The Classic

The classic justification for attending conferences is getting feedback on your work. The conference format is intended to create incentives for scholars to receive useful information on our papers. Our papers are organized by topical panels to ensure that we will have an audience that cares about the subject matter and is in a position to provide comments. Indeed, the ideal panel presentation includes well-informed and prepared discussants, attentive audiences, and coherent panels. Of course, the reality rarely resembles this ideal type. Instead, discussants are often ill-informed on the topic, panel participants rarely provide feedback, and audiences are generally quite small. As others have argued (Gupta and Waismel-Manor 2006; Zorn 2000), the likelihood of receiving relevant, useful comments from the traditional conference format is quite low. Zorn goes so far as to argue that, “… unequivocally and without qualification, the most important thing that happens at professional meetings is not what goes on in the panels” (2000, 1). Particularly in an age where scholars can email papers to colleagues in their subfields, conferences are no longer the only (or even the best) way to receive critical feedback.

If conferences were the only means to gain feedback, then perhaps the “present once” rule would still be advisable. Given the ease of exchanging papers over email and through the web, however, there is no longer a need to follow the traditional path of presenting a paper at a conference and then sending it out for publication.

Another reason often offered up for attending conferences it to receive research credit. Some tenure documents, particularly in smaller schools, used to include a statement that a candidate can receive a small amount of research credit for presenting a paper at a conference. Some have suggested that graduate students may also receive some credit for presenting papers at conferences (Ryan and Breuning 1994). This is, perhaps, the best rationale for the present once rule. For the most part, however, these days are over. Few universities give research credit for presenting at academic conferences. Even graduate students are increasingly expected to have publications, rather than a litany of unpublished conference papers, on their CVs (Van Cott 2005). The publication—not the conference—is the standard for research productivity. Because of this shift in research standards, most professors do not rely on presenting at conferences to receive research credit. Graduate students should certainly attend and present at conferences, but the reward for conference presentation diminishes as the number of conferences rises. Conference presentations for graduate students are now a sign that the graduate student has been properly socialized, rather than a sign of research productivity.

Many scholars may attend conferences not to present their own research, but rather to learn what others in their fields/subfields are doing. To this end, we might hope that conference goers attend multiple panels and read interesting papers posted online. Clearly presenting the same paper at multiple conferences does not influence the ability of an individual scholar to attend multiple panels. In fact, if one of the goals of conferences is to be exposed to multiple emerging research agendas, then presenting the same paper at multiple conferences may actually help, rather than impede this goal, as it will encourage scholars to attend more conferences and be exposed to different audiences. This rationale may be particularly compelling for graduate students and younger scholars who are still seeking to establish their academic identities. In addition, if there is some duplication in papers from conference to conference, it may also encourage some scholars to attend panels outside of their own subfields. This may be quite valuable for senior scholars who frequently attend similar panels, but who could benefit from exposure to broader ideas.

The Realistic

Despite our high-minded protests to the contrary, most political scientists attend conferences primarily to network and meet people who share similar interests. As Gupta and Waismel-Manor suggest, meeting colleagues in similar fields can lead to future co-authorship opportunities, increasingly thick professional networks, and even to presentation and publication invitations. Chris Zorn (2000) seconds this notion by noting that the best conference he ever attended was one where he did not present a single paper. Presenting identical or similar papers at multiple conferences does not affect this goal. Of course the rational response to this argument is for people to attend conferences without presenting a paper. Unfortunately, this is not a financially viable option for most scholars today who rely on tight university budgets and must be on the program to receive conference money.

Conferences can provide an opportunity to talk to potential book publishers, particularly at the APSA and the MPSA meetings. Indeed, there is no other place where a scholar can meet with Cambridge University Press at 1:00 and the University of Michigan Press at 2:00. Again—this is not affected by the similarity of the papers the scholar presents. For graduate students and assistant professors who may not be able to receive travel money without presenting—the notion of presenting similar papers at multiple conferences may, from this perspective, increase their long-term research productivity.

Benefits of Presenting Similar Papers at Multiple Conferences

As the previous section makes clear, there are few (if any) instances where presenting the same paper at multiple conferences conflicts with any of the primary goals of conference attendance and participation. While presenting the same paper at multiple conferences may not provide any negative consequences (and may provide some positive consequences) for the individual, it probably has few concretely positive consequences for the discipline. A reasonable compromise, therefore, might be for scholars who wish to engage in this practice to present similar—but not identical—papers at multiple conferences. This can lead to two positive outcomes—both for the author and for the discipline.

First, presenting several iterations of the same paper at multiple conferences can help provide a more focused research agenda. If scholar X will benefit from attending multiple conferences (for the reasons outlined above), then s/he has two choices. First, s/he could write fresh papers for each conference. This inevitably leads to sloppier, less theoretically grounded, and less methodologically careful work—the type of conference papers that many of us complain about behind closed doors. These half-finished papers will likely either languish on the author's desk for years, or will be submitted to a journal before they are ready—further clogging up the already overloaded journal review process. The second option is for scholar X to present multiple iterations of the same paper. This will provide for a tighter product, which will be better for the discussant, better for the author, better for the audience, and, ultimately, better for the accumulation of published knowledge. These papers do not need to be wholly original contributions, but should include some noticeable changes from the previous version.

Presenting the same (or similar) papers at multiple conferences also enables the author to reach multiple audiences. The number of subfield conferences has undoubtedly grown in recent years. For instance, in my own subfield the set of scholars who attend the APSA Annual Meeting is different than those who attend the Conference on State Politics and Policy. Both conferences are valuable for people in my subfield, but for very different reasons. Presenting a paper in March at the State Politics conference, receiving feedback, then presenting a more polished version at the APSA allows someone in my subfield to reach multiple audiences and to produce better work. My subfield is not alone—political methodologists who present a similar paper at the Political Methodology summer meetings and the Midwest will reach different audiences, and will be able to focus on a single paper or project more easily than one who only presents at one conference, or who creates new papers for each conference.

Conclusion

I have argued that the increasingly popular practice of presenting the same paper at multiple conferences is not a bad thing. In fact, it does not conflict with any of the major goals of conferences. Given the growing number of specialty conferences, and the lengthy period between proposal deadline and conference presentation, I believe this practice will only increase over the next few years. While my view of presenting identical papers is not negative, I am even more positive about the practice of presenting future versions of existing work at multiple conferences. This practice may even produce more focused, polished scholarship than working on a fresh paper for each conference.

As this forum has demonstrated, however, not everyone in the discipline is supportive of this trend. Consequently, the onus should be on the individual scholar to make clear on his/her CV whether each conference presentation is a new paper, a revised version of an old paper, or a completely recycled paper. Adding more descriptive language to each scholar's CV will allow hiring committees, tenure committees, and outside review teams to more adequately assess scholarly activity and productivity. For the few political scientists who work in departments that grant research credit for conference presentations, this is particularly important.

One solution and a recommended best practice for those who present identical or similar papers is for scholars to organize their CVs by the paper (rather than by the conference). If someone presents the same paper at two conferences, s/he would therefore have one entry for the paper, followed by an indication of each presentation. Second, if people are going to make the argument that presenting similar papers at multiple conferences helps their careers, they are on firmer ground if they present at one specialty conference and one general conference—the Midwest and the Empirical Legal Studies Conference, for instance, instead of presenting at the Midwest and the APSA (where the person will have a similar conference experience). Finally, it is imperative that scholars who engage in this practice do not merely change the names of papers to hide what they are doing.

In closing, we should continue to reassess the purpose of conferences, and to consider what we can do to change them to meet these purposes. The Organization of American Historians recently began a movement to reduce the number of papers that are “read” at their conferences (Dichtl 2004). APSA's working groups and short courses are also recognitions of changing conference needs and goals. Given the changes in the scholarly reward structure and advances in technology, perhaps we need to reassess conference organization and delivery. This conversation should begin with a frank discussion of why we attend conferences and how they can help meet the needs of today's scholar.