Panel Discussions

What is the point of a panel discussion? It's like an anthology- it gives you a teaser, a brain worm, or provides enough intrigue for you to search out the author/speaker and learn more about their work.

In a lot of conferences, talks and symposia today, I find that either:

a) the organisers didn't want to seem like they are playing favorites.
b) They are absolutely playing favorites and want everyone to know it (and the fact that they are all a little circle of friends)
c) the topic is so complex or polarising that the organisers would like to aggressively moderate the speakers and the audience.

When should a panel discussion format be used?

a) When the topic is sufficiently novel for a vast majority of the audience b) When you want to offer mid-level professionals a chance to speak about their work (sort of like a "watch this space" prelude to hopefully more impactful work) c) When there are so many opposing sides that you don't want to give any particular side too much time or space (in a dream world. In reality, there will always be one side that figures out how to rig the system so that their POV gets prime time) d) When you want to introduce a piece of work or even a particular emerging field- a book, a highly relevant article, some aspect of computer security or immune cells or road building materials etc. e) When there are broad nuances that the organizers or speakers want to highlight but these are not too technical or detailed for most people to miss.

When should a panel discussion format NOT be used?

a) When the topic is sufficiently personal to everyone- even if they don't know the nitty gritties of it, they all have experience of it. In such a case, it's far better to either have an extended the Q & A session, or even better, have a series of short talks by the panelists with a Q & A at the end of each session and ideally, also provide Q & A time at the end of all talks. Otherwise, the entire panel risks being dismissed for being underwhelming, not actually understanding the nuances of the topic, or the personal lived experience of individuals, or worse. If people are coming to a venue specifically for a session- why design it for a miniscule 1h or 90m? By the time the intros are done (don't even get me started on panel discussions that have an inauguration first... why??!) and the initial mildly funny opening remarks are over, you have already lost 20 minutes. Then invariably the first speaker takes up way too much time and the last speaker has to speak very fast to cover all their key points. And then the organizers claim they will take "only two questions please, in the interests of time". Can there be a more irritating format?

b) When the audience knows the topic... one can claim that in today's age of complexity, nobody knows every perspective. Ok, fair point. But when the audience are those you have invited specifically because of their experience or interest in something or the other, why would you then assume they don't have a depth of understanding to catch up fairly fast? Then of course, EVERYone has opinions that they would like to share. A well-planned panel discussion format might actually work pretty fine here, but nothing irritates or frustrates people as when they either haven't been allowed to dig deeper into something or share something of importance to them.