Read on Twitter
I know that we are used to the idea that the correct job position/rank has to be the voice/face of something. I don’t yet have the confidence they are always the best person to speak. 1/
If they’re higher on the power dynamic, speaking for a group more likely to be marginalized, & haven’t rehearsed extensively w/ feedback from people most affected by the topic, there is potential to botch language, tone, delivery, even content. 2/
Also more likely to be unprepared for spontaneous Q&A.
In this case, at least rehearsing with feedback from the more diverse panel might have helped make for a better presentation. 3/
In this case, at least rehearsing with feedback from the more diverse panel might have helped make for a better presentation. 3/
I’m saying this in general, too- it happens in all fields.
Sometimes the folks doing the research aren’t representative of the population - if so, that needs to be fixed.
Sometimes they are, but the folks who get up to brief their work aren’t, & sometimes that’s an error. 4/
Sometimes the folks doing the research aren’t representative of the population - if so, that needs to be fixed.
Sometimes they are, but the folks who get up to brief their work aren’t, & sometimes that’s an error. 4/
I did not listen to Army’s latest manel, just read the highlighted points later & chatted w/ my partner who did. In that instance, I get if it’s the SMA’s thing he at least needs to be up there. 5/
As for the others, I’m convinced a lower ranking woman who knew the material inside out, AND has lived experience (or at least could use the word “female” less) might have done a better job. 6/
In a perfect world, should any leader be able to brief any material with sensitivity, compassion, empathy, & a blend of vulnerability & humility? Yes. I don’t think we’re always there yet. Till we are, please get people on the stage with lived experience as well. 7/
Yes that means if you’re talking about race related issues, your panel should not be all (or even mostly) white. If you’re talking about issues for LGBTQ+ folks, your panel shouldn’t be all cis or hetero. Etc. All with enthusiastic consent for panel participation of course. 8/
Beware tokenizing, & understand that, for example, not all women could have automatically done better than these men did. (Also, again, if you’re only listening to people who agree with you from a marginalized group, you’re not listening to that marginalized group). 9/
It should not be taken for granted that job title or rank guarantees enough understanding or competence with a certain topic.
(The fact that this is more likely to be questioned for some leaders, & unquestioned in others is a separate problem & discussion.) 10/
(The fact that this is more likely to be questioned for some leaders, & unquestioned in others is a separate problem & discussion.) 10/
I just think at this point in time, it matters to have people on a panel to speak from the population most affected by what you’re discussing.
