Want to be a good critical analyst? |
Critical Analysis: skills for our future
Dear Colleagues,
Critical thinking, writing, and analysis is an important skill for dietitians to have. The problem is, we attend workshops on 'how to' but then go back to our desks, usually in isolation, with knowledge, but lacking confidence to apply these skills to a level we can trust.
The Research Interest Group is proposing a mentoring programme in 'Critical Analysis'. This will start with a workshop at the DAA National Conference 2013 where participants will be introduced to critical thinking, and analysis, and be offered the opportunity to sign up to a mentoring partnership over the course of 12 months.
This short survey is for YOU to tell us what you want our idea to look like, and what tasks you would engage with in this idea.
There are three questions.
The information you provide will be used to consider our next steps and to design a programme that meets as close as possible all stakeholder interests. Your email address will be used only for the purpose of initial contact, and communicating the outcomes from this survey.
This survey has been written by Melanie Voevodin, the Research Discussion Group convenor.
melanie.voevodin@monash.edu
...................................
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Mentors: the mentors we are seeking have published (even a little bit) but have some activity in peer-review process. How we think this might work is each time the mentor receives a request to review a paper, they give this task to their mentees who go ahead and review the paper independently, then submit a report to their mentor. The mentor of course still fulfils their obligation to the journal in submitting their own review - but uses this to compare and contrast with their mentees reports. Ideally we would like our mentees to experience at least 3 reviews a year. It is also possible we can share the one review across all mentors to make sure our mentees get sufficient practice.
Mentees: would attend the workshop and then sign up for the mentoring programme. We will have more of an idea after this survey, but we would expect mentees to complete three mentored reviews, and then submit one review of their own. A certificate of 'finishing the mentoring programme' is probable, and might also be a follow-up session at the next conference where previous mentees present their final paper.
Research Discussion Group: we will set up the programme and run initial sessions. We will work with DAA to deliver an evaluation of the programme.
There is no university, association, or interest group who is doing this kind of programme. For this reason, we will be evaluating the programme as we go, and this may mean some extra time and effort from our first round of mentors and mentees.
What do you think?
Critical thinking, writing, and analysis is an important skill for dietitians to have. The problem is, we attend workshops on 'how to' but then go back to our desks, usually in isolation, with knowledge, but lacking confidence to apply these skills to a level we can trust.
The Research Interest Group is proposing a mentoring programme in 'Critical Analysis'. This will start with a workshop at the DAA National Conference 2013 where participants will be introduced to critical thinking, and analysis, and be offered the opportunity to sign up to a mentoring partnership over the course of 12 months.
This short survey is for YOU to tell us what you want our idea to look like, and what tasks you would engage with in this idea.
There are three questions.
The information you provide will be used to consider our next steps and to design a programme that meets as close as possible all stakeholder interests. Your email address will be used only for the purpose of initial contact, and communicating the outcomes from this survey.
This survey has been written by Melanie Voevodin, the Research Discussion Group convenor.
melanie.voevodin@monash.edu
...................................
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Mentors: the mentors we are seeking have published (even a little bit) but have some activity in peer-review process. How we think this might work is each time the mentor receives a request to review a paper, they give this task to their mentees who go ahead and review the paper independently, then submit a report to their mentor. The mentor of course still fulfils their obligation to the journal in submitting their own review - but uses this to compare and contrast with their mentees reports. Ideally we would like our mentees to experience at least 3 reviews a year. It is also possible we can share the one review across all mentors to make sure our mentees get sufficient practice.
Mentees: would attend the workshop and then sign up for the mentoring programme. We will have more of an idea after this survey, but we would expect mentees to complete three mentored reviews, and then submit one review of their own. A certificate of 'finishing the mentoring programme' is probable, and might also be a follow-up session at the next conference where previous mentees present their final paper.
Research Discussion Group: we will set up the programme and run initial sessions. We will work with DAA to deliver an evaluation of the programme.
There is no university, association, or interest group who is doing this kind of programme. For this reason, we will be evaluating the programme as we go, and this may mean some extra time and effort from our first round of mentors and mentees.
What do you think?