From stoning to building: How to energize science meetings

Abstract

Most groundwater professionals attend one or more regional or national conferences each year. At these meetings, we hope to move science forward by sharing research, exchanging ideas, and gaining allies in scientific pursuits with other scientists, practitioners, policymakers, funders, and the public.

But many science meetings fail to meet these aspirations. They overwhelm, confuse, and isolate participants. They prioritize the consumption of information over conversation, and that inhibits the collaborative scientific process.

Everyone can advance science by improving science meetings. Let's start with the presenters.

In 1985, Dr. Jay Lehr wrote an editorial in Groundwater entitled “Let there be stoning” (Lehr 1985). In it, Dr. Lehr criticized scientists who subject their listeners to boring presentations. He accused them of being arrogant, thoughtless, insulting, and other derogatory adjectives.

Dr. Lehr's complaints are still valid. Many scientists give too much information or fail to provide enough narrative structure to help listeners understand the topic (Olson 2015). The result? Boring presentations and confused listeners.

Now, I don't believe most scientists are purposely giving terrible presentations; perhaps they just don't know how to create truly engaging ones.

Fortunately, besides threats of public humiliation, Dr. Lehr offered timeless practical guidance, ranging from designing slides to enthusiastically connecting with the audience. I suggest that anyone planning to present at a professional conference read Lehr's editorial and take it to heart.

Conferences are meetings, and meetings are where people meet, or hope to. But the structure of traditional science meetings can inhibit meaningful connections. Food, name tags, and poster sessions can help people meet, but they are not enough.

As a result, instead of meeting new people and discussing science, we may create needed downtime for ourselves with our friends or phones.

I could throw stones at meeting planners for these structural shortcomings, but as one living in a proverbial glass house, it is more constructive to share ideas that work. At a recent 3-day science meeting, the sponsors and I prioritized connection and conversation in three ways:

First, to initiate connections immediately, we began Day 1 with two rounds of introductions around tables of eight, where participants shared their names, how they got there, what they wanted to happen, and what they had to offer (Segar 2009, 2015). Table leaders promoted conciseness by limiting each introduction to 90 s.

Our one-hour investment in personal introductions paid off. Everyone felt heard and connected. The resulting palpable energy and eagerness to talk lasted all 3 days. Around 30 of the 108 participants stayed for up to 2 h after the meeting ended, just to continue talking!

Even in large conference sessions, inviting people to briefly introduce themselves or say anything makes it more likely they will ask questions later.

Second, to encourage everyone to engage with science, we limited each topic session to three or four speakers and enforced 10-min speaking limits. After the Q and A, participants discussed relevant open-ended questions at their tables. Absorbing concise content and discussing it helped people remember what they heard and stimulated further exploration.

In meetings of any size, a few minutes of discussing relevant questions in pairs or small groups engages everyone simultaneously and really energizes the room.

And third, to foster meaningful conversations, we scheduled long breaks and lunch hours and provided nearby spaces for informal conversations. We encouraged participants to work together to identify trends and potential solutions to problems (Figure 1). On Day 3, we dedicated 2 h for open discussions on topics that the participants proposed themselves. They loved that!

Any meeting planner can advance science simply by adjusting the meeting environment, prioritizing personal connections, and encouraging lively conversations.

Let's be honest. Some of us are more information consumers than contributors, and some are introverted and shy. But science communication is a two-way street. We need to set down our phones and listen carefully to presenters, ask curious questions, introduce ourselves, and join group activities. It may not be easy, but it is worth it. And practice makes better.

The process of shifting how we communicate and convene in science is ongoing. Dr. Lehr's advice can help us clean up boring and confusing presentations. Thoughtful changes in how we plan and participate in science meetings can nurture conversations that result in truly collaborative science. Let there be less stoning and more connection-building!

The author declares no conflicts of interest.