Reflecting on the research project, I appreciate that the assignment allows students to pursue subjects of interest to them. I feel this perspective increases motivation for the report and endows the assignment with a deeper sense of gratification.
From my end, the project provides a platform to explore gender issues. My sociological interests have taken a backseat lately and this assignment allows me to investigate gender equality and expand on interests outside my typical course curriculum.
In crafting the project, I found planning to be the hardest part. Despite feeling this was a prime opportunity to explore gender issues in computer science, the scoping process and initial framing of my targeted issue was a challenge. I wanted a scope broad enough to access, but narrow enough to provide specific recommendations.
Bouncing ideas off the TA (thanks, Jasmine!) and peers really benefited this process. Given an iteration of my topic, fielding questions helped frame my scope and calibrate my thinking. I think the process of being questioned benefits various work forms, so I’ll keep this strategy in mind going forward.
After defining the scope and outlining the project, getting into the writing process became much easier. To this end, organization helped the project flow more fluently in concept and thought. My limited experiences in event planning elucidate similar perspectives and perhaps we can expand this process to many things in life. Often, starting and organizing are the hardest parts, but accomplishing these makes the rest come easier and more enjoyably.
The process of gathering data and writing the report was its own learning exercise and a reminder of the powers at work in this realm. When analyzing data, comparisons between quantitative and qualitative questions stood out especially. Where multiple-choice surveys are easy to distribute and quantify, open-ended responses provide more insight. Despite the additional time spent gathering and coding answers for analysis, open-ended responses (and the similarities between them) provided important perspectives for my analysis.
To this note, I was pleasantly surprised by participants’ depth and eagerness. Survey participants had the option to provide qualitative data with their quantitative survey results, and while there are always the odd “trolls” with trivial answers, a large number of participants provided insightful, thoughtful responses. Nice to know I hit on something others feel strongly about.
Such findings also elicited reflection on the process of acquiring quality answers. It is one thing to obtain responses, but attaining useful responses can be its own challenge. Moreover, answers may be affected by many factors, including respondents’ moods, levels of sleep, etc. We can never fully minimize respondent biases, so researchers and readers must remain aware of these influences when drawing conclusions. As an extension to this reflection, I wonder how multiple-choice questions appearing in my survey before the open-ended section might have primed people’s responses? Would the responses differ if the order were reversed?
Writing the report rough draft, I tried to be especially careful in balancing an analytical tone with voice and readability. Analytical compositions should read appropriately, but from my own experiences, I really appreciate a little humor or personality interspersed. I tried to balance these aspects appropriately.
Relatedly, consideration of the target audience’s perspectives, incentives, and reception was an interesting and challenging exercise. This seems like a crucial part of effective communication and a good skill to hone.
I also found myself editing out a lot of repetition, which provided insight into my writing style. As relevant information bridges between sections, I tend to repeat material in order to make things exceptionally clear at every step. In reading my partner’s work, I gained some insight into effectively flowing between sections without repetition.
Speaking of the peer review, I appreciated reading my partner’s work and learning from her writing. She is efficient and effective with her word choice, contributing to a cohesive analytical piece.
My peer’s research also elicited considerations on data presentation. Where she stepped through every question, extrapolating key points, I focused on specific data and glossed over non-determinative bits. I believe both strategies are effective, given different data sets and respondent pools, but my peer’s approach is one I’ll keep in mind while crafting the final draft. Burrowing and extrapolating helps demonstrate key points and provides an effective, consistent framework for analytical compositions.