Author: Lucia VidalA policy brief is an outline of a problem or topic being researched. Policy briefs are meant to condense information and are written in a format suitable for the general public, particularly those who influence policymaking. They are a way for readers with no background knowledge to easily understand what is being researched and how it can benefit the community.
During our previous lab meeting, we discussed the importance of policy briefs and how they can benefit our lab and our research populations. To begin, our lab discussed the general ways a policy brief could help convey information to the public. For example, we discussed startup programs wanting to receive help from the government. Oftentimes, these programs are trying to convince people in government who are not fully knowledgeable on the topic they are presenting, especially if it is part of a specific field not relevant to their line of work. Our lab analyzed how a policy brief could essentially become the “essay” one could write to better explain the information. Another example mentioned was wanting to place an intervention in a hospital. Although doctors and chiefs of the hospital may understand many of the terms and reasons for wanting to implement the intervention, the managers or business partners of the hospital might not. A policy brief could make the message clear and concise for the reader who may not fully understand the topic. Next, we discussed some ways to make a policy brief better suited for the general public. We expressed the importance of using simple and general terms, being organized (e.g., bullet points), and concisely stating the main goals. Policy briefs are meant to be organized into different sections including the issue, background, approach, and overall results. As discussed during our meeting, we believe these sections should be organized using vocabulary anyone can understand. We also mentioned the use of boldface for more important words or sentences within the policy brief. Using boldface will make the most important ideas stand out. Lastly, we discussed how creating a policy brief could help us better communicate the research our lab does to the public. We discussed how throughout the process of trying to persuade the community to sign up for a study, we often struggle to explain EEG and neurodevelopment research in a way the general population would understand. Through the discussion of policy briefs, we concluded that a policy brief would be a better way to explain what our lab is doing and why individuals would be a good fit for a study.
0 Comments
Author: Maggie JohnsonOne of our interns had an industrial psychology summer internship through which she received data on user experiences. When presenting her data to a group of board members of the sales division, one of the members asked if she could “make the retention numbers say something else.” In response, she gave them a clear no, as that was against her ethical and moral standards. This led her to question how often this is asked of employees and how often data fudging occurs. Many different industries fund research, so we wondered if this research is manipulated to show the companies that fund studies what they want to see. Because of this question, we are cautious to agree with data provided by privately funded studies without digging deeper. As such, we also wondered why people would manipulate their data to begin with.
We discussed the possibility of profit being the biggest motive. An article we read discussing this topic further suggests that many employees agree to edit data to fit what their employers want to see because they felt pressured or there was financial incentive to do so. Another story, however, mentioned a man who edited the background data of a client because they weren’t eligible for certain things, and this change in information allowed his client to get treatment and resources. Considering the pressure some employees may face, we understood why they may choose to fudge data. For example, if someone has a family to support and their job is in jeopardy, and they refuse to manipulate the data in a way that works best for the company, they could lose everything by saying no to the request. In terms of research in general, not in the realm of private funding, there is also the idea of “publish or perish”. In other words, there is a lot of pressure on researchers to publish a lot of articles, especially if they want to be considered for tenure (i.e., permanent employment) at an academic institution. This can be difficult, though, because journals that publish scientific findings tend to only want to publish significant results. So, even if research is being conducted for a full year, if those results are not significant or if your hypothesis does not align with your results, there is a strong chance that the data you’ve been working on won’t get published. In addition, it can be difficult to get funding if you don’t acquire enough preliminary data that shows strong evidence for potential results from a future study. In EEG research, like the research we conduct in this lab, there are a lot of different ways to process or prepare the data to be analyzed. Different filters can be used to process the raw data of the study and different filters can show different results. When reading articles, however, you can not necessarily see what filters a researcher used to achieve their results, nor how many times they may have changed filters to make their results significant. To avoid future data manipulation and “fudging,” we suggested a consistency in protocol in conducting research—especially EEG research. Methods used to process data should be mentioned in grants and preliminary stages of studies to lay down a path to conduct the research without variation. This way, we can understand what was used to process data and ensure data was not manipulated in a way that best suits the researcher. Author: Maya McCuneEarth is an incredibly diverse place that is lush with various cultures, languages, and values. I was once told that diversity was what made the world go round. To this day, I still believe this is true. However, as with any discrepancies between individuals or communities, differences in thinking are inevitable. With differences in thinking, come differences in the way we aid and perceive others.
Culture-Bound Syndrome is the term used to describe these differences amongst cultures in how people interpret mental and developmental disorder symptoms. As a lab, we took a closer look at the ways in which autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is misunderstood because of differing cultural customs around the globe. In Western cultures, eye contact is often so intrinsically ingrained into our societal norms that most Westerners do not think twice over it. However, for many neurodivergent individuals, naturally adhering to this norm can be quite a challenge. Consequently, “masking” is considered a common compensatory strategy for neurodivergent individuals. Masking is a way for neurodiverse individuals to conceal their neurodivergent traits to fit in with what is deemed “societally acceptable.” Given that we know neurodivergence is found throughout the globe, it raises the question, “How might the definitions of normal behavior and abnormal behavior differ around the globe?” The article, “How Cultural Differences Affect Autism Diagnoses” , provided by our intern Maggie, explains that while eye-contact is encouraged in children of European-American Families, it is not considered a universal sign of respect. As such, irregularities in maintaining eye-contact are not seen as a symptom of autism spectrum disorder in different cultures. For example, children in southern Egypt are classified as “shy” when averting their gaze in the face of authoritative figures. Taking these findings into consideration, we proposed a variety of ways to combat the challenges that cultural differences may present within our lab. Alongside acknowledging and becoming more aware of cultural differences, we discussed the possibility of dissecting our laboratory tasks for cultural significance. In other words, asking ourselves if a task is appropriate and applicable outside of our own culture. Additionally, we discussed measuring cultural background by asking questions like, “What is your first language?” and “How many years have you lived in the United States?” In doing so, we can create a more personalized experience for lab participants that will aid in establishing a more inclusive community and improving the applicability of our research. Author: Jackson McFaddenFor this week’s Inclusion in Neuroscience topic, our lab discussed how we as researchers can better communicate with participants and their families. Though there is a set standard of professionalism in neuroscience research, it is easy to overlook the most important aspect of conducting research: the participant!
Communication styles such as tone, word choice, body language, and expressions may seem like second nature, but throughout our discussion, we realized how important it was to remind ourselves of the messages we would like to put out. For instance, when greeting a participant, it might be relevant to consider the following questions:
We were also presented with another important question to consider: how can we best help to create a positive relationship between researcher and guardian? Naturally, it is important that our direct participant feels comfortable and confident. Especially when testing minors or participants accompanied by guardians, it is imperative that everyone present feels their best. It is noted in literature that oftentimes parents or guardians may feel as if researchers do not take their expertise of their child seriously, which can create an uncomfortable environment. As we discussed in lab, it is important that we engage and incorporate the guardian’s reflection of their child’s behavior into the environment that we create during an experiment. It may be hard for a researcher to read cues of discomfort, stress, or other difficulty that a guardian may be familiar with. By working together with the participants, their guardians, and our fellow researchers, we can create the best possible testing conditions. These few considerations are key in building strong, lasting relationships with those who participate in research. As one might imagine, these relationships can also serve to create better conditions for collecting data, which is always a plus! Author: Mariana OrihuelaThis week's Inclusion in Neuroscience topic was focused on learning to support historically excluded and marginalized research participants. To implement effective techniques that will help improve the B-RAD Lab’s work with these populations, the lab read an article about cultural and linguistic adaptations for families of people with disabilities (Sands et al., 2021) and watched a video on research distrust in historically marginalized groups due to previous violations of informed consent. While discussing these resources during our weekly lab meeting, the main themes that emerged were inclusion, language, and trust in research. Lab members mentioned how social media could be used to promote inclusion in research settings. They discussed how displaying participants’ reviews of research labs may increase transparency and verify the trustworthiness of a lab for future participants. Also, maintaining updated websites that clearly describe studies could provide potential participants an opportunity to investigate research labs before contacting a research lab to indicate their interest in study participation. To ensure that people from marginalized groups understand informed consent, cultural and language factors must be considered when recruiting participants from these populations and explaining informed consent; this is another way of establishing and maintaining trust in research. Before ending our discussion, the B-RAD lab agreed that to promote inclusion, they will be careful with their word choices, learn American Sign Language, prioritize reading and citing articles from diverse research teams, be transparent and clear about informed consent, and be considerate of their language tones.
|
AuthorB-RAD Lab Members all contribute to our articles. Archives
March 2026
Categories
All
|