Physics, asked by KARTIK69181, 9 months ago

Based on what you learned on the holistic approach of philosophy why is a panel of discussant or presenters usually invited to share thier views on an issue is it not enough to listen to just one presenter what is the wisdom behind panel discussion

Answers

Answered by abhinav8310
21

One of my graduate students e-mailed me recently with the following question:

“Yesterday I got an email asking me to be a discussant at ISA. I’ve never done this before and I want to do a good job. Do you have any tips on being a good discussant?” [ISA, for our non-IR readers, is the International Studies Association, and their annual meeting is the central annual professional conference for IR scholars.]

With the student’s permission, I am posting my reply, in hopes that it might generate some reactions or discussion.

“Indeed I do.

First of all, I’m not sure that it’s a good idea for graduate students to serve as discussants in the first place. The presenters-and-discussant(s) format lends itself to the posing of thorny questions by the discussant directed at the presenters, and this might lead to some role strain if the discussant is a graduate student and the presenters are established scholars. Far better, in my view, is an arrangement in which the presenters can run the gamut from graduate students to senior folks, and the discussant is at least a tenure-tracked professor someplace or has a comparable level of job security. I have no problem with a panel where all the presenters are the same rank, even if they are all graduate students, but I generally think that discussants should be a bit more established. So proceed at your own risk.

Second, a discussant in the traditional presenters-and-discussant(s) format has two distinct tasks: to discuss the papers, and to help to foment a discussion among the panelists and perhaps even members of the audience. Many people make a serious mistake and overemphasize the former task to the detriment of the latter. This is generally a mistake in the conference format because you cannot presume that the audience has read the papers in advance; if you could presume this, then commenting on the papers would be a good way of starting a discussion. But otherwise, comments on specific passages from the papers is likely to just confuse or bore the audience. In my view such feedback (which is in fact one of the tasks of a discussant) is better handled through e-mail or in some other more interpersonal and private setting.

The most boring discussants I’ve ever seen are those who proceed step-by-step through each of the papers on the panel, making suggestions that are generally of interest only to the author(s) of the individual papers, and then sit back as though they have completed their job. They have not. A panel is not, in my opinion, a kind of feedback session to which the audience has been invited as spectators; it’s not a “fishbowl” situation in which the audience is simply observing. Rather, a panel is — or can and should be — something of a conversation, a discussion, a clash, a debate: at any rate, something more active and participatory.

It is the second task of the discussant to jump-start that conversation. There are better and worse ways to go about doing this. Often the worst way is to try as hard as possible to find some common thread running through all of the papers, and to display that for the audience regardless of how strained and awkward it is — as though the point of a panel was for people to agree! I think this is largely silly. A panel is a public forum for disagreement, not agreement; it is contentious, not conciliatory. And it’s a lot easier for the audience to participate in a debate than it is in a long train of agreement, because in a debate speakers can take positions — even if those positions are sometimes “I agree with you about X but disagree with you about Y.” The goal here is not to divide people into camps, but to give people an opportunity to articulate stances and to have those stances challenged — and then give them an opportunity to defend them.

Answered by NainaRamroop
0

This is the wisdom behind panel discussions.

  • It is a live or virtual discussion in front of a large audience about a specific topic among a selected group of panellists who share differing perspectives. A "moderator" typically guides the panel and the audience through the event.
  • First and foremost, I'm not convinced that having graduate students serve as discussants is a good idea. The presenters-and-discussant(s) format encourages the discussant to ask thorny questions of the presenters, which may cause role conflict if the discussant is a graduate student and the presenters are established, scholars. A far better arrangement, in my opinion, is one in which the presenters range from graduate students to senior executives, and the discussant is either a tenure-track professor or has a comparable level of job security. I don't mind if all of the presenters are of the same rank, even if they are all graduate students, but I believe that discussants should be a little more experienced. So proceed with caution.
  • Second, in the traditional presenters-and-discussant(s) format, a discussant has two distinct responsibilities: to discuss the papers and to facilitate discussion among the panellists and perhaps even audience members. Many people make the mistake of overemphasising the first task at the expense of the second. This is a common conference blunder because you can't assume that the audience has read the papers ahead of time; if you could, then commenting on the papers would be a good way to start a discussion. Comments on specific passages from the papers, on the other hand, are likely to confuse or bore the audience.
  • The most boring discussants I've ever seen are those who go through each of the papers on the panel one by one, making suggestions that are generally only of interest to the authors of the individual papers, and then sit back as if their job is done. They haven't done so. A panel, in my opinion, is not a "fishbowl" situation where the audience is simply watching. A panel, on the other hand, is — or can and should be — a discussion, a clash, a debate: in any case, something more active and participatory.
  • The discussant's second task is to kick-start the conversation. There are better and worse methods for accomplishing this. The worst approach is to try as hard as possible to find some common thread that runs through all of the papers and to show it to the audience, no matter how strained or awkward it is — as if the point of a panel was for people to agree! This is mostly ridiculous, in my opinion. A panel is a public forum for disagreement rather than agreement; it is combative rather than conciliatory. And it's much easier for the audience to participate in a debate than it is in a long train of agreement because debate speakers can take positions — even if those positions are sometimes as simple as "I agree with you on X but disagree with you on Y." The goal is not to divide people into camps, but to allow them to articulate their positions, have those positions challenged, and then defend those positions.

#SPJ3

Similar questions