Preparing Research for Academic Conferences

Introduction

Academic conferences are where a field thinks out loud. They are testing grounds for claims, laboratories for method, and crucibles for scholarly community. For doctoral students, presenting at a conference is not merely résumé padding; it is apprenticeship into the guild’s practices of argument, feedback, and collegial exchange. A well-crafted paper and an effective delivery can sharpen your dissertation’s core claims, surface blind spots early, and open doors to mentors, collaborators, and publishers. Conversely, a promising project can be obscured by a paper that is poorly scoped, structurally opaque, or delivered without attention to audience and time.

This chapter develops a complete, doctoral-level guide to preparing research for conferences—especially in Biblical Studies and theology—moving from discerning the right venue and crafting a proposal, to engineering a 10–20 minute argument that lands, to slide design, voice and pacing, Q&A strategy, and post-session follow-up. Because your conference paper should function as a “miniature dissertation chapter,” we will integrate the methodological concerns you have learned (originality, rigor, contribution; literature review; argument structure) with practical craft (timing, visuals, delivery) and theological posture (integrity, humility, charity). Throughout, we will connect practices to biblical exemplars of reasoned speech, and we will include concrete “build-outs” that model how to compress dense exegetical or historical work into an accessible, persuasive presentation.

Choosing the Right Venue and Session

Conference ecology and fit

Not all conferences—or sessions within a conference—are equally suited to your project. Large umbrella meetings (e.g., national or international societies) often host numerous program units with distinctive aims: textual criticism, Septuagint studies, Pauline literature, Second Temple Judaism, theological hermeneutics, reception history, and more. Your task is to discern the community of judgment most likely to understand your methods, value your problem, and offer the feedback you need at your stage. Read recent programs and abstracts to see what kinds of questions animate a unit. If your paper tries to do everything for everyone, it will do nothing for anyone. Seek a tight matchup among topic, method, and audience.

Ethical and vocational discernment

Presenting is not only about visibility; it is about stewardship (1 Pet. 4:10). Ask whether your paper meaningfully advances a conversation rather than duplicating what others have already done (Rom. 15:20). Consider whether the venue’s expectations (length, format, discussant, pre-circulated paper) align with your current draft. Begin local (departmental colloquia, regional meetings) if you need low-stakes rehearsal; aim national/international when your contribution is ready for broader scrutiny.

From Dissertation to Proposal: Crafting a Winning Abstract

Four sentences that do the heavy lifting

A strong 250–400-word abstract typically contains four moves:

1. Situation: Name the scholarly problem and why it matters (two to three sentences).

2. Complication: Identify the gap, tension, or unresolved debate (two to four sentences with citations to signal you know the field).

3. Resolution (your thesis): State clearly what you argue and how it differs (one to two crisp sentences).

4. Method and Payoff: Name the primary sources and method, then state the concrete contribution (three to five sentences).

Avoid vague superlatives (“groundbreaking”) and overlong literature tours. Program units select papers that promise a clear, feasible, arguable claim with identifiable evidence and recognizable method—in 20 minutes. Write the abstract after you outline the 20-minute paper, not before.

Micro-example

Situation: Recent studies of Romans 3:21–26 emphasize “the righteousness of God” as covenant faithfulness (Wright) or a status granted to believers (Westerholm).
Complication: Both approaches struggle to explain Paul’s appeal to the cross’s demonstrative purpose (endeixis) and the rhetorical progression into 3:27–31.
Resolution: I argue that Paul deploys dikaiosynē theou polysemously, coordinating covenant faithfulness with forensic gift, while the endeixis frames the cross as God’s public rectification of his own justice.
Method & Payoff: Through close analysis of the syntax and discourse markers in 3:21–26, triangulated with LXX usages and judicial metaphors in Second Temple sources, I show how the passage’s logic resolves the perceived dilemma and clarifies the ground of boasting’s exclusion in 3:27–31. The paper reframes the debate by showing that Paul’s rhetoric invites a “both-and” semantics ordered by the cross’s theodicean function.

This abstract names the debate, the problem, the claim, the evidence, and the contribution—without promising more than can be delivered.

Engineering a 10–20 Minute Argument

Conference time limits force intellectual discipline. A 20-minute slot yields ~2,200–2,600 words when spoken at a measured pace; a 15-minute slot yields ~1,800–2,000. Your goal is not to summarize a chapter but to demonstrate a single argumentative arc with one main claim and two to three sub-claims, supported by your strongest evidence. Think elegant sufficiency, not exhaustive coverage.

A proven five-part spine

1. Hook & Stakes (90–120 seconds): A vivid problem statement or exegetical crux that signals stakes for the field and orients the audience (Acts 17:22–23 models contextual hook; Prov. 18:13 warns against speaking before hearing—invite the audience to “hear” the problem).

2. Thesis & Map (60–90 seconds): State the claim in one sentence and preview the structure (“I will show this by…”) so listeners can track.

3. Evidence Passes (10–12 minutes): Two or three carefully chosen “passes” at your claim (textual analysis; historical/comparative; theological synthesis). Each pass ends with an explicit warrant: “Therefore, this supports my thesis because…”

4. Counterposition & Rejoinder (2–3 minutes): Name the strongest objection from a major interlocutor; concede where it clarifies; show why your account better explains the data (Rom. 3’s diatribe style is your model—anticipate and answer).

5. Landing & Payoff (60–90 seconds): Summarize the claim, name implications (what this changes for the debate, method, or practice), and gesture to next steps or the dissertation chapter where full argumentation appears.

Timing discipline

Build a timing column in your script. If your hook expands, trim a later example. Rehearse with a stopwatch until you end on time without rushing. Ending on time is part of your ethos (1 Cor. 14:40).

Structuring Content for Auditory Processing

Make the spine audible

Listeners cannot re-read. Use signposts: “First…,” “Second…,” “Therefore…,” “By contrast…,” “This matters because…”. Repeat your thesis in paraphrase two or three times at strategic junctures. Topic sentences must be stand-alone claims, not teasers.

Manage density with layering

Alternate heavy analysis with brief synthesis sentences that reset the audience’s bearings. Where Greek/Hebrew is essential, project only the exact phrase you are analyzing with a gloss; read the English aloud; point to the feature. Depth is gained not by quantity of Greek on the slide, but by the clarity with which you use one feature to move the argument.

Use “exhibit” logic

Treat each piece of evidence as an exhibit: title your slide “Exhibit 1: Antithetical parallelism in v. X” or “Exhibit 2: LXX usage of dikaiosynē”. State why the exhibit is on stage. Remove it when its job is done.

Slide Design that Serves the Argument

Minimalist design, maximal clarity

Use slides as visual scaffolding, not as a manuscript. One idea per slide; large type; generous margins. Avoid color-as-decoration; let contrast and alignment create hierarchy. Visuals must do rhetorical work: schema of argument flow, table contrasting readings, timeline of textual witnesses, map of archaeological context, image of an inscription with the relevant phrase highlighted.

Tables that compare claims, not just data

Where you face a debate, a comparison table can compress pages of prose into a single glance: columns for “Interpretation A / Interpretation B / This paper,” rows for “meaning of term,” “evidence cited,” “problem cases,” “explanatory scope.” This is not aesthetic fluff; it’s argument architecture that aids judgment.

Accessibility and ethics

Transliterate when needed; gloss technical terms; ensure color contrast; provide alt descriptions if slides are shared; cite images and texts on the slide or in a closing “sources” slide. Treat manuscripts and artifacts with reverence—credit repositories and follow use guidelines.

Voice, Presence, and Delivery

Ethos in sound

Your voice is part of your argument. Aim for a measured pace and varied cadence; pause after key sentences to let claims land. Stand so you can see both notes and audience; do not speak to your slides. If reading a script, write for the ear: shorter sentences, strong verbs, topic sentences that state the claim outright.

Managing nerves

Practice in conditions that mimic the room: standing, with a timer, advancing slides. Have two headlines ready for the first sentence; breathe before you begin; mark places in your script where you will slow down. If you lose your place, summarize the last completed claim and continue—your audience is on your side.

Time integrity

Plan a “pressure valve” paragraph you can cut mid-talk without harming coherence. Finishing on time honors the panel and your peers; it also increases the chance of fruitful Q&A.

The Q&A: From Defense to Dialogue

Anticipate categories of questions

1. Clarification: “What do you mean by X?”

2. Evidence request: “Did you consider Y text or witness?”

3. Method challenge: “Why privilege rhetorical over social-scientific explanations?”

4. Scope and implications: “What follows for doctrine/church/history?”

Prepare one or two sentences in each category so you can respond with calm coherence.

Answer as a colleague, not a combatant

Receive the question as a gift. Start by restating it charitably; answer the question asked; distinguish what your 20-minute paper can and cannot establish. Where you have not considered an angle, say so and invite a follow-up. If a misunderstanding reveals ambiguity in your presentation, acknowledge it and clarify. The goal is not to “win” Q&A but to advance understanding and to harvest feedback you can fold into the chapter.

From Podium to Page: Post-Session Follow-Up

Capture the yield

Immediately after the session, annotate your script: which transitions confused, which exhibits persuaded, which objections require a paragraph in the chapter. Send a brief thank-you to the presider or respondents; if a scholar offered a substantive bibliographic suggestion, ask for the reference and permission to cite their comment.

Network ethically

Request a 15-minute coffee with someone whose work you engaged. Lead with appreciation and one specific question. Do not pitch your job market candidacy unless asked; let the quality of your argument speak.

Publication pathways

If your paper is part of a dissertation chapter, revise the chapter in light of feedback; if it stands alone, consider a short article or a “brief note” venue. Conference presentation is not prior publication, but some journals require disclosure if a version has been presented. Match journal scope and length; follow author guidelines scrupulously.

Worked Example: Building a 15-Minute Exegetical Paper

Topic: “Boasting’s Exclusion in Romans 3:27–31 as the Rhetorical Payoff of 3:21–26.”

Hook (1:00): Open with the paradox: why does Paul pivot to boasting immediately after his dense soteriological paragraph? Name the scholarly divide over dikaiosynē theou.

Thesis & Map (0:45): “I argue that 3:27–31 functions as a rhetorical test of whether one’s reading of 3:21–26 entails social boasting or excludes it; Paul’s logic only works if dikaiosynē theou is both God’s covenant faithfulness and the forensic gift that levels Jew and Gentile. I will show this by (1) mapping the discourse markers linking 3:21–26 to 3:27–31, (2) analyzing the logic of nomos pisteōs vs. nomos ergōn, and (3) testing two rival readings against the exclusion of boasting.”

Pass 1—Discourse map (4:00): Display the Greek with oun, pou oun, gar, oun. Show how endeixis (vv. 25–26) cues the public, juridical arena that makes “boasting” a live category. Warrant: If the cross publicly demonstrates God’s justice, the social consequence must be named; thus 3:27 is not a tangent but the designed outcome.

Pass 2—Nomos contrast (4:00): Brief lexical pass on nomos pisteōs as “principle/logic of faith” (not Torah-as-canon) in contrast with nomos ergōn as “logic of works.” Use one LXX exhibit and one Second Temple parallel to show nomos’ flexible sense. Warrant: The contrast is rhetorical: a logic that grounds boasting vs. a logic that abolishes it.

Pass 3—Rival readings tested (3:00): Table contrasting (A) righteousness-as-status-only vs. (B) righteousness-as-covenant-faithfulness-only vs. (C) coordinated reading. Briefly show where (A) stumbles on 3:31 (“we uphold the law”) and where (B) struggles to explain universal leveling in 3:23–24. Claim: Only (C) satisfies both 3:21–26 and 3:27–31 without ad hoc moves.

Counterposition (1:30): Acknowledge Westerholm’s and Wright’s best points; concede terminological slippage in Paul; argue that rhetorical sequencing constrains the semantic range.

Landing (0:45): Restate the claim and note implications for 4:1–8 (Abraham and boasting) and 5:1–2 (peace as the social result). Invite conversation on how this constrains readings of 9–11.

This skeleton shows how to select evidence, name warrants, and keep an argument moving within fifteen minutes.

Biblical and Theological Posture

The New Testament’s own public reason-giving provides both warrant and warning. Peter’s defense (1 Pet. 3:15) calls for reasons offered “with gentleness and respect.” Acts 15 models integrative discernment: testimony, signs, Scripture, and pastoral wisdom converge in communal judgment. Paul’s parrēsia (frank speech) is matched by his patient argumentation (Rom. 9–11’s layered logic). Conference presentation thus becomes an act of service to the community: you are not merely performing expertise but inviting correction, strengthening the body of knowledge (Eph. 4:15–16).

Assignments (Doctoral-Level)

1. Abstract-to-Manuscript Pipeline (3,000–3,500 words). Draft a 300-word abstract for a specific program unit. Then write the full 1,900–2,200-word script that the abstract promises, including a timing column and slide thumbnails. Conclude with a 500-word reflection on what you cut from the dissertation chapter and why.

2. Slide Deck as Argument Architecture. Create a 10–12 slide deck for your paper. Each slide must have a functional title (“Exhibit 2: Syntax of 3:25b”), one claim sentence, and only those visual elements that directly serve the claim. Submit the deck and a 1,200-word rationale explaining how each slide advances the spine.

3. Rehearsed Delivery & Q&A Dossier. Record a rehearsal; produce a self-critique (1,000–1,500 words) on pacing, clarity, and transitions. Then draft a Q&A dossier: five likely questions across the categories (clarification, evidence, method, implications) with 2–3 sentence answers keyed to your evidence.

4. Post-Conference Integration Plan. After presenting (or mock-presenting) your paper, write a 2,000-word integration memo that lists concrete revisions to your dissertation chapter based on feedback, including new sources to consult, objections to address, and structural changes. Attach a revised outline.

Conclusion

Preparing research for academic conferences is the disciplined art of argument under constraint. It requires the same virtues as dissertation writing—clarity of thesis, judicious selection of evidence, transparency of method, and fair engagement with interlocutors—but practiced at a compressed scale and in public. When you craft a paper with a strong spine, design slides that carry argumentative weight, deliver with vocal composure, and handle Q&A as collegial inquiry, you not only maximize the paper’s impact; you accelerate your dissertation’s maturation. Because conferences are also formative spaces, approach them with a biblical posture: speak truth with gentleness, test claims rigorously, and receive critique as a means of grace for your scholarship. The habits you build here—precision, pacing, humility, and follow-through—are the same habits that will sustain a lifetime of contribution to the academy and the church.

References

Alley, M. (2013). The craft of scientific presentations: Critical steps to succeed and critical errors to avoid (2nd ed.). Springer.

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Hart, C. (2018). Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination (2nd ed.). SAGE.

Murray, R. (2013). Presenting your research: Conferences, symposiums, poster presentations and beyond. Routledge.

Reynolds, G. (2020). Presentation zen: Simple ideas on presentation design and delivery (3rd ed.). New Riders.

SBL Press. (2014). The SBL handbook of style (2nd ed.). SBL Press.

Turabian, K. L. (2018). A manual for writers of research papers, theses, and dissertations (9th ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Weiss, M. (2020). Powerful presentations: Communication skills for academics. Oxford University Press.

Wong, K. (2019). Managing bibliographies, references and citations with EndNote. Routledge.