Hello,
I've been invited to give a talk about my research in another (rather prestigious - not sure if that makes a difference) lab. I am trying to decide on which of my PhD studies to talk about. Is the function of such talks generally to get constructive feedback about your work, as well as to disseminate what you've found? I am trying to decide on whether it would be more interesting (and beneficial for me) to present my final study, which is still in progress. Does anyone have any thoughts/advice on this? I know it is up to me; but insight from others who have done this would be useful. Thanks : )

Hi Tudor, when you say 'lab', what is it that you are referring to? Pardon my ignorance here I've used social science methods but my faculty/school was Education. I'm envisioning a science lab with physical experiments and I understand you are from social sciences. So is lab still referring to the same thing? Is it a faculty group type presentation, (i.e. presenting before members of a neighbouring faculty or institution) or is it a bit like a conference. My options would be to present something interesting but perhaps not the main items if it were a faculty group type presentation. If it were a conference, I would probably present the major items. Good luck with it all.

Hi Pjlu! It is similar to what you describe - I don't know why they call it a lab to be honest! So it'll be to a small research group in my field but at another Uni. What do you mean by the main items vs something interesting? And why do you suggest that? Thanks for your reply!

What I meant by the main item versus something interesting...eg:

I had 3 data sets, with one fairly ordinary data that provided some basic findings with a small sample (quantitatively speaking). The second data set had some really interesting data but was really an embedded study within my overall case. It presented a fuller look at an aspect of the issue, basically coming at the issue from a different angle. I developed this study when I thought I might fail due to lack of uptake from participants. I had to redevelop my original questions half way through the study to accommodate this data set and rework the thesis to some extent.

The 3rd data set really focused on the main question of the overall study and the main thesis. So I wanted to present at a conference which was a really good overseas conference that included both professional and academic presenters. I chose not to present my main topic and the data from the third set at this conference, as I wanted to save it for a really solid journal article (which I plan to complete shortly-once the corrections process is complete and I am no longer in corrections process limbo). So for the conference I used a really interesting finding from the second data set and just presented on that. I spoke very briefly about the overall context but most of the presentation was about this second data set and the interesting finding (which plays a minor part in the overall thesis).

So what I meant was... if you have three separate studies, perhaps look at an interesting finding emerging from one of your sets and expand on that for the lab presentation and save your major finding for journal articles and big conferences perhaps. I took this approach because my supervisor was adamant that I could not present at a conference and then publish a journal article on the same material unless it was substantially changed or only published as conference procedings. Didn't want to use up my best data on this presentation but still wanted to present something that was interesting.

Firstly, no it doesnt matter about the "prestige" of the other lab. I have never been keen to use this kind of word to describe any academic unless they have made life changing discoveries and almost no academic anywhere in the world is doing that.

As for your invitation, presumably they have told you why you have been invited. This will guide you to choose a suitable talk.

Thanks for elaborating Pjlu - that's helpful to know. I think in my case that I don't have to worry about it being considered published material or anything, as there won't be any conference proceedings or anything so I could submit it elsewhere. I guess I was wondering whether to kind of give an overview of my PhD studies or go into one of them in more detail. Probably going into one of them is wiser, but I guess I could still give a backdrop of what each of the studies is about (since they are all related).

Hi pm133. I'm visiting and have been invited to give a talk so no guidance on what to talk about - but they know I'm a PhD student so it will be about my PhD work. I used prestigious to describe the place, not a person. I guess I'll treat it the same as one of our departmental meetings and prepare a talk as I would for that.

Yeah I think that is a good approach. Just a general overview of your research would be interesting to them.

I wouldnt use that phrase to describe a person or a university to be honest. Any sort of white-knighting makes me feel very uncomfortable. You have probably guessed that I am miserable git over things like this :-D
Dont even get me started on the farce of impact factors or poster prizes. I dont even agree with the idea of awarding Nobel prizes. Its all errant nonsense. The only thing which matters is the process of discovery itself. Everything else is meaningless time wasting in my opinion.

Anyway enough ranting from me. Good luck with your talk. Thats a great opportunity to network. Hope it works out for you.

Thanks pm133 - fingers crossed!