In one of our English Graduate Student Association's "brown bag" events (where we often hear from professors/other students and talk about the issues or concerns most relevant to English Graduate students), our Graduate Program Director Dr. James Knapp talked about some of the tips he'd discovered from years of successful conferencing. This year I'm the English Graduate Student Association President (which is another post, soon to come) so I help plan and attend all EGSA events. I have to admit that, going in, I thought it would be some of the same things you hear from time to time ("Socialize! make acquaintances! ask relevant questions! practice ahead of time!"), and since I've participated in a decent number of conferences at this point, I wasn't really expecting any earth shattering advice.
It might have been the simplicity with which he explained it, or the questions and comments from my peers, but the brown bag was super helpful! I'd like to share some of the advice, partially to put this down somewhere other than my (scattered, poorly organized, scribble-bonanza of a) planner, so that I'll be able to see it later. In the off chance young or developing scholars happen across this page, then hopefully it can benefit them as well! If you're not going to read most of this, at least skip to the bottom, because I think the last thing he said was brilliant.
So here we go. First, Knapp's advice for writing abstracts:
-quickly tie into the larger/more well-known arguments about the author or piece. Get to this quickly so that the reader knows 1) how your argument fits into the current scholarship and 2) so that the reader knows YOU know about the current scholarship. You don't want to be a loose cannon.
-after you've done so, point to your argument, directly and simply. This is why abstracts aren't always easy to write, and why you basically need to have your essay done before you write them. It's hard to summarize a complex and well thought out argument if you've not written it.
Knapp's advice for conference-going:
-try for at least 1 conference per year. Keep in mind funding and prominence of the conference.
-it's useful to go to regional conferences to know who in your area is working on similar research, but they're not going to be as useful (probably) as author or period-specific conferences.
-create a presence for yourself. Don't come out looking like Elton John at The Troubadour.
That's the wrong kind of presence for an academic conference (though this remains to be tested, I suppose). By being present, asking questions, going to related panels, and just being a good conference-attendee, you'll be creating a presence for yourself that should help you professionally.
-meet your field. Know who's who in your field. See who is working on what. It's nice to get to know people in person if you've read their work, and hearing them talk directly about their work might help trigger new ideas you didn't think of when just reading.
Knapp's advice for moderating:
-keep time. An obvious one, but one that I've learned the hard way. If you don't cut that first person off, you won't feel like you can cut the second person off. And if you don't do that, you're either going to discriminate against that third (or fourth!) person's ideas or prevent questions, which are often the most helpful part of the panel. Just. DO IT. (To quote Shia LeBouf)
-practice. I once had to introduce an Italian scholar and didn't realize how many Italian words he included in his bio. I was mortified trying to pronounce them into a mic for the first time. Yikes. lesson learned.
-Get bios ahead of time. Also, I'd add, put them together into a word document, or wherever it is that you're reading from. You don't want to have to open up three different emails and have to awkwardly stall while you're opening the bio. Again, Yikes.
-Be as brief as possible as a moderator. If your job is done well, it'll be scarcely noticeable. Nobody likes a moderator who makes the panel about themselves. NOBODY.
And finally, the sage advice that really hit me:
When you're thinking about the paper you're going to deliver at the conference, consider how much is for the ear, and how much is for the mind.
I really found this helpful. As a young scholar, I'd often revel when certain professors (but more often graduate students) read off a whole paper that seemed absolutely brilliant, but intensely esoteric. I felt like they must be the smartest and most esteemed person in their field. I was usually surprised when no one had questions; surely I was the only one whose head it flew over, right? I realized later on that it's actually more brilliant if you take those profoundly complex thoughts and turn them into something that people can very clearly follow and appreciate. These presentations get the best questions and they're the most stimulating.
So that's it! Happy January, and happy conferencing.
Comments