Plan B from Outer Space

Okay, then, things are changing.  Like my thesis. I have to ponder a different reality, but one thing is for sure: Neenah Estrella-Luna, Ph.D. was right. The thesis you write may not be the one you planned to write.

Yeah, I’m down with that.

More later.

j

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

And away we go…

My IRB application was approved the day before Thanksgiving.  My survey is up (http://TinyURL.com/CalabasasSurvey).  My adverts are going up.  My invitation letters will go out on January 4, 2016.

The race is underway.

Six months to go.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

IRB Application Closer and Closer

My IRB application is essentially complete.

I spoke by Skype with the Professor Neenah Estrella-Luna, who is responsible for coordinating IRB applications prior to submission to the Principal Investigator, and to the IRB rep.  Professor Estrella-Luna asked me to make some changes based on new rules not yet reflected in the current application form, but those change are extremely minor.

This is a great relief because I know have data collection in sight, if not yet underway.

jlk

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Pipes Are SUCH a Problem

While my own ‘pipes’ are healing, and I had my internal liner (stent) removed a few days ago, the main sewer clay pipe for my home failed.  I suppose that’s not a surprise after 35 years of service.

To fix the sewer, we had an internal liner installed.  One liner out; one liner in.

Just another reminder that life gets in the way of life, sometimes.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Missed Classes

Regrettably, I’ve missed this month’s classes at the University.  I have a good excuse: a kidney stone that refused to gracefully exit, and demanded the rather personal attention of my urologist in a surgical setting.  The little bastard is gone, now.  Good riddance vile creature.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Peer Reviews and Intellectual Integrity

One of the things I’ve had to come to terms with during the doctoral program is accepting the real and sometimes-harsh value of the the peer review process. That process requires the author to openly subject himself or herself to the critiques of peers, hopefully before publication and widespread embarrassment.

On the other side, being a peer reviewer requires that you be place real or potential personal friendships and professional relationships aside to be able to say things you might never want to say face to face. For example, gems such as

  • ‘you just didn’t get it regarding…’; or
  • ‘the new area of research has been well covered in the existing literature, and I don’t see anything new in the paper…’; or
  • ‘when referring the a government agency using the ‘p’ word, make sure you include in it the middle ‘l’.

I’ve come to learn and respect the value of the peer review process, which might be boiled down to the following: It’s better to have trusted friends and peers pick your work apart rather than strangers who care not one wit about you or your research.

Authors and peer reviewers should have the same guiding goal in mind: Intellectual integrity is what we strive for in our work. Identifying gaps in our own work, and gaps in work we are asked to peer review is not a failure, but an opportunity to better achieve the greater goal and good.

jlk

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail