I'm seven months into my project, and it still hasn't taken shape, ie I haven't figured out exactly what my central concern/question is going to be. However, I see everyone around me already starting to present at conferences, and I'm starting to panic a bit. Should I be worried at this point if I haven't presented yet? The problem is, I feel like I need more time to get comfortable about my research, and don't quite feel ready yet. My friend told me I need to focus on what I'm doing, and not worry about playing 'keep up' with everyone else, and whilst I totally agree with him, I can't help but feel inadequate when people who are at the same stage as I am are already venturing out and presenting their work. Any feedback would be appreciated. Cheers!

When did all of you start to present at conferences?

This is actually a huge bone of contention between me and my friends. Some of us feel that if you haven't decided what you're doing by 3/4 months in, with a strong hypothesis, then something is seriously wrong. Others say the whole first year should be a tentative 'finding out about' process. Different people work differently.
However, and I honestly don't mean to scare you, all my friends who began their PhD with a 'lets find out about' plan have dropped out or gone massively over the completion date (up to 5/6 years full time). You need to sit down with your supervisor and bash this out clearly. If things contradict your hypothesis, deal with them as and when, don't spend years wondering about what could happen

Sleepyhead, I can see where you're coming from. However, 'let's find out about' is actually a definition for research, isn't it? We can't go into our PhD projects with pre-determined hypotheses. We have to research in order to determine the viability of our arguments and then begin to develop our hypotheses based on the materials we are confronted with. I understand this to be quite common, being six or seven months in and still formulating your project title. In fact, at the end of the first year, many people change direction because they find their original propositions untenable.

Hi! That is fairly true Spacey, I was just letting people know the experiences my friends and I have had. In reality any potential supervisor should be able to spot a feasible and a non-feasible project when a student applies for a PhD place. This of course does not happen (and varies on subject area).
All I will say is that without a hypothesis, or at least a clear question to be answered, the PhD process - in my experience - takes a significantly longer time. My old supervisor actively encouraged students to spend their first year 'just reading' - all her PhD students (5) bar me dropped out. And I have a new, very experienced Supervisor, who said that was bad advice. You should have your literature review done within 6 months - from there a 'statement of intent' (question/hypothesis) - and within a year your methodology also.

I'm overrunning significantly because I didn't nail down my research in the first year and start writing; instead I collected a huge amount of information for which I could write about 5 different PhDs.

I'm now past my 'write-up' period.

I'd strongly suggest you have a hypothesis and a detailed outline of specific areas you need to research within 6 mths of starting.

Regarding your actual question about conferences, I advise you to wait until you feel you have a contribution to make. Putting yourself under pressure to perform publically will make it more difficult to consolidate your research questions and methods. This should be a priority. In the end, getting your PhD is the priority and you should focus on getting a handle on it. Conferences - although they are worth doing for experience and building confidence - can come later. At this stage they may lessen your confidence more. Aim at doing some in year 2 and at taking control over your research for the first year. :)

"all my friends who began their PhD with a 'lets find out about' plan have dropped out or gone massively over the completion date (up to 5/6 years full time)."

I was a 'let's find out about' person.. it took me 3 years full time and 1 year, 4 months writing up whilst working full time...so I'd say about 3 years, 9 months if I were to do it full time..

Nailing down your research too early could mean you sail through the first year and a half and then find out that what you've been researching isn't novel enough... or that you're way too focussed on one area etc..

I'd suggest you look at your research like a funnel.. you start off broad, but in one particular research area.. and every month, you get more and more focussed... that way you have a broad knowledge of the area and can justify why you chose one approach over another and why you chose to focus on X,Y and Z...