I presented a paper for the 12th Annual Conference of Architectural Researchers and Educators (ACARE 12). There were fewer participants than I expected. Perhaps the place was a factor for this. The event took place in Legaspi City, Bicol, last February 7-8, 2013.
From USC, only Rowell Shih and I presented but Archt. Yumi Espina and Bro. Lanyi were there as moral support. It was our first time to present our research paper in ACARE; Rowell, however, had presented his paper during thesis defense. My disadvantage was that I had no idea how to present a research paper in public. When I made the slides, I thought of the rules in presenting a talk or topic, i.e., not putting so many words, using images properly, having only one item point per slide... etc... When we finally presented, I noticed that I had a completely different style. The rest were showing each slide like a section from the technical paper. While I focused on content, they focused on methods.
How hard was it to present to the public? I don't have this problem anymore after having talked to the public so many, many times. This one, however, is different. There is a panel of reactors and our session had three while the others only had two. Moreover, these three reactors are deans of reputable schools in Manila and they all have PhD's. When I finished my presentation I was cold all over.
The reactors asked Rowell many things: why two sets of respondents? why this and that about methodology?,,, When my turn came the first reactor said that my presentation was the most engaging. She wondered, however, about how "sustainable" my solution would be. When I replied that by involving the community in the process the assumption is that they feel ownership over the project and thus makes sure that the system is sustainable, the reactor said that it was a good idea but she was skeptical because we're architects and not sociologists. The second reactor suggested that it is better to present how the proposed solution can be implemented in stages since the scope the study involved so many things. The last reactor commented how I started macro and ended up micro although her point was that somewhere in between I skipped a process which she thinks would have helped bridge the two (although she also mentioned that I might have skipped it on purpose to shorten the presentation).
We were given 20 minutes each and a student was assigned to flash a card to remind us how many minutes are left. Rowell and I stuck to our 20 minutes. Actually, all of us did except for one who couldn't stop from talking. Anyway, on hindsight I could have presented existing studies that proved how community's perception of ownership leads to sustainability, I could have presented the stages of implementation (which I had), and I could have discussed the methodology in better to link the macro issues with the micro issues. Well, I'm revising the slides now, hoping that I still fit everything in twenty minutes.
What bugs me right now is whether to revise the whole approach of the presentation. Should I follow the others where each section of the technical report is presented (problem, hypothesis, significance, methodology, etc...)? Or should I just stick to what I presented and include only on what was commented on. The first reactor did say that in my case she can only comment on the content and not on the methods, but she did not say that I should have presented it the other way... I was waiting for anyone to tell me that during the conference but no one gave any indication.
The reason why I am uptight about it is because I will be presenting the same research again in USC Biannual Research Forum on February 22, 2013. This time, the audience will come from different colleges in USC.
