Legal Commentary

The question-and-answer session that follows most academic talks can surely be improved.  Here are five suggestions:

(1) Thesis, Thesis, Thesis: While not all good scholarship is driven by a central claim, that's the standard model, and one that you should not depart from lightly.  In my view, high quality questions speak to an author's thesis (or its subsidiary claims and the evidence for those claims).  Too frequently, audience members focus not on the claims a speaker makes but rather on the general "flavor" of a speaker's claims or (worse yet) the general subject matter of the talk.  I admit there can be good questions that speak to something other than the author's thesis and its subsidiary claims, but all else being equal, questions that focus on the speaker's claims are preferable.

(2) Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood (with thanks to Stephen Covey):    The best questions, in my view, should begin with "You assert X."  Then, you can move on to (2a) Asserting X is problematic for the following reason(s), or (2b) Claim X can be made even stronger by considering such and such.  In some cases, you may have to begin with, "Are you asserting X?"  The key, though, is to begin by focusing on the claim you seek to address.  Doing so helps the speaker diagnose whether or not there is a substantive disagreement with the questioner or whether there is a miscommunication (frequently, there is both).  Starting with a demonstration of your understanding of the speaker forces you to hone the question so that it speaks more directly to the speaker's assertions.  It may also reveal that the speaker has been insufficiently clear about his thesis and its subsidiary claims.  Perhaps most importantly, it helps other audience members understand your question because they know more precisely what you are addressing.

(3) Shorten Your Question:  Most questions are too long and disjointed.  If you begin by clearly stating the assertion you are addressing (see principle #2), you will naturally improve your questions.  Moreover, you should have a good sense of what your question is before you start speaking.  If you find yourself formulating the bulk of your question as you speak, you may well be wasting people's time.  No one can demand that every question be crisp and spot-on, but that's what you should aim for.

(4) Time Allocation: Just as speakers should honor pre-established time guidelines, audience members should remember that other people have questions and insights as well.  When the end of a session approaches, I've seen the following approach work well:  Have the remaining people on the queue (or who have their hands up) ask their questions in succession without giving the speaker an opportunity to respond.  Then, in whatever time remains, the speaker can try to address the final round of questions together or in quick succession.  It is frustrating to have an interesting question to relay but not have the opportunity to do so because the floor was hogged by earlier questioners.  By allowing the remaining questions to get off the ground, those questions at least become part of the discussion, even if they don't quite get their due.

(5) Allow one follow-up:  Though I think that questions should be succinct and due care given to the time remaining for other audience members, I have also seen speaker's dismiss interesting questions too hastily.  The opportunity to make a quick follow-up point can discipline speakers and encourage important interchange.  Allowing a follow-up also takes advantage of the face-to-face interaction that you cannot get by just circulating a paper to a group of people and emailing around feedback.