Anyone who has attended Canadian Historical Association or Association of Canadian Archivists or any other mainstream academic conference is familiar with what more traditional conference sessions look like. There are typically two or three presenters per session and the majority of presenters simply read a formal paper. These papers are at times accompanied by a powerpoint presentation but many of them are simply stand alone papers. Reading of these papers is typically followed by an extremely short question period, in which a small handful of the audience asks questions.
People reading can be engaging, but it depends on the topic, style of writing, and reading style of the presenter. Some people are dynamic and engaging while talking and don’t really need additional props. But there are also the monotone presenters, those who hardly look at the audience, and obscure topics that aren’t contextualized for the audience. Often the content of the presentation has the potential to be interesting, the format of the presentation just lacks any level of engagement.
One of the many reasons I loved the National Council on Public History (NCPH) conference last year was the dynamic, engaging nature of many of the sessions. The formal reading of papers is fairly non existent at NCPH conferences and I found sessions which involved active audience participation to be the ones which stuck in my mind, provided stimulating thoughts for future projects, and were generally the most enjoyable.
Recently, an email was sent out to NCPH 2013 presenters that reinforced the idea of engaging presentations at the annual conference. It was suggested to presenters:
1) not to read your presentation if you can help it, but to present as if you are teaching or interpreting at a historic site;
2) bring the audience into the program (don’t leave the audience only five minutes at the very end for questions);
3) see the session as an energetic, highly-informed start of a conversation, not simply a report on work done in the past.
I really love the idea of presentations as conversations that involve the audience. I also like that there is an emphasis on “presentation” not “papers.” A thoughtful carefully written academic paper is not the same thing as a well crafted interactive presentation. Many attendees of the NCPH annual conference come from outside of academia. I’m sure that this in part is due to the spectrum of people engaged in public history, but I think it could also be attributed to the style of the conference — those not well versed in academic conferences feel completely comfortable presenting in their own style, which might not fit into more traditional conferences.
I’m looking forward to NCPH 2013 which is being held in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada in April 2013. The conference program and registration details are available online.
What makes a good conference session? Have you attended a conference that used an innovative presentation style?