I Can Still Understand: Review of a Good Presentation

This week we’re taking a break from my usual content to focus on something totally different.

All of my posts so far have been about writing: my writing process, outlining my final paper, and reviewing academic articles and book chapters. Pretty much all of my previous posts can also be linked either to my final paper Beauty in these Broken Stones, my thesis on grief expression in historical cemeteries, or both. This post is a bit of a 180.

Presenting, like writing, is about both form and content. This reality has been reinforced for me repeatedly this academic year in the many presentations I have had the pleasure of attending through my department’s Speaker Series and an archaeology conference.

At the Speaker Series there was an extraordinarily compelling bioarchaeology presentation by Robert Stark called Ghazali: A Community in the Bayuda, on a monastery and surrounding community in Sudan. Stark was exceptional at taking the audience through complex bioarchaeological notions and his expressive style thoroughly captured my interest. Kudos to him for such a success, but unfortunately for me I neglected to take enough detailed notes on the presentation aspects of his talk.

Fortunately, I attended another Speaker Series presentation which I particularly enjoyed, Peter Ramsden’s presentation Getting it All Wrong: Adventures in Academic Archaeology. With more knowledge of what was required to construct this blog post, I was better able to write down what I needed. But first, let’s have a brief recap of what Ramsden told us:

By engaging the listener with stories about his research in Southern Ontario around Balsam Lake, Ramsden illustrated the mistakes he made and what he has learned in his long archaeological career. He began with the Benson site (late 16^th century) and the Hardrock site (15^th century) by investigating whether there was potential migration to those areas or simply the same group of people doing different things through the material culture found. He explored how there may have been some tension in how the communities at the Kirche (early 16^th century) and Jamieson (16^th century) sites interacted with each other through the construction of a palisade at the Jamieson site facing the Kirche site. This was also related to the Benson site, as the descendants of the Kirche site may have established it. Evidenced by competitive house building at the Benson site and also by different types of ceramics and faunal remains, Ramsden suggested there may have been a competition between two factions: the “progressives” and the “traditionalists”.

These case studies provide a backdrop to mistakes Ramsden admitted he made when he was conducting research: not questioning the accepted narrative of what occurred somewhere, not questioning the accepted culture-history theoretical underpinnings of research, and being bound to the ethnohistoric record. With these mistakes as well as his interpretive successes, Ramsden encourages other researchers to benefit from his experiences. He encouraged archaeologists to be humble, not definitive. We learn and take our interpretations forward a little more by standing on the shoulders of others.

As for content, even though I’m nowhere close to being an expert on archaeological sites and material culture in Southern Ontario, I appreciate how Ramsden ensured I did not feel ignorant. He used a “less is more” approach and explored a small number of case studies. I will admit that due to my own lack of knowledge there were still some things I didn’t fully understand. However, as he provided only details that were necessary, I was not confused by an excess of information and grasped much of his narratives.

With solid content taken care of, the structure of Ramsden’s talk itself also made it easier to understand. As someone who is not very familiar with Southern Ontario nor the particular topic, I appreciated how he took the time to outline geographic areas and traditional territories at the beginning of the talk. Knowing where we were, quite literally, instantly put me at ease. Ramsden also opened with his research questions, laying out a clear focus for the content to come. He returned to the same research questions at the end to bookend his talk and provided a recap of his mistakes.

Ramsden supported his clear structure through his use of visuals, which (not surprisingly) made it easier to see what he was trying to say. He used maps with as-needed additions like boundaries to represent traditional territories, arrows to represent possible migrations, and dots to represent sites excavated, both contextualizing for and situating the listener. Ramsden also used many useful diagrams to show changes at sites over time, such as house constructions and extensions, and where palisades were over time, and even used one chart in a particularly complex portion to help the listener keep track of events. He also used artefact photos and excavation photos scattered throughout to mix things up with the diagrams.

A good presenter also draws on their strengths, which Ramsden did in spades. By knowing his audience (quite literally, as he had worked with many of the people in the room), he was able to make funny, personal remarks that even drew us outsiders in. A particularly notable example is when someone he knew asked a question, he answered and then after a short pause warmly added “You look skeptical”, much to the laughter of everyone. There were other moments too throughout his talk that were punctuated with laughter due to his casual delivery and choice of words. This slight “joking” nature clearly works for him!

This demeanor allowed Ramsden to connect with the audience. The presentation of his information like a series of stories also helped, as we all like stories, don’t we? Ramsden accomplished this through the structure of the presentation, but also by how he talked to us. He did not read off of a script and instead talked to his audience the whole time. Perhaps he had some notes with him to glance at every so often (which I have no problem with), but if that were the case I didn’t notice as he was so invested in his audience. Ramsden also had expression in his voice and even talked with his hands to enhance his evident passion rather than distracting from what he was saying.

Ramsden is an incredibly knowledgeable, passionate, and engaging presenter. What I admire most is how he is simultaneously both confident and humble. The first presentation slide had a quote attributed to him that set the tone for what was to come: “It’s too late for me, but maybe others can benefit from my mistakes…”. Additionally, I was struck by his genuine thank-yous at the end. On top of thanking funding bodies, kind landowners, and amazing archaeologists with whom he had worked, he had the most important thank-you of all: “MOST OF ALL, the people of those 16^th cent. Balsam Lake communities whose stories I try to tell and wish I understood better.” If not evident already, these last words speak clearly to both his commitment to the people and his passion for learning. Even if I had understood nothing else, these points resonated powerfully.