my field, it's basically only undergrads hoping to network that will attend a conference but not present. Usually when you don't have a fully completed project, you just present a small part of it as a poster and give people a sneak peek on what you're doing. Obviously, you have to take precautions to avoid being scooped, but in my discipline, a lot of the originality of the work comes from the fact that you are the only one with access to the data, so no one else can do it anyways (you tend to present something you've at least worked for 6 months - 1 year on, so you have a head start over anyone who is trying to scoop you). 

 

I think it's important to present something because the most interaction I get during a meeting is directly related to my presentation. For example, I've found that during the coffee break right after my talk, that's when I get the most amount of random people interested in my work coming up to talk to me. Similarly, during the multiple hour long poster sessions, I get to talk to many people. I feel that at a large meeting with ~1000 people, it's hard to really get people to notice you if they haven't seen your work and know that they are interested in you! Of course, my field is different, but I am just wondering if there are similarities in the humanities/social sciences.

 

I agree with this a lot! The real value of the conference comes from getting feedback/networking during the meeting, not adding a line to your CV. If you were an invited speaker (rare for grad students) then it might be pretty impressive though. I also don't list every single conference on my CV--I just write "Selected Presentations" and basically pick the most prestigious conference I present for each project/paper, and limit it to only the 3 most recent projects if I need to reduce space etc. I agree that having a ton of presentations and not many publications near the end stage of your PhD is a bad sign, and I would say to not list more presentations than publications.

 

These things really do vary by field. In my field, people don't just go to conferences where they are not presenting, unless the conference happens to be geographically near them. You can't get funded to just go, at least not on most sources of funding I know of. It's also not nearly as good as having presented in terms of networking and visibility possibilities. On the other hand, most conferences (with the exception of our society's annual conference) have between 50 and 200 attendees. So even if you are not presenting, you still have a pretty good chance of being able to talk to someone who you want to meet over a coffee break or the conference dinner. 

 

As for publication vs. presentation ratio, in my field you should be presenting regularly (though not necessarily very frequently) at the big conferences in the field and in your subfield, and ideally you should have a few conference proceedings papers by the time you graduate. It's important to turn those into manuscripts for submission to peer-reviewed journals, but students who go on the job market in my field often have very few (or no) journal publications, because the review process tends to be very slow--a fairly fast turnaround time would be 6 months per review cycle, and there is almost without exception at least one round of "revise and resubmit," so it takes over a year from submission to acceptance if things go smoothly, and there is enough of a backlog that it also takes a really long time to then have your article in press. For example, I'm still waiting for an article accepted in late 2012 to be published. I haven't even seen the proofs yet. So if you start submitting papers to journals late in your third year or in your fourth year (which is really fast, btw--I can't think of many people who were able to do that), you may still have nothing to show for it when you go on the job market in your fifth year. I would therefore absolutely not recommend for anyone in my field to equalize the number of presentations and publications--if you've been actively going to conferences, it's important for your CV to reflect that. It's also important to make clear that you've been turning these presentations/proceedings papers into articles, but not at the expense of listing your conferences. 

[jmu]

If we go and don't present we apply for "Professional Development" funding from the graduate school and the college. They usually only cover airfare and then we just couchsurf.

 

Also, publications in press, accepted, etc. are counted the same as publications in print in my field. Even showing that they are in review or in R&R is fine. The problem is having 15 conference presentations on different topics and only one or two articles even sent out for consideration, which happens more than it should.

 

These differences are important to note and do vary a lot by subfield. A good advisor should be table to tell you what is standard and what you need to do to get a job.

[cesarchavez90]

It depends on lots of things, not least of which is how much funding you'll have to attend conferences. I try not to pay out of pocket unless there is a very good reason, though unlike some sciences it's not the case that you can always expect your advisor to pay so you need to decide whether it's worth it. In addition, how long it'll take you to prepare for the conference is another consideration. If you are able to present different aspects of the same project or you can discuss it at different points in its progression, it's different than presenting separate new projects at each conference. Also if it's ongoing and you have a good handle on it, or if it's brand new and requires a lot of prep work. Distance to the conference / travel time is another question, and also who you expect to meet while at the conference. One of the most important aspects of attending is the ability to network. I'd pass on conferences, even if prestigious, if they are in the middle of nowhere and you don't expect many people you would like to network with to attend. I'd rather spend my time and money on a conference that I know will be well-attended, or that's expected to have an audience that I know will particularly appreciate my work.

 

I think it also matters what stage of your career you're in. I don't think anything will happen if you don't attend any conferences in your first year. The time to be visible starts in your second and third years, when I think going to conferences and starting to get your name and work out there is important. I went to 4-5 conferences each year in those years, and that was on the high end. It would have probably been fine to just go to 3. You should continue to have a presence at major conferences in later years, as you approach going on the job market, but in your late third, fourth, and fifth year (assuming you graduate in five, adjust accordingly otherwise) I think it's more important to write projects up for submission to peer-reviewed journals and get actual publications out there. I've dialed back my conference presentations this year and last. Going on the job market, I had less time to travel and I didn't want to give a half-assed presentation as I suspect that would hurt more than help. I went to one major conference early in the year that was around job applications deadlines, which was great, and I went to my field's society conference. I haven't applied to anything in the Spring, and perhaps not for next Fall either. There are too many other things that need to happen. I am continuing to churn out journal papers, though! Also, I have papers that will be presented in conferences in the summer by co-authors, without me having to actually attend. It may be less common in the Humanities and some Social Sciences, but for me it's been a great way to keep a flow to my CV without all the travel. 

like the mod put it conferencing depends

 

i am in social sciences and i try to go to one national, one regional, and one for my particular theme of interest - sexuality, race, and gender.

 

 

BUT I THINK CONFERENCING IS SO NECESSARY! THOSE ARE THE PLACES WHERE YOULL MEET VIPS!!!!!!!!!

[jlr1228]

I am going to two conferences this year, and am presenting at both. Although, even if I wasn't presenting I would still attend for the learning experiences. I typically pay for my own way, although I get $500 a year for presenting, but I can only use it once. So conference 2 is always out of pocket.

[mdiv2014]

Is having conferences under your belt in grad school help in phd application?

If so, how much?

If so, how many?

[TakeruK]

Presenting your work at least once is a good boost to your application, I think. Doing it more than once is still helpful, but you are definitely facing diminishing returns after one conference prior to grad school (unless you are applying with a Masters). 

 

However, in my field anyways, it's rarely worth it to pay a bunch of your own money to attend a conference. They don't help that much--you can get equivalent presentation experience on your CV by presenting at symposiums and meetings in your local area. For example, most schools have a campus-wide seminar/conference type event where their seniors present their undergraduate theses etc. It might be worth it if you have to pay a total cost  that is less than $200 for a conference that is close enough to take a bus or drive to, if you have absolutely no other experience, perhaps.