Team analysis

I can honestly say that this has been the most awful paper that I've ever had the privilege of paying for. When I first saw the title "Communication in the sciences" I assumed it would be rather enjoyable because;  1. I'm a science major and 2. I love and understand everything to do with science and nature. What I wasn't prepared for was a rollercoaster ride consisting of emotions running high, stressful deadlines, team members quitting and a lack of communication from important parties.

It all commenced with finding and placing yourself in a suitable team. For most students, this was quite a trial because the whole point of "distance learning" in my opinion, is that you study and do assignments in your own time and at your own pace. Having to work in a team means having to adjust your schedule to fit in with others. This is more suited to internal learning methods and not what I had signed up for.

However, that being said, I can thankfully say that I was fortunate enough to find myself involved in a team of three that worked exceedingly well together. Everyone was considerate of each other's schedules and maintained their roles within the team exceptionally well. 10/10 girls for effort on this one.

Using the Belbin model, I think between the three of us, we each represented the three different general role types; cerebral, action orientated and people orientated and therefore worked well together because of being so different. We were each able to complement each other's work and work as a unified unit. Although we all had weaknesses, we focused on our strengths and built on these, enabling us to complete our tasks in a timely manner and professionally. If not for these two, I probably would have quit this paper.

Public speaking

This is a photo of my dad, taken 18 years ago, doing the "father-of-the-bride" speech at my wedding. My dad is my role model when it comes to public speaking because he is just not comfortable speaking in public, but you would never be able to tell that he wasn't. When he's on stage or in front of a crowd, he holds their attention as well as any regular public speaker would by doing one small thing....he tells jokes. By being a stand-up comedian, he not only gets people laughing but the audience's laughter seems to settle his nerves. Once he get's going, there's no stopping him after that. He's able to subtly put his point across as well as entertain the audience.

I too am definitely not a born public speaker. Having observed friends and family members as well as pastors in church and politicians, I often wonder how it is that some people just seem to be able to walk up to the front of a crowd and speak clearly, confidently and without making any mistakes. I seem to take on my dad's example, using humour to get things going. Although that works a majority of the time, there's that awkward moment when I say something that I think is funny and no-one laughs. Trying to figure out why, whilst continuing with the presentation is always the worst feeling in the world and often I stumble over my next few words, trying to still appear in control.

For this university communication paper that I've been working on, one of the assessments is to present to a politician, my team's views on an aspect of current organ donation legislation. Fortunately, we were offered a variety of methods to do this, so we opted for a powerpoint presentation with a voice-over. I find that I'm quite comfortable communicating behind a screen, like emailing or now blogging, because I cannot see or do not have to physically speak to my audience. Doing the voice-over bit was the worst experience though because I realised that I really don't like the sound of my own voice. To me, it sounded nothing like me. Isn't that bizarre? Anyway, I've learned over time that I am not and will never be a confident public speaker. I hesitantly do my share when needed e.g for a tuition session at work or sometimes when called on for church presentations or seminars, but that's it. I personally am happy with that as it was never my dream to speak in public. To those that do and those that comfortably can, you do an amazing job and I salute you.

How my team is working/not working

This has been a week of trials. With our communication team report due on Sunday, things don't seem to be working as well as they could be. We started out as a really good, strong team, with various characters that each brought something valuable to the group. Due to unfortunate and unforseen circumstances, two of our team of five, have had to pull out of the course. It's difficult working as a team at the best of times, however, when the team falls apart, right at the crucial moment, that can be catastrophic.

So, what happens next? Well, the three of us will pull together and work as best we can to complete the task at hand. Hopefully, no-one else quits. I guess it's about having a positive attitude, despite trials. I've been called an optimist. Generally, I always veiw the glass as half full, for those of you that know what that means. For the others, basically there's two kinds of people in life. There's the kind that will look at a half filled glass of water and see it as being half empty and the kind that sees it as half full. It's what's called a proverbial phrase, and is used to gauge how people veiw an event, situation or an object.Optimists, like myself, will veiw the glass as half full, meaning that there's still the opportunity to enjoy or alter what's left. Pessimists on the other hand, veiw the glass as half empty.

So, how has my optimism helped me with the current situation? I've gained a greater sense of determination to suceed. Where before, I was steadily cruising through without too much effort, I've now realised that I need to put a lot more effort in. I also realised that we still have a great team, consisting of three educated and hardworking scholars. We all work, study and run households, which is a testimony to our true capabilities. With this in mind, I know we will suceed, come what may.

Leadership in teams

I've just spent the last five days camping and trekking through the New Zealand bush as one of a team of leaders, leading an expedition of 500 10-18 year old Pathfinders. Everyone had to bring enough gear for the trip as well as all the equipment needed to complete a series of tasks, one which involved setting up a wooden frame spider web and threading a team member through the web, until all team members had passed through each section. as I watched the kids in my group decide how to complete the task, it was obvious from the start who the leader of the group was. Interestingly, without being nominated group leader, this child took control of the situation and everyone listened to and obeyed the commands. They completed the task without too much effort and continued on to the next. For the rest of the day, the same child took charge during each task.

So, what makes a good leader? According to Hogan & Kaiser (2005), good leadership qualities result in effective group and team performance and an enhancement of the well-being of the team or group members. In the above memntioned example, the child that took on the leadership role, displayed signs of good leadership, as the team performed well, completed tasks effectively and efficiently. Team morale was high due to their successes.

Recently, I've been involved in a different sort of team. We've been assigned to form groups to complete a Communication paper for University. Working with a group of unknown people online, from all over New Zealand could have been uncomfortable and things could have gone horribly wrong, resulting in us failing the assignment, however, we've been fortunate because, one individual readily took on the leadership role and as a team, we've clicked really well. Our "group leader" has stepped into her role and done an amazing job in ensuring the tasks get completed and steering everyone in the right way. We're curently finalising the assignment and organising the layout, with each individual assigned a specific role.

Do I veiw myself as a good leader? Generally, I'll wait to see if anyone else takes the lead first, and if not, I'll then step in. Working in an environment where emergencies occur from time to time, I often find that I'm forced into taking a leadership role. I'm really comfortable in these situations. The problem comes when I'm placed in an unfamiliar situation. In these instances, I tend to step back and wait for someone else to take the lead. If noone does, I then step in. I guess this would make a more of a cautious or hesitant leader, however, when in the role, I seem to do well.

Reference:

Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R.B. (2005) What We Know About Leadership.
         Reveiw of General Psychology 9 (2) 169-180. Retrieved from
         http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/gpr/9/2/169/

My thoughts on ethics in science-and why it matters

It's been quite an emotional week for me at work this week. Along with lots of other trying cases, I was called to a major trauma in which young man had been involved in a serious accident and was rushed into theatre bleeding excessively. Despite our best efforts, he never regained consciousness. We sent him up to the Intensive care unit (ICU) on life-support and he was confirmed clinically dead later that evening.


Just to explain the difference between clinically dead and biologically dead, the latter is basically, when you die and there is no oxygen supplying your tissues and organs, so they begin to decay, whereas clinical death is when you're on life-support, your tissues and organs receive oxygen so continue to function as normal, but your brain has zero activity, so that if you were to be disconnected from life support, you would then be biologically dead (Edward-Morgan, Mikhail & Murray, 2004).


For our current assignment, we've been looking at doing a group report on the ethics involved with organ donation and various laws that we could change in order to increase donation rates.


What got me thinking ethics with this particular case was that although traumatic and an extremely sad and emotional time for all involved, this patient would have been an ideal candidate for organ donation, however, the question wasn't even raised with the family as they were Maori. My question then was, is it okay to immediately dismiss the idea of speaking to the family just because of their culture? Maybe this young man had at some point discussed it with someone in his family. Is it ethical to just assume that because someone is of a specific race or culture that they wouldn't be willing to donate?


I'll be looking further into this matter along with my current research. In the meantime, stay safe out on the roads this summer.


Edward-Morgan, G., Mikhail, M.S. & Murray, M.J. (2002). Clinical Anaesthesiology
            (4th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill Medical Publishing Division

The importance of written scientific information (My View)

Looking back at last week's post, I realised that I was quite forceful in my opinion. I really wanted to get my point across. I wanted the world to know that I am dead set against allocating organs to only those already registered to donate, and why. But what makes my opinion matter? Who cares what I say anyway? To the scientific world, I'm a nobody.........................


According to Gopen & Swan (1990), the purpose of scientific writing is not to merely present information and thoughts or to convert data into sentences and paragraphs, but rather to actually communicate to an audience in a way that lets the majority of them perceive exactly what the author had in mind.


My blog is now under scrutiny by the whole world via the world wide web. That puts my thoughts and information out there, before a public audience. They now have access to my thinking and just like a planted seed that may grow into a tree, that planted information may grow and expand another individual's line of thought. I read scientific research and it broadens my thinking, therefore a seed is planted in that area and I may or may not change my view on that topic, depending on my perception of what was written. When I read an article in the newspaper or someone's opinion on social media on a specific topic, a different seed is planted. Again, I may or may not change my view on that topic, depending on how well the author discussed what was written.


In answer to my questions above; once information is made public, it becomes important because somewhere, somehow, someone is reading and taking note of what was said, true or false, relevant or irrelevant, it makes an impact. Hopefully, in my case, it will be a positive impact.


Gopen, G.D. & Swan, J.A. (1990). The Science of Scientific Writing.
               American Scientist 78(6). 550-558. Retrieved from:
               http://www.jstor.org/stable/29774235?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Summarizing the Debate

                            Summarising the debate 

For my position paper, I've opted to write on the debate as to whether only those already registered as organ donors should be eligible to receive a donated organ. As a registered organ donor myself, it might surprise you to know that I disagree with this statement. I'll explain why later in the blog.

Having researched the topic over the last few weeks, I've discovered that although many people feel really strongly about this topic, there is not much research published, that is available on the opinions of the donors and recipients themselves. I did, however, find a few relevant articles. 

An article in the Nelson Mail described the stance that one campaigner, Andy Tookey, was taking on the "Donors should take priority" campaign. Mr Tookey, stated that it was unfair giving an organ to someone not willing to donate their own organ. This stance is being backed by Bruce Buyers,a heart transplant recipient. After discovering that his own heart would only have lasted another 8 to12 weeks, Bruce, who had been on the transplant waiting list for five months, now has a life expectancy of 10 to 15 years. He now supports the Human tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill despite not being a donor before his transplant. He says that he is now willing to donate (Stickley, 2007)

I'm a little puzzled by Mr Buyers supporting this Bill when he himself wasn't a registered organ donor, before receiving his transplant. I do understand though, how someone that is a registered donor, would feel having to wait for an essential lifesaving organ whilst people that were not registered received organs first. This would be especially distressing if the person awaiting the transplant had a limited timeframe.

On the other hand, another study looking into the Cadaveric Organ Donor Act (CODA) indicates that there is an issue of fairness when the decision of saving lives or causing deaths is faced. It states that  "there is an ethical problem of fairness in the allocation of organs" (Weir, 1994).

As healthcare workers, we treat patients under the code of "First do no harm". Our priority is to save lives regardless of age, gender, race, religion, criminal conviction or otherwise. Deciding who should or should not receive a life-saving organ is not upholding that code, in my professional opinion. After all, who are we to decide who lives and who dies?

References

 Stickley, M. (2007, March 3) Donors 'should take priority'.  Nelson Mail. Retrieved from 
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/eds/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=3db47af6-d5fe-4a9a-8833-14b4745d5404%40sessionmgr103&hid=113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=NEM070316-MSHEART1-0003&db=anh

Weir R.F. (1994) The Issue of Fairness in the Allocation of Organs. Journal of Corporation Law 20(1), 91-109.