What went well
- I was able to make the small but tangible impact I aimed to make last week. Even though I couldn’t completely clean up the original data set, I was able to change the way new data is inputted into the current data set.
- As the original data processing method was to input each member’s questionnaire raw data cell by cell, and manually calculate their scores, I used R to automate this process directly from a raw spreadsheet exported from the questionnaire website.
- The process originally took an average of 11m30s per person. After I developed the code, it now takes 3m27s per person, which is a 62.5% reduction in time spent in data entry per person, and a 166.67% increase in efficiency.
- I worked collaboratively with the research volunteers to trial a preliminary code processing format to see if it worked for them to input the data as efficiently as possible. I was receptive to their feedback in tricky areas and tweaked the code in a way that made the process as easy as possible.
- The research volunteers also expressed it made their lives a lot easier, and it makes the process 10x better, reducing mistakes and errors made in calculations along the way as well.
- What contributed to success, I believe, was identifying smaller goals to reach that contributed to my wider ambition. I also couldn’t have identified the goals if I didn’t collaborate with others and identified their needs and priorities that would make data processing more efficient and error-free.
- Also read a little more about Dialectic Behavioural Therapy skills by reading the worksheets the members use during their therapy. This is so I have a further idea about the kind of work and processing the members go through at Body & Soul, and understand the language the staff use around them and between each other better.
What could've been done differently
Data processing guides
- I wanted to get a manual done for the above coding process but did not assign enough time to do so.
- I focused too long on getting the main research volunteer’s insights and approval to set next week’s goals instead of moving on to developing the manual. Because the main research volunteer’s time slot and my work slot at the end of my week overlapped by an hour, I don’t have much time with her anyway.
- I should have started drafting and working on the manual in my own time, and made adjustments after consulting with her.
- Next time I need to work collaboratively with someone to complete a project before being able to proceed with another task, I’ll make a start on that task and know that I can make readjustments later. The first step does not need to be perfect before making the second one.
- What also felt unclear or required rework was my other task in developing research questions for the next step of the study.
Research questions
- There was discussion around potentially developing a member panel. However, I received feedback that the objectives for a member panel were unclear. The amount of organisation and
- I doubted myself and rethought whether I really needed a member panel, but perhaps the staff are just unclear about what the objective was for a member panel.
- I aimed originally for the research questions I formulated to be reflective of what the members really wanted other people to know about their experiences.
- I should have grounded myself and developed further ideas for a member panel to counterpropose and further discuss before giving in to feeling rejected too quickly.
Change-maker values that were visible, and tensions between values this week
Curious, Determined, Fast, Extraordinary
Tension between the above and Ambitious and Brave because I did resort to making a small but meaningful impact. However, I thought it was more meaningful to make some level of impact while I slowly got my bearings around R coding.
Character dimensions tested and overcoming this
Temperance and Drive were tested, as I would always feel an internal rush to get the ambitious outcome as soon as possible in order to develop the guides/manuals in time. However, Judgement is important in this aspect because things can be done one step at a time, and two tasks can be done at the same time, depending on how I manage my time and small tasks. This week I’ve proven to myself that I can make small impacts that contribute to the wider ambition/picture. I strive to tolerate that first steps don’t have to be perfect before moving onto the second one, and that two steps can be taken at the same time, if my energy and attention with both is spent in moderation.
Humility and Courage were also tested. I noticed myself initially taking it a bit personally or was a bit self-doubtful regarding the staff’s initial rejection to form a member panel. I was close to giving up on the idea, but I later judged that the staff just really needed a good reason before delegating valuable time and resources to form a group. I strive to communicate with others on what was done on the last member panel, and put together a proposal for discussion a little more before giving up.
Leadership capacities I relied on, and felt stretched in
Leadership capacities I relied on the most – People and Process: I worked with researcher volunteers to identify what needed prioritising in terms of data entry and processing – getting rid of the cell-by-cell entry. I measured the impact by timing the before and after, which made the impact a lot more tangible and apparent. It also took problem solving skills to build on my previous R experience in my Year 1 research project with new skills tailored to the study’s database and questionnaire design.
I still feel stretched in Performance, as coding takes large mental space and energy, I find myself feeling imbalanced in seeing the wider picture. Having gotten more used to coding and R programming, my next goal is to feel more comfortable multitasking (e.g., drafting a manual at the same time) to keep up the momentum in reaching the organisation’s priorities.
Ethical engagement
As my work and priorities unfolded via interaction with those who are directly involved in data processing it felt like I was supporting and facilitating them. I notice that I also needed to lead in realising the priorities amongst the research volunteers, and some initiative in achieving the best outcome. There were a few moments of “even if this wasn’t done/adjusted we can still live with it”, and I felt I couldn’t accept that when I haven’t tried striving for a better outcome. I figured I might as well try and present it to the volunteers to gather their insight, and see if it works or not. It ultimately worked in the end, and higher efficiency was achieved, and the volunteers were extremely grateful.
Next steps
Behaviour: build my tolerance and enjoyment for multitasking, and release from the shackles of self-doubt and perfectionism – adopt the ‘be water, my friend’ mentality.
Capacity and Character: I will intentionally workshop Performance in terms of forming a proper strategy, and have the Courage to put forward my ideas and work with others to develop ideas, whilst multitasking with a mindset of making progress, not making something perfect.
Concrete action: Start making a manual while identifying the next priorities in adjusting the database coding. This would most likely be finding a way to merge questionnaires into one place so the data is collected in a more organised manner