Conference Paper Commenting

[tbphilstudent]

I will be commenting for the first time on a paper at a conference. Any suggestions about preparation or format for commenting? Thanks!

[rising_star]

Make sure you get the paper in advance and read it thoroughly. Also, you'll want to be clear about how much time you have. In my experience the best discussants have a nice balance of praising what the author did well, offering critique based on other viewpoints/literature, and asking questions. 

P.S. Make sure you actually listen to the paper being delivered as sometimes there are differences between what people send in and what they present.

[maxhgns]

8 hours ago, rising_star said:

Make sure you get the paper in advance and read it thoroughly. Also, you'll want to be clear about how much time you have. In my experience the best discussants have a nice balance of praising what the author did well, offering critique based on other viewpoints/literature, and asking questions. 

P.S. Make sure you actually listen to the paper being delivered as sometimes there are differences between what people send in and what they present.

Chime. Comments at the conferences I attend are usually about 10 minutes. Nobody will be angry or upset if you take less time, though. Remember that your job is to help the audience engage with the paper. You're not a peer reviewer, you're a facilitator. So take some time to go over what you take to be the main points of interest, in case the audience missed them. And then offer a worry or two about the argument, or suggest a line of questioning that you think might be fruitfully discussed in the questions. Then stand back and let the author do their thing.

[Duns Eith]

@maxhgns is right.

Here's some recommendations to tailor according to the strengths or weaknesses of the paper: 1) If the paper is very complicated and not straightforward in structure, provide some overview of the topic and logic of argument. 2) If the paper is clear and not innovative, suggest some applications that are provocative or controversial but follow from the thesis. 3) If the author is critiquing a particular author, read those texts cited carefully and offer alternative interpretations where possible (be a sympathetic reader to provide pushback on that author's behalf, even if you disagree).

That said, I would suggest that as a commentator, you have been tasked with giving the most insightful push-back you can. You are likely the only one who has read it at the conference. That means that the most vital blow or the most serious concern is ideally something that you give. The audience might not be able to critique in the depth the author needs to improve. While Maxhgns is right that you're a facilitator, you have a privilege that the audience does not. You have had the opportunity to read and reflect on the content. So give him/her the greatest obstacle to overcome -- that is, you're looking to help the author make the best paper possible out of the presentation. Don't let them off the hook for correctable errors.