Writing effective proposals for METMs and MET workshops: abstracts, peer review and the MET(M) audience

Workshop review

Well ahead of the METM26 call for proposals deadline, a good group of MET members came together to find out how to produce an effective proposal, at a two-hour online workshop hosted by Laura Bennett. In the first half of the workshop, Wendy Baldwin and Louise Normandière explained the submission process for METM presentations (Wendy) and MET workshops (Louise).

Both Wendy and Louise started by emphasizing two important facts: that MET is above all a peer-to-peer association, and that METM newcomers can also present.

Wendy outlined the benefits of presenting to peers and potential barriers, then presented the METM26 theme “Voices heard and unheard” as a useful source of ideas for choosing a possible topic. She also pointed out that a presentation can serve as a stepping stone for a future workshop. We were given useful tips for the title – catchy and fun is good, but it must be informative – and were told that the best way to prepare an abstract is to consider the questions “what”, “why”, “how” and “who”, the same elements that make up a good news story. Finally, it’s helpful to get a second pair of eyes to look at it before submitting. The entire procedure for submitting a proposal and having it accepted was clarified, with links provided for guidance and deadlines.

Louise explained the practical aspect of MET workshops and how they differ from conference presentations in terms of length, format (in-person or online) and number of participants. Louise’s advice for choosing a topic resonated: “If it was useful to you, it may be useful to your peers” and “Don’t assume that your colleagues know what you know”. The steps involved in the workshop procedure were clarified, including piloting it in front of a small, live audience.

The second part of the workshop consisted of two breakout sessions in small groups. In the first breakout we looked at previous abstracts, for both presentations and workshops, and discussed strong points that caught our eye. In the second breakout we shared ideas for a possible presentation or workshop and got useful feedback from the other attendees.

By the end of the workshop I had a better understanding of what goes into an effective METM presentation or MET workshop proposal and a clear idea about how we can contribute to quality peer training. Some possible topics started to emerge in my mind, if not for this year, maybe for the next. If I get an idea in the shower, I’ll definitely get in touch!
 

Review by Eugenia Vasilopoulou