Scientific and Technical Communication: Theory, Practice and Policy

Introduction

If measured in sheer number of words, most scientific and technical communication is oral. But its very familiarity allows us to overlook its importance. Because we use it continually we may assume we do not need to practice it, and we may forget that it demands of us skills as sophisticated as those demanded by written communication. This chapter will examine scientific and technical communication in its oral forms — presentations, conferences, committees and person-to-person interaction — and suggest strategies for improving it.

Speaking to an Audience

An oral presentation appeals to two audience needs;

1) to have information conveyed to them by a someone they recognize as sharing their interests, and

2) to interact with the presenter.

Almost regardless of the subject, the most understandable (and therefore the most useful) form for an oral presentation is the memo outline: statement of purpose, summary, discussion/background, conclusions, recommendation/action. It is effective here for the same reasons it is effective in a memo: the important information is presented first, and audiences have been conditioned to expect it.

Speaking Styles

Oral presentations may be given extemporaneously, may be read directly and without deviation, or they may be partly read, partly ad-libbed. Each style has advantages. An extemporaneous talk, for instance, allows you at least four. You are able to make eye contact with your audience almost continually and so engage them personally. You are able to gauge their response and tailor your words accordingly. You are able to edit your talk as you deliver it. And because you are working without notes, you are likely to impress your audience in your grasp of the subject. The disadvantages of speaking extemporaneously are, obviously, its dangers. Should your subject involve great detail, it may be very difficult to memorize, and should you suddenly become nervous, you have no "net."

Reading directly from a paper also has advantages and disadvantages. Should your presentation require a step-by-step explanation, or a great deal of detail, a prepared text will be essential. But you will find it more difficult to make eye contact. There may be other problems. You may find your audience responding in a way you had not anticipated, and unless you depart from your text you will be unable to address that response. You may find that your text has omitted essential information or — perhaps worse — that it no longer reflects your views.

There are, of course, a range of speaking styles between these extremes. Many speakers use TelePrompTers — system of lenses and lights which project the text of their speech onto a pane of polarized glass in the line of sight between them and their audience, thereby allowing a speaker to give the audience the impression that he is looking at them when he is in fact reading a text in front of them. Other speakers rely on more traditional methods: a printed page on which they have keyed an asterisk at points where they may pause to look at their audience. Or, they may use 3" x 5" cards upon which they have written or keyed main points of the speech.

Cards combine most of the advantages of speaking from paper with the advantages of speaking extemporaneously. But there are good ways to use cards and bad ways to use cards. An unpracticed user of cards is likely to write or key subject headings — the cards reflecting an outline of the presentation. For instance, a talk on the usefulness of a new chemical might have an associated card which reads: "medical applications." And a speaker who did not have enough time to review might stumble here: she might look at the card and say something like: "Uh — okay. Medical applications. Okay." The experienced user of cards will write instead topic sentences or sentences which begin new sections of the presentation — like "We believe there will be numerous medical applications for this compound." This speaker is thereby given the first sentence of the section and at the same time a mental "jump-start" into the rest of the section.

Most speakers are asked to speak from behind a podium — a mixed blessing. The podium allows you to see both your speech and the audience, but it also separates you from the audience. There is a way to turn the situation to your gain. At crucial points during the talk — the moment you want to emphasize a point, or at the conclusion and summary — move from behind the podium and take a few steps toward the audience. Obviously, the technique requires you to memorize parts of your speech. But it also makes for a dramatic effect which may be well worth the extra effort.

As a speaker, you should understand that as you are presenting information or ideas, you are also presenting yourself; in the audience's mind, the two are parts of a whole: in this sense a presentation is very like an interview. And this means that your dress and behavior should be slightly above the level of an average audience member.

Nervousness

Most people have some sort of mannerism — a tendency, especially when nervous, to scratch a neck, to straighten a collar, to adjust eyeglasses, to say "um." And by some mysterious alchemy people with no mannerisms develop several within minutes of being told they are expected to give a speech. The question becomes, if you don't know you're scratching your nose, how can you stop doing it? Perhaps the best advice is simply to prevent the possibility of scratching your nose: keep your hands below the level of your shoulders and on the surface of the desk or podium.

The best prescription for nervousness is, simply, preparation. Rehearse the presentation as many times as possible. But understand that preparation involves its own risks. If you are familiar with your subject, and if you have rehearsed, you are likely to forget how difficult and strange the subject was when it was new to you, and forget that your talk may well be your audience's first exposure to the subject. Be careful to pace your delivery so that the audience can follow.

Question/answer Periods

More and more often, oral presentations of every kind are followed by a period during which members of the audience are allowed to ask questions of the speaker. In fact, the practice was once a kind of courtesy ("Dr. Einstein has deigned to address questions from the audience.") has become almost mandatory: if you leave without answering questions an audience may believe you are aloof, or — worse — that you are hiding something. The person who presented you may announce the beginning of the question/answer period; or in a relatively informal setting he may — after the speech has ended and the applause dies — ask you whether or not you'll accept questions (a "no" should be very well qualified). Or, after the applause dies you may smile and announce that you'll be happy to accept questions. In most cases, utter silence will follow. For several reasons no one wants to ask the first question. If the question he has in mind is combative, he may want to wait to see where the rest of the audience stands. More fundamentally, the first questioner may need a moment to find the courage to speak: by beginning the question-and-answer period, he effectively commits everyone in the room to remaining there for at least twenty more minutes. At any rate, expect a moment of silence; if it lasts longer than seems comfortable, you might start the questions yourself: "Perhaps many of you were wondering what effect the proposed restructuring will have on responsibilities ..." Once the first question is asked, a kind of snowballing effect usually occurs, and many raised hands follow.

Especially in a large auditorium, some listeners might not hear the question. Because it is your responsibility to make certain that everyone present understands what is going on, you should repeat the question ("The gentleman asked whether I thought the proposed restructuring justified the budget figures I've shown ..." ). Communication between professionals and laypersons can be difficult. If you don't understand the question, politely ask the questioner to rephrase it ("I'm not sure I follow you here — I'm afraid I need to ask for a clarification."). After hearing the clarification, rephrase it once again: "If I understand you correctly, you're asking how cold fusion might be employed in the proposed transportation system. Is that right?"

Friendly Audiences

Oral reports may be conveniently divided into two types: those delivered before an accommodating audience, and those delivered before an audience which is in some manner hostile. Fortunately, the attitude of an audience will only rarely surprise you — especially if you use common sense. Before you present a talk, you will be given many indications as to the mood of your audience: hints from co-workers, a memo from your supervisor, or — most reliably — your own research.

Most of you will be professionals, and for that reason at some point will be asked to address civic, fraternal or sororetal organizations — Rotarians, Elks, Daughters of the American Revolution, etc. It is a way such groups have of welcoming you into the community; it is also a way your organization builds and maintains a positive image within the community. Some national organizations practice this policy; NASA, for instance, always has a group of astronauts assigned to a public relations tour described with a good-natured reference to the food consumed before the talk as the "rubber chicken circuit." In most cases you will be allowed to choose your topic; the sponsoring organization cares only that you demonstrate professionalism. And this is a rare case in which the group's needs coincide exactly with yours: the chance to select a topic about with which you are familiar allows you to demonstrate professionalism, gives you immediate confidence, and — perhaps most significantly — requires little in the way of extra research. In fact, speakers who are asked to speak often use the same speech, tailoring it only slightly, if at all.

Unless you are by nature nervous before an audience, addressing a friendly audience is not difficult. They will expect you only that you maintain professional decorum, that your talk is reasonably interesting, and inoffensive. Anything beyond this — a joke, a point of wide interest, etc. — will be regarded as a pleasant surprise. And members of the audience will walk away saying things like "I didn't expect it to be that interesting."

Although addressing a friendly audience is relatively easy, a first-time speaker should not make the mistake of thinking she can speak extemporaneously. At worst, such a practice may completely backfire: the speaker might discover, for instance, that her mother is in the audience and forget essential aspects of the presentation or freeze before the microphone. In short, some preparation is necessary. You must consider the implications of at least two conditions:

1) your audience's level of expertise

If the audience is not specialized (and on public relations circuits, such is usually the case) you must be careful to avoid jargon and buzzwords: such language may bore an audience, and worse: it may make an audience suspect you are trying to intimidate it. On the other hand, you should not condescend to an audience. An audience whose intelligence is insulted will stop listening. The problem is that exactly where knowledge turns from informative and general to condescending is difficult to judge — in some cases impossible to judge. You cannot be expected to know, for instance, how many members of a general audience remember what an algorithm is. But you can make an educated guess; further, you are likely to have a valuable resource at hand — colleagues who have spoken to general audiences or participated in them. Beyond this, you will need to rely on your judgment, your memory of speakers at other occasions, and your experience of explaining your professional practices to those outside the profession. The last could be particularly helpful: in fact, one of the best means to prepare a talk for a general audience is to try explaining yourself to someone from another field.

2) physical circumstances of the talk

The physical circumstances of the talk will subtly affect the audience's perception of you. Unconsciously, an audience may regard the speaker addressing it as controlling the local environment. If the room is hot, it is your fault; if the lighting is bad, it is your fault. You should try to learn of the conditions of your talk beforehand — and if you cannot change them, you may at least be mentally prepared for them, and perhaps prepare a joke prefacing the talk which remarks on the conditions, and so reminds the audience that you too, are human.

Making them laugh.

Humor in oral presentations is quite common, and usually effective. A small, tasteful joke at the beginning of a talk can ally you with your audience against boredom and — perhaps more importantly — against the rest of the world. One of the authors recently observed the beginning of a talk on computer circuitry, which made a reference — with sexual innuendo — to "interfacing"; although the joke was lost on this author, it was well-received by the audience — who laughed appreciatively. The speaker had obviously hit upon an observation many of them may have made, but hadn't thought to speak aloud. Perhaps more importantly, the speaker had demonstrated a knowledge which separated that group from others (including this author), and so allied himself with them. The implicit message was "I'm not one of them. I'm one of you. And you can trust me."

Obviously you will not always be speaking to a group which shares your expertise. In such a case you must call upon experience you do share: an urban planner asked to address an audience of taxpayers may apologize for his lateness by saying "I had trouble finding a parking space," thus at once evoking laughter and (he hopes) lessening the tension in the room; at the same time he has suggested that he understands their problems personally and so is better equipped to solve them. Most airports have a newsstand which sells books to read on the plane — among them you may find several collections of jokes addressed to business travelers expecting to make a presentation. Most — as you might expect — are extremely general (of the "I just flew in from Chicago and boy are my arms tired" variety), and so of limited usefulness.

Hostile Audiences

A presentation before a hostile audience is, obviously, more challenging. It will require greater preparation and more flexibility and imagination — in other words, a greater ability to "think on your feet," especially during the question-and-answer period. You must consider all the factors in presenting to a friendly audience: your audience's level of expertise, physical conditions of the talk, and visual aids or availability of visual aids. You must also consider the audience's reasons for hostility — and then do everything you can to short-circuit it.

Meeting times and moods

To get a general sense of the audience's mood, you need know only the time of the meeting. A meeting at 10:00 AM is likely to be the first meeting of the day for all its participants — often the time is reserved for introductions of new policies, or presentations whose content significantly affect everyone in attendance. In all likelihood at least some of the audience will object to aspects of the presentation. A talk to a civic organization like the Elks will likely occur immediately following lunch with that audience. For most of the audience it will be a relaxed time of day — they will not expect you to challenge their view of the world or their part of the world — and perhaps you shouldn't; but even if you do, no one is likely to object. A talk to a community voting on a redistribution of zoning regulations is likely to occur in the early evening — 7:00 PM on a weeknight seems a popular time for community meetings. This audience may be difficult: they are, after all, the irate taxpayers of legend. What makes matters worse, they are likely to be tired after a workday, they may have rushed dinner, and they do not expect to stay much past 8:00 — after all, they have to work tomorrow too. Consequently, even if they like what they will hear, that they could well be a difficult audience.

Generally, your audience is hostile because they know or believe they know your argument — and do not like it. In this situation many presenters begin the presentation by acknowledging the existence of rumor — "As most of you no doubt have heard, management has concluded a feasibility study involving the closing of our operation in New York..."

Your audience may be diverse, and certain questions may strike you as uninformed, unintelligent or even irrelevant. Do not say "That's irrelevant." Either reword the question in such a way as to make it relevant, or say you are not prepared to answer it. In the second instance the questioner will think that he has stumped the expert, and the rest of the audience will be impressed by your diplomacy and courtesy. Suppose a member of the audience asks you to explain a point you think the rest of the audience understands fairly well; here too, respond courteously, but keep your answer short so as not to tire the others. At some point a questioner will present a question you cannot answer; do not "finesse" an answer; instead, say "I am not prepared to answer that question" or "My research did not address that area" or simply "I don't know." The audience will be assured that you are not pretending to knowledge you don't possess; if the point was not major, and if most of the rest of your talk bespeaks professionalism and preparation, an admission of lack of certain knowledge will likely help your presentation more than hurt it.

An angry audience may question your professionalism ("We don't need people like you coming here to tell us how to run things"). The best way to defend yourself against such an attack is also the only way: be as prepared as you can be, and behave with decorum and dignity. It helps to recall that you are a professional: you would not have been asked to talk if you weren't. Don't dismiss the audience's anger, and don't do anything to suggest you are dismissing it — for instance, a smile may seem to the audience condescending. Rather, understand as best you can the reason for the audience's anger, and address it: "I understand your anger and I sympathize — but what we're trying to do here ..."

As with all technical and business correspondence, the cardinal sin is preventing its continuance. It is unlikely you and the angry audience member will resolve anything in the few minutes traditionally allotted each questioner: the real danger is that he will go away angry — the rest of the audience will feel cheated if you spend too much time with him, and they may sense he is cheated if you spend too little time with him. The best solution — after a few minutes of discussion — is to offer to discuss the matter with the questioner after the question/answer period.

Slander

Slander is the oral equivalent of libel — and the legal consequences are just as serious. If a professional maligns an organization in public, the organization has a right to sue. The speaker's defense is "demonstrable truth" — that is, the ability to prove his assertion with evidence. Obviously, the most prudent course of action is to avoid any statement that might be construed as slanderous. If such a statement is essential to the presentation, be certain that it is provable.

Presenting an Academic Paper

Many of you can expect at some point in your career to present a scholarly paper — that is, an oral version of a paper presenting new findings — a paper suitable for publication in a journal. Many organizations will ask that you submit the paper or a version of it in advance, in order that it be distributed among the invited audience. They may request either the entire paper, a "script" excerpted from the paper (that is, the exact words you will read), or an abstract.

In the sense that you are speaking to your peers, the paper should be relatively easy to compose: you may use specialized vocabulary and may assume a shared background. In many cases, you will simply be revising a paper you have already written and have intended for publication in a journal. And regarding this point many speakers error: they assume that because the audience in attendance is also the audience for the journal, they may read the paper written for publication unedited, or merely excerpt parts from it. In a sense it is the same audience; but in that it cannot receive information the same way it is a very different audience. It is not an audience of readers; it is an audience of listeners. Exactly how does this difference affect your presentation? As you know, certain sentences that make sense on paper are difficult to understand when heard. Words and phrasing which are acceptable in print may sound too formal when spoken. Further, an audience of listeners will have difficulty following information organized for readers. A reader sees paragraph beginnings and endings, and so is given indications as to natural divisions within the presentation. A reader beginning a paragraph that occupies most of a page will expect, as he reads the first sentence, that he is probably about to meet a relatively greater level of detail. A reader seeing section headings will have some indication of what the speaker will discuss, and the length of sections themselves will suggest the degree of detail he will devote to each section. By contrast, an audience of listeners is without bearings, and will depend upon you to supply them. The problems here are much the same as describing a physical object to an audience who cannot see it, and the solutions are very much the same:

1) Make your main point simple and clear.

2) Organize your other points predictably. Anticipate the audience's reactions with phrases like "I'm sure many of you are wondering about costs ..."

3) Throughout the talk, return to your main point as a reference.

4) Use short sentences.

5) Insert colloquial vocabulary as appropriate. Use phrases like "Let's take a look at some specifics ..."

Even this advice is qualified, though. A scholarly audience will come prepared to be intellectually challenged; so, although the structure of your talk may be simple, its content should not be; otherwise your audience may feel insulted or cheated.

The audience of this paper is likely to be friendly: even academics hostile to your idea are unlikely to attack it openly. Still, you should be prepared for hostility, and here too you may best prepare by anticipating reasons for opposition and formulating responses. Answer their attack(s) with decorum and dignity, and remember that those speaking against you are likely to be a minority. The rest of the audience — even the part that disagrees with you — will regard such behavior as unprofessional.

Speaking with Visual Aids

The psychologist Carl Jung once wrote that pretechnological societies gathered to tell and listen to stories, they lit a fire. The reason, Jung claimed, was not for warmth; rather it was to see the gestures and facial expressions of the storyteller. Indeed, a voice heard in the dark can be effective only for a few minutes. Most audiences need visuals.

There are many advantages to visual aids. Numerous studies have shown that the mind retains images with relative ease, that graphics communicate more information more quickly, and make relationships among data more evident. Moreover, in the last twenty years audiences — perhaps they have grown used to receiving information from television — expect that an oral presentation will be accompanied by visuals, and may be disappointed when it is not.

Which form of visual you use will be determined first by your budget and second by your purpose. Every presenter would like to be able to use an interactive video or a sixty-millimeter film with Hollywood production standards. Barring these, most presenters would like to have models and computer simulations. Many organizations, though, will regard even the latter as prohibitively expensive, and will provide media that are far more modest: handouts, slides, and transparencies. We will deal here with those forms first.

Handouts are a popular form for several reasons:

1) They are inexpensive.

2) Because they allow every member of the audience the same view of the subject, they make "good seats" irrelevant.

3) The audience may read ahead of the speaker, and review passages the speaker has finished discussing.

4) The audience may take the handout away from the meeting. If the audience member wants to convey any of your presentation to another, he may refer to the handout — and your message will remain relatively intact.

5) They accommodate many types of presentation. A handout might outline your talk, thus demonstrating an organization which might not otherwise be evident. A handout might contain color photocopies — with reproduction quality nearly as good as a photograph.

Handouts have, of course, one disadvantage: they force you to surrender some control. The effectiveness of your presentation may depend upon the ordering of its materials; you may want your audience to be unable to look ahead. Or you may simply want the audience's full attention; a handout (especially a many-paged handout) is a ready distraction.

Slides have their own advantages:

1) They reproduce the detail of a color photograph.

2) They give you considerable control. You may pause on a given slide indefinitely, and you may move forward and backward in the series.

In general, slide presentations may be harmed by the transition from slide to dark screen to slide. If budget permits, consider using two slide projectors and alternating slides between them, thereby ensuring that there is always an image on the screen. The presentation may be improved still further with a dissolver — an inexpensive device which cross-fades one slide into the next.

The general disadvantage is simply that many rooms, even those with a built-in slide projector, are ill-equipped to show slides; in other words, there will be bad seats. Secondly, slides can be shown only in the dark — and when the audience can no longer see you, it cannot be as engaged. If possible, you may overcome this problem with a modest theatrical effect (have yourself lit) or a more spectacular one (walk before the screen, thereby allowing patterns of colored light and shadow to move over you). But neither effect will solve the corresponding problem: in the dark you will be unable to read expressions of members of the audience, and therefore unable to respond to confusion or disagreement that is unvoiced.

Transparencies too, have advantages:

1) They allow you — equipped with a marker pen — to annotate the screen as you speak.

2) Like slides, they allow you a great deal of control over the presentation. In response to an audience question, you may return to a transparency previously shown, or may skip ahead to one slotted for later in the presentation. Further, you may use overlays, or write on the transparency itself. Perhaps most importantly, you can turn the projector off, thus returning the audience's attention to yourself.

The disadvantage of transparencies is that they can convey only a limited amount of information — less than slides, less than handouts which reproduce photographs. Further, certain audiences may regard them as "low-tech" and therefore unprofessional.

Models and computer simulations offer the audience a more comprehensive and more immediate understanding of your subject. (This fact was not lost on the U.S. Patent Office — which until this century required a model for proposed machine patents.) The problem, however, is that you necessarily surrender much control. An audience viewing a model of a desalinization plant, for instance, may allow its eyes to wander anywhere on the model — without regard for where you are trying to direct those eyes. Your only hope of maintaining some influence is to anticipate an audience's first reactions to a given model ("You have no doubt noticed, the unusually large holding tank ..."), and address those reactions before discussing anything else ("The reason for the size is ...").

Films and video are extremely useful in demonstrating a process.

A film or video clip has advantages of its own narration, its own camera angles and its own soundtrack. The disadvantage is that your presence becomes redundant.

A presenter using film or video does have control before it begins ("There are several aspects of the simulated plant tour I'd ask you to pay special attention to ..." "I know that many of you are concerned with the layout of the processing station — the first five minutes of the film deal with this exclusively ... ). But during the film or video, any comments from you may be regarded as intrusive and annoying. Reserve further commentary until the end.

Multi-media software combine the advantage of several types of visual aids, allowing you to create a presentation which includes text, charts and graphs, photographs and video segments, and project it onto several individual computer screens or one large, conference-room screen. A multi-media presentation of a marketing strategy for a new type of wood preservative might include text describing the product, charts showing projected sales and sales of similar products, and a video showing the product being used. Multi-media convey a great deal of information quickly and professionally. Advanced multi-media systems use hypermedia — that is, they provide many pathways through their information. When an audience member asks about the size of a projected building, you may, with a few keystrokes, display the floorplan.

Many multi-media systems offer a variety of special effects: it is easy, for instance, to have rotating titles shooting from all areas of the screen. But such effects (disparagingly termed "bells and whistles") can confuse, overwhelm and even annoy an audience. An already hostile audience may be suspicious of a costly display of technology, especially when its usefulness is in doubt. There is another reason for caution. Generally, the more elaborate the presentation, the more likely it overpowers the speaker and removes the enlivening illusion of a two-way conversation. At the next presentation (or the next class) you attend, glance around the room and notice signs of boredom — like yawning. All other factors being equal, you will probably see more yawning in a larger audience than a smaller, and more yawning in a group watching slides than in a group listening to a speaker.

Each of these technologies is prone to problems. Handouts may have missing pages or may have been poorly reproduced, slides may be placed upside-down in the projector, transparency markers may smudge and break, and hard drives may crash. You must do what you can do to prevent such mishaps: when possible, carry your own equipment and check out the presentation site in advance. And remember too, mishaps are a commonplace — unless the the entire presentation is made incomprehensible, there is no cause for gnashing of teeth.

Understanding Conference Techniques

With regard to conferences, most governments and most organizations abide by Parliamentary Procedure, a set of processes designed to ensure that group decisions are democratic. In all likelihood you will attend some kind of conference or meeting by the end of your first week on the job. As a participant, you have only to understand the general principles of Parliamentary Procedure — i.e., everyone is allowed a voice, and no decision is made until all members have been asked their opinion on the matter at hand. Sooner or later, you will be expected to preside over a meeting. Then, you should familiarize yourself with the particulars of Parliamentary Procedure by reading — or at least perusing — either Robert's Rules of Order or Sturgis's Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedures. They are not difficult to find: even the smallest offices are likely to have copies.

As a presiding officer, you will be expected to:

1) Know the rules of Parliamentary Procedure.

2) Be courteous ("Excuse me, but you're speaking out of order."), firm (We've already discussed that issue at length; and we've already voted on it.") and impartial ("We've heard from several who oppose the proposal to create the study group; may we hear from someone who supports the proposal?").

3) Keep the meeting moving ("We need to come to a decision within the hour — in order to do that, we'll need to move to the next point immediately.") and keep the discussion on the subject at hand ("Excuse me — but that issue is not within the purview of this committee.").

4) Create an atmosphere which stimulates discussion. Specifically, be friendly to all ("I'm glad to have a chance to work with you"), and help less articulate members restate their motions ("If I understand you correctly, you're motioning that we launch a formal study into the feasibility of manufacturing the new microprocessor. Is that correct?")

5) Make certain that each member understands the subject on which she is voting ("We have had a motion to vote that a study be launched into the feasibility of manufacturing the "Century 21" microprocessor. Does anyone require further information before we vote?").

6) Count votes correctly and legally.

7) Do not allow the meeting to be caught up with technicalities of parliamentary procedure in such a way that you obscure its spirit. ("I appreciate that some members have not spoken on that aspect of the issue — but I think we are all agreed that we have had enough discussion to vote on the microprocessor question itself — and that, after all, is the reason for this conference.")

Working with committees

Committees are formed because a democratic decision is required. As a member of a committee, you have an obligation to work cooperatively. Techniques for managing committees are very like those for conferences, but less formal. As the chair of a committee you are expected to come to the meeting more prepared than the average committee member. You should bring to the first meeting a prepared statement of the committee's purpose, agenda and background (that is, special qualifications of its members, brief account of the committee's genesis). In this regard you should read conclusions of previous committees, and organizational policies which bear on the committee's work.

The spirit of parliamentary procedure applies: make sure that every member is allowed to contribute, and make sure the members to share the work equally. You may occasionally overlook technicalities of parliamentary procedure; for instance, you may not need to vote on relatively minor issues like divisions of labor. You may need only to ask: "Nigel — you've written Environmental Impact Statements before — would you care to research the need for one here?"

Parliamentary procedure extends outside the committee itself through abbreviated summaries of the meeting called minutes. A taker of minutes is often a nonvoting member or office assistant — a position which allows more objectivity. But in offices with more modest budgets, or in small ad hoc committees, a voting member may be asked to vote and to take minutes. Like abstracts, minutes present themselves as objective accounts, and the taker of minutes is expected to offer an objective account. Yet absolute objectivity is impossible here for the same reasons it is impossible with regard to abstracts. Nonetheless, it should remain the goal toward which the author strives. A taker of minutes has an obligation to the committee to make the rationale behind its decisions clear, and an obligation to the readers to make certain they are given all the information they need to make any judgments and/or take any action based on the committee's decisions.

The following are excerpts from the minutes of the September 14-15, 1992 Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee.

I. CALL TO ORDER

Dr. Murray (Chair) called the meeting to order . . . [She] noted that a quorum was present and outlined the order in which speakers would be recognized. The primary and secondary reviewers will present their reviews of the protocol, followed by responses from the principle investigators of the protocols. The Chair will then recognize other RAC members, ad hoc consultants, other NIH and Federal employees, the public who have submitted written statements prior to the meeting, followed by the public at large.

. . . .

Dr. Murray called on Dr. Parkman to review the minutes of the June 1 and 2, 1992, RAC meeting. Dr. Parkman stated that the minutes of the June 1-2, 1992, RAC meeting were an accurate reflection of the committee's deliberations; however, he suggested several minor corrections.

. . . .

A motion was made by Dr. Parkman and seconded by Dr. DeLeon to approve the minutes including the changes submitted by. Drs. Parkman, Miller, and Geiduschek. Dr. Murray called for the vote. The minutes were approved by a vote of 17 in favor, 0 opposed, and no abstentions.

. . . .

III. DISCUSSION In response to Dr. Zallen's comments regarding the informed consent process for the healthy donor twin, Dr. Walker said that it is essential that the donor twin is aware of the HIV status of the infected recipient prior to obtaining the informed consent. Dr. Lane responded that in previous HIV twin studies, the infected twin always places the initial telephone call to the investigator performing the research . . . Therefore, the informed consent issue raised by Dr. Zallen has never been a concern in previous protocols.

The Delphi Technique

The "Delphi Technique" was a substitute for meetings designed by the Rand Corporation in the 1960s. Members of a committee never met. Instead, questionnaires on the meeting subject were sent to members. Each answered the questionnaire and returned it; the answers were circulated among the members, and the questionnaire was sent out again. The cycle was repeated until a consensus was reached. Lewis Thomas suggests that the success of the Delphi Technique lies in the fact that it is not oral: "The background noise of small talk, and the recurrent sonic booms of vanity, are eliminated at the outset, and there is time to think. There are no voices, and therefore no rising voices. "

Today, the Delphi Technique — and all its advantages — appears as electronic networks.

Using Teleconferences

In recent years organizations whose divisions are spread over a wide area (with, for instance, offices in Bangkok and Geneva) have come to use telephone conference calls — which allow any number of people to talk to each other, and video conference calls — which allow several people to talk to each other and to see each other.

These technologies are cost-effective. In fact, the greater the distance between the participants, the more cost-effective such communication becomes; imagine, for instance, the price of a phone call around the world compared to the price of a round-trip plane ticket and a week's expenses. The technology has other advantages. There is immediate feedback among participants ("Is this what you mean?"). A television image may enable faster and perhaps more comprehensive understanding: a presenter may, for instance, answer a question by having the camera focus on the model sitting on the table before him. Perhaps most importantly, the technology forces people on both ends to realize there are people on the other — and so each is likely to recognize the others' needs, the others' point of view, and so will likely communicate more effectively.

Of course, there are disadvantages. Disembodied voices coming from a speakerphone may confuse a listener, especially if two or more of the voices sound alike. Conferences between more than four or five people become difficult, and conferences among participants at more than two locations are almost hopelessly confusing. The obvious and common solution — a rule that everyone identifies herself or himself before he or she speaks — slows communication and frustrates the free flow of ideas.

Videoconferencing remedies only some of these problems. It is at present far more expensive than speakerphones. Equipping a room can cost as much as $50,000, and connection time is as much as $500 an hour. Not surprisingly, as of late 1993 only about 20,000 conference-room video systems were installed worldwide. There are other problems. In some ways videoconferencing inhibits the free exchange of ideas. For instance, because the camera is relatively fixed, or at least because it cannot change focus as a participant in person might her view, it cannot show facial expressions of those out of its field of view. Further, as with the speakerphone, the technology enforces a rigidity on the proceedings; two participants cannot talk "over" the primary discussion. But these are symptoms of a relatively primitive technology. Systems now being developed enable a user to change camera angles remotely, attain a tight focus, etc. Further, prices are dropping. By the turn of the century videoconferences may be as commonplace as faxes are now.

That "Human" Factor

Robert W. Lucky is Executive Director, Research, Communications Sciences Division, of AT&T Bell Laboratories. He tells an interesting anecdote in which a business associate tells him that videotelephony will never work. The associate then embraces him, and says "I need to smell the person I'm dealing with." Mr. Lucky realizes that no personal slight was intended, that "smell" was a metaphor for a human quality beyond the ability of electronics to convey.

It may be that teleconferencing is a technology which cannot be made to convey "smell" effectively — or it may be that psychologists and sociologists will discover the means to compensate or artificially recreate that difficult-to-define human quality.

As the chair or coordinator of a teleconference, you have, if anything, a greater obligation to ensure that the interaction is personable. Because conference calls are faster, the members may not be comfortable enough to voice opinions. Contrarily, because the others are on the other side of a continent and connected only by a fiber-optic cable or radio waves bounced between satellites and receiving stations, some members may be less inclined to listen to others, and more inclined to push their own agenda. You begin by making introductions, and you may add information as you would in introducing strangers at a social gathering: "Dr. Livingstone, I'd like to introduce Mr. Stanley. Mr. Stanley is interested in your exploration of the Congo River Basin." Allow a few minutes for socialization — even encourage it. Obviously, it is important that members recognize each other's voices; it is also important that the members feel comfortable with one another, or as comfortable as possible, given the rather unnatural situation.

Certain organizations are experimenting with multi-media conferencing. Participants hear each other through a conventional speakerphone and see the same screen on their computer terminals. For instance, participants might see the same page of a document — and if one participant scrolls ahead to a given page, the others see their screens scroll ahead. Participants might discuss over the speakerphone a given phrase, the usefulness of a certain diagram. Obviously such a system loses effectiveness in direct proportion to the number of participants: as with any speakerphone conversation, more than four or five participants makes matters confusing. But perhaps we cannot blame technology here; four or five writers may be the upper limit on writers collaorating on any document — even when the collaborators are in the same room.

Exploring Cross-Cultural Oral Communication

In some areas, oral communication across cultures is easier than is written communication. In face-to-face communication at least, either party may show incomprehension immediately. But there are still problems.

There are small misunderstandings — like those caused by different meanings attached to the same word. A British technical writer tells visiting an American firm, and being told that a supervisor would speak to him "momentarily." To an American ear, the word seems utterly inoffensive: momentarily means in a moment. But in British English, momentarily means for a moment. The writer, having traveled some distance for the meeting, regarded this as a slight.

There are larger misunderstandings — resulting from different sensibilities. Because humor is often specific to a given culture, you should use it cautiously. Most humor is what it is because it treads precariously near debasing someone or something. Unless you are acquainted with the culture or unless you have tried the joke on a representative member of the audience and been assured of its good taste — jokes are best avoided. Still, a successful joke will demonstrate some appreciation of the culture at hand, you will be regarded as having made an attempt to understand the culture, and you will have broken through tension.

Finally, there are misunderstandings which are fundamental — those caused by different appreciation for the nature and value of oral communication itself. Most Americans consider written information more valid than oral information. In many other cultures, oral information is more important — in part because the content of an interaction is not as important as the interaction itself. American organizations depend heavily upon internal written communication — organizations in many other countries — like France and Japan — will not need to rely upon written communication because informal verbal communication is almost continuous throughout the working day.

Cultural differences affecting oral communication are perhaps most evident during meetings. Do not expect that meetings will proceed as they do in America; and do not be disturbed when they fail to meet your expectations.

Americans doing business with industrialized Germany should

1. Be on time. The Germans adhere strictly to schedules.

2. Avoid overly friendly conversation with participants. To the Germans, use of first names by business aquaintances is impolite and disrepectful. Meetings begin introductions and perhaps handshakes, but with little or none of the general conversation required by the French.

3. Expect that the meeting will follow a pre-established agenda. Interruptions are not tolerated.

4. Expect that presentations will consist of the logical exposition of ideas and many examples.

Americans doing business with Japanese should

1. Be prepared to emphasize long-term goals and de-emphasize the short-term. American organizations often think in terms of the quarterly report, while Japanese businesses may plan twenty or thirty years into the future.

2. Accept periods of silence during meetings. They are meant to be used as periods for reflection — and are very important to any relationship.

3. Do not pressure. Specifically, do not ask questions that you know your associates have not had time to answer, and avoid mention of deadlines. In every way, be patient. Hurriedness will be perceived as weakness.

4. Do not assume that the Japanese concern for the long-term allows you to slight the details. Quite the contrary. Because the purpose of the meeting in Japan is often only to formalize a consensus reached informally in the days before the meeting, members will be knowledgeable, and in many cases will have made their decision. Come to a meeting at least as prepared — and if possible more prepared — than you would for its American counterpart.

5. Understand that to the Japanese, a verbal agreement is as binding as a written contract, and a written contract is assumed to be binding only if conditions remain unchanged. If conditions do change, the Japanese will expect that a contract will be renegotiated.

Americans doing business with the French should

1. Expect a period of general conversation, and allow them to move gradually to the subject of the meeting. The French must sense the general mood and get to all participants know the before beginning business. They may take time, but when the move is made, it is made with grace. Also, expect that discussion will be interrupted often.

2. Understand that the point of the meeting may not be to arrive at a consenus so much as to allow all participants a chance to sense others' views. Meetings are likely to involve prolonged discussion, and no agreement may be reached at all. An American attending a French meeting may feel frustrated at its length and its evident indirection. (And a French person participating in an American meeting may feel she has not been heard, and that the process is abrupt and hasty.)

3. Appreciate that unlike the Japanese, the French enjoy conflict. Always, opinions are expressed eloquently, logically, and with great attention to details.

4. Understand that to the French, a verbal agreement is not binding. If you are serious about terms of an agreement, politely insist that they be put in writing.

We offer this advice to give an idea of how culture can affect communication. It is not meant as preparation even for a meeting with these cultures, let alone a relationship. For that, we refer the reader to books listed in the Further Reading section below — and echo the admonition of each book that no culture can be learned without direct contact. Your associates in other countries — even when they are speaking English — are likely to be operating under a very different set of assumptions. You are advised to acquaint yourself with the culture as best you can, be wary of American generalizations (ours included), and if at all possible, learn the language.

Discussion

1. Consider the following questions, discuss the hazards they present the speaker, and formulate answers which are truthful, which satisfy the questioner, and which do not alienate the rest of the audience.

a. "What happens if you don't finish this project by the deadline?"

b. "You didn't recommend we use XYZ software on the re-organization models. Why? Do you think there's something wrong with it? I know it's been getting a lot of bad press lately, but it's always worked for me."

c. "Okay, so somebody asked you to come here and talk — but it wasn't me. So I guess you must think you're pretty smart ... so tell me why we should listen to you instead of just using our common sense?"

d. "I know you were asked to come here and speak about restructuring , but I heard you were working with our competitor last week, and I was wondering if you could you tell us about their information retrieval system."

e. "What's more important to your firm — equal opportunity or productivity?"

2. Using the Delphi Technique, discuss a controversial topic in science and techmology; and, as nearly as you can, resolve your differences. Consider the following:

laboratory testing of chemicals on animals
euthanasia
studies of human embryos

Exercises

1. Using the suggestions from this chapter, rewrite a scientific article for presentation. Use as the source an article you have written, a suitable article from The Reader, or from a scientific or technical journal.

2. Attend two or three classes in a seminar or lecture series in a field outside your major. Keep a journal in which you consider: the number of people attending, where they sit, the number of undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty and visitors from other departments. Assess the speaker(s) in terms of organization, clarity and success in overall engagement. Did the speaker employ a technique which seemed particularly effective? Did the speaker do something which seemed — to you — a mistake?

3. Using skills and techniques discussed in this chapter, groups present project proposals to the class in oral presentations lasting for five to fifteen minutes. Groups address the class as though it were the intended audience of the proposal — that is, the local chamber of commerce, a faculty committee or a group of "irate taxpayers."

Further Reading

D'Arcy, Jan. Technically Speaking: Proven Ways to Make Your Next Presentation a Success. New York: American Management Association, 1992.

Engholm, Christopher. When Business East Meets Business West: The Guide to Practice and Protocol in the Pacific Rim. New York: Wiley, 1991.

Psychopharmacology Abstracts. Vol 19, No. 4, April 1982.

Shaffer, Richard A. "Meeting Tube to Tube." Forbes, December 6, 1993.

Stephenson, Dwight W. "Audience Analysis Across Cultures," Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 13:4 (1983). 319-30.

Thiederman, Sondra. Bridging Cultural Barriers for Corporate Success: How to Manage the Multicultural Work Force. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath, 1991.

Thomas, Lewis. The Medusa and the Snail. New York: Bantam Books, 1980.

Yager, Tom. The Multimedia Production Handbook for the PC, Macintosh and Amiga. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, Publishers, 1993.

Oral Presentations
Chapter 14

David M. Toomey and James H. Collier

Book Contents

Chapter 14

Oral Presentations Chapter 14

David M. Toomey and James H. Collier

Book Contents

Chapter 14

Oral Presentations
Chapter 14