EuroIA Predux
London is very fortunate to have a strong representation at this year’s EuroIA, so last week I organised a workshop that gave the London IA members (and their colleagues) who had been selected to present at the conference, the opportunity to rehearse and get feedback on parts of or all of their presentations in front of each other and a number of peers. We were very fortunate to welcome and get the chance to support Matt Roadnight, Claire Rowland, Chris Browne, Belén Barros Pena, Johanna Kollmann and Franco Papeschi.
Not all invited speakers were able to attend (for one reason or another, we were without Jane Austin, Alex von Feldmann, Martin Belam or Bernard Tyers), but we did get the chance to listen to considerable chunks of four of the presentations.
London IA has been planning to kick off a series of workshops for a while and this seemed a great way to introduce it. The general idea behind a conference presentation review workshop is to allow the speakers the opportunity to investigate and practice elements of their presentations in front of a small peer-based audience: not necessarily running through a whole or complete presentation to finalise rhythm or pitch (though if they would like to of course they can). This is particularly helpful when it comes early enough that learning can be reacted upon. Rarely do speakers for any conference or speaking engagement get the chance to try out stuff in front of more than a few faces (colleagues in their office or family), so to provide a workshop setting to hone presentation skills both general and specific with a broad peer group should only provide important illumination on communicating complicated ideas and going some way to ensuring presentations don’t suck.
The feedback from attendees after last week has been good (especially from the EuroIA speakers), though, as expected, there are room for improvements specifically with the workshop model and how we manage and engage the audience and its feedback. It is clear that London IA is a great community and contains members willing to share their experience, time and expertise for free – and we need to maximise that advantage.
The original intention for the ‘audience’ element of the workshop was for it to concentrate on giving constructive feedback (positive as well as negative) and provide guidance where appropriate. After last week this core intention and motive does not change, but the way that feedback is managed during the workshop could improve.
Last week, as is my way, after making the introductions, I stepped back and choose to let the audience self manage during the workshop. On hindsight this may have not been the correct model as often proceedings were dominated by a selection of the audience and the quieter more reserved sections often kept quiet for long periods. Feedback has suggested that for future workshops some form of moderation or facilitation is in order. Whether it be direct intervention to guide the feedback to ensure balance, focus and fairness and that the workshop setting remains constructive for the participants at all times or whether we try other methods of feedback such as taking a retrospective model that by default includes everyone and gives equal voice should maybe be decided per workshop depending on content. In terms of the size of the audience, it has also been suggested that for the workshop to be more effective (especially with the first feedback model) that fewer people are required to give feedback. Five to eight maximum. However, for the second retrospective model a larger audience can be accommodated. Particularly for the first method, a note taker would also be useful so feedback is recorded for all to reference.
However, the clear takeaway has been that speakers who put themselves under this spotlight will be more prepared, less nervous on the day and will deliver stronger presentations. As Johanna tweeted “to get honest feedback early. Test, iterate, improve. Applies to designs, and to talks. Scary, but useful.”
There is no doubt this model can be rolled out for other conferences, the UPA is already considering it (championed by Giles Colborne) and I’m sure others will follow. London IA will certainly be doing it again: “If speakers at every conference put a bit of time into doing this peer-review thingy, we wouldn’t see as many boring and under-prepared talks at industry conferences.”
No Comments Yet