PowerPoint does not help
I have seen quite some historical developments with respect to visible aids used to clarify oral scientific presentations. I have seen talks illustrated with, slides being projected through a slide projector, transparencies made visible with an overhead projector, and – now – digital slides that come to the audience through a beamer. But with all these modern developments, which certainly seem to look like improvements, a lot of things have not changed for the better. Presenters going way over their time. Showing of bad slides (ugly, busy, unclear, …). Too Much Information (TMI). Much too high level for the audience. Why does this situation continue? My answer: a.o. lack of feedback. (Fig. Uncle Sam)

Lack of feedback
Suppose you do something in the line of your profession and you make mistakes. How to avoid these mistakes? Self-reflection does not help much. Other scientists, that are experienced, or know (better) should tell you. It takes two to tango: you should be receptive to remarks being made about your mistakes. And other people should be willing to point out your shortcomings to you. In practice this feedback mechanism only takes place in a very protected environment.

Whatever the quality of the talk, the chairman will enthusiastically acknowledge your presentation (if you listen between the lines you might pick up some mild indications about how your talk has been received).

Mutual admiration society
If the low-quality talk is delivered by a hot shot, nobody dares to show any discontent. Important scientists are usually bad in listening and surely worse in receiving criticism. As he will be the referee of your new paper (grant proposal) you better not bring him in a situation that he will remember you forever as being the only person that dared to insult him (Fig. Elephant and mouse). So what will happen? “Fantastic talk, George, really great”. The real limit is: “Would you mind sending us the digital file, so we can still study it later”. This is the modern version of “Hang your transparencies on the wall”.

Inform speaker better
In our institute junior scientists are obliged to attend the general colloquia. If the talk is good they enjoy it. But if the talk is horrible, they complain. They do not know who is important, and who is not. The juniors are very good in recognizing bad speakers. Their social filter is fortunately not trained enough yet. To improve the quality of our colloquia we inform the speakers very, very clearly (up to the point of being crude) not to go over their time, to realize that the audience is very mixed. It does not help much. Some of them admit during their presentation that they read the guidelines on the plane when they were on their way to us. I am sure that what I describe here sounds very familiar to many of you. In the remainder I will come with a possible solution. It is daring, but worth while to try.

Carrot and stick
The remedy is that the feedback should come from a third party, so not from the host. In my country guests that give a presentation get a kind of gift card (worth about 50 $) as a token of gratitude. I assume that similar traditions exist in other countries. I suggest to split up your colloquia in two types. There is probably some local celebrity scientist in your institute, either old or already passed away, let us call him Famous Name. The two colloquia are called 1. General Colloquium (GC) and 2. Famous Name Colloquium (FNC). The GC is just the old-fashioned type, but the juniors do not have to attend. The FNC is different and much more more prestigious. To support this point a gift card of 500 $ is given. The juniors are obliged (supervisors should see to this) to come and listen. But the talk will be evaluated, by using prescribed forms, by a few representative junior scientists (names not known to speaker). And these completed forms will be given to the speaker when he leaves.

Challenge
When a speaker is invited he is given the choice of delivering a GC or a FNC. Given his status in science he hardly can chicken out and go for GC. If he goes for FNC he will do his very best to deliver a good talk. And if not he will be punished. He can expect that bad evaluations will reflect back negatively on his future relations with the institute. He cannot blame host or institute director because these are rules for which there are no exceptions. He could have opted for a GC.

Your opinion
What do you think? Will this ever work? Or should we accept the situation as is? If there is interest I can post an example of an evaluation form.

Follow