Month: July 2022

Drafting our formal reports was a surprising process. While the report’s tone and intended audience required some formality, I was surprised at multiple points at how simple creating the report could be. These realizations occurred during my research, writing, and peer reviewing.

Concerning my research, sources providing relevant information can come from unexpected, but still credible places. Instead of more generic study that discussed climate projections and history for Kelowna in a global context, my cited climate projections came from a study about how climate projections could effect Kelowna’s wine industry. Climate change’s effects on Kelowna’s wine industry feel absurdly out of scope for my report on how to manage Mission Creek’s water levels, but the common point was the study’s climate projections, which I was using to draw conclusions relevant to my report.

Perhaps the biggest learning from this is to not dismiss a possible source because it does not cover the exact same questions you do. As an undergraduate, a source covering a very similar topic can be ideal, as it gives your claims authority and shows your knowledge of the literature. But as you create more original research beyond your undergraduate, you will draw from unexpected places by necessity, so it was interesting to a taste of that for this project.

I had a similar unexpected experience drafting my report, especially when I was discussing my survey data. Before I started, I thought this section would be a laborious and taxing process. It may have been if I had more expertise in data analysis, but I found describing the data surprisingly straightforward and slightly entertaining. I did not need to make highly technical assessments like what the standard deviation or Z-score was. It was effective enough to describe the data and make small remarks like “75% answered this way, overwhelming more than the previous answer.” Giving that context, I then only had to interpret my reported findings in my interpretation section. From this, I would say that a data section of a report is not as scary as I thought it was, and can be more relaxed In the future when preparing for it.

Lastly, reviewing my peer’s work made me realize how simple our proposals for the report could be. While I am investigating a semi-complex topic, involving climate projections, construction costs and public perception, my colleague was examining how feasible it would be for an ice cream shop to add dairy-free ice cream to their offerings. I realized I tend to be highly ambitious in what I want to cover, so what I should keep in mind in the future is to consider how long the report can be, and match my topic accordingly.

Formal Report

This unit has given me many intriguing realizations. The first concerns online networking. Researching online networking strategies was very interesting, because I found they parallel real-life networking. I’ve almost entirely used social media as a supplement to interacting with people I already know. For example, most people who follow me on Instagram are people I’ve met in real life. I’ve never used social media as my main source of making new connections. Having read these strategies though, I feel more confident about meeting new people via social media, because I’ve realized its like real life: I need to find groups and spaces with common interests, introduce myself via mutual connections where possible, and tell the other person what I find cool about them, or what we can each gain from collaborating.

Another area of reflection this unit has been brainstorming my formal report outline and proposal. For these assignments, I think the key point is to be diligent but not over-ambitious. In my case for example, its easy to think I will be able to research climate projections, the cost of water pumps, heightening dikes, collect and interpret survey data, and then fit all that information into 12-15 pages. However, I always find one section of a paper always take up more space than you imagined, so it’s more than likely the report’s final draft will omit a section.

The last area of reflection is the peer-review process, both reading others’ work, and suggesting edits. One thing I’ve noticed in others’ writing is when they are writing about something they are knowledgeable of, they tend to focus on technical correctness. Reviewing Konstantin’s proposal, he used the terms “nodes”, “edges”, and “graphic visualizations.” While these are likely terms with specific meanings within the realm of computers and technology, this level of technical correctness was initially confusing to me as layperson. Applying this to my own writing, it reminds me that I will often be sacrificing technical correctness for simplicity, because you want to documents to generally reach as wide an audience as possible. Likewise, reading others’ work, and getting feedback on my writing has put my it in context. I am very self conscious and constantly desire perfection in my writing. The downside of this, is I often feel if it is not perfect, then it is not good. Yet from peer review, others have noted my writing’s strengths, and crucially, have given an outside view of ways I can improve. Reading others’ work as well, I see what effective things they do, which I can incorporate into my writing. This all makes me more confident about my writing, and less self-conscious.

Konstantin’s Peer Review of Leif’s Proposal

Revised Research Proposal