How to Write an Abstract for a Conference Without Results?

Can you submit a conference abstract before your research is finished? In most fields, yes. Abstract deadlines usually fall months before the event, so many conferences expect the study to still be in progress. Writing that kind of abstract is its own skill: you have a gap, a question, a method and an expected contribution, and the abstract has to feel rigorous without promising findings you do not have yet.

Quick answer: To write an abstract without results, state the research gap, your question or hypothesis, your method, where the study stands today and the contribution you expect. Use present tense for the gap and ongoing work, future tense for what you will analyze, and never phrase anything as a finding you do not have. Check the call for papers first, because some conferences ask for completed studies only.

The sections below cover the structure, tense, differences by field, a fill-in template with a worked example, and a pre-submission checklist.

Can a Conference Abstract Work Without Results?

Yes, if the abstract is specific about what you are doing and why it matters. In my view, an honest “in progress” abstract is a normal submission, not a weaker one.

Reviewers of an in-progress abstract look for four things: a clear research gap, a defensible hypothesis or question, a sound methodology and a plausible expected contribution. If those four are present and well argued, missing final results are not disqualifying. You are arguing that the work matters and that your approach can answer the question you have raised.

Norms differ a little by field. In STEM, reviewers often expect at least preliminary or pilot data. In the Humanities and Social Sciences, theoretical framing and methodological rigor tend to carry more weight, and in-progress work is widely accepted when the intellectual stakes are clear. The abstracts that get rejected are rarely the ones without results. They are the ones that are vague about what they are doing and why.

Conference Abstract vs. Journal Abstract: Key Differences

The two formats are easy to confuse, but a journal abstract summarizes a finished study while a conference abstract persuades a committee that your work deserves a place on the program. That difference changes how you write without results, and I would keep it in mind every time you are tempted to copy a journal-style abstract.

A short limit helps when your data are incomplete. You have no room to dwell on unfinished analysis, so the words go to the gap, the method and the contribution. Many conferences actively solicit unfinished work, because a conference is where research in progress gets tested in front of a live audience.

How to Structure an Abstract Without Results

Walk the reviewer through four elements in order: why the study exists, what exactly you ask, how you are answering it, and what it will add. Done well, the abstract holds up even while findings are pending. I find it easiest to draft the method first, because it is the part you already know best.

Background and Research Gap

In two or three sentences, give just enough context to show the conversation in your field and the specific gap you are stepping into. The gap is the most important part. “Little research exists on X” is weak on its own. A stronger version names the gap: “Existing studies have examined Y in institutional settings, but community-based contexts remain largely unexamined.” That signals you have read the literature. If your opening could apply to a dozen other studies, it is too vague, so name the specific literature, time period, population or context that has been underexplored. Keep it tight, because this is not a literature review.

Research Question or Hypothesis

State it plainly and early, so reviewers do not have to hunt for it. In STEM this is often a testable hypothesis. In the Humanities and Social Sciences it is more often a focused research question or interpretive frame.

Vague: “This study explores the relationship between identity and language use.”

Specific: “This study examines how bilingual university students in rural Ghana switch between languages in formal academic writing, and what those switches reveal about identity negotiation in institutional contexts.”

One clear sentence does more work than three hedged ones.

Methodology

This is where in-progress research can look strong, because reviewers want a credible plan that you are already carrying out. Describe what you are doing, not what you hope to do. If data collection has begun, say so. Name the approach (qualitative interviews, a controlled experiment, archival analysis, a survey, a computational model) and briefly note your sample or data source.

• Be specific about design. “Qualitative methods” tells a reviewer almost nothing. “Semi-structured interviews with 24 secondary school teachers across three provinces” tells them a lot.
• Acknowledge scope honestly. If the design has a known limit, such as a sample constrained by access or breadth traded for depth, flag it in a clause. Reviewers appreciate researchers who understand their own design.
• Give the sample size and analysis plan. If the data are not all in yet, state the sample you intend to reach and the analysis you plan to run, so the committee can judge whether the design can answer the question.

Expected Contribution or Significance

This is the part most writers under-develop. “This study will contribute to the literature on X” is a placeholder, not a contribution. Ask what the research is positioned to do. Will it test an existing model in a new context? Offer a baseline where none exists? Challenge a common assumption? Give practitioners usable data?

Name it directly: “Findings are expected to provide the first systematic comparison of Y across Z contexts” is a real claim. This closing sentence should also link back to the gap you opened with, so the reader sees what your study will put in its place, even provisionally.

Tense Strategy: What to Write in Place of Findings

My advice is to match each tense to the real status of that part of the work. Academic habit pushes you toward past tense for everything, but when the study is still running, that framework breaks down.

Use Present Tense for What Already Exists

Your gap, theoretical framing and hypothesis are present realities, so write them that way. Moving the gap statement into past tense would be odd, and it would suggest the gap has been closed.

Use Present Progressive or Future Tense for the Study Itself

Present progressive (“this study is examining”) honestly tells the reader the research is live, and reviewers recognize it as standard. Future tense (“the findings will inform”) suits the expected contribution, provided you have already given a clear method and a specific hypothesis. Vague future claims without that support read as guesswork.

Avoid “the results will show” unless you immediately say what you expect them to show and why your design points that way.

What to Write Where Findings Would Go

Padding the space where results belong makes the abstract weaker, not fuller. Replace findings with two things.

• Expected contribution tells the reader what the study is positioned to add. “This study is expected to contribute evidence for X” or “results will be used to test whether Y holds across Z populations” gives reviewers something concrete to judge.
• Interpretive framework signals how you will read your data when it arrives. This matters most in Humanities and Social Sciences, where the analytical lens counts as much as the data. A sentence such as “findings will be interpreted through Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital” shows a coherent plan, not a half-finished project.

Hedging and Phantom Results

Some caution is honest, but “It is hoped that results may potentially suggest…” or “we may possibly find” sounds unsure about your own study. “This study is expected to…” or “preliminary data indicate…” carries the right weight. If you have early or pilot data, use it: “initial results suggest X, with full analysis ongoing” is one of the strongest lines an in-progress abstract can contain, because it shows the study is real and moving. Label early numbers as preliminary, say which sample they come from and report only what you have actually analyzed, never what you expect the analysis to give.

Also check for phantom results, meaning wording that implies certainty about outcomes. “This study demonstrates that X leads to Y” should become “this study will examine whether X leads to Y”. A careful reviewer can read the first version as misleading.

Field-by-Field Differences: STEM, Humanities, and Social Sciences

What you emphasize should follow your discipline: methodology and hypothesis in STEM, the intellectual problem and argument in the Humanities, and a mix in the Social Sciences. A STEM template dropped into a Humanities submission can weaken your case, so I would always start from an accepted abstract in your own field.

STEM Fields

• State your hypothesis clearly. Reviewers in biology, chemistry, engineering and related fields expect a falsifiable claim: what you are testing and what you predict. “This study explores whether X might affect Y” signals uncertainty about the design itself.
• Describe the methodology in enough detail to be credible. Sample sizes, instruments, statistical approaches and data collection stages show the work is real even without completed results.
• Use expected outcomes carefully. “We anticipate that” and “preliminary data suggest” are acceptable in conference contexts. Do not overstate. With no pilot data, stick to what the design is built to detect.

Humanities Fields

• Lead with the intellectual problem, not the method. In literary studies, philosophy or history, open with the debate, tension or gap in scholarship your work engages. Reviewers want to know what is at stake before how you are doing it.
• Your thesis is your result. If your paper proposes a new reading of a text or a revised historical interpretation, you can state that claim even if the full paper is unfinished. You are presenting an intellectual position, not withholding results.
• Archive and source work counts as methodology. Name close reading, archival research or comparative textual analysis explicitly, along with the primary materials.

Social Sciences

Depending on whether the work is quantitative or qualitative, the abstract leans toward STEM or Humanities norms, but three things apply across the board.

• State the research gap early. One or two sentences on what prior studies missed or left unresolved is standard, and it shows why the paper belongs at this conference.
• Distinguish between design and data. Say what phase you are in. If data collection is underway but incomplete, say so. If you finished one wave of a longitudinal study, note what the next wave adds. Reviewers in sociology, political science and education understand in-progress work and want transparency about where you are.
• Make the expected contribution concrete. Will it test a theory in a new population or give the first comparative data on a policy context? Name the specific gap your findings are positioned to address.

Do Conferences Reject Abstracts Without Results?

Some do, but fewer than most researchers expect, and the risk depends more on the type of conference than on the discipline. Whether a particular call allows work in progress is a separate yes or no question, and the call for papers is the place to answer it. I would read that call before writing a single sentence.

• Large, competitive disciplinary meetings (major annual conferences in medicine, economics or experimental psychology, for example) tend to prefer completed studies. A speculative-sounding abstract struggles there, not because the work is weak, but because it does not match what the committee is selecting.
• Interdisciplinary, emerging-field and methods-focused events are often more open to in-progress research, and some have a separate work-in-progress category.
• Graduate student conferences and early-career forums often welcome ongoing studies. Giving researchers a place to test ideas before results are final is partly their purpose.

When “No Results Yet” Becomes a Problem

The risk rises when an abstract reads as underdeveloped rather than genuinely in progress, and reviewers can usually tell the difference. Once a conference accepts abstracts without results, they stop asking what you found and ask whether the study is worth hearing about before it concludes. A clear analytical framework, a timeline and a plausible contribution read very differently from an abstract that trails off with “results will be discussed at the time of presentation”. That phrase suggests you have not decided what you will say. A stronger move is to state what the study is designed to determine and what the implications would be under different outcomes.

Match Your Submission to Your Stage

What you can honestly submit depends on how far the study has come.

• Data collected, analysis running: report interim findings for the sample you have so far and label them preliminary.
• Design settled, little or no data: present the design, why it is feasible and the planned analysis, and look for a work-in-progress or proposal category in the call.
• Data arriving after the deadline: look for a late-breaking track, if the conference runs one.

Checking the Guidelines Before You Submit

Look in the call for papers for wording such as “preliminary findings welcome”, “work in progress accepted” or “completed studies only”. If the guidelines are silent, a short email to the program committee is routine, and the answer tells you whether to adapt your framing or save the abstract for another venue.

After a rejection with feedback, check whether the comment was about missing results or about framing. The first may mean you needed a different venue. The second is fixable before your next submission.

Sample Abstract: Ongoing Study (Template)

The template below is built for an ongoing study and can be adapted across disciplines; my suggestion is to keep its order and change only the wording for your field. Each part maps to a section of the structure above.

The Fill-in-the-Blank Template

Replace the bracketed parts with your own content, then revise the language so it reads naturally rather than like a form.

[Opening sentence: the research gap] Write one or two sentences establishing what existing literature has not addressed or where consensus is incomplete. Be specific. Vague gestures at “limited research” carry no weight.

[Research question] State the central question your study investigates, as a single clear question or a tightly related pair. If you cannot write it in one sentence, tighten it before you submit.

[Hypothesis or theoretical position] State what you expect to find, or what argument you are developing, and why. In STEM this is typically a formal hypothesis. In Humanities and Social Sciences it may be a conceptual claim or interpretive framework tested against evidence.

[Methodology] Describe how you are conducting the study in two to four sentences. Name the method, the data source or population and the analytical approach. For mixed methods, say so and briefly explain why.

[Status of the research] One sentence on where the project stands, such as “data collection is ongoing”, “analysis is currently underway” or “fieldwork will be completed by [month/year]”. This keeps the abstract honest without drawing attention to the missing findings.

[Expected contribution] Close with what the study is designed to contribute: the specific gap it will address, the field it advances or the practical implication of the anticipated findings. Keep it grounded, because reviewers spot overreach.

A Worked Example

Here is the template filled in for a Social Sciences study. The structure transfers to STEM and Humanities with small changes.

Research gap: Existing studies on remote work productivity have focused predominantly on individual performance metrics, with little attention to how team communication patterns shift across time zones in asynchronous-first organizations.

Research question: This study investigates how asynchronous communication norms influence perceived team cohesion among distributed software development teams.

Hypothesis: It is hypothesized that teams with explicit asynchronous communication protocols report higher cohesion scores than those relying on informal norms, independent of meeting frequency.

Methodology: A mixed-methods design is employed, combining survey data from 180 distributed team members across twelve organizations with semi-structured interviews conducted with team leads. Quantitative data will be analyzed using hierarchical regression; interview data will be coded thematically using an inductive approach.

Status: Data collection is currently underway, with full dataset completion expected by March 2027.

Expected contribution: Findings are expected to extend existing team cohesion frameworks to asynchronous-first contexts and provide practical criteria for organizations designing remote communication policies.

This example runs to roughly 150 words, which suits a short limit such as 150 to 250 words, but always check the limit in your own call.

How to Update Your Abstract Once Results Are Available

My advice is to update it only if the conference allows changes, and then to change just the parts that were projections. Being accepted on an in-progress abstract means your question and method were convincing on their own, and the version you present should reflect what you actually found.

Check the Conference Policy First

Some conferences lock abstracts after acceptance. Others allow minor revisions up to a set deadline. Check the submission portal or ask the program committee. Do not assume you have permission to update, and do not assume you do not.

What Actually Changes

• Replace projected outcomes with actual findings. Wherever you wrote “this study will show” or “we expect to find”, swap in one or two clear results, not a laundry list.
• Adjust the contribution statement. Your expected contribution can now be stated as confirmed, or corrected if the results shifted it.
• Revise tense throughout. Past tense for completed methods, present tense for findings that still hold. Tense slips after a revision are easy to miss, so read every sentence.
• Leave the background and gap alone. They do not change because you now have results.

When Results Complicate Things

If the results do not confirm your hypothesis, that is fine. Null and unexpected findings are legitimate and often interesting. Do not bury or soften what you found to make the abstract look tidier. State the outcome plainly and, if space allows, say what it suggests for future research. If your findings point to a substantially different conclusion, tell the program organizer. Many will still honor the acceptance, and a heads-up avoids surprises during the session.

Before sending the revision, read it as a standalone document, confirm the word count still fits the limit and make sure nothing contradicts what you will present in your slides or paper.

Pre-Submission Checklist

I would go through this list before you submit, because portals often allow no edits after the deadline.

• Does it stand alone? Reviewers have no slide deck or proposal. If someone outside your field cannot name the problem within the first two sentences, tighten the opening.
• Are all four elements present? Gap, hypothesis or central argument, credible method and a specific expected contribution. A vague “this study examines X” is not enough to evaluate.
• Is every verb honest? If “results demonstrate” appears anywhere and you have no results yet, change it.
• Is it within the word limit? Most portals are strict. If the limit is 250 words, do not submit 310 and hope they overlook it.
• Does it match the call? Reread the call for papers. If the conference is built around work in progress, lean into that. If it is mainly results-driven, your expected contribution must be especially strong.
• Does it follow field formatting? Some conferences, particularly in STEM, expect structured abstracts with labeled sections. If the guidelines say nothing, follow your field’s convention.
• Has a fresh pair of eyes read it? Print it or paste it somewhere other than your usual editor, and read for clarity rather than familiarity. A colleague who has reviewed abstracts or submitted to this conference can catch the one sentence that is unclear to everyone but you.

From our experience at MS International: Our published submission requirements say an abstract should explain the work’s purpose, method, key findings, significance and relevance to the conference, so for a study in progress, label any findings as preliminary or expected and say plainly what stage you are at. Papers go through double-blind peer review, so keep identifying details out of the abstract text itself unless the form asks for them. The submitted work must be original, not previously published and not under review elsewhere. Decisions come by email as acceptance, revision request or rejection, and review usually takes around 10 working days, so submit well before the deadline. If you are unsure whether a conference accepts work in progress, ask the organizers before you submit.

FAQ

With data collection still running, writers ask about tense, the line “results will be presented”, questions at the event and how far to revise once results arrive.

Can I submit an abstract if my data collection isn’t finished yet?

Yes, at many conferences, but not all: some accept completed work only, so check the call first. Where in-progress work is welcome, be transparent about where the study stands and focus on your research gap, hypothesis and methodology.

What if someone asks about my results during the conference?

Say directly that data collection or analysis is still underway and share preliminary findings if you have them. Academic audiences understand this, and an honest answer reads better than an overstated one.

Should I write “results will be presented” in the abstract?

No. Reviewers tend to read “results will be presented” as missing data and it says nothing about the value of your work. State what you expect to find and why, or report preliminary numbers if you have them.

Is this approach accepted in STEM the same way as in the Humanities or Social Sciences?

Not always. STEM conferences tend to want more methodological detail and some preliminary data before accepting an abstract without results. Humanities and Social Sciences conferences are generally more comfortable with work-in-progress framing from the start.

How much should I change the abstract once I have results?

Change what the results affect. Replace projected outcomes with findings, update the contribution statement and fix the tense. The background and gap usually stay as they are, and you should first check whether the conference allows revisions.

What tense should I use throughout the abstract?

Present tense for the gap and background, present progressive for ongoing work, past tense only for completed stages, and future tense for the expected contribution. The goal is accuracy about what is done and what is still underway.

Does a journal abstract work the same way?

No. A journal abstract is written after the work is complete and normally reports results. A conference abstract can describe work that is still in progress.

Final Thoughts

Submitting an abstract for an ongoing study feels uncomfortable the first time, but it is a normal part of how conferences work. Be clear about where your research stands, state your question and method precisely, and name the contribution you expect. If your results arrive before the event, update the abstract where the system allows it, and otherwise present what you have honestly.