The purpose of a presentation is not data transfer. If you believe as though it is, you will be disappointed. This fact should change how presentations are constructed, delivered, and received. Data transfer simply does not work; we cannot broadcast well enough and audiences cannot receive, process, and retain enough. A presentation is not data transfer.
A frequent question at presentation workshops I run is, “how do I present large quantities of data?” My simple, if annoying answer is, “you can’t.” The reasons are that the medium is wrong, it is like dance on the radio. A presentation is not designed (or scientifically possible) for the delivery of large amounts of data.
For clarity, data is essential to understanding. One cannot expect an audience to be persuaded to change practice simply based on opinion. Data will help. However, that help is in providing key points that aid or support the discussion, not every single data point recorded. The medium for sharing large quantities of data is a document. The medium for sharing all the data is the database. The medium for sharing interpretation of all that data is a presentation. Understanding the difference is key to the presentation.
A repeated challenge to this scientifically proven statement is, “but I need it.” This may be true. It still does not work. Please read this post for a more in depth example and explanation. The reasons that everyone does it or says that they need it are around conformity, laziness, lack of insight, bravado, history, The Chief, etc etc. I cannot address those. We all know, simply and repeatedly, that it simply does not work.
The belief that complex data interpretation takes place during a presentation is interesting. Does one truly believe that the entirety of a data set, presented during a 7 minute presentation could be interpreted by a listening audience? Yet it has taken the fully employed researcher over 2 years to do so? Of course not. So, perhaps a limited data set? Whilst someone is speaking and changing slides? Again, no. So what is being described is cherry picking things that what you alone “need” for your analysis, but at the same time suggesting that it should all be available for interpretation? Again, not possible. It is presented in a document. Trying to make the two the same is the problem.
This is a problem for both the audience and the presenter. The presenter believes they can display and deliver everything because everything is required. The audience believes they have interpreted everything because they have been present when everything was there. This paradox drives the increasing complexity of data slides, the addition of references, the annotation of tables and eventually, there is a document on the screen. That document is exceptionally poor. Only selected parts of it are read. Processing is perfunctory. It is the worst of both worlds.
In delivery, the speaker becomes increasingly redundant. Key steps within the presentation are missed as the audience members often randomly search random data tables for information that is not pertinent, wrong or confusing, all whilst not paying attention to the speaker, but believing that they are. Ultimately, the input from the speaker is blocked and the audience member tries to decipher the data themselves. This is interesting because that is what the speaker already did for them. The flow of information is interrupted for the listener and key facts are lost. Another reason for demands of more text on the screen. Often this leads to questions being asked that are either inconsequential to the message or clearly show that the questioner’s attention was elsewhere whilst that key piece of information was delivered.
It is entirely reasonable that the audience “test” the data and its interpretation. It is implicit that the audience’s opinion is required and that such opinion should be derived from understanding. The nature of presentation, delivery and receipt actively blocks that analysis. To suggest otherwise goes directly contrary to the science, the evidence and importantly lived experience. The data has not been delivered and has not been interpreted. As George Bernard Shaw famously said:
“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”
If the purpose of the presentation is data transfer, that will not happen. It may be broadcast, but will not be received in total, and the little that is received will not be processed effectively. One needs to consider better ways to communicate complex data and decide what is fundamental to understanding and analysis. Then, present that better. The purpose of a presentation is not data transfer.
Always fantastically well-grounded advice, @ffolliett. BUT is it possible, ever, to deliver a presentation, no matter how well prepared, on-line, to an audience the presenter can’t see?
Ollie, the blogpost reply to your comment is coming in the next few days. Look out for it and let me know your opinion.