You can be a shy introvert and get fame just through your printed word, or stand up and speak up in public to get quick feedback. Either way you can build up your reputation. Either way you have to be brave enough to accept honest, written or spoken feedback. In practice you will find that the research community is very constructive and helpful. No man is an island, and no research is published or proclaimed without polish from the peer community. You should therefore actively seek out all possible opportunities to engage with the best minds in the world. Feeling inferior need not worry you.

Ian - you mention 'building up your reputation'. Is this then a key motivator? Other discussions are going on regarding why we publish, but my interest is in risk - is it 'safer' to publish articles, than to take the plunge and engage directly with your peers?

If we look at how forums such as RG are changing / broadening the potential for us to interact, then are we going to notice any difference in how we engage with each other and will actual interaction become more valued & recognised as part of our professional practice?

No, The true motivator is deep curiosity.

You really want to build up your research base. My advice is always to try out your ideas in the safe local environment. Once you have done that you will have the courage to publish in the perceived "risky" international audience. Face-to-face feedback can be as daunting as E-mail-to E-mail feedback. The only difference is that in the first instance peers expect the research to be less polished, and you have to make your own notes of responses.

RG lets us quickly get and document some random, international opinions (not facts usually), get pointers to the literature, and see if maybe our question has an obvious answer. We are still limited by the amount of exposure a RG question can have, resulting in us addressing our questions to a group of 5 silos (topics) and their followers.

RG scores will not help our promotions, but RG will be valued for its speed, and is already being taught (by me) as an essential resource today, just like Scholar.

Hi Nicholas and Ian,

Not sure that there is that much 'risk' involved in conference presentation. OK - there may be a built-up perceived risk on the part of the individual speaker at conference - but it is mostly an internalised one. The audience may well challenge - but the speaker is hopefully the 'expert' who can counter any rebuttals. From my experience of conference speaking, the audience are usually receptive and encouraging and often approach me afterwards to say 'interesting' or whatever; never to stick a knife in my back. Once the presentation is over - then there is usually the 'big sigh of relief'. Many in the audience are probably thinking ' rather you present than me' anyway.

RG, to me, is far different to a conference audience. The audience on RG is far more eclectic and 'generic'.

Well, @Dean, we may spend some more time to respond, often days of sporadic thinking over an answer to a tricky question.

@Nicholas, I am not quite sure that I have got the true grip of your question. Presenting your work on a conference in front of peers and writing/submitting an article are not really comparable, IMHO. Do you actually mean the following publication of your results (on paper or online)? It's only then that a (hopefully greater) number of peers have access to your presentation.

With written texts peers tend to be less indulgent than with spoken words (e.g., regarding grammar, arguments and style). So, the same person reading your article and listening to your talk might react differently. Confidence based on training and good work will help.

Practice presentations very locally first to build up your confidence. The first presentation is always difficult, so make sure that your public presentation is the second run.

This is partly a personality question, but I guess mostly to do with language.

There are lots of anecdotes where highly competent 'academics' are renowned as being poor verbal communicators. Some may be personality-related, but the most common stories are those of the non-native speaker who's concept of how they come across to others in a foreign language limits how they expose themselves.

From my own experience, although I have 4 languages, my confidence in oral communication has got less with age & also as I have less language practice. In short, I am now so embarrassed by my own competence (beyond routine matters), that I would no longer enjoy exposing myself in formal foreign language venues. I see lots of others who are the same - great in their own language but exposed in others, so I empathise completely with those who stay in their own language group or communicate remotely. It also fills me with admiration for those who are competent in other languages & brave enough to engage. I have written & presented in various countries in English, & used to be able to converse relatively freely in German & French. My lack of use (& having found Finnish so difficult to learn as a latecomer language) has lessened my skills & more importantly my confidence (language not academic), so beyond routine matters, I have become pretty much mono-lingual (to my own shame).

That led me to wonder though if writing a journal article the safest option that offers least personal exposure? Perhaps this is a flawed question, as those who might understand what I'm getting at, probably wouldn't answer the thread ;-)

Yes, writing is "easier" because you can use a bilingual dictionary, use software to point out spelling errors, get friends to check your grammar, go back and fix errors that are found.

For presentations you might be ashamed of your pronunciation, but let me assure you that other researchers will never, never make fun of that.

I agree, but (even though we know to be unfounded), we can easily judge ourselves much more harshly than we would ever judge anyone else.