December 30, 2007
Read It and Weep
The Chronicle asked Thomas H. Benton to guest blog for us from the MLA conference in Chicago through Monday morning. Benton writes regularly for The Chronicle’s Careers section.
For your consideration … the Stephen Greenblatt stadium cushion. (Marjorie Perloff sports-drink bottles sold separately.)
MLA — DAY 3
I attended a panel featuring several giants in one of my subfields, and I ended up feeling sorry for them, realizing that they could barely attract 20 people out of 10,000. Most of the questions the speakers received were too idiosyncratic or forced to be helpful.
There is something weirdly archaic about the whole idea of reading papers to an audience, as if the average MLA attendee is a slack-jawed illiterate listening to the first reading of the Declaration of Independence. We seem to be trapped by a tradition that needs to be changed.
It doesn’t help that audiences are usually captives forced to sit in painfully uncomfortable chairs, forcing us into all kinds of weird contortions simply to maintain circulation in our lower extremities. I think I am going to start carrying a stadium cushion — or selling them at the book fair, imprinted with the face of your favorite academic celebrity, for example, Stephen Greenblatt.
I do like the new traffic lights on the podiums, but they only seem to apply to the lower-status speakers. Perhaps the security guards could be called upon to equalize the rules? I can think of a few senior scholars who might benefit from a tasing.
Something I noticed is the imbalance in the level of preparation of many speakers. Some seem to regard a conference presentation as a breezy rush through a draft paper, making comments such as, “And here is where I’ll put in several telling examples.” Such an approach — often full of self-regard — has at least the advantage of being in the moment and capable of reacting to the audience.
On the same panel you’ll often find another, usually junior, speaker who has prepared a careful, complex paper but is unwilling to make actual contact with the audience. And, after a few minutes, the audience seems to have submerged into their own thoughts. People are coughing, flipping through the conference program, checking their watches, fiddling with their noses. A cellphone plays “The Dance of the Sugarplum Fairies.” Doors open a few inches and close, several times. But the speaker pretends to be aware of nothing outside the performance, like an Olympic figure skater executing a triple Lutz.
Perhaps that is an outcome of the unpredictability of the size of the audience. A paper should be written and presented differently to an audience of 15 versus an audience of 200. But it is often hard to predict MLA flocking behaviors, and why prepare very hard for a small audience?
At least I got to speak with many panelists after their sessions and at other times during the convention — and that’s really the point of the MLA, as I see it: making personal connections. More gets communicated in five minutes of face-to-face communication than in a year of e-mail. The panel is generally a ritualized ordeal that precedes a productive conversation.
I am glad that the MLA is trying to constrain the number of sessions at future conferences — and that the MLA will soon allow “Electronic Roundtables” and real workshops that will enable attendees to interact with each other more freely and productively.
But, for the present, the majority of MLA panels — as panels — exist to add lines to CV’s and to provide representation for a growing roster of special interest groups. And that means — with nearly 800 panels to choose from — that most MLA conventioneers seem united by little more than aching backsides.
Thomas H. Benton | Posted on Sunday December 30, 2007 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Molding Undergraduates Into Scholars
Next: MLA Delegates Debate Israel and Ward Churchill
To the many good observations here, I’d propose two other reasons that in different ways work to reinforce the practice of reading papers. (1) Because the rewards system of the profession emphasizes publication, most speakers regard conference papers as drafts of journal articles rather than as occasions to speak to others about ideas. Consequently, they—and, to be candid, I should say we—feel that we’re making more progress toward publication (and reward) by writing something to read aloud rather than by preparing notes in order to speak to others along the lines that we do in the classroom. (2) The seventy-five minute session with three or more speakers and the mandate for discussion means that one can more readily stay within narrow time limits by preparing a written text and not straying from it.
— Jim Phelan Dec 30, 05:18 PM #
Thank you for discussing an uncomfortable truth – listening to papers read aloud is deadly dull. IDEAS should be presented – if we wanted to read a paper we could do it anywhere, anytime – please, please, presenters, TELL us your ideas – speak directly to us – we want to know, that’s why we’re here. When you read (no matter how well-intended) you put everyone to sleep.
— C. Johnson Dec 30, 05:50 PM #
I attend neuroscience conventions with my neuroscientist wife, and there’s an obvious alternative not yet mentioned: poster sessions. An argument or other analysis would be broken down into panels with the problem, the analysis, and the conclusion laid out systematically and printed on a 4X6 sheet with contact information. It is displayed in a large hall with thousands of other posters, each of which is abstracted in a publication available before the meeting. The author is scheduled to stand by the poster during a two hour period and discuss it with its readers. Lots of personal contact, lots of discussion, and most posters lead to publication. The late Peter Hare championed this alternative for years without success at the American Philosophical Association meetings.
— Richard T Hull Jan 4, 06:06 AM #
All of higher ed, both teaching and research, is going to be radically altered or swept away in coming years by electronica.
Papers should be delivered by posting them on research-in-progress sites, for questions, suggestions, discussion, etc.
Duh!
The continuing existence of conferences that are identical, except for air and auto travel, to what already existed over a century ago, is eloquent testimony to the functional conservatism and inertia of academia.
— G D Jan 4, 11:48 AM #
I believe the time has come to review the format of presentation, not just for MLA but other language conferences that follow the same format. While the presenters may be enjoying what they are reading, it is not always the case with the audience who has to sit down and listen to, at least, three papers in a row. I wonder how much the human brain is able to process considering the speed at which the papers are presented and taking into consideration the discussion that is supposed to follow the presentations! For a more interactive and meaningful presentation, we must begin to incorporate new ideas such as poster sessions, as Richard Hull noted. In addition to that, the use of PowerPoint will be very effective in making presentations as these formats incorporate both visual and audio. Presenters will gain time and the risk of being interrupted halfway through the presentation, as we occasionally find with paper reading, will be eliminated.
— Esther Oyediran Jan 4, 11:58 AM #
Reading a paper to an audience is absolutely INSULTING. It implies that they are illiterate and incapable of reading for themselves. I hate it when someone reads Powerpoint slides to me, and I would not sit through someone reading a paper. That practice should have disappeared from presentations 50 years ago. Hit the high points and discuss them – don’t read to me. When I find such presentations at professional meetings, I vote with my feet.
Many faculty members desperately need training in public speaking – and the worst offenders are usually those who don’t realize how bad they are.
— Al Jan 4, 12:11 PM #
As a computer scientist, when I first learned towards the end of grad school that there were conferences where people actually read papers out loud for their apparently illiterate audience, I was very amused. If geeky CS dorks can put together a compelling presentation of their research surely people that study creative and persuasive literature can too.
— Josh Jan 5, 09:37 PM #