wasAs a PhD student, and unfortunately just in general, I am often mired by impostor syndrome (see my post on love-hate relationships with progress reviews). This is one reason why dry runs of presentations and peer review in general is incredibly beneficial for me. As someone who recently received her first set of feedback from reviewers on a possible publication, I can attest to how harsh professional reviews can be. In many ways, those types of reviews make impostor syndrome worse because reviewers don't actually have to be constructive in their criticisms. They just have to indicate whether they think the piece is worthy of being published. Now some reviewers do take the time to make their comments constructive, but there are others who don't. Sometimes, reviewers take the anonymity and use it as a tool to just tear down a work without worrying about the chance for an argument. After all, it is the author that has to defend their work, not the reviewer their comments. But I digress. The pipeline of official publication can be fraught with situations that can make a researcher doubt themselves, but before that pipeline is reached there is a great deal of opportunity for peer review and dry runs which can help combat impostor syndrome inspired by the official pipeline.
An example of this that I benefited from recently is a dry run of the lightning talk presentation I was set to deliver at the Forced Migration and Ethical Research workshop at iConference 2020.* Despite my propensity to volunteer to speak, I do not enjoy public speaking. While I am not paralyzed by stage fright, I am very nervous when speaking in front of people in a professional manner. For this reason, the more practice I can get the better off I am when presenting, and my colleagues at the Centre for Social Informatics at Edinburgh Napier University were very helpful in giving me both practice and constructive criticism. In our weekly research group meeting there are routinely papers to be read before being submitted for publication, or presentations to be practiced. For the papers, members of the research group will volunteer to be peer reviewers, reading the papers and giving constructive feedback to the authors. For the presentations, the research group will reserve an appropriate room on campus and the first half of the weekly meeting will be dedicated to the presentation. Each "audience member" will receive a little sheet where they anonymously mark what they think the presenter does well, what they think the presenter can work on when they present in general, and three suggestions for the final presentation. These three suggestions can cover content, format, or presentation demeanor. The point of these anonymous cards is so that the presenter can get constructive feedback on their presentation without necessarily giving more weight to the advice of someone whose opinion they care about most. This form of practice was incredibly helpful for me, as I could see those things that I did well when presenting (apparently I didn't seem nervous) and those things I could work on (not sounding rehearsed) as well as what I want to address for the final presentation (e.g., adjusting font size to fill the white space slightly more). The constructiveness of the feedback is what's important in this instance. The purpose is not to say "That was great" or "That was terrible." The purpose is to acknowledge what is done well and what could be done better. This is an aspect that is often lost one the day of presentation when the purpose is to get a question answered that wasn't clear in the presentation. In the same way, reviewers of submissions may focus on the things that could be better/should be changed/"are wrong" because their purpose is to determine whether they think a submission is worthy of being published, not how to make that submission worthy of being published. This is why dry runs and peer reviews before a submission/presentation are so important. These dry runs and peer reviews help researchers hear the good things about their work as well as give them something to improve, thereby fighting both impostor syndrome and arrogance. I am very grateful for the feedback I've received on both paper submissions and my dry run presentation, as they will help me continue to improve my research/writing skills. Happy Reading! *Please note that this workshop has been canceled due to Covid-19 issues. The iConference 2020 is running virtually but I will no longer be presenting.
0 Comments
|
A Second Blog Page?This is the part of the blog specifically about my PhD. It will include updates, musings, and advice. Archives
August 2022
Categories |