Presentation preparation is more science than marketing

I often get the complaint that refining a presentation takes scientists away from their research for the sake of marketing. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what can be achieved through careful preparation of a presentation. First an example...

Recently a graduate student invited me to his PhD oral exams. The exam consists of a 20 minute presentation followed by questions from the committee. I asked the student if he would like me to review his presentation prior to the exam. He replied that the presentation was not ready, and as it turned out, he worked on it right up to the exam. The presentation itself was adequate (given the low standards for many biomedical research presentations), but the question and answer session did not go well.

It was obvious that had the student reviewed the presentation with an editor prior to the oral exam, and had that editor not been an expert in the student's area, and had that editor insisted that every slides have meaning, many of the questions would have been anticipated. A detailed slide-by-slide review by an objective outsider is the best way to gain an understanding of one's own material. It forces the scientist to think about issues in ways they have not considered.

But the lessons go well beyond a thesis exam. Biomedical research is very much a bottom-up activity, with little theory to structure research or suggest obvious ways to organize research results. A presentation is very much a top-down activity, defining the major ideas and then bringing in supporting data to "prove" those ideas. Presentation preparation is one of the few activities that forces the biomedical researcher to organize findings in a highly structured way. It forces the researcher to relate findings to scientists in different but related disciplines. It is a necessary follow-on for the detailed lab work that often leaves scientists thinking that laboratory technique, rather than scientific ideas, are the end points to research.

Do we have the right incentives?

Taking a break from the usual "technical" tip, I'd like to ask a question about incentives in the system. Is there a strong incentive to communicate effectively? I ask this because it seems:

1. Many senior researchers seem to be too busy flying around giving talks to take the time to prepare a good talk. Is giving many lousy talks better than giving a few great ones?

2. Often researchers say that they don't have the 3 or 4 hours to improve a talk. This ignores the argument that each member of the audience may waste an hour listening to a talk they don't understand. The system doesn't seem to optimize the time of the entire community.

3. And perhaps most troubling, I've noticed that a few researchers really don't care if they are understood. Their primary goal is to record their talk on their CV.

I hope this is not the case, but what I see troubles me. Another indication of this is that many researchers use their full hour and don't leave time for questions. What is the point of giving a talk if there is no interaction? A journal article is probably easier to understand than a slide presentation.

Never believe the comment, "good presentation," part 2.

As I wrote in an earlier post, it's too easy to get compliments on a bad talk. People want to be nice. Make sure you have an honest friend in the audience who can give it to you straight.

My addendum is that even the most experienced and skilled presenter can mess it up. A few years ago I was working with a very senior biomedical researcher and we were preparing a presentation that represented a major "ask" from a very wealthy donor. I suggested he "dry run" the presentation. His response was, "I've given hundreds of presentations so I don't need to do that."

Not surprisingly, it was a disaster.

Every presentation poses problems for audience comprehension. The presenter needs to identify those challenges before presenting and think about the language that will best help the audience. This challenge exists no matter how experienced and expert you may be.