- Email: [email protected]
Seven faults of scientific sessions
Oral SURGERY Oral MEDICINE AND&al
PATHOLOGY
VOLUME
28
NUMBER
4
OCTOBER,
1969
Guest editori& Sevenfaults of scientific sessions Lloyd E. Church, D.D.S., MS., Ph.D.,P.A.C.D., Bethesda, Mb!.
P.I.C.D.,”
E
very professional man, and especially every program chairman, knows the terrible, ominous anguish of apprehension caused by a poorly arranged scientific session or one at which something has unexpectedly gone wrong. The following is an enumeration of some of the most common evils, and at the same time it is a plea for improvement. Rest assured that there are others. What follows pertains to local, national, and international meetings. They all have their own particular problems. Fault No. 1. Failure to provide enough information about meeting arrangements and inadequate name tags. Most professional people appear notoriously helpless when away from home, especially overseas. Whether this assumption is right or wrong, they often complain about not being able to find certain things. “Where is my room?” “When does the bus leave, and from where?” “Where can you get your money changed!” “ What arc the plans for this evening?” “Where does one register?” You can add as many questions as you can imagine. They will all be asked. The program committee should assume that, no matter how thorough they have been in providing premeeting information, a considerable number of attendees will not get the word. An information booth-and just one booth, so namedshould be placed in a conspicuous place and kept manned continuously throughout the meeting. Please, not the registration desk. If the *Research Professor of Anatomy, The George Washington University School of Medicine; Senior Research Scientist, National Biomedical Research Foundation ; Attending Oral Surgeon, Suburban Hospital, Bethesda, Md.
457
458
Chwch
OS., O.&f.& 02. October,
1969
group is multilingual, ixterpretcrs should be able to answer questions in at least the official language of the meeting and in one or two other languages. Ilanguage becomes a real and sometimes quite discouraging problem at an international meeting. It can, by itself, actually ruin an excellent and well-planned meeting because of the lack of proper communication. For many professional people, the most valuable part of a meeting is the new contacts that are made with other scientists. For some obscure reason, I have almost never been given a personal label or name tag that could be read more than a few inches a,way. Mp plea to program and arrangement committees: Abandon the typewriter and print the names and affiliations in half-inch letters so that they can be read, please. Fa.ult No. 2. Xistwntment of language interpreters. This is peculiar to international meetings. Language interpretation is, in its own right, an extremely difficult and complex task. Most professional interpreters are highly competent and, given the proper cooperation by their principals, they can do an amazing job of pntting your words and ideas into another language. However, even the best interpreter needs his speaker’s assistance. First, provide the interpreter with an advance copy of your paper. If possible, go over the paper with him and indicate those sections which might be troublesome. If necessary, explain technical vocabulary structure. Nark those sections that might be omitted if you are pressed for time. Do not speak at a rate that outpaces your interpreter. A rule of thumb is to assume that your normal rate of speaking is too fast. In many meetings it is possible to judge your effect on the interpreter by listening to him. Sometimes the physical arrangements make it possible for you to see your interpreter, and t,his may provide additional clues about your rate of delivery. At some meetings the interpreters have had to ask the speakers to slow down. In some cases, the speaker merely nods agreement, drops his voice, and continues at his mad pace. The program chairman should check the condition of headsets and microphones before each meeting begins. It is a good idea to spend a few minutes at the start of a meeting explaining the operation of the microphones and receivers. Better still, provide a simple diagram and post it in the auditorium. I hare emphasized the interpreter problem simply because it is extremely critical in achieving communications between scientists who do not speak the same language. If the professional-degree language requirements demanded a spoken fluency in French and Ucrman, perhaps WC could do away with interpreters, but until the language barrier is broken we must bear with the interpreters. Fault No. 3. Use of poorly prepared slides and allusion to classified material. This could occupy a major part of this entire discussion, but since it is such a familiar problem, it will be mentioned only brieflly. Most slides contain too much information. Often they are poorly arranged and improperly marked for the projectionist so that slides appear in any of the seven wrong ways it is possible to project them. This constitutes sloppy planning on the speaker’s part. Slides should not be used just because a system for projecting them is available. If you think your message can be made more effective by using slides, by all means use them. Otherwise, do not run the risk of distracting your audience from the spoken word. The program chairman should arrange room lights SO
Volume
28
Number
4
Seven faults
of scientific
sessions 459
that there is enough illumination during the showing of slides to permit listeners to take notes. He should also see that there is enough light that the speaker can see his notes while projecting the slides. In deciding what size of lettering to use on your slides, assume the worst situation, that is, viewers in the back row of a 30-foot, dimly illuminated room, and be sure that the letters and numbers can be read from such a distance. Allusion to classified material is a real shocker on the rare occasions when it occurs. Audiences, particularly non-American participants, tend to react very strongly to such remarks as “I can’t say any more because the study is confidential.” There is absolutely no place in an open meeting for references of any kind to restricted material, Perhaps the call for papers should routinely prescribe classified allusions, but it should not be necessary to make such a recommendation. Fault No. 4. Speakers try to cover too much ground. All human knowledge, or even just that part which you feel must be presented, cannot be covered in 20 minutes. Do not attempt it, especially at international meetings, where there are listeners for whom your talk is in a second language. This is very critical, and you may ruin your entire presentation by attempting to cover too much ground with too fast a delivery in a language that cannot be interpreted in time. Fault No. 5. Poor delivery and strangulation of speakers by nticropho?le cord. There is absolutely nothing wrong with reading a paper aloud, rather than giving it extemporaneously, but very few professional people know how to read aloud effectively. It is definitely possible to improve your oral delivery. Do not mutter, do not race the clock, and do keep your sentences short and declarative. Use lists, and enumerate your main points and conclusions. While some audiences might secretly prefer it that way, speakers should have a reasonable assurance that they will not hang themselves on their microphone cables. Near fatal, accidents have been observed. The solution seems to be an extra long cable. The ultimate answer would be a wireless transmitter. Fault No. 6. Speakilbg down to colleagues. Although this is more likely to happen in meetings where English is not the native language of all participants, it does happen at all meetings. Perhaps more important is that non-Americans often perceive others as talking down to them, even though their intentions are otherwise. Try listening to yourself through a foreign colleague’s ears and assume that he is at least as technically competent as you are. Fault No. 7. Failure to provide suj%cient breaks for informal contacts. Participants should be given enough time to relax with one another, to talk informally, and to exchange ideas. Coffee and tea breaks are eminently suited for this. Allow enough time for a second cup, too. It will be well worth it. Cocktail parties are best suited for early evening affairs. One fi?lal thought. We are now clearly well into the jet age of professional meetings, both at home and abroad. Publication delays and the over-all proliferation of papers have reached such staggering proportions that face-toface meetings are now more critical than ever in the communication of scientific work. This is a plea for more effective short meetings. Of course, neither you nor I have ever sinned, but we can help our colleagues who have strayed!
PATHOLOGY
VOLUME
28
NUMBER
4
OCTOBER,
1969
Guest editori& Sevenfaults of scientific sessions Lloyd E. Church, D.D.S., MS., Ph.D.,P.A.C.D., Bethesda, Mb!.
P.I.C.D.,”
E
very professional man, and especially every program chairman, knows the terrible, ominous anguish of apprehension caused by a poorly arranged scientific session or one at which something has unexpectedly gone wrong. The following is an enumeration of some of the most common evils, and at the same time it is a plea for improvement. Rest assured that there are others. What follows pertains to local, national, and international meetings. They all have their own particular problems. Fault No. 1. Failure to provide enough information about meeting arrangements and inadequate name tags. Most professional people appear notoriously helpless when away from home, especially overseas. Whether this assumption is right or wrong, they often complain about not being able to find certain things. “Where is my room?” “When does the bus leave, and from where?” “Where can you get your money changed!” “ What arc the plans for this evening?” “Where does one register?” You can add as many questions as you can imagine. They will all be asked. The program committee should assume that, no matter how thorough they have been in providing premeeting information, a considerable number of attendees will not get the word. An information booth-and just one booth, so namedshould be placed in a conspicuous place and kept manned continuously throughout the meeting. Please, not the registration desk. If the *Research Professor of Anatomy, The George Washington University School of Medicine; Senior Research Scientist, National Biomedical Research Foundation ; Attending Oral Surgeon, Suburban Hospital, Bethesda, Md.
457
458
Chwch
OS., O.&f.& 02. October,
1969
group is multilingual, ixterpretcrs should be able to answer questions in at least the official language of the meeting and in one or two other languages. Ilanguage becomes a real and sometimes quite discouraging problem at an international meeting. It can, by itself, actually ruin an excellent and well-planned meeting because of the lack of proper communication. For many professional people, the most valuable part of a meeting is the new contacts that are made with other scientists. For some obscure reason, I have almost never been given a personal label or name tag that could be read more than a few inches a,way. Mp plea to program and arrangement committees: Abandon the typewriter and print the names and affiliations in half-inch letters so that they can be read, please. Fa.ult No. 2. Xistwntment of language interpreters. This is peculiar to international meetings. Language interpretation is, in its own right, an extremely difficult and complex task. Most professional interpreters are highly competent and, given the proper cooperation by their principals, they can do an amazing job of pntting your words and ideas into another language. However, even the best interpreter needs his speaker’s assistance. First, provide the interpreter with an advance copy of your paper. If possible, go over the paper with him and indicate those sections which might be troublesome. If necessary, explain technical vocabulary structure. Nark those sections that might be omitted if you are pressed for time. Do not speak at a rate that outpaces your interpreter. A rule of thumb is to assume that your normal rate of speaking is too fast. In many meetings it is possible to judge your effect on the interpreter by listening to him. Sometimes the physical arrangements make it possible for you to see your interpreter, and t,his may provide additional clues about your rate of delivery. At some meetings the interpreters have had to ask the speakers to slow down. In some cases, the speaker merely nods agreement, drops his voice, and continues at his mad pace. The program chairman should check the condition of headsets and microphones before each meeting begins. It is a good idea to spend a few minutes at the start of a meeting explaining the operation of the microphones and receivers. Better still, provide a simple diagram and post it in the auditorium. I hare emphasized the interpreter problem simply because it is extremely critical in achieving communications between scientists who do not speak the same language. If the professional-degree language requirements demanded a spoken fluency in French and Ucrman, perhaps WC could do away with interpreters, but until the language barrier is broken we must bear with the interpreters. Fault No. 3. Use of poorly prepared slides and allusion to classified material. This could occupy a major part of this entire discussion, but since it is such a familiar problem, it will be mentioned only brieflly. Most slides contain too much information. Often they are poorly arranged and improperly marked for the projectionist so that slides appear in any of the seven wrong ways it is possible to project them. This constitutes sloppy planning on the speaker’s part. Slides should not be used just because a system for projecting them is available. If you think your message can be made more effective by using slides, by all means use them. Otherwise, do not run the risk of distracting your audience from the spoken word. The program chairman should arrange room lights SO
Volume
28
Number
4
Seven faults
of scientific
sessions 459
that there is enough illumination during the showing of slides to permit listeners to take notes. He should also see that there is enough light that the speaker can see his notes while projecting the slides. In deciding what size of lettering to use on your slides, assume the worst situation, that is, viewers in the back row of a 30-foot, dimly illuminated room, and be sure that the letters and numbers can be read from such a distance. Allusion to classified material is a real shocker on the rare occasions when it occurs. Audiences, particularly non-American participants, tend to react very strongly to such remarks as “I can’t say any more because the study is confidential.” There is absolutely no place in an open meeting for references of any kind to restricted material, Perhaps the call for papers should routinely prescribe classified allusions, but it should not be necessary to make such a recommendation. Fault No. 4. Speakers try to cover too much ground. All human knowledge, or even just that part which you feel must be presented, cannot be covered in 20 minutes. Do not attempt it, especially at international meetings, where there are listeners for whom your talk is in a second language. This is very critical, and you may ruin your entire presentation by attempting to cover too much ground with too fast a delivery in a language that cannot be interpreted in time. Fault No. 5. Poor delivery and strangulation of speakers by nticropho?le cord. There is absolutely nothing wrong with reading a paper aloud, rather than giving it extemporaneously, but very few professional people know how to read aloud effectively. It is definitely possible to improve your oral delivery. Do not mutter, do not race the clock, and do keep your sentences short and declarative. Use lists, and enumerate your main points and conclusions. While some audiences might secretly prefer it that way, speakers should have a reasonable assurance that they will not hang themselves on their microphone cables. Near fatal, accidents have been observed. The solution seems to be an extra long cable. The ultimate answer would be a wireless transmitter. Fault No. 6. Speakilbg down to colleagues. Although this is more likely to happen in meetings where English is not the native language of all participants, it does happen at all meetings. Perhaps more important is that non-Americans often perceive others as talking down to them, even though their intentions are otherwise. Try listening to yourself through a foreign colleague’s ears and assume that he is at least as technically competent as you are. Fault No. 7. Failure to provide suj%cient breaks for informal contacts. Participants should be given enough time to relax with one another, to talk informally, and to exchange ideas. Coffee and tea breaks are eminently suited for this. Allow enough time for a second cup, too. It will be well worth it. Cocktail parties are best suited for early evening affairs. One fi?lal thought. We are now clearly well into the jet age of professional meetings, both at home and abroad. Publication delays and the over-all proliferation of papers have reached such staggering proportions that face-toface meetings are now more critical than ever in the communication of scientific work. This is a plea for more effective short meetings. Of course, neither you nor I have ever sinned, but we can help our colleagues who have strayed!