Art of Speaking Science

Recently I delivered a seminar on Scientific Poster Presentation. I made a handout to provide details on what you should include (and exclude) for each section of the poster.

I thought you might find this useful so I decided to post.

If you disagree or have something to add or modify it would be great if contributed via the comments. I will update based on feedback. Oh, here ya go..

Sections to be included in your scientific poster presentation

Title: Used to convey the single overall main message
• Headline title with noun and verb – quantified if possible
• 1-2 lines max using sentence case
• NOT for keyword search – it can be straightforward (or catchy?)
• Max 25 words

Abstract: Do not include an abstract on a poster – unless it is a (dumb) requirement.

Introduction: Get viewer interest about issue or question
• State the purpose/aim/goal (long-term and short-term may be different) using bullets
• Place work in context (where does it fit in overall field)
• Give background minimum
• Might end/start with some bullet statements of your hypotheses
(Hypotheses may be coupled with results in results section)
• Max 125 words

Methods/Materials: (Skip if standard, include if science) Describes experiment
• Use figures, photos, drawings to illustrate experimental design if possible;
• Use flow charts (the type with text, numbers and drawings within boxes) to summarize steps or timing
• Perhaps mention statistical analyses used and how they address hypothesis
• Max 150 words

Results: Summarizes what you found
• Result graphs support only your conclusion bullet points (3-5)
• Each graphs/chart/table provides quantitative and qualitative/descriptive results
• Each graph/chart should contain headline title and/or takeaway conveying understandable main point (may be the only thing read, needs to be clear)
• Negative/positive controls should be labeled and consistent in color (dk grey/ blk suggested)
• Graphs indicate exactly (via arrows, circles, highlights) where to look to see evidence of result
• Do not use legends, instead direct label data elements, remove unneeded grid lines
• Cut down to key words only, remove punctuation
• Bullets OK
• If method/process important can be in smaller under takeaway or bottom of chart
• Max approx 250 words - this should be your largest section

Conclusions: (Conclusions and future directions)
• Should be summary of results in bullet form
• Can include a one or two bullets for future directions (don’t make future directions separate)
• Max 150 words

Literature cited:
• Follow standard format exactly
• Maximum approximately 5 citations

Acknowledgments:
• Mention who has provided funding
• Include disclosures for any type of conflicts
• Possibly include SIGNIFICANT contributors - name and contribution (not title)
• Max 40 words

Further information:
• Your e-mail address and web site address
• Perhaps a URLs - to download PDFs of poster or related papers or your CV
(edit URL – don’t leave blue or underlined)
• Maximum 30 words

(Note: I originally wrote this article in September 2006. For this post, I made a few minor very minor updates. I think since this writing, some conferences are moving in this direction. Comment below about your experiences and thoughts on this.)

One person recently commented to me, “Often times, I look at a poster for 5 minutes and am unsure of the important points, but when I hear just a few minutes from the scientist I find the work so much easier to understand”.

If you read my previous post you already know that I think the landscape for scientific poster presentation is changing. This post will describe more details of my vision, but first you’ll need to allow me a digression.

Up to this point, my writing suggests that poster podcasts are in addition to the poster itself. However, what I didn’t specifically mention is that I believe the form of the actual poster may be changing as well. With the ability to easily create posters electronically, the visual form is likely (and should change) as well.

With a static “linear” printed poster, we present data visually so it can meet the needs of both general and advanced users. However, using a printed, linear format, makes it difficult to meet both groups effectively and often is the reason why posters become overcrowded with text and details. I often hear “We can’t leave that out, because someone might ask”.

As an alternative posters could become purely electronic or “e-posters” if you will. Yes, I know e-posters exist, but right now e-posters are usually just PDFs of the printed poster. But what if we created them in a form that took advantage of web linking, audio and video files? In this linked form, users could collapse or expand the details and navigate through the poster in the manner that works the best for them. What if you could easily project the overall image and simply by touching different sections of the poster it would drill down the next level of detail. This would certainly allow interested parties to first view a more simplified version of the work and allow each viewer to choose to view only the details that are important to them. Now image being able to click to hear the voice of the scientist when you click on the section of interest–that is without the scientist actually being physically there.

Of course, we aren’t quite there with the technology—yet. But we certainly can do more than we currently do.

Today, posters are typically supported by the voice of the creator during the conference (at least for a limited period of time). Like the person in the quote above, I think most would agree that hearing the work in conversational form directly from the scientist would make the work easier to understand.

My vision is that the poster podcast provides the science directly from the scientist in audio/visual form. To be very clear, I am not suggesting that the podcast replace in-person discussions. I view them as a supplement and means to provide the “conversation” when the scientist isn’t available –that is to provide the audio/video in a time-shifted manner so interested parties can hear the the stories behind the science directly from the scientists via the poster podcast. After all, it the story of the scientific process that is so interesting. Poster podcasts make the work more interesting and gives the scientist a way of sharing his passion for the work using his own voice.

As I said in the previous post, for little or no money, it is possible to create a podcast of your work. You could then submit this podcast, along with a PDF of the poster, to the conference organizers for consolidation. Using existing audio search engines, like Alta Vista (remember them?), conference attendees could search the audio files (and of course, the keyword tags associated with the files) along with the text abstracts to determine which posters were of the most interest to them. Because of the detail provided in the audio content, this searchable audio would allow for better, more refined searching. In the current environment, you need to rely on the abstract to include the specific related keywords.

So, once the podcasts are electronically consolidated into a searchable database, the next step is to provide an easy method to listen to this audio. Right now, this type of technology is available (think art museum tours or walking tours in cities). You can visit the art museum and they will give you a portable devise that you simply put the number of painting in and the audio tells you about the painting. You get to go at your own pace, you can pause, go back, and skip ahead. Nice. Why not do this for scientific posters? You can go to the independence area in Philadelphia (and many areas of interest in other cities) and use your i-pod to download MP3 audio walking tours or you can even use your cell phone to listen to the tour.

Again, why don’t we utilize this same types of technology for listening to scientific poster podcasts? This would enable anyone to listen at any time before, during, or after the conference and alleviate conference overload. It would help participants to focus and plan their interactions during the live poster sessions. With the near ubiquity of iPods and other portable MP3 players, the platform is already out there, in our bags, our coat pockets, on our belts.

To be very clear, I am not suggesting that the poster podcasts should replace the human-to-human interaction and discussion. What I am suggesting is that it would help to creator of posters to be able to spend more time with those that would benefit the most from in-person conversation about the work. Nothing can replace human interaction.

I am simply suggesting podcasts (like websites did not so many years ago) will provide yet another avenue of communication about your science. And, it is important to communicate your message through as many routes as possible, after all, the communication of your science to a broad audience should be your goal.

As evidence, a study showed that medical articles reported in The New England Journal of Medicine and then reported in The New York Times receive about 73 percent more citations in medical reports than do articles not reported in The New York Times (cited in Whiteman, Scientists Need Plain Language). Of course, if the work makes it to the New York Times, it probably means the work is significant to begin with.

Speaking of the importance of human interaction, why not use portable technology (you can get a reasonably high quality set-up for less than $100) to capture the interesting conversations you have during the conference itself. Maybe you can even interview someone who’s work is related.

After the conference, or even during the conference, post both the recorded conversations and the previously prepared podcasts to your own blog, the conference blog and any other appropriate location on the web including e-galleries and podcast aggregators like Apple I-Tunes. Again, the last and perhaps most important step in science is communication of the science. You want to be sure that people interested in your very specific topic will be able to find your science this way. Of course, you’ll might need to be careful with what and when you publish to the internet and how decide exactly how public it can be.

I look forward to LISTENING to your next poster presentation. Oh, and if you are inspired by this post and create your poster podcast, be sure to post a link to the podcast. I am hoping some of the work will inspire others to do the same thing.

Note: Again, keep in mind I originally wrote this article in September of 2006. Some progress has been made, but we still have a long way to go.

I want to encourage you to be not only on the leading edge with your science, but also be leading edge with your communication.

How can you do that? By allowing the form to follow function. What do I mean? Read on!

The basic rule for any design is “form follows function.” If an object has to perform a certain function, its design must support that function to the fullest extent possible.

So in terms of poster presentations what exactly is the function of poster presentations? I think most would agree, when you are the creator of the poster, you are most interested in valuable feedback and detailed discussion of the science—you want constructive interaction with others to help you improve the work and take the science to the next level. In short your aims are feedback and professional networking. From the point of view of a poster viewer, you are usually most interested in understanding what others in similar areas (and perhaps not so similar areas) are doing in hopes of shedding new perspectives on your own work.

So this begs the question, is a traditional poster presentation the best means to achieve these goals?

I know many people would say, yes, poster presentation sessions do create the opportunity for interaction. Viewers can not only ask questions but also share ideas and experiences; much more so than oral presentation and therefore posters are wanted and needed in science. In fact, some might argue that for preliminary work, the poster presentation is perhaps the most favorable format.

However, I do not believe that traditional poster sessions, alone, are the best approach, that is not anymore. We are all familiar with the drawbacks of poster sessions, particularly crowded long sessions with hundreds if not thousands of posters. How does one effectively sort through choosing the “right” posters and ensure the presenter is available and keenly alert for conversation when, you, the viewer are ready for that conversation; not to mention the strain of information overload in the conference setting. Wouldn’t it be better to be able to hear directly from the scientists at your convenience? Perhaps before the conference, during the conference, during the poster session, and any time after? Wouldn’t it great to be able to electronically search not only the abstracts (like a few conferences now provide) but also to have the ability to search either on key words or more importantly the actual words delivered by the scientists themselves when describing the posters? Wouldn’t it be great if you could walk up to a poster or view a poster on line and hear the verbal description directly from the researcher, weather or not he was actually physically present or not?

My vision may take some time to unfold in the world of science (I originally wrote this article in September of 2006 - see note below), but I am confidant that “poster presentations” will look and feel a lot different in the very near future and will be better able to meet the goals of both the creator and the viewer.

So what exactly do I have in mind?

Before I share the details, I want to draw attention to the fact that there is revolution going on—a media revolution. In this new era, consumers of content want the ability to easily seek out content and consume it when and how they want it. This combined with the use of time-shifting technology (think TIVO) and the trend of individuals producing content at broadcast quality (think podcasts and vlogs) at little or no cost is having profound effects on everyone, including the world of science.

It’s already happening. Many prestigious scientific journals, including New England Journal of Medicine and Nature have podcasts available for download and blogs for interactive discussion and comment.

Companies (ePosters, Scifor, rnai, etc.) are starting to offer electronic galleries of posters with both public and restricted access. Other scientific professionals are creating “wiki-like” (peer-reviewed in some cases) sites to providing a collaborative environment that maintains the rigor of science but most importantly brings the science to their colleagues “faster” than the traditional routes (See Useful Chemistry - to learn more about open notebook science see the Scholar2Scholar Friday April 18, 2008 post).

Why did I point all that out? Because poster presentations will be influenced by this “revolution” and we will be seeing changes soon.

Exactly how am I envisioning the use of these latest technologies specifically for “poster presentations”?

Let’s start with the initial development and refinement of the poster. Participants in my poster presentation workshop (and my public speaking workshop) use an electronic collaborative blog site for posting content and receiving feedback (both video and text). This provides a unique platform for candid, time-shifted, detailed review. For sure, using this electronic review process clearly facilitates and improves the interaction itself resulting in an improvement in the overall design and content of your poster (or presentation). I would encourage everyone to do the same thing by posting your poster drafts to a private blog and asking for feedback. You could post not only the poster itself in PDF form. An alternative, is to convert the poster image to a .jpg image and post to flickr (or other photo sharing site) and ask for feedback there.

Once you have taken advantage of today’s technology to create a well-designed, visually appealing, effective poster the next step is to develop and practice delivering your key messages. In addition to posting the PDF of the poster itself, you will also want to post audio and/or video recordings of you presenting the work.

You will want to capture and deliver these messages via a “poster podcast” (audio or audio/video downloadable content ). Why? Because a poster podcast provides a low or no cost route of additional communication allowing for time-shifted review, interactivity and searchable content. Besides it simply is easier and more interesting to hear scientific information in interview format (think NPR’s Science Friday or CBS’s Quirks & Quarks).

To get an idea of what I have in mind, listen to the following two podcasts.

The first podcast while interesting for a general audience, may be a bit too simplistic for an advanced scientific audience. Have a listen.

CBS’s Quirks & Quarks

For the second example, I created this podcast with a poster presentation workshop participant! (Thanks Debra!) The workshop helps participants to first develop and then deliver concise, clear, effective messages via “posters”. This is what is typically done in science today, but I wanted to take poster presentation to the natural next level.

So, after the in-person portion of this workshop, I worked one-on-one with a few people. I asked a few basic questions, that, in essence, weaved together their practiced messages into a 3 minute story about the work. I wanted to show, by example, how effective a podcast poster can be and also how easy it is (using low to no cost technology) to create a “poster podcast”.

Debra’s Poster Presentation
(To listen to the podcast, click on the link below then once you are on the page click on one of the streaming links on the left to listen, or download the MP3 from the Other Files section of the page).

Ok, I know, I know…Debra’s portion is pretty good, but my questions were lame; generic and not well thought through. However, rest assured, with more time, more interesting and appropriate questions could be asked. I just wanted to create a quick sample so that you had a better idea of what I was referring to. Notice you can include other files like the PDF of the poster as well as perhaps the full text of the paper and perhaps a copy of your CV. Notice the comments section that could be used to encourage feedback and discussion. Of course, you could embed this on your website and protect with password if necessary until the work can be published publicly.

So how do I envision that these podcasts will be used at an actual conference? Stay tuned…I’ll be writing more about that tomorrow! This is where we’ll put to good use existing technologies that truly will take “poster presentations” to the next level. In addition, I’ll hope to convince you podcasts and my vision will be the standard operating procedure in the very near future and you need to start learning how to become a leading edge communicator using these technologies.

Special Note: I originally wrote this article in September of 2006 and I don’t think scientists were quite ready for my message at the time. However, l am also old enough to remember when I first told scientists that they would one day be using PowerPoint and I was also “poo-pooed” then too! Today, however, I think the younger generation of scientists not only recognize the importance of “on-demand” communication but will demand it. It is time to take these ideas seriously and begin creating your poster podcasts.

After a recent seminar, Despina, stayed afterward to share some exciting news. I remembered Despina, she had attended a Poster Presentation Workshop the year before.

She told me, “After our workshop I submitted a poster in a contest and I won an award for my poster!” She then shared with me that her results at the time were very preliminary and that she attributed her success to the skills she had learned in the workshop. I think she was being kind and humble, but I was very glad she shared her success with me. I can’t tell you how rewarding it is to know that I helped someone with their scientific career. It’s why I do this job. It’s why I am so passionate about communication because I know it has a direct impact on personal and professional success.
I asked her if she was willing to share her award winning poster on this blog and she graciously agreed.

Here it is. Of course, I can’t resist giving a brief review.

Three things I like about the poster:

* I liked that she used a mix of fonts. She used a sans-serif font for “far-away viewing” text like the titles and then used a serif font for close-up text. This use of fonts makes it the most efficient for reading.

* The purpose is crisp, clear, and concise. Most importantly it is the first item a viewer reads in the purpose section. Perfect!

* The poster is not overloaded with results. In posters particularly, less is more. She very clearly demonstrated that.

Three things I might have done differently had it been my poster:

* I would not have used red as the highlight color. Red is extremely difficult to read. I would have picked dark blue as the highlight color. Especially because she uses dark blue in other parts of the poster. (I would have also removed that orange background on the DBT image.)

* I would have bulleted text for faster reading. At a minimum removed the sentence punctuation and removed “extra” words and used only key words and phrases.

* For the graphs, direct label data lines (when possible eliminate graph legends) because it speeds up the reading and understanding of the graph.

Despina, thanks for sharing your poster and congratulatons on your success.

Your Challenge:
Critical review the last poster you completed and see if you can’t make some improvements now that you’ve seen an award winner!

Want to learn more about effective poster presentations? Consider attending a poster presenation seminar or workshop.

Learn how to improve your scientific posters by reviewing samples. You can see first hand what works and what doesn’t.

I have viewed hundreds, if not thousands of posters, and this first example is pretty good. Well, honestly, even this one could use some improvement, but it still is among the best.

Take a look for yourself…

http://www.ncsu.edu/project/posters/NewSite/examples/Flounder.html

In my opinion, the best part of this poster is that it is SIMPLE and EFFICIENT. That should ALWAYS be your primary goal. The main message is OBVIOUS, that should be your secondary goal. Be sure to read the evaluation below the poster, I definitely agree with both the positive and negative points mentioned.

Here’s another example. Take a look.

http://www.retroconference.org/2006/PDFs/489.pdf

Here’s my quick evaluation of this one. The title could be clearer…perhaps “Remune increases CD8+ HIV-1 specific cytotoxic responses reducing viral load in patients with chronic HIV-1 infection” Of course, I would need to confirm with the author that this is scientifically accurate. The idea is to include the quantification of the result in the title. Again, to be as SPECIFIC as possible in your title. Your title should be “the quantified simple answer” to the ONE central question that your poster addresses.

One of the nice features of this poster is the use of callouts on the tables to provide the “takeaway” information. However, the red color makes it harder to read; perhaps a darker color would have worked better. Notice the nice use of white space in this poster. But even this could have been improved by removing the box lines around the sections (Tufte refers to this kind of extra stuff as “chart junk”) and changing the text alignment to left justified. The left justification would have first made the text easier to read and second would have provided the visual “edges” that the box lines were providing.

Let’s look at one more. How about this one?

http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/posters_2005/hipp.pdf

This one is not a good as the others. At first glance it appears to have a “clean” visual appeal however upon closer inspection, this one suffers because it is impossible to pull out the most important main ideas from the details. The text sections are too heavy on text and the use a right justified margin makes it extremely difficult to read. Instead, I recommend the use of bulleted phrases especially when you have a section rich in text.

Most importantly, all graphics need large, readable “headline” titles (think like you would see in a newspaper) that communicates the “takeaway” for the graphic. The reader should be granted the ability to just “trust you” based on the title or examine the graph for their own detailed analysis. In addition, graphs need to clearly indicate where the eye should be looking. Remember, you have been working with the data and graphs a long time and automatically know where to look on the graph to “get the information”, a person looking for the first time needs your help. Give it to them in the form of arrows or circles or indicators of some kind.

Finally, I think the dark blue background detracts from the overall white space and therefore detracts from this poster. In addition, by using the blue background, the author was forced to use light text for the title. If this poster was being projected (as in an e-poster) then this would have been fine, however, in print form it actually makes it a bit more difficult to read.

Want to look at more examples of scientific posters? Here is small gallery of posters that are pretty good. One or two of them are unique and worth taking a look. Also, as a bonus there are some comments below them. I don’t always completely agree with the comments or approaches, but they might give you some needed inspiration.

Here’s the gallery…

http://phdposters.com/gallery.php

Your challenge: Critically review one of your own previous posters. If you’re brave <smile> submit it here for review!

Scientific and technical poster presentations require skills in two key areas: artistic design along with technical writing/editing. Different from papers, the critical first impression from a poster is created through the effectiveness of the visual design. For scientists, it is perhaps the area you are least familiar with and warrants some of your time for review.

In design there is a concept of visual unity and this achieved through white space, type and color. Be sure to read the links as they provide a great discussion of the important elements and why they are important to you. Here is the link which also includes a valuable short discussion on alignment.

If you have more time (and I hope you do!). Here are a two more comprehensive sites that are worth reviewing.

http://www.biology.lsa.umich.edu/research/labs/ktosney/file/PostersHome.html http://www.ncsu.edu/project/posters/NewSite/

I like these sites because they not only tell you what to do, but also they also show examples of what NOT to do. They also use a bit of light humor (sarcasm). This second one includes a nice little schedule of preparation tasks for your poster presentation. However, the best part of this second site is the resources page. Be sure to take a look at the evaluation form and spend some time exploring these additional resources that are of interest to you.
http://www.ncsu.edu/project/posters/NewSite/Resources.html

The next one is an “oldy but goody.” The advice on this site is somewhat outdated, but the basics of visual design still apply. I included this one also because there are some other tutorials also here (relating to oral presentation) that are quite good. If you have some time extra time, take a look.

http://www.kumc.edu/SAH/OTEd/jradel/Poster_Presentations/PstrStart.html

I included this next one because it has a nice discussion of when to do poster presentation versus a oral presentation. I also liked part “3A–Text” because it tells you how to use bullets effectively and “Part 3B- Graphics” because it includes a brief discussion of which type of graph is best for the type of data you are presenting.

http://www.asp.org/Education/Howto_onPosters.html

If you want even MORE DETAILS on choosing the right type of graph this next link is great. It contains detailed information on when and how to use tables, graphs, photos, diagrams and more.

http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/~writling/professional/TechWrite/3-1/swain/index.html

Of course, the definitive source of the graphic display of information can be found in the books of Edward Tufte. He has written seven books, including Visual Explanations, Envisioning Information, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information which are the most relevant to effective poster presentations. Use the link below to learn more about his work.

http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/

Finally, if you have found any resources that you have found helpful, please share them with me. Also, if any of the above links are broken, please let me know about that too! I look forward to finding out about even more great resources for poster presentations.

How to I make an EFFECTIVE poster?

No point in “re-inventing the wheel” when there are a number of great resources available that guide you through the process of developing an effective poster. I suggest you look at ALL of these links below if you have the time, because each includes slightly different nuances. However, having said that, if you are running short on time and only want to use one resource then start here.

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/posteradvice.htm

This is BY FAR the best scientific poster presentation resource available on the internet. It is detailed and accurate in terms of visual design and is practical from the standpoint of sharing real life experiences regarding preparation and delivery of posters.

Colin Purrington (Department of Biology) from Swarthmore College (right here in Pennsylvania) wrote this poster advice. In general, I give him TWO HUGE THUMBS UP for his sensible, design savvy advice. And hey, he uses a little humor that always helps to make a somewhat boring topic a little bit more interesting.

Of course, for those that know me, you know that I feel an obligation to share with you the places that I have very minor disagreements or slight modifications. So here goes…First, Colin mentions that “if all text is kept to a minimum, a person could fully read your poster in under than 10 minutes”. Hmmm…I am thinking even less than that! Ten minutes is a very long time when it comes to presentation. We have very short attention spans and I would suggest aiming for the ability to fully read the poster in less than 7 minutes and, if possible, less than 5 minutes! By the way, you should consider yourself highly successful if your average visitor spends 2-3 minutes at your poster.

He makes a great suggestion about asking others to help you evaluate your poster. Of course, I think group evaluation is a great idea. (Funny, that’s what this workshop is all about, huh?) I always suggest getting feedback from “intelligent others”. Who are they? Anyone that is intelligent, analytical, kind enough to offer to help you! In fact, it is better to choose at least a few people who are totally unfamiliar with your work.

He suggests printing and leaving it publicly for review. Good idea, but in addition to printing, feel free to send the electronic file. You do want to ask them the things he suggests (word count, prose style, idea flow, figure clarity, font size, spelling, etc.) however, I think the most important questions to ask are the following. Oh and don’t forget to tell them to be honest.
1. What is the main message of this poster? Could figure this out easily? Why/why not?
2. What are my main sub-points? Could you find them easily? Why/why not?
3. Did you find it interesting and appealing? Why/why not? Be honest!

Mr. Purrington does a great job of explaining WHAT to include in each section of the poster. I do however have a small refinement to his advice. For the introduction section he recommends 200 words, I suggest 125 maximum. Also I believe the introduction should start with your research questions in the form of questions and then it should explain in one sentence why you did the study. I don’t think this section should be text heavy as he indicates.

One last point of disagreement; Mr. Purrington apparently doesn’t like the use of colon for a two part title. I on the other hand find them easy to understand and effective. Although, I do agree with him regarding using the colon twice in one title!

Kudos to Mr. Purrington for this excellent resource! This information is the main reason I chose not to create my own version of effective poster presentations, because he already has done great job at succinctly synthesizing many online resources and more importantly his guidelines adhere to what the current visual design research supports in terms of effective visual display of quantitative information.