|
Academic Journal
Article Analysis
Analysis of "'May
I have Your Attention?' Exordial techniques in informative oral presentations."
TCQ
7.3 (1998): 271-284.
This
article reports a research project that used two experiments to attempt
to determine how audiences respond to different kinds of introductory strategies
for oral presentations. The researchers asked two sets of questions:
-
Whether one kind
of introductory strategy made the audience more willing to listen, and
better established the speaker’s credibility (272), and
-
Whether introductory
techniques helped the audience better understand the presentation (277).
Although the two
experiments address these questions in order, the writers do not turn to
the experiments directly. Instead, they first place their work in context
by giving two kinds of background. First they note previous work in oral
rhetoric, citing advice from current and classical texts (272). Then, they
narrow their focus and spend six paragraphs defining three key terms for
their work:
anecdote:
"a short story that introduces the subject in an imaginative or lively
way" by focusing on an incident or event to get the audience’s attention
(273),
ethical appeal:
"a short description of the qualities of the speaker or his or her company"
(273),
your problem:
a presentation of the subject as "a problem the listeners are likely to
face" (274).
These
sections, particularly the definitions of terms, assist the reader in understanding
the experiments that follow. However, they also serve another purpose:
enhancing the writers’ credibility or ethical appeal. For although the
article explicitly claims to be aimed at "anyone who has to give an oral
presentation" (272) and faculty who teach oral communication, its use of
Latin and jargon — "ethos", "exordial" — and references to ancient rhetoricians
like Cicero suggest that the latter audience is preferred to the former.
Moreover, the article’s opening and closing refer to a 25 year-old Paul
Simon song. While many may be expected to "get" this reference, it clearly
appeals to a readers over 40, an age more likely to coincide with faculty
than "anyone" else.
After
this overview of research, the researchers present the experiments. The
presentation is structured to make what is largely subjective and speculative
appear objective and concrete. For each experiment, the authors present
goal, method, procedure, results and conclusion in a typical lab report
format, including typical headings. In the results sections, they use figures
which also lend objectivity. Of course, the figures also help readers to
visualize the results.
In the methods
section, the language makes the experiments seem as objective as possible.
While the active voice and first person plural pronoun ("we") dominate
in the article, in the methods section, the writers suddenly revert to
the passive voice: for example, "the topic was determined to be of interest
to the test group" (274), "a multi-part questionnaire was developed" (275).
Obviously, the researchers "determined" and the researchers "developed";
however, without human agents, the test procedures gain an air of objectivity
that helps persuade readers to trust the results.
The
experiments themselves are described in detail, and the details included
in the appendices make an approximate reproduction of the experiment possible.
This reproducibility is necessary to the reliability of the experiments.
In the first experiment, the researchers showed three videotaped introductions
to an audience who answered a questionnaire after each. They discovered
that the "anecdote" and "your problem" strategies made an audience more
willing to listen and believe the speaker to be comprehensible than an
appeal to "ethos", although this last did make listeners think the speaker
more credible. The claim is well supported by the survey results. The writers
concede the limitations of their results, noting that they are based on
questionnaires, and that the audience did not actually hear the whole talk
(276). This last point led to the second experiment.
In
it, the researchers showed audiences one of three videotaped speeches and
asked questions to determine preference and comprehension. The first presentation
began with an anecdote relevant to the talk; the second, with an irrelevant
anecdote; and the third, without an anecdotal opener. Otherwise, the talks
were identical. The researchers found that an anecdotal opener, whether
relevant to the talk or not, improved the audience’s ability in all four
areas: willingness to listen, credibility, comprehensibility, and comprehension
(280). The experimental evidence seems straightforward, and they offer
little discussion; however, in their conclusions, the researchers generalize
from anecdotal openings to "a talk with an introduction, even a short one"
to suggest that any opener will improve all four areas. Of course, their
research has not proven this, and might even be contra-indicative judging
from the poor reception of the ethical appeal in the first experiment. |
|
