How to write a conference abstract

Conferences are an important, and a fun, part of being a phd student. You get to showcase your research and make important connections. As an introvert, I enjoy conferences as you can often skip the small talk and get to discuss interesting issues with people who are interested in the same topics as you are. That is, if you get into the conference in the first place!

Depending on conferences, the amount of competition or what they are looking for can vary. Remember, that conference acceptances or rejections do not make your value as a researcher. I try to remind myself of this as well, as I was rejected from two conferences this year.

To learn from my experiences, I wanted to put together information about how to write conference abstracts and what conferences are looking for. My experiences come mainly from the IAPPL, EuroSLA, and Earli conferences, so things might be different in your field.

A quick checklist

• Check the conference requirements for the application, abstract, and possible summary IN ADVANCE.
• Reserve enough time to get your application together.
• After you have written your abstract and/or summary, go through it again with the checklist to make sure you have covered everything.
• A good article abstract is not necessarily the same as a good conference application abstract.
• Most abstracts are 250-500 words, sometimes a longer 1000 word summary is needed as well.
• Celebrate when you succeed, and learn from the experience if you don’t. Remember, you are still valuable, your research is still valuable.

How to write a good abstract

Requirements of length and content vary, so check the conference website for details. Here are some of the common things that are being checked:

• Theoretical background and framework, a clear theoretical context
• Originality of the theoretical or methodological contribution
• Rigourity of the study
• Clarity of the research plan, methods, results, conclusions
• Significance of the study, theoretical and pedagogical implications
• Link for EuroSLA requirements
• Link for Earli requirements

Looking back in hindsight, my applications and abstracts were not well enough crafted for these conferences, so I dived into the feedback that some of my colleagues and I got to gain more information on what the reviewers were seeing as problematic. Below I focus on the points that were not as clear from the original checklists. So read the conference checklists first, and then you can complement that with the information I have received from reviewers.

Common problems described by reviewers

• “The sample size is quite small, which makes me wonder if a paper session would be the best fit for this study.” > Perhaps the reviewer or this conference favors quantitative studies more?
• “The three research questions are very broad compared to the detailed description of theoretical and educational significance. ” > Perhaps the research questions could be more focused and detailed.
• “From my point of view, it would be necessary for such educational impact statements to assess and analyze learners from different courses and teachers.” > Again this might be a preference for a quantitative study on the matter, or the implications of the study should be reconsidered.
• “There are two outcome measures, but the results do not clearly distinguish between them.” > More clarity is needed, so we would know what influenced what.
• “One thing that could be clearer is what the specific contribution is to the literature, more discussion on how findings might contribute to research on this topic.” > Clarity of theoretical implications.
• “The small sample size and voluntary participation likely introduce bias, as the most engaged students may have self-selected into the study.” > Again, could be seen as a preference for quantitative studies in that specific conference.
• “The research lacks clarity on what is specifically being investigated within this method and how predictors and outcomes are defined.” > More clarity is needed to explain the methodology.

From above we can see that more clarity is very commonly called for. Clarity of the research questions, methodology, and implications for future research. What is often clear in our minds, might not be so clear in the eyes of the reviewer.

From some of the comments above, we can also possibly see a slight preference for quantitative studies, this might depend on the conference, what they are usually looking for. For those of us doing qualitative research, I believe it is important to highlight the benefits of qualitative studies and how the results are not supposed to be generalizable, instead rich background is given for transferability to similar contexts.

For more information on the topic, I recommend this article by Pattemore and Pattemore (2024) Fatal and non-fatal flaws in early-career researchers’ conference abstracts.

Some advice

• Writing an abstract for the first time can be hard, ask your supervisors and colleagues for help, and ask to read their successful abstracts and applications.
• If you get rejected, give yourself time to be sad about it, all feelings are normal. Then, after a while, read through the previous feedback with a critical view, is there something that could be improved for next time? (Unfortunately not all conferences give feedback.)
• If you noticed feeling discouraged from rejections, think about your past successes. You have already successfully enrolled in the phd program, you are valuable. Perhaps you have already presented your research at your own university or research seminar? It is important to remember and celebrate all the small wins as well!
• Sometimes reviewers don’t agree with each other, and you might get mixed feedback, check critically what you should improve, and reject those that you have a good reason to disagree with. If not sure, discuss with your supervisors.
• Always aim high, you never know when you succeed! Always strive to improve and apply again, you never know when it is your turn!