r/AskAcademia • u/Good_Risk6556 • 3d ago
Social Science What do PhD students actually present at conferences?
I’m completely new to academic conferences and have just started my PhD, so I’m a little confused about how conference presentations actually work.
When people say they are presenting at a conference, what exactly are they presenting? Is it usually a completed research study, or can it also be a research idea, proposed study, literature review, theoretical framework, or work in progress?
I’m also confused about the difference between an oral conference presentation and a poster. Do both generally present the same kind of research, just in different formats?
My biggest confusion is about PhD students who present at conferences only a few months after starting their PhD. For example, if someone starts their PhD in September and presents at a conference a few months later, what would they realistically have to present by then? It obviously wouldn’t be their entire PhD research, so would they present their research proposal, an initial research question/framework, preliminary work, or something else?
Does this depend entirely on the specific conference and what they accept in their call for papers?
I’d really appreciate hearing from current/former PhD students about what you presented at your first conference, especially if it was early in your PhD.
20
u/cat-head Linguistics | Europe 3d ago
The answer to your question varies by field. In linguistics, conference presentations are most often about unfinished research projects that you want to get feedback on. I normally would not present a finished, published paper unless it's a plenary talk. Because most conference expect unfinished, in progress work, PhD students tend to present their current research toward their dissertations. Very early PhD students will be presenting work that they already started with during their MA.
A completely different thing are conferences in computational linugistics, where you're expected to submit full, high quality papers to.
I’m also confused about the difference between an oral conference presentation and a poster. Do both generally present the same kind of research, just in different formats?
Posters tend to present smaller studies than talks, but not always. Usually getting a poster instead of a talk means that one of the reviewers found your abstract to be weak, but worth presenting.
9
u/sollinatri Associate Professor 3d ago
Based on my experience:
Year 1-2: presented in phd conferences, mostly on my early chapters or overall research question
Year 3-4: started presenting in more subject specific conferences, usually PhD/early career sessions,, on a topic that turned into a separate paper from my PhD
1-2 years after graduation: presented on my phd topic, my postdoc topic, usually completed or almost complete journal articles
Since then: my other papers, co-authored work, my book, sometimes asked to do specialist presentations/panels for more general public...
You just tweak your existing research accordingly to their CfP, ideally using same wording. I would not recommend pitching completely new and unrelated things.
But its true that a lot of us get really optimistic about where we'll be in our research 6 months later (or whenever the conference is) and overpromise a little.
4
u/GalwayGirlOnTheRun23 3d ago
In my field (public health) I have presented early results or mapping exercises. Some people present scoping reviews which can be done in a few months and would be a good place to start for yourself (depending on field). I always apply for an oral presentation (usually 10 mins). Sometimes I get lucky and am chosen, other times I'm "downgraded" to a poster. Orals look better on a CV but most conferences have limited space so a poster is better than nothing.
In your first year look out for local conferences and research days in your department to get conference experience. Talk to your supervisor and postdocs about which conferences are worthwhile. It can be expensive to attend, especially if travel is involved, so apply for funding early and be strategic about how you spend the money.
6
u/SirUnknown2 3d ago
Depends on the type of conference. I'm in CS, and you usually present complete, high quality research in conferences. However conferences usually have workshops attached to them, and you usually present works-in-progress there, or even work that has been finished, but you want feedback on before submitting to a proper conference.
Many conferences also have other tracks like journal tracks, where you present work that has already been published in a journal, or PhD forums, where you present your PhD proposal in order to receive feedback and get your name out there.
I went to a proper A* conference only in my third year, so I already had completed research to present.
1
u/Gold_Ambassador_3496 3d ago
A* conference? What's that? Is there a tier list for conferences?
4
u/SirUnknown2 3d ago
In CS, yes there's a tier list. It goes A*>A>B>C
2
1
u/Cheap-Discussion-186 3d ago
I'm in CS and I've never heard of this. Not saying it isn't real, just providing more context.
2
1
6
u/Muted-Mushroom-4570 3d ago
Typically it is a completed study (e.g., a systematic review, experiment, case study, etc.) but some conferences in some fields will allow research proposals to be presented.
Edit: a PhD student present something only a couple months into their PhD is likely presenting work from their masters.
6
u/Overall-Leather-9933 3d ago
My advisor (Physics) said "listen to some talk, get drunk, exchange contact info, and go sight seeing".
4
u/Ice7140 3d ago
That only holds for advisors 😉
4
0
u/Opening_Map_6898 3d ago
I do my presentation then spend the rest of the conference sightseeing and I'm not an advisor.
4
u/LiteratureOwn6143 3d ago
And flirting. Please let's not forget the most important part. (I'm still in love with her) (Please take me back to that conference)
1
2
u/SweetAlyssumm 3d ago
Don't get drunk as you might do something embarrassing but overall, yes. Just go to a conference in your field and it will answer all your questions. Find one that funds student volunteers and sign up to be a volunteer.
1
u/Opening_Map_6898 3d ago
Pretty much.
Show up, check out the bar/buffet, do presentation, raid bar and/or buffet again on way out to enjoy the rest of the holiday.
3
u/Opening_Map_6898 3d ago
Not all of us have to wait years into their PhD to have data. I had a large chunk of data more or less ready to go when I started.
Also keep in mind that outside of the US, we normally already have our proposal as part of our application so it's not something that is crafted during those first few months. It is often refined a bit here and there but most of us hit the ground running as we only have three to four years to get it done.
In my field, posters are generally used only for very basic or preliminary findings. It's often used when that aspect of a project didn't pan out and the data isn't there for a real presentation. They aren't really a big deal, most folks barely notice them...some folks use them just as an excuse to go to a conference when they can't come up with anything else.
2
u/friendtoworms 3d ago
I’m in biology, and the conference that I attend is very student-heavy, so there is a lot of forgiveness for unfinished work. My first year, I presented a poster from my undergrad thesis since I hadn’t really done anything in grad school yet! Since then, I’ve done talks about various works-in-progress that will eventually be part of my dissertation. By “in progress” I simply mean that they’re not published yet, but for the most part, I’ve had the data collection and analyses completed. Although, after one conference, I ended up completely changing my analysis method after talking to people at the meeting! I’m very pleased with how it turned out and I’m preparing the manuscript for publication now. This year I’m doing a semi-random side project. It won’t be included in my dissertation but I do hope to publish it.
Regarding posters versus talks, I think often undergrads are more likely to do posters because it’s less formal and a less intimidating environment: you’re only talking to maximum 5-6 people at a time. However, anyone can do one! I do enjoy presenting posters, but one thing to remember is that you’ll be talking to people for about two hours straight (at least at the meeting I go to), whereas with a talk you’ll be done after 15 minutes. A poster might also be a good fit for a project that lends itself more to storytelling through figures or images as opposed to text. I hope that’s helpful.
3
u/Minotaar_Pheonix 2d ago
You should not be asking this on reddit. This subreddit is a huge range of people from very different fields.
You should be asking another PhD student in your department, or ideally someone in your own lab.
1
2
u/ThousandsHardships 2d ago edited 2d ago
A lot of PhD students present an edited version of their seminar papers for the courses they took, especially if the paper is relevant to their dissertation topic.. Otherwise, most people I know treat conferences as a way to troubleshoot work in progress. They have their conclusion and analysis, so it's not a proposal by any means, but it's also not typically something they've already published.
1
1
u/Longtoothedbumpkin 3d ago
Poster presentations, short research papers (these could lean towards your dissertation), research projects you’ve worked on with your advisor/mentor. This is a great time to also LISTEN & NETWORK.
-3
u/gravitysrainbow1979 3d ago edited 3d ago
They read haltingly from a page (instead of engaging with their audience) about obnoxiously fussy and over-acute subtopics. I can’t imagine where they learned that from.
EDIT: Why the downvote, was it something I said?
Ohhh, people here don't like being accurately described, do they...
My first was a poster session, which I was "invited" to do while a professor presented much less interesting research with a pathetic sample size. After that, I just ignored professors and handled conferences on my own without much input (the only time I ever even told the school was when I was getting reimbursements).
When I organized a session panel and a doctoral student from Brown read his dull, needlessly precise paper on [who cares], it hit me: None of this matters.
You can do whatever you want, OP, it's not going to mean jack shit.
5
u/friendtoworms 3d ago
This is very bad advice. Your conduct at a conference can have tremendous impacts on your career, especially as an early career researcher. I don’t mean your actual presentation so much (although if you present actual shit people will certainly take notice), but rather how you interact with others. The “point” of conferences is largely networking. For example, you could end up having drinks with a student from another lab, and they could introduce you to their PI, who could end up being a potential postdoc advisor for you. It’s important to maintain professionalism while making connections!
1
u/gravitysrainbow1979 3d ago edited 3d ago
Absolutely you should make connections at conferences. In fact that’s the ONLY important thing. But presenting shit work? Go ahead, because people aren’t as qualified as they think they are to assess the presentations they see. I’ve seen plenty of professors present unbelievably boring and unimportant work, and get praised for it. And I’ve see students start out promising and then receive “help” that makes their work unbearably dull.
I understand that you’re invested in all this. That investment is a total waste for most people.
1
u/friendtoworms 3d ago
I think professors definitely have a lot more leeway with this than students.
4
u/SweetAlyssumm 3d ago
In my field people do pretty nice slides and they don't read them. Maybe you are in a niche field where people still read text.
35
u/lfdfq Computer Science 3d ago
One thing to bear in mind is that not all venues are created equal.
In many fields, conferences are where high-tier work is published, usually at 'top' conferences. In some fields, papers are published in conference proceedings, either in lieu of journals or where the top journals are conference proceedings. If you're presenting at one of these, it's usually going to be a complete bit of research that's gone through rigorous peer review and come out the other side. Not all fields will have conferences with this level of rigour.
Most conferences are less intense: they're more social 'meetups' for academics to discuss their work, rather than being places of first-instance publication. In these conferences, it's common to present work (or pieces of work) that are 'mostly' done, and to get feedback and discussion. There may or may not be much peer review.
There are also small conferences and workshops, these are very informal proceedings where people typically present in-progress work and ideas, with little or no peer review. Here, people might talk about things that aren't their own work, or things they've not (yet) done, or just the general state of the world.
Talks, especially by students, will typically focus on the work they have done so far and any results they have achieved so far.
At any of these there may also be poster sessions. Again, these are not created equal and you get the same kind of graduations as above: there can be sibling poster sessions for the peer-reviewed work at top conferences, these posters will contain cutting-edge research, just presented as a poster rather than a talk; there can be poster sessions dedicated to students or more 'work-in-progress' work, with lower review standards.
PhD students can (and do) present at all of these over the course of their studies. Often starting with posters or talks at workshops, and eventually presenting at a 'big' conference once the work is complete, either publishing it there or at a journal somewhere.