Giving Talks, Preparing for your next project

Our job is to make your stronger and more effective. 

1. As for your giving talks. Typically you have 15 minutes to present at a meeting, 45 minutes in a job talk. 

A. Always go less than your allotted time. In the case of job talks, you will likely be interrupted well before your talk is over, so be sure to get in the main points, including the findings!, in the first ten minutes--and you can say to questioners that you need ten minutes and then  you will welcome their questions. At all times, keep in mind that many people in the audience would rather be elsewhere, that they may be sleepy or hungry or..., and that what they most want to do is talk themselves. 

B. Bottom Line Up Front=BLUF. That is, tell people the main point or points in the first page, the first five minutes. The rest is commentary and support.

C. Give them something to go home with. A one-page summary, chart, table, ..., with your name and email etc. They might well read it than listen to you--terrific. If you are at a meeting, have copies of the paper for anyone who asks for it. If you are seeking a job, prepare your one-minute account of your current research AND where you plan to go next, and carry sufficient copies of your CV/resume with you.

D. You want to have no more than 3 or 4 main points, and you have previewed them in the first minutes, BLUF.

E. Practice your talk. The first time will be awful, at least for me. At least one more time. Don't ever tell people you put the talk together on the plane to the meeting--be polished and well rehearsed. If you did put the talk together on the plane, practice in the hotel room, find a copying service to prepare the handout. 

F. If your spoken English is not clear--you speak too softly, English is not your native language and your skills are limited, you can make up for it. Microphones help, but you might learn to project your voice (as do stage actors and opera singers, but I don't know the tricks). Powerpoint slides that list what you will say also help. In general, you want two or three slides for a brief presentation, and most of what is on the slides should be on your handout. For a 45 minute talk, a dozen slides will impress people by your concision. (When theatrical executives present, as in Steve Jobs, Zuckerberg, ..., their slide presentations are a product of major professional effort.) You may need more slides to show off your data or to have images, but be sure that those whose eyesight reflects aging will be able to read it. Big font, not too busy charts, clear plots.

 

I am not against complex arguments, careful treatments of data and theory and method, etc. But, initially, you've got to convince people that it is worth learning all that. I have no idea if this sort of advice is useful for love letters, condolences, or novels.

 

2. As for thinking about your next project--dissertation, grant, whatever...  You need:

1.       The brief statement of the subject of your proposed research.

2.       The brief statement of how you are going to go about it.

3.       The papers you think are exemplary, either for topic or method.

4.       The roughest Table of Contents of your dissertation

5.       Your two brief statements of your field (You can get the bibliography together a bit later).

 

Everyone—don’t use qualitative or quantitative. Tell me what you will do. Mixed methods is even worse a term.

Awards

As I have written before, you get awards because you apply for them, or your colleagues and friends nominate your for them (and you may well have written a draft nominating letter for them to use, several different ones if several nominators). In general there are more deserving recipients than awards, so don't worry that you are not deserving. No one is deserving in this sense.

If you are a member of an organization, get on the awards committee and make sure your colleagues or whoever you prefer is nominated, and then campaign to get them the needed votes. If you are a member of some distinguished group (National Academy of ...), your main job is to get your colleagues in as members. Don't worry about their being deserving--there are lots of deserving folks, and you want your deserving colleagues to be members.

Yesterday, I received a notice that I would be receiving an award. I did not know of the organization or of the award. It turns out I have some fans on the award committee, and they never told me about it. I mention this not to brag, but to indicate the ways of the world. Another time, I was made a distinguished member of a professional society, but in that case I asked several people to nominate me. 

The Provost wants us to win awards. Make him happy. Also, there are lots of internal University awards--research, teaching, mentoring,... If you believe you would be competitive, let your colleagues know, and prepare those nominating letter drafts. Rarely are awards given without your scheming and applying. Nobel prizes are surely in this scheming class. On the other hand, Guggenheim fellowships do require letters of reference, but rarely are they prearranged or schemed.

Being More Effective as a Scholar or Bureaucrat

My job is to make your stronger and more effective. 

This is mainly for graduate students, but I believe many others will benefit.

1. Prepare a suite of short memos about your research, in red below. The word "brief" is deliberate. One paragraph, maybe half a page, double spaced. Someone may well read just that paragraph, but, if you must, add more for your own benefit.

1.       The brief statement of the subject of your proposed research.

2.       The brief statement of how you are going to go about it.

3.       The papers you think are exemplary, either for topic or method. About five of these

4.       The roughest Table of Contents of your dissertation

5.       Your two brief statements of your field (You can get the bibliography together a bit later).

2. When reading a paper it may be useful to summarize the paper in that one brief paragraph, and prepare one really good question that will help the author do a better job.

3. As for your giving talks. Typically you have 15 minutes to present at a meeting, 45 minutes in a job talk. 

A. Always go less than your allotted time. In the case of job talks, you will likely be interrupted well before your talk is over, so be sure to get in the main points, including the findings!, in the first ten minutes--and you can say to questioners that you need ten minutes and then  you will welcome their questions. At all times, keep in mind that many people in the audience would rather be elsewhere, that they may be sleepy or hungry or..., and that what they most want to do is talk themselves. If you don't know the answer, say so, and tell the questioner you want to speak with them afterwards.

B. Bottom Line Up Front=BLUF. That is, tell people the main point or points in the first page, the first five minutes. The rest is commentary and support.

C. Give them something to go home with. A one-page summary, chart, table, ..., with your name and email etc. They might well read it than listen to you--terrific. If you are at a meeting, have copies of the paper for anyone who asks for it. If you are seeking a job, prepare your one-minute account of your current research AND where you plan to go next, and carry sufficient copies of your CV/resume with you.

D. You want to have no more than 3 or 4 main points, and you have previewed them in the first minutes, BLUF.

E. Practice your talk. The first time will be awful, at least for me. At least one more time. Don't ever tell people you put the talk together on the plane to the meeting--be polished and well rehearsed. If you did put the talk together on the plane, practice in the hotel room, find a copying service to prepare the handout. 

F. If your spoken English is not clear--you speak too softly, English is not your native language and your skills are limited, you can make up for it. Microphones help, but you might learn to project your voice (as do stage actors and opera singers, but I don't know the tricks). Powerpoint slides that list what you will say also help. In general, you want two or three slides for a brief presentation, and most of what is on the slides should be on your handout. For a 45 minute talk, a dozen slides will impress people by your concision. (When theatrical executives present, as in Steve Jobs, Zuckerberg, ..., their slide presentations are a product of major professional effort.) You may need more slides to show off your data or to have images, but be sure that those whose eyesight reflects aging will be able to read it. Big font, not too busy charts, clear plots.

I am not against complex arguments, careful treatments of data and theory and method, etc. But, initially, you've got to convince people that it is worth learning all that. I have no idea if this sort of advice is useful for love letters, condolences, or novels.

4. In talking with some of our students who have had experience in intelligence, a point I have made here earlier kept coming up as the essence of their practice--and I learned it 15 years ago from a student who worked in military intelligence.

Bottom Line Up Front. 

Namely, in the first sentence and the first paragraph, give away everything that matters. What you put in the conclusion, conventionally, should be here. And it should be possible for the reader or listener to understand that point immediately.

A second feature sounds to me like what I have been told that legal writing exhibits: 

Fractal Organization:

At every level, each point and its support is fully whole. If you drill down, that drilled down part makes sense as it is. The reader, if they "get" the first level, need not drill down more. If not, do so until you are satisfied. You NEVER have to drag through parts you already understand. In effect, this is what was once called hyper-text. 

This may not be the way to write term papers or love letters, or I believe this is much to recommend in this strategy even in that context. But in writing for busy people, or in presenting to busy people, it is the preferred way. You never want to drag people through stuff just because you worked hard on it, and you surely want them to understand what you are saying immediately (or if they ask a question, the answer is right there).

In effect, you give away all of your jewels immediately.

There is one other point. The title of your paper, your talk, your memo subject, should in effect give it all away. No cute titles, no teasers. If you have subheads, they too should give away the content of that section, so a reader might skip over it if they wanted to.

More on Impact

Depending on the field, impact may take a very long time. It takes forever  to get an article or book published in many fields, reviewed and noticed, etc. When people talk of high-impact research, it is useful to give it some concreteness and a sense of what is required to increase impact--assuming that the world is not waiting desperately for your next piece of work.

And even then, superb work may not have a big impact over the medium run.

The idea to raise expectations and aspirations. Publishing is fine, good journals is fine, but in the end what matters in high-impact is whether others use the work or argue with it.  Also, does it lead to "big money," in terms of grants now and in the future.

Your work may not be impactful, even if there are fans, and you have received some rewards and fellowships. Your colleagues may not much value your work, even if you are well valued outside your department.  That is an indictment of your colleagues rather than a judgment of your contributions. It may even be age-related. But none of this is of matter.

In general, our job is to have people outside our university appreciate our contributions. If we are insufficiently appreciated, we might stay around for other reasons, or many receive offers from elsewhere and move on.

High-Impact Research

It may be useful to indicate what the scholarly community has discovered about what might be called high-impact research. Quality, cumulative contributions, poignant understanding of what you have contributed and letting others know of that in your writing, being tall/white/male etc have been shown to matter. But here are some of the measures of impact and what you can do. Keep in mind that high-impact may not be the deepest or most profound contributions, but if one is seeking high-impact...

1. There are various measures of such: h-index, citations, reference letters, policy changes, grants and fellowships, awards, ...

a. Use the Web of Science citation index rather than Google Scholar. Do not count citations when someone is a post-doc and the most senior person is also on the author list. (Often, when two scholars are compared, especially if the total citations are very different, it is the case that these post-doc citations make the difference.) In some fields, especially in book-writing fields, such citations are much rarer, and so comparisons usually need to be within a field or sub-field.

b. Reference letters should not only be from those within a small cabal. They should be substantive, unless the person needs no introduction (at which point you are high-impact).

c. As for policy changes, these are rare--the favorite example is broken windows. Same for professional practice changes. One problem is whether the change is for the good, but that is another issue entirely.

d. Grant dollars may be significant. But is the person the PI or co-PI? Co-PI's may not deserve the credit especially when they are just starting out and the PI is very well established. What have others in the subfield received? Are the sources of support considered reliable indicators of quality, or merely interested parties?

e. Fellowships may be very significant if they are hard to get. Guggenheim's are such. Some of the residential research centers--Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, for example--are significant. But sometimes the awards are for someone very early in their career with great promise--but high impact is to come later. (I don't know about Fulbright's.)

f. Awards. Political Science provides 100+ awards each year at the APSA meeting. Planning awards maybe 10 such awards at most in all its groups. I don't know about public administration, health policy, ...  Economics or mathematics are much much more sparing of awards than political science. When you compare field sizes, keep in mind that in some fields the number of actively publishing scholars is a small fraction of the total number of academics in the field.

2. Having said all this, how is impact increased:

a. High impact publication venues, where the impact of a venue is measured by citations to work in that venue. Again, there are long delays in some sub-fields, and the numbers are very different in different fields.

b. Research programs that are ongoing and cumulative. You discover a phenomenon, or develop a theory. You then keep publishing about these over a periods of years, usually 7-10. Two things happen: more people see your work; your discovery and ideas become more complex and richer, and people start to take them more seriously. And others refer to them, or follow them up, or challenge your work. If you change subfields or topics too often you are unlikely to be so recognized. (The exception is perhaps John Nash, who made several widely different contributions in his 20s, each a golden egg. Most of us are not John Nash.) In the case of books, usually one book does not do the work, but there are wonderful exceptions. Two books are likely to begin to cement your reputation.

c. Presence. You not only do the work, but you publicize it. You go to meetings, you organize sessions around the work, you have your friends organize sessions around your work. You arrange to give talks about your work to many institutions. Perhaps you can arrange for your work to be awarded (usually through your friends' intervention and nomination). Of course, early on you distributed preprints to the top 10 of the people in your field. Later you do the same. If appropriate, op-ed articles, and other such suitable to your field, will help.

d. Students. If you train a doctoral students and they do good work, you benefit more than they do. Especially if their work explores themes you have developed.

e. Textbooks. You might well write a textbook that incorporates your way of thinking about a subfield. Rarely does this do much for your impact and reputation, but sometimes it does.

Now, of course, there are scholars who have high impact, and win big prizes and awards, with a single very distinctive piece of work--or at least their contribution comes to be so seen. Janet Yellen's husband, George Akerlof, wrote the article on The Market for Lemons. (I have deliberately conflated gender, family ties, and even the phenomenon--since early on they had lots of trouble finding a good appointment.) You are unlikely to have high-impact that way. But an article in Science, The Tragedy of the Commons for example, can be very impactful (even if the ideas were well understood by others already).

Making Papers Better, for Writers and for Referees, for Presenters and Questioners

If you are refereeing or listening to a presentation or giving a presentation:

1.       Make sure your first sentence gives the essence of the paper. Maybe you need a second sentence, but not more. If you are speaking, surely in the first two minutes.
2.       Think of your questions or comments or advice as ways of making the paper better. You may have some other questions as well. But your main purpose is to help the scholar do a better job. (That is not what is usually done in questioning, but this “make the paper better” strategy is a real winner.) It is not easy to say how to make the paper better, but you will find that you will be respected and trusted for doing that. If there is a flaw or a deep problem, suggest how to fix it. If you feel that your paper is crucial, in refereeing you do not want to say that. Rather be substantive--"earlier work has made similar points, and it needs to be referred to" or "these ideas have a history in the literature, and the paper would be more credible were that history referred to."

As for myself, when I am reading a paper or listening to a presentation, I am very actively trying to figure out what is the main point, the deeper issue. When someone expects me to wait for 45 minutes to their getting to that main point, I find that intolerable. If I am unsure, I ask a question in the first 15 minutes trying to be sure I know what’s up. If I am reading a paper, I’ll go to the end or wherever to find out what’s the point. Others, more methodologically sophisticated than I am, or closer to the subject, will find more detailed issues, by the way.

You want to be with someone who wants to be with you.

You likely want to be at an institution and department that values you and wants you to be in their orbit. But sometimes you do not get promoted, or perhaps not tenured, or perhaps not an appropriate raise or salary. You may well appeal or otherwise voice your concerns.

But perhaps you should find a place where you are valued. Even if your current department/institution is treating you unfairly. Appeal, surely. But at the same time look around. In fact, you ought be looking around regularly if you feel the match is not for you. You may have to give up prestige, you may have to give up salary, you may have to move to a place that is not ideal for you locationally. But you may find that your new venue relieves your sense of being treated inappropriately, and that you like being appreciated. Your former institution and colleagues may be pleased you are out of their hair, or regret their lack of attention to your strengths. But this is of no matter--

What's crucial is that you thrive and are comfortable.

If in the end your original institution changes its mind, at least you have an alternative in mind.

I observe that finding a new venue proves good for most such cases.

Say that you cannot find a new home, and you can stay where you are now. Focus on what's important, be civil and uncomplaining, and not let them control you. In fact, you might want to exceed their expectations for your ability to go in your own direction.

The trick is to focus on what matters in your work.

Promotion, Tenure, Contributions in Professional Schools

I teach in a school of public policy, urban planning, and related fields--the background for the following remarks.

1. University departments and faculty are not consulting firms. We try to advance our fields and convince our colleagues that our proposed advancements are worthy of their regard.

2. Applied research should lead to scholarly publications. You've learned something in a special context. If the work might be done by a consulting firm, you should not be doing it as part of your academic work.

3. If the output is a report or a design, that report or design might be shown to be influential both on practice or on scholarship. I know of at least one scholar whose reports over the years were widely read, tenured them at the strongest university, and on the side led to books.

4. I remain unsure about contributions in our field. (This may well reflect my limited purview.) I wish that all articles began with an informative (rather than cute or tempting) title and then a paragraph saying what was learned, discovered, argued AND indicated where the work stood in respect to previous and competitive work. It is often stated, but buried somewhere. 

Name one contribution (article, series of articles, book), in the last decade or even five years, not by yourself, that you believe made a major impact or advancement in our fields of inquiry.

5. Depending on your institution's values, if you don't like teaching, or writing articles/books, maybe you should find another role and another institution.

6. As for engaged scholarship, service, scholarship of teaching, none of this is outside my concern. If you do engaged scholarship, you should be able to document its contributions and so you will want to write about it in the strongest journals. If you have done extraordinary service, surely letters from peers will attest to that. If you have done scholarship of teaching, perhaps having transformed how a subject is taught, or written a textbook that is recognized as influential, again testimony is available for that. 

7. Institutions and sometimes schools share values with other (peer) institutions. That's what matters. What also matters is that you keep on contributing, and along the way be sure to get fellowships, awards, grants, etc. that not only attest to your contributions so far, but also allow you to go further. Again, if this work is not for you, find another venue where you will be appreciated and likely better rewarded. 

8. Universities have formalized teaching professorships, and are becoming sensitive to adjunct faculty teaching that might well be done by their regular faculty. In those positions, almost always not leading to tenure, you have to figure out what to do that is both valuable to your institution and to you. If you want to continue to do research and thinking and writing, you may not be able to do as much as your colleagues, but do what you can. And try to get grants and fellowships, so you have time to do the work you want to do.

Research Proposals. BLUF. Fancy Language. Questions about a Paper or Presentation

1. "I hypothesize" is not a replacement for a coherent theory or story about what is going on. (A set of regression variables is NOT a theory or a mechanism or a story.) Moreover, there should be comparable cases or examples in mind, perhaps elsewhere or historical, of similar situations (maybe in different areas but with usefully similar features) that illuminate what you are saying in your story and help you think about what you might expect. 

Moreover, your theory or story should be grounded in what is already known, other theories or stories, etc. It should not be a matter of your consulting your imagination (sometimes called a "stylized theory"), or if it is such, make sure we understand why your imagined mechanism or variables make sense. If you advocating an abstraction that you believe gets at what is really going on, you've got to convince me about it in two ways: why you believe it is a good account; the empirics support it better than some other account.

If you are doing a theoretical dissertation, be sure your theory comes out of what is already accepted, perhaps rejecting it. Ideas you just thought up usually don't work well.

2. In everything you write, the main point of what you are saying should be up front, likely the first two sentences. Or, Bottom Line Up Front = BLUF.

3. Be careful about your language. If you don't ordinarily use certain words or locutions, you are likely to misuse them in your writing. Clear is better than fancy, active is better than passive (voice), less apparently-technical rhetoric and less charged rhetoric. 

4. In asking questions about a paper, try to focus on what you consider the main issue.  Also, would the answer to your question change your understanding of the paper. Questions should aim for the heart of the work. If in fact that heart is defective, that is important. And what you are trying to do is to help the author do a better job, not another job. 

How to Read

When you read academic and scholarly material, you want to figure out what is going on, what claims are being made (against other claims), what kinds of evidence and argument are being offered. So you might read the abstract, then the conclusion and introduction, and then root through the paper for what's going on, claims, evidence and argument. Once you have a sense of this, you might well want to read the paper through, carefully or not.

Along the way, or perhaps ahead of time, you will want to make a preliminary judgment of reliability and quality, if that is possible. A well-run journal, a good university press, are likely to have vetted and refereed the piece--although not very good stuff may well get through. The reputation of the scholar and their institution may be helpful, but excellence is widely distributed, and fine institutions make mistakes in appointment and tenuring. And as you are reading many such articles, you will get a sense of the intellectual terrain, who belongs with whom, who is counter to whom. Reference lists and bibliographies should be scanned to see if there is something you should check out.

I like to read stuff that goes against my beliefs and intuitions, to see where I am vulnerable, what I might learn. Ideally, scholarly work is fair to other work that might be counter to this paper, but not always. When people write in public forums, scholars thought they be, they often abandon fairness for advocacy.