A feeling of flow: exploring junior scientists’ experiences with dictation of scientific articles

BMC Medical Education

Jacob Rosenberg¹  Jakob Burcharth¹  Hans-Christian Pommergaard¹  Anne Kjaergaard Danielsen¹  Lene Spanager¹ 

[1] Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

关键词: Writing team;    Flow;    Scientific manuscript;    Dictation;    Education;   

Others  :  1138848
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-13-106

 received in 2013-04-28, accepted in 2013-08-08,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Science involves publishing results, but many scientists do not master this. We introduced dictation as a method of producing a manuscript draft, participating in writing teams and attending a writing retreat to junior scientists in our department. This study aimed to explore the scientists’ experiences with this process.

Methods

Four focus group interviews were conducted and comprised all participating scientists (n = 14). Each transcript was transcribed verbatim and coded independently by two interviewers. The coding structure was discussed until consensus and from this the emergent themes were identified.

Results

Participants were 7 PhD students, 5 scholarship students and 2 clinical research nurses. Three main themes were identified: ‘Preparing and then letting go’ indicated that dictating worked best when properly prepared. ‘The big dictation machine’ described benefits of writing teams when junior scientists got feedback on both content and structure of their papers. ‘Barriers to and drivers for participation’ described flow-like states that participants experienced during the dictation.

Conclusions

Motivation and a high level of preparation were pivotal to be able to dictate a full article in one day. The descriptions of flow-like states seemed analogous to the theoretical model of flow which is interesting, as flow is usually deemed a state reserved to skilled experts. Our findings suggest that other academic groups might benefit from using the concept including dictation of manuscripts to encourage participants’ confidence in their writing skills.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Spanager et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]McGrail MR, Rickard CM, Jones R: Publish or perish: a systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. High Educ Res Devel 2006, 25:19-35.
• [2]Grzybowski S, Bates J, Calam B, Alred J, Martin RE, Andrew R, Rieb L, Harris S, Wiebe C, Knell E, Berger S: A physician peer support writing group. Fam Med 2003, 35:195-201.
• [3]Houfek JF, Kaiser KL, Visovsky C, Barry TL, Nelson AE, Kaiser MM, Miller CL: Using a writing group to promote faculty scholarship. Nurse Educ 2010, 35:41-45.
• [4]Murray R, Newton M: Writing retreat as structured intervention: margin or mainstream? High Educ Res Devel 2009, 28:541-553.
• [5]Rickard CM, McGrail MR, Jones R, O’Meara P, Robinson A, Burley M, Ray-Barruel G: Supporting academic publication: evaluation of a writing course combined with writers’ support group. Nurse Educ Today 2009, 29:516-521.
• [6]Sanderson BK, Carter M, Schuessler JB: Writing for publication. faculty development initiative using social learning theory. Nurse Educ 2012, 37:206-210.
• [7]Steiner Y, McLeod PJ, Liben S, Snell L: Writing for publication in medical education: the benefits of a faculty development workshop and peer writing group. Med Teacher 2008, 30:e280-e285.
• [8]Gould JD, Boies SJ: Writing, dictating, and speaking letters. Science 1978, 201:1145-1147.
• [9]Gould JD: How experts dictate. J Expl Psych: Hum Percep Perform 1978, 4:648-661.
• [10]Reece JE, Cumming G: Evaluating speech-based composition methods: planning, dictation and the listening word processor. In The science of writing. Theories, methods, individual differences and applications. Edited by Levy CM, Ransdell S. England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006:361-380.
• [11]Rosenberg J, Burcharth J, Pommergaard HC, Danielsen AK: Mind-to-paper is an effective method for scientific writing. Dan Med J 2013, 60(3):A4593.
• [12]Danielsen AK, Spanager L: [The use of focus group interviewing within health sciences]. Ugeskr Laeger 2012, 174:1298-1302.
• [13]Lopez KA, Willis DG: Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: their contributions to nursing knowledge. Qual Health Res 2004, 14:726-735.
• [14]Rapport F, Wainwright P: Phenomenology as a paradigm of movement. Nurs Inq 2006, 13:228-236.
• [15]Palmer M, Larkin M, de Visser R, Fadden G: Developing an interpretative phenomenological approach to focus group data. Qual Res Psych 2010, 7:99-121.
• [16]Danielsen AK, Soerensen EE, Burcharth K, Rosenberg J: Impact of a temporary stoma on patients’ everyday-lives: feelings of uncertainty while waiting for closure of the stoma. J Clin Nurs 2013, 22:1343-1352.
• [17]Coyne IT: Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? J Adv Nurs 1997, 26:623-630.
• [18]Malterud K: Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet 2001, 358:483-488.
• [19]Graneheim UH, Lundman B: Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurs Educ Today 2004, 24:105-112.
• [20]Kellogg R: Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. Am J Psych 1990, 103:327-342.
• [21]Oatley K, Djikic M: Writing as thinking. Rev Gen Psych. 2008, 12:9-27.
• [22]Cohen EG: Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Rev Educ Res 1994, 64:1-35.
• [23]Räder SB: Complex skills learning. Aspects of development and assessment of coronary angiography skills. University of Copenhagen, Faculty of health sciences; 2011. [PhD thesis]
• [24]Seligman MEP, Csikszentmihalyi M: Positive psychology: an introduction. Am Psych 2000, 55:5-14.
• [25]Moneta GB, Csikszentmihalyi M: The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the quality of the subjective experience. J Pers 1996, 64:275-310.
• [26]Nakamura J, Csikszentmihalyi M: The concept of flow. In Handbook of positive psychology. Edited by Snyder CR, Lopez SJ. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002:89-105.
• [27]Delmar C: ‘Generalizability’ As recognition: reflections on a foundational problem in qualitative research. Qual Stud 2010, 1:115-128.