« Happy Thanksgiving
Main
"Psalms for Safety" »
November 23, 2007
On Reading Papers
I listened to about forty papers at the Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting and in all but one of them the presenter read from a manuscript. Some presenters read their papers well; some did not. Because of this, I experienced a bit of culture shock. The business culture in which I spend the central part of my adult life did not allow such a thing. People distributed papers. They presented presentations; they never read them. Usually with the aid of slides, presenters told their story.
But I started my business career having been a student of the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible. So, I was shocked when my boss bluntly told me not to read my first customer presentation, not even if it was "read" from memory. The customer would think I didn't know what I was talking about and that I had to hide behind my manuscript. Now I find myself confused when someone reads a paper to me. I know that there is a difference between a scholarly paper and a customer presentation. But often quite elaborate written material supported business presentations. This was particularly true when one was asking for funding as I did from time to time. But no one ever read such a presentation. The executive summary was presented even if there were a written version. We told our story, took questions, and handed out the written material. Often the written version was in the hands of our audience before the oral presentation. That helped them formulate questions. We used slides and handouts as aids to an oral presentation rather than as aids to a written presentation presented orally.
There is of course a worry that proper nuance and detail is lost in presenting the paper rather than reading it. But I think this is a small worry. Speakers can make important details very clear with good visuals. Unimportant details are, how shall I say this, unimportant. The most subtle nuance is not helped be reading a manuscript to an audience. Speakers may better express nuance through a combination of words, images, and body language. If some subtlety is important, I would like to see it in the speaker's eyes as well as hear it in his or her reading voice.
Don't get me wrong, it never occurred to me that the presenters at the SBL meeting didn't know what they were talking about (well there may have been one that I wasn't so sure about). But I couldn't but think that the audience would have profited if the presenters had just told us their stories without reading their papers. Likewise, I think the presenters would have profited if we had the opportunity to read their papers before the presentations. Modern technology would make this trivial and access could be limited to registered participants. Our questions would have been better and the discussions more lively and fruitful.
Posted by Duane Smith at November 23, 2007 7:43 PM | Read more on Hebrew Bible |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2326
Comments
Oh, I so agree! And I've never been in business (unless you count holiday jobs ;-) but papers that are read are so dull and lifeless usually!
Posted by: tim bulkeley at November 24, 2007 10:08 AM
When I lecture in class, I always speak extemporaneously from a detailed outline. The longer I do this, the more I sense how artificial and dull I am when reading directly from a text. Yet, I have always imagined that I would read at SBL/AAR from a text (the old "we've always done it that way" syndrome)!
I think, too, I would find it easier to stay awake through that sixth paper at a session if she or he were delivering extemporaneously from an outline, instead of reading. It is easier to liven things up and wake up the yawners if not reading a prepared script (as I know from my evening Intro class).
Posted by: Baruch Grazer at November 24, 2007 11:45 AM
I find that strange (abnormal?) that there were so many readers in your meeting. In the scientific meetings I go to, it is rare to have someone read his/her talk. Those who read are almost always the ones who don't like or are afraid of speaking in public. In the hard sciences there are so many requirements to give talks that one eventually gets used to it even if one starts out being apprehensive about it. I don't see the point of listening to someone read a paper, because I can read it myself. But when a speaker gives a talk there is opportunity for spontaneity, for establishing direct interaction with the audience, for telling a joke or two for breaking the ice, etc.
Posted by: Aydin at November 25, 2007 6:20 AM
Aydin says (just above): "I don't see the point of listening to someone read a paper, because I can read it myself."
Exactly my feeling. That would make me feel like I was in a kindergarten class. I'm glad I wasn't there. I would get irritated with people very quickly because I have a short temper when it comes to processes that have no clear purpose :) I'll have to work on my character flaw. I know I have to let water flow off my back and learn to have a blank stare like others as though fish are swimming between my ears. It seems to be how others cope so much better than me with mindless bureaucracy, hehe.
Posted by: Glen Gordon at November 25, 2007 6:30 AM
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.