Widen that circle a little bit to the people doing the same kind of work in your field, and you don't have to change your language very much. You and your coauthors and/or advisors are a very tiny circle. I usually think of this in terms of widening circles within your audience. Let's take a specific example: let's say your work concerns using the CRISM imaging spectrometer on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter to map clay and sulfate minerals on Mars and that you are using your maps to infer things about Mars' geologic history. If you do not provide the people in your audience with information that they require in order to understand you, it is the same as telling them that you do not care if they understand you or not. It is an act of disrespect to your audience.
Deleting necessary context from your talk in order to present more of what you did cuts out large swaths of audience. The wider an audience you are addressing, the more contextual information you will need to provide to them. But if you actually want people in the room to learn anything from you, you need to think about who they are and what they will come in to the room knowing and not knowing. Perhaps that's all you care about, in which case you can stop reading this post right now. Most scientists at conferences appear to be speaking to themselves, or, perhaps, to the people who will eventually be reviewing their paper. Here are some questions to guide you in preparing a good talk. Work to deliver them a presentation that is designed for them, to inform and interest them in your work, to leave them pleased that they spent that 5 or 10 or 50 minutes of their valuable time listening to you.
All those people in that room in front of you: they are not you.
0 kommentar(er)
