A series of brainfarts on why 20-min conference presentations to a new audience are crazy hard to negotiate:

Do I want to situate my entire body of work to relate to other scholars/seek potential collaborations, or micro-focus on one mini-issue in depth?

Do I give a lecture on theory and my readings, or privilege my original data?

Do I present all the theory in-depth or expect that the audience has basic knowledge? What is the yardstick for “basic”?

Do I just give my reading of the theory? Do I relate to other readings of said theory from fellow presenters?

Do I focus on dominant theory that most in the room know, or highlight related but under-exposed theory from the fringes?

Do I cramp slide with text for future circulation? Do I cramp slide with images to keep audience’s attention? Do I even slide at all?

Do I ask for specific feedback to streamline conversation, or go free and easy to see what effervescents?

Do I signpost my disciplinary background and training to signal epistemology and ontology? Or do I wing it to see how others will read this?

Do I bother with my institutional affiliation, rank, name, title of project when all the info is in the programme? Can I say “HI” and start?

Do I occupy Q&A with personal curiosity questions? Or questions that will be of interest to the room? Or to make self sound swag smart swag?

Conference presentations are so much labour. Imma put this on my CV. K bye.

See also: Academica Dramatica x Negotiating Intellect at Conference Questioning.