One common mistake graduate students make in their first talks is failing to address the weaknesses in their work. They believe, and I was one of them, that giving the audience the impression that their experiment was any less than perfectly conceived and flawlessly implemented, invalidates their entire work. The truth is, no experiment is perfect. It’s the duty of the presenting scientist to convince the audience that the experiment, despite its flaws, tells us something about reality.
So I should have mentioned in my earlier post on handling tough questions that one of the best ways to handle tough questions is to beat the asker to the punch. Don’t go into a presentation hoping the audience won’t see the weaknesses in your ideas. Call them out yourself, then give reasons why you think your ideas are still valid. (If this isn’t possible, then one has to ask why you’re presenting these ideas in the first place.) I know this sounds like suicide or aiding and abetting the enemy, so why on earth would somebody do this?
- It helps you build credibility. As a listener, if I hear a speaker critically assess the validity of his own ideas, then I’m naturally going to put more trust in his ideas. I know the speaker is not trying to slip something past me by painting a rosy picture.
- It takes the “gotcha” questions off the table and maintains respect between you and your audience. If you go into a presentation hoping your audience won’t call you out on something, then you’re really hoping that your audience is stupid. It’s never wise to underestimate your audience, and when they discover you were trying to slip something past them, there will be no mercy.
- It shows you have thought through and have a handle on all of the issues. This is probably the most important reason to address weaknesses up front. If you want to convince people that you know what you’re doing, then you have to show them by assessing your work for all angles.
Next time you propose an idea, lay out the arguments for why the idea is valid and address all the reasons why the idea may be invalid. Then explain to the audience why your ideas are still valid in light of the weaknesses. I bet you’ll have a much easier Q&A session than if you had tried to gloss things over.
If you want to be notified the next time I write something, sign up for email alerts or subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for reading!
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 0 comments… add one now }