A panel discussion puts three to five people on a stage with a moderator and a subject, and asks them to talk about it in front of a room. It is the format most often added to a programme late, on the reasoning that it needs no preparation, and it is the format that most reliably disappoints, for exactly that reason.
What a panel is for
Disagreement. A panel earns its slot when the people on it hold genuinely different positions and are willing to say so, because that is the one thing a room cannot get from a talk. Four people agreeing pleasantly for an hour is a format failure regardless of how well each of them speaks.
The corollary is that panellists should be chosen for the position they hold rather than for their seniority or their availability. A panel assembled from whoever was already speaking that day will agree, because they were all selected by the same committee for the same programme.
What the moderator actually does
The work is before the session, not during it. A moderator who has spoken to each panellist beforehand knows where the disagreements are and can go straight to them; one who has not spends the first half of the hour discovering them in public.
During the session the job is unglamorous: keep introductions short, stop the panellist who is delivering a prepared talk, bring in the one who has not spoken for ten minutes, and hold the question period open rather than letting it become three more panel answers.
A panel is a moderator’s session, not the panellists’.
Where it goes wrong
Introductions that eat the session. Five people describing their careers is ten minutes gone before anything has been discussed. The fix is a moderator who reads two sentences per person, which requires having written them.
Questions that are statements. The recurring failure of the question period, and the one that empties a room fastest. A moderator can prevent it by taking questions in writing or by being willing to interrupt.
Too many panellists. Six people in sixty minutes is nine minutes each, which is not a conversation. Three is usually better than five.
Running the question period
The last fifteen minutes decide how the session is remembered, and they are the part most often left to chance. Two arrangements work. Taking questions in writing, collected during the session and read by the moderator, removes the person who wants to make a speech and lets the moderator choose an order. Taking them from the floor is livelier and needs a moderator willing to interrupt.
The rule worth stating aloud at the start of the period is that a question ends with a question mark. Saying it costs five seconds, it gets a laugh, and it visibly shortens the statements that follow.
Directing a question at a named panellist rather than at the row is the other half of it. An open question produces four answers of decreasing usefulness; a directed one produces an answer and then, if it is worth having, a disagreement.
When to programme one, and when not to
Programme one when a real disagreement exists and can be staffed. Do not programme one to fill a slot, to include speakers who could not be given talks, or to cover a subject nobody has offered a talk on, because a panel needs more preparation than a talk rather than less.
The other reason panels appear is to add names to a programme cheaply, which is a scheduling decision covered on organising a conference.
What it is confused with
A fishbowl. A structured conversation the audience can join by taking an empty chair, which is a different thing entirely. See fishbowl discussion.
A question-and-answer session. One person answering, not several discussing. The preparation is entirely different and the moderator’s job is much lighter.
The rest of the vocabulary is in the glossary, and where a panel sits in a day is on programme and tracks.
Questions
What is a panel discussion?
Three to five people on a stage with a moderator and a subject, talking about it in front of a room. It earns its slot only when the people on it genuinely disagree, because disagreement is the one thing a room cannot get from a talk.
How many panellists is right?
Three, usually. Five is workable with a firm moderator. Six in an hour is nine minutes each, which is a series of short statements rather than a conversation.
What does a good moderator do?
Most of the work before the session: speaking to each panellist to find where the disagreements are. During it, keeping introductions to two sentences, stopping anyone delivering a prepared talk, and protecting the question period from becoming three more answers.
Why do panels so often disappoint?
Because they are added late on the assumption that they need no preparation, when they need more than a talk does. An unprepared panel spends most of its hour on introductions and each panellist restating a position, and never reaches an exchange.
When should an event not programme a panel?
To fill a slot, to find room for speakers who were not given talks, or to cover a subject nobody proposed a talk on. All three produce a panel that agrees, and a panel that agrees is an hour the room could have spent elsewhere.