Week 3: Learning to Trust My Judgement
This week felt like an important turning point in my placement at CGHP. A key milestone was presenting my emerging framework to the Head of CGHP, alongside discussions with my supervisor and external mentor. It was valuable to test my initial ideas with people who understand the organisation from different perspectives. I found that the combination of my fresh perspective and their experience led to much richer discussions than either could have achieved alone.
From themes to principles
One of the biggest intellectual challenges this week was refining the structure of the impact report. My initial analysis identified four themes: capacity building and sustainability, innovation under constraint, partnership, and personal and professional development through reciprocal learning. However, as I continued analysing the reports, I realised that concepts such as reciprocal learning, local priorities and sustainability were present throughout almost every example rather than belonging to a single theme.
This changed how I thought about the report. Instead of treating these ideas as standalone themes, I am now considering presenting them as cross-cutting principles that underpin all of CGHP's work. Making this distinction helps explain not only what impact was achieved, but how that impact was created through long-term, equitable partnerships.
From analysing evidence to exercising judgement
This week I also conducted my first interview, which added a level of depth that was difficult to capture through written reports alone. Hearing participants reflect on how their experiences influenced their later practice reinforced the importance of combining qualitative interviews with documentary evidence. I was also grateful to colleagues who helped identify interviewees, reminding me how collaborative this project continues to be despite being responsible for leading it.
Perhaps my biggest personal learning was recognising how much autonomy this project requires. Unlike university assignments, there is no single correct framework or expected answer. While feedback from my supervisor, mentor and the charity leadership has been invaluable, I increasingly need to trust my own judgement, make decisions based on the available evidence, and be able to justify those decisions. That shift from seeking answers to making defensible decisions has been one of the most rewarding aspects of the placement so far.
Innovation, collaboration and learning
Outside the project, I attended an Innovation Breakfast where clinicians presented technologies developed to address practical challenges within the NHS. One example demonstrated how relatively simple innovations can enable less specialised staff to perform procedures safely with appropriate guidance. What struck me most was that innovation began with understanding a real clinical need rather than developing technology for its own sake. It also broadened my understanding of the different ways clinicians can contribute to improving healthcare beyond direct patient care.
Not everything went smoothly this week. An unexpected laptop update meant I lost some unsaved interview materials and had to recreate them from memory. Although frustrating, it reinforced the importance of developing good habits around saving and backing up work. At the same time, a new intern joined the team, creating opportunities for collaboration as our projects draw on many of the same reports. I'm looking forward to sharing ideas and ensuring our work complements rather than duplicates one another.
Looking ahead
Next week will bring another transition as I begin working with a new supervisor following my manager's handover. Alongside continuing interviews and qualitative analysis, one of my priorities will be establishing a new rhythm of communication that supports both independent working and regular feedback.
Looking back, the biggest lesson from this week is that leading a project is less about having all the answers and more about bringing together evidence, different perspectives and professional judgement to develop a direction that is both well-supported and open to refinement.
I’m a third-year undergrad doing psychology! I’m interested in topics of ethics, decision-making, and prosocial development. I hope to work in non-profit in the future, and would love to chat if we have any similar interests!
Please sign in
If you are a registered user on Laidlaw Scholars Network, please sign in
Charlotte, this is a thoughtful reflection on analysis, judgement, and growing intellectual independence. Presenting your emerging framework to people with different relationships to CGHP was an important milestone. Your fresh perspective can expose patterns that have become less visible internally, while colleagues’ experience helps test whether your interpretation reflects the organisation’s history, practice, and context.
Your distinction between themes and cross-cutting principles is particularly valuable. If reciprocal learning, attention to local priorities, and sustainability recur across different forms of impact, treating them as underpinning principles may explain not only what CGHP achieves, but how its partnerships are intended to generate impact. As you refine this framework, continue looking for counterexamples and tensions. Are these principles consistently enacted across the reports, or are they sometimes aspirations expressed more strongly than the evidence supports? A strong framework should make variation and limitations visible, rather than only organising examples of success.
The interview appears to have added an important temporal and experiential dimension to the documentary material. It can reveal how participants interpret the significance of an experience, and whether they believe it influenced their subsequent practice. However, remain cautious about treating retrospective accounts as direct evidence of impact. Participants may reinterpret earlier experiences through what happened later, and interviewees identified by organisational colleagues may be especially engaged or positive. These accounts remain valuable, but their provenance and limitations should form part of your analysis.
Your description of moving from seeking answers to making defensible decisions captures an important transition. Autonomy does not mean working without feedback or becoming certain of your interpretation. It means making a reasoned choice from incomplete evidence, explaining why you made it, and remaining willing to revise it when stronger evidence or perspectives emerge.
The lost interview material also deserves careful handling. If this included research notes or participant data, record what was lost, what was reconstructed, and when the reconstruction occurred. Recreated notes should not be treated as a verbatim record, and quotations should only be used where their exact wording was securely retained. The wider lesson is not simply to save more frequently, but to use the approved secure storage, backup, and versioning processes appropriate to potentially sensitive material.
I also appreciated your observation that useful innovation begins with an identified need rather than with technology searching for an application. The example raises further questions about training, accountability, and safety when tasks are redistributed, but it demonstrates how practical design can extend professional capacity when embedded within appropriate support.
The arrival of a new intern and the transition to a new supervisor will test the collaborative systems you are developing. Clarifying responsibilities, documenting decisions, and agreeing a rhythm of communication should help preserve continuity while preventing unnecessary duplication.
Your final insight is compelling: leadership is not possession of the correct answer, but the responsible integration of evidence, perspectives, and judgement into a direction that others can understand, scrutinise, and help improve.