Enthusiasm Goes a Long Way

Earlier today, I watched a scientific speaker drive people out of the seminar room.

Was the person combative? Not at all; a well-respected mid-career chemist at a Top-5 school.
Unprepared? Nope; knew the slides backward and forwards.
Bad material? It was the linchpin talk of the session, so...no.
Perhaps haughty, egotistical, or rude? Still no - a model in professional conduct.

The talk was just, in a word...boring.

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

However exciting the science, you can't capture the audience if the delivery is dull as dishwater. Literally dozens of posts, listicles, humor attempts, even entire blogs (here, here) have been dedicated to the practice of scientific communication. So why don't these suggestions permeate into the wider community? Why do smart people not consider how their message comes across?

I won't go into the particulars of the talk I saw overmuch. Suffice to say that slumped shoulders, wooden expression, monotone delivery, and stiff arms will have your audience reaching for their smartphones in no time. Ditto: wordy slides, insider jargon, and attempts to somehow mash a 50-minute talk into a 30 minute time slot.

One wonders if, after a certain number of conferences, chemists have become inured to terrible talks. Perhaps we should consider installing a "canary" in the lecture hall "coalmine" - a speaking coach or senior faculty member, placed front and center, that can debrief the overall performance after the session, offer pointers, maybe even solicit feedback from the audience.

Optionally, what about Improv? Many fields - business consultants, customer service, construction, education - have benefited from comedy troupes teaching teams to think on their feet. Anyone have something like that occurring at their lab or university?

I'm not arguing that scientific talks be misconstrued as entertainment, yet I feel I could have learned more if I were actively on the edge of my seat, waiting to hear the next assay result or to see the next structure proof.

Anyone else agree?

Hawker's Talk Secrets

"My Chemical Romance Calls it Quits"
"My Chemical Romance, In Memoriam"
"My Chemical Romance Break Up"

Never fear, dear readers: My 'chemical romance' continues unabated...[rimshot]

At the risk of sounding like a lounge act, I realize that clear communication supports good relationships. So, apparently, does Craig Hawker, an accomplished polymer scientist at UCSB. I've seen him present a few times; the man gives one hell of a talk!

This month, he shares his secrets with you courtesy of a (free!) Angewandte Chemie editorial. Building off the success of Whitesides' essay "Writing a Paper", Hawker points out a crucial difference:

"While a publication can be read again and again, a presentation is over immediately. Therefore, the rules for writing a publication differ from those for preparing a presentation."

Amen! We've all attended deadly discourse disasters: The 9AM conference sleeper. The 4PM no coffee, no snack, sotto voce speaker with tiny font. The don't-stop-for-questions local section dinner meeting. All tragic wastes of opportunity.

"Chemistry? Chemistry? Chemistry? Chemistry?"
Source: Ferris Bueller's Day Off

So, how can we improve?

Hawker offers several simple pointers, divvied up into two major sections ("The Slides" and "The Talk"). For slides, he argues clarity, simplification, and increasing "signal-to-noise" improves the amount of useful information instilled in the audience.

For speech, Hawker advocates skills that would play well in any concert hall: Practice. Engage with the audience, which includes eye contact and interaction. Project confidence. Modulate your voice, and know when to make use of silence.

Most importantly, argues Hawker, we must solicit active feedback. Like late NYC mayor Ed Koch, ask your audience "How'm I doin'?" An honest answer here may sting, but will help you to improve for next time.