Week 2 - Presentations and Public Speaking

Class Date: Thursday, 28th July, 2011

The speaking order was reversed this week with Ms. Gita Pupedis taking the first half and Prof. Mark Shortis taking the second half. Ms. Pupedis' presentation related to a possible assessment task. Though I am not interested in that task she serves as an excellent model for public speaking. Always enthusiastic about her topic, knows the subject back to front, clear, articulate and never lingers on a point longer than needed. Her use of power point is also always spot on. It provides a clear and refined version of what she would like to put across. 

Prof. Shortis' lecture was about the do's and don'ts of public speaking and PowerPoint. I work with the DSE and I often attend in house presentations that include PowerPoint. I imagine that there will be a time in the future where I will have to give a presentation and use the program myself. I have always avoided using it as I enjoy language as a communication tool and think that most presentations that involve PowerPoint get overrun by the technology. Much like blockbuster movies that forget to include a script and only focus on what images are flashing by on the screen. So the PowerPoint guides were good for me in that they showed me what to do, not to do, and that it can be used well.

The public speaking aspect of the presentation also contained good information. Though I did find the clips shown to be gimmicky.  I would have rather seen footage of a well given speech and have that commented upon. What I did find interesting was the slides on the do's and don'ts. It seems that the most prominent public speakers in current society, politicians, intentionally eschew some of these points for their own benefit. While they are happy to be persuasive and appear confident and self assured quite often they refuse to present ideas clearly, be articulate and respect the audience.

Week 1 - Intro and Professional Ethics

 Class Date: Thursday, 21st July, 2011

The first half of the lecture provided an overview of the course and the expectations of we the students. The only point to ponder was what it was to be a professional. Prof. Shortis listed and dismissed the attributes of pay, status, career, and, education and training. His suggestion was that the right attitude is the mark of the professional. The right attitude has four aspects: lifelong learning; respect for a code of ethics; membership of an organisation, and; awareness of the public. Of these aspects I'm only unsure about membership of an organisation. I can see how both the field and the individual make gains from organisations but I don't see it as being as necessary to being a professional as the other three.

The second hour was taken by Prof. John Buckeridge and he delivered a lecture on ethics. Within his talk he covered ethics by bringing up examples, both hypothetical and real, based on how our actions affect the surrounding world. There notion of biodiversity and it's importance was queried without the being clearly stated. He alluded to it's importance but did not declare that our actions are possibly leading to it's, and possibly our, disappearance. It was a strong discussion point because engineers, and also surveyors, have major roles in projects that change the world on a grand scale. 

His brief summary of ethics was that it codifies moral values in society. Within a profession an ethics code will confine the actions of the members to good practice (only do what you are qualified to do); do no harm to society, other colleagues and the environment; and, be honorable and sustainable. This is obviously not a specific list but a set of parameters that any code of ethics is to cover. It is interesting to note that while the professional may be ethical at work these guidelines do not lay claim to the actions of their personal life. Perhaps there is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde surveyor out there who is the perfect gentleman at work but completely amoral once out of uniform. Also, since the morals of society are not static an ethics code can not be carved in stone and need to be changed as required. This is like the Humanist Manifesto that had to be changed after the atrocities of the Second World War.

His final point was that the professional behaves responsibly and in an accountable manner. As an example of unprofessional behavior he discussed Rupert Murdoch, who is currently being scrutinised due to phone hacking at one of his news papers. While neither being responsible or aware of the phone hacking, as head of the company he undoubtably weilded great influence over the culture. It is likely that  he allowed the climate to develop that let people feel justified in the phone hacking. It is for these reasons that Prof.Buckeridge believed that Mr. Murdoch should have held himself accountable and resigned. 

I enjoyed his talk immensely.  He was very erudite without being  technical or abstract. Early on I felt I was listening to an episode of Ockham's Razor.  He would not sound out of place chatting away with Robyn Williams on Radio National on a weekend afternoon.

Links:
Humanist Manifesto
http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I

http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II
 Ockham's Razor 
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/