So, the International Sustainability Transitions conference has come and gone. A fine event, with a huge number of scholars delivering papers, speed talks, with plenty of time for schmoozing and boozing. I wrote already about the problem of manels and ‘What is to be Done’, but that was before I had a) delivered my own talk and b) chaired a session unexpectedly.
So this post is to talk through how those went, what I learned, what I would do differently. #reflexivity #narcissism
- I almost had a horrible powerpoint melt down. So always have the latest version on your email account (which I did) but ALSO have it on two (not one, but two) NEW memory sticks.
- Having a countdown clock (my tablet) was hugely useful
- I talked for too long explaining the multiple streams approach, but people seemed to appreciate it.
- I didn’t talk about my methodology and nobody gave a damn. In my opinion, if you aren’t trying to make a methodological contribution, then don’t waste limited time in a short session (ten mins) talking about it.
- I asked the chair of the session for permission, and then I cut my session down by two minutes and used that time (as I’d previously advocated) to have people turn to the person next to them and try to come up with a question.
- I am biased, and one is not a sample, but I think that there was extra energy in the room, and I got more, shorter, sharper questions than the following three speakers, who kept to the traditional format….
The following morning I went to a session where the scheduled chair was not available. The (good) advice from the conference organisers was that in such a situation, the speaker scheduled to be last should be the chair, since they are highly motivated to keep everyone to time. I thought ‘sod it’, I’ll volunteer (I had been volunteering for the past two days, in my purple t-shirt). So, I took the opportunity (not asking anyone’s permission, as I recall – perhaps I did ask the first speaker) to try out the “turn to the person next to you” innovation.
In my opinion there are four key roles that the chair has to accomplish in any papers-presentation session
In chronological and escalating order of difficulty
First, they have to make sure that everyone is welcomed to the session and at least mildly ‘energised’ (this can be as simple as a warm hello and a comment about lunch/the night before).
Second, they need to ensure that all powerpoints/prezis whatever are loaded onto the computer and ready to go.
Third, they have to keep schedule ticking over. It is grossly unfair if the final speaker doesn’t get as much as the first simply because of the sequencing. That means that speakers have to be kept to time, so that there can be some questions to them. Ask the speaker if they want –
A five minute warning as well as the mandatory “two minute warning”
questions one at a time or in batches
Fourth, they have to take all reasonable steps to ensure that everyone in the room has a realistic chance of participating, and that the discussion is not dominated/ controlled/ unduly shaped by a small coterie of the most confident/experienced/highest status actors.
So, less interesting is the fact that I was able to ensure that all four speakers got the same amount of time and we finished bang on time so people could get down for a cup of coffee and a schmooze (the most interesting bits of a conference are often the random encounters). This was partly by giving the speakers warnings, but also, while they were answering questions, I brought up the next presentation on the computer. I also didn’t waste time introducing the speakers- they just started talking.
More usefully, though was the getting people to actually participate fully. The first time I I said “everyone, for two minutes, please speak with someone close to you- if you have question, get help honing it – a short question is a good question. If you have half a question, get help forming it” there was confusion/mild bewilderment but the ‘authority’ of the chair carried the day. By the third speaker I could just say “you know what to do” with a wave of my hand, and they slipped into it. (I did NOT explain the rationale)
So, that’s basically how it worked. In the third Q and A and the fourth I gave priority to people who’d not asked questions before.
Again, this is one experiment, and I would hesitate to extrapolate or invoke without more efforts. There were only about 20 people in the room, for example – might be harder with fewer or more.
- there was a very good mix of gender with the questions
- most people asked a question
- some people came up to me and thanked me for the format, and were enthusiastic about it
- one of the speakers was also very complimentary about it…
So, would I do this again? Yes. Would I have a single slide with the instructions on it? Yes. Would I ask people for feedback after the session? Yes.
There are two purposes to this (though neither needs to be explained to the attendees unless you really want to be explicit)
Firstly, it means that people who are less confident, have been socialised into believing their question can’t be any good, are able to get help/reassurance/encouragement from others if they need it.
Secondly, it gives you options when you come to ask for questions, because there is now a sea of hands to pick from,not just the Quickdraw McGraws. This makes your job easier.
Leave a Reply