Author: shakti ramkumar

In Unit 3, the main assignment was to draft our Formal Research Reports. I found this a challenging process, as it involved many external components that needed to come together in time for a fixed due date. For example, several of my planned interviews were rescheduled at the last minute to later weeks, and I was left without data to report in my draft. Likewise, interviews that did take place often led me into new and interesting directions of research, which I felt I unfortunately couldn’t pursue as I had already committed to a certain topic, scope, and research direction in my report proposal. However, writing the report made me realize I had a lot more information and insight than I had previously thought, and I was able to put together a complete and detailed report draft. As I have found throughout this term, the peer review process is the most valuable aspect of crafting assignments, as we so rarely receive feedback in classes where there is an opportunity to make the suggested revisions before finally submitting.

Research

The research process for my formal report included reviewing reports and digging deep into website archives to find relevant information about UBC’s Climate Action Plan, Greenhouse Gas Emissions targets, and sustainable food initiatives. I also used the Interview questions I had created previously to conduct my interviews. I found, not surprisingly, that it was often difficult to follow the exact sequence of questions I had planned to, as the interviewees often said something that required an unplanned follow-up question. However, I used what I’ve learned in other classes about interview techniques: ask open-ended questions, come with twenty questions being prepared to ask only ten of them, and make sure the questions are fair and standard across all interview subjects. Following these best practices, I was able to complete a comprehensive and smooth research process.

Organization

Organizing my report was challenging, as I often felt the need to explain various acronyms, groups, and projects so that the report would be accessible to anyone who reads it, including my peer reviewer and soon the course instructor. However, part of our task is also to direct this report to a specific audience, which in my case is someone working within the relevant institution who would likely find all this explanation completely unnecessary. To resolve this issue, I focused on being concise, not using too many acronyms and report titles, and using straightforward language that used the ‘YOU’ writing principles. Being strict with myself about length restrictions was a rewarding challenge, as I believe the final product is stronger, and still accessible for a general audience, without over-explaining things for the technical reader.

Writing

Writing the report was a fairly straightforward process after I had made a very detailed outline and gathered all the necessary information from research and interviews. One challenge I faced was to maintain an engaging active voice while not using pronouns according to the Writing with ‘YOU’ principles. I felt that some of my sentences were written in passive voice, which isn’t as interesting for the reader, so I am still working on employing the active voice more. Another issue I faced with removing ‘I’ and ‘we’ pronouns was due to my education in Geography, which emphasizes the importance of situating oneself in one’s research – no matter how technical or formal – to make it clear that knowledge and insights written in the paper ultimately come from a subjective source with a particular point of view – me. This is important to me, as so much of what is considered credible and important literature in the world has come from a Western, colonial perspective, but has been presented as universal knowledge. This applies especially to technical and science writing that has critical human implications. Navigating this while writing with a ‘YOU’ attitude that recommends removing pronouns has been challenging, but I am trying to honour both teachings by avoiding ‘objective’ declarative statements by investigating more closely whether they are indisputable facts or subjective recommendations.

Peer Review Process

My peer reviewer, Erin, provided valuable feedback that I will incorporate into my final report. I found feedback on cutting large blocks of text and suggestions on grammar and flow particularly helpful, as it is often easy to miss or repeat mistakes when reading your own work repeatedly. I also enjoyed the process of peer reviewing Erin’s report as it was a completely different topic from my own, and a different method of data collection as well. I provided helpful suggestions on formatting (such as how to present headings and subheadings in the Table of Contents to be more intuitive), as well as style and flow edits. I also tried to help by checking if the writing in the report matched the intended technical audience by being concise as possible (as we were told to assume our reader was very busy), and that the information was organized in a logical and clear way visually.

Attached: Formal Report Draft

MEMORANDUM

From: Shakti Ramkumar
To: City of Squamish
Subject: Environmental Impact Assessment of Proposed Garibaldi Ski Resort

I have reviewed the Garibaldi at Squamish project, and have put together a summary of my analysis and a set of recommendations to guide decisions on whether this proposal should proceed.

Summary of Analysis

The BC Environmental Office stated that the project lacked information on potential effects on vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat. In order to address this gap, I analyzed the extent to which the proposed project area would impact protected old growth forest, riparian fish habitat, and wildlife habitat, with a specific focus on ungulates. The data used was acquired through DataBC’s open catalogue. Unreliable skiing areas, as defined by the Municipality of Whistler, were also considered.

First, I mapped the areas within the project boundary that fell within 555m elevation, as areas below this elevation are considered unreliable skiing areas due to climatological considerations. Then, I mapped old growth management areas and ungulate habitat onto the project area. I also created variable buffer zones around rivers within the project boundary to evaluate what percentage of the proposed project area fell within fish bearing streams and fish habitat surrounding streams. (See below for maps.)

Results

I discovered that 38.26% of the project area may impact old growth forest, ungulate habitat, and riparian fish habitat. Note that the following individual percentages sum to 42.69% of the project area, as some of the areas below may overlap.

• Old growth forest: 6.78%
• Ungulate winter habitat: 7.89&
  • Mule Deer habitat: 4.24%
  • Mountain Goat habitat: 3.65%
• Sensitive fish habitat: 02%

In addition to vegetation and wildlife impact, I found that 29.92% of the project area is at or below 555m elevation.

Maps
Left: Ecologically Sensitive Areas of Proposed Skil Hill Area (without hillshade)
Right: Ecologically Sensitive Areas of Proposed Skil Hill Area (with 3D hillshade)

Click to enlarge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendations
The following are recommendations to sufficiently address the two main concerns facing the project.

1.   Nearly a third (29.92%) of the proposed project site falls within what is defined by the Municipality of Whistler to be ‘unreliable skiing areas’, as these areas may potentially not get enough snow to support skiing. With climate change bringing warmer and more unpredictable winter conditions, this must be seriously considered.

Actions:

• Restrict construction of ski runs and villages to areas situated above 555m elevation.
• Conduct further analysis to identify areas which may not receive sufficient snowfall, and close these areas when ski conditions are unreliable.

2.   Nearly 40% of the proposed project site contains sensitive old growth forest or wildlife and fish habitat.

Actions:

• Note that much of these sensitive ecological areas do overlap with areas below 555m, which means that ecological impact could be minimized by careful planning to ensure that construction takes place well above 555m, thereby also avoiding the majority of the sensitive ecological areas.
• Shifting wildlife habitat due to climate change: It is also important to note that with changing climate, ungulates’ winter range could shift to include areas at or above 555m elevation, so further analysis using climate modelling is advised.
• Fish habitat buffer zones: Avoid building ski runs within a 50m buffer zone around streams in areas above 555m elevation, and within a 100m buffer zone around streams in areas below 555m. Also avoid construction near major tributaries and spawning grounds, as impacting these areas can have significant downstream effects on fish and fish habitat.
• Human impact after construction: Clear public signage notifying visitors of off-bounds areas and ongoing enforcement of these rules is required to minimize ecological impact, so consider whether the Garibaldi at Squamish project proposal includes budget and resources allocated to these management processes.

If the above recommendations are implemented, and further analysis is conducted to predict the impact of climate change on wildlife habitat and changing snow patterns, the concerns outlined by the BC Environmental Assessment Office may be adequately addressed.

Accomplishment Statement

In this lab, I conducted a small Environmental Impact Assessment of a proposed ski resort. After studying Canada’s EIA process and related policies in great depth in GEOG 319, I was excited to be able to implement part of the process myself using available datasets. Upon acquiring datasets from the BC Government’s DataBC database, I queried for red listed species and old growth forest ecosystems to highlight them on the map. I also reclassified a Digital Elevation Model raster to show areas that are suitable and unsuitable for skiing. Upon completing my environmental impact assessment, I produced an additional map that shows the topography of the proposed ski resort region with a 3D hillshade. Finally, I summarized my EIA process and findings in an accessible memo written to convey key information to non-technical decision-makers and members of the general public.

Unit 2 Reflection

This unit, we focused primarily on designing a report proposal, and working collaboratively with our team members to review and refine our proposals. We also researched some best practices for creating  a Linkedin profile and tested out these methods by creating our own profiles.

Linkedin Profile

I personally found creating a Linkedin profile the most valuable part of this course so far, as it directly impacts my professional life. As I will be graduating next spring, it is helpful for me to maintain an online presence and build a professional network as I enter the “real world”. I set up my Linkedin profile at the end of high school, but for the past 4+ years, it has only said “Undergraduate student at UBC” with absolutely no other information. Upon researching and writing about best practices in my Team Forum, I felt equipped with the necessary tools to complete all sections of my profile. A particularly valuable suggestion I found in my research was to make sure to convey authenticity – even though Linkedin is a professional platform, it is still more engaging to the reader to read a profile that is clearly about an individual with their own story, rather than a generic listing of bullet points about accomplishments or tasks complete.

This lesson ties in with one of our broader course themes of always having the reader in mind when doing writing of any sort, and actively taking measures to engage the reader.

Formal Report Proposal

I am excited about pursuing my report proposal topic, which is to better incorporate food-related emissions and food sustainability considerations into UBC’s climate action commitments. The most challenging part of developing my report proposal and outline was narrowing my scope sufficiently. Initially, my idea involved approaching staff, faculty and students to collect information and insights through a mix of surveys and interviews. However, upon further consideration through reading the course text book and my peer review feedback, I realized this was too broad of a scope and wouldn’t have a focused flow. I decided instead to focus only on interviews with staff stakeholders in three key departments to inform my recommendations to improve specific high-level strategies, as enacting behavioural change from a student or faculty level is an entirely different project that is not aligned with my stated purpose. This process of recalibrating my approach allowed me to better understand my intended reader and allows for a more effective analysis.

Peer Review

As with the previous unit, I found the peer review process interesting and useful. I appreciated having a fresh perspective on my writing, as I know it can be difficult for me as the author to spot breaks in the flow (as it might be flowing well in my mind, but not translating on paper!), or even to spot grammatical mistakes, especially if I make the same error repeatedly. My team member, Kai, gave me constructive feedback that I was able to use to refine my research proposal both in terms of its focus and its written style. In turn, I provided very comprehensive feedback for Kai’s research proposal that focused on each individual section of his proposal. Coming from a different academic background, I was able to look at this technical research proposal with a new perspective, and I provided suggestions on clarifying certain terms, and rearranging certain sentences to allow for improved narrative flow. Overall, I found the peer review process to be incredibly useful, especially considering that it only takes a relatively short time commitment from the peer reviewer to provide this feedback. I will consider asking and offering peer reviews for other written work in my classes and at work as well.

I have attached my revised Report Proposal, as well as a link to my Peer Review:

Shakti_Ramkumar_ENGL_301_Research_Proposal_Revised

Peer Review by Kai Corley-Jory

In Unit One of ENGL301, we were introduced to the fundamental principles and practices of technical and business writing as set out in the course textbook, Technical Communication (Lannon and Gurak). I learned how to set up a blog to build a portfolio of my work, applied to join and formed a professional writing team with three of my classmates, and practiced writing an application letter, professional emails, an email memo, technical definitions, and a reflection.

Original Definitions

I chose the term ‘suburbanization’ for which I wrote a parenthetical, sentence, and expanded definition. This is a term often used in my field of study, Geography, to describe a process of population migration and consequent sociospatial transformation. When I began writing the definitions, it occurred to me that I had never actually tried to define this term before, as I have always used it casually in settings where my peers and professors are familiar with the general history, context, and nuance surrounding the term. This time, as I was writing to my team who are all studying in diverse disciplines, I aimed to write my definitions with the following questions in mind:

• What would a student from another field already be familiar with? (e.g, Suburbs, what a suburban lifestyle entails, the idea that many people work in cities. I tried to incorporate these well known ideas into my definition to form points of relatability, as I know that people are more likely to remember and internalize new information by connecting it to what they already know. I also contrasted the term with another common term, urbanization, employing one of the expansion strategies presented in the textbook.)
• What might a student from another field find interesting? (e.g., Knowing the suburban/urban divide is more complicated than is commonly portrayed, that the introduction of personal vehicles vastly transformed the geographic range that people could travel in their daily lives. I added in this information in my expanded definition to provide a more interesting insight into the term, while simultaneously employing several more of the expansion strategies, including history and operating principle.)
• How can I illustrate this term in a clear way? (e.g, with a real geographic example grounded in time and place.)

By creating these questions for myself, I believe I was able to create an accessible and hopefully interesting piece of writing.

Peer Review Process

My initial three definitions were reviewed by my team member, Graham, who highlighted areas where my writing was redundant or could be more concise, and parts that strayed from the purpose I had stated. This process was useful to me, as Graham point out things I may have never noticed as areas for improvement even if I had reviewed my work many times. For example, he suggested that I delete the final few sentences relating suburbanization to the similar concept of urban sprawl – this correctly did not align fully with my purpose of defining suburbanization, and deleting it allowed for a more concise expanded definition. One thing that struck me about this part of the assignment was how few chances I have had in my university career to not only receive feedback, but to be able to act on that feedback and re-submit an improved version. Having such a process for work in other courses would be hugely beneficial for my continued improvement.

Editing

I found the editing process straightforward due to the extensive and highly specific guiding questions provided in the Peer Review document and in the textbook, which Graham used in his review. Had the peer review consisted of vague statements, I might have found it more difficult to know what to edit, but this format allowed for specific and efficient revisions.

Links:
Peer Review
Original Definitions

To: Dr. Erika Paterson, Professor of ENGL 301

From: Shakti Ramkumar

Date: September 20, 2018

Subject: Letter of Application Posted

Upon reviewing this week’s learning materials, I have posted on my blog a Letter of Application to join a professional writing team. Attached to this memo please find a copy of my letter of application.

The attached document includes

• an overview of my academic career at UBC
• strengths I could bring to a professional writing team
• areas for improvement
• extracurricular interests and work experience

Please let me know if you require any additional information. I look forward to hearing from you.

Enclosure: ENGL 301 Application Letter Shakti Ramkumar

[Street Address]
Vancouver, BC, V3X 1X9
Email: shakti.ramkumar@gmail.com

September 19, 2018

ENGL 301 99A
University of British Columbia
2329 West Mall
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4

Dear ENGL 301 classmates,

My name is Shakti, and I am currently a fifth year student in Geography in the Environment & Sustainability concentration. I am applying to be considered for a professional writing team, and I believe I can make valuable contributions as a team member.

In my degree and in my extracurricular activities, my focus is on sustainability and climate action — particularly in the areas of energy, food systems, and climate justice. My academic journey at UBC has been an interesting one, as I started in Electrical Engineering for two and a half years, and then transferred to the Arts faculty to pursue Geography. While I was in Engineering, I received training on concise and clear technical writing. Communication is immensely important in the engineering field, especially as projects and plans scale up. All parts of a team must rely on each other and trust that each component of work is carried out carefully and thoughtfully, to ensure the integrity of the final product. In Geography, I was able to broaden my writing experience by composing both research and persuasive essays, and by experimenting with many creative ways to communicate ideas and information – for example, through story and narrative.

Outside of university, I currently work with Student Energy, a global charity that aims to empower the next generation of energy leaders. Writing and communication are important skills in the non-profit world, from forming meaningful connections with young people across the world, to communicating the organization’s story to potential partners and the public. In my role as a Project Coordinator, I’ve had the opportunity to improve my writing skills through a variety of tasks, from composing memos to drafting project reports to writing professional emails.

I was also formerly the co-Director of Common Energy, the largest student-led sustainability organization at UBC. My experience with Common Energy was an invaluable one, as I learned how to both step up and take a step back when part of a team, which I believe will be important for our ENGL 301 teams as well. Part of my learning philosophy is that these additional skills such as listening and supporting team members is as important to the quality of work as the amount of time put in. My strength as a writer is largely my ability to be precise, and thorough in my editing process. My weakness that I would like to improve throughout this course is writing more concisely without losing the necessary meaning and nuance.

I believe my experiences with detail-oriented writing, and working in diverse teams both on and offline, that I can be an asset to a professional writing team. Please contact me at shakti.ramkumar@gmail.com.

 

Sincerely,

Shakti Ramkumar

Word file: ENGL 301 Application Letter Shakti Ramkumar

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!