tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post3181749295137431252..comments2024-01-28T03:35:51.182-05:00Comments on Reassigned Time: The Conference Paper, or The Emphasis in Some Disciplines on Reading AloudDr. Crazyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12457967076373916629noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-67374697052150623232010-05-03T08:56:27.172-04:002010-05-03T08:56:27.172-04:00I'm coming late to this post, but I wanted to ...I'm coming late to this post, but I wanted to point out that one of the reasons I was so good in my recent TV gig, engagingly reading a text I'd written from a teleprompter, is all my years of practice writing conference papers in just the way you outline: thinking of audience; writing for the listener rather than the reader; and practice, practice, practice. The TV professionals were *rapturous* about how good I was, and if you've been to my FB page where I posted the first one, you'll see my friends (academic -- many disciplines -- and non-academic alike) are equally full of praise.<br /><br />So yeah, reading a text aloud has real applications outside of humanities academic conferences.Dr. Viragohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03960384082670286328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-8143162853657554992010-05-01T02:34:56.718-04:002010-05-01T02:34:56.718-04:00I am a Humanities person and I certainly don't...I am a Humanities person and I certainly don't work from a full manuscript when I teach, but I usually do when do a conference presentation. Because the 20 minutes that is normally allotted for panel papers is not a time I'm used to working in, I find having a manuscript keeps me within my allotted time but still able to make my points clearly. I think it is incredibly rude to take up time in a panel that has been allocated to other panellists and that's what often happens if you haven't written out more or less exactly what you want to say and timed it. <br /><br />As so many others have said, though, it needs to be written to be read and reading it out loud before you present is essential. Recording it and playing it back is not a bad idea.Judy Redmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04350638846246966802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-13761181832264348912010-04-30T11:02:30.217-04:002010-04-30T11:02:30.217-04:00I really like Powerpoint slides if they have pictu...I really like Powerpoint slides if they have pictures on them -- or evocative quotations. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-38773892675009376192010-04-28T00:19:43.037-04:002010-04-28T00:19:43.037-04:00I went to a great talked presentation today and it...I went to a great talked presentation today and it was totally appropriate that it be talked.<br /><br />That having been said, I do note that in many cases more can be gotten into a read (that is, written to be read) presentation than into a talked one. Writing it out, practicing reading and then reading it aloud allows one to condense and thus to give more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-88104973246666409142010-04-27T09:23:26.696-04:002010-04-27T09:23:26.696-04:00I have often wondered about this issue in terms of...I have often wondered about this issue in terms of job talks -- there seems to be a move towards more powerpoint and off-script job-talks, though that's not absolute. I think this may even vary by subfield. But I wonder if there's an emerging trend here, even in the humanities.Notorious Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08700875559325201086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-58834307232265584232010-04-26T22:20:47.879-04:002010-04-26T22:20:47.879-04:00I think that part of the "disagreement" ...I think that part of the "disagreement" is using different words to say something very similar.<br /><br />When I first read "reading a paper," I thought "no, I don't do that." But, in my field, you must submit a complete paper for conference presentation consideration (but that is a really closer to an article to be submitted for publication, not something one could/would present in 20 minutes). So, you write a paper, then you give a presentation based on that paper. I don't read my paper, but I do write out a pretty extensive presentation. Maybe not verbatim (or entirely verbatim), but not just a rough sense of what I'll say. And then I practice it so that I can present it sounding conversational, etc., even though it's largely written out. But, I don't say that I am reading the paper, because I don't consider that a paper; but, it sounds a lot like what you call a conference paper (as distinct from a publishable paper). <br /><br />(and which isn't to say that some people in my field -- to varying levels of success -- don't talk more off the cuff).life_of_a_foolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05427532203981697246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-13813266097908079192010-04-26T19:58:18.698-04:002010-04-26T19:58:18.698-04:00No time to comment substantively, but quickly:
Th...No time to comment substantively, but quickly:<br /><br />Thanks to the sciences/soc. science people for stopping by. Although you wouldn't know it from my post, I actually am familiar with writing in the sciences/social sciences, and I didn't intend to imply that those disciplines don't make interpretations/arguments. I do think there is a difference between what formats we need for making arguments about things that are in some cases hundreds of years old and on which people without advanced degrees think they're experts and that don't lend themselves to any sort of visual representations or talking through "results. <br /><br />Also, I think there is potentially a difference in what we're talking about when we talk about "precise language" and what can happen if one is imprecise in my field. I watched my diss director get slammed for changing from one word to another in a presentation without adequately accounting for the shift. Think about the difference between saying "school" and "university" as the difference between the words. Ultimately, he apologized for his "sloppiness" even though this sloppiness was ultimately not really central to his paper, nor did it hurt his point in any demonstrable way. And yet, still he got called out on it (in front of like 150 people) and it was an uncomfortable and embarrassing moment. That's what I mean by precision in literary studies.<br /><br />FP - yes, it is totally possible to use slides and to read - I probably made that false opposition because it's just not something that my research calls for (slides full of text with no pretty pictures make the baby Jesus cry). <br /><br />Gotta run! Thanks for the comments and I look forward to seeing what others have to say!Dr. Crazyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12457967076373916629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-7460311176250314692010-04-26T19:43:03.493-04:002010-04-26T19:43:03.493-04:00Are we placing "reading" in opposition t...Are we placing "reading" in opposition to "slides"? I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. It's perfectly possible to read and use slides just as it's possible to talk without reading and not use slides. So that feels like a false opposition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-32068250518855680902010-04-26T18:56:40.060-04:002010-04-26T18:56:40.060-04:00The MAIN reason I (a historian) read a 20 minute p...The MAIN reason I (a historian) read a 20 minute paper is time- trying to catch up an audience on sources, context, and a sophisticated theoretical argument can necessitate that you stick quite tightly to a script. But, I definitely think about a talk as a spoken medium. I write is as I would speak- not as I write. I also include jokes, play on words- relevant pauses- and even, if appropriate, construct my narrative so that it builds towards a climax in the conclusion. So in a sense, the talk is not 'reading', it is an art form that involves reading- and also one that is a recognised part of the discipline.Feminist Avatarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03364456372396228106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-72203875613493815872010-04-26T18:41:16.250-04:002010-04-26T18:41:16.250-04:00I think the question is not so much what the evide...I think the question is not so much what the evidence is and whether you are constructing the argument, but whether the evidence is easily digested into slides. So I do archival research in history, but I tend to read papers, mostly because the 20 minute frame is tight, and there is no time for wandering... But my evidence is textual. My argument is on some levels partly a narrative.<br /><br />That said, I try to deliver a paper *as if* I am talking it, even when I am reading it.Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716705206734059708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-54481614813627105692010-04-26T18:39:33.938-04:002010-04-26T18:39:33.938-04:00I really like this post. I too am a firm believer ...I really like this post. I too am a firm believer in reading papers for similar reasons. In history, there is some degree of presenting new findings. If one works in one of the well-trodden fields (French Revolution, Enlightenment, etc), there aren't many new events that need narration. (Not that there aren't new interpretations to be shared but a conference paper on one of these subjects would not likely spend half the time describing events.) If a scholar works in a less well-known field, or is presenting to a non-specialty crowd, or has uncovered new events, then part of the task is presenting new information. But conference papers in history shouldn't just be about telling stories; the narrative elements should be there only as much as is necessary to advance that scholar's interpretation. So similar to you, Dr. Crazy, the structure of the presentation and the specific language used is vital.<br /><br />I agree 100% that a conference paper is its own genre and I'd also note that reading a paper should not be a substitute for advanced preparation, which I think is how critics see it. (Oh how lazy you readers are for not bothering to memorize!) Reading still requires practice in order for it to be engaging.<br /><br />And there is one additional use for reading aside from presentations: being a commentator, whether it's at a seminar or conference or workshop. Comments on pre-circulated papers are almost invariably read but they too can be done well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-82187613833086263262010-04-26T17:19:43.015-04:002010-04-26T17:19:43.015-04:00A fascinating post, which offered a real insight i...A fascinating post, which offered a real insight into what humanities people are doing (trying to do?) when they write and read a paper. And interesting to think about as I begin to work on developing online materials to support teaching this summer, which will probably need to include some scripted 'reading aloud' type smooth voiceover as well as some 'natural speaking'.<br /><br />However, as Joyeh said, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding about what a (good) presenter of scientific data is doing when they 'speak to their slides' rather than reading from a paper. In a good presentation, each slide is carefully constructed to build an argument whilst providing the audience either with some visual summary of information which captures their attention or can more easily be assimilated than a verbal description, or some other reference point (key words, image) for the audience. The engaging reader of a talk (or audition taker) does not continually look at and read from the words on the written page, since they have practiced the piece often enough to know some parts of it well enough to speak to the audience directly without looking down. Similarly, the scientist uses the slides as their cues - the talk often started as a written piece, constructed around the images, which serve as cues to the argument. The nervous or inexperienced speaker will usually have in their hand a full written paper, like the humanities scholar, which they supplement with images at appropriate points. The experienced speaker uses the cues of the presentation to ensure that they deliver the exact points and argument needed to communicate their contribution to the conversation, and will often have practiced repeatedly just as you describe to ensure that pauses, asides and key sentences are placed correctly.<br /><br />Just like an author's major work, things such as 'the ecology of an oak tree' or 'the formation of the Burgess Shales' or 'genetic components of obesity' form ongoing conversations around a commonly understood core of literature and facts.<br /><br />Your post actually helped me articulate what I have often felt instinctively to be so, but been told otherwise by 'the keepers of the mysteries' (practitioners of other disciplines in my multi-disciplinary department); that a good presentation has the same ingredients of thoughtful planning and construction, preparation and practice, regardless of whether it is a 'talk' or a 'paper', 'spoken' or 'read'.JaneBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17779448611795379774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-41687736049383549932010-04-26T16:51:17.602-04:002010-04-26T16:51:17.602-04:00I'm a psycholinguist, and when I present I don...I'm a psycholinguist, and when I present I don't read. But I still view my primary job as convincing my audience that my interpretation of my data, that my precise argument, is correct, and language is absolutely important to that. Especially because my scientific materials need to be described in very precise way, in particular the linguistic stimuli that I use. So while I'd never dismiss professors of English or History because they read their presentations, I'm not sure your argument holds up on the grounds you give. Maybe you also don't have a full understanding of what a scientist has to convey in a presentation? It is completely possible to be very precise and careful in your language and still not read; it is just a different way of doing it. I used to have to memorize what I was going to say, and now I can know my script well enough and be well enough versed in my material that I don't have to memorize every word. But each word is still important.<br /><br />Also, in a science audience the audience is intimately familiar with the work that has come before, just as your audience is familiar with the literature you are proposing an alternate interpretation for. My presentation is either expanding their understanding, confirming something they know, presenting a re-interpretation, or what have you, but I certainly wouldn't give them all the most detailed of backgrounds because they already have that knowledge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-33126790242077293752010-04-26T15:04:17.256-04:002010-04-26T15:04:17.256-04:00Totally with you on the benefits of reading aloud,...Totally with you on the benefits of reading aloud, Dr. C. Just wish every member of the MLA were as clear as you are about the difference between writing for presentation and writing for publication. I'm also really glad to see the MLA becoming more open to other modes of presentation -- roundtables, etc. For all the benefits of rocking it out in the way of monks, other styles can often be more conducive to real conversation and exchange of ideas.<br /><br />Great post.Roxie Smith Lindemannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06455529922082930949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-70928604230553425312010-04-26T14:06:17.594-04:002010-04-26T14:06:17.594-04:00Dr. C: Fabulous posting on the whys and hows of pr...Dr. C: Fabulous posting on the whys and hows of presenting at a conference. I hear the Chronicle or InsideHigherEd calling you or linking to you soon since it's a subject not often discussed. Beat them to it: offer to write the article (or maybe it's better as a presentation at MLA11?;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com