Comments on: As Long As I’m At It…

By: Ennis

Ennis — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:54:02 +0000

Interestingly, this happens less (IMHO) in fields with visual aids. I think that part of the reason people ramble is that they’re trying to locate their comments in the context of what somebody else has said over the 20 minutes of their talk. OTOH, if they can simply say: Could you put up the outline again? OK, concerning your third point … they’ve cut out a good deal of rambling right there.

The other point is that I think the norms of history favor discursive exposition, even if what is being discussed is a fairly concrete empirical point. I think this is a cultural problem within the field, although hopefully one that is changing. Historians seem to behave differently in a multi-disciplinary setting, since they’re not trying to impress non-historians with their opaque long-windiness. (Unfortunately, anthropologists usually remain long-winded from what I’ve seen)

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:00:52 +0000

No, it happens at other conferences and disciplines, too. There’s two kinds of time-hogs who are especially hard to stop when they make comments from the floor: the mighty-famous big shot and the bizarro guy that no one knows or has seen before with weird theories or interests. The first because no one wants to offend him/her, and the second because everyone (including the chair) is sort of afraid of what Dr. Bizarro might do if the chair tries to shut him/her up.

By: katrina

katrina — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:15:24 +0000

Hi Timothy, yes comments (and in some cases suggestions – eg ‘have you looked at author x’) can be helpful, and they have been helpful to me when I have presented papers. But as an audience member, one person hogging the (limited) question period with their own self-promotion is annoying.
You’re right, the person chairing the session should take charge. But
I have rarely (ever?) seen a chair with a strong enough will to do that, especially when the person with the rambling (and in many cases completely off-topic) contribution is a ‘big name’ in the field.
And I have seen too many cases of chairs attempting to get speakers – and questioners – to wrap it up to no effect at all.
Is this problem unique to history? My area is Asia/world and it seems to be something of an epidemic.

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:53:32 +0000

I hear you on that point, Katrina, but I also feel a vague reluctance about it. Some of the best things I’ve seen happen at a formal presentation were pointed comments made about a paper and the responses they drew from the author. More I think chairs have to exert very strong control over the length of a question or comment and forcefully direct people to sit down and shut up when they’ve hit that length. 1 minute and then that’s it, sit down.

By: katrina

katrina — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:17:03 +0000

I’m with Ennis on the requirement for people to deliver papers standing up.

Sitting encourages people to ramble on (and this is surely the worst thing about ’20 minute’ paper presentations – we all know what we’re in for is likely to be closer to 40 minutes)

And there should be some way to limit the question session to QUESTIONS. (ie nobody who begins with ‘it’s not so much a question as a comment….’ and then launches into their own 15 minute presentation)

By: Ennis

Ennis — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:10:56 +0000

1. Bbenzon – you realize that your objection to this style of lecturing is that it’s too clear, and communicates too well? By that standard, a lecture should be completely impenetrable so that the audience is obliged to go and read on their own.

2. In a conference setting, you don’t necessarily want people to have to read the paper.

By: savitri

savitri — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:39:16 +0000

You may have seen this, but here’s Brian Leiter’s blog-kibitzing about the AALS:
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/01/the_hopeless_as.html

By: bbenzon

bbenzon — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:04:14 +0000

I basically agree with Ennis about the Powerpoint, but . . .

As an undergraduate I took a philosophy course taught by one Maurice Mandelbaum, who would put an outline on the chalkboard before each lecture, and then hit the outline points, one after the other, in order. It made for very lucid lectures and easy note-taking. He was so good that, if you had a flair for the material, you didn’t really have to read the primary philosophical texts all that closely.

Not so good.

By: Ennis

Ennis — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:20:17 +0000

Tim – I disagree about PowerPoint. Any good argument has an outline of major points. Even putting that up means that people don’t get lost in the verbiage. If you get confused you look up and say: Oh, he’s talking about his third point, how Canadian rap is indistinguishable from American rap, but this isn’t true about pop or rock in the two countries.

Even that would help.

It would also help if people were forced to deliver their papers standing up.

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:44:43 +0000

Now that I agree with, Bill: humanists aren't trained to be persuasive with either word or voice, save in discursive environments where their capacity to persuade draws from their institutional markings (who your advisor is, what your institution is, what your past publications are). Learning how to present an argument succinctly and in an entertaining fashion isn't just something grad students should be trained to do at conferences: it should be a basic part of their training for teaching as well.