Presentation Myths: I Need a Laser Pointer

I've been periodically writing about presentation myths (see previous posts), and today I thought I would tackle another one:  the need for a laser pointer. Everyone seems to want to use one, even those speakers who clearly cannot hold the light point steadily enough for the audience to pick out what it is the presenter is trying to emphasize. I know a few colleagues whose hands are so unsteady that the laser light point literally jumps all over the screen and momentarily touches on every datapoint in view. Which one are we supposed to focus on?

Actually, the laser user I describe above is only one of several categories and subcategories. The category I call Unsteady Hands includes people who are nervous and are literally shaking from fear; people whose hands have a modest, involuntary tremor (either pathological or not); and those unfortunates who suffer from both. There is really not much these groups can do to eliminate the shaking. You would think that such people would say to themselves that this bit of technology just isn't working for them. But you'd be wrong. Instead, they resort to maneuvers such as holding the pointer with both hands or steadying the hand holding the pointer against the podium. This often doesn't work and draws attention to the fact that they can't manage with one hand.

Then there are the speakers who use the laser pointer as a reading aid by running the light along the text on the screen while they read the text to the audience. Let's call them the Readers. This group not only commits the sin of filling up their slides with a bunch of text, they add to the audience's suffering by painstakingly reading what the audience members are already perfectly capable of reading...AND they highlight the torture with their laser pointer.

Related to the Readers are the Circlers, who endlessly circle points on their slides while they are talking. Sometimes, they circle things for no good reason. I recall a colleague once commenting during a presentation that he didn't know why he was circling a particular point. Seriously? I imagine the answer is because this is a self-soothing behavior similar to the distracting habit of some speakers who jingle the change in their pockets or who rock back and forth. It's just a visual distracting behavior instead of aural.

The most dangerous are the Wavers, who wildly wave their laser light around the room like Obi Wan Kenobi, sometimes pointing at the ceiling, the walls, or directly into the audience's eyes. My husband is one of these. He's totally oblivious to the fact that he's doing it. He gets carried away with what he's talking about, excitedly points out some key piece of data on the screen with the laser point, then turns to the audience for their reaction....unfortunately while keeping his finger pressed on the laser button. Does he wonder why the audience is ducking?

I'm sure there are other types and variants, but these are the main ones that come to mind. The remote controllers that are used by a speaker to advance to the next slide are often outfitted with laser pointers, which only encourages these laser-challenged users. I say, get rid of them. Or at least invent one that automatically shuts the light off if the laser pointer is moved too erratically or for too long. Any inventors out there?

In the meantime, those of you who cannot hold the laser light point rock-steady should use another means to emphasize your point. For example, use animation to highlight things on your slides. An animated arrow or circle is an effective way to point out a key datapoint. Or animate in important numbers or text in a contrasting color. Don't get carried away, though, or my next post will be about overuse of animation. You should be designing your slides so that it is rarely necessary to point out a key piece of data or text. Important information or data should already be obvious without additional emphasis. If it's extraneous, it shouldn't be on the slide in the first place.

Stay tuned for more presentation myths....

It's a Jungle Out There

This morning I cleaned out my inbox, deleting without opening, three invitations (to submit manuscripts) from journals I've never heard of. Such invitations have become a weekly occurrence. Even though I've set my spam filter to block emails from repeat offenders, I continue to get new ones.

Coincidentally, I received a link to a blog post about predatory publishers by Ian Woolley writing for Soapbox Science. He goes into detail about the practices of these journals, how to identify them, and about a website that purports to be a watchdog of predatory publishers. You might find it interesting and thought-provoking.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Nature Geoscience recently announced they are offering the option for authors to remain anonymous to reviewers (here is a link to an editorial). Actually, both Nature Geoscience and Nature Climate Change are testing this option. The editorial that describes this new option explains that the journal's editors are convinced that this double-blind process will remove unconscious bias. In particular, the editorial states that "One of our motivations for setting up a double-blind trial is the possibility that female authors are subjected to tougher peer review than their male colleagues–a distinct possibility in view of evidence that subtle gender biases affect assessments of competence, appropriate salaries and other aspects of academic life ((Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA109, 16474–16479; 2012)." 

As the editorial mentions, some reviewers will attempt to guess the identity of the authors. There will be clues in the paper, no matter how careful the author is. A few reviewers will be certain they have guessed correctly (even though they likely will be flat wrong). To what extent this guessing will influence the review, is not clear. Hopefully, most reviewers will simply shrug and focus on the paper's content, which is what they should be doing anyway.

Coincidentally, I just completed a double-blind review (my first) a few days ago for a different journal. Interestingly, the journal did not explain that the paper's authors would not be revealed to me. Instead, I was provided the usual links to the paper, which contained no mention of the authors or their affiliation. Not finding that information anywhere, I finally realized that this was a double-blind review.

Did not knowing the author's identity affect how I conducted the review? Not really. In fact, I liked not knowing who the author was quite a bit more than I expected. I wonder if other reviewers will feel the same way?

Myths About Giving Presentations: Imagine Your Audience Is Naked

I've been discussing myths about giving presentations. A lot of myths deal with fear of public speaking. The recommendation to imagine your audience naked or in their underwear or sitting on the commode is meant to allay the speaker's fear of being on stage. Supposedly, a naked audience is less intimidating. Rumor has it that this idea came from Winston Churchill, who used this technique (among others) to overcome his fears of speaking in public (he also apparently recommended that people practice their speeches in front of a mirror). I could not find confirmation that Churchill was the source of this advice, but it has certainly been repeated extensively.

This is one recommendation, however, that I've never even considered following, even though it has been suggested to me on a number of occasions throughout my career. I've also heard well-meaning teachers and advisors give this advice to students. First off, it sounds incredibly silly. I have enough trouble trying to remember what I should be saying without the extra mental effort that would be required to envision the audience without their clothes on. I could see myself walking onto the stage, turning to face the audience, trying to picture a roomful of naked people, and then blanking out completely on my speech as my head filled with unsavory images of my colleagues in their birthday suits. How would I face them later and carry on a conversation with a straight face?

No, no, no. This is bad advice not only because it's disrespectful of your audience but because it puts a barrier between you and them. Just the opposite of what you should be doing: Connecting with your audience. If you are afraid or contemptuous of your audience, then you are not connecting with them. If you are not connecting, then it's likely they are not paying much attention to what you are saying. Putting up barriers between you and your audience (huddling behind a podium, reading your speech and never looking up, looking at the screen with your back to your audience) makes for a bad presentation. Audience members will understand at a gut level that you are not confident about yourself or your message. People are incredibly skilled at reading body language, even if they are not quite aware of it at an intellectual level.

Along these same lines, I've heard about another "trick" that some speakers use to avoid looking into the audience members' eyes (but appear to be doing so). The trick, apparently, is to look at people's foreheads instead of their eyes. They supposedly cannot tell that you are faking eye contact. I'm not so sure that's true. If you are faking eye contact, you likely are giving off other subtle hints that you are afraid or insincere, which the audience will spot. Avoiding eye contact tells another person that you are not trustworthy and have something to hide. Faking eye contact is also bad advice because it means that you are missing important feedback from your audience. If you are not looking, you don't know if your audience can hear you, can understand you, or is interested in what you are saying. If you see negative expressions, maybe you can't do anything during that speech but it will be valuable information to help you improve your next talk.

Whenever I see someone in the audience frown or shake their head–it is disturbing–but I try not to dwell on it. I continue to look around the room until I see someone nodding or smiling. Another thing to keep in mind is that the audience members could be mirroring your expressions and body language. If you are exhibiting nervous tics or even fear, your audience is going to be uncomfortable and fidgety. If you are relaxed, smiling, and looking straight into your audience's eyes, they will likely feel comfortable and good about themselves and you.

Being nervous is no excuse for failing to make a connection with your audience. In fact, on the few occasions when I've heard a really nervous speaker admit to the audience that they were terrified of speaking, the audience immediately became sympathetic and encouraging. Most people want you to succeed and can empathize with your nervousness. If you have to imagine your audience in any condition, imagine that they admire you and are there to learn something from you.

Coming Soon to a Journal Near You: Video Abstracts

Some of you may be familiar with a new trend at some science journals: video abstracts in which the authors explain their findings on camera, sometimes enhanced with animations or other visually-rich media. A few journals routinely accept and publish video abstracts prepared by authors. Two of these are the New Journal of Physics and Cell, and you can see examples of their video abstracts by going to their websites.

These video abstracts are typically short (3-5 minutes) and often published on a video-sharing site such as YouTube, rather than on the journal website. By providing video summaries on such accessible and popular video-sharing sites, authors make their work widely available. Anyone can access these media without having a subscription or paying a fee.

In addition to the above journals, several other journals are currently "experimenting" with video abstracts. This movement reflects the overall trend in multimedia communication of information on the internet, in combination with the availability of digital devices and software for creating and sharing video.

What are the advantages for an author? By using video, authors can explain their work in a way that they are not able to do in print, such as showing footage of their laboratory setups or methods, field sites, and/or study organisms. The authors are able to provide a more personal explanation of their findings and put them into a broader perspective. By posting a video on the internet, the author can raise the visibility of themselves and their research because search engines rank video high in comparison to text-only descriptions (especially if it's the only video out there on the topic). People searching for information on a topic will be more likely to find their video abstract, and the video will lead viewers to the technical paper. Also, if the video is published on YouTube, the authors are free to embed their video abstract on their own websites, something they often cannot do with their journal publication because of copyright restrictions.

What are the advantages for the reader? Video can provide a richer, more interactive experience for a reader. For non-specialist readers, a video in which the authors explain their work in everyday language  would provide greater insight, spark their curiosity about the topic, and possibly encourage them to learn more about it. For example, as a scientist, I'm interested in keeping up with major discoveries in other fields. Although I'm not likely to read a technical paper about the Higgs boson, I would watch a video that explains what's been discovered and what it means.

Are video abstracts just a fad or will it become a common practice at science journals? Hard to say.

Some video abstracts are well-done:


Others are pretty awful:



Some science disciplines (physics) seem to be getting on the multimedia bandwagon faster than others. Whatever the future of video abstracts, we are clearly in a learning phase. Many of my colleagues have never even heard of video abstracts and expressed no interest in doing one, even if offered the opportunity. Students seemed to be more receptive to the idea, and I suspect this is because they are more technically-savy and accustomed to watching YouTube videos than most of their professors.

If video abstracts become standard practice, authors will need to either develop some skills at creating such videos or will need access to multimedia specialists who can help them. My guess is that most authors will end up paying someone, either at their institution or a free-lancer, to produce a video abstract. Possibly some journals will offer the service at a price. It will be interesting to see how this practice evolves.

For more on the video revolution in science communication, see this video:

Image Credit: modified photograph from USAID

Myths About Giving Presentations: Never Apologize for a Bad Slide

We've all heard or read advice about how to give presentations, or more specifically, how not to screw up in front of your peers. It's sometimes worthwhile, however, to revisit sage advice to see if it is really germane or if it needs some clarification or modification.

One recommendation I often hear is, "Never apologize for a bad slide." Yet many of my colleagues seem not to have ever heard this one. They continue to put up slides with long tables filled with data in font so small that it's impossible to read even from the front row. These presenters apologize for the busy slide, then say that they just want to point out one or two data points and that the audience should just ignore the rest.

Well then why not just create a slide with those one or two important data points in large font? It's easy enough in PowerPoint. The audience will be able to read the values and can concentrate on them. Better yet, add a graphic or photo that emphasizes the relevance of those data to the point you are trying to make. See the following example.

Much more effective than a dense table. So why do people persist in presenting bad slides? Part of the reason is sheer laziness. They cut and paste the table, graph, or diagram from one of their papers (or someone else's paper). They think that to do anything else requires more time and effort (which is usually not true). The other reason is that they collected all those other data and so must show it....right? Wrong. The audience will be aware of the effort you went to to get to that key data point. Showing extraneous data has the opposite effect of annoying, rather than enlightening your audience.

Showing a slide that is impossible to read or understand is also insulting to the audience. It sends a clear message that you don't care about them. And if you apologize, it means that you are well aware of the poor quality of the slide but didn't care enough about the audience to fix it.

The advice about never apologizing for a bad slide suggests that it's OK to use bad slides as long as you don't acknowledge it. Actually, most of us realize that this advice means never use a bad slide. No slide is better than a bad slide. However, it's easy for novices to misinterpret this advice....which is why I bring it up. I should mention here that using tables and complicated graphs or diagrams in posters is OK (because the viewer has the time to digest them and likely wants to see the data), but you should still design them well so that your point is clearly made.

I would amend this recommendation to be, "You should never HAVE to apologize for a bad slide. If, while practicing your presentation, you find yourself saying, "Now, I realize you can't see the data on this slide, but I just want you to focus on this number...", delete that slide and create a new one. Your audience will thank you.

The Scientist Who Happens To Be a Woman

This month is Women's History Month, and last Friday was International Women's Day. Such celebrations are set to recognize and pay tribute to the contributions made by women throughout history. Many of those contributions were by women in science.

A growing number of women, however, are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with efforts to highlight women in science because such emphasis may lead to the conclusion that there is something unusual about female scientists or that we need "special help" to succeed (special awards, fellowships, grants).

The problem seems to be exacerbated by news stories in which the female gender of the story subject is emphasized over whatever it is she has accomplished. Articles about women scientists invariably talk about the fact that they are women (".....she's one of a handful of women to work on this topic.") and about family matters ("....she had to leave her three-year-old for a month to do field research in the Antarctic"). Some focus on special challenges they face as women in a male-dominated field ("....she had to accomplish twice that of her male colleagues to be acknowledged as competent").

I came across this post by Christie Aschwanden, who suggests the Finkbeiner Test for articles profiling women in science. It's similar to the Bechdel Test, which assesses gender bias in film, which I've described here previously. To pass the Finkbeiner Test, the article cannot mention any of the following:

• The fact that she’s a woman
• Her husband’s job
• Her child care arrangements
• How she nurtures her underlings
• How she was taken aback by the competitiveness in her field
• How she’s such a role model for other women
• How she’s the “first woman to…”

I agree that over emphasis on gender can backfire and send the wrong message. But I also understand the journalists' viewpoint in trying to make a technical topic more attractive to readers (especially female readers) by emphasizing gender and/or the unusual. To get people interested in reading about a topic, the journalist has to find a "hook", and anything unusual works well to attract readers. Look at the recent media buzz about Danica Patrick, the first female NASCAR driver to win the pole position in the Daytona 500 competition. Even though media attention is focused mostly on her gender, she's edged out male competitors to become the most popular NASCAR driver, especially among female fans of the sport. Her crew chief said that he's given out "more lugnuts to young girls this week than he's given to anyone in his career". 

I do wish that we could just write and read about the accomplishments of a scientist or race car driver who just happens to be a woman. But that's not going to happen as long as the subject's gender is seen as something unusual. Journalists can help things along by de-emphasizing gender in articles about female scientists (as Aschwanden and Finkbeiner suggest). As scientists, we can decline to provide answers to gender-based questions in interviews and refocus attention on the science.