Self - Designed Assignment #2: Podcast

Upon the event of my first committee meeting and my abstract/introduction being approved, I completed a self-designed assessment. As I believe I have mentioned previously, I created a podcast about what role C. elegans have in the larger scheme of biological research and I ended the podcast with snippets from my interview with Dr. James Noonan - a physician who was diagnosed with Lewy Body Disease and Parkinson's Disease about 10 years ago.

Before delving into an analysis of what I did, I just want to say that I am really really not good at podcasting. And every time I did a podcast last year, as well as this time, I'm always confused as to why on earth I even tried. The purpose this time however, was a little more clear to me regardless of the sub-par results.

Throughout all of my time in emc, one of the most remarkable things that I've been able to do is try new things without having to count the cost or wondering if my grade is high enough that in the event I fail, my transcript won't get hurt too badly. And I know this isn't the first podcast I've done for emc but it was the first podcast I did of my own accord since the ones I did last year were all assigned podcasts. Anyway, the point is that I wanted to give it another try because this medium of an SDA requires effective communication and that's probably one of the most difficult things for me.

That said though, the outcome wasn't as great as a happy ending usually implies. But rest assured, Mr. Bott promised that he would teach me how to podcast (what he really meant is that he would teach me how to speak) so we're working on it.

Okay, time for the 5 C's test...

1) Collaboration - In contrast to my first SDA, I think I was able to utilize this C fairly well. The interview I completed with Dr. Noonan was extremely insightful and inspiring. He was very open to answering my questions and telling me about his experience. One of the things that I really appreciated from him which I wasn't able to include in the podcast was that he doesn't drive anymore so he's usually stuck in his house, which, granted, he admitted gave him depression but that he knows physical activity and medication help. At first, this seemed like simply a conscious decision to do what works and considering Dr. Noonan's background as a physician, it's a no-brainer. But then I really thought about the magnitude of this mentality that he has towards his neurological state. In people with things like Lewy Body and Parkinson's Disease, it is really nothing more than a matter of time until the disease(s) take over. But this man, throughout a 10 year diagnosis, has upheld as full a life as possible and to hear that, was beyond amazing to me. I honestly cannot imagine what people go through in any neurological disease. I mean, I can imagine what their brains go through physiologically, but I can't even begin to comprehend what they go through psychologically. This was an aspect I tried to kind of meddle with last year, but I don't think I was quite ready to see how something quite so earth shattering would affect people not just as human anatomies, but as people. And honestly, I'm not sure I was ready this time or that anyone is ever ready/able to understand such a reality but I think over time, it's impossible to ignore the very reason why any neurological research happens - human suffering. So as far as the interview/collaboration part of the SDA goes, I think that went pretty well.

2) Creativity - In terms of branching out to different mediums and doing something I'm not totally comfortable with, I suppose I was creative in that sense but I think I could have done far more with respect to creativity in this SDA as a whole. There was so much opportunity to play with the background music in different parts of the podcast or write a more stylistic piece for my narration in the beginning but I did not really follow through. I don't think I can blame my creative deficiencies on lack of time because I was the one who set the due date and I also didn't feel terribly rushed. It could be that schoolwork, college applications, and emc along with other commitments are burning me out so I'm not putting as much deep thought into my work but honestly, I think the true reason is that I may have become overly attached to the scientific writing I was working with for my paper. This may sound a little convoluted but hear me out. I think I found comfort in the plain-ness of my thesis work and let myself slack a bit in terms of creativity. Even though this assignment was not a written piece, I can still feel that I didn't try as hard as I could to make it creative. What confuses me though is that I expected myself to feel confined by scientific writing but the reality became that I was too comfortable and this in turn made me forget the vital role of creativity throughout my work. But a problem isn't fixed simply by it's identification - what can I do to change this tendency of falling back into what's easy? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is to do SDAs more often than after each section of the paper. Even if they aren't official SDAs with these lengthy reflections, I think small things like finding a way to explain glial cells with a plate of jello - little mini SDAs (in addition of course to big, official SDAs) to keep this project fun and creative will help me to maintain an innovative spirit.

3) Critical Thinking - Since this C lacks a universal definition, here's mine; the ability to consider something on a level deeper than the entity's factual basis. So, in an example of my case, I can think about the literal and procedural progression from worm research to human research, or I can critically think about how those facts apply to a project like mine, how they affect the humans that this research is being done for, etc. In my opinion, on a technical level, I used critical thinking in my podcast because I was forced to since I somehow had to bridge the gap between my narration and the interview with Dr. Noonan. But to be completely honest, I felt that it was a weak bridge. You could understand/anticipate where I was going and my thoughts about the different relationships I outlined were relatively clear but as a whole, it just felt weak. I'm not sure there's any other way to say it. Especially with critical thinking, I think a part falls on the person creating the product and the person consuming it. I have that responsibility to do my own critical thinking when producing my SDA but I also have to produce it in a way that when someone is looking at/listening to it, they see evidence of my own critical thinking by their perception of the connections made and the coherence of the piece. I don't know if that makes sense. I think what I'm trying to say is that my level of thought should be evident in how much the viewer has to think about the project's design. Like, there are projects where the viewer "sees where you're going with this." And then, there are other projects that make the viewer say, "huh, I never thought of it like that." I think my project entailed more of the former than the latter sentiment. So I know I used critical thinking, but it wasn't in the most creative or thorough manner.

4) Curiosity - While I think every step of my journey so far has been replete with curiosity, I think this SDA revealed to me an offshoot into a generally new area of that original curiosity. My interview with Dr. Noonan was really eye-opening and it made me curious to understand how people deal with neurological diseases. It was pretty incredible to hear his personal take on it, but after speaking with Dr. Noonan, I began to feel as though I had spent a lot of time trying to separate two largely inseparable things. And I am proceeding through this remark with caution because I came to this same realization at some point last year but after trying to pursue it, it didn't really end well. But honestly, taking some time to highlight the progression of biological research and seeing that C. elegans were just the beginning, I saw not only the world of possibility to come from nematodes, but also that the two - humans and worms are not as insular from one another as I might have originally thought. I'm not sure if I will act upon my curiosity towards the different experiences of people with neurological diseases, but it's definitely an interesting perspective to take into consideration.

5) Communication - ...Ooff... *shakes head*

All I can really say in good conscience is, at least I tried. This C in combination with the podcast form of SDA that I chose to do, had the ability to make or break my final product and I think it may have broken it. In short, I'm not very good at speaking. It is possible that had my voice been more dynamic and active, the podcast would have come out better but this past week has been quite the track record of bad communication skills. From a confusing and unclear committee meeting to this monotone/sleepy-voiced podcast, I think we can all agree that communication is the most difficult C for me. The problem is that it's also probably the most important C for someone in science because the work done is completely useless unless it is communicated to others effectively. Like I mentioned above, this podcast was a red flag for communication/speaking and we will be working on it but I am kind of tempted to redo my podcast. Although I will not, I have been forbidden from doing so, I think it might be helpful to do another podcast in the middle and at the end of the year to track my progress in this particular respect. They don't have to be full-on SDAs but like I mentioned above, simple, quick things that periodically check progress and ensure that writing an academic paper doesn't lessen my creativity or communication skills.

This SDA was a rough one, that is evident. But I think the fact that I have some ideas in place to fix the things which went wrong signify at the very least, a desire to improve.