This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 18 December 2014, At: 07:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Marriage & Family ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmfr20

Converting Oral Presentations intoPublishable ArticlesMarvin B. Sussman aa UNIDEL Professor of Human Behavior, Emeritus, University ofDelaware, member of Core Faculty, Union Graduate School/UnionInstitute, and Editor of Marriage & Family ReviewPublished online: 26 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Marvin B. Sussman (1993) Converting Oral Presentations into Publishable Articles,Marriage & Family Review, 18:1-2, 41-48, DOI: 10.1300/J002v18n01_05

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J002v18n01_05

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied uponand should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access anduse can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Converting Oral Presentationsinto Publishable Articles

Marvin B. Sussman

INTRODUCTION

Some academic scholars assert strongly that it is impossible toconvert an orally presented paper into a publishable article. Start allover, from the beginning idea or concept, is their lament. There ismuch wisdom in this recommendation since the message receivedby the audience using primarily sight or ear is very different. Yet atfirst blush it appears wasteful not to utilize the energy, thought, andtime expended in preparing the talk for a more permanent record ofthe event in the form of a published article.I begin with a discussion of oral and written presentations, their

congruities and dissimilarities in structure, content, and process. Ithen present techniques and strategies for transformation of the oralmessage to a written form, one which meets the long held myths ofacademic publishing.

ORAL AND WRITTEN DOMAINS

From the perspective of a presenter, there are many opportunitiesfor controlled explanations by reading a scholarly paper. The pre-sentation is controlled in the sense that what is said is not complete-

Marvin B. Sussman is UNIDEL Professor of Human Behavior, Emeritus,University of Delaware, member of Core Faculty, Union Graduate School/UnionInstitute, and Editor of Marriage & Family Review.

E 1993 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

45 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Publishing in Journals on the Family42

ly scrutinized, critiqued, or evaluated. The same material presentedin writing can be likened to scripture on marble. Such material willcontinue to exist, applauded or challenged during and after the life-time of the author.Oral presentations allow for expansiveness, redundancies, prob-

lematic statements, and above all, not to appear to be dogmatic oroverly certain. The speaker can avoid the formalisms and conven-tions of the written word which imply order, certainty, logical anal-ysis, and response to challenge. The oral presenter knows that thehearer will not be listening to all the words, only a small number areheard, absorbed, and integrated into the thought processes of thelistener. Great preachers, orators, and academic lecturers whosestaccato-presented similes, metaphors, insightful proposals, andcategorical statements resonate with hearers are often given advice.It is ��Why don�t you publish it or can I have a copy to read.��The listener obtains a gestalt of the message, an overview, the jist

of the thesis, but misses the component parts. A reading of themanuscript will or will not justify the listener�s conclusions on theviability and validity of the presenter�s story. At best the hearer cansay to self or others, ��It was a fine or great presentation. I learned alot.�� The hearer would have difficulty in being explicit regardingthe favorable and unfavorable parts of the talk. The urge is to havethis gem transforming the mind by means of the written word, to berelished, enjoyed, and exposed to a test of congruity with the read-er�s perception of reality.Another difference between oral and written presentations is that

in delivered papers one finds redundancies; excessive flamboyantlanguage; jargonized expressions; and lengthened indecisive sen-tences. Repetition of salient points in an oral presentation can bene-fit both the receiver and sender. The receiver will obtain knowledgeof the essence of the major themes. A reinforcement process isenjoyed and conditioning occurs. The sender may rejoice becausethe message is being received. Achieved is the goal of leaving thelistener with the salient point(s) of the message.Excessive repetitiousness, however, can also leave the listener or

reader not only bored but questioning whether there are other pro-fundities in the presentation. Excessive redundancy may delimitexplanations that indicate the relatedness and interaction of pro-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

45 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Reports on Publishing Survey 43

cesses, causality, and correlation. I have found, in one of my aca-demic roles as editor of a journal, that more redundancies are foundin presentations intended for oral delivery than in those submitted toa journal for consideration of publication. Numerous redundanciesin oral presentation are due to the increased freedom to expressoneself unfettered by peer or editorial review and the perceivedlessened need to have a final draft with endemic qualities of properEnglish, succinct sentence structure, interrelationship of conceptsand well organized ideas.The use of jargonized terms, strings of incomprehensive and

undefinable words, by readers of academic papers, may make thepresenter appear to be profound and scientific. Multiple stimulifrom the spoken work, often presented in a speeded and staccatomanner within an allocated amount of time, e.g., 15 pages in 25minutes, limits the ability to reject or question the jargon.Approximately eight years ago I received from an unknown

source a one page document entitled ��How to Win at Wordman-ship.�� The author, Philip Broughton, a public health service em-ployee at the U.S. government suggested the following. Createthree columns of jargonized terms sometimes referred to as buzzwords. Each column would have nine or ten terms. Each term ofeach column is numbered from one to ten. Then select randomlynumbers from each column. Six from column one, four from col-umn two, and nine from column three (6,4,9) produces ��Integratedorganizational projection,�� ��synchronized logistical program-ming�� (1,3,2); and ��parallel incremental hardware�� (5,8,7). Read-ing these jargonized terms to describe an elusive or non-existentphenomenon will convey a ring of authority and decisiveness.Broughton says, ��No one will have the remotest idea of what youare talking about--but the important thing is that they�re not about toadmit it.�� Such phraseology will also be found in papers preparedfor publication. It is, however, a more likely occurrence in an oralpresentation where the presenter controls the process. Reviewers,well before publication, are likely to question such glib phrasing as��systematized logical flexibility�� (9,6,8) with a query ��What in h..lare you trying to say?�� Say it in simple English or create a glossaryof terms.Related to the employment of jargon more extensively in verbal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

45 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Publishing in Journals on the Family44

but also found in published presentations, is the use of numerouswords to make an indecisive statement. Instead of using actionverbs and identified actors such as, ��I, he, we said or did this orthat,�� the language is both obtuse and verbose. Examples are, ��Itseems to me given the conditions, and multiple situations, the factsof the matter are that homelessness is a complex problem.�� Anoth-er, ��In my opinion and those of my colleagues, more often than not,unemployment of one of the breadwinners for almost any length oftime affects relationships within the family.�� The reader can reviewthese statements and find more succinct ones such as, ��Homeless-ness is a complex problem�� and ��Unemployment of an earneraffects family relationships.�� One can add action verbs, such as ��Ifeel or I believe.��The effort here is to avoid writing the way we talk. There is a

tendency to ��speak the paper�� in preparing an oral presentation.The ear can tolerate non-positional, problematic, and inconclusivestatements. It is a social convention to communicate with unfin-ished and verbose sentences. Listening intently to conversationsreveals that many exchanges are non-directional, non-rational, andexploratory. These are acceptable with little or no annoyance orexpectation.Written text has conventions of proper language, form, sentence

structure, focus, and process. The written work as soon as it ispresented is reviewed, judged, applauded, or ridiculed by readers.The presented material, paginated, volumized, and titled, becomeshistorical information. The published article will continue to exist,be read and judged, until the journal or book is lost or destroyed. Toobtain an honored place in the historical lineage of one�s professionone must create publications which tell a story, which add to thebody of knowledge, and which are a delight to read.

THE CONVERSION PROCESS

Various forms of visual presentation such as slides containingdiagrams, graphs, and tables are little used by social scientists intheir oral presentations at meetings. These forms for explainingone�s scholarly work are used extensively in the biological, medi-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

45 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Reports on Publishing Survey 45

cal, and physical sciences. The reasons for this disparity in the useof non-word visuals are found in varied disciplinary emphases uponreporting empirical work and sensitivity to learning using multiplesenses.The concern in this paper is not with the different disciplinary

and professional practices in oral or written communication but inusing multiple modes of data presentation and discussion in papersconverted from oral to written forms. ��A picture may be worth athousand words.�� The same can be said for a succinct and welldesigned chart, graph, or table. To sustain the reader�s interest thewriter should use tables, charts, and other representations, takingcare to explain in the text what appears in them. Such descriptionsshould be interspersed with written text.Written text should consist of short paragraphs each conveying a

primary thought or idea and with sentences not to exceed 20 words.In moving from one paragraph to another, vis à vis, from one idea toanother, the reader should be prepared for such transitions. The lastsentence of the paragraph should contain sufficient information toease the linkage and explain the transition to the subsequent para-graph. These simple rules are often ignored in transforming verbalto written presentations. Awareness of them should delimit the con-tinuity of satisfying but verbose descriptions endemic to oral pre-sentations.The use of headings and subheadings which follow the outline of

your paper�s introduction results in clarity of thought and in meet-ing the expectations of the reader. The words in the heading andsubheading rekindle in the reader�s mind the rationality of yourideas and procedures you introduced earlier in the paper. It enablesthe reader to easily return to your article for specific informationafter a first reading or skimming of the paper.The reader of your paper in addition to experiencing stimulation

and pleasure will expect to learn more about the works of otherscholars. Thus a succinct state of the art literature review is requiredin all written papers, much less so in verbally presented ones. Thisreview should be limited to relevant articles which form the founda-tions of your theoretical stance and explanation of empirical find-ings. The literature review should avoid being a complete bibliogra-phy on the subject, an article in its own right or at least a chapter or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

45 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Publishing in Journals on the Family46

appendix in a doctoral thesis. It should be of sufficient length toinclude ideas and facts which are the building blocks of scientificknowledge undergirding your presentation.References to ancient or current scholarship on your topic are

likely to be forthcoming during the oral presentation. Take advan-tage of such contributions and any proffered critiques. Discussionsof papers at professional meetings are often far ranging and quixot-ic. It is important to determine which thoughts and ideas are ger-mane to your thesis. Remarks on ��how I would have done theresearch�� or ��develop the theoretical concepts�� should be givenshort shrift. Consider in preparing the written paper those pointsrelative to design issues, interpretations, and results. You are notexpected to start anew. Therefore focus on what you have done,how to improve your presentation while acknowledging apparentlimitations and biases.Another way to use commentary is to incorporate the salient

points into an outline of the paper. The outline consists of thepaper�s major ideas and is organized in a logical and rational se-quence. A clear and focussed organization of thought is the result ofclose adherence to the outline. This is a traditional approach toarticle writing. The outline includes thoughts and ideas taken fromthe oral presentation and the commentaries of others.Still another technique, less rational and systematic in structure,

is ��meditative.�� The process commences with several readings ofthe verbally presented paper. This is followed by a period of quietrelaxation where the mind is limited to those thoughts central to theproposed paper. Thoughts and ideas may follow a lineal progres-sion, from objectives to conclusions of the paper. In some instancessuch logical ordering does not occur. Inordinate time and focus maybe on one section such as rationale followed by conclusions, inter-pretation of data, objectives, or methods. New and challengingideas and insights may emerge from the deeper consciousness. Theauthor who tries this process should not attempt to control it. Allowwhat happens to occur. For some the experience may result in newways to conceptualize or treat data; perhaps, a transformation ofone�s perception of reality. For others the outcome may be writing acreative paper immediately after such a reflective experience. Thewriting is non-stop and for some individuals the source is an un-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

45 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Reports on Publishing Survey 47

known energy. Sentences of integrated thoughts and ideas spewforth as fire and lava does from an active volcano. The geneticallycoded rationality of the mind organizes these emergent thoughtsand ideas to acceptable traditional forms. It is a process to be expe-rienced and difficult to explain since it is not within the canons ofrational thought and science. The major thesis of the meditativeapproach to writing is that within the most complete computer, thehuman brain, are the coded experiences of humankind from itsearliest beginnings. Such resources are little used and remain buriedin the deeper consciousness. Any release to the conscious mind bymeditative and reflective techniques may evoke unknown and un-believable creativity; and acquisition of new ways to interpret, clas-sify, and report knowledge.Part of the process of evoking one�s potential for creative schol-

arship is self-indulgence and the indulgence of others. Specifically,take the time and effort to evaluate one�s own writing. Is the papergood, passable or great? To one�s self be a friendly god or goddesson high, listen, and convey what has to be done to create a worldclass paper. Ask oneself if there is language to be removed becauseit may be offensive to readers. Is the paper�s thesis grounded in aknowledge base? Does the written work read like a paper, inclusiveand succinct, and not as a review or speech?The indulgence of others involves asking colleagues, friends, and

acquaintances to read your work after its conversion from a speechto an article for consideration of publication in a journal. The extentto which one uses such consultants depends on the thickness ofone�s ego. Persons with egos easily punctured cannot readily handlecritiques as constructive or beneficial to their writing. Egos belowthe level of supreme deity invite and relish constructive critiquing.It is impossible to perceive a written paper not being improved byan indulgent reviewer.Consider three types of reviewers and their possible involvement

in a review and critique of all your papers. The first is a colleaguewho is knowledgeable in your field and can comment on theoreti-cal, methodological, and substantive issues. A second reviewer is aperson highly competent in writing style and the English language.This person will examine for correctness and completeness foot-notes, references, and bibliography. Then he or she will determine if

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

45 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Publishing in Journals on the Family48

your writing is simple and concise, that each word has meaning;that vigorous verbs are used instead of abstract nouns; that danglingparticles are eliminated; that jargon and cliches are removed; thatexcessive use of ��to be�� forms and the passive voice be reduced oreliminated; and that the use of the ��its�� in your writing be mini-mized or removed. The third reader is asked to examine the paperfor understanding of the message. A person not a specialist in yourarea or in the English language can be engaged. Does your papermake any sense? The writer, in this instance, should ask the non-specialist reviewer what was learned from reading the paper. It is aplus for conciseness and clarity if the reader can describe and inter-pret the major theme(s). Thus, all three reviewers undertake com-plementary and somewhat overlapping functions. The result canonly be a paper which meets the high standards of publication youhave set for yourself.

CONCLUSION

Converting a speech to a written form, a journal article for pos-sible publication, is a ��can do�� process. The way it is done is theauthor�s choice since there are several conversion process options.The initial step is to recognize that objectives, expectations, andaudiences for speeches and published articles in journals are differ-ent. From this recognition, article conversion processes emerge.The choice of a particular preparation option depends upon avail-able resources, the thinking and writing style of the writer, and theexpectations of journal editors. Converting speeches to written pub-lishable articles can and should be fun. ��Go for it.��

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

45 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014