This article was published on Republica daily, available at following link
Seminars in Nepal: Mr. Know Alls, Ramblers and Super Experts
For an ‘academic’ or rather someone who pretends to be one, participation in seminars and conferences is a regular occurrence in my life. A successful conference is one that contributes to knowledge and initiates constructive debate on a subject area. And of course, quality of the lunch counts too, after all who would have patience to listen and talk in an empty stomach. In this article, I wish to discuss some regular scenes and characters we regularly see in seminars in Nepal.
In Nepal, we do not have frequent number of academic seminars as we would like. Most of them are usually organized by NGO wallas, this invites a mixture of people from all different sorts of backgrounds and involvement. I would like to focus more on presenter and audience interaction that happens during the seminars and conferences.
One of the important factors for presenter to attend academic conference is to get an opportunity to present one’s work among a larger group of audience with diverse academic experience and interest. One expects to get some form of feedback, suggestions and ideas and possibly get to know people who are doing something similar.
The most distressing thing for presenter is to be asked question by an audience who hardly paid attention during presentation. These audience often ask repetitive question which have already been spoken by the presenter. I have often witnessed presenters being drilled with harsh criticisms and comments, which are often personal. Audience should be able to comment in an objective way focusing on the content of presentation. Due to these problems, presenters are often forced to present in defensive note. Based on observation of some of conferences I attended, I identify three different groups of audience based on the nature of interaction with the presenter.
Almost all of us have encountered Mr. Know all (in Nepal it is hard to find Mrs. Know all as very few women audiences speak during interaction session) whose main aim is to show just how smart they are. They have opinion on everything, which is not bad thing actually as long as it is based on some form of research and life experiences. Sometimes Mr. Know Alls are bent to embarrass the presenters by making remarks about the inadequacy of presenter’s work. They often comment that the presenter has not covered certain aspect which they think is important. Mr. Know Alls, fail to see that each research has its own limitations and has a certain way of inquiring into subject matter. Often these people comment that presenter’s data is too small and again fail to recall that the presenter said it was qualitative research. These Mr. Know Alls also fail to see that however broader the presenter’s research may be, due to time limitation of the presentation, presenters can hardly cover everything that they are investigating. Thus, it would be more effective if Mr. Know Alls contemplate on what they know first based on their research and life experience, then only venture to ask questions.
Another regular characters of Nepali seminars are Babblers. They stand up, give their introduction and begin to babble for next 5-10 minutes. The presenter and other people the moderator on the panel make a futile attempt to redirect this Babbler but without success. A lengthy monologue ends and presenter is forced to ask the Babbler again ‘what is it that you asked?’ Which of course is about to prompt the Babbler to speak for next few minutes with an intellectual smirk in his face. Fortunately, one of the panelists come to rescue and asks one ready made question on behalf of our Babbler. So, these Babblers are keen for limelight, they want to show they can speak but hardly they make a plan about what and why they are speaking for. Babblers sometimes bring interesting twist to conference but often they embarrass other people and themselves by such behavior. It would be great if Babblers formulate a clear question they wish to ask and re-check if it is anywhere relevant to presenter’s work.
Another brand of audience we can see is Super Expert. Normally, expert means having expertise in particular area and subject. However, this Super Expert we often encounter in conferences professes and pretends to be expert in almost everything that is even slightly related to their area. They have exclude image of authority and diffuse a certain air of intellectuality. They regards it their duty to inform, dissect and suggest anyone who happens to be presenting. Their targeted victims are usually fresh graduates and wannabes researcher. Super expert’s major objective of participating in seminar and conference is to assert their importance and contribution in their field. It would be great if Super Expert reflect on their own past when they presented in a seminar with their trembling heart and fluttering hands.
There may be more than these three groups of audiences that I have encountered till date. I am not saying that these kinds of audience are altogether wrong in their approach. What I am intending to show is that the audience should give a minimum level of credibility to presenter for his/her efforts. The inquiry should be directed in such a way that would help both audience and presenter to broaden their knowledge in particular area they are interested in. The discussion session will be more fruitful if an audience asks in such a way that enables presenters to clarify his subject area more broadly, which might have been left out in presentation. With this discussion, I am bracing myself up for my next presentation and curious about what other kinds of audience I would encounter in future.
