The Evolving Landscape of Conferences

From the June 9, 2023 issue of the Transformational Times

This is the Kern MedEd Blog's 300th published post!

The Evolving Landscape of Conferences 

 

By Tavinder Ark, BSc, MSc, PhD 

 

A data scientist returns to an annual conference after a 10-year absence, and notices dramatic shifts in the diversity of medical professionals and disciplines represented, and another shift that warrants reflection... 

 

 

I attended the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) conference for the first time in 10+ years. I was immediately struck by the multidisciplinary nature of the event, reflective of the increasing complexity of healthcare itself. It was amazing to see the breadth of topics addressed, from how to change gun control based on the cost of caring for survivors to the care of incarcerated patients to online coaches for students. 

 

As a data scientist, my knowledge of data and statistical insights are critical to inform healthcare strategies and improve patient outcomes. The opportunity to learn about the real-life problems with which the medical field is grappling is always one more reason these conferences are worthwhile. It is important for data scientists to understand the context of the physicians’ world and the role that patient-centered care plays. By understanding the emphasis on individual patient needs, preferences, and values, data scientists can develop research questions, capture data, and analyze data with a more applicable model and reference. 

 

How conferences are changing

Initially, it was slightly intimidating to be surrounded by a sea of medical professionals. But it didn't take long to appreciate the convergence of disciplines. The diversity of professionals was a clear testament to the evolving nature of medicine, one that increasingly recognizes the importance of data analysis and evidence-based research. 

 

However, the changes were not only evident in the composition of attendees. Over time, I've noticed that the nature of conferences has significantly evolved. Traditionally, conferences were forums for collaboration, fostering relationships and cross-pollination of ideas. They were less about personal gain and more about the collective progress of the field. 

 

Regrettably, the trend seems to have shifted toward individualistic promotion. Presentations have become a platform for showcasing one's research, often overshadowing the invaluable aspect of collaboration. In some ways, it feels like we're losing part of the essence that makes conferences so enlightening and beneficial. 

 

Moments of collaboration and conversation

But it's not all gloom. One of the biggest highlights of the SGIM conference for me was the opportunity to present my research in medical education. The interface between data science and medicine has never been more exciting or necessary. Sharing my findings and receiving feedback from a broader medical community was both humbling and insightful. 

 

Moreover, despite the trend of individual promotion, there were moments of genuine collaboration. Networking events provided the chance to meet fellow researchers, fostering connections that would extend beyond the conference. Additionally, the poster presentations became a platform for productive discussions, reinforcing that the spirit of collaboration is still alive, albeit interspersed with instances of individualistic pursuits. 

 

Looking at the bright side, this shift may be interpreted as a reflection of the growing competitiveness and fast-paced evolution in healthcare. More than ever, medical professionals and researchers must keep abreast of the latest developments and prove their competency. 

 

With that all said, the SGIM conference was a valuable experience, despite the evident evolution in its nature. For all its pros and cons, it reminded me that in the face of changing dynamics, it's up to us -- the attendees -- to preserve the spirit of collaboration and harness the power of shared knowledge for the betterment of healthcare. 

Why collaboration remains important

 

Even as we strive to gain recognition for our work, let's not forget that the true essence of these conferences lies in the cross-fertilization of ideas, the collective growth of our understanding, and our shared commitment to improving patient care. The beauty of knowledge lies in its shared growth. And the SGIM conference, with all its evolution, remains a valuable platform to contribute towards that goal. 

 

Tavinder K. Ark, BSc, MSc, PhD, is a faculty member and the Director of the Kern Institutes Data Science Lab at MCW. 

 

What Makes an Exemplary Writing Mentor?

From the April 28, 2023 issue of the Transformational Times

What Makes an Exemplary Writing Mentor? 

 

William Henk, EdD 

 

Dr. Henk, the former Dean of the College of Education at Marquette University, explores what matters most for effective mentoring of writers seeking publication of their scholarly work. Patience and consideration of a writer’s vulnerability, in tandem with their need for candor, are all a part of it. But there’s much more... 

 

Success in writing for professional publication requires a complex set of skills and dispositions. Those who must publish as a job expectation, especially emerging scholars, can find the process extremely daunting (Dixon, 2001). It’s no wonder.  

 

Oftentimes, their graduate programs provide little to no mentoring in writing for refereed forums (Barrett, Mazerolle, & Nottingham, 2017). These forums utilize a unique textual genre that is difficult to master, and engaging with the journal review process itself carries emotional risks. How so?  

 

Authors invest themselves deeply in their work, making notable sacrifices along the way. They submit manuscripts for review, laying bare their egos to the prospect of rejection -- a professional gut punch. Then they wait months in hopeful suspense for a definitive verdict, aware that their treasured work is undergoing intense scrutiny.  

 

With so much uncertainty, and as false starts mount, the process can give rise to a range of negative feelings including disappointment, discouragement, frustration, anxiety, anger, despair, denial, embarrassment, and even impostor syndrome (Day, 2011). Consequently, only accepted manuscripts can pre-empt or remedy these emotions, and more fundamentally, advance an author’s scholarship.  

 

To those ends, an exemplary writing mentor can be instructive – from identifying a publishable idea and arguing for it, to word choice, paragraph structure and cohesion, transitions, ideational flow, and overall coherence.  

 

A necessary, but insufficient condition 

 

Even the most prolific scholars have endured at least some of the regrettable emotions associated with the pursuit of publication, a journey rooted in trial and error and baptism by fire. 

 

Those who succeed do so largely of their own volition through lessons learned the hard way (Keen, 2007). Their success derives from a range of positive character strengths such as perseverance, curiosity, creativity, judgment, perspective, self-regulation, and love of learning, among others.  

 

Over the years, these scholars accumulate keen insights about publishing, both skill and art, as well as the joy and pain. At this career stage, many report pondering a familiar adage—namely, if I knew then what I know now—and conclude that this rite of passage would have been kinder if that was the case.    

 

On the face of it, senior scholars figure to make robust mentors for aspiring authors. Who better to advise protégés on writing for publication than those who have enjoyed significant success in their own right? In that sense, publication productivity almost certainly qualifies as a necessary condition for expert mentoring. The cognitive guidance a mentor gives can drive writing improvement, and if they bring experience as journal reviewers or editors to mentoring, then all the better.  

  

But is scholarly productivity a sufficient condition for mentoring writing? 

 

In fact, not all accomplished writers thrive in the mentor role. The important work of helping inexperienced colleagues share their ideas with a wider audience somehow falls outside their interests or forte. While most senior scholars contribute to their fields in various meaningful ways, mentoring may not be one of them. In some cases, it’s a matter of an unwillingness to assist; in others, it’s a question of unavailability or other limits on capacity.  

 

At any rate, although these scholars clearly possess both keen powers of insight and the publication wisdom to benefit mentees’ writing, they may lack other key attributes associated with exemplary mentoring. 

 

The exemplary writing mentor 

 

Whether you’re searching for an exemplary writing mentor or are an accomplished professional who seeks to become one, the question remains the same, “What additional attributes, beyond promoting cognitive clarity, warrant consideration?”   

 

In many respects, the affective nature of the relationship sets a ceiling on the effectiveness of a writing mentor/mentee match. The model mentor situates the relationship around care for their mentees. The commitment to be present to them is firm and elevates accessibility to a priority. When it comes to individual writing consultations, these mentors listen respectfully and actively, respond thoughtfully and graciously, and brainstorm when necessary. They instill trust by exercising patience, interacting in considerate ways, acknowledging emotional vulnerability, and avoiding judgmental behavior.      

 

Ideally, writing mentors are trustworthy, as well as sufficiently enthusiastic and empathetic. Overall, they are affirming, but not too much so. Whereas effective mentors encourage and support mentees by offering honest and astute advice as constructive feedback, they will explicitly cite a paper’s deal-breaking properties, however awkward that might be for the duo. In short, candor is essential, because anything less disservices the mentee.  

 

In large measure, the way the critiques of written products are delivered often determines the health and trajectory of the mentor/mentee relationship. Most especially when effective mentoring demands major changes to a paper, the criticism should always be directed at the writing itself, never the writer (Lingard &Watling, 2021). And difficult comments should be doled out gingerly, accompanied by reaffirmations of the mentor’s commitment to help.  

 

And lastly, in my estimation, the best writing mentors go beyond supplying incisive feedback and even creating a safe and intimate sanctuary for aspiring authors. They inspire them.  

For further reading:

Day, N. (2011). The silent majority: Manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars.  

Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10(4), 704-718. 

 

Dixon, N. (2001). Writing for publication: A guide for new authors. International 

Journal for Quality in Health Care, 13(5), 417–421. 

 

Keen, A. (2007). Writing for publication: Pressures, barriers, and support strategies.  

Nurse Education Today, 27(5). 382-388.  

 

Lingard, L., & Watling, C. (2021). Story, not study: 30 brief lessons to inspire health researchers as writers. Springer: New York. 

 

William Henk, EdD, is a member of the KINETIC3 Steering Committee in the Kern Institute. He served as Dean of the College of Education at Marquette University from 2004 to 2020. His current work focuses on helping others realize success in writing for publication.