Alexander Greff and Reba Juetten are 4th- and 3rd-year students in the history of science. Here, they write about their experiences with HSS's new Flash Talk format.
Historians aren’t often subjected to the exercise of the
elevator pitch. Our entire profession takes pride in nuance and reminding the
world that most narratives aren’t as simple as they seem. So how would you deal
with having to engage an audience explaining all the details of your latest
research in under five minutes? At this year’s History of Science Society
conference, we (along with nine other graduate students) were tasked with doing
just that in a pilot panel format called Flash Talks.
Built around the concept of snappy speeches, Flash Talk
participants were allotted five minutes and one slide to illustrate the
significance of projects in progress. The aim was to provide graduate students
with an opportunity to both showcase and workshop their research. Each
five-minute presentation was followed by ten minutes of Q&A, in which
audience members could ask questions or offer advice on the directions of the
project. As a whole, we think the Flash
Talks were successful in their aims of helping graduate students present and
make connections within the field but that there are some ways the panel could
be improved.
A striking difference between the Flash Talks and a normally
organized panel was the diversity of topics, chronologically and
disciplinarily. Subjects included
medieval astronomy, modern urban botanical gardens, romantic physiology, and
LIGO (a twenty-first century gravitational wave observatory). There are certain
risks with this organization, most notably that you may not have many
well–informed questions from an audience without knowledgeable scholars in the
room. In fact, this was somewhat of an
issue in practice, as presenters outnumbered the audience for the first few
presentations. Fortunately, perhaps because they were interested in one or two
specific topics, scholars flowed in and out of the room between presentations,
leading to a full house by the final talks.
As someone early on the agenda, Alexander’s talk experienced
some of these challenges during his Q & A period. He discussed the role of
a physician, August Winkelmann, who worked to combine elements of
iatro–mechanical and vitalist physiologies at the turn of the eighteenth
century. Winkelmann himself made very little impact during his lifetime, but
Alexander presented him as an interesting snapshot of the medical innovations
of his era. Though the message of Alexander’s presentation was engaging—enough
that a few audience members suggested screenplay angles for the research—he
received few specialized questions about the content. Though it would be
cumbersome to try and solicit at least one specialized historian for each of
the ten Flash Talks, it is worth considering how the work shopping angle of
this format could be improved.
Despite the challenges of the Flash Talk format, the
organizers Janet Brown (Harvard) and John Krige (Georgia Institute of
Technology), excelled in their roles as MCs. In contrast to normal panel
chairs, Janet and John served as MCs directing the entire process and keeping
it at a steady and energized pace. After the presentation, one of the chairs
would open the floor to questions, but if none were immediately forthcoming
they would have a question at the ready to get the room going. If the questions
lagged, they would solicit one from an audience member they knew was
knowledgeable in a related topic. By the end of the ten–minute limit, the other
chair would inevitably have a question which gracefully tied together elements
of the talk while leading into the next, giving the entire process a clean
sense of flowing between various topics. This gave the overall impression of a
well-rehearsed stage show. It didn’t hurt that nearly every presenter nailed
their time limits. And while we might see timeliness as a common professional
courtesy, it becomes all the more essential the more presenters you place on a
panel.
In contrast to timeliness, which was a strength of the Flash Talks,
timing within the overall schedule of the conference was more of a
challenge. Putting the panel on Saturday
morning, during the third day of the conference likely affected audience size
and participation. One would be hard–pressed to find a time where at least one
of the Flash Talk subjects didn’t overlap with a similar talk elsewhere. For a
format that was designed to court the input of experienced historians, a better
way to draw in a broad crowd might be to host the Flash Talks at a high–traffic
time slot. Making the Flash Talks concurrent with the poster session, for
example, could encourage greater attendance, especially by senior scholars with
expertise closely aligned with each of the speakers. Loosened up by food and
not having to make a hard choice about where to spend their time, these
attendees would be in the best position to fulfill the potential of the Flash
Talk format. It would also allow graduate students to more easily choose
between submitting a poster or a Flash Talk, rather than presenting the same
research twice in one weekend.
As it was, the Flash Talks offered graduate students the
benefits of the most carefully crafted panels—a forum to spark discussions
during Q & A that continued on long after the session. Reba’s talk focused on her dissertation
research on the history of community horticulture programs at the New York
Botanical Garden and Brooklyn Botanic Garden.
Her connections and continuing conversations following the panel were
more diverse, including a research contact suggestion from Janet Browne, dinner
with one of the other graduate presenters, and multiple email exchanges with
another graduate student presenting on a topic in a similar time period but
very different area of scientific study.
While these connections were primarily with junior scholars, they were a
particularly valuable outcome of the talks.
Janet Brown and John Krige began with the aim to provide a
helpful, lively, and supportive atmosphere for showcasing graduate student
research. Flash Talks show the potential of highly condensed historical
workshops where fresh ideas and scholarly experience can meet and reinforce one
another. From the inside, it was a refreshing experience. It hummed with a kind
of energy that you don’t find at many conference panels. It was engaging and
rapid enough that the audience, even on topics outside of their own academic
experience, was never left out for long. A few talks were more scholarly or
more entertaining than others, but the overall experience feels like a net
positive for the community of professional historians and one that should be
continued, perhaps with a few refinements.
