The Scene

It’s a scene many will be familiar with. You’re in the first meeting of a large class, committee, or workshop series, and the lead says “let’s start with everyone saying their name and subject or role”. Everyone in the room is suddenly expected to conform: say your name, and watch everyone else do the same. What purpose does this form of introduction truly serve? If introductions are supposed to build connection, little is achieved in the fleeting few seconds afforded by ritual name-rounds in large group settings. This post argues that it’s time to ditch ritual name-rounds for large groups. As I posit here, the received tradition of the ritual name-round is neither inclusive nor effective at fostering genuine connection. If you are still using it as a method, it is time for a rethink, and this post offers some alternatives.

The Problem

I’ll be honest, I have never found ritual name-rounds in large groups particularly helpful or inclusive – they feel perfunctory and lacking in genuine connection. Anecdotally, I know I’m not alone. Even if I didn’t know, it is often quickly gleaned from participants’ faces or voices as they say their name looking down or into the air, or more quietly, awkwardly, or hastily than they may typically express themselves. We should want everyone in the room to feel confident and at ease, but that confidence is supported by building meaningful connection, which is not facilitated by a recital of names. Even if it was, does hearing twenty names in succession truly help us remember anyone?

In small groups, an immediate round of introductions can work very well. Everyone has time to say something meaningful about themselves and real social connections can be formed. But in large groups, ritual name-rounds risk turning the important social work of introductions into something shallow, dull, and performative. Large groups are also more likely to be skewed by imbalances in the power and privilege of position and background, turning a moment of introduction into a moment of pronounced hierarchy and quick judgements.

As Pillet-Shore (2011) has observed, ‘introductions are a form of social work – deciding what identifying information to share, how to categorise oneself, how one is remembered – and mere perfunctory name-rounds in large groups risk skipping that work altogether’. In other words, while the intention may be to include everyone and break the ice, in practice neither goal may be fully achieved. Ritual name-rounds assume a certain equality of comfort and confidence that simply does not exist. They can also reinforce ableist and normative assumptions, offering scant opportunity to learn people’s pronouns and placing anxiety on neurodivergent participants. As Twomey (2025) has pointed out in a previous EDI blog post, such anxiety can make this an alienating rather than connecting activity. This anxiety is unnecessary. Name-rounds in large groups build very little connection, especially when some participants may simply want to get it over with, may disengage once their part is done, or may be rehearsing their own part in the ritual while others are speaking.

The Solution: Alternative Methods

When I lead large classes or meetings, I almost never begin with a ritual name-round. Instead, I aim to plan and design my introductions to build meaningful connection rather than place my participants in potentially awkward, performative postures.

My starting point is always purpose. What do I actually want the introduction to achieve? Am I trying to help participants feel comfortable with one another for a semester of collaboration together? Do I want a committee to value the range of expertise and perspectives in the room? The form of introduction should match the purpose.

Here are some methods that have worked well in my own practice:

1. Small group introductions. Ask people to introduce themselves in groups of three. I find this helps participants comfortably mix, even if they arrived with someone else. Providing prompts, such as sharing ‘the last book you read for pleasure’ or ‘your favourite song or film’ can also help get people talking.

2. Purpose-driven prompts. I find these particularly useful in professional or developmental-oriented meetings, such as with PGRs or colleagues. Prompts such as ‘what do you want to gain from this?’ can encourage reflection, openness, and share learning outcomes. Alternatively, a light prompt, such as ‘share an unusual fact about yourself’, can be fun – within reason. Any prompts that can help people relax, smile, or laugh are generally good calls.

3. Introduce the person next to you. Pair participants and have them introduce each other to the wider group. When I have done this, I have also walked around the room, to help it feel relaxed and conversational. This method helps shift the focus away from self-presentation to connection.

4. Rethink the timing. Consider skipping introductions at the start altogether. If that sounds radical, more reason to try it! In some workshops, I begin with a task, activity, or short discussion, only asking participants to introduce themselves later once they have already spoken and interacted. The introductions then feel natural, not forced.

To aid inclusivity, I generally let participants know what to expect in advance, so that they are prepared, so whatever you choose, I would suggest defining your approach in preparatory information or an agenda for the session.

The key in the methods detailed here is that conversation comes first. I find this really, genuinely helps break ice, for everyone. In part, I think this is because participants are effectively talking within the context of the large group setting but in their smaller groups or via the purposeful flow of an agenda, which then more naturally builds towards whole-group discussion. By fostering real conversations, these approaches reduce anxiety, increase comfort levels and build connections in a way that ritual name-rounds are unlikely to achieve.

Of course, I would much rather have a facilitator who cares enough to include everyone, whatever the method, than one who only centres themselves. But good intentions do not necessitate good outcomes. A well-intentioned method can still be ineffective and counterintuitive. The tradition of ritual name-rounds in large group settings may be time-tested but that does not necessarily make it the most effective or the one true method. If the aim of an introduction is to build connection, let’s do it thoughtfully, inclusively, purposefully – for everyone.

References:

Katie Twomey, ‘Autistic burnout’, EDI Blog, 11 Mar 2025. Available at: https://blogs.manchester.ac.uk/edi/2025/03/11/katie-twomey-autistic-burnout [Accessed 20.10.2025].

Pillet-Shore, D. (2011). Doing Introductions: The Work Involved in Meeting Someone New. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 73–95.

Related