One Paper, Three Conferences: How Strategic Reframing Works Without Diluting Your Research (Eps. 2)

There is a quiet assumption among many early career researchers that each conference abstract must correspond to an entirely new paper. In practice, this is rarely how academic life unfolds. Most scholars develop a small number of core research projects and present them, in different forms, across multiple fora. What changes is not the substance of the work, but the lens through which it is presented.

This practice is sometimes misunderstood as opportunistic. That criticism deserves to be taken seriously, but it is not always persuasive. Reframing is not the same as misrepresentation. When done carefully, it reflects an understanding that complex research questions often sit at the intersection of several debates. Different conferences illuminate different aspects of the same inquiry.

To see how this works, it helps to begin with a stable core. Assume a paper examines regulatory failures in environmental governance within a particular jurisdiction. The evidence, sources, and central argument remain constant. What shifts is the problem the abstract foregrounds and the conversation it explicitly enters.

Consider a conference whose theme focuses on climate justice. In this context, the abstract would likely emphasise how regulatory failure produces unequal environmental outcomes or undermines the protection of vulnerable communities. The gap might be framed in terms of the disconnect between legal commitments and lived realities. The contribution would be positioned as speaking to justice oriented critiques of climate governance. The paper has not changed, but its normative implications are now at the centre.

Now imagine submitting the same paper to a conference on comparative public law. Here, the abstract would need to make different choices. The focus might move toward institutional design, separation of powers, or the interaction between domestic law and international obligations. The gap could be framed as a lack of comparative attention to certain regulatory models. Justice may still appear, but as a secondary concern rather than the organising principle. Again, the underlying research remains intact, but its doctrinal significance is brought forward.

A third conference might centre on implementation and policy effectiveness. In that setting, the abstract would foreground enforcement mechanisms, administrative capacity, or regulatory coordination. The problem becomes practical rather than normative or doctrinal. The contribution lies in showing how law operates, or fails to operate, on the ground. This interpretation may depend on jurisdiction, and the abstract should acknowledge that context matters.

What unites these versions is not keyword substitution, but analytical choice. Each abstract identifies a problem that genuinely arises from the same research. Each addresses a gap that is real within the domain of the conference. None requires the author to abandon intellectual honesty or exaggerate findings. The paper travels because it is capable of speaking in more than one register.

This process does, however, require discipline. Not every paper can be plausibly reframed for every conference. There are limits. Reviewers are usually alert to abstracts that stretch relevance too far. A useful check is to ask whether the paper, as written, could reasonably sustain the emphasis proposed in the abstract. If the answer is uncertain, caution is warranted.

It is also important to resist the temptation to promise more than the paper can deliver. Over tailored abstracts that signal results or arguments not fully developed in the paper may succeed at the acceptance stage but create difficulties later. Conference presentations are public intellectual commitments. The reputational costs of mismatch are real, even if they are rarely formalised.

Used well, strategic reframing allows researchers to enter multiple conversations with a single, well developed piece of work. It respects the integrity of the research while acknowledging that conferences are curated spaces with distinct priorities. For scholars seeking international exposure, this skill is especially valuable. It enables ideas to move across borders without losing coherence.

In the end, the question is not whether one paper can be presented in different places. It often can. The more difficult question is whether the researcher has taken the time to understand what each place is actually asking for. That understanding is what turns a submission into an invitation.

Adekunle Saheed Akinola is a researcher with expertise in international environmental law and policy, focusing on the right to development, the transition to a green economy, and the rights of indigenous communities. He also specializes in comparative international human rights, particularly women’s and minority rights, as well as international investment law. Adekunle provides mentorship to early researchers and students in research paper writing, drafting conference abstracts, and developing Master’s and PhD theses. He is committed to helping scholars communicate their ideas clearly, structure their work effectively, and navigate academic submissions with confidence.

Contact:
Email: choicelandsolicitors9@gmail.com
Mobile: +2348032493960
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5346-8773