EXPLORING OUTDOORS THROUGH RESEACH DESIGN

[aloutd2511]

#OUTD2511

[aroutd2511]

My Learnings From OUTD Research

Over the past few months, this course has provided me with an in-depth look at the work and process of research and research in this field of study.  I have always thought of research as a scientific process done through experiments by scientists. However, I was wrong. I learned that research can come in many forms and through many methods. One of the best things that I learned was that research can be presented in various ways. This was a significant discovery for me during the week we attended the innovation week talks. I realized that research doesn’t have to be presented through numbers or papers; it can be addressed through poetry, pictures and stories.

Three things that I now know about outdoor recreation research:

1. Ethics: From this course, I developed a deeper understanding of the many different aspects that help create an ethical research project. Before, I had a basic understanding ( kids under 18 need parental permission, and participants need to be aware of what is happening to them). I understood why ethics were important in studies so that they ensure that the research being done puts people first and upholds respect for human dignity. 

2. Open vs. Closed questions: This is something that I feel comfortable with and comfortable using. I understand that both types of questions have a time and place where they can be useful, and I have understood the situations they best fit into during a survey. I know that open questions allow the individual taking the survey to elaborate on their answer, whereas closed questions generally answer yes or no. 

3. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Data: I learned about these two types in a high school science class, and I was already familiar with the terms. However, this provided a good refresher and allowed me to better understand how these two types of data may be used in research and what goes into obtaining each set of data. 

Three things that I am still confused by:

1.  Levels of theory: I understand that each level deals with a social theory, but I don’t fully understand the difference between Macrosocial, Mesocial, and Microsocial. I also don’t understand why there is a distinction between the three categories and if there are different ethical concerns with each, and that’s why they are divided. 

2. Coding: I find using a computer to process all your information and create a code that matches all your data seems like a lot of unnecessary work. I could understand it if you had numbers and needed to find a link between the numbers, but I find that organizing your findings into categories makes it easier to understand. I also don’t know why you would want to code your work. 

3. Grounded Theory: The way that our notes and textbook describe this confuses me. You’re finding categories within your data, finding relationships between the categories, and then finding a core category. I think what is getting me is the core category. Is it a similarity between all other categories, or is it the category you will focus your research on? 

Three things I know about me as an OUTD Rec researcher:

1. I prefer to work with Qualitative data. It makes more sense to me than quantitative data. It is easier for me to make meaning from data that are just numbers. Data expressed as words rather than numbers makes it easier for me to understand, and if I’m honest, data with numbers and equations makes no sense to me. I don’t care enough to spend the time decoding what the numbers mean or represent (this is because me and math have never been friends). 

2. When I like what I’m researching, I find that when I don’t care about the topic, I won’t put in the same amount of effort or care what the outcome is, even if it’s being graded. I know that when I like my topic, I can spend hours reading and writing about it without becoming bored or angry that I have to spend time on a project. 

3. I am very organized: All my data is colour-coded and sorted into categories and sub-categories depending on which question it answers in our research. I like to have it all in one place and create a set timeline of what will happen and when that work will be done. 

Three things I need to work on to become more confident in my skills:

1. Analyzing surveys: making meaning of answers is something that I struggle with. Especially when I didn’t create the survey. When I don’t know what the goal of the survey is, I struggle to derive meaning from the results. 

2. Developing survey questions: coming up with practical questions that will help me to answer what I am researching is something that I struggle with. When I create surveys, I find that the questions are either the same question or it is close-ended questions. I find it challenging to think of multiple questions that will give me an in-depth view of the topic being studied. 

3. Creating a hypothesis: I have been creating hypotheses since grade 8 in science class. However, those were easy and were generally either I think this will happen or the opposite will happen. Developing a hypothesis on something that is not a yes or no/ this or that is something that I struggle with. Coming up with what I think will happen is not a strength of mine, and I usually make it up having no clue what I think will happen. So developing that skill is something I want to work on. 

I have seen the value of this course and have learned to respect the work that researchers do. It is demanding and meticulous work, and I have a lot of respect for anyone who does this work. 

[aloutd2511]

Hi Annie,

We have a few struggles in common, specifically understanding levels of research and grounded theory. I agree it’s complicated knowing where ethics lie within these categories. Does this related to the stages of academia where research applies? Meaning honours thesis, masters etc.

I found it funny you referenced hypothesis’s from elementary school science as I also did those but never once thought of it as previous research experience. I think the difference being in science (specifically that young age) we were given the experiment and told to make an educated guess fast forward to where we are now the ones creating what the experiment is, for what purpose and what we think the outcome will be and why. It is interesting you brought this up because I noticed how we do start this “educated guess” from a young age but I feel in high school we really avoided it. I don’t remember much of high school science (definitely not my strong suit) but I remember very little of it being hypothesis’s mostly just theory based learning. Maybe the school system could do a better job preparing students for thesis work.

Great work,

Allison

[tcoutd2511]

Blog 9 & 10

Things I know about outdoor recreation research:

1) Ethics: Personally I have never given much thought to ethics. It was mentioned at the beginning of the course that kids under 18 need parental permission and need to know what is being asked of them. I can’t say I have given much thought but when this was brought up it made total sense. Children are considered to be vulnerable people, so when doing research the researcher has to meet a couple standards “1: a legal guardian must grant written permission. 2: researcher follows all standard ethical principles to protect the participant from harm” (Neuman and Robson 2018). 

2) Research in Outdoor Recreation is broad. Within rec there are more topics to be researched than what people think there are. Research topics can include impact on mental health, tourism, national parks, interpretation, justice and equality, and access for marginalized citizens are a few examples. Through various classes I have been able to make this connection. In Parks and Tourism we discuss how tourism affects parks and how interpretation is laid out within a national park. In majority of the rec classes i have taken so far there is always a lesson on equality, in fact one of our instructors has just recently completed his Masters and conducted a seminar on Feminism in Recreation. 

Four things I am still confused by: 

1) Levels of theory. Macrosocial, mesosocial and microsocial. I don’t quite understand what the purpose is exactly of even having levels of theory nor do I have a full understanding of the definitions provided. I don’t get the difference, having examples help but overall I just don’t have a great understanding as to what the purpose is and if they should be looked at with different perspectives.  

2) Critical Reflexivity. A decent amount of context was given with this topic but I’m just genuinely overwhelmed by it. I am confused as to what questions I should be asking myself as a researcher, how often and how I examine my own work with different research topics. How do I know when I should input my own opinion? How am I guaranteed to stay within ethical standards? How do I know if I have crossed a line? What is intersubjectivity? Intersubjectivity apparently means that “the nature of your interactions remains unchanged during the research project” (Hookyass, 2022). This definition does not make sense to me, I don’t understand how your intentions of an interaction could change anyway. 

3) Coding. I don’t get how or why someone would want to code their data, I don’t even know if what I said makes sense which is how confused I am. There were 3 stages presented in Grounding Theory, I have no clue when someone would use that method and why they would choose it over an alternative method. 

4) Sample sizes. How do you know when you have a good sample size? How little is too little? How many is too many? How do you know when you have the right amount to actually come up with a thesis or conclusion? 

Three things I know about myself as an outdoor recreation researcher: 

1) I like to work with qualitative data because I feel that I can make more meaning from it and I genuinely enjoy hearing what people’s personal experiences are or opinions are about the topic being researched or question being asked. With that I enjoy working with people in an interview format because they are “social relationships that involve rapport” (Neuman and Robson, 2018). Meaning that there is better communication and it is easier to understand each other. 

2) I am more engaged if I like the topic I am researching. For my podcast group we are researching the use of recreation as a therapeutic source and effects on well being. To me I think this is a pretty basic topic that has been covered plenty of times and it gets repetitive. In Foundations last year I had to write a research paper and I chose the topic of marginalized citizens and their accessibility to recreation. I found myself being a lot more engaged in the research paper than the topic my podcast group chose. 

3)I prefer interviews over surveys. I like interviews more because you are able to go more in depth about a question if you would like and if the interviewer and interviewee are both passionate about a topic you might gain more insight and be able to clarify what they have said further. It is much easier to interpret and you get to see and hear someone’s true feelings about the topic.

These three areas I need to spend time developing/learning in order to feel more confident in my skills: 

1) Because I would prefer to conduct interviews over surveys, I need to create better open-ended questions that will get me answers that I can analyze and make better meaning of. As well as asking questions that play off each other and make sense, avoiding jumping from one question to the next and try to have more of a conversation. When conducting an interview it would also force me out of my shell a bit as in most cases I am an ambivert, so this would be a quick way for me to get over the anxiety I have talking to people, because I promise I really do like talking to everyone! 

2) Avoiding bias in terms of who I am interviewing. Being in second year rec I do not have the ability to conduct actual interviews that require more effort behind the scene. I only have the ability to interview people in the class. I know the personalities of my classmates, I know who likes doing what and who spends the most time outdoors and who has the most experience in the outdoors. If I want accurate data I should avoid only interviewing those who are the definition of outdoor rec and instead interview people who have contrasting personalities in order to get the full scope of answers. 

3) Committing to a hypothesis. Don’t get me wrong I am decent at making hypotheses, it’s just that I don’t always see the point in making one and I never make one that I fully believe in. I make one and I’m just kinda like ya it makes sense so let’s call it a day and move on from that. I don’t really have a goal or answer in mind when I am researching. Who knows, maybe if I did it might make it a bit easier to narrow down my searches when reading an academic journal.  

Overall there is more to research that I don’t understand compared to what I do. I didn’t realize how in depth research can be because I haven’t given much thought to it before. I have more respect for it, now realizing how detail oriented it can be. 

References: 

Neuman, W. L., & Robson, K. (2018). Chapter 3 Ethics in Social Research. In Basics of Social Research Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4th Canadian Edition, pp. 40 - 62).

Hookyass, A. (2022). Research Design. OUTD Week 2, slide 23. 

Neuman, W. L., & Robson, K. (2018). Chapter 7 Qualitative and Quantitative Sampling. In Basics of Social Research Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4th Canadian Edition, pp. 131 – 160).

[aloutd2511]

Hey Taylor,

I see we have a lot of the same understandings and questions regarding research! I agree our topic for the podcast does seem a little repetitive and I think I mentioned this in my own blog post, that we all could’ve benefited from brainstorming and receiving feedback from.

It’s interesting that you also find you have a bias with research. I had mentioned in my own post about having bias towards choosing a thesis. I think I chose based on a topic I assumed I already knew the answer to.

I feel I also tend to gravitate to qualitative research, and being a social work student I thought that was why. I like to listen to peoples opinions and find value in every one of them. I really try to remember there’s value in all research and if anything there’s certain times when it’s more appropriate than other to use different methods.

Great work,

Allison

[aloutd2511]

Prompt 9 & 10

Three things I know for certain about outdoor recreation research:

Research within the field of outdoor recreation has a wide range!

There are many uses for outdoor recreation research.

Outdoor recreation research uses a variety of methods in order to collect data.

Throughout OUTD 2511 I have learnt many new things! As one of the only non outdoor recreation students I have experienced a whole new program that is very different from my own (social work). While the two programs are different they can be combined, as we attempted with our podcast/research project to understand how outdoor recreation can be used as a therapeutic resource specifically for university students. I did not go into this course thinking I’d be able to combine the outdoors with my passion for well-being but I did! I have learned about the importance of research; contributing new ideas about society and the multiple methods in which that is done by (Neuman et al, 2017). This is important in both everyday living and the academic settings, we need both to improve human understanding as well as keep the information relevant. If research came out a long time ago, and there is now research claiming the opposite is now true does not mean the previous research was wrong, but that it has changed since that last time. I had never really thought about research within the outdoor recreation field, honestly I didn't have much information on outdoor recreation at all prior to this class but I have come to the understanding that it is just another focus of research. Research methods including qualitative and quantitative, case study, survey, interview, random and non-random assignment just to name a few are valid methods and formats of research to take place in any topic of study (Neuman et al, 2017).

Three things I am still confused by:

While not directly covered in our class, I am unaware of the differences between honours thesis, masters, and doctorate level research.

Is research a mandatory part of outdoor recreation?

Can research be more harmful than good?

I took this class as an elective because I wanted to learn about research; specifically because I have been debating if a master's degree was something I want to pursue. For a long time I thought very little of myself and that there was no way I could do that because a master’s degree was for “smart” people. I predict that I used this as an excuse to limit myself and have now started considering if a masters/research is something I want to do rather than if I can do it. What the heck does this have to do with the things I'm confused by; I’ll let you know. I was wondering what the differences are between the levels of research as you move up the scale you might call it. If a master's degree is seen as a step further than your undergraduate honours thesis; what is the actual difference? While this was never something this course set out to answer, it is still a question I have. Moving forward, I understand research is important but is it a mandatory part of outdoor recreation? Can someone be as valuable to the outdoor recreation field without completing research? I want to think yes, but does that then undermine those who do complete research? Lastly, more specifically our most recent guest speaker has me thinking if research can be damaging to one's reputation. This speaker discusses an issue within her own study that didn’t receive criticism but could have. This makes me wonder and worry that research can be taken as something offensive. While we dedicated a large portion of this course to understanding ethics; the process of making sure research is held to a reasonable standard and that damage is not occurring from the process of research (Neuman et al, 2017). Do ethics protect the researcher as well? In this changing society it is difficult to start research knowing what will and will not be socially appropriate at the time of publication/ end of the research process.

Three things I know for certain about me as an outdoor recreation researcher:

I am passionate about mental well being no matter what field I am in.

I respect the field of outdoor recreation, but it is not a good fit for me.

I agree with the interpretive approach to social science research.

I think the most I can say about myself as an outdoor recreation researcher is that I am not one and that is okay! For those who don’t know, I am a second year social work student and the first two years of social work are mainly electives. I tried to take a wide range of courses, in case social work wasn't for me. There were many programs I thought I might switch into before taking the course; psychology, gerontology, and now outdoor recreation. I’m glad to have gotten the opportunity to try out different fields and know what is right for me. I think this also provided me a deeper understanding of my passion for social work as even though I was in a different field I still wanted to combine social work into what I am doing. Lastly, I have learnt that I am an interpretive researcher and I would hope others would also look at research from an approach that considers multiple perspectives rather than looking for one correct answer (Neuman et al, 2017). I think this can help new research into light.

Three areas I need to spend time developing/learning in order to feel more confident in my skills:

I struggle to find a balance between too vague and too specific when looking into potential thesis’s.

I would like to further my knowledge of outdoor recreation as therapies and how I would research their success.

I think a big struggle for me is confirmation bias; I want to find research that supports my ideas rather than exploring what is out there.

Throughout this process of informal research I feel as though we learn things such as ethics and bias. I think we lack information on how to actively be aware and complete research without actually doing these things. I recognized the first step to preventing something is to be aware of what it is and why it is an issue. A skill I need to work on is confirmation bias, while it makes sense to have a hypothesis of your research results. I think I took this to an extreme. For example; our research question “Does outdoor recreation work as a therapeutic resource for university students” I was pretty confident going into this research that it would benefit. To be honest, I was thinking how could outdoor recreation cause more stress as a university student? I can see outdoor recreation as maybe less effective than other therapies but I wasn't looking into that. I think working on skills prior could've been beneficial. As well I think practising and working with a professional on thesis could have been helpful. While we had many meetings I would have liked to work on the process of creating a thesis rather than doing it once and getting approval.

References:

Neuman, W. L., & Robson, K. (2017). Basics of Social Research (Canadian Edition) (4th Edition). Pearson Education Canada. Retrieved from: https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9780134649078

[mloutd2511]

Ontario to Lift the Vaccine Passport Mandate

*DISCLAIMER: THIS BLOG WAS CREATED FOR OUTD 2511, LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY. THE OPTIONS EXPRESSED HERE ARE MY OWN IDEAS AND NOT THOSE OF LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY. LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF ANY INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THIS BLOG.*

Prompt: “Find a written article (newspaper, magazine, etc.) from this past week and critically evaluate it (please provide us with the link – topic is yours to choose). What was the key message? What might their sources have been? (Suggest sources if there aren’t any provided.) How might they have been evaluated? How were they validated/verified (which techniques were used/could have been used)? What expectations/responsibilities might the consumer have in reviewing this article? Please reference the course notes, the textbook, and the article itself. Remember, we expect you to be demonstrating a robust understanding of the course material at this point in time!” (Provided by: Dr. Amanda Hooykaas)

Answer: 

When searching for an article to read this week, I stumbled upon an article about Doug Ford lifting the mandate in Ontario stating you no longer need to provide proof of vaccination as of March 1st 2022 (Ontario to Lift Vaccine Passport in March). Granted this decision came from the Chief of Medicine Dr. Kieran Moore, I still don’t trust that it has served its purpose just yet, especially since the mandate for the QR Codes has only been in place a little over a month. Yes, 92% of the population has been double vaccinated in Ontario but right now with the current state of the world I don’t believe it is the best decision. The article goes on to state that the booster shot will be officially available to those 12-17 on Friday, which is a reason to keep the Vaccine Passport mandate open because the whole population of Vaccinated Ontarians haven’t been boosted yet. The booster shot is important because just like every vaccine that you receive you’ll need multiple doses to keep yourself and others protected from those ailments. For example, you need to get a different flu shot every year because there are different variants of the flu every year, just like how covid has different variants. Proving that you are vaccinated, provides a certain level of safety for customers especially since over a million people have died from this illness. The Vaccine Passport allows customers solace in a very scary time, but not just for them, for the people that work in those facilities as well. The article goes on to state that this will only happen provided that the numbers of covid cases improve. It also states that it is not in response to the “freedom” convoy, but with it’s timing of when this announcement came out, how can it not be? People are entitled to any opinion that they want about the convoy, but at the end of the day it’s just about an excuse for people to wave their white nationalist flag. 

The key message here is to provide Ontario Citizens with updates of the covid phases we are going through and what may be in our Provinces future. The source that CTV is using is Doug Ford’s conference and Dr. Kieran Moore, as well as other articles listed in this article. Including one where Trudeau was in talks with provinces about instating emergency powers, which as we know now has happened. The additional articles I believe were provided to allow easy access to more of what is going on in our country. These sources were evaluated using quotes from the Premier and Moore, additionally they made sure that the information was condensed down so that it is easy to read and understand. They made sure they had qualitative research over quantitative so that it is not overwhelming to any reader. Readers of this article can expect that the Passport mandate might be lifted if the numbers are improving, it is also the readers responsibility to stay informed on what changes apply to their province. The writer of this article, Katherine DeClerq, verified this information through the Premiers conference on Monday, February 14th, 2022. We know this because the conference is live and accessible to the whole country. 

Reference:

DeClerq, K. (2022, February 14). Ontario to Lift Vaccine Passports in March, Next Phase of COVID-19 Reopening. CTV News. Retrieved February 14, 2022, from https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-to-lift-vaccine-passport-in-march-next-phase-of-covid-19-reopening-to-begin-early-1.5780257 

[aloutd2511]

Hi Meghan, Interesting post! There definitely is lots of talk and debate around the mask and vaccine mandate being lifted. I’m going to start this by saying I support masks and mandates being lifted and that I also respect your opinion. From what I’ve seen a lot going on in society is working towards a life that lives with covid rather than eliminating it; lifting these mandates is inline with that. You mention Doug Ford and Dr. Kieran Moore as the leaders behind the lifting of mandates; I have to believe there was more than just those two people within the government supporting this. While we have all held Doug Ford on a pedestal the last few years eagerly waiting for him to announce the next change, there has to be more than him running the show. From a research perspective, Covid was difficult. Research was in progress, and while other viruses can be sighted as precedent, it was just such an unknown period. I try to keep an open mind about the events going on around me, and consider that there may be more information than presented to me. For example; (and I know nothing about science, I am more so thinking from a media consumers POV) the latest covid 19 variant has been described as more mild than others, is it possible that people should be exposed to this virus now that they have receive multiple vaccines and that it is a mild version? I don't know enough about science, but maybe that's the plan as of right now. I would like to know more about the research that went into this, but the government can’t give away all their secrets right? I look from a neutral perspective and think why is there so much anger over this? Well, covid-19 changed our lives very quickly, humans do not adapt that quickly and as social beings we were forbidden from doing the things that are so desired. Anger with very little positive coping skills was what most people were thrown into. We’re angry? Let's take that anger out on the person making these rules and let's disagree with them. This has been referred to as the fight, flight or freeze response. People pretty much chose (subconsciously) one of these as a response to trauma/unknown. Just something to consider. - Allison

[jb-outd2511]

Blog post 6

Blog Prompt #6 (Provided by Dr. Amanda Hooykaas): You have five minutes to interview a key thinker who represents your field of inquiry (for the podcast project). To do this you must:

1) Identify who you are interviewing and why

2) List five clear interview questions (and what insight you hope to get out of each)

3) Provide a brief overview/summary that discusses how you decided on these questions

The individual I plan to interview is Dr. Craig Paiement, an outdoor recreation professor here at Lakehead University. I plan to interview Craig because I feel like he is full of knowledge and very well respected among the outdoor recreation community.

1. Within your knowledge and experience what ways have you seen benefits from participation in an outdoor recreation scene?

Asking this question will allow me to gauge where the interviewee stands with regards to his current knowledge and will allow for him to give his perspective on how outdoor recreation can benefit students at the university level. With this being an open ended question hopefully the interviewee will elaborate into other questions and points that I have.

2. How have you noticed the affects the pandemic has had on participation in outdoor recreation especially for university students?

The purpose of this question is to gain information from a different perspective compared to my own as since the interviewee is a professor they are exposed to different angles of the same situation which the normal student wouldn’t see. 

3. What do you associate with when you hear the term outdoor recreation?

The intent of this question is hoping to see what different words and activities are connected when someone hears the term outdoor recreation. By asking this I will gain knowledge of different perspectives on what people think of when the term comes to mind. Before I joined outdoor recreation just hearing the term I would just assume it’s just camping but since taking several outdoor recreation classes I have learned that it is actually so much more! 

4. What resources do you know about on campus and in Thunder Bay that are available to students?

This question will reveal different opportunities directly on the lakehead campus and within the area of thunder bay so students will learn of new activities and potentially clubs they may be interested in joining. This question also gives the interviewee the opportunity to speak on any clubs or organizations they may have been involved with in the past. 

5. What is the most cost effective activity to get into in your opinion?

The goal of this specific question is to determine what activities are the most cost effective to get into for someone who is new to the outdoor recreation community and not sure what to get involved with. I hope to gain valuable information on different activities and how each of them can have a positive impact on participants’ daily life.

I came up with these questions because I felt that since they were mostly open ended questions they would open up a new conversation as well as add onto the other questions asked. These questions would also help contribute to my podcast group and give us first hand information which we can discuss and break down.

[aloutd2511]

Hi Jake, great post! I agree this professor would bring an important angle to our podcast. You acknowledge the use of open ended questions at the end, which would provide us with qualitative research. I challenge you to think of how quantitative research could also be befitable. There is definitely power in numbers which is why I question why qualitative research is not commonly chosen as a methodology. I think asking for cost friendly activities is super inclusive and important for our audience. Our project looking at outdoor recreation as a therapeutic resource for university students would certainly benefit from gaining knowledge on cost-friendly options. I’m sure we can all relate to university being a stressful time especially financially. This makes for a relevant subtopic for our specific audience. If I had one suggestion to give, I would think you could have asked an introductory question. While we know he is a university professor at Lakehead University in the outdoor recreation program, the audience may not or they may need deeper insight to the background of the person being interviewed. I was curious if you could further explain why you chose Craig Paiement compared to any other outdoor recreation professor. Does he have specific experience related to our podcast topic? What makes you consider him well respected in the field? Does he have the most time in the field? Is he just a professional you’d be interested to talk to on a deeper level? I try to write in a way that answers questions people may have.

[lfoutd2511]

Aspie Test

I choose to complete the Aspie test that is often associated as a tool for self-diagnoses of Asperger’s because of its correlation to my other posts (Ekblad, 2004). I will note that I have a formal diagnosis of level 2 Autism and ADHD. Under the new diagnosis framework Asperger’s has been replaced with a level 1 diagnosis. As a result, my test results were in correlation to a different Autism diagnosis. This could be misleading for those without a formal diagnosis.

One limitation of the test is the combination of both ADHD and Asperger’s characteristics through the usage of leading questions. Leading questions are questions that lead the respondent to choose one response over another due to wording (Neuman, 2018, p.166). It would be incredibly easy to make use of an opposite social desirability bias to indicate that your self-perceptions are not neurotypical. Social desirability bias occurs in survey research questions when a normative response or socially acceptable answer is given rather than giving a truthful answer (Neuman, 2018, p. 169). As many ADHD, OCD, and social phobia characteristics are overlapping with Autism, a fallout of this test is that it does not take into consideration these differences.

The test begins through taking background information including birthdate, pre-existing diagnoses of related disabilities, nationality, ethnicity, and sex (Ekblad, 2004). The test then goes into a matrix question format with 121 questions (Neuman, 2018, p. 179). You are provided a statement that allows you to choose whether you strongly agree, agree, or disagree. There is a quasi-filter question format available (Neuman, 2018, p. 174). The choice of format clearly indicates a wording effect as individuals can look at different phrases and make correlations that they may not have made on their own in terms of common autistic symptoms (Neuman, 2018, p. 176).

Problematic Questions:

I had issues with several questions that were posed due to the ambiguity or usage of jargon. For example:

1) “Do you feel that you are a very special or unusual person?” (Ekblad, 2004).

- What is being defined as special or unusual?

2) “Do you prefer to construct your own set of spiritual beliefs rather than following existing religions/belief systems.” (Ekblad, 2004).

- What do you define as spiritual beliefs? For me, I would consider myself more morally than spiritually entrenched. Does this mean that I have chosen to not follow existing religions or belief systems?

3) “Do you enjoy traditional dating?” (Ekblad, 2004).

- What is defined as traditional dating? What about someone who is LGBTQ2+?

4) “Have you experienced stronger than normal attachments to certain people?” (Ekblad, 2004).

- What is defined as normal attachments? Stronger?

5) “Do you have odd hair (for example multiple whorls, standing up when short or other peculiarities.)?” (Ekblad, 2004).

- What does this mean?

Emotional Phrasing

I also experienced some emotional phrasing within the questions. Meltdowns are often a stigmatized word that is commonly misunderstood by mainstream society. An autistic meltdown is not a panic attack or a tantrum. Someone with inadequate knowledge may see this phrasing as a tantrum which creates not only ambiguity but also the opportunity for a social desirability bias to occur.

Self Diagnosis

It is important to not take self-diagnosis tests seriously. Autism has many symptoms that are commonly associated with other medical conditions. Autism is often seen as over-diagnosed because every individual is unique in what may be perceived as neuro-typical. Regardless of the disability test being taken, I would not be okay with a self-diagnosis versus a professional diagnosis. The problem with this is the accessibility that often occurs in receiving formal diagnoses.

References:

Ekblad, L. (2004). Aspie Quiz. Aspie quiz. Retrieved March 19, 2022, from http://rdos.net/eng/Aspie-quiz.php

Neuman, W. L., & Robson, K. (2018). Chapter 8 Survey Research. In Basics of Social Research Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4th Canadian Edition, pp. 161- 191). essay, Pearson.

[aloutd2511]

Hi Laura, great post. I like that you found something so personal to you. I have a diploma in developmental services and you still provided me with new information on autism! I agree self-diagnosis can be harmful and inaccurate but I am aware of how difficult it can be to get into an appointment let alone a formal diagnosis. It makes me wonder why there is so much misinformation out there on autism? Maybe because autism is a behavioural diagnosis rather than a genetic one. With a behavioural diagnosis it is characterised by groups of actions. Where one autistic person may demonstrate hand flapping and be non-verbal another may have a misunderstanding of social cues; which furthers autism into more subcategories. When looking at Down Syndrome; it is the presence of an extra chromosome 21, from a diagnostic perspective it is or it isn't. From my experience, the general population doesn’t have a super deep understanding of disabilities and tends to hear one thing about a disability and that is now how they identify the disability. We see this happen with obsessive compulsive disorder very regularly as well. People who demonstrate medium levels of perfectionism or just like their things organised will claim to have OCD when they are just connecting their behaviour to the one singular characteristic they associate with OCD. It really is unfortunate how the increase of knowledge about disabilities is actually just interpreted incorrectly, rather than in a way that supports people. I am curious how research could be used to bring awareness to the public misunderstanding of disabilities. This would make a good podcast topic, but it is definitely a topic that struggles to gain attention from the general public.

[aloutd2511]

Blog Prompt 8

Would you Survive Backpacking?: https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/playquiz/?title=mtm2mza1oqq36q

I took a quiz called Would you Survive Backpacking? As it turns out, I would not survive backpacking, as I ended with a 41% on the quiz. That is okay since the whole reason for completing the quiz was to evaluate the quality of the questions asked.

Overall, I think this quiz was designed very poorly as questions with multiple answers were not labeled as multiple answer questions and some questions had joke answers. The quiz was presented completely independently, with no knowledge to obtain prior to the quiz. It puzzles me as to what the point of this quiz is.

When collecting data, we often discuss the format of research, in regards to reactive and non-reactive. Reactive research is where information is gathered of someone that is aware their actions are being recorded; they are reacting to those circumstances (Hooykaas, 2022). Non-reactive research requires the participant being recorded to have no knowledge that they/their actions are being used for a greater understanding (Hooykaas, 2022). The actions completed will be influenced by knowing or not knowing if they are being recorded, even if it is on a subconscious level. Would you Survive Backpacking? is reactive research; there is awareness that there will be a result given and information collected from completing these questions. Did I think about this while completing the quiz? Not actively; it might’ve been something I considered in the back of my mind, but I was also considering that my results of this quiz have no further impact on my life.

Another format I want to discuss for this quiz is random assignment. The saying often associated with random assignment is don’t compare apples and oranges; simply because they are different (Neuman et al, 2017). I feel as though this information being collected with no context to the person's background knowledge or opportunity to learn the correct answers prior, leaves no room for accurate comparison. Had the quiz asked a personal question such as age, gender or geographical location I can see how groups could’ve been divided into the experimental and control group. Within a randomly selected research group (in this case all the people that chose to complete this quiz) are the people randomly selected from society to participate (Neuman et al, 2017). The next step would be randomly assigning people to a choice between two different groups, for example having participants choose between blue or red (Neuman et al, 2017). Lastly, choose which group (in this case blue and red) which will be the group receiving the drug or placebo/experiment or control. This quiz seems to not be assigning anything and observing the information as a whole, which continues to confuse me as to why?

As university students, we face multiple choice questions very regularly. Multiple choice seems as though the correct answer will be very simple to find, however, many times university professors give multiple correct answers and the task is to find the answer that is “most correct”. Throughout Would you Survive Backpacking? There are many answers where one option is to be selected, but a few questions require multiple answers but lack providing test-takers of that information. While not knowing there are multiple correct answers that were expected to be selected, I ended up getting the question wrong; I had only selected one of the correct answers. It can also be a huge barrier to receiving accurate information when ‘joke’ answers are deemed correct.

While completing a quiz, especially one online with very little explanation as to what knowledge is expected of you it can be difficult to understand the context. One specific question comes to mind throughout this quiz; “what is the most dangerous animal to encounter while backpacking?” From my own knowledge I had selected “rattlesnake” as I’ve heard they are very dangerous. You may understand my frustration when I saw my answer was wrong; BUT the correct answer was “the one in your mirror” (referencing yourself as your biggest challenge). I hope this goes without saying; you are in a lot more dangour being with a rattlesnake than your own self.

Overall, this quiz was very random; lack of context clues and direction made up a lot of my false answers. I struggle to understand the purpose of providing this quiz. Let me know if you have any clues to better understand this!

References:

Hooykaas, A. (2022). Secondary Analysis. Research Design. Week 9

Neuman, W. L., & Robson, K. (2017). Basics of Social Research (Canadian Edition) (4th Edition). Pearson Education Canada. Retrieved from: https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9780134649078

[tcoutd2511]

Research Week

During Research and innovation week I attended an hour session where they had maybe 5 different presenters. Quite honestly I do not remember much of the presentations nor did i understand them. 

There was one where they were talking about the topic of radiology and how not everything is guarenteed to show up on a CTscan or x-ray etc. I found the topic interesting because before choosing Rec as my major my first choice was to go into radiology/diagnostic imaging. However after watching that session I don’t think i would have made it far in that field lol, but thats okay because i like where I am at right now. 

The presenters themselves did give credit to their professors and most of them had citation slides at the end of their powerpoints. When they were actually presenting their findings it was quite boring and a good majority of them were just reading off their screen, providing no more extra detail. 

I don’t really know what else to say, I didn’t enjoy the presentations that much and looking at the later sessions there wasn’t much sparking my interest. Overall this is kind of  toss away blog post just like how I tossed away my time attending the hour long session just to gain nothing out of it. There were some interesting points but otherwise it felt like a class where I could take a solid nap if I tried. 

[aloutd2511]

Hey Taylor,

I agree with your points! This research and innovation week felt very forced and more of something professors wanted rather than the students. I also found each presenter had a very short amount of time to share their research idea; in session 1 each person got 3 minutes. I found it difficult to find something to write about from that; let alone write about their research methods. Research is very detailed work and under the circumstances it wasn’t really allowed to go into enough detail.

I enjoyed the lighthearted and honest description you gave, as so much of todays society sugar coats things to avoid saying what they really mean.

I think sharing these ideas in a podcast or other media format would’ve allowed people to gain deeper understanding of the projects they had interests in and actually have the time to understand the research project. I think that could’ve limited people ended up in presentations they know very little about, like the situation you mentioned you found yourself in.

Do you have any ideas/thoughts as to how research and innovation week could’ve been improved?

[aloutd2511]

blog prompt 7

Funny story: As we all know, this week's blog post is based off of a presentation for Lakehead University's Research and Innovation week. So I join a webinar, I'm watching and nothing really stands out to me AND THEN my boyfriends group comes up! I was so surprised, not to mention I live with him and all he told me was he had a presentation and to not come into the room for a bit. Here we are, in the same presentation.

Not to brag, but his group won (I don’t really know what the contest was but winning sounds good to me).

Anyway, let's discuss their project.

The group has worked together this past year on their software engineering degree project; they chose to use a thermopile sensor to detect fevers and falls in long-term care facilities.

The Research:

What size rooms would this work for; where the sensor would be located in the room

Machine learning model; what they use for the fall detection; specific training data that was in infrared bc video wouldn't work as well

The different types of sensors

Previous work in fall detection; ie life alert bracelets

Challenges of this research:

After researching the sensor required for the detection part of the program, the quality of the sensor wasn't good enough for facial recognition in order to specifically/and accurately determine if the person had a fever or not.

The sensor requires the pixel data be exported manually, ultimately creating more work for the desired result.

Success Within the Research:

Falls were able to be detected, laying/bending did not trigger the fall meaning it was accurate enough to sense the human body and its type of movements.

All incidents are automatically updated in the web application for staff to have access to dates, times, and proof of what happened.

I think this project worked slightly differently with its research methodologies than we do in OUTD 2511. This was more of a literature review based research where our class focuses on conducting research from others as well as other literature reviews. The group was able to use research to examine the way a project similar to this works and what they want to include and don’t want to include. The importance of research here is to take your knowledge and combine others previous knowledge/approaches and combine the two with what you have the most supporting evidence for success. I think it's important to note, not all parts of this project were successful; there were issues with the infrared sensor. Further research can be done to examine the ability of a sensor to be able to get both average body temperature and falls; maybe one sensor cannot detect both. As mentioned in class, there has been a demonstration of the three steps of literature reviews; input, processing and output (Hooykaas 2022). The group used previous knowledge from their university experience in software, combined it with the previously completed work (literature reviews) and had their output of the final project.

References:

Hooykaas, A. (2022) Linking Literature to Research, Research Design; Week Six.

[aloutd2511]

prompt 6

“You have been given the chance to interview anyone in the world for five minutes, Who is it and what on earth do you ask?”

I am attempting to research outdoor recreation as a therapeutic resource for university students, to give content to who and why I would choose.

Interviewee

I would interview Dr David Tranter, a social work professor with 30 years experience in the social work field as well as a key focus in the well-being of students. I feel a professional in social work would be a beneficial place to start on the concept of introducing a new therapeutic resource. Dr. Tranter is a co-author on a book titled The Third Path which focuses on the different elements of personal development needed in order to achieve success within students. The Third Path references a combination of both academic and mental wellbeing; both are critical aspects to success in academia, when there is a belief it can only be one or the other (Tranter, 2018). I believe Dr. Tranter has a unique area of expertise for our group's specific research topic as someone who is dedicated to studying to improve student well-being.

Interview Questions

Can you tell me what outdoor recreation is? Prior to this course I personally did not have a concrete idea as to what outdoor recreation is. The goal in asking this question would be to gain perspective on the individual's knowledge of what outdoor recreation is prior to further questioning on their thoughts of using it as a therapeutic resource. This can indicate the level of information that they will need to provide an in-depth answer.

Prior to this interview, did you have a professional opinion on outdoor recreational activities as a therapeutic resource? It is beneficial to have an understanding on how fresh this information is. A professional may come into the interview with years of research and perspectives on the topic and should be something considered when observing their opinion.

Since you say you have a previous professional opinion, is it fair to say you have recognized outdoor recreation as a potential therapeutic resource? This could be an important question; even if someone had a negative opinion of outdoor recreation as a therapeutic resource, they considered and debated on it at one point until eventually someone pushed them to the other side.

How do you think universities can use this research to improve well-being opportunities on campus? When looking at research you always want to be thinking “what is the point of this”. If you don't have an answer, you know what not to be researching. By asking Dr. Tranter, I may be presented with unique ideas that come from considering many other formal therapeutic resources in the context of including outdoor recreation.

Outdoor recreation as a therapeutic resource may be seen as a cost-saving alternative to other forms of therapies, what are your thoughts on this? A professional in social work and academics may have a deeper understanding of financial considerations when implementing programs. While pursuing a university degree or diploma, it is often thought of as a time where finances are limited and I would think there's a lot of opportunities to save money while being outdoors. I am curious to know if Dr. Tranter would agree or not.

Considerations When Choosing Research Questions

The questions chosen to cover with Dr. Tranter were based on purposive sampling methods. The goal with these interview questions was to allow in-depth conversations rather than using the information to claim a general population belief (Neuman et al, 2017). Starting with asking the participants previous knowledge on the topic was planned to limit the assumptions we as researchers might have; just because someone is highly educated and/or intelligent does not mean their current knowledge on a subject should be assumed. The use of direct, specifying and probing questions (Neuman et al, 2017) were used to maintain neutrality rather than sway an answer one way or another. By suggesting that outdoor recreation may be a cost efficient resource and then asking Dr. Tranter his thoughts when the idea had been put in his mind which I believe would lead him to agree unless he has deep previous knowledge that outdoor therapies can be much more costly in less obvious ways.

References:

Tranter, David, et al. The Third Path: [a Relationship-Based Approach to Student Well-Being and Achievement]. Nelson Education Ltd., 2018.

Neuman, W. L., & Robson, K. (2017). Basics of Social Research (Canadian Edition) (4th Edition). Pearson Education Canada. Retrieved from: https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9780134649078

[aloutd2511]

Prompt 5

Trigger Warning: discussion of unlawful sexual action

https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/kapuskasing-man-with-more-than-100-convictions-sentenced-for-robbery-in-city-and-prowling-in-halliburton-5070955

Introduction:

Thunder Bay News Watch shared an article on february 16th, 2022 referencing a man who has had many interactions with the law for roughly 45 years now. Raoule Gilbert has “ pleaded guilty to one count of loitering or prowling outside a dwelling without a lawful excuse and one count of robbery” (Thunder Bay News Watch 2022). Demonstrating a conclusion to this man's most recent actions; Raoule has a lengthy history of unlawful sexual behaviour.

Research Format:

The article on Raoule Gilbart demonstrates a case study approach of research; one person is the focus. This qualitative study uses secondary sources that have provided the writer(s) with information to provide deeper information on this case. As discussed throughout OUTD 2511, the social aspect of information and limited use of physical numbers further provides explanation of which type of research has been completed (Hooykaas, 2022). There are qualities that determine which research method has been applied.

Evaluation:

Thunder Bay News Watch demonstrated quality research when providing the public with information of the legal actions regarding Raoule Gilbart. Further discussion is made as to how this judgement is justified.

The References:

The article references Justice Lisa Cameron, defence counsel Amy Grann, the crown, The Record; Waterloo region media, and Gilbert's criminal record as resources that have provided this information (Thunder Bay News Watch 2022). With almost all of these sources being highly regarded professionals, it is interesting to think how they may have been evaluated from a research perspective. When evaluating a research source, two qualities are being examined: relevance and accuracy (Neuman et al, 2017). When overlooking all these sources as a group, they seem accurate as once again they are highly regarded professionals. These people are judged on a higher standard than most, as their profession requires. There is confidence that they have provided accurate information to the author. As the article is informative in nature, it is relevant to provide the community knowledge of someone who could cause harm and the final plea in regards to the case. Knowledge of previous legal implications are relevant to the current charges as this can suggest what consequence is appropriate for the Individual to avoid relapse in unlawful action, as well as suggest approaches for similar cases in the future (setting precedence) (Government of Canada, 2021). Providing information on the sentence and further repercussions without acknowledging previous convictions would provide the audience with less than the whole story, leading some to have opinions without all relevant knowledge.

Ethics:

While reading this article it was surprising to see absolutely no resources provided for people who may be triggered or needing support. Looking at this article from an ethical point of view, it does not appear any violations have been made. This article could’ve been improved by providing a warning of potentially triggering information, as well as providing resources to those who may have been caused psychological distress due to the article's sensitive information.

Audience expectation & responsibility:

It is expected when the audience reads this article that they feel uncomfortable. Unlawful sexual acts can cause the victims and those involved large amounts of trauma (Hartney, 2022). To include a social work student's perspective (meaning my own) this story can appear fearful; how can people do these acts? Some extremely relevant information that I hope readers consider are: this man himself was a victim of childhood physical and sexual assault. Childhood abuse often leads into a long lasting cycle of abuse, for many different reasons (Hartney, 2022). Readers may not be aware or consider this, and place judgement that these people are “bad”. Readers have the responsibility to consider all of the information provided to them, but also that there may be information missing and to keep that in perspective when putting together opinions and actions.

What are your thoughts on this article?

- Allison Louks

Hartney, E., (2022) 9 Reasons the Cycle of Abuse Continues: Why Sexually Abused Children Grow Up to Have Abusive Relationships. Verywell Mind. Retrieved From: https://www.verywellmind.com/the-cycle-of-sexual-abuse-22460

Hooykaas, A. (2022) The Nature of Data, Research Design; Week Three.

Government of Canada (2021) Where our Legal System Comes From. Retrieved From: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/03.html#shr-pg0

Neuman, W. L., & Robson, K. (2017). Basics of Social Research (Canadian Edition) (4th Edition). Pearson Education Canada. Retrieved from: https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9780134649078

Thunder Bay News Watch (2022). Kapusking Man with more than 100 Convictions Sentenced for Robbery in City and Prowling in Halliburton. Retrieved From https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/kapuskasing-man-with-more-than-100-convictions-sentenced-for-robbery-in-city-and-prowling-in-halliburton-5070955

[aloutd2511]

A blog post about the topic of my choice; my dog! This is Molly my chihuahua Pomeranian Yorkie. While she is a whopping 9 pounds that sure doesn’t stop her from being my adventure buddy. She loves running and hiking but you won’t catch her anywhere near the water.

I want to discuss the topic, just as an idea or debate; should dog parks have small dog zones? I think they should! The dog park can be a great outdoor recreational activity to participate in and meet other dog owners while your furry friend gets to burn off some energy, which if you’ve ever met molly, you know she’s got more energy than 10 people combined. Having a small zone at dog parks can allow small dogs the socializing that both them and their paw-ents are looking for. Dog parks are generally a large amount of space fenced in, all small dogs are asking for in maybe 1/4 that space fenced for a safe place for them to play as well. Feel free to share your thoughts with me!

Secondly, let’s talk about how dogs are somewhat of an outdoor rec enthusiast themselves! Dogs obviously come from nature and enjoy exploring the outdoors and all the fun that comes with that for them. Dogs can encourage humans to receive the benefits outdoor recreation can provide! I know Molly has gotten me outside (at least when it’s warmer) so much more than I used to!

Share with me how an animal has encouraged you to enjoy outdoor recreation.

[aloutd2511]

A sign from one of 58 Canadian Indigenous communities that have had a water adversary for over one year (True North Aid, n.d). It is important to note that communities with no running water at all were NOT added into this total of 58 (True North Aid, n.d).

I have considered continuing into research after my undergraduate degree in social work because I am so interested in providing information that can be used to increase practices that demonstrate positive growth within human relationships.

Here is some vague/rough topic ideas that I have been interested in:

The mental challenges of people who have very little income and people with very high amounts of income face (ie homeless people and celebrities)

Outdoor trips with removal of social media and devices as a therapeutic resource (this did come from watching the documentary “Surviving in the Siberian Wilderness for 70 years”).

The mental impacts of covid 19 isolation requirements; Are isolations and lockdowns traumatic events for people?

However, there is one topic that stands out to me; drinking water. For a long time I did not drink enough water and I faced many negative side effects from it. Side effects included regular headaches, low energy, constant feelings of hunger and so on. I have developed a passion, as odd as it may sound, for water intake and well-being as a whole.

Proposal-

I want to propose this idea of a water intake study. I think qualitative research with a case study approach would be most appropriate for the purpose of this research; proving the benefits of adequate water intake. I picture this research recording people for two weeks where they go about their normal drinking habits and use a variety of technology to measure: Sleep length and quality, hunger satisfaction, and a personal measurement of energy level throughout the day.

Benefits-

This research project to be directly used to demonstrate the importance of drinking water and advocate for clean drinking water access on indigenous reservations. People living on these reserves would benefit in multiple physical and mental ways from access and encouragement to proper living conditions. I included encouragement as a reminder that access is only the first step and lots of people who do have access to water and or other positive outlets may not be using them to the healthy extent. By creating a study to promote and encourage government funding for the resource of clean drinking water, there would be a benefit of job opportunities for people in that field of expertise. The job opportunities alone would provide a benefit to individuals looking for work and society from an economic perspective.

References-

Water Challenges in Indigenous Communities (n.d), True North Aid. Retrieved from: https://truenorthaid.ca/indigenous-water-challenges/

[aloutd2511]

Blog Prompt Two; Agafia's Story

Agafia is a woman who has been living for almost 70 years in the Siberian wilderness. She was born there in 1944 with her family after they had moved due to the murders of people whose beliefs did align with those of Joseph Stalin. The location is over 160 miles from the nearest town and is only accessible via certain transportation methods, such as helicopter. For the last 25 years she had lived without her family after they passed away, likely due to a virus brought in by geologists. She has lived in almost complete isolation since then, with the exception of one neighbour; Yerofei. Agafia shares personal information of her life experiences both positive and negative with one very strong theme; she does not want to be a part of mainstream society.

I believe the researchers were demonstrating qualitative research with both a case study and ethnography approach. By their fieldwork and the primary researchers completing the documentary, as well as focusing on the way of life (process) rather than receiving an answer to a direct question.

I view the invisible backpack as the researcher's access to high quality material things. The researchers sleep in a high quality tent, wear lots of “The North Face” brand clothing items and reference drinking coffee (a luxury) while Agafia does her morning prayers. I think this is very subtle within the film. I would consider more directly as actively speaking up and referencing their clothing or materials used. From the audience's view, they go about this rather respectfully in regards to Agafia's way of life.

While watching this documentary, I questioned the following when considering ethics in research:

Participants (Agafia & Yerofei) can’t leave as researchers are staying with them until a helicopter returns

Participant (Agafia) starts sharing vulnerable information while researchers have no resources to help with trauma

What are the benefits for Agafia by inviting strangers into her home and way of living? Are there any?

Risk vs benefit (For an example of risk: the geologists that had visited and passed a virus that likely killed most of the family. For an example of potential benefit: Agafia received animals as a form of payment while completing research however what if these brought in animals carried illnesses as well).

If I had been given this opportunity, I would want to approach the research with a final question in mind. For example: is there a type of therapeutic experience that could be learnt from conducting this research. I would introduce myself as a student in Social Work looking at isolation and nature as a therapeutic resource. I would be concerned about actively demonstrating respect to Agafia's way of life in a way she could understand (despite the language and cultural barriers). When people have differences in culture it can be difficult to show active respect to that person, as each culture may have different expectations considering respect.

[mrpoutd2511]

Hello,

I enjoyed reading your analysis of this week's case study. I specifically liked your reference to how the researchers were drinking coffee while Agafia was doing her morning prayers and how this is is a luxury they have. I feel this shows how the researcher did not understand her or understand her life. 

I liked that you added the concern that the animals brought to Agafia may have carried disease, this had never occurred to me but it is an excellent point! 

You discuss the fact that there may be no benefit of this research to Agafi; do you think there is any purpose to this research to the wider world? I felt like there wasn't much point to it other than bringing up hard memories for Agafia and potentially exposing her to illness. And I really wondered how they could justify creating this documentary while putting this woman through potential physical and emotional harm.

I like how you say if you were conducting this research you would introduce yourself "as a student in Social Work looking at isolation and nature as a therapeutic resource." By reading this I feel like I got a better sense of the potential purpose of the research by reading this one sentence than I got from the entire documentary. 

- Molly

[aloutd2511]

Thanks Molly,

I also really keep questioning the benefit of public knowledge about Agafias way of life, but maybe that is the whole point. This documentary provides insight on someone who lives in a way I’m sure a lot of us feel impossible. I am truly shocked to see how someone has lived completely oppositely from modern society and lived a rather long life. Maybe the researchers used the case study approach to allow the audience to find their own meaning from Agafias way of life rather than attempting to prove one of their own ideas?

[ahoutd2511]

Blog Prompt 2 (OUTD 2511): “Surviving in the Siberian Wilderness for 70 Years”

Born in 1944, Agafia Lykov has survived in the Russian taiga for over 70 years, and a significant portion of that alone. Her father led his family into the Russian wilderness in 1937 to escape persecution for being some of Russia’s Old Believers (an ultra-orthodox sect of Christianity). Agafia commented that “the Old Believers were being killed because of their beliefs … that’s when we removed ourselves from materialistic society and stopped any contact with it.” (Lykov, 2013). Agafia’s father built their home 160 miles away from civilization in the Sayan Mountains. Unfortunately, Agafia’s mother died of starvation to provide her children with food, and the rest of her family passed due to sickness that a group of geologists that visited her family caused. Her home can only be accessed by helicopter in the winter or by a 7-day canoe trip in the summer. Even at the age of 70, Agafia continues to maintain her home, garden, fish, forage, and cut and stack wood. Agafia cherishes her life in the wild and has no desire to go to the city. Her life consists of hard work, but it is simple and pure. In recent years, researchers and university students travel to Agafia’s home to bring her supplies, help her with her chores, and learn about her lifestyle.

In 2013, a crew from VICE traveled to Agafia Lykov’s home in the Siberian taiga to study her lifestyle and document it. You can watch their findings at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt2AYafET68

This study can be considered microsocial theory because it focuses on an individual (Agafia) and studies a “concrete, small-scale, and narrow level of reality, such as face-to-face interaction in small groups,” (Neuman, 2017). Additionally, this research is qualitative because it involves field research. In field research, the researcher “becomes directly involved with the people being studied and personally experiences the process of daily social life in the field setting” and “acquires an insider’s point of view while maintaining the analytic perspective or distance of an outsider,” (Neuman, 2017). The VICE researchers are immersing themselves in Agafia’s usual everyday life and analyzing her lifestyle from an outsider’s perspective.

It is pretty obvious that the filmmakers of the documentary carry fairly substantial invisible backpacks. Firstly, they come from very populated and busy civilizations and throughout the documentary it is implied that the filmmakers do not understand the purpose or appeal of living remotely in the Siberian taiga. They have views that have been heavily impacted by modern society and it seems that they maintain these views throughout their stay with Agafia. Additionally, the film is sponsored by The North Face and you can see that the VICE crew is adorned with brand new, expensive outdoor supplies to make their stay in the wilderness easier and more comfortable. It seems that the filmmakers want to learn about Agafia, but without fully immersing themselves into her ways of life and learning her traditional techniques on how to survive. 

It is difficult to know the full span of ethical considerations in place since we do not know what happens behind the scenes. We do not know what consent was given, if the filmmakers properly explained what they were doing during the research process to Agafia, or what information Agafia wanted or allowed the filmmakers to share with the public. However, the ethical consideration we do see being addressed in the film is the language barrier. A translator was brought with the crew to help the English-speaking researchers and the Russian-speaking individuals communicate. 

I feel like the filmmakers view Agafia as if she is an animal in a zoo. They are curious about how she lives and are interested in her because she is unique, but they do not seem to care about her true reasoning on why she lives that way. Agafia mentions in the film that she does not like cities and does not want a materialistic lifestyle, however, no further information is provided in the film why she feels this way. There is a lot to learn from Agafia and I feel like she could be a true inspiration to many people if the filmmakers asked the right questions and shared more information about her, such as what drives her to have this lifestyle, what tools and techniques does she use, and how has she stayed so positive when she has had so many traumatic events occur in her life? I would have entered this study more open minded and not only with the mission to learn about Agafia, but to learn how her teachings could help others in their lives. In addition, I would have stayed with Agafia for a longer period of time to gain a greater understanding of her way of life and her views. Also, I would want to learn more about her being one of the last Old Believers and what the religion is about so that it can be better understood and its ideas can be preserved for history.

Some ethical considerations I would have is to make sure Agafia is fully on board with her personal information being available to the public and more specifically what information she is okay with sharing. I would present her the film before its release for her to confirm it is okay to share or if there are any parts of it she would like to change. Additionally, I would ask her if there is anything in particular she would like to share with me or the world, so that she feels more involved in the research process.

Reference List

VICE. (2013, April 9). Surviving in the siberian wilderness for 70 years (full length) [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt2AYafET68

Neuman, W. & Robson, K. (2017). Basics of social research (4th edition). Pearson

[aloutd2511]

Hey, I completely agree with a lot of your points. We really are given such a small glimpse into the ethical process, which leaves a lot of us wondering how ethics were considered throughout this research. However, I question how a researcher could include the process of informed consent into their documentary. I would enjoy seeing the background process as to what this informed consent looked like prior to and during the project. Including photos or videos of contracts and verbal information provided to the participant could allow the audience such a deeper understanding on why the participant answered the way that they did. From the audience perspective, Agafia does not enjoy city life and she repeatedly speaks negatively about it. I question what approach was taken that led her to talk more about the negativity of city life rather than the positive aspects of living in isolation and off of the land. Was this the answer to a manipulated question? To continue, what was the benefit of having a vulnerable woman talk about so many of her negative experiences? The potential benefits of including ethical considerations within the research may be answers to these questions. Do you have any ideas on how researchers can tastefully include ethics into creative projects such as documentaries?

[aloutd2511]

Blog Prompt Two; Agafia's Story

Agafia is a woman who has been living for almost 70 years in the Siberian wilderness. She was born there in 1944 with her family after they had moved due to the murders of people whose beliefs did align with those of Joseph Stalin. The location is over 160 miles from the nearest town and is only accessible via certain transportation methods, such as helicopter. For the last 25 years she had lived without her family after they passed away, likely due to a virus brought in by geologists. She has lived in almost complete isolation since then, with the exception of one neighbour; Yerofei. Agafia shares personal information of her life experiences both positive and negative with one very strong theme; she does not want to be a part of mainstream society.

I believe the researchers were demonstrating qualitative research with both a case study and ethnography approach. By their fieldwork and the primary researchers completing the documentary, as well as focusing on the way of life (process) rather than receiving an answer to a direct question.

I view the invisible backpack as the researcher's access to high quality material things. The researchers sleep in a high quality tent, wear lots of “The North Face” brand clothing items and reference drinking coffee (a luxury) while Agafia does her morning prayers. I think this is very subtle within the film. I would consider more directly as actively speaking up and referencing their clothing or materials used. From the audience's view, they go about this rather respectfully in regards to Agafia's way of life.

While watching this documentary, I questioned the following when considering ethics in research:

Participants (Agafia & Yerofei) can’t leave as researchers are staying with them until a helicopter returns

Participant (Agafia) starts sharing vulnerable information while researchers have no resources to help with trauma

What are the benefits for Agafia by inviting strangers into her home and way of living? Are there any?

Risk vs benefit (For an example of risk: the geologists that had visited and passed a virus that likely killed most of the family. For an example of potential benefit: Agafia received animals as a form of payment while completing research however what if these brought in animals carried illnesses as well).

If I had been given this opportunity, I would want to approach the research with a final question in mind. For example: is there a type of therapeutic experience that could be learnt from conducting this research. I would introduce myself as a student in Social Work looking at isolation and nature as a therapeutic resource. I would be concerned about actively demonstrating respect to Agafia's way of life in a way she could understand (despite the language and cultural barriers). When people have differences in culture it can be difficult to show active respect to that person, as each culture may have different expectations considering respect.