Okay, so I just wrote my last post mentioning the Impostor Syndrome, but realized that I haven't actually written about it before.
The Impostor Syndrome is a psychological phenomenon (not an illness or disease), whereby "people are unable to internalize their accomplishments" (thank you, Wikipedia.) It's oftentimes linked to the Dunning-Kroeger Effect, which I've posted about a little bit, here, right at the beginning of my blog. I've now convinced myself that the Dunning-Kroeger Effect is the positive, wonder-full closely-related flip-side-of-the-coin to the Impostor Syndrome, because when I'm feeling positive, and on top of my game, I really feel inspired and excited by recognizing that there is so much out there to read and learn and be exposed to, and so much that I don't know. Hundreds of years of other people's ideas and expressions and arguments and lessons and wisdom. It truly is an amazing time to live in, with the internet and interlibrary loans and blogs and journals, and being a part of academia. And then, when I'm feeling the full brunt of the Impostor Syndrome, all of that wonder kind of falls away, and instead those people or ideas who I admire, become unreachable, and become objects of terror and interrogation, because I might not be fully understanding them, or might be getting them wrong, and those are skivs that can be dug into my identity, my sense of being, and can be used as objects to prove that I don't belong where I am: that I am a fraud who doesn't deserve to be at this institution.
That is the Impostor Syndrome: that cycle of thoughts that tells you: You don't deserve to be in the program that you are, to have the position that you got, to earn as much as you do, to get the funding that you did, etc. And you feel like somewhere, someone is going to call you out for it, is going to embarrass you, is going to show the world that you really don't belong, and didn't, the entire time.
While discussing the sometime crippling tendencies for perfectionism in her awesome workbook for grad students, Laurie Waye employs the useful metaphor of the Cinderella Syndrome: "where you're at the ball (i.e. graduate school) but you don't really belong there. You're worried about being found out for who you really are..."
Reading on the Wikipedia page, I am not surprised to see that it was women (Pauline R. Clance and Suzanne A. Imes) who first began to do research on this phenomenon (their article was published in 1978), and showed that high-profile, successful women exhibited this phenomenon, believing that they were over-evaluated by others, and were not intelligent (Wikipedia).
Since then, a number of high profile people—not only women—have admitted to struggling with this phenomenon, including an actress and humanitarian who I highly admire: Emma Watson, who was recently named to be the UN Women's Goodwill Ambassador, and others like the formidable US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the writer Neil Gaimon. Other common demographics of people affected by it include (surprise!) graduate students, the beneficiaries of affirmative action (who think that they are chosen because of these 'exceptions', instead of their skills or abilities), and generally, successful folks.
Now, the tough part is that there is no 'cure' or solution for the phenomenon. The best thing to do is to talk about it, and be aware of it. To identify it. I know that I am grateful that it was discussed and mentioned by the staff person from Counselling Services for the graduate student orientation that took place right before the official start of my program here at UVic. I had never otherwise heard of it before, and certainly never felt it as strongly as I have over the past few months, during undergrad. One suggestion was to write actively about one's achievements, and while I don't think of it that way, one of my motivations (when I was writing excitedly about the Dunning-Kroeger Effect) was to keep track of all the wonderful things I get to do, experience, be a part of, during this graduate degree. Some of that includes marvellous things that are celebration worthy, like receiving great funding, and attending amazing conferences, and getting to spend time with brilliant colleagues and professors and ideas.
So, we need to be gentle with ourselves, and supportive of others. We need to take the positive side of competition, which is to help us become better people, and in this case, budding academics. Cheers to positive learning!
Friday, 25 July 2014
Sunday, 20 July 2014
Post 24: And then there are days...
... when it seems like you can't get anything done, and truly are your worst enemy. The logic goes something like this: "Well, I can't start writing this, because I'm not done with that part of it; where do I start then? But oh, can I do that? What if I can't do that? Is this the next best thing to do? I don't know if it is, so maybe I won't start there. Okay, so because (I think) I don't know what to do here, I'll just skip to the internet and poke around there..." And after an hour or so of reading news articles, and beating myself up for doing so, instead of "getting work done," I start to feel like I'm a fraud and a cheat, and like I don't deserve to be here, and I'm a fake, because surely this can't mean 'doing research.' And someone's going to call me out on it. Well, the reading articles on the internet sure isn't, unless they're vaguely linked to your thesis, but frequently they aren't. But thinking about novel ecosystems and the social construction of nature and how scientists study the mountain pine beetle, in my case, very much is! So much of doing qualitative research is iterative, with learning happening at various points and stages, some unpredictable, and there's always a gradual, almost imperceptible set of changes around the ideas that I'm forming, that my biggest job, sometimes, is keeping track of those changing ideas.
So, we all have bad days where we psych ourselves out of being able to get things done. I woke up with a headache this morning (which on its own, doesn't happen often), and that certainly doesn't help.
It might as well be raining indoors...
I think when we get into these ruts, I go back to making really simple goals, small tasks, starting from somewhere, because it's definitely better that getting stuck nowhere, with the Impostor Syndrome and the cycling, downward spiral of the psychological game that that is.
And, it's not easy to deal with at the best of times. I've been having a lousy work week, and finally yesterday I had a brief blip of light: I received a letter in the mail (an unexpected form for the message I was waiting for), that I had been appointed to the Environmental Advisory Committee of my local municipality. I had applied for this position via email over a month ago, and was waiting to hear. It was great news. I certainly think there are limits (and perhaps dangers) to depending on outside reassurance that I am capable and competent, but for now, it certainly is helpful. But a personal, ongoing project will need to be learning how to internalize my successes and achievements, so that I don't need to start from square one all over again. I am competent, and can achieve things, and be a part of something bigger than myself, along with other people who care about and share similar goals as me. Recognizing this doesn't mean that I can't be wrong, or can't make mistakes; all of those places are opportunities to learn something. With enough evidence and good arguments, we should always be open to changing our minds.
Could definitely use one of these and a cup of tea....
So. Here's to heading back to my follow-up interviews and having a good go at them.
So, we all have bad days where we psych ourselves out of being able to get things done. I woke up with a headache this morning (which on its own, doesn't happen often), and that certainly doesn't help.
I think when we get into these ruts, I go back to making really simple goals, small tasks, starting from somewhere, because it's definitely better that getting stuck nowhere, with the Impostor Syndrome and the cycling, downward spiral of the psychological game that that is.
And, it's not easy to deal with at the best of times. I've been having a lousy work week, and finally yesterday I had a brief blip of light: I received a letter in the mail (an unexpected form for the message I was waiting for), that I had been appointed to the Environmental Advisory Committee of my local municipality. I had applied for this position via email over a month ago, and was waiting to hear. It was great news. I certainly think there are limits (and perhaps dangers) to depending on outside reassurance that I am capable and competent, but for now, it certainly is helpful. But a personal, ongoing project will need to be learning how to internalize my successes and achievements, so that I don't need to start from square one all over again. I am competent, and can achieve things, and be a part of something bigger than myself, along with other people who care about and share similar goals as me. Recognizing this doesn't mean that I can't be wrong, or can't make mistakes; all of those places are opportunities to learn something. With enough evidence and good arguments, we should always be open to changing our minds.
So. Here's to heading back to my follow-up interviews and having a good go at them.
Friday, 18 July 2014
Post 23: Manuscript or Monograph Style Theses?
Somewhere in this process of undertaking a master's, this conversation starter came up: to do a manuscript or monograph style thesis? What's are they, what's the difference, what are the pros and cons of doing either (as I've encountered them so far...).
Well, to some extent, your thesis supervisor will have a lot of input into which one you write. Your specific topic and research questions will also influence the form that the thesis should take. Do you have two very specific and different research questions? It might be most suitable to tackle both in an article each. Or, if you have a bigger, over-arching research questions with a few subsidiary questions, it might be easier to tackle as a monograph. OR, it might just be the legacy of your supervisor's research group that manuscript or monograph styles are preferred.
In general terms, here are the differences between the two, and good things to consider:
Monograph style:
For this thesis, the chapters are styled similarly to a book. Chapter 1 will be an Introduction, Chapter 2 the Literature Review, Chapter 3 will cover your Methodology, Chapter 4 will cover your Results/Findings, Chapter 5 will be the Discussion/Conclusion of your findings. (Or something to that effect; the chapter numbers and contents can be shifted around with some flexibility. For example, Chapter 1 may be a combination of the introduction and literature review, and chapters 5 and 6 may take on the discussion and conclusions separately.)
The idea behind a monograph style thesis is that it's a chance for developing a long, fully fleshed out argument that provides an answer to the research questions that motivated the undertaking. As my supervisor promoted the form, he pointed out that we don't see this kind of long-form argumentation very much any more.
Benefits: This form is relatively easier to write than the manuscript style. It's also easier to transform research written in this form into a longer book-length publication.
Drawbacks: This form means that there is a bit more footwork to be done if you're turning your research into a journal article or two. More rewriting and restyling later down the road.
Quick break for flowers - these live on campus by the UVic Bookstore.
Manuscript style:
For a manuscript style thesis, the format will take shape something like this: Introduction, Methodology/Methods, Article 1 (with it's own Introduction, Methods, Findings, and Discussion), Article 2 (with it's own Introduction, Methods, Findings, and Discussion), and Conclusion. Each of the articles is styled like a journal article or pretty close to it, each beginning with an internal introduction, content, and conclusion.
As is covered in a different post, there are a few different kinds of journal articles, which my colleague Dr. Garrett Richards illustrated here. From what I've heard from a colleague, it's become trendier to write original research into a manuscript style thesis because this increases the chance of publication. Some of the 'chapters' in this thesis may be labelled with the monograph style headers, but the content can be quite different. So, Chapter 1 will be the general introduction, Chapter 2 will be article 1, Chapter 3, article 2, Chapter 4, the conclusion. The introduction and conclusion in this thesis style need to speak to both of the article chapters, and generally, the Introduction, Methods, and Conclusion will pull together the whole document.
Benefits: This form will relatively quickly line you up for publishing journal articles.
Drawbacks: Sometimes it can be difficult for new graduate students to translate their research into journal articles right away (hence the comment re: monograph style thesis above). Ultimately, these things seem to me to come down to time, and things you want to learn before you get out of the door.
The School of Environmental Studies, being a broad and interdisciplinary department (political ecology, ethnoecology, and ecological restoration being this department's three main pillars of research), certainly has students producing both styles of theses.
There also seems to be some departmental difference between the preference of thesis styles. In some, like biology (from what I understand) and other hard sciences, it is most common to write a manuscript style thesis. Sometimes the monograph style is said to be 'out of fashion', (and I've heard of a few stories where supervisors disparage the form that way) but again, keeping in mind what can be achieved with both styles is important, and will be helpful for deciding which will be more suitable for your work. Again, your supervisor will undoubtedly weigh in on this discussion. The goal for both forms of theses is to report your research findings; from there, it's choosing the best form. I think this is a good perspective to have: you will learn slightly different skills with either form, both of which will be valuable.
(PS: This post is not meant to be overly prescriptive: there will be differences among forms. A monograph style thesis may turn out with the results section being almost cut-and-past ready to drop into a journal article. Or, a manuscript style thesis still needs re-shifting, editing, cutting, to make the articles a better length for a target journal; depending on the journal, you may have a manuscript style thesis with two article chapters, each 10,000-12,000 words in length, but the target journals for each article have a maximum word count of 6,000-8,000 words. So, editing is still needed.)
As a graduate student, it is well worth the time to find theses from previous grads in your program. They can offer a guide and example of the kind that you'll be working towards. I've also found it extremely valuable and am grateful to the colleagues that have had long conversations with me about their process, tips, and advice. SO GOOD! :)
Well, to some extent, your thesis supervisor will have a lot of input into which one you write. Your specific topic and research questions will also influence the form that the thesis should take. Do you have two very specific and different research questions? It might be most suitable to tackle both in an article each. Or, if you have a bigger, over-arching research questions with a few subsidiary questions, it might be easier to tackle as a monograph. OR, it might just be the legacy of your supervisor's research group that manuscript or monograph styles are preferred.
In general terms, here are the differences between the two, and good things to consider:
Monograph style:
For this thesis, the chapters are styled similarly to a book. Chapter 1 will be an Introduction, Chapter 2 the Literature Review, Chapter 3 will cover your Methodology, Chapter 4 will cover your Results/Findings, Chapter 5 will be the Discussion/Conclusion of your findings. (Or something to that effect; the chapter numbers and contents can be shifted around with some flexibility. For example, Chapter 1 may be a combination of the introduction and literature review, and chapters 5 and 6 may take on the discussion and conclusions separately.)
The idea behind a monograph style thesis is that it's a chance for developing a long, fully fleshed out argument that provides an answer to the research questions that motivated the undertaking. As my supervisor promoted the form, he pointed out that we don't see this kind of long-form argumentation very much any more.
Benefits: This form is relatively easier to write than the manuscript style. It's also easier to transform research written in this form into a longer book-length publication.
Drawbacks: This form means that there is a bit more footwork to be done if you're turning your research into a journal article or two. More rewriting and restyling later down the road.
Manuscript style:
For a manuscript style thesis, the format will take shape something like this: Introduction, Methodology/Methods, Article 1 (with it's own Introduction, Methods, Findings, and Discussion), Article 2 (with it's own Introduction, Methods, Findings, and Discussion), and Conclusion. Each of the articles is styled like a journal article or pretty close to it, each beginning with an internal introduction, content, and conclusion.
As is covered in a different post, there are a few different kinds of journal articles, which my colleague Dr. Garrett Richards illustrated here. From what I've heard from a colleague, it's become trendier to write original research into a manuscript style thesis because this increases the chance of publication. Some of the 'chapters' in this thesis may be labelled with the monograph style headers, but the content can be quite different. So, Chapter 1 will be the general introduction, Chapter 2 will be article 1, Chapter 3, article 2, Chapter 4, the conclusion. The introduction and conclusion in this thesis style need to speak to both of the article chapters, and generally, the Introduction, Methods, and Conclusion will pull together the whole document.
Benefits: This form will relatively quickly line you up for publishing journal articles.
Drawbacks: Sometimes it can be difficult for new graduate students to translate their research into journal articles right away (hence the comment re: monograph style thesis above). Ultimately, these things seem to me to come down to time, and things you want to learn before you get out of the door.
The School of Environmental Studies, being a broad and interdisciplinary department (political ecology, ethnoecology, and ecological restoration being this department's three main pillars of research), certainly has students producing both styles of theses.
There also seems to be some departmental difference between the preference of thesis styles. In some, like biology (from what I understand) and other hard sciences, it is most common to write a manuscript style thesis. Sometimes the monograph style is said to be 'out of fashion', (and I've heard of a few stories where supervisors disparage the form that way) but again, keeping in mind what can be achieved with both styles is important, and will be helpful for deciding which will be more suitable for your work. Again, your supervisor will undoubtedly weigh in on this discussion. The goal for both forms of theses is to report your research findings; from there, it's choosing the best form. I think this is a good perspective to have: you will learn slightly different skills with either form, both of which will be valuable.
(PS: This post is not meant to be overly prescriptive: there will be differences among forms. A monograph style thesis may turn out with the results section being almost cut-and-past ready to drop into a journal article. Or, a manuscript style thesis still needs re-shifting, editing, cutting, to make the articles a better length for a target journal; depending on the journal, you may have a manuscript style thesis with two article chapters, each 10,000-12,000 words in length, but the target journals for each article have a maximum word count of 6,000-8,000 words. So, editing is still needed.)
As a graduate student, it is well worth the time to find theses from previous grads in your program. They can offer a guide and example of the kind that you'll be working towards. I've also found it extremely valuable and am grateful to the colleagues that have had long conversations with me about their process, tips, and advice. SO GOOD! :)
Monday, 7 July 2014
Post 22: Parkinson's Law of Procrastination and Pomodoros
Okay, so the law isn't necessarily directly tied to procrastination, but one of my colleagues pointed out that was a natural consequence of the law.
Parkinson's law (according to Wikipedia) is the phenomenon where work expands to fill the time available for its completion. People, who know that their deadline for a given project is in a week, will take the whole week to finish said project, even if it should have (and could have) taken less time. It's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Cyril Northcote Parkinson, British naval historian and writer, identified the phenomenon that carries his name in an essay he penned in 1955 for The Economist. Originally the essay that discussed the effect pointed out to the consequences for the efficiency of work, and since then, a number of further elucidated points arise, including this one, which more directly speaks to the point above: "The amount of time one that one has to perform a task is the amount of time it will take to complete a task."
And further: "If one waits to the last minute, it will only take a minute to do" (Pannett, Dines, & Day, 2013, p. 65).
This is what I feel I deal with as a graduate student all the time! Where, if I don't structure my day, or set myself small goals throughout the day, the amount of work and time spent being productive drastically decreases, because, Hey, I have the whole day to do it, right? (Without defining what 'it' is...) It's a trap!
In one of my recent attendances at the Thesis Completion Group, the organizer brought up the Pomodoro Technique, which are 25 minute blocks of uninterrupted, dedicated working time, split by 5 minute breaks (short) or ten minute breaks (long); or, a food break as you need it. The idea was developed by Italian Francesco Cirillo, who believed that taking frequent breaks led to better mental functioning and agility. Breaking up big blocks of time into these little patches of really concrete work time can be an awesome way to break up the day, and get lots done! (For example, writing a short blog post!) I've been thinking a lot more about how I structure my time and day since learning about Pomodoros, and I've found them to be quite effective, especially when I build them around bigger breaks or markers in my day, such as when I leave work, or take lunch.
So, if you, like me, struggle with Parkinson's Law, try a Pomodoro, or two, or three, and get to using your time to your advantage. After all, theses don't write themselves, and as a graduate student, you are your main deadline setter!
AND -- if you want to become a Pomodoro master, have a short look at this short video. There is also a book for the technique, but I don't think it's necessary to purchase. The technique as described above and in the video, are more than enough to start thinking about, and changing the structure of your time.
Wednesday, 2 July 2014
Post 20: Being Young, and Asking for a Better Future
One of the resounding messages that I feel I've been left with after the Impact! 2014 Youth Leadership in Sustainability Conference is that we need more stories that make sustainability come alive. And then I have a whole host of questions to accompany that: what does sustainability look like? How does it translate to someone doing something in the world? What possibilities exist for me in my position? How do I make sustainability and environmental issues generally, more visible for other people?
Since retiring from being a professional astronaut, Commander Chris Hadfield has been making the best of the skills and experiences he built in his career as an astronaut. And he is an amazing storyteller. I think griping people—as he did me—with stories about his lessons learned and unique perspectives because of looking at our planet from the International Space Station, which essentially embodies the 'pale blue dot' idea that Carl Sagan first wrote about, he has a lot of really valid things to say when it comes to sustainability, addressing climate change, and using human agency as a force for good in the world.
I appreciate his storytelling. The talk he gave at the conference was immensely engrossing. All of this makes me wonder about the imagination that we currently have about the future of environmental and climate issues. Where do we see positive and useful examples of a different future? Who do we have changing our imaginations about what's possible? What do humans' actions on the planet and towards our ecosystems indicate for our values, and our general impact on the planet? What do we do if we find we're stuck in paradigms that don't work any more? How will people respond to "novel ecosystems," or assemblages of new plant and animal species that challenge traditional management techniques and ask us to examine our values when we look at the species that fill our waterways, backyards, and roadside ditches?
I think that we live in an exciting time. I am really intrigued by what the future holds: engineered ecosystems, novel ecosystems, adaptive cities. Dear world, please bring me the better future I'm looking for, where people and other species, animal and plant alike, get along a little bit better, share resources and thrive alongside each other. And in the meantime, I suppose I'll keep writing my letters, signing petitions, and asking for the better world that in glimpses, I sometimes see.
Since retiring from being a professional astronaut, Commander Chris Hadfield has been making the best of the skills and experiences he built in his career as an astronaut. And he is an amazing storyteller. I think griping people—as he did me—with stories about his lessons learned and unique perspectives because of looking at our planet from the International Space Station, which essentially embodies the 'pale blue dot' idea that Carl Sagan first wrote about, he has a lot of really valid things to say when it comes to sustainability, addressing climate change, and using human agency as a force for good in the world.
 |
| Gorgeous arbutus (Arbutus menziesii) on my walk down to Cadboro Bay. |
I think that we live in an exciting time. I am really intrigued by what the future holds: engineered ecosystems, novel ecosystems, adaptive cities. Dear world, please bring me the better future I'm looking for, where people and other species, animal and plant alike, get along a little bit better, share resources and thrive alongside each other. And in the meantime, I suppose I'll keep writing my letters, signing petitions, and asking for the better world that in glimpses, I sometimes see.
Monday, 30 June 2014
Post 21: Fieldwork Readiness and Prep!
This morning as I packed my bags for school, I was excited to head to campus to meet some of my colleagues and bring them a little surprise. Yesterday while grocery shopping I bought a big packet of Twizzlers (remembering that Mary loves them), and for those who might not be so into gummy strawberry-flavoured sticks, I got a couple Turtles and a packet of Smarties. I had a jolt of joy thinking about the delight I hope the gift will bring.
The summer is that time of year when a lot of graduate students head to to collect their data, and this summer is no exception for the School of Environmental Studies.
Throw-back to my time in the mountains: Hard at work writing field notes!
(Photo credit: Mary Sanseverino)
For some, this process started already a few months ago, and the halls of the buildings become doubly quiet: first from the undergraduate students that no longer visit professors, sessional instructors and teaching assistants during their office hours as classes find their end in April, and then when the grad students take to the mountains and oceans and communities in which they conduct their studies.
Last year I packed my rental vehicle and drove from the Kootenays to Prince George and back, and made another trip to Edmonton to visit the lovely folks that I was interviewing about the mountain pine beetle. I had my recording device, spare batteries, interview questions, my usb cards, a notebook, the casual professional clothing I was going to wear, my driver's license, money, everything I thought I needed for that trip. And, here's where maybe my best advice for going into the field: do your planning and prep for your field work as soon in advance as possible. You don't want to be scrambling in the last few hours before a big (or even small, but important) trip, sometimes to places where you'll have limited access to resources. For last year, my recording device, batteries, and interview questions were super key to the success of my trip. This year, being a supporter (a small one) for the MLP crew, I thought they needed some treats in the car on their drive; the rest was up to them. :) So, with that in mind, the other tips below are suggestions from when I spent time in the mountainous field with MLP, and the ones above, from my social science, qualitative interviews field work last year. Your approach is probably your best tool to being prepared. :)
Two great examples of being prepped for the weather: sandals for the
black sand beach just outside of Hana, Maui.
...and sunglasses and a windbreaker to brave the chilly
winds at 10,000 feet on top of Haleakala, Maui!
This year marks the two year anniversary since my field season with the Mountain Legacy Project (MLP), who were gathering their gear and packing the truck for this year's two-team outing!
My self-set task this year was to be supportive and to provide some tips; what's best to bring and pack when you're going to be spending 8 weeks in the mountains?
Some of my top suggestions for this work (definitely reminiscent of this blog post for MLP):
-earplugs (for entering and exiting the helicopters, when it's is so, so loud!! And, you never know when some bird will wake you at 5AM and you can't quite get back to sleep, or when a bunkmate might snore....)
-longjohns (it's several degrees cooler at elevation)
-fleece sweaters and a windbreaker and layers (frequently breezy, which affects core temperature due to abovementioned point)
-make sure to get enough sleep, eat enough food, drink and pack enough water
-take lots of photos and keep a journal to record all those special moments
-a hat, bug spray, and polarized sunglasses
-a couple of your own bandaids
-NO cotton; cotton gets cold when wet, and can contribute to hypothermia in the right conditions. Unless you're somewhere super hot and humid, you're better off with breathable, layered clothes that aren't cotton, in the mountains
Sorting out account log-in information for the blog has brought me into nostalgia mode: how fun that summer was, spending time with Jenna and Mary and the big big mountainous landscapes of BC and Alberta. Huge pockets of rain cells that you could see and avoid in the helicopters. The big shadow splotches of clouds on the forests and mountain sides, that bring texture and richness to a landscape's colour. The quiet. The buzzing insects, pollinating and zipping around at 8000+ feet, causing me to wonder how on earth they survive up there. The mosquitos and their ferocity (and the difference with being on the wind- or lee-ward side of a slope). The birds-eye view from the helicopter, and the bits of fun and banter with the pilots.
So much fun! Wishing them all the very best and a great field season for 2014!
The summer is that time of year when a lot of graduate students head to to collect their data, and this summer is no exception for the School of Environmental Studies.
(Photo credit: Mary Sanseverino)
For some, this process started already a few months ago, and the halls of the buildings become doubly quiet: first from the undergraduate students that no longer visit professors, sessional instructors and teaching assistants during their office hours as classes find their end in April, and then when the grad students take to the mountains and oceans and communities in which they conduct their studies.
Last year I packed my rental vehicle and drove from the Kootenays to Prince George and back, and made another trip to Edmonton to visit the lovely folks that I was interviewing about the mountain pine beetle. I had my recording device, spare batteries, interview questions, my usb cards, a notebook, the casual professional clothing I was going to wear, my driver's license, money, everything I thought I needed for that trip. And, here's where maybe my best advice for going into the field: do your planning and prep for your field work as soon in advance as possible. You don't want to be scrambling in the last few hours before a big (or even small, but important) trip, sometimes to places where you'll have limited access to resources. For last year, my recording device, batteries, and interview questions were super key to the success of my trip. This year, being a supporter (a small one) for the MLP crew, I thought they needed some treats in the car on their drive; the rest was up to them. :) So, with that in mind, the other tips below are suggestions from when I spent time in the mountainous field with MLP, and the ones above, from my social science, qualitative interviews field work last year. Your approach is probably your best tool to being prepared. :)
black sand beach just outside of Hana, Maui.
winds at 10,000 feet on top of Haleakala, Maui!
This year marks the two year anniversary since my field season with the Mountain Legacy Project (MLP), who were gathering their gear and packing the truck for this year's two-team outing!
My self-set task this year was to be supportive and to provide some tips; what's best to bring and pack when you're going to be spending 8 weeks in the mountains?
Some of my top suggestions for this work (definitely reminiscent of this blog post for MLP):
-earplugs (for entering and exiting the helicopters, when it's is so, so loud!! And, you never know when some bird will wake you at 5AM and you can't quite get back to sleep, or when a bunkmate might snore....)
-longjohns (it's several degrees cooler at elevation)
-fleece sweaters and a windbreaker and layers (frequently breezy, which affects core temperature due to abovementioned point)
-make sure to get enough sleep, eat enough food, drink and pack enough water
-take lots of photos and keep a journal to record all those special moments
-a hat, bug spray, and polarized sunglasses
-a couple of your own bandaids
-NO cotton; cotton gets cold when wet, and can contribute to hypothermia in the right conditions. Unless you're somewhere super hot and humid, you're better off with breathable, layered clothes that aren't cotton, in the mountains
Sorting out account log-in information for the blog has brought me into nostalgia mode: how fun that summer was, spending time with Jenna and Mary and the big big mountainous landscapes of BC and Alberta. Huge pockets of rain cells that you could see and avoid in the helicopters. The big shadow splotches of clouds on the forests and mountain sides, that bring texture and richness to a landscape's colour. The quiet. The buzzing insects, pollinating and zipping around at 8000+ feet, causing me to wonder how on earth they survive up there. The mosquitos and their ferocity (and the difference with being on the wind- or lee-ward side of a slope). The birds-eye view from the helicopter, and the bits of fun and banter with the pilots.
So much fun! Wishing them all the very best and a great field season for 2014!
Tuesday, 10 June 2014
Post 19: Impact! 2014 and Student Leadership in Sustainability
When was the last time that you stood in a room full of 175 people, knowing you could turn to any of them, and strike up an interesting conversation? For me, that was 3 weeks ago at the Impact! 2014 Youth Leadership in Sustainability Conference. WOW --- what a blast!
One of many, many jottings and scribblings and ideas and
collaborative discussions noted at Impact!
Even now, a couple weeks after returning from Guelph, I feel optimistic and recharged and amazed at the variety of ideas young people have for tackling sustainability! Alongside the boundless energy, optimism, and we-can-do-this attitude, there were hundreds of great ideas. Everything from a sticker campaign to try to get people to use only one sheet of paper towel in washrooms (which reminded me of these really powerful social media campaigns), to a national campaign on climate change education in schools by the symbolic turning off of lights for a day with the Lights Out Canada campaign to someone wanting to design a game-style app to help people keep track of and decrease their personal C02 use, to founding a cooperative, to starting a bike coop... and innumerable other brilliant ideas!!!
If you are a young person with a concern for the trajectory of the planet, apply to attend next year. It will change your life. I am so so so glad that I went. If you want a supportive environment, and be connected to funds that will help you carry out your sustainability ideas, go. (There is a fund you can apply for to help you undertake your projects, post-conference.)
For the rest of this post I'll talk about a few highlights from the conference, including the structure, but I won't be able to talk about all the good things; the post will get too long. I may return to this in the future again.
The conference was essentially a three day adventure of conversations and brain food.
We arrived Friday afternoon, and were shuttled to Guelph from the Toronto International Airport. We put our things away in our residence rooms on campus, then marched across the small campus to the hall where dinner and the opening panel was starting.
We heard from Elizabeth Thompson, the Executive Coordinator of Rio +20; Toby Heaps, the President of Corporate Knights Inc.; and David Miller, the CEO of the World Wildlife Fund. Each brought their own and wide-ranging perspectives on climate change, sustainability, and assessment of where we are now. From hearing about some very neat sounding ideas (like governments of the future having a Ministry of Tomorrow) and sharing nuggets of wisdom, like (I'm paraphrasing here), "For people who think the little things don't matter, just remind them of what it's like to be bitten by a mosquito." (This, particularly relevant for folks who don't think the small initiatives like petitions for social change make a difference.) And, as young people, we were encouraged to not let ourselves be ignored. Our voices count just as much as any CEO or voting citizen or business owner. We should not feel a need to apologize for our views and our concerns, and we should use the clarity of our visions to instigate social change, and ask for what we want in a better future.
Yes, a lot of it was a call to action, but it was also incredibly encouraging.
We walked past the beautiful president's house every morning
on our way to breakfast and the conference.
The next morning, up early. All 175 of us had been split into ten sustainability challenge groups; mine was Canadian Resource Development. For the first 3 hours of the morning we basically griped about what we disliked about the current energy systems in Canada. A lot of discussion about the tar sands and oil and gas production came up, a lot about pipelines, a little bit about coal, and then a number of comments about the systemic issues of how these energy systems are integrated into society, as well as the lack of support/progress with renewable energies.
The first few hours of the afternoon were spent imaging Canadian resource development 30 years from now. Where would we be? What would we have? How would society be organized around energy production then? All sorts of things came up. About have the comments were directly aimed at renewable energies that don't produce greenhouse gases (GHGs), and the other half were comments about social conditions, like having a functioning democracy, and bettering communication.
The last part of the activity was a two-parter: discussing which factors enabled and which factors disabled our current resource development from reaching that future state.
It was an awesome day, with a wide variety of comments. In my group we had students from engineering, and chemistry, philosophy and other social sciences—an awesome spread of views and perspectives that led to a really rich discussion. The name of this day-long activity: back-casting. You assess the current state, imagine a future (utopic) state, and think about how you can get there and what's preventing you from getting there.
The next day we had Commander Chris Hadfield come and speak to us. What an amazing speaker with a powerful message: collaboration can lead us to do great things, like putting an international space station (ISS) in the sky, and sending a man to the moon. He showed a number of images of the earth from the ISS, including one snapped of the great lakes and Guelph. You couldn't see that city from the image, but that was kind of the point. You couldn't see a lot of things from there: roads, houses, borders, security checks, etc. It reminded me a lot of Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" -- and the perspective that makes us realize we're all on Spaceship Earth together. It's us and this tiny little planet, hurtling through space at 25,000 km/hr, and so we better work together to make the best of our time here. His talk was really a call for taking personal responsibility seriously: if I don't choose to make change, then how can I ask someone else to?
Commander Hadfield teared up when we gave him a standing ovation. After 25+ years of being an astronaut, and much of it spent out of the country, he was really touched by our appreciation and expression of gratitude towards him.
Commander Chris Hadfield receiving his t-shirt! :) Looks to
be about the right size!
We had a World Cafe where people could bring forward project ideas and receive feedback from three different groups or students as we rotated through the hall; in the evening we also had an African drum session which was a great way to do something physical after all the brain work and thinking.
On the last day, we had wrap-up speech by Chad Park, the Executive Director of The Natural Step. The main two points he wanted to make were:
1. Believe. Be passionate, powerful, and know you are right.
2. Be empathetic. Listen. Know that you are wrong.
And he spent the talk unpacking what he meant by those two statements, including busting some myths about sustainability (such as it simply meaning to do 'less bad,' [it isn't, it's meant to be a movement of finding ways to do more good, and to help more people]) and encouraging us to call out people who try to get away with lazy sustainability.
Overall, one of the most important aspects of the conference was meeting a whole bunch of like-minded people who are so motivated to make change, that, echoing one of the rhetorical questions by one of the student leaders, I feel compelled to ask myself, What excuse do I have not to act?
collaborative discussions noted at Impact!
Even now, a couple weeks after returning from Guelph, I feel optimistic and recharged and amazed at the variety of ideas young people have for tackling sustainability! Alongside the boundless energy, optimism, and we-can-do-this attitude, there were hundreds of great ideas. Everything from a sticker campaign to try to get people to use only one sheet of paper towel in washrooms (which reminded me of these really powerful social media campaigns), to a national campaign on climate change education in schools by the symbolic turning off of lights for a day with the Lights Out Canada campaign to someone wanting to design a game-style app to help people keep track of and decrease their personal C02 use, to founding a cooperative, to starting a bike coop... and innumerable other brilliant ideas!!!
If you are a young person with a concern for the trajectory of the planet, apply to attend next year. It will change your life. I am so so so glad that I went. If you want a supportive environment, and be connected to funds that will help you carry out your sustainability ideas, go. (There is a fund you can apply for to help you undertake your projects, post-conference.)
For the rest of this post I'll talk about a few highlights from the conference, including the structure, but I won't be able to talk about all the good things; the post will get too long. I may return to this in the future again.
The conference was essentially a three day adventure of conversations and brain food.
We arrived Friday afternoon, and were shuttled to Guelph from the Toronto International Airport. We put our things away in our residence rooms on campus, then marched across the small campus to the hall where dinner and the opening panel was starting.
We heard from Elizabeth Thompson, the Executive Coordinator of Rio +20; Toby Heaps, the President of Corporate Knights Inc.; and David Miller, the CEO of the World Wildlife Fund. Each brought their own and wide-ranging perspectives on climate change, sustainability, and assessment of where we are now. From hearing about some very neat sounding ideas (like governments of the future having a Ministry of Tomorrow) and sharing nuggets of wisdom, like (I'm paraphrasing here), "For people who think the little things don't matter, just remind them of what it's like to be bitten by a mosquito." (This, particularly relevant for folks who don't think the small initiatives like petitions for social change make a difference.) And, as young people, we were encouraged to not let ourselves be ignored. Our voices count just as much as any CEO or voting citizen or business owner. We should not feel a need to apologize for our views and our concerns, and we should use the clarity of our visions to instigate social change, and ask for what we want in a better future.
Yes, a lot of it was a call to action, but it was also incredibly encouraging.
on our way to breakfast and the conference.
The next morning, up early. All 175 of us had been split into ten sustainability challenge groups; mine was Canadian Resource Development. For the first 3 hours of the morning we basically griped about what we disliked about the current energy systems in Canada. A lot of discussion about the tar sands and oil and gas production came up, a lot about pipelines, a little bit about coal, and then a number of comments about the systemic issues of how these energy systems are integrated into society, as well as the lack of support/progress with renewable energies.
The first few hours of the afternoon were spent imaging Canadian resource development 30 years from now. Where would we be? What would we have? How would society be organized around energy production then? All sorts of things came up. About have the comments were directly aimed at renewable energies that don't produce greenhouse gases (GHGs), and the other half were comments about social conditions, like having a functioning democracy, and bettering communication.
The last part of the activity was a two-parter: discussing which factors enabled and which factors disabled our current resource development from reaching that future state.
It was an awesome day, with a wide variety of comments. In my group we had students from engineering, and chemistry, philosophy and other social sciences—an awesome spread of views and perspectives that led to a really rich discussion. The name of this day-long activity: back-casting. You assess the current state, imagine a future (utopic) state, and think about how you can get there and what's preventing you from getting there.
The next day we had Commander Chris Hadfield come and speak to us. What an amazing speaker with a powerful message: collaboration can lead us to do great things, like putting an international space station (ISS) in the sky, and sending a man to the moon. He showed a number of images of the earth from the ISS, including one snapped of the great lakes and Guelph. You couldn't see that city from the image, but that was kind of the point. You couldn't see a lot of things from there: roads, houses, borders, security checks, etc. It reminded me a lot of Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" -- and the perspective that makes us realize we're all on Spaceship Earth together. It's us and this tiny little planet, hurtling through space at 25,000 km/hr, and so we better work together to make the best of our time here. His talk was really a call for taking personal responsibility seriously: if I don't choose to make change, then how can I ask someone else to?
Commander Hadfield teared up when we gave him a standing ovation. After 25+ years of being an astronaut, and much of it spent out of the country, he was really touched by our appreciation and expression of gratitude towards him.
be about the right size!
We had a World Cafe where people could bring forward project ideas and receive feedback from three different groups or students as we rotated through the hall; in the evening we also had an African drum session which was a great way to do something physical after all the brain work and thinking.
On the last day, we had wrap-up speech by Chad Park, the Executive Director of The Natural Step. The main two points he wanted to make were:
1. Believe. Be passionate, powerful, and know you are right.
2. Be empathetic. Listen. Know that you are wrong.
And he spent the talk unpacking what he meant by those two statements, including busting some myths about sustainability (such as it simply meaning to do 'less bad,' [it isn't, it's meant to be a movement of finding ways to do more good, and to help more people]) and encouraging us to call out people who try to get away with lazy sustainability.
Overall, one of the most important aspects of the conference was meeting a whole bunch of like-minded people who are so motivated to make change, that, echoing one of the rhetorical questions by one of the student leaders, I feel compelled to ask myself, What excuse do I have not to act?
Sunday, 11 May 2014
Post 18: What is Methodology?
I've been stewing over this question for the last 12 months or so, and more seriously the last 8, because I've been trying to figure out, What is methodology for my project?
I had a meeting with my committee in September, where I outlined a few books I would read in order to help me answer this question, and among them: Hugh Gusterson's "Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the end of the Cold War"; Sharon Traweek's "Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists"; Donna Haraway's "Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science", and a couple other texts that I'm still working my way through, including "States of Knowledge: The co-production of science and social order," edited by Sheila Jasanoff, and "Actor Network Theory and after" by John Law and John Hassard.
Trying to understand and track down what methodology is, is not very easy. I've spoken with a number of different people, to find that I'm easily discouraged by the somewhat contradictory things I've heard: there are so many different ideas of what methodology is! (And from what I understand, it's very much the experience of a master's trying to figure out, What is methodology.). So, despair not if you're like me, and struggling to sort this all out.
One friend's advice? It doesn't make sense to stew about methodology in the abstract. It will make a lot more sense by the time that you start to sit down and ready yourself for writing, because it'll help direct you for what you need to say. And I think that now that I feel like I'm on the brink of starting to get everything together, that makes a lot of sense. (Now would be a great time for a research methods and methodology class!)
Here, Google's definition:
"Methodology is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a field of study, or the theoretical analysis of the body of methods and principles associated with a branch of knowledge. It, typically, encompasses concepts such as paradigm, theoretical model, phases and quantitative or qualitative techniques.[1]
A methodology does not set out to provide solutions but offers the theoretical underpinning for understanding which method, set of methods or so called “best practices” can be applied to a specific case.
A pause for some bright swamp lantern (Symplocarpus foetidus).
It has been defined also as follows:
Which kinds of gets us somewhere, but I certainly struggled to make heads or tails of this definition months ago.
Some people said really confusing things like 'methodology is interchangeable with methods, but that doesn't make sense to me. The methods that I'm using are semi-structured interviews (my primary method), along with selective document analysis, and journaling. So, there's something missing here that isn't captured by just saying methodology is the set of methods that I'm using.
What I've arrived to more recently, is deciding that methodology means 'approach', and being able to justify why you made the decisions you made, including which methods to go with (empirical, qualitative, quantitative, etc), and why that suite of methods together, in order to best answer the research questions you posed.
So, where does that leave me? I've been trying to articulate my approach to myself for some time now. I interviewed scientists directly because the kinds of perspectives and ideas I wanted to know are not apparent in the published work that's publicly available. I wanted to focus on the intersection of the mountain pine beetle and scientists because I wanted to be sensitive to other non-human beings and their influence on the practice and perspectives of humans -- does the scale of the ecological/environmental change associated with the beetle challenge or change any of the key perspectives of scientists, and what does that look like? In so doing, I needed to read widely and deeply about the mountain pine beetle, and hone in on a group or network of scientists that I thought would be manageable to interview. I decided to focus on what I saw as a coming together of 5 research hubs, some closely linked, others not so, and I think it went reasonably well. Of course there are other people that I would have loved to interview, but as it was, there were only so many positive responses that I received, and could proceed with.
The other major focus of my thesis project has been the concept of novel ecosystems, and I speculate that the mountain pine beetle moving into the boreal forest (an ecosystem it's never historically been in, from what scientists can see), is a hybrid ecosystem with novel characteristics (following a classification system outlined by recent work done for the concept). I'm still trying to grapple with the dimensions and differences with the epidemic and endemic mountain pine beetle population patterns, and what that means for the idea of the novel ecosystem.
Now, I'm also preoccupied with describing the key relationships I saw forming and developing because of research that ensued in the context of climate change and the the climate-exacerbated mountain pine beetle, and what that tells us about scientists' capacities for change and adaptation, and where that is applicable elsewhere! There were a number of comments about the 'novel' habitat of the mountain pine beetle; my analysis will need to make sense of exactly how that relates to my ideas of the novel ecosystems concept.
My methodological approach will help me to explain why I focused on the information out there as I did, why I then went on to analyze my interviews and look for certain themes and ideas arising (as well as others that emerged from the interviews), and to reconcile that with the shaping ideas that I have forming from the whole process of undertaking such an empirical, qualitative study.
So, I feel like while I have sort of been able to describe for myself what my idea of methodology is, sorting that out will need a little bit more care in the coming weeks as I wrap up analyzing my interviews and laying out my thesis and writing.
I was reading somewhere the other day again in Laurie Waye's Thesis Handbook (apologies, I was quickly looking into the text, and don't have it with me currently), who mentioned that there will undoubtedly be a lot more research that I've done that won't make it into the thesis. There are also countless methodologies and methods that one can use -- different lenses, if you'll permit the analogy a la Haraway, that can be used to undertake projects and interpret data, so, it really comes down to committing to one and running with it. Students who struggle to complete their theses are likely those who dig too broadly, instead of focusing and digging in deep, and in part, that really resonates with me.
So, here's to sorting out just a little bit more, exactly what my lens and my approach is in the coming little while!
I had a meeting with my committee in September, where I outlined a few books I would read in order to help me answer this question, and among them: Hugh Gusterson's "Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the end of the Cold War"; Sharon Traweek's "Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists"; Donna Haraway's "Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science", and a couple other texts that I'm still working my way through, including "States of Knowledge: The co-production of science and social order," edited by Sheila Jasanoff, and "Actor Network Theory and after" by John Law and John Hassard.
Trying to understand and track down what methodology is, is not very easy. I've spoken with a number of different people, to find that I'm easily discouraged by the somewhat contradictory things I've heard: there are so many different ideas of what methodology is! (And from what I understand, it's very much the experience of a master's trying to figure out, What is methodology.). So, despair not if you're like me, and struggling to sort this all out.
One friend's advice? It doesn't make sense to stew about methodology in the abstract. It will make a lot more sense by the time that you start to sit down and ready yourself for writing, because it'll help direct you for what you need to say. And I think that now that I feel like I'm on the brink of starting to get everything together, that makes a lot of sense. (Now would be a great time for a research methods and methodology class!)
Here, Google's definition:
"Methodology is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a field of study, or the theoretical analysis of the body of methods and principles associated with a branch of knowledge. It, typically, encompasses concepts such as paradigm, theoretical model, phases and quantitative or qualitative techniques.[1]
A methodology does not set out to provide solutions but offers the theoretical underpinning for understanding which method, set of methods or so called “best practices” can be applied to a specific case.
It has been defined also as follows:
- "the analysis of the principles of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline";[2]
- "the systematic study of methods that are, can be, or have been applied within a discipline";[2]
- "the study or description of methods".[3]"
Which kinds of gets us somewhere, but I certainly struggled to make heads or tails of this definition months ago.
Some people said really confusing things like 'methodology is interchangeable with methods, but that doesn't make sense to me. The methods that I'm using are semi-structured interviews (my primary method), along with selective document analysis, and journaling. So, there's something missing here that isn't captured by just saying methodology is the set of methods that I'm using.
What I've arrived to more recently, is deciding that methodology means 'approach', and being able to justify why you made the decisions you made, including which methods to go with (empirical, qualitative, quantitative, etc), and why that suite of methods together, in order to best answer the research questions you posed.
So, where does that leave me? I've been trying to articulate my approach to myself for some time now. I interviewed scientists directly because the kinds of perspectives and ideas I wanted to know are not apparent in the published work that's publicly available. I wanted to focus on the intersection of the mountain pine beetle and scientists because I wanted to be sensitive to other non-human beings and their influence on the practice and perspectives of humans -- does the scale of the ecological/environmental change associated with the beetle challenge or change any of the key perspectives of scientists, and what does that look like? In so doing, I needed to read widely and deeply about the mountain pine beetle, and hone in on a group or network of scientists that I thought would be manageable to interview. I decided to focus on what I saw as a coming together of 5 research hubs, some closely linked, others not so, and I think it went reasonably well. Of course there are other people that I would have loved to interview, but as it was, there were only so many positive responses that I received, and could proceed with.
The other major focus of my thesis project has been the concept of novel ecosystems, and I speculate that the mountain pine beetle moving into the boreal forest (an ecosystem it's never historically been in, from what scientists can see), is a hybrid ecosystem with novel characteristics (following a classification system outlined by recent work done for the concept). I'm still trying to grapple with the dimensions and differences with the epidemic and endemic mountain pine beetle population patterns, and what that means for the idea of the novel ecosystem.
Now, I'm also preoccupied with describing the key relationships I saw forming and developing because of research that ensued in the context of climate change and the the climate-exacerbated mountain pine beetle, and what that tells us about scientists' capacities for change and adaptation, and where that is applicable elsewhere! There were a number of comments about the 'novel' habitat of the mountain pine beetle; my analysis will need to make sense of exactly how that relates to my ideas of the novel ecosystems concept.
My methodological approach will help me to explain why I focused on the information out there as I did, why I then went on to analyze my interviews and look for certain themes and ideas arising (as well as others that emerged from the interviews), and to reconcile that with the shaping ideas that I have forming from the whole process of undertaking such an empirical, qualitative study.
So, I feel like while I have sort of been able to describe for myself what my idea of methodology is, sorting that out will need a little bit more care in the coming weeks as I wrap up analyzing my interviews and laying out my thesis and writing.
I was reading somewhere the other day again in Laurie Waye's Thesis Handbook (apologies, I was quickly looking into the text, and don't have it with me currently), who mentioned that there will undoubtedly be a lot more research that I've done that won't make it into the thesis. There are also countless methodologies and methods that one can use -- different lenses, if you'll permit the analogy a la Haraway, that can be used to undertake projects and interpret data, so, it really comes down to committing to one and running with it. Students who struggle to complete their theses are likely those who dig too broadly, instead of focusing and digging in deep, and in part, that really resonates with me.
So, here's to sorting out just a little bit more, exactly what my lens and my approach is in the coming little while!
Tuesday, 6 May 2014
Post 17: Bike to Work Week
Bike to Work Week is COMING!!!
What is it? A week that celebrates, encourages, and supports new and seasoned cyclists who are on our roads. This is an event that happens all over the place: not just in Victoria, but across the country. Victoria has an amazing system of collaboration and support with all sorts of prizes and events during the week.
This year is extra special because it's the 20th year anniversary for the Victoria Bike to Work Week group.
Cycling down near Oak Bay in Victoria, BC! :)
So aside from feeling awesome and encouraged about riding a bike—or tricycle, or a reclining bike—there are tons of opportunities to grab goodies and enter draw prizes and get a free tune-up at the Celebration Stations all throughout the week. They are held twice a day, in the morning and the evening, catching cyclists on their way to and from work. Or, you can do as I did last year, and minimally lengthen commute routes to hit a couple that aren't normally on your way to campus.
This year there's also a new Celebration MEGA-Station on May 31st (Saturday), from 1-4 PM at Centennial Square, to celebrate and recognize all the people and organizations that help to make (and have helped over the past 20 years) BTWW a success.
There are a number of courses on offer before the event, if you are interested in boosting your skills or confidence level, for kids and adults both.
It's been a cause of joy for me to see the weather warming and improving rapidly in Victoria, and I've already been cycling around more. Goodness knows I'll need to boost my bike-fitness a little bit more to brave riding up the steep Foul Bay Road hill to get to campus.
Otherwise, I've been laying out my thesis, and trying to account for the important pieces that I'll need to write, and that work has actually been fun. It's amazing what a load it is off my mind (and chest) to start putting things on paper. There's a lovely creative process there: once I put down the things I've been carrying in my head on paper, then I'm free to massage more out of what's there, as well as have new ideas or elaborations work out from what I've already got. I suppose this feels like more familiar territory that the terror of 'doing research' in the abstract, and questioning what that means all the time.
I'm trying to sign up for the Thesis Completion Group that's run through Counselling Services on campus here, over the summer. I'd tried to in the fall, but it was already full then; we'll see if a few spots have opened up for the coming months.
Cheers to writing and planning and data analysis with the sun providing an abundance of softer, natural light in my office!
****
Quick update post-event:
BTWW was fantastic! We had a great turnout, with 5 first-time participants, and we certainly outdid ourselves by having a much bigger team than last year. I also had a lot of help organizing and keeping track of everyone's statistics with 2 of my colleagues, and they did a great job, too!
We saved about 321 kg of C02 from everyone biking over the week, and we biked a cumulative 1566 kms over the week, with 138 unique trips. Way to go! Fantastic BTWW 2014. :)
What is it? A week that celebrates, encourages, and supports new and seasoned cyclists who are on our roads. This is an event that happens all over the place: not just in Victoria, but across the country. Victoria has an amazing system of collaboration and support with all sorts of prizes and events during the week.
This year is extra special because it's the 20th year anniversary for the Victoria Bike to Work Week group.
So aside from feeling awesome and encouraged about riding a bike—or tricycle, or a reclining bike—there are tons of opportunities to grab goodies and enter draw prizes and get a free tune-up at the Celebration Stations all throughout the week. They are held twice a day, in the morning and the evening, catching cyclists on their way to and from work. Or, you can do as I did last year, and minimally lengthen commute routes to hit a couple that aren't normally on your way to campus.
This year there's also a new Celebration MEGA-Station on May 31st (Saturday), from 1-4 PM at Centennial Square, to celebrate and recognize all the people and organizations that help to make (and have helped over the past 20 years) BTWW a success.
There are a number of courses on offer before the event, if you are interested in boosting your skills or confidence level, for kids and adults both.
It's been a cause of joy for me to see the weather warming and improving rapidly in Victoria, and I've already been cycling around more. Goodness knows I'll need to boost my bike-fitness a little bit more to brave riding up the steep Foul Bay Road hill to get to campus.
Otherwise, I've been laying out my thesis, and trying to account for the important pieces that I'll need to write, and that work has actually been fun. It's amazing what a load it is off my mind (and chest) to start putting things on paper. There's a lovely creative process there: once I put down the things I've been carrying in my head on paper, then I'm free to massage more out of what's there, as well as have new ideas or elaborations work out from what I've already got. I suppose this feels like more familiar territory that the terror of 'doing research' in the abstract, and questioning what that means all the time.
I'm trying to sign up for the Thesis Completion Group that's run through Counselling Services on campus here, over the summer. I'd tried to in the fall, but it was already full then; we'll see if a few spots have opened up for the coming months.
Cheers to writing and planning and data analysis with the sun providing an abundance of softer, natural light in my office!
****
Quick update post-event:
BTWW was fantastic! We had a great turnout, with 5 first-time participants, and we certainly outdid ourselves by having a much bigger team than last year. I also had a lot of help organizing and keeping track of everyone's statistics with 2 of my colleagues, and they did a great job, too!
We saved about 321 kg of C02 from everyone biking over the week, and we biked a cumulative 1566 kms over the week, with 138 unique trips. Way to go! Fantastic BTWW 2014. :)
Friday, 2 May 2014
Post 16: PICS Symposium and Sharing Research
I am one of the fortunate graduate students to be funded by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, and almost two years into the funding, I feel really appreciative of the annual Fellowship Symposium, which this year was held on Tuesday, April 29th in Vancouver.
While I felt the amplified though usual nerves I face when readying for a presentation (it's been several months since I've had to formally present on my research), the sense of relief and enjoyment I felt half way through the day, having spent my 10 minutes at the centre of attention, was delightful. I very much relaxed into being able to laugh freely, and listen to other fellows' research, see students, some of whom I recognized from last year, another who I'd worked with for CONFORWest, and another simply a PhD student who's quirkiness caught me last time, and this time made me cheer for him: he was submitting his thesis in two days' time.
I think the best part of the day was getting out of my skin to listen to the ideas others had. It was such a treat to hear Geoff Dembicki speak: his excellent Tyee series "Are We Screwed?" has him writing a compelling group of articles, trying to answer what he sees as the question of our times. I also heard from Cara Pike of the Social Capital Project, and James Glave from Clean Energy Canada, both of whom had projects conducting qualitative research trying to understand some aspects of rural Canadians perspective on climate change, energy, the environment, related policies, and the future.
After a well-charged morning those intriguing talks that left me feeling more clear-sighted and as though I were more squarely facing climate change and feeling decent about the direction of my research, it was time to face down the mental and physical challenge of staring down my talking slot. And, as always happens when slipped into a group of speakers, that time came altogether too quickly, and the next thing I knew, I was staring at the mike, trying to keep my breathing in order so that I could speak.
At this point in time, I am glad for the many times I've gone over my talk. By this time my reliance on what I've written on my piece of paper (thankfully not shaking because it's glued to the podium at the front), has usually diminished, so I feel I can risk looking up a few times, or, as Dr. Tom Pederson, the director of PICS, encouraged me: think of the back of the room.
And, all at once, all that I planned and practiced came out in less than 10 minutes, and I was sitting back in my seat, waiting for the last two speakers before questions. All good.
So, looking back on the day, I feel lucky to be part of a research community filled with so many bright students! And I'm grateful that PICS takes the time to set aside a day in the year where we can all meet (being from different institutions, that doesn't always happen.) I can also wonder exactly about how to write my own thesis, and question what elements of 'developing stories that other people can see themselves in' I can incorporate into my research adventure. How to tell the story of scientists, climate change, and the mountain pine beetle? I'm trying to figure out just how much and how far I can use Actor-Network-Theory, or ANT, to do just that, and write a different kind of accounting from the human-dominating-nature kind of mythologies we see around us all the time.
While I felt the amplified though usual nerves I face when readying for a presentation (it's been several months since I've had to formally present on my research), the sense of relief and enjoyment I felt half way through the day, having spent my 10 minutes at the centre of attention, was delightful. I very much relaxed into being able to laugh freely, and listen to other fellows' research, see students, some of whom I recognized from last year, another who I'd worked with for CONFORWest, and another simply a PhD student who's quirkiness caught me last time, and this time made me cheer for him: he was submitting his thesis in two days' time.
I think the best part of the day was getting out of my skin to listen to the ideas others had. It was such a treat to hear Geoff Dembicki speak: his excellent Tyee series "Are We Screwed?" has him writing a compelling group of articles, trying to answer what he sees as the question of our times. I also heard from Cara Pike of the Social Capital Project, and James Glave from Clean Energy Canada, both of whom had projects conducting qualitative research trying to understand some aspects of rural Canadians perspective on climate change, energy, the environment, related policies, and the future.
After a well-charged morning those intriguing talks that left me feeling more clear-sighted and as though I were more squarely facing climate change and feeling decent about the direction of my research, it was time to face down the mental and physical challenge of staring down my talking slot. And, as always happens when slipped into a group of speakers, that time came altogether too quickly, and the next thing I knew, I was staring at the mike, trying to keep my breathing in order so that I could speak.
 |
| Not quite at the symposium, but presenting my poster at the Western Division of the Canadian Association of Geographers (WDCAG), Spring 2014 |
At this point in time, I am glad for the many times I've gone over my talk. By this time my reliance on what I've written on my piece of paper (thankfully not shaking because it's glued to the podium at the front), has usually diminished, so I feel I can risk looking up a few times, or, as Dr. Tom Pederson, the director of PICS, encouraged me: think of the back of the room.
And, all at once, all that I planned and practiced came out in less than 10 minutes, and I was sitting back in my seat, waiting for the last two speakers before questions. All good.
So, looking back on the day, I feel lucky to be part of a research community filled with so many bright students! And I'm grateful that PICS takes the time to set aside a day in the year where we can all meet (being from different institutions, that doesn't always happen.) I can also wonder exactly about how to write my own thesis, and question what elements of 'developing stories that other people can see themselves in' I can incorporate into my research adventure. How to tell the story of scientists, climate change, and the mountain pine beetle? I'm trying to figure out just how much and how far I can use Actor-Network-Theory, or ANT, to do just that, and write a different kind of accounting from the human-dominating-nature kind of mythologies we see around us all the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)