One of the recurring excuses from colleagues about not improving their presentations is that academic presentations are different. The inference is that the message should be unclear and forgettable, that the slides should be complex and look like a journal and that delivery should be monotonal and disengaged. This is not a reflection of the science I love. These are simply ill-founded excuses. The message should be clear to be remembered. The media should support this message. The audience must be engaged and persuaded. That is scientific.
There is no basis in science to support the statement that academic presentations are different. Presentations that have no clear message will fail because of science. Media that overwhelms and distracts the audience will distract from the message and will fail because of science. Presenters who are disengaged hidden behind a lectern and simply reciting their message will fail because of science. The science of presentation applies to scientific presentation just the same as any other presentation.
The suggestion that an academic presentation is different and should simply represent a presentation of data is incorrect. That is not how a scientific paper or thesis is put together. What is required is a concise and understandable structure of this data leading the audience through higher order thinking to allow them to make their own decision about the selection, method and results. They should reach the discussion section with the presenter explaining the analysis and evaluation questions the audience will likely have raised in their own minds. The audience cannot be considered to be the investigators of this data during the live presentation. They will not be able to analyse numbers, statistics or scientific results. Those must be presented in an understandable manner.
It is often suggested that now that academic presentations are different and that the traditional data tables, graphs and text based slides are in some way “required.” The rationale behind this is confused and complex. Simply because one was abused as a child does not mean we should abuse. Simply because everyone else does it does not make it right. Simply because we want it to be like a journal article is wrong, it is not an article. The science of these points is overwhelmingly clear. Ignorance of that science does not change the facts and denying those facts is unacademic. It is just about conformity.
The delivery of academic presentations requires the same engagement, passion and skills as any other presentation. That does not necessarily include interpretive dance but even that has been done. The belief that academic presentations are different and require a different delivery raises questions about what we consider “academic.” Einstein challenged his audiences. Neil deGrass Tyson engages and educates. The beloved Royal Institution Christmas Lectures passionately explain science and academia and have inspired millions. Do we want our research to change opinions, change practice and change the world or would we be just happy that academic presentations are different, that the lack of clarity, visual confusion and poor engagement are themselves more important. Of course the content is different, the science behind the presentation is not.