Unlike my return from SAM where I had this outpouring of comments upon the conference, I am left a little speechless after the recent Music and War conference at University of Texas. Not to say that it wasn't a wonderful conference, but perhaps I'm just even more exhausted than I realized.
What this conference did make me question, though, is the exact purpose of reading a paper/giving a presentation. Why do we do this? To share our latest research, surely. I witnessed at SAM additions to this general purpose: scholars who were telling how to do research, reporting on the current state of certain musical phenomenon, or just current state of their projects. But this conference made me questions at what stage of research do we present? At Saturday's conference, unlike at SAM, I presented research in it's "baby" phase: a term paper that easily fit the 20 minute model, but has not gone any further.
My paper seems (at least to me) to be a stark contrast of all the others. The day was filled with dissertation research, small sub-projects of larger multi-staged research. Many of these presentations lacked handouts, often no visual aids or audio (a generalized observation). Afterwards, the audience, comprised mostly of graduate students, would have on average 3-4 questions. Some papers warranting just 1 or 2, others up to 5 or 6.
This was the case for the last panel of the day, the one that included my paper last. The first two presentations had audio/visuals, and we all had handouts. The ladies before me presented on dissertation research and garnered a couple of questions, primarily from the moderator. My paper (complete with audio, video, and handout- as I told my moderator, I'm all about over-stimulation) upon completion had at least 15 minutes of discussion. Ten questions easily- I would bring up new points jumping off of what others said that prompted further responses and questions; lots of questions were somewhat unanswerable. Persons asked "have you considered this?" "what about this phenomenon over here?" And more often than not, I would have to say-- I'm sorry I haven't read much on that-- but it would be interesting to look into further.
It's a slight problem- I didn't have all the answers. But it seemed to be a positive that at least people where making connections. Everyone seemed receptive, there weren't any overly critical/defensive questions. Afterward all was said and done, I was really happy with the responses. I like to get tons of questions- to include things that didn't fit into the 20 minutes. Later though, I began to think-- perhaps having no questions is good as well- you explained the material so thoroughly that nothing else need be said.
I guess it all comes down to the strategies of presenting- again- when do we present, and why?
My philosophy on presentations is to present material somewhat simplistically. Very straightforward, almost repetitiously at times. I want to be sure my central message is clear, and I most definitely haven't tried to pursue complex philosophical concepts ever, especially if they are somewhat dense-- [I think] that's what journal articles are for. I will leave conclusions somewhat vague (especially in this latest presentation's case), leading persons to further considerations. I think that's the way that warrants the most questions, the most engagement with the material. I gave a very robust handout this time-- 4 pages front and back of lyrics for people to read as I was explaining the significance of each song. I presumed that they could read lyrics, see images, listen to music and me-- all at the same time. And really that seemed to work. Maybe a little too much multi-tasking, but dang it, it woke people up and got them talking.
So I guess I'll send out this cosmic academic question. What is our quest by driving 14 hours round trip to present to almost complete strangers, sitting all day listening to a myriad of topics? What is our end goal with this format? What kind of research do we want to give? When do we want to do so? Do we want a bunch of questions, or is that a sign of poor research?
No comments:
Post a Comment