The "so what" problem
The presenter of our department seminar had just finished his presentation and opened up to the attendees for questions. A member of the audience asked: "So, what?"
It rankled a little. By that one phrase, the presenter's entire discourse had been undermined and called into question. He felt obligated to justify his ideas over again as though the fact that his prominence in the field and the fact that he had been an invited speaker did not warrant a fundamental respect, a respect that would acknowledge that what he had said had merit at some level.
I had recently heard of a professor in the past who tended to ask "so, what?" of virtually every presenter at the department's seminar. It didn't sit well with me then and I had been ruminating on the idea, trying to decide why it bothered me so much. Then I heard it happen in my presence.
I think it rankles because asking "so, what?" is a cheap shot -- unsophisticated and condescending. The critic who has very little practical knowledge of the creative, generative process of the idea they criticize is simply using the phrase to posture themselves into a position of superiority. In a graduate seminar, attendees should be able to pick out their own implications, even if the speaker was somewhat vague in that regard. A qualified speaker should be able to trust that what he presents has merit as food for thought. There was plenty of meat in the seminar -- enough that several conclusions addressing the "so, what" question could have been drawn by the listeners. It shouldn't be incumbent on the speaker to spoon feed the value of their ideas to the uninformed.
That is not to say that speakers should not be questioned, especially if they opened the floor for that purpose. Pointed queries about specifics of an idea or methodology should be welcome. Questions that seek clarification of concepts should certainly be asked, even if they call into question some points made by the presenter. But such questions should be specific to the presentation, specific to the ideas.
Every human idea is subject to question and debate. Virtually everything educators do can be subjected to the "so, what?" question and would inevitably have an inadequate response. Educators make the critical assumption that education is good but with no tangible evidence as to why it is good or in what fundamental ways. There are still always more "so, what's?" under every argument.
Vague questions that undermine the credibility of a speaker or cause them unwarranted discomfort so that someone else can appear to have a superior knowledge (without requiring them to provide evidence therefor) are just poor form.
It rankled a little. By that one phrase, the presenter's entire discourse had been undermined and called into question. He felt obligated to justify his ideas over again as though the fact that his prominence in the field and the fact that he had been an invited speaker did not warrant a fundamental respect, a respect that would acknowledge that what he had said had merit at some level.
I had recently heard of a professor in the past who tended to ask "so, what?" of virtually every presenter at the department's seminar. It didn't sit well with me then and I had been ruminating on the idea, trying to decide why it bothered me so much. Then I heard it happen in my presence.
I think it rankles because asking "so, what?" is a cheap shot -- unsophisticated and condescending. The critic who has very little practical knowledge of the creative, generative process of the idea they criticize is simply using the phrase to posture themselves into a position of superiority. In a graduate seminar, attendees should be able to pick out their own implications, even if the speaker was somewhat vague in that regard. A qualified speaker should be able to trust that what he presents has merit as food for thought. There was plenty of meat in the seminar -- enough that several conclusions addressing the "so, what" question could have been drawn by the listeners. It shouldn't be incumbent on the speaker to spoon feed the value of their ideas to the uninformed.
That is not to say that speakers should not be questioned, especially if they opened the floor for that purpose. Pointed queries about specifics of an idea or methodology should be welcome. Questions that seek clarification of concepts should certainly be asked, even if they call into question some points made by the presenter. But such questions should be specific to the presentation, specific to the ideas.
Every human idea is subject to question and debate. Virtually everything educators do can be subjected to the "so, what?" question and would inevitably have an inadequate response. Educators make the critical assumption that education is good but with no tangible evidence as to why it is good or in what fundamental ways. There are still always more "so, what's?" under every argument.
Vague questions that undermine the credibility of a speaker or cause them unwarranted discomfort so that someone else can appear to have a superior knowledge (without requiring them to provide evidence therefor) are just poor form.
Comments