Writing a conference proposal: A step-by-step guide

~ Brian Hotson

Vol.4, No. 4 (Spring 2023)
Brian Hotson, Editor, CWCR/RCCR
Stevie Bell, Associate Editor, CWCR/RCCR

This is an expansion of the CWCR/RCCR post, Vol. 3 No. 3 (Winter 2022).

‘Tis the season, conference season. For those who have not written a conference proposal, it can seem like a daunting project. The thought of it can cause many to not submit at all. It can be difficult to know where to start and what to write, while following a conference’s CFP format and theme. We’ve had both successful and rejected proposals. As conference proposal reviewers and conference organizers, we’ve read many proposals and drafted several conference calls-for-proposals, as well. Here are some of the things that we’ve learned from experience. We hope this guide will provide you with some help to get your proposal started, into shape, and submitted.

Who is your reader?

As with all writing, taking into account the readers is key for a successful proposal. There are three readers of your proposals:

  • Conference organizers and/or members of a proposal committee,
  • Proposal reviewers, and
  • Conference attendees.

The members of the proposal committee look to see if proposals meet the requirements of the conference: is the proposal complete, is it about the conference theme, will it be of interest to the conference attendees — is it suitable to send out for review.

The proposal committee will send out the proposals to reviewers with expertise and experience in the topic of the proposal. The reviewers will read the proposal according to a set rubric, which is the same for each proposal. The reviewer usually recommends either rejection, revise-and-resubmit, or accept.

While attendees will not read proposals, the appeal of the proposal to attendees is considered by both the proposal committee and the reviewers. Keep all three readers in mind when you’re writing.

Proposal parts

Here is a step-by-step guide leading you through each part of a conference proposal:

    • Title
    • Detailed abstract
    • Proposal description
    • Type of session
    • References

Title

Conference attendees often scan the title of the sessions in the conference program to look for keywords that are of interest professionally, to their fields of study, projects they’re working on, or of a general interest. They’re also looking for things that they’ve not heard of, new things, often a reason to go to conferences.With this in mind, when creating the title for your session, it should be clear and state what the session will be about. For example,

Group tutoring in synchronous sessions: A study of engaging student discussion using Zoom polls,

The first part, Group tutoring in synchronous sessions, says specifically the topic of the session. The session will focus on group tutoring and its functioning in synchronous sessions.

The second part,

A study of engaging student discussion using Zoom polls,

is a descriptor of the first part. This descriptor shows the appeal and significance of the session by providing detail. In this case, the session is a result of a study, which shows academic rigour and that the session can offer usable information for attendees. The descriptor is also specific in the area in which the study was completed, Zoom polls.

A note on humour

Sometimes, there is a desire to add some humour or puns to a title. It’s fun, but we suggest doing this sparingly, as humour is subjective and may also have a trivializing effect on your session. (See Andeweg, de Jong, & Strohmeijer, 2010.)

Detailed abstract

A proposal’s detailed abstract can range from 75 to 150 words in length. As a result, you will need to be concise and to-the-point. Like any abstract, a proposal’s detailed abstract should speak directly to the significant parts of your presentation, and to the aspects of your session. It should include references, as well. It’s important to remember that, if your proposal is selected, this can become the short description of your session published in the conference program.

A detailed abstract should answer: What is it about your session that will appeal to attendees?

Following from the example title, here’s an example of a detailed abstract:

Group, synchronous, online tutoring (GSOT) seem to dissuade student writers’ participation (Rumba, 2020; Hoover, 2022). How do we encourage student writers to actively engage in GSOTs? In our REB study, we found a significant increase in student writer participation when using Zoom polls, in both group discussion, as well as in return writing centre usage by group members. This was especially the case when using feedback for “active rewriting and rethinking and resubmitting” (Dyson, 2020) processes in polling. The session includes study links, GSOT prep videos, and polling activities materials. (90 words)

Let’s break down the part of the detailed abstract,

Main issue or theme of the session

Group, synchronous, online tutoring (GSOT) seem to dissuade student writers’ participation (Rumba, 2020; Hoover, 2022).

Driving point of the session

How do we encourage student writers to actively engage in GSOTs?

This doesn’t necessarily need to be in the form of a question.

Short description of presentation of the session

In an research ethics board approved (REB) study, we found a significant increase in student writer participation when using Zoom polls, in both group discussion, as well as in return writing centre usage by group members. This was especially the case when using feedback for “active rewriting and rethinking and resubmitting” (Dyson, 2020) processes in polling. The session includes study links, GSOT prep videos, and polling activities materials.

Adding that the session was REB approved provides important detail to the abstract. Also note that quoting (e.g., “active rewriting and rethinking and resubmitting” (Dyson, 2020)) from relevant theory, scholarship, information from the literature can help show academic importance of the work described in the session. The final sentence tells attendees what it is that they can take away from the session, an important but often overlooked part of a detailed abstract. (NB: We made up theorist Dyson and “active rewriting and rethinking and resubmitting.”)

Proposal description

Unlike most advice given students writing abstracts, for conference proposals, I (Brian) usually write the detailed abstract first and the proposal description last. I think of the detailed abstract as the outline and the proposal as the paper. I usually create all the aspects of the proposal first from the abstract and then move to write the proposal. Once I’ve completed the proposal description, I usually adjust the detailed description to match. Most proposal descriptions are 500 – 700 words in length. Here’s a proposal description example, carrying on from the detailed abstract:

Group, synchronous, online tutoring (GSOT) seem to dissuade student writers’ participation (Rumba, 2020; Hoover, 2022). Many tutors report that, as the use of GSOT increases, participation in the session decreases, confounding tutors as well as students who do participate. This resulted in lower GSOT session bookings, overall.

We began to look at this issue more deeply, beginning with discussion in our writing centre, as well as with students who have been using GSOT on a regular basis. We found that those sessions where polls were used as a means for discussion were more successful all-round. We decided to do a study of this, with these questions, “How do we encourage student writers to actively engage in GSOTs?”; “Do GSOT session with polling increase participation?”; “Do GSOT sessions return with polling student usage of the GSOT and individual tutoring, and increased?”

In our REB study, we found a significant increase in student writer participation when using Zoom polls, not only in general group participation, but specifically in group discussion. We also found a 78% increase in GSOT booking among students who attended session with polling, as well as increased individual booking from group members attending GSOT sessions with polling (89%). Our GSOT polling sessions for the study used Dyson’s (2020) 3Rs—rewriting, rethinking, resubmitting—modelling processes of online group tutoring, specifically Dyson’s feedback modelling in “proactive and in-session active rewriting and rethinking and resubmitting” (Dyson, 2020, p. 341) concepts applied in polling. Dyson’s instance of “students’ deep and inclusive retelling” (2020, p. 389) of their own group writing experience is borne out in our study .

The session includes study links, GSOT-prep videos, and polling activity materials (including polling questions and resources). A short participatory activity will include a Dyson’s 3Rs activity. (292 words)

To structure this proposal description, expand out from the sentences of the detailed abstract, treating the abstract as an outline. Here’s the detailed description again:

Group, synchronous, online tutoring (GSOT) seem to dissuade student writers’ participation (Rumba, 2020; Hoover, 2022). How do we encourage student writers to actively engage in GSOTs? In an REB study, we found a significant increase in student writer participation when using Zoom polls, in both group discussion, as well as in return writing centre usage by group members. This was especially the case when using feedback for “active rewriting and rethinking and resubmitting” (Dyson, 2020) processes in polling. The session includes study links, GSOT prep videos, and polling activities materials. (404 words)

Breaking out each sentence and expanding its content with greater detail provides both a short-cut and continuity between the detailed description and the proposal description. So, the first sentence from the detailed abstract,

Group, synchronous, online tutoring (GSOT) seem to dissuade student writers’ participation (Rumba, 2020; Hoover, 2022).

expands to,

Group, synchronous, online tutoring (GSOT) seem to dissuade student writers’ participation (Rumba, 2020; Hoover, 2022). Many tutors report that as the use of GSOT increases, participation of students in the session decreases, confounding tutors as well as students who do participate. This resulted in lower GSOT session bookings, overall.

adding details that the attendee will learn about in the session as well as information from the top for the reviewers.

The second sentence,

How do we encourage student writers to actively engage in GSOTs?

is the main question or topic of the session, which expands to

We began to look at this issue more deeply, beginning with discussion in our writing centre, as well as with students who have been using GSOT on a regular basis. We found that those sessions where polls were used as a means for discussion were more successful all-round. We decided to do a study of this, with these questions, “How do we encourage student writers to actively engage in GSOTs?”; “Do GSOT session with polling increase participation?”; “Do GSOT sessions return with polling student usage of the GSOT and individual tutoring, and increased?”

Here, as the main question or topic of the session is expanded, other (sub)questions that support the main question of the session are added.

The third sentence,

In an REB study, we found a significant increase in student writer participation when using Zoom polls, in both group discussion, as well as in return writing centre usage by group members.

expands to

In our REB study, we found a significant increase in student writer participation when using Zoom polls, not only in general group participation, but specifically in group discussion. We also found a 78% increase in GSOT booking among students who attended sessions with polling, as well as increased individual booking from group members attending GSOT sessions with polling (89%).

Here again, more specific information is added, which will appeal to both attendees and proposal reviewers.

The fourth and fifth sentences,

This was especially the case when using feedback for “active rewriting and rethinking and resubmitting” (Dyson, 2020) processes in polling. The session includes study links, GSOT prep videos, and polling activities materials.

expands to,

Our GSOT polling sessions for the study used Dyson’s (2020) 3Rs—rewriting, rethinking, resubmitting—modelling processes of online group tutoring, specifically Dyson’s feedback modelling in “proactive and in-session active rewriting and rethinking and resubmitting” (Dyson, 2020, p. 341) concepts applied in polling. Dyson’s instance of “students’ deep and inclusive retelling” of their own group writing experience is borne out in our study (2020, p. 389).

The session includes study links, GSOT prep videos, and polling activities materials (including polling questions, activities, and resources). A short participatory activity will include a Dyson’s 3Rs activity.

Again more detail is added, including further theoretical and supporting quotes from the literature. As well, expanding out the details of what attendees will do in and take-away from the session is important. Attendees want to bring home things that they can use in their work.

Session types

Another consideration for your proposal is the type of session best suited for the information that you’re wanting to present. Session types usually include:

    • Research Presentations

Report on a study, on an evidence-based pedagogical practice, or on research into the history, theory, philosophies, and praxes of writing centres. Presentations are often grouped into small panels of presenters. Presenters may propose their own panel of grouped presentations.

    • Round table Discussions

These sessions are question-driven. Round table sessions are ideal for works-in-progress, pedagogical innovations, or taking up an issue of current debate in your field. Round table facilitators usually lead a 30-minute discussion that encourages active participation and contribution from attendees. Proposals should indicate the topic of your discussion, why it would be of interest to writing centre colleagues, and how you plan to engage and facilitate an active and dynamic discussion.

    • Interactive Workshops

Workshops are an opportunity to model an innovative practice, strategy or innovation with your colleagues through collaborative, hands-on activities. Proposals should clearly describe the practice you intend to feature, the overall structure of the session, and how you will actively engage the audience. Workshops are typically 60 minutes in length or longer.

    • Interactive sessions, 

which may include,

You may find that some CFPs will ask you for suggestions for sessions. For example, we created something called the Stone Soup session, where participants were asked in advance of the session to bring something to add in and speak to in the session. These were often handouts, resource links, and other support material. Here’s a description of our session from International Writing Centers Association-National Conference on Peer Tutoring and Writing Conference conference in 2019,

In the traditional story of stone soup, a town of starving people meet a traveler with a magic stone. With a borrowed pot and some water, he places a stone in the pot to make “the most delicious soup.” The traveler asks the townspeople, who have nothing to share, to bring some bits of things to add to the delicious soup. Everyone brings what they think is very little for the pot, and the soup is delicious and enough for everyone in the end — enough even for everyone to take some home.

In a stone soup session, everyone brings something to add to the pot, everyone brings some what they have–worksheets, podcast, policy, scaffolding activity, app, url, or qr code–to share, and everyone takes home a full bowl of the results.

References and suggested reading

Proposals submitted to academic conferences must be founded in  research and theory. As a conference reviewer, I usually recommend that a proposal be revised and resubmitted if it doesn’t have references. That said, if your session is not research-based, then providing suggested/further readings is important.

Writing a conference proposal: A guide

Here is the information in this post as a pdf and google slide deck. Please feel free to use and share.

Good luck with your proposal!

References

Andeweg, B., de Jong, J. & Strohmeijer, B. (2010). Humor in Conference Papers, an analysis of 16 paper presentations of communication scholars. 10th ABC Europe Convention at Lessius University College, Antwerp, Belgium. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342439024_Humor_in_Conference_Papers_an_analysis_of_16_paper_presentations_of_communication_scholars

Hotson, B., & Bell, S. (2022). Writing a conference proposal: A guide. CWCR/RCCR, 3(3 Winter). Retrieved from https://cwcaaccr.com/2022/02/07/writing-a-conference-proposal-a-guide/

Rubel, W. (n.d.). History of the Stone Soup Folktale from 1720 to Now. Stone Soup Newsletter. Retrieved from https://stonesoup.com/about-the-childrens-art-foundation-and-stone-soup-magazine/history-of-the-stone-soup-story-from-1720-to-now/

Renyk, G., & Stephenson, J. (2019). Teaching and Learning Cracker Barrel: ‘Designing Effective Assessments.’ CATR 2019 @UBC: The annual conference of the Canadian Association of Theatre Research. Retrieved from https://catr2019.wordpress.com/activities/workshops/teaching-and-learning-cracker-barrel-designing-effective-assessments/

Syracuse University iSchool. (2017). How to Present an Academic Research Poster. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ozwCEeaVWE&t=42s

 

 

Published by Brian Hotson

Editor, CWCR/RCCR