Writing a Conference Abstract

If you are thinking to submit an abstract to a conference, I recommend you to read what Drs. Swales, J. M and C.B. Feak suggest in their book: English in Today's Research World: A Written Guide. The book is written for advanced Ph.D. students. Read carefully what makes a "High-Rated Abstract" and keep those suggestions while you write.

CONFERENCE ABSTRACT

Extracted from

Swales, J. M. and C. B. Feak. 2000. “Stepping onto a Wider Stage—the Conference Abstract”. In English in Today’s Research World: A Writing Guide. The University of Michigan Press. Pp. 30-79.

Unlike the abstract that precedes a research paper, conference abstracts (CA) are independent texts and must stand on their own. Moreover, whether your abstract is accepted for a conference or not depends entirely on the impression that it makes on the CA reviewers. Since your purpose in writing and submitting a CA is to have an opportunity to present your work, your CA must be somewhat promotional—it must “sell” your work.

Finding an appropriate structure for your conference abstract and providing a suitable scene setting are only part of the theory. There are additionally the matters of offering “interestingness” and of projecting a convincing and authoritative image. Table 1 shows the characteristics of  “High- and Low-Rated Abstracts

Table 1. Abstract Descriptors

High-Rated Abstracts	Low-Rated Abstracts
-       Topics are of current interest to experiences members of the community. -       A problem is clearly defined. -       Problems are addressed in a novel way. -       Special terminology is current of “buzzy.” -       Several explicit and implicit references to the scholarly literature.	-       Topics are of lesser interest. -       No clear problem is defined. -       Problem, if defined, received less  interesting treatment. -       Terminology is standard. -       Fewer citations and allusions are used.

Five-part structure of a Conference Abstract

1.     Outlining the research field

2.     Justifying a particular piece of research/study

3.     Introducing the paper to be presented at the conference

4.     Summarizing the paper

5.     Highlighting its outcome/results

Example of what to write in a Conference Abstract

TASK  ONE. Analyzing a Conference Abstract

Here now is Tatyana Yakhontova’s own conference abstract on conference abstracts! Read it carefully and mark up its “moves.” Does it fit Tatyana’s own model?

Cultural Variation in the Genre of the Conference Abstract: Rhetorical and Linguistic Dimensions

(Outlining the field) The conference abstract is a common and important genre that plays a significant role in disseminating new knowledge within scientific communities, both national and international. As a genre with the specific features of “interestingness” created to attract the attention of reviewing committees, the conferences abstract has been investigated by Berkenkotter & Hucking (1995) and Swales (1996). (Justification) However, the issue of cultural variation in the genre has not yet become a subject of research, although the conference abstract, like other genres of academic discourse, can be presumed to reflect national proclivities in writing.

(Introduction of paper) This paper attempts to describe the cultural-specific differences of English versus Ukrainian and Russian conference abstracts on the level of their cognitive structure and language, and to provide some tentative explanations of the cultural and ideological backgrounds underlying these rhetorical and textlinguistic preferences. (Summary of details) It will also be shown how the inherited cognitive patterns of Slavic writers interplay with the acquired stereotypes of English scientific discourse in the abstracts they construct in English. These texts, hybrid from the viewpoint of their cultural shaping, can be regarded as evidence of the transition period typical of both sociopolitical and intellectual like of Ukraine and other states of the former Soviet Union. (?) As a result, this study raises a broader question: To what extent is it necessary to adopt the English conventions of this genre in order to be accepted and recognized by international fora?

(Discussion of consequences) This issue will be discussed in connection with the pedagogical implications arising from the findings and observations of this study.

Analysis of Tatyana’s abstract

Broadly speaking, Tatyana’s abstract fits her own model quite well, although there is a partial exception. (S1= Sentence 1, etc.)

S1 ans S2             Outlining the field

S3                         Justification

S4                         Introduction of paper

S5 and S6             Summary of details

S7                         ?

S8                         Discussion of consequences

Note that in S7, Tatyana does not so much “highlight the outcome” as she uses her research “to raise a broader question.” This strikes us as in interesting variant.

TASK TWO . Continuing analyzing Tatyana’s Conference Abstract

Now, do the following with a partner, if you have one, for Tatyana’s text.

1.     Highlight or underline any words or phrases that you see as “promoting” or “selling” the abstract.

S1 common / important / significant role / both national and international

S3 not yet become a subject of research / national proclivities

S4 cultural and ideological backgrounds underlying these rhetorical and text linguistic preferences

S5 inherited cognitive patterns . . . acquired stereotypes

2.     The abstract contains some interesting academic vocabulary. Be prepared to explain the meaning of the following words as they are used in this text (the sentence number is in parentheses).

a.     Disseminating (S1)—spreading

b.     subject (S3)—topic

c.      proclivities (S3)—tendencies

d.     tentative (S4)—provisional, preliminary

e.      interplay (S5)—interact with

f.       hybrid (S6)—in this case made up of elements from two different kinds of texts

g.     fora (S7)—plural of forum, in this case a conference or professional meeting

3.     As is typical, the second half of the CA contains a fair amount of meta-discourse. As its name suggest, metadiscourse is discourse about discourse, as when we write about our own text, such as “This paper has argue that . . .” Consider the following.

a.     (S4) this paper attempts to describe . . .

b.     (S5) it will also be shown how . . .

c.      (S7) As a result, this study raises a broader question: . . .

d.     (S8) This issue will be discussed in connection with . . .

What is the purpose of the metadiscourse? Do you think all of it is necessary?

The metadiscourse is intended to help guide the reader through the text so that it is read the way the author intended it to be. Metadiscouse is quite common in North American academic writing; however, it is less common in the academic writing of other cultures. For a fuller discussion see pages 169-74 in Unit Five. The question of whether it is necessary typically generates debate in our classes. Some students feel that it is gratuitous and perhaps even condescending. Other find it quite helpful.

4.     Notice how Tatyana alternates here between the active in sentence 4 and 7 and the passive in sentence 5 and 8. What is the effect? Why does she sometimes use the future rather than the simple present?

In S5 the use of the passive is useful as a stylistic variation. In this way she can avoid using show with an inanimate subject and also avoid using I. Compare the alternative wording: In addition, I intended to show . . . In S8 the choice of passive voice keeps the focus on the question raised in S7.

It’s hard to say with certainty why she sometimes uses the future. Tatyana has already completed the work in the abstract, and so it is not “promissory” (see Section 2.5). It could simple be a stylistic variation, or perhaps by just wants to emphasize her intent by using will, as sometimes the audience can look forward to. 

5.     Would you have used I in this abstract (or we if a co-authored CA)?

Whether or not I is appropriate in any academic text raises considerable discussion. Most of our students argue against using I since it sound too self-promotional, as we found in Unit One. Using we seems more acceptable, but then the question arises as to whether we can always be used, even when there is a single author. Students in the sciences have generally said we is fine in all cases and is much preferred over I.

6.     Notice the subtle difference between, for example, “This paper” and “The paper.” How do you react to the following commentary on this by Finnish linguist Anna Mauranen?

One rhetorical effect that this produces is an impression of closeness and solidarity between reader and writer. It has the effect of bringing the reader round to the writer’s orientation, or point of view, by implying that the writer as well as the reader are both “here,” on the same side, looking at things from the same perspective.

Would it be safer to say that in using this a writer is trying to “bring the reader round to his or her orientation”?

Perhaps using this can help “bring some readers round to an author’s orientation,” but whether it necessarily does seems open to question.

7.     The text is 254 words long, so it is fine for overall length. However, it consists of only eight sentences, thus giving an average sentence length of about 32 words. This is quite high for academic English, which overall averages around 25 words per sentence. Too high? If you think so, what suggestions do you have?

One possibility is to break S4 into two sentences to ease the cognitive load on the reader. Another is to remove some of the appositives and put the information contained there into its own sentence. For example, in S6:

These texts can be considered hybrids from the viewpoint of their cultural shaping. As hybrids, they can be regarded as evidence of the transition period typical of both sociopolitical and intellectual like of Ukraine and other states of the former Soviet Union.

8.     How do you react to Tatyana’s argument that there may be a connection between academic texts and sociopolitical and ideological forces? Do you have any examples either for or against this claim?

It seems reasonable to us that there may be a connection between academic texts and sociopolitical and ideological forces.

9.     The final sentence does not seem to be as well thought out as the rest of the CA. (A very common situation, in fact!) how do you feel about the following alternatives?

a.     Eliminate the sentence altogether

b.     Replace it with “Finally, the pedagogical implications of these trends and tensions are discussed.”

c.      Replace it with “The paper closes with some suggestions for teaching the English conference abstract to Ukrainian and Russian academic.”

d.     Do something else. If so, what?

In our experience, almost everybody answer this question (correctly) by saying, “It depends on the context.” If the conference has a theoretical orientation, the last sentence could be left out. If it is a conference with many language teachers attending, keep the original or replace it with the b alternative. If it is a conference with a particular focus on Slavic academics, then c would work well.