CV Listing: Same Presentation - Two Conferences

[half_cadence]

Per the title above, I've given the same presentation at two different professional/practitioner conferences. Same content and even title; literally the only difference was the conference info on the cover slide! In hindsight, I realize it would have been wise to change things up a bit between the two, especially to cater to the somewhat different audiences. But I didn't do that.

I'm in a position where these presentations are viewed as valuable "scholarship" as much as research articles for PTR and/or promotion (I'm a tenured assoc. prof; both instances have occurred in my current review "era"). Accordingly, I want to claim credit as appropriate, but also want to be up front about the duplicative nature. Currently, I have a complete entry for the original presentation, with just a brief note attached that I also presented the same thing at a later conference. This feels better at the moment that having two entirely separate entries—with glaringly identical titles no less—but I'm curious what others have done or would expect to see. TIA for any thoughts!

[Ruralguy]

I would just say to list it. It will be obvious to any T&P committee that its virtually identical. I doubt there's any consistent policy on such things, especially across disciplines and institutions, but most committees would likely only give "partial credit" to a repeat, if anything, especially if its not an invited talk.

[Hibush]

Those of us who do outreach often give essentially the same talk to many audiences in order to get the word out on the implication of our scholarship. The presentations all go on the CV. It can get long. If it is too much (your is not), you can list the title of the presentation once followed by the dates and venues where it was presented.

[dismalist]

This is easy. In published economics articles the first footnote, before Number 1, call it 0, says words to the effect: "Versions of this paper were presented at University X, Y, and Z. I thank the seminar participants for their comments. I remain responsible for all errors."

In a CV one can do similar with publications. If there is or should be or must be a section on presentations, list them all, preferably with a connection to a paper or some such to show the reader that there is some duplication.

It's normal. No worries.

[jerseyjay]

In terms of your CV, I don't think this is a problem, or even particularly rare.

At least in history, it is common to see something like

1. Presentation on theme X at conference
2. Presentation on theme X at another conference
3. Article on theme X in journal
4. Book incorporating theme X
5. Talks on book at various universities, etc.

The idea is that each presentation provides feedback and the research evolves through various stages until it becomes publishable. Usually there is some sort of time limit or limit in the number of presentations, i.e., you cannot keep giving the same presentation year after year without ever publishing it.

Of course, nobody knows if or how you've modified your research from one presentation to the next. But even if you give exactly the same presentation twice, hopefully the discussion is different and it provides you with useful feedback.

[Parasaurolophus]

For me, where conference presentations are not particularly important, I list them by conference. But others in my field sometimes list them by paper, and then indicate all the different places it was presented. In your case, I'd just do the latter.

[Kron3007]

For me, where conference presentations are not particularly important, I list them by conference. But others in my field sometimes list them by paper, and then indicate all the different places it was presented. In your case, I'd just do the latter.

I would as well.  I would just make sure to format it such that it is clearly multiple presentations.

[clean]

Hopefully, this is a non issue later - for post tenure review, next promotion or evaluation.   IF the minimum is 7 intellectual contributions and you have 7 without any of these, then let them count the others.  IF the minimum is 7 and you have 7 even double counting these, then there is likely to be a problem.   Same for annual evaluations.  Potential problems (and Im not trying to cause problems)  DId they pay the conference fees for both?  that could be a problem as some places will only reimburse fees for the first (or only one) time the paper is presented).

IF the paper were revised between presentations, then it is not the same paper, but the title should have been changed to reflect that as well.

Good luck!

[half_cadence]

Thanks for everyone's perspectives (and feel free to keep them coming). This is all pretty reassuring.

[bio-nonymous]

I did something similar early in my career. I presented a poster presentation at an important conference in my field, and was subsequently invited to give a talk on the same material at an international conference. I did not change the tile, which of course in hindsight I should have. Luckily I have my presentations listed separated by format so at least they aren't right next to each other on my CV. I think you could treat this however you want as long as there is not deception on your part--the promotion/tenure committee can inquire if they have questions. Clearly the presentations were to two different audiences which could be emphasized in a note, and, (my reasoning is representative of biomedical research, so grain of salt depending on your field), if the talks were invited and/or abstract peer-reviewed, it demonstrates that your scholarship has impact for both of the audiences indicating the wide-spread importance of your research and should thus be documented in your CV, no matter the title/repeat content issue. Most of my professional society conferences (I belong to three) now require research to be presented that has not been previously presented elsewhere, thus heading off this type of conflict.

[Kron3007]

Hopefully, this is a non issue later - for post tenure review, next promotion or evaluation.   IF the minimum is 7 intellectual contributions and you have 7 without any of these, then let them count the others.  IF the minimum is 7 and you have 7 even double counting these, then there is likely to be a problem.   Same for annual evaluations.  Potential problems (and Im not trying to cause problems)  DId they pay the conference fees for both?  that could be a problem as some places will only reimburse fees for the first (or only one) time the paper is presented).

IF the paper were revised between presentations, then it is not the same paper, but the title should have been changed to reflect that as well.

Good luck!

Do they actually count "intellectual contributions" where you are?

Seems draconian.

[jerseyjay]

For what it is worth, I am not at a research school, and I am in a field (history) in which presentations are important, but nowhere near as important as actual publications (i.e., articles or books).

Nobody would get tenure or be promoted at my school based on "intellectual contributions"--only peer-reviewed publications count. There is no post-tenure review, but we are generally expected to maintain some sort of scholarly activity (and until Covid, we were reimbursed $1000 for conference expenses a year).

Again, it may be my field, but I usually do not change the name of my conference presentations from one conference to the next, even if I add new material, revise them, etc. I have presented the same titled presentation at several conferences over several years, and then sometimes published an article with the same title. Nobody has ever questioned this (although I also include a copy of each presentation/paper itself in my dossier, so people can check/compare if they really want.)

I think the key is: I present on more than one topic and my presentations eventually get published. If I had six presentations with the same title and no publication, I do not think it would look good. On the other hand, six different titles and no publication would also look bad.

For talks (as opposed to presentations at conferences) I often list the name of the talk and indicate the schools (etc) where I've given it.

But again, at my decidedly non-research school, the coin of the realm really is peer reviewed articles and books.

[clean]

do we count 'intellectual contributions'?
Yes. 
For tenure, you need at least 7 intellectual contributions in the last five years.  Of those at least 3 must be publications (at least one of those with our name on them).
Current rules now require at least one to be 'high quality' as noted by the approved lists. 
For promotion to Professor, 10 intellectual contributions in the last 5 years are required, at least 3 are publications, and at least one must be 'high quality'.

An intellectual contribution can be a presentation at our faculty seminars (held monthly), a presentation at a regional or national conference, a proceedings for a conference presentation (but you can not double count the proceedings and the presentation), or a publication not on the 'approved list'. 
Those are the minimums.  It is best to be better than 'minimum'.