tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post6989526394870651774..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: How to run a panelgcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-8498004376949774192014-03-31T17:41:41.698-04:002014-03-31T17:41:41.698-04:00Well, Dan, I will concede this much: IF The papers...Well, Dan, I will concede this much: IF The papers in a panel really are tightly centered on some theme, then The first approach does make more sense. But in my experience, nine times out of 10 the papers are only loosely connected, because you have to stick them somewhere after all.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-22565514026788950082014-03-31T01:22:09.672-04:002014-03-31T01:22:09.672-04:00The first method prioritized the papers and ensure...The first method prioritized the papers and ensures that each presenter gets his or her time, and also gets a reasonable share of an audiences not-yet-weary attention. Even if the moderator enforces time strictly, an exciting paper followed by lively response and heated q&a could really detract from the succeeding presentations. If all the papers are presented first, then responses, then questions, there's some mixture and delay even if one paper and it's feedback are more attention-getting than the others. <br /><br />With the second approach, there's not much point to the formality of a panel: it's just three successive events. <br /><br />That's one theory, anyway. In practice it may just be habit. Daniel McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07151051165704452294noreply@blogger.com