Chairing a Panel
Some Useful Rules
for chairing a panel discussion, introducing speakers,
and hosting a conference session
Conferences – academic and non-academic – are welcome occasions to enlarge our minds, encounter new people, think new thoughts. Although most conferences are preceded by efforts to make them different from the usual format, the usual format overwhelmingly prevails. In the U.S. (patterns in other parts of the world often differ) the usual format is a period of 90 minutes to 2 hours, during which 2 or 3 or 4 specialists will stand at a lectern and talk. Sometimes they will read a prepared paper; sometimes they will improvise; sometimes the final speaker will be charged with offering a critique of what has been said. At the end questions from the audience will be invited. Generally the enterprise will have a Chair, who will introduce the speakers, call on people from the audience who wish to speak, and, when appropriate, end the session.
The basic assignment of the Chair is so simple that it is almost impossible to fail. Generally you will have been provided with the vita of the person whom you are introducing; you need only announce some salient facts ( Mary Smith is Professor of XXX at the Law School of the University of XXX. She is an expert on XXX. The title of her talk today is XXXX), and get out of the way.
But chairing a session can be an art form. A good host can establish a friendly atmosphere in the room, make the speakers feel authentically welcome, and go a long way toward ensuring that interesting questions are asked and a solid discussion ensues. (This last is not guaranteed, but there are ways of increasing the possibility of it happening.) The role closest to this outside of academic life is the camp counselor or the team coach. These folks are in your room; you are going to make them feel delighted that they have chosen to join this session (even if only a handful of people have turned up), and they are going to want to pay careful attention to what the speakers say and ask the best questions of which they are capable.
1.. Introductions: Audiences don’t need a great deal of formal information about a speaker, but they do need some clues about what the speaker has done that is interesting or noteworthy. (Unspoken question: why do I need to hear from this person? What are the grounds of their authority?) It is perhaps less obvious, but also true, that speakers also need to hear themselves welcomed, preferably for the substance of their professional accomplishment. That way they know they are among colleagues, rather than among strangers.
As chair, you can do a little homework. Gather the vitae of the speakers whom you will introduce. Look each one over carefully, noting the elements of it that you find substantively interesting. If you are already familiar with some of their work – whether advocacy or writing – it will be easy to frame a sentence or two about it why they are worthy of the audience’s attention. If you are not, or if you want to know more, look up one or two of their most important books or articles, and read enough to inform yourself about some aspect of their work that you can convey to the audience.
e.g.: “I first encountered Professor X’s work in Con Law I; my case book included an excerpt from his analysis of XXX which made the unusual argument that XXXX. This approach to problems has characterized other work that he has done, especially in the now classic essay “The Supreme Court Term 1995″ that appeared in the Harvard Law Review and on which we all rely. For his work in GoodCauseOfYour Choice he won the XXX award in 19__. For the last X years, he has been Professor of Law at the University of XXX College of Law. [You may include 2 or 3 – no more than 4 important items from the vita] Today he will speak about TITLE OF TALK. I’m delighted to welcome Professor Joseph Brown.
e,g, Even before she had graduated from XXX law school, Jane White was volunteering her time and energy to the Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts; after she took her first job she energetically sought opportunities for pro bono work. It was her own determination as well as luck that put her in the right position to write the brief for the successful plaintiff in X v. X, a case that involved blahblahblah principles of great importance. Five years ago she joined the faculty of XXX law school, where she teaches X and Y, and is at work on a case book on Z.
Her talk today is entitled : XXXXX.
Notice that you are NOT reading off everything, or even half of what is on the vita. You have, rather, made your own informed selection from the vita, emphasizing those aspects of the career that connect most directly with the subject of the panel and the theme of the conference. It’s particularly good if you’ve at least tasted the substance of their work and convey, in your own words, why you find them interesting; enthusiasm is catching.
Your introduction of each speaker should be brief; the longer you talk, the less time there is for them.
Your introduction of each speaker should immediately precede the speaker. If you introduce everyone at once, it’s too easy for audiences to forget the accomplishments of the person as they rise to speak. Moreover, the sequential introductions play the role of a sip of water or a sorbet between courses in the meal; they clear the palate, they give the first speaker time to sit down and catch their breath and the new speaker time to gather their papers and also to take a deep breath. The individual introduction is in effect a way of welcoming the speaker to your room; take advantage of it.
Before the session begins, go to the room. If there is a microphone, adjust it to your height so that it is ready when you welcome people to the meeting. This is a step that is particularly important for short people or very tall people, so you don’t have to fiddle with it when it’s time to start. If you are quite short and can’t see over the lectern, GET A BOX TO STAND ON [there was once a news >clip of Queen Elizabeth as a talking hat!] or a floor mike next to the lectern.
2. Timing
A crummy role, but someone has to do it. Actually legal folks are easier to keep in line than other sorts of academics, because most of them have studied or actually conducted an oral argument before an appellate court and they understand the nightmare of seeing a red light before you’ve made a particularly delicious argument. Still, it’s wise to gather your panel at least for a few moments before you begin to review ground rules: you will introduce each before their prepared talk; the talk must last for no more than XXX minutes; 5 minutes before the end you will place a note marked “5 minutes left” on their lectern; then a “2 minutes left” then, if they haven’t stopped, one that says, in large red letters, “END.”
That means you must sit in the middle of the panel, so you have access to the lectern. Good.
It may feel awkward to place these interventions before a speaker, especially if the speaker is eloquent, or much older than you are. It will be easier if you remember that your role of timekeeper is an honorable one; the eloquent speaker who warms to their topic and goes on and on leaves less time for the subsequent speakers and is, consciously or unconsciously, being selfish. Experienced speakers should welcome these reminders; if they are in control of their paper, they will know how to use their remaining time. If they were just rambling on, you might as well stop them now rather than after they’ve used up the next speaker’s time.
3. Conducting the Discussion
After the last speaker, it is the role of the chair to welcome questions. If you are very lucky, someone will raise their hand and ask an interesting question. But it is more likely that there will be a flat silence. It will go on, sometimes at embarrassing length. We all have nightmares in which no one ever asks a question. Usually someone finally does. Everyone breathes a sigh of relief. The dull silence can happen later in the question period. Or the questions that the audience frame can seem to you nit-picking or superficial, and the session can drift in a direction you think frustrating.
You can avoid the unfortunate dull anxious silence or a series of narrowly framed questions. But you need to take two preparatory steps:
A) While you are listening to the papers, you can formulate a question of your own. Think in terms of a question for each paper; then you can choose the best of the ones you’ve thought of to ask. You have the advantage of having a table and paper in front of you.
B) You can enlist a confederate. A colleague can serve as a “plant” – someone who is already glad to come to the panel because the subject is interesting. Ask them to prepare a question as they listen. They might offer it at the beginning (you are then assured that the first question will be a serious one) or at any time that they wish. [At other sessions you can play this role yourself. Your colleagues will be grateful.]
As the questions proceed, you will recognize hands in the audience. Often the questions are evenly directed among the panelists. But sometimes it happens that one panelist gets no questions. If you see that developing, it’s wise either to take advantage of a question from the floor that might go to the underutilized panelist and use the authority of the chair to direct the question there: “I think that question belongs to Professor X” or to use the authority of the chair to insert a question of your own (remember those questions you were scribbling during the papers? That should ensure you’ve got one per person.)
Sometimes you’ll try to limit a speaker who is going over time but find that the speaker ignores you and you don’t feel comfortable pursuing the issue. Remember that you are a host; follow your own good instincts and don’t get into a major struggle that will distract from the major goals of the session. It’s important for people to see that you have tried to keep the session on track. But having made a reasonable attempt, you’re not at fault if the ground rules aren’t kept. Stay cheerful and hospitable; usually the speaker will wind down soon, and maybe what they have to say will have been worth it.
When the time nears the end, it’s often wise to observe, “we have time for one last question….” You can also be alert to the substance of a response; sometimes a response to a good question is also something of a summation of a major theme in the panel. If that occurs within a few minutes of the end, you might want to say “That seems to be a wonderful/wise/constructive note on which to bring this panel to an end. We thank you all for coming, and we thank our speakers,” and then lead a round of applause. Always better to end a little early than a little late.
Linda K. Kerber
May Brodbeck Professor in the Liberal Arts & Sciences,
Professor of History, Lecturer in Law