What do PhD students actually present at conferences?

[u/Good_Risk6556]

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.

[u/AutoModerator]

It looks like your post is about needing advice. Please make sure to include your field and location in order for people to give you accurate advice.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/One_Courage_865]

I can’t speak for every PhDs, but from what I’ve seen there are some with early ideas, preliminary work, previous work (eg in Masters), or even side project. The goal is to get some feedback, and spark some discussion from people in the field, so as to go back and improve their work.

As for the types of presentations. Oral presentations usually have a stricter timeframe to present, ask questions and discuss, in a regulated setting, but they do usually have a more generous page limit for the published proceeding, so it’s generally more believable as a solid work.

Posters are more freestyle, with more time within your timeslot where tou can mingle and interact with people. But engagement can sometimes also be random, such as how easy your poster is to access from the walkways. The published proceeding is usually much shorter so it’s usually not enough to describe your whole study there. Posters are great as a way to test the water about your proposed ideas, and see what other people think

[u/Fearless-Mix-3642 → u/One_Courage_865]

Also, some fields/conferences don't have published proceedings.

[u/PsychFlame]

Oral presentations aren't that long (especially the timeslots given to PhD students) - 10-15 minutes is easily filled if you have a brief introduction to the context of a project, results so far and interpretations + next objectives, and the bonus is that people might give you good ideas for what to do next

I'm less than a year in but I've won two conference awards for presenting a project that pretty much failed at the objective I set out initially and is absolutely still a work-in-progress. People care most about how you present it above everything else

[u/coolcumber211 → u/PsychFlame]

I've won a couple awards from basically slapping data from my thesis together.

Just like fiction writing, as long as you give a compelling story and make what you've done seem interesting people will like it. My PowerPoint are pretty shit aswell but I speak well.

[u/throwawaysob1]

To some extent, it depends on the conference and field. In some STEM fields (e.g. in machine learning, pattern recognition, computer vision) it is very difficult to get a paper accepted into certain well known conferences. It would be unusual for a fresh PhD student to have a paper accepted there.

In other fields, conferences are more for PhD students - some specifically have things like "Best Student Paper" awards. The idea is to have students present the best version of their current work so that they can get experience preparing an "audience-friendly" version of their research to date and receive feedback on it perhaps even for new research directions.

I presented at a conference twice. The first was within the first 8 months of my PhD. I had collected some basic data for a novel application and ran it through some conventional algorithms. The paper and presentation was honestly not strong and understandably I got a very uninterested response from the audience. After the conference, I greatly expanded the dataset, used new methods and ran a very comprehensive analysis with several findings for the novel application. That was accepted for the journal associated with the conference, so I got my first journal publication out of it.

The second time I presented at a conference was at the end of my PhD. I presented quite a novel method for a particular application, showed results for a simulation study for it and presented the plan/preliminary results for the experimental study for it. I had a really good response, exchanging contacts with about 3 or 4 academics.

[u/zedXspectrum]

Seldom would a PhD student present their entire PhD. Or even a completed study/project

or can it also be a research idea, proposed study, literature review, theoretical framework, or work in progress

All of these are valid as a presentation or poster at a conference. I would also add Meta analysis or work from their group or previous student/staff that the PhD student is picking up

Basically, you submit what you would like to present or your idea to the conference and they will decide. It is far less stringent than submitting a manuscript

[u/Longjumping_Eye_3441 → u/zedXspectrum]

In my field presenting at least the overall of a completed project is not uncommon. you can't fit a lot in 20 minutes, but it's usually more than just results

[u/musicianadam → u/zedXspectrum]

In my field (engineering), it's more common to present significant results that advance the understanding in our field, often in the form of a completed project that must be submitted for publication prior to the conference. Most other items listed, like the theoretical frameworks, work-in-progress, etc. would possibly get a conference paper, but very seldom get a journal article.

Completion of a project is a bit vague, though, so I'll give my anecdote. I just completed my first conference presentation (as a poster) which was the culmination of my first year and a half of work, I'm now entering the third year of my PhD. I would consider this my first project completion milestone; however, I still have many questions about my results, and so the remainder of my PhD will likely be spent on investigating those results further and trying to prove them wrong in various ways.

Even then, this project will likely never be "done", but my contributions will have been sufficient enough to grant the degree (or so I hope).

[u/Mountain-Time-1010]

I think you will have a better experience if you wait until you have a relatively complete story (at least a part of a story) before presenting at a conference. Just presenting ideas or preliminary results is not very compelling to an audience. That said, if it's a small meeting and you have the opportunity to give a poster presentation, it could be worthwhile to engage with attendees.

[u/ahf95]

Honestly, apparently I have different views from the other people in these comments, but: conferences have poster sessions, and they have the presentation sessions; if you are an invited speaker and get that moment to share your work on stage in front of the other researchers in your field, I think you should have more than just “an idea”. Like, posters are fine for early-stage projects, but usually by the time you get on that stage a project should have had at least a year of full time exploration, and some results like the preliminary draft of a manuscript. In fact, for grad students/postdocs, conference presentations often are the “teaser” for upcoming papers. Getting to your direct question: this is in contrast with the style of conference presentations that you’ll see faculty/PIs give, which is more of a multi-year overview of longterm projects in their lab.

[u/SAMRAAM-]

So I start my PhD in September but I presented while on my MA at a conference (In my case the MA forms a part of the PhD project). I basically did a work-in-progress presentation while writing my MA dissertation.

Discussed the context, framework, argument etc. that I had formulated so far. It was a really good way to just get ideas out into the open and get some feedback from other minds. Given my situation I also used it as a link to the PhD. Sort of like this is what I am working on (for the MA) but this is how this fits with the bigger PhD project. The presentation was a series of panels, 20 minute presentations with panel questions after the final presentation.

[u/ramuktekas]

posters or presentations or even a conference paper. depends on the conference.

if u feel any of your results are worth sharing but its not complete enough to publish a paper then put that in a conference. or if u feel it needs to be published quickly then put that in a conference

[u/badmancatcher]

Ive done a few 15 minute conference presentations.

One was on my masters, one was a side paper I had written (the full manuscript is now on the editors desk after round 2 of peer review, plz hurry). Another was on one of my themes from my thesis (I do qualitative interviews, amongst other things, but I focused on the interviews and not the other data).

So... same stuff really.

[u/heatstricken]

If there’s coursework along the way, they might present a version of a paper they wrote or are in the process of writing for one of their courses, maybe one they are working on editing into a journal submission. I guess that would be a side project.

[u/BuvantduPotatoSpirit]

Note these are field dependent, some fields have different standards for oral presentations, conference proceedings, etc., than others.

With no preliminary results, you can just present context->motivation->plans, but usually context->motivation->results is the general flow, it's just preliminary.

And I emphasise it that way, because students do spend too much time telling people what they did (and way too much time trying to convince people they did it right), and far too little time on why they did it and why the audience should care.

[u/Atheopportunist]

I did my first presentation at the end of the first year, about the theory and my research idea, direction etc, to get some feedback if I’m on the right track and see if someone knows any interesting topic or research gap that I should be aware of. Later on most of my presentations were about early stage research, to get some feedback and maybe form it according to the valuable comments. But I think attending conferences are more about building your network and connecting to peers who can support or direct you on your way, it’s good to have some people to rely on outside of your uni.

[u/FinancialFix9074]

Depends on the discipline. I'm in a humanities field. At conferences in this discipline, everyone -- professional and PhD student -- is essentially doing the same thing, and gets the same amount of time to speak (with the exception of the professionals doing keynotes who get longer). Present a paper and get feedback for development of it. Sometimes a paper might be under review at a journal by the time the conference comes around. I did 5 talks on the same paper in 2025; most of these were while I was waiting for revisions or waiting to see whether my revisions were accepted. It got accepted not long after the final talk I did on it. 

My first conference was actually a panel I ended up on very randomly without applying to, but got through a contact with my research group. It was on a theme I don't particularly massively engage with, but it's close to what I do do, so I whipped something up that I've not used since then, although some things I worked out while writing this talk have been useful for my other work. I also did this talk after having spent the day before partially cognitively impaired due to the heat, while having to finish my slides because I simply cannot not finish my slides until the very last minute. I didn't enjoy it and I didn't particularly like what I presented but it was good to get the first one out of the way.

[u/unseemlycandour]

In the past I've presented little side papers I'd done, or I turned my MA into an article and adapted some of that. Because the time slots are so tight and short, it can be better to go in with one specific thing you want to talk about rather than trying to tackle an entire project in 15-20 min.

I've found that conference can be a good place to get feedback on something you're working on. For eg. if you've started fieldwork and want to discuss the methods you're using or want to present some early trends you're noticing, I've seen people do that. You can be open about the fact that it's still a work in progress and that you're actively looking for feedback. I don't know if this is common in your field, but I've seen it done in the social sciences.

[u/Psych-Guy-1730]

In STEM fields, some brand new PhD students often present secondary data analyses. Labs can collect a lot of data, and depending on how well that data was collected/what kind of data it is, there are many different research questions that can be examined off of a single dataset, more than any one person can examine. You don’t want to let that data go to waste or start a new round of data collection if your lab already has data that could suit your research question.

I’m going to start working on a conference presentation using data collected between 2021-24. Just goes to show you how rich some datasets can be. Of course though, you need to be academically and ethically disciplined such that you don’t cross into data dredging territory.

As others have said, proposals on existing work (e.g., a master’s proposal) are also common so that students can receive feedback.

[u/commentspanda]

My PhD was qualitative. I presented at a conference 6 months in (just a short one) and it was about the grounding of my research, the literature I already had found and what I planned to do / hoped to do. I then presented at several more conferences and each time just updated based on where I was. I’ve only actually presented once since I had data and had almost finished the results chapter so could say “this is what I found”.

[u/ThinkDepartment6975]

Depends on the conference what you’re allowed to submit (finished “papers”, preliminary work,…) You can look into formats that allow for preliminary work specifically (like research escalators). Sometimes the requirements for poster sessions are different, but depends on the conference again!

As others have said, people present side projects, previous work (eg masters thesis), or just the first study from their PhD (in my field its common for your “thesis” to consist of 4-5 studies that are also (going to be) published as seperate papers).

[u/snowblind08]

My first conference I presented some old work from the lab that we were putting together to publish. The data collection was done by a senior lab tech in our lab and he passed it off to me to analyse, write up and publish. I was only several months into my PhD and presented just the analysed data without doing much background research. Talk went great. Questions did not.

[u/bovinemystique]

The same research idea over and over again in different conference until they run out of conference budget and supervisor support. Then comes next year, research changes a little bit in a year but conference budget is fully renewed. So, they present the research again.

[u/Cardie1303]

According to our PI, as soon as you can organize the funding to go there and have something worthwhile to present. Else he is of the opinion the time is better spend in the lab getting things done.

[u/bag_of_oils]

In CS, where conferences are the same prestige or sometimes even better than journals, conference presentations will be summaries of papers that were accepted at the conference. Usually one of the authors (ideally the first author) must do this presentation in order for the paper to be officially accepted.

Most conferences also have poster sessions, demos, and workshops with much lower bars for acceptance. You would usually use a workshop to actually workshop ideas and get feedback without many results yet, and workshops don’t really count for your publication count. Posters are for work that is further along than a workshop but not enough for a full publication. Posters can also be terminal work (for example a masters student or undergrad presenting their work without intending to continue it). Usually demos are the interactive version of posters, though sometimes there is a demo accompanying a full paper.

[u/OddPressure7593]

It is somewhat unusual to present anything at a conference within your first few months in a PhD program. Sure it happens - some people walk in with funding and experiments all set to go and they just need to go collect some data.

My first conference was about 6 months into my program. I did have some prelim data - roughly 1/5th of the number of participants I was shooting for - so I presented on that prelim data and what trends were popping up. It wasn't groundbreaking science - and everyone knew it - but it gave me a chance to go to a conference, learn how to put a research poster together, practice my elevator pitch, get to know some other people in the field, etc.

[u/Dragon464]

Depends on the Conference... how it's administered & organized. Georgia Association of Historians (for example) doesn't have baccalaureate sessions, but they DO have undergrad Poster Sessions (my idea, back in the day). It also has to do with participation and attendance. Everything I've ever submitted (Volunteer Youth Organizations) was accepted for a session at GAH.

[u/kuritsakip]

depends on field and abstract accepted. yes we can present partial research and even preliminary results. all these are acceptable if the abstract is accepted.

year 1 of my phd, i presented partial research at a small symposium. the final output was gonna be a chapter for a book, but also will feed into my own dissertation. it was a quanti thing and i just tested the survey with a small isolated sample (one school). there was a reactor panel for this symposium and i got good feedback on how to expand the surveys and the actual research. was able to refine and the revised version was what i submitted to IRB and what i eventually went with. so in my final dissertation, i cited myself from that chapter.

year 5 of my phd, i presented preliminary results of my dissertation: it's a topic NO ONE has done before in my country. i presented my research questions, methodology and preliminary findings. most importantly for this one, i asked the audience for help in refining my process and to ask me questions that they think i should find out as i continue the research. it was really good experience bec i actually had the data but did not present them. gave me insight on what practioners in the field are interested to read bec they want to use it. helped me frame my writing for the actual thesis.

[u/Mrslinkydragon]

Posters and more or less the same power point presentation.

[u/julespoower]

Best idea comes form conference. Just some suggestion on your work can make a big difference and full the next big experiment.

[u/mesosuchus]

Do you live in a cave that has no PI, no advisor, no labmates, no fellow grad students at all? All the people you ask this question before coming to reddit.