I got a call for papers a while ago for a conference I’d like to attend. You have to write an abstract to get invited to present a paper.
I’ve got an idea for a paper that might be interesting to put together and present, but I’ve never before had to write an abstract to wangle an invitation.
So, what’s the secret to writing a good abstract? I’ve got 200 words to be persuasive. The conference is on language rights and the law.
Know your audience, throw them a bone, and read abstracts submitted to this conference in the past.
Are you well known in the field? I’m guessing not. Then you have a harder job.
The things a program committee is looking for are novelty and results. If your proposal looks like a million other papers people have seen, it doesn’t stand much of a chance. (We call these dead horse subjects.) If it is novel, will the paper be worthwhile? If you have a track record, you might get away with a promise, if not, put results in the abstract, and it is good if you can compare them to previously published results, to show yours are better.
Finally - write well. No typos, excellent grammar, etc.
Do you know how many abstracts get submitted relative to the number of slots? In some workshops, practically everything gets accepted. In some conferences, only a small fraction (1/3) do. There’s nothing you can do about this, though.
Good luck! What field is it, by the way?
Oops, missed your last sentence. Hmm, what passes for results at such conferences? The novelty angle still holds, though.
Have you written papers before? Have you written abstracts before?
Generally, I put:
What the problem is
Why it’s an important problem
Why current solutions are inadequate
What my new solution is
Brief sketch of the results
What field is this in?
All the above advice seems good. Here is one more point. Think seriously about what in your paper would make you want to read it, assuming you hadn’t written it. If there isn’t anything, don’t bother. If there is one really interesting thing, then by all means highlight that.
thanks for all the comments. Voyager, I am and I amn’t, so to speak. That is, I’ve been invited to speak at a couple of national conferences in the past, put on by different organizations of good standing, so I’m forced to conclude I’ve got some rep. However, this is a conference put on by another organization with which I’ve not had any dealings and they don’t know me.
Your comment about results and Shalmanese’s comments suggests that you’re both thinking of a more empirical field than the law, which is what I’d be writing about. My goal in writing the paper is to give a survey of the law on a specific issue in a particular jurisdiction, because the approach taken is unique in Canada and possibly in the world - at least, I’m not aware of any other jurisdiction that takes this approach. I don’t know if that satisfies the novelty / interesting aspect that you and Hari are mentioning?
Say that, then flesh it out a little bit so that someone who doesn’t know about the specific issue can get a vague iea what it is. Suggest there might be lessons for the rest of Canada.
I’ve been invited to submit a paper and make a presentation. Now I just have to write the damn thing! Tell me again, why was this a good idea?
At any event, it means a couple of weeks in Galway, with Mrs. Piper along once the conference is over. That’s the encouragement for the slogging I have to do now.
(Actually, I am rather excited by this, but now I’m starting to think of what I need to get down, and it’s a bit intimidating. Oh well…)