Week 2: The Literature

#81711623 / gettyimages.com

Research. Not as easy as it looks on TV.

One problem that I soon ran into seemed to be to do with my choice of topic. "Action must be taken to improve New Zealand’s immunisation rates" is a fairly uncontroversial statement in the scientific community. The scientific discourse instead focusses on the reasons why vaccine uptake may be delayed, or what the drivers are which may discourage parents from immunising their children.

This is a bit of a problem as my position paper needs to present the opposing viewpoints.  While these aren't hard to come by, they are usually poorly researched or illogical... not primary literature sources. After seeking clarification from the course coordinators, I have been informed that as some of these arguments are widespread and persistent, it is appropriate to use them in my position paper as opposing viewpoints.

Other than that, my research has been about as exciting as can be expected. Most of my reading has taken 3 forms: Background reading (books), Ministry of health for stats and information on the Vaccine schedule, and using Discover and Google Scholar to search for relevant primary literature (journal articles). The Immunisation Advisory Centre website also has a page listing relevant primary literature, and I've found many interesting articles here.

One disappointment I've had was coming across an article which sounds like a perfect resource for this assignment: The challenge of improving immunization coverage: the New Zealand example by Nikki Turner. Look at that title! It's as if this article was commissioned just for me! but unfortunately it is not available through the Massey library. In fact the Expert Review of Vaccines wants US$89 for 24 hours of access to the article, so it looks like that won't be happening.

I have a fairly decent stack of resources ready now, and I am soon to move on to writing my first draft. I'm sure I'm not done yet though. The research will have to continue to some extent, I'm afraid, as I write.

Speaking of writing, this position paper isn't going to write itself. So goodbye until next week!

Week 1 — Introduction

#90738853 / gettyimages.com

Hello, World. My name is Ian Witham, your host for this Communication in the Sciences mandated blog.

This year I completed a Diploma in Software Development. My final year of the diploma was a challenging one for myself and my family. Before a late rally, my motivation had sunk to an all time low. Unexpectedly, I graduated with a good grade. Excellent, in fact. After a few weeks of reflecting on this embarrassing turn of events, and concluding that just maybe I'm capable of being studious after all, I enrolled in a Bachelor of Science degree at Massey University.

I've come to Massey primarily to study computer science, and this is what I intend to major in. I have loved using computers since I was first introduced to the famous ZX Spectrum computer in the early 1980s. Even then I was fascinated by programming (I could draw coloured circles and make make the computer go "beep" like a pro).

I expect to get a lot from Communication in the Sciences. Good writing is essential for computer programmers. Of course it is necessary to effectively document and communicate our ideas in prose, but also in the programs we write. This is encapsulated well by one of my favourite quotes on the subject:

Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute

— Abelson & Sussman, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

I have a few ideas on what makes for good writing. Short sentences. Plain style. Putting the interesting words to begin and end each sentence. Clearly my writing has a some distance to make up yet.

I am also hopeful that this paper will lead me into a regular writing habit; To writing little every day (or most days, failing that). I would love to continue blogging once this paper is completed.

Finally, to my comrades studying alongside me this summer, good luck!