Hook?
Yesterday I gave a communication workshop for graduate students preparing to go to summer conferences and apply for fellowships. They wanted to practice the answer to the simple, but always challenging question “what do you work on?” We talked about different communication contexts, whether your audience is more novice or expert, and how formal of a situation it is. For example, the expert, formal context would be a conference presentation, and the expert, informal context would be the conference happy hour. They agreed that the more informal professional context is the hardest, but most useful venue to succeed in. Having strategies ready to introduce yourself and your work could be particularly relevant for networking.
I urged them to consider that even in “expert” contexts, the audience is likely interdisciplinary, and it is unlikely that anyone there will be expert in your specific topic– that’s your job! Always err on the side of less jargon, and provide more context for your ideas at the beginning. You should adjust depending on who you’re talking to. Choosing a few key details and being concise is key, and no matter what context you are speaking in, you need a good hook. The hook serves to spark curiosity, to motivate your listeners to want to learn more, and to convey at least part of the essential idea of your topic. There are all kinds of statistics out there about how quickly you will lose your audience if you don’t hook them at the beginning. How can you make a good first impression and increase the chances that the listener will be interested, want to learn more, and remember you in the future?
Before the workshop I googled “hooks for presentations” and was amazed at how many resources are out there on this. But of course, these resources aren’t tailored to the academic context, and some academics can be really turned off by the idea that you have to sell your work. Share a story, example, or interesting idea. Contradict something we thought we knew. Set up a mystery you are trying to figure out. You have to practice and decide what will feel genuine to you. One of the students told us that she just shares her general topic, and if the listener is interested they will ask questions to learn more. It’s a fair point. It’s not necessarily your job to convince someone they should be interested, and in the conference context you can expect a basic level of academic curiosity. I understand the fear of being too flashy, standing out too much, or oversimplifying. But I really think we have to get over that. You and your work are unique, and being memorable is not to be feared. At the very least, our listener should appreciate our creativity and effort to say more than “I study ____.” One of the most respected scholars I know uses this example. Instead of saying “I study ancient Japanese poetry,” try starting with “I study how love begins.” See what a difference that makes? What do you have to lose?
In the workshop participants practiced talking about their work, and got feedback from me and from each other. It was clear that details, stories, and specific examples are more effective than general statements at sparking interest and conveying the main ideas. If you say, “I study ____” what does that actually mean? And why? Tell us what it means and why you do it. Practice with different people to see what your pitch brings up for them. When you share your work, the listener is trying to put it in context with things they already know; that’s how learning works. So they may have reactions or assumptions that are different from what you expect. Everyone knows you can’t be comprehensive, and also that your work may be shifting. What example you chose to share does not mean that your work only relates to that example, it is just giving a taste. You are taking the listener on a quick tour of what you care about and why, with the hope that they will want to learn more. How do you want to do that? There is no one right way, but how you do it will change the way your audience understands you. As with anything else you want to do well, you should do it intentionally.
As I was thinking about these objections to hooks, and ways to appeal to different audiences, I realized that maybe the word “hook” is the problem. We don’t want to think of our listener like a poor fish, stuck with us and a bloody lip. The other common term, attention-getter, is perhaps better, but not very smooth. Maybe lure, or captivator? I have also discussed having a headline. What’s our label, or banner of the moment? We want to be interesting scholars, capable of drawing attention, generating interest, and explaining our work clearly. We have to recognize that we do judge books by their covers, that first impressions are critical, and that there are strategies we can use to frame our work and help our listeners get interested in learning more. Investing time in considering the best ways to frame and introduce your work will also help you understand the essence of your work better.
Do you need a partner to help you think about how to communicate your work to different audiences? Do you want to practice in advance of higher-stakes conferences, networking opportunities, or interviews? I am here.
