Conferences

One of those necessary evils of this entire continuing education shtick is the whole horse and pony show known as the Academic Conference.  If I could make the text somehow read more ominously in a booming voice or with dripping blood, I would.  Having been introduced to this realm of academia in my last graduate program, I was constantly amazed at how much hubris is truly involved in the sharing of one's academic work.  Not only do I have to be confident enough in my work to present it to a group of my academic peers, but THEY feel compelled to question my methods and research when they themselves likely have no outstanding knowledge of my work.  I love a good discourse on a topic, but I've seen audience members be downright unreasonable with their criticism.  While I certainly admit that good and constructive thought can come out of a conference, I often find myself wondering why - beyond the obvious bolstering of my curriculum vitae I put myself through the rigors of participating in such things.  (Note: this is discussing humanities conferences, as I'm sure scientific conferences are slightly different.)

There seems to be a certain hierarchy to academic achievement when it comes to humanities research:

1. Poster Presentation - This is the presentation that requires not only background research but a certain level of artistic flair.  It requires you to display information in an aesthetically pleasing format in either an expensively printed poster, or one of those fold-up cardboard display boards that you used in your fifth grade science fair.  Having done one of these, I find it actually one of the most difficult.  Not only do you have to stand around and answer questions about your project (because generally people walking by don't actually READ all of your poster) but you have to include as much information as possible without making it too cluttered. 
2. Paper Presentation - This is the presentation previously mentioned.  You write a wonderful paper: well thought out, well done.  Then you take it to a conference, where other members of your field have the opportunity to offer you feedback.  This can either be a good thing or a bad thing, but often leads to at least the nurturing of appropriate public speaking conflict management.  Or they are so stunned by your brilliance that both you and they are speechless.
3. Journal Publication - This is close to the end-all and be-all of research.  Getting published in a journal has its advantages.  One, people cannot immediately give feedback on your article.  Two, if it was good enough to make it into said journal - chances are it's pretty good stuff.  Well done.  Three, this is great for a curriculum vitae booster.
4. Book Publication - This is it folks.  This is what gets you tenure.  If you are able to get something published then you are on the fast track to employment.  This is the ultimate goal.  I will admit that it has always been a personal goal of mine to have my work (other than my Master's thesis) sitting on one of my library shelves.

And yet, here I am.  I recently submitted two proposals for two separate conferences in the spring of 2012.  Not only that, but I am attempting to write brand new original work (as in, not present something already graded and corrected for a class).  And guess what -- I am so excited.

I think that in general I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to research if for no other reason than the fact that my musicology research interests lie FAR outside the normal realms of study.  I like discussing ideas with other people, even if generally they rip a hole in my cleverly crafted research.  It's how you learn.  It CAN be intimidating, but generally afterwards people are still really excited to discuss your work.  And I figure, what the heck -- any excuse to get my name out there is good, right?  It is also a great way to get noticed.  Being a slight introvert like myself, when I attend conferences I am not the most active networker of the bunch.  This gives me an almost instant in -- at least with the people that actually come hear my papers.  We have something to talk (or argue) about.

So I guess what I'm saying is, that while conferences can be seen as a pain in the butt, especially for the young researcher, they still give me that incredibly nerdy thrill.  Consider them an impersonal review committee for a work to be published -- because chances are those audience members may be an invaluable resource in the future.