Research Presentation Development

How do I turn a research report into a presentation?

Not by exporting it. Start from the narrative spine and write the headline sequence as plain text before laying out a single slide: if the argument does not hold from the headlines alone, it will not hold in the room. Then open on the decision the audience faces, state the answer in the first three slides, give each slide one idea, and move the objectives and method to the appendix unless the audience is technical. The report holds the detail, which is what allows the deck to be sparse.

Should a presentation deck be sparse or detailed?

It depends on an input most people never state: whether the deck is delivered live, read alone, or both. A live deck is sparse, because the presenter carries the argument. A read-alone deck must contain what the presenter would have said, because they are not there. There are three legitimate resolutions: build two decks, build one with substantive speaker notes, or build a deliberately designed read-alone deck and talk around it. The failure is choosing none of them and producing a deck that is 60% dense, too heavy to present and too thin to forward, which is where most research decks land.

What makes a good slide headline?

A claim with a verb, true of that slide and nothing more, that survives being forwarded with no chart attached. "Shopper Frequency" is a label. "Weekly shoppers have become fortnightly shoppers, and basket size has not compensated" is a headline. Headlines are the most-read text in any deck, because they are what people photograph and forward, so they carry the same discipline as report headlines: no causation the design does not license, no behaviour inferred from stated preference, no trend in a single-wave study.

How many slides should a research presentation have?

Fewer than you think. A substantive slide with a chart and a point to make takes two to three minutes to present properly, and a contested one takes longer. Reserve a third of a decision session for discussion, because that is where a decision session does its work. For a 45-minute session that means roughly 14 slides in the main flow, with everything else in an appendix. A useful discipline is to cut to two thirds of the available time before the first rehearsal, because rehearsal always adds.

What should I cut when a deck is too long?

Cut in this order: whole slides before content within slides, supporting findings before the argument, and detail before evidence. Never cut base sizes, confidence markers or the contradicting finding. Trimming within slides is how a deck loses its qualifications while keeping its length, which is the worst possible outcome. What comes out goes to the appendix or the report, which is one reason both should exist.

Should I put the conclusion at the start or the end of a presentation?

The start. An audience that does not know where the argument is going evaluates each slide independently and challenges early, which is how sessions get lost in the first ten minutes on a methodological point that slide four would have made irrelevant. State the decision at stake, then the answer with its confidence level, then build the argument. Withholding the conclusion for effect is a device from a different genre.

What belongs in the appendix of a research deck?

Material that answers a question you expect someone to ask: full tables, method and sample detail, the instrument as fielded, wave comparison detail, and findings analysed but not central to the argument. Order it by anticipated question and give it a contents slide, because an appendix nobody can search during a live session does not exist. What never belongs there is a material finding or a limitation that changes how the argument should be read. The tell of that error is a presenter saying "there is more on that in the appendix" about something that matters.

How do I prepare for challenges to my findings in a debrief?

Build the question list specifically rather than generically: name the methodological challenge to the finding with the biggest cost implication, the stakeholder whose area is not covered, the operations lead whose own data disagrees. Then decide where each answer lives: in the flow, in a small annotation on the slide, in the appendix, or in your head. Base sizes and test status placed on the slide pre-empt most methodological challenges for free. Improvised answers cost more credibility in a room than any weakness in the finding itself.

How dense should a research slide be?

One dominant element per slide, and everything else visibly subordinate. Three elements at the same visual weight is the commonest slide defect, because it makes the audience choose where to look. Two type sizes and two weights are enough. Whitespace is the strongest emphasis device available and it is free: a slide that feels empty in the file reads as confident in the room, while density reads as anxiety. A live slide carries roughly one chart and one headline.

Should I show what the research could not establish?

Yes, on a slide in the main flow rather than in the appendix. It names the objectives not answered, the questions the evidence cannot settle, and any contradiction left unresolved. It is the slide that most improves how the rest of the deck is heard, because an audience that learns late that a question went unanswered stops trusting what came before. It is also, reliably, where the next brief comes from.