Giving the Same Paper at More than One Conference – Legit?

The excellent Tomorrow’s Professor Mailing List posted this article from Inside Higher Ed: Double Dipping in Conference Papers — If you are going to give a talk at a scholarly meeting, do you need new material?

The paper is about political science. It reports on a study that found a considerable increase in duplicate presentations — the same title, presented at more than one conference — from zero in 1992.  Whereas faculty said they had been taught as grad students that this was unacceptable, current grad students responded to the question with “blank stares” — no idea that this practice might be controversial.

It gives the arguments pro and con. Pro: papers benefit from discussion and revision; audiences at any one conference presentation may be small. Con: getting credit for multiple scholarly products when it’s really the same one. And it notes that with “the ‘enormous pressure’ to present at scholarly meetings when possible …it is ‘unrealistic and undesirable’ to expect completely new work for each such event.”

It concludes that the solution is to be honest and clear about what you’re doing.

For our field, I think it reflects one more difficulty of multi-disciplinary work: different norms across different fields; the need to present the same research to different, non-overlapping audiences; and the academic credit system, wherein products are counted numerically.

One response to “Giving the Same Paper at More than One Conference – Legit?

  1. The implications for our field(s) are not immediately obvious, as the political science conferences take paper abstracts, not full papers, and the publications are not archival.

    In our field you will need to publish the same (or highly similar) paper twice, a practice that is highly discouraged and actively monitored by reviewers – at least that’s my impression…

    Not to say that people don’t double-dip under these circumstances, but I don’t think there is a moral slip – young researchers would still view this path as wrong. Again, that’s my impression…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s