At an hourlong economic theory talk at a conference, would you as an audience member be happier if a speaker
* gave two 30-minute talks in succession on different but related projects,
OR
* gave a standard economics talk, going deeply into one paper?
Reasons/comments/reflections welcome!
* gave two 30-minute talks in succession on different but related projects,
OR
* gave a standard economics talk, going deeply into one paper?
Reasons/comments/reflections welcome!
Comments
Especially if it is not a general audience. 1 hour is not that long to hear about someone's work in your field :). Conferences have a lot of short talks. It's nice to change the speed have the more typical longer talk and go deeper into the details of the paper.
As a speaker, doing that is harder and higher-variance, esp if people want to ask questions or seem lost.
Maybe the optimum is one 30 minute talk.
A secondary concern: Also need time to explore implications of the Coase theorem for your results. Okay, that is really a primary concern.
Ofc this is what we do on an indiv basis when walking out of the seminar room and going to a different session
Two or more if a general audience or a keynote