Last semester, I used to show up to my quantitative research methods course at least 15 minutes early. My palms were always a little sweaty. My heart beat a little quicker. Dr. Leshner had a propensity for passing out quizzes unannounced.
My first few scores were 2 out of 10. I thought for sure I wouldn't pass the class.
So, I bumped up my studying. Rather than just reading the material, I composed what felt like mountains of note cards. I flipped through them at all hours of the day.
I learned the language of quantitative researchers. I memorized the terms. I hoped that by knowing everything on command, I could reason my way to the answers. It helped. I was at times, unable to synthesize the necessary information. My brain doesn't quite work in a mathematical or logical way. I think in analogies and networks of information that look more like the roots of a tomato plant than a computer chip.
My parents have told me. Friends have teased me about it. Boyfriends have even endearingly termed our conversations slightly related tangents. Drawing relationships between seeming unrelated information is something I adore, but it can make communicating with other people who don't think this way, difficult. It's a logic that makes sense to people who know me, and a logic that drives people who work from point A to point B absolutely crazy, especially when I pop up with point K.
Although, it can be difficult at times, I'm okay with thinking differently; I've come to peace with it anyway. I like noticing patterns that might not be obvious to other people.
Taking quantitative research methods was like spending hours with point A to point B people. Every step had to be examined before the next decision could be made.
I could feel myself becoming more rational.
I'm not worried that I'll lose myself in a different way of thinking. This language is another option I now have. I have noticed that the downside is that it feels constricting. When I think "logically," I miss the freedom that comes from dismissing the "rules." But, being a health reporter, requires attention to detail and often, a careful examination of medical studies.
So, I felt especially grateful to Dr. Leshner today. as I combed through about two dozen medical studies. I read them with varying levels of understanding, yet am certain I comprehended much more today than I would have last year at this time.
Statistical significance and p-values scattered through the literature. I paid attention to confounds. My new knowledge helped me sort the information into a hierarchy and know which studies should be given more prominence than others.
I still felt like I was drowning in a sea of information, trying to make sense of it all. Synthesis is key, and that's the main task of the reporter. Stories bring the data to life. But, at the core of the story is the ability to make sense of it all.
I love striking a balance between the personal and the logical. People will always be anecdotal because they are a sample size of one. But, it amazes me to this day how much more powerful that sample of one can be when set against mountains of data.
Perhaps that's why I'm drawn to journalism in the first place. While the data is part of supporting the story, the story itself comes to life through quotes and personal experience, something quantitative researchers might quickly dismiss with the flick of a wrist.
My first few scores were 2 out of 10. I thought for sure I wouldn't pass the class.
So, I bumped up my studying. Rather than just reading the material, I composed what felt like mountains of note cards. I flipped through them at all hours of the day.
I learned the language of quantitative researchers. I memorized the terms. I hoped that by knowing everything on command, I could reason my way to the answers. It helped. I was at times, unable to synthesize the necessary information. My brain doesn't quite work in a mathematical or logical way. I think in analogies and networks of information that look more like the roots of a tomato plant than a computer chip.
My parents have told me. Friends have teased me about it. Boyfriends have even endearingly termed our conversations slightly related tangents. Drawing relationships between seeming unrelated information is something I adore, but it can make communicating with other people who don't think this way, difficult. It's a logic that makes sense to people who know me, and a logic that drives people who work from point A to point B absolutely crazy, especially when I pop up with point K.
Although, it can be difficult at times, I'm okay with thinking differently; I've come to peace with it anyway. I like noticing patterns that might not be obvious to other people.
Taking quantitative research methods was like spending hours with point A to point B people. Every step had to be examined before the next decision could be made.
I could feel myself becoming more rational.
I'm not worried that I'll lose myself in a different way of thinking. This language is another option I now have. I have noticed that the downside is that it feels constricting. When I think "logically," I miss the freedom that comes from dismissing the "rules." But, being a health reporter, requires attention to detail and often, a careful examination of medical studies.
So, I felt especially grateful to Dr. Leshner today. as I combed through about two dozen medical studies. I read them with varying levels of understanding, yet am certain I comprehended much more today than I would have last year at this time.
Statistical significance and p-values scattered through the literature. I paid attention to confounds. My new knowledge helped me sort the information into a hierarchy and know which studies should be given more prominence than others.
I still felt like I was drowning in a sea of information, trying to make sense of it all. Synthesis is key, and that's the main task of the reporter. Stories bring the data to life. But, at the core of the story is the ability to make sense of it all.
I love striking a balance between the personal and the logical. People will always be anecdotal because they are a sample size of one. But, it amazes me to this day how much more powerful that sample of one can be when set against mountains of data.
Perhaps that's why I'm drawn to journalism in the first place. While the data is part of supporting the story, the story itself comes to life through quotes and personal experience, something quantitative researchers might quickly dismiss with the flick of a wrist.
No comments:
Post a Comment