Paper Discussion

Class Format

Each 80-minute session includes two main presenters, two critics, and two auditors. Over the course of the semester, each student will typically serve as a main presenter 1–2 times, a critic 2–4 times, and an auditor 2–4 times, depending on the final enrollment and class schedule.

  • Main Presentation: Two main presenters jointly deliver a 30-minute presentation, assuming that everyone has already read the papers.
    • Suggested structure (can be flexible):
      • 5 min: Background & context. What was the state of the field before these papers? What motivated this line of work? Mention key prior research that shaped these papers.
      • 10 min: First paper.
      • 10 min: Second paper.
      • 5 min: Summary and discussion questions.
    • For each paper:
      • Focus on the core problem, motivation, key contributions, and new findings.
      • Synthesize rather than following the paper section by section.
      • Deep dive into one important aspect (e.g., methodology, ablations).
      • Raise potential discussion points, e.g., debate topics or follow up questions prompted by these papers.
    • Following the presentation, the critics will challenge the papers’ claims and assumptions. Then, the presenters will become proponents, responding as if they were the authors.
    • Time Limit: Aim for 30 minutes of presentation content. Questions will arise during the presentation, but the presentation and responses should conclude within 45 minutes.

  • Panel Discussion: Following the presentation, the two critics and two proponents (main presenters) will participate in a structured debate centered on a major claim from the papers.

    Each team has up to 5 minutes for initial remarks (both members should speak), followed by a back-and-forth discussion.

    Critics are expected to:

    • Carefully examine the papers’ claims and supporting evidence.
    • Identify potential weaknesses, assumptions, or confounding factors.
    • Draw on related work to support or challenge the papers’ conclusions.

    Presenters are expected to:

    • Respond directly to the critics’ arguments.
    • Defend the papers’ design choices and conclusions.
    • Go beyond repeating material already covered in the paper or presentation.

    The goal is not to “win” the debate, but to deepen understanding and surface new insights.

  • After the debate, the presenters will re-introduce their prepared discussion questions, followed by an open class discussion.

  • Auditors: Auditors do no have a formal presentation. Instead, they
    • Evaluate the main presentation in real time.
    • Speak up to complement the main presentation or to point out anything that’s missing or unclear.
    • This means authors should also read the papers being presented in detail and think about what broader context, debate topics, or follow up questions could have been presented.
    • After class, submits a short written review (around 200 words), summarizing what worked well and what could be improved.

Deliverables

  • Main presenters share slides 48 hours before class. You may continue editing your slides afterward. The instructor may give feedback; no feedback likely means you’re good to go.
  • Critics take a look at the main presentation and share slides 24 hours before class. This gives time for proponents (main presenters) to prepare responses.
  • Auditors submit after-class reviews before the next class via the Google Form.

Discussion Etiquette

In this class, you will develop not only the skills to read, present, and critically evaluate research papers, but also the ability to engage in thoughtful, respectful academic discussion. Professionalism in discourse is just as important as analytical rigor.

Here are a few key expectations:

  • Be candid, but professional. Honest critique is essential for academic growth, but it must always be delivered respectfully.
  • Talk about the paper, not the authors. Focus your comments on the ideas, methods, and evidence, not on the authors themselves. Imagine the authors are present in the room (they well might be) and you’re giving honest feedback on a paper draft.
  • Foster a safe discussion environment. Everyone should feel comfortable sharing their views, even if they are still forming their opinions. Outside of class, you’re welcome to continue the substance of the discussion, but do not attribute specific comments or critiques to individual classmates. This norm helps ensure open, exploratory discussions without fear of being misquoted or taken out of context.