next »

[bibliologos]

This is what I'm talking about.

In a presentation, your job is not to "argue for something that is quite nuanced and will take real data to show". Your job is to give the audience enough of a taste of what you're working on that the people out there who are looking at related sorts of things will think it's cool enough that they're willing to look up your work and cite you, or maybe collaborate with you (if that's done in your field).

We will assume that you are familiar with the previous arguments.  Tell us what you're saying that's new and different.  If you have lots of data, use a handout.  Personally, I prefer handouts with the texts on them, as you can then dispense with reading the portions of the biblical text that you're dealing with.  Seriously, in most papers that can take up a lot of time, and you can simply say, "This detail is seen in Jer. 2:3, as you see in the handout," and carry on if you're using a handout.

It sounds like you don't want to hear this, given all the pushback you're giving--but it's true, if for no other reason than that nobody's going to be able to follow something so intensely nuanced in an oral presentation. You need to get over the brilliance of your paper and present what you need to, not what you want to.

I see this too. PM me if you want to talk turkey.  I know the conference well, chair a program unit steering committee, and if you give me your name I can look up your session and see how it's organized.  Then I can give you specific advice.  I may also know your respondent.

[wonderingphd]

The thing that will really make you look unprofessional is trying to squeeze a 4500-word argument into a slot meant for a 2000-word paper.  This is the kind of thing grad students sometimes try on their first venture out at a conference.  It is not well received.  They don't try it again. 

Another mark of professionalism is taking the advice of those who know the ropes.   I wonder if resisting the advice of senior members of the profession has been a pattern for you?  Do you often believe you know better than people with more experience?   That might be holding you back.  In this instance, everyone on this thread but you is warning you against this plan.  I am reminded of the dictum, "Most people fail because they conclude that fundamentals simply do not apply in their case."

No, at this moment I've hacked my paper down below 3000 words, based on advice here.  On the other hand, at SBL i have heard senior scholars present papers, and in the midst of doing so, say something like, "I'm skipping the section on .... due to time constraints."  I've heard respondents comment on parts of a paper that were not presented as well.  That is also a model I see senior people do. So I take that into consideration too.  I'm not sure I can remove another 1000 words but I'm a lot closer to suggested word count here than I was yesterday.

[hegemony]

People saying they're jumping over sections because of time constraints suggests that a) they do not feel that reading extra-fast will take care of the problem, b) they do not feel that, when push comes to shove, every detail of their argument needs to be in the paper.  It does suggest that they didn't plan ahead, and it often results in a choppy paper.  And responders responding to sections of the paper that weren't read?  That's just confusing, isn't it?  I don't think either of these things can be held as proof that preparing a paper that's too long will fly.  It just means that people who don't pare it down ahead of time run into problems conspicuous to the audience later in the game.

We all like to feel that our arguments are so superlative that cutting will weaken them terribly.  But as the writers' saying goes, "Murder your darlings."

[wanna_writemore]

The thing that will really make you look unprofessional is trying to squeeze a 4500-word argument into a slot meant for a 2000-word paper.  This is the kind of thing grad students sometimes try on their first venture out at a conference.  It is not well received.  They don't try it again. 

No one is going to compare your presentation with the proposal you sent in.  At this point, you need to cut entire sections.  Reading/speaking quickly will just give the appearance that you didn't prepare well or that you think you deserve more time.  You don't want people to have that impression. 

And, since you mentioned you're an adjunct and I assume you'd like a full-time or tt job, I will relate this story:  my advisor was interviewing job candidates at a conference, and one of them was delivering a paper.  The two interviewing professors knew this and made time to go to the panel, and the candidate proved herself unprofessional.  She might have had a good chance at the job, but she ruined it by giving a flippant answer to a question from the audience.  Appearing to be unprepared for your panel by failing to conform to time limits (whether you're actually cut off or not) or by rushing through can also destroy your chance at a job.  You never know who's in the audience.  I certainly have bad impressions of a few scholars in my field from their presentations or their behavior as audience members.  People remember.

[fiona]

As a search committee member, I would go to the presentations by candidates. If they were rushed, poorly-organized, and/or didn't fit the time constraints, I'd assume that the presenters also couldn't organize a class within a time limit or follow professional instructions.

I'd cross 'em off the list of possible hires.

Something "nuanced" generally doesn't work as an oral paper. Be aware that you are trying to communicate to a group when you're presenting--a group of people who are rushed, have other things to do, and really aren't focused to the exclusion of everything else. They're not hanging on your pearls.

The OP seems to be resisting, resisting, resisting simple and wise counsel. It's annoying to read and suggests stubbornness rather than a professional urge to make reciprocal communication.

The Fiona

[wonderingphd]

Fiona,

  I'm the OP.  I'm not resisting. I have cut enough that I am sure I won't go over the time I have available and I'm sure I won't have to speed-read.  I appreciate the input you just gave.  I have "trimmed" my paper from 6200 words down to 2837 words. I practiced this shortened version, reading at a normal pace, and stopping to circle a few typos that spell-checking didn't catch.  All told, it took me twenty-four minutes.  I have thirty.  I'm glad for the advice to cut, as now I am confident that I don't have to speed-read to present.  Am I still resisting because it's not 2500 or 2000?  I don't think so.  I've been aiming for the 2500 word count mentioned by another poster.  I'm not quite there but close. 

  I don't know about anyone else but I sometimes read the abstracts book that my conference produces to decide if I want to go hear a paper that has an interesting title so I can be sure it's what I think it is.   You're saying that someone who does that is irrelevant and I should feel free to cut out whole sections?  I'm really worried that cutting a whole section will make the paper short all right, but also rather unconvincing.  Again, I have cut a lot. I'm sure I don't have to speed-read and I won't go over my time limit.  I have paid attention to what has been said here. Do I really need to cut another 800 words? 

[temporaryname]

I'm the OP.  I'm not resisting. I have cut enough that I am sure I won't go over the time I have available and I'm sure I won't have to speed-read.  I appreciate the input you just gave.  I have "trimmed" my paper from 6200 words down to 2837 words. I practiced this shortened version, reading at a normal pace, and stopping to circle a few typos that spell-checking didn't catch.  All told, it took me twenty-four minutes.  I have thirty.  I'm glad for the advice to cut, as now I am confident that I don't have to speed-read to present.  Am I still resisting because it's not 2500 or 2000?  I don't think so.  I've been aiming for the 2500 word count mentioned by another poster.  I'm not quite there but close.

Make sure you actually have the time you think you do--your thirty minutes may actually be twenty minutes of presentation plus ten minutes of discussion. This is, of course, both discipline- and conference-specific, but you should double-check it before you finalize anything.

I don't know about anyone else but I sometimes read the abstracts book that my conference produces to decide if I want to go hear a paper that has an interesting title so I can be sure it's what I think it is.   You're saying that someone who does that is irrelevant and I should feel free to cut out whole sections?  I'm really worried that cutting a whole section will make the paper short all right, but also rather unconvincing.  Again, I have cut a lot. I'm sure I don't have to speed-read and I won't go over my time limit.  I have paid attention to what has been said here. Do I really need to cut another 800 words?

The abstract is not a contract, as I think someone else said upthread.

If you don't cover something from the abstract in your paper, then they'll know you had to cut something to cover something else better. It's life. They won't hate you for it. Worst/best case, you'll get asked about it in discussion and can be brilliant then. Best best case, they'll come up afterward and ask you about it, and you'll get a career-long professional relationship out of it.

Most likely, though, nobody'll read your abstract so it won't matter. Nothing personal, that's just life.

[wonderingphd]

  As a final follow-up, I went ahead and removed an entire section from my paper.  It's not as strong but significantly shorter now, under 2500 words.  Thanks for all the advice.

[bestcbstore]

I concur with fiona.

[compdoc]

I don't think anyone responded to your question about the difference between a paper and a presentation. For me, papers are written in a more formal tone with formal language, have a significantly more articulated theoretical base, and have a lot of references. Presentations are written with a more conversational style, assume a theoretical base or simply say "based on x" and move on, and have references but not every single one available on the topic.

Yes, you did make a contract with your proposal, but it was more a contract to say something interesting on your topic in the time allotted than to say everything you alluded to in your proposal. People who are interested in a small section of your proposal that had to be left out will ask about it during the Q&A.

It is very hard to cut and you have done an excellent job with trimming from 6200 to 2500. I agree with other posters that this will make it significantly easier for your audience to follow, which is the point of the presentation after all.

I hope all goes well.

[john_proctor]

I'm in biblical studies, and I assume this is for SBL in November.  I frequently (ok, annually) chair sessions there.  Please, for the love of your favorite deity, cut it down to 2500 words max.  If you've got 30 minutes, then what you really have is 20-25, as usually we will reserve at least 5 minutes for questions (unless a separate question period has been built in, unusual, but it does happen).  If I'm chairing your session, I will pass you a note at 20 minutes telling you "5 min", another note at 23 minutes telling you "2 min", and at 25 minutes I will cut you off.  Very nicely, of course, but I will still do it.  If you ignore me, I will be unhappy.  Since I get to make decisions about what papers are included on the program, you don't want to make me unhappy.

So now you can think of me as the scary chair (and I may well be yours), and that should put the fear of whatever into you.

x2.

I've actually spent the past two weekends (and plan to spend the bulk of this week) cutting my own to time.

Make your time. 

Cut it down.

There's no room for negotiation here.  There's not a single "but I ..." statement that would make me change my mind.

[sugaree]

I just returned from a conference where presenters had 15 minutes (sharp!) and let me tell you - SO ANNOYING those that couldn't be bothered to edit. They rambled, made some points that were not significant, skipped pages and pages and pages, simply saying "well, I don't have the time" and usually ended with "I'll think I'll stop here because I'm out of time" rather than presenting a definitive conclusion.

Because of poor planning on too many people's part, the time for discussion was severely limited and it was frustrating for everyone. Bleck!

[all_my_frenemies]

I would echo the point that you need to focus on the fact that this is a presentation, not a paper. Shorter, less dense sentences. Clearly structured paragraphs with easy to recognize points and transitions. You can get into nitty gritty stuff during the Q&A or afterwards, but during your twenty-five minutes of glory, the point is to be clear and concise.