Conference presentations in early stages of ph.d. studies

[adel9216]

Hello,

I am a first-year Ph.D. student. As such, I haven't done any data collection on my doctoral thesis topic yet, but I do have expertise on my topic by my master's and undergraduate degrees and work experience. I have came across a conference that is very much geared towards my doctoral thesis topic. I have an idea for a conference paper that popped in my head while reading the call for abstracts. I don't know if it's too early at this stage to submit my idea. It would be more of analytic presentation rather than a typical data collection and presentation of results...or maybe I could do a case study?

PS: I plan on talking about this to my supervisor when he comes back from vacation.

[ergative]

Go for it! This may be field-dependent, but most conference papers/abstracts in my field are reviewed and refereed. If the reviewers think your project isn't ready to present, they'll reject the paper, so no harm done. And if they accept it, you've got a line on your CV and a chance to practice conference presentations and public speaking. And in either case, conference submissions tend to force you to think carefully about structure and clarity in a restricted wordcount, which is a vital skills, so it's good to start learning that early.

[spork]

How much will the conference cost you, out of pocket? In my field (dwindling number of tenure-track jobs, oversupply of people with PhDs), a conference presentation won't help one get an academic job.

[polly_mer]

This may be field-dependent, but most conference papers/abstracts in my field are reviewed and refereed.

In contrast, the bar for most of the conferences I attend is "did you submit something resembling English using the approved system before the deadline?" 

I suggest attending the conference, if you have the funds to go, but don't present before you have something worth presenting.  Instead, go as a networking opportunity to talk with people in your field working in your area.  That's valuable to help your own research go forward and might be valuable if you stay in this particular area after graduation.

[Kron3007]

This may be field-dependent, but most conference papers/abstracts in my field are reviewed and refereed.

In contrast, the bar for most of the conferences I attend is "did you submit something resembling English using the approved system before the deadline?" 

I suggest attending the conference, if you have the funds to go, but don't present before you have something worth presenting.  Instead, go as a networking opportunity to talk with people in your field working in your area.  That's valuable to help your own research go forward and might be valuable if you stay in this particular area after graduation.

Except that many conferences and schools have travel scholarships that requure that you are presenting, so it is also possible that the OP may be able to have the costs covered only if they present.  Bit of a chicken and egg.

I suspect that your advisor will be able to give you the best advice as I suspect this is quite field specific. In my area, I would advise against it.

[Puget]

I'm not sure what you mean by "analytic presentation" (theory? lit review? methods?) but at least in my field theory or methods based presentations would only be given by experts in the field-- all others must bring data. The bar for posters is generally very low, but does include having actual results to present. Depending on your field, it is possible a case study would count as data (your advisor can advise you).

It's great you're eager to get involved and already having ideas, but it sounds like its a bit too early yet-- keep this conference in mind for next year.

[pigou]

I'd highly recommend attending conferences related to your research. Presenting is generally a good idea, too, but you want to have something that's fledged out. Research always takes much longer than you think and it's somewhat embarrassing to give a talk when you don't have real findings. You also want to have a chance to practice your talk before giving it in front of a real audience and unless the conference is far off, you won't have time to do the research and put it into a compelling narrative. If this is an annual conference, perhaps aim to present the following year?

I'll deviate from the usual recommendation and also suggest attending the conference even if you have to pay for it out of pocket. Depending on the location, you're looking at a total cost of $500 to $1,000. But what this "buys" you isn't just the networking, learning about how others frame their research, and opportunities to get feedback on your own ideas. It also means you'll have "read" 30 papers over a weekend. Unless you basically don't value your time at all (which would be a huge mistake), this is a bargain. Talking with other people also clarifies things in your own mind, especially if they have a somewhat different background (so this is something you probably won't get from your adviser). That can save you from wasting time on things that will later turn out not to have been as clear as you thought initially.

[namazu]

Is this the same conference / presentation you asked about in this earlier thread?

[adel9216]

Is this the same conference / presentation you asked about in this earlier thread?

Hello, no it isn't the same conference. Sorry for posting a similar topic though.

[adel9216]

How much will the conference cost you, out of pocket? In my field (dwindling number of tenure-track jobs, oversupply of people with PhDs), a conference presentation won't help one get an academic job.

My university and supervisor would fund it.

[adel9216]

I'm not sure what you mean by "analytic presentation" (theory? lit review? methods?) but at least in my field theory or methods based presentations would only be given by experts in the field-- all others must bring data. The bar for posters is generally very low, but does include having actual results to present. Depending on your field, it is possible a case study would count as data (your advisor can advise you).

It's great you're eager to get involved and already having ideas, but it sounds like its a bit too early yet-- keep this conference in mind for next year.

I did not know about this convention. Good to know that as a grad student, I must present data.

[adel9216]

I'd highly recommend attending conferences related to your research. Presenting is generally a good idea, too, but you want to have something that's fledged out. Research always takes much longer than you think and it's somewhat embarrassing to give a talk when you don't have real findings. You also want to have a chance to practice your talk before giving it in front of a real audience and unless the conference is far off, you won't have time to do the research and put it into a compelling narrative. If this is an annual conference, perhaps aim to present the following year?

I'll deviate from the usual recommendation and also suggest attending the conference even if you have to pay for it out of pocket. Depending on the location, you're looking at a total cost of $500 to $1,000. But what this "buys" you isn't just the networking, learning about how others frame their research, and opportunities to get feedback on your own ideas. It also means you'll have "read" 30 papers over a weekend. Unless you basically don't value your time at all (which would be a huge mistake), this is a bargain. Talking with other people also clarifies things in your own mind, especially if they have a somewhat different background (so this is something you probably won't get from your adviser). That can save you from wasting time on things that will later turn out not to have been as clear as you thought initially.

Yes, attending is also something I have done before and that I should keep on doing. Networking is key indeed.

[ergative]

I'm not sure what you mean by "analytic presentation" (theory? lit review? methods?) but at least in my field theory or methods based presentations would only be given by experts in the field-- all others must bring data. The bar for posters is generally very low, but does include having actual results to present. Depending on your field, it is possible a case study would count as data (your advisor can advise you).

It's great you're eager to get involved and already having ideas, but it sounds like its a bit too early yet-- keep this conference in mind for next year.

I did not know about this convention. Good to know that as a grad student, I must present data.

Be careful about how much you take our advice to heart without knowing our fields and whether they're similar to yours. One field's standard convention is another's anathema. For example, we had a discussion here (or perhaps back on the chronicle incarnation of these fora) about reading conference papers versus presenting them extemporaneously. In English literature, it's pretty standard to stand up and read a paper to people. In social sciences that's incredibly weird, the mark of a complete newb who's incapable of presenting their work without writing everything down ahead of time, and everyone gets annoyed and fidgety at being read to.

Talk to your advisor about conventions! They'll know the specifics as they apply to you better than we will.

[Puget]

I'm not sure what you mean by "analytic presentation" (theory? lit review? methods?) but at least in my field theory or methods based presentations would only be given by experts in the field-- all others must bring data. The bar for posters is generally very low, but does include having actual results to present. Depending on your field, it is possible a case study would count as data (your advisor can advise you).

It's great you're eager to get involved and already having ideas, but it sounds like its a bit too early yet-- keep this conference in mind for next year.

I did not know about this convention. Good to know that as a grad student, I must present data.

Be careful about how much you take our advice to heart without knowing our fields and whether they're similar to yours. One field's standard convention is another's anathema. For example, we had a discussion here (or perhaps back on the chronicle incarnation of these fora) about reading conference papers versus presenting them extemporaneously. In English literature, it's pretty standard to stand up and read a paper to people. In social sciences that's incredibly weird, the mark of a complete newb who's incapable of presenting their work without writing everything down ahead of time, and everyone gets annoyed and fidgety at being read to.

Talk to your advisor about conventions! They'll know the specifics as they apply to you better than we will.

Yes, I probably should have bolded the "at least in my field" part. I *think* the OP may be in a field adjacent to mine (though not mine), but that doesn't diminish the general advice to consult the advisor on these specific questions.

[euro_trash]

Attending a conference is a great idea for a PhD student. If you can get funding, go to the best. If you can't, go to something in your region.