Peer Review 9B

For my first peer review, I focused on Cheyenne's podcast (linked to here). I decided to focus on the form of the podcast itself. Since it was posted on the Google Drive, I wrote my comments as part of this blog:

• Cheyenne's podcast (which is untitled at this time) focused on the various genres used by both Spanish lecturers and researchers. She focused specifically on book reviews, book chapters and articles--which embody the typical type of writing done by Spanish language professors in her field. An important component of the form for a podcast is its use of background music, introductions and inflection in the voice. I think it was very clear that Cheyenne was enthusiastic about the topic and it clearly reflected in the current product. Her enunciation was clear and the purpose of the podcast was fully described and could be understood by listeners outside of our classroom as well.

• My suggestion for improvement would be that Cheyenne may wish to narrow the focus of her study a bit. The podcast feels a tiny bit scattered simply because there are many directions which she delves into. Since the focus of this project is exclusively on the genres used and the rhetorical strategies these genres employ, it could easily be toned down a bit. Also, I think the background music could be turned up a bit as there is typically a bit of white noise going on in most podcasts that I listen to. 

• The guide places a heavy emphasis on tone as it relates to form. I think that in this particular aspect Cheyenne really shined, and it inspired me to get out of the monotone voice that I had been using for the podcast and try to portray my enthusiasm a bit more. We all had the opportunity to talk about the topic/field we were most interested, so it should be a fairly easy adjustment to make. 

Peer Review 9A

For the peer review of a student in our section, I chose Sienna's podcast (found here). Her podcast was posted on SoundCloud, and it was titled 'English 109H Podcast'. I focused on the form of the podcast for this review.

• Sienna's tone and voice was relaxed and personal, which helped the audience associate with what she was presenting and kept interest levels up. This is extremely important in a podcast that is focusing on a fairly bland topic: namely the different genres and media used by professionals within the veterinary field. Although the topic could not be controlled, Sienna did a great job converting an otherwise boring topic into an interesting listen.

• The tempo of the podcast was in line with expectations I'd gathered from other podcasts. Although she spoke at a very appropriate pace, I think it would be best if the background music was a bit softer so as not to distract from the content. At some points, I found myself listening to the introduction a bit more than the actual genres used in her field. Although the levels could be adjusted, the general format used was in line with what I was expecting and easy to listen to.

• I was very impressed with how Sienna captured the rhetorical situation of the various genres. She went into fairly good detail about how the different genres actually identify and adjust their strategies to different contexts, which is a point I could certainly improve in my podcast. 

Editorial Report 9B

Much as in Editorial Report 9A, I selected a separate clip that I posted about a few days ago and edited it to improve the form and content. Again, let's start by quickly reminding you of the past product, and show you how it has changed this week:

Selection from a rough cut
Here is a link to a clip from last week's rough podcast: Rough Cut

Re-Edited Selection
Now, here is a link to this week's clip with some new segments: New and Improved!

So, what are the content changes? I took Dr. Nicole Achenbach's interview and slightly increased the amount of content present. Specifically, I included a section where she described the details of the forms she fills out for each patient she sees. I thought it might be a bit too detailed, but after consideration I decided it was a great example of the a type of genre that many people aren't very familiar with: namely, the clinician's notes. 

How about the changes in form? I tried to include a longer pause at the end of the Dr. Achenbach's segment, to give a bit of rest for the listener. I have seen many podcasts posted, especially on NPR and other radio segments, where there are significant rest breaks of nearly 20-30 seconds that let the listener collect their thoughts. I thought it would be helpful to take a similar approach.

Editorial Report 9A

This week, I've been focused on revamping my work that I posted about a few days ago. Today, I'm gonna sample a bit of audio that has been worked on. First, I'll start by quickly reminding you of the past product, and show you how it has changed this week:

Selection from a rough cut
Here is a link to a clip from last week's rough podcast: Rough Cut

Re-Edited Selection
Now, here is a link to this week's clip with some new segments: New and Improved!

So, what are the content changes? First of all, I whittled down Dr. Armstrong's interview from an aggregiously long 13-minutes to a far more palatable 2 minute clip. It's still likely a bit too long, but I believe what remains of the interview can be broken apart throughout the podcast but maintained in its entirety, because it's all relevant.

How about the changes in form? I also included an introductory 30 second bit that slowly fades out at the beginning, much as most podcasts have an intro musical segment. I also transitioned out of Armstrong's interview with a similar increase in musical intensity followed by a fade out, and then the beginning of a new segment.

Open Post to Peer Reviewers

It's time to post a rough draft so that everyone can see what's been done. Without further ado, here it is:

Rough Draft of My Podcast on the Genres in Medical Research

You may be wondering what I'm hoping to get out of the peer reviews. Well:

• First, I want people to know that this is still a work in process. I'm aware that there are some moments that cut out and fade in at inappropriate times. Although helping me be aware of those is definitely helpful, I would still prefer some alternative feedback as well.

• As for some major weaknesses, I think I will want to add additional clips from Dr. Achenbach. She is still underrepresented in the podcast, and my goal is to make both voices heard equally. Namely, I'd like Dr. Armstrong (who is representing medical research) and Dr. Achenbach (who is representing the experiences of a clinican) to have equal say in the times of genres that they are using on a regular basis. I expect that these will be quite different.

• As for things that are going well: I am quite pleased with the amount of footage I currently have. The podcast is already reasonable in length, and htere is more to come. This should make the editing process a lot simpler, because I think it's easier to cut down on a long product then to try to squeak by with enough content on something that is too short. 

Reflection on the Editing Process for Project 2

It's time to reflect and look back on the work accomplished so far for Project 2. At this point, I have several edited clips that I've meshed together into a basic podcast that is ready for more precise editing next week. Let's jump right into the audience questions:

• I have successfully completed a couple clips that highlight my interviews with Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Achenbach. The two clips I've shown are still relatively raw footage of the actual interviews, but I was able to successfully place them onto an AudioCast Player and begin the editing process. At this point, I have the tools to continue cutting and pasting clips, adding background music, and performing transitions between segments.

• I still have quite a ways to go, and this will present a challenge. The current clips I have are primarily raw footage of the interviews I conducted along with some introductory music and rudimentary transitions. This is nowhere near a final product, so there is a still a lot of work to do. However, I have taken a lot of time this week to learn the skills I need to apply some editing work next week.

• With that in mind, next week should be a lot smoother. The hardest part of this project was mastering the audio podcast format. Specifically, I needed to self-teach myself the editing and software skills necessary to make a podcast where I have control over the content (rather than using large blocs of interview and allowing it to control me). At this point, I am ready to move forward.

•  Although most of the project remains ahead, I feel like what remains is fairly easy to accomplish. As I mentioned above, the hardest part was gaining the know-how to complete the assignment. At this point, I simply need to get things done, and I'm not too worried about that!

Production 8b

In this post, I continue to work on transforming the outline into audio content. Today, I focused on editing the raw content from my interview with Dr. Nicole Achenbach, an orthopedic physical therapist at Desert Palms Clinic in Tucson, AZ. Below is the outline excerpt that I'm focusing on:

• Evidence: Nicole Achenbach, a clinician, has yet to expand into medical research at all even though she is considering it within a hospital setting. (Use clip of her discussion of the role of a clinician's note)
•  Her role as a writer and publisher is still limited to private, internal dissemination with the intent of performing medical professionals directly collaborating with her. There is yet to be a wider audience.

• In this audio clip, I discuss with Nicole the role that writing plays in her day-to-day work environment. This is an opportunity to highlight the different genres used by practicioners like Dr. Armstrong, who are medical researchers, and clinicians like Nicole, who research far less frequently. The edited clip was uploaded to SoundCloud and is linked to below:

Link to podcast sound bite of my interview with Dr. Achenbach.

Audience Questions

1. To meet the expected genre conventions of a podcast, I included introductory music to transition into the interview. I also carefully selected clips that maintained the focus of my interview, this allowed the form to help transition from the beginning of the podcast where the theme is introduced to the raw content involving my interview with Nicole. 
2. The production of this section was fairly straightforward. The content is still a bit raw, but the combination of the two clips I created in Production 8a and 8b have given me a decent start on the editing process. 

Production 8a

In this post, I begin to complete the tasks that I discussed earlier. A portion of my previous outline discussed evidence from Dr. Armstrong that demonstrates the way Twitter, LinkedIn, and other social media platforms are being used by medical researchers to discuss their up-to-date research findings. I've posted an excerpt from this outline below:

The Outline's Excerpt:

• Evidence: Dr. Armstrong uses many informal outlets (blog, Twitter, Facebook). These do not focus on his personal life, but instead are often links to ongoing diabetic foot research and occasionally to his own work as well. (Use clip of Dr. Armstrong describing facebook as a tool to reach a larger audience and make them aware of ways to avoid ulceration,etc.)

Below, I've linked to a clip from Dr. Armstrong that discusses the way he uses social media in his day-to-day professional life:

https://soundcloud.com/eyal-ron-581854533/new-recording-95

There are two key points I want to address regarding the clip:

1. First, the free-wheeling style that shows an extended clip from Dr. Armstrong's interview lets his voice shine through. Although at other points in the podcast I will try to let my own decisions strongly shape the content, I wanted to give Armstrong a chance to describe the importance of social media on his own terms.
2. The process of creating this content was fairly straightforward. I have found a program that allows me high editorial control for what I'm doing. Although I haven't dubbed background music into this particular session, I have not had any trouble in doing so for other pieces. It will still be necessary to trim down this content as it is currently far too long. 

Reflection on Editing the Interviews

The week is over and the interviews are complete. It's time to reflect on how things went so far:

• As for successes: the interviews provided a lot of good, raw content that is relevant to the topic. Dr. Armstrong discussed the way the genres you use may change over the course of your career, as the physician researcher transitions away from writing the specific content to organizing the overall studies. Additionally, Nicole showed the clinical side of medical communication that was less focused on research goals.

• What about the challenges? Besides completing the interviews, I did not get a chance to begin the editorial process yet. Because of that, I don't have a lot of content to begin organizing and meshing together in GarageBand. Thus, there's a lot of work left to be done in subsequentl weeks, including the need to learn how to use the software I'm working with. I've never had to do such extensive editing in a non-writing based medium, so I expect this to be difficult moving forward.

• Thinking towards next week, it'll be important to learn how to work with GarageBand, or to search for PC alternatives that may be easier for me to work with (because I'm not particularly accustomed to Macintosh either). Additionally, I'll need to think about how to mesh together the primary source materials with the information I gathered from secondary sources.

• I'm mostly concerned about the technological barriers for this project. Actually portraying to the listener/audience  the various genres used in medical research shouldn't be a big problem. In other words, the content will be fine. However, the form is difficult: creating a 10-minute, well-edited podcast will require some tech skills that I don't currently possess. All in all, I'm aware that it'll be a burden to complete this project, but I could see it providing some usable skills for the future, too.

Production Schedule

It's time to begin planning out how the actual podcast will be executed. Here is a list of some steps I plan to take to fulfill the outline obligations:

What is Done	Date	Location	Resources Needed	Date Completed
Review the two interviews. Look for key clips from DGA interview showing poster presentations, oral conferences and peer-reviewed manuscripts are key genres. Edit GarageBand to exclude digression/stories that aren't relevant	11-Mar	Library	Desktop Macintosh, GarageBand, iPhone interview clips sent to email
Include my own interview of the topic. So far, I only have interviews from my two interviewees. I'l need to introduce the purpose of the podcast and lead into the primary sources.	21-Mar	Library	iPhone, study space, noise-free environment
Lay over Music and background effects: there should be no eerie, noiseless background between speakers. This will require multiple layers on GarageBand, and I don't currently have the know-how to execute this.	25-Mar	Library	Desktop Macintosh, GarageBand, Speaking to library personnel if necessary, researching on YouTube for information
Include my secondary sources: published journals and other workable genres need to be tied into the primary sources (i.e. the interviews). This requires major editing.	26-Mar	Library	Desktop Macintosh, iPhone, GarageBand

Content Outline

It's time to begin preparing for the podcast production. Before we can begin actually creating a podcast, though, let's start with an outline of how it should flow. An outline of the podcast's content is shown below:

Outline for a Podcast on the Styles of Media Used in Medical Research and Clinical Practice

Introduction

• Begin with a short musical introduction

• Introduce myself (name, role in the podcast), the purpose of today's podcast
• The purpose is to better understand the media that medical practitioners use on a day-to-day basis

• Discuss the wide variety of possible formats availabe to a researcher in this day and age: Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, journals, poster presentations, conferences, internal meetings, etc. 
• The question is which of these are actually used often?

• Introduce the guests: Dr. David Armstrong -- orthopedic surgeon specializing in diabetic foot, and Nicole Achenbach, PT, DPT -- a physical therapist at an orthopedic outpatient clinic in Tucson, AZ. 

First Point: Informal channels such as social media are becoming more relevant as professional outlets

• Evidence: Dr. Armstrong uses many informal outlets (blog, Twitter, Facebook). These do not focus on his personal life, but instead are often links to ongoing diabetic foot research and occasionally to his own work as well. (Use clip of Dr. Armstrong describing facebook as a tool to reach a larger audience and make them aware of ways to avoid ulceration,etc.)

• This shows that these social media sites are becoming less 'social' and more about professional development. Armstrong uses Facebook and Twitter in the exact same way that professional used to exclusively use LinkedIn. There is no longer a fine distinguishing line between a doctor's professional world and his personal life. 

• Evidence: The rise of 'informal' publication of medical trial results on blogs and other sites that are not peer-reviewed. (Discuss secondary sources)

• More and more medical researchers are publishing the journal articles and informal reports they read via online blogs, or via Twitter. This is increasing the availability of information, but it also limits the ability of editors trying to ensure the validity of new data and information.

Second Point: The role of a medical researcher in the context of writing and publishing changes dramatically over the course of their career.

• Evidence: Dr. Armstrong began career as a primary author directly involved in the research. Today, he guides young doctors and often acts as a collaborating author (last author) that is a mentor and overseer of the research.  (Use clip of Dr. Armstrong discussing how he has a larger legacy left behind as an overseer of research and a mentor to future researchers)

• A medical researcher must make the transition from an author and data collector to an editor in a supervisory role. This transition is not always seamless or desired, but it allows one to have a greater influence on the future of medical research when it is done well.

• Evidence: The average age of authors submitting abstracts, poster presentations and manuscripts as first authors is much lower than the average age of authors presenting at national conferences and submitting manuscripts as a collaborating author. (Cite secondary sources)

• This shows that the trend towards an editorial role extends beyond just Dr. Armstrong's experience. In addition, it appears that poster presentations and abstract creation--the tell-tale signs of someone in the middle of an actual research project--is more often created by young researchers. Again, this suggests that most active research is led by experienced clinicians but run by younger doctors. 

Third Point: There is a wide gap in the role writing plays for a clinician as opposed to a medical researcher. 

• Evidence: Nicole Achenbach, a clinician, has yet to expand into medical research at all even though she is considering it within a hospital setting. (Use clip of her discussion of the role of a clinician's note)

•  Her role as a writer and publisher is still limited to private, internal dissemination with the intent of performing medical professionals directly collaborating with her. There is yet to be a wider audience.

Report on My Interviews

So, I finally completed my interview with Nicole Achenbach this morning, which means I have now finished recording the podcast with both Nicole and Dr. David Armstrong. Before I start working on the podcast itself, I wanted to quickly outline some important genres I discovered, and the expectations I have for the podcast moving forward:

• First, there are a wide variety of formal and informal genres within the medical literature. Dr. Armstrong uses all sorts of genres, including social media platforms like his diabetic foot blog, as well as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. However, most of his efforts go into more formal work such as peer-reviewed journal manuscripts and oral presentations at internal meetings and international conferences. Nicole, who focuses more on direct patient care and less on medical research, often writes clinical notes directed at both physicians and any future reader of the patient's medical history. She often writes to inform and with the specific intent to maintain a paper trail that can be followed in the future. Ultimately the three most common genres appear to be:

• Clinician's notes: these are often formal in the sense that they are part of a patient history, but often use shorthand and abbreviations. Dissemination of these notes is limited, and the audience is narrow--typically other doctors or medical professionals.

• Journal Manuscripts: these are manuscripts that are submitted for peer-review and usually have a delay of 6-12 months between submission and publication time. These can range from literature reviews that aggregate other people's work to novel clinical trials. Each trial must choose a single journal to be published in, so all manuscripts are unique.

• Oral Presentations: these are given at conferences or at internal meetings. The audience varies widely from colleagues around the world during international meetings to peers at the hospital when the meeting is internal. 

• With this in mind, there are some unique challenges to each genre. The clinician's note is often completed during clinical appointments. This means the clincian is multi-tasking by attempting to run through a differential diagnosis while simultaneously keeping track of everything that was done. This often requires shorthand notation that can be readily understood by other professionals, and there is always the possibility that such notes will be used in courtroom settings. A journal manuscript is often carefully reviewed for accuracy in the statistical analysis. It also requires one to match their article to the rules and regulations of the particular journal they submit to. Since multiple submissions may be necessary, and each journal has its own criteria, this type of article may have to be rewritten multiple times. An oral presentation comes with all the typical issues associated with public presentations: you must present to a wide audience in a live session. 

• Beyond the challenges, these genres can be largely rewarding. There are the personal rewards to publishing: each journal manuscript or oral presentation is a potential CV and career builder for a medical researcher. In addition, presenting at a conference can get your research out to a general public that is interested in cutting edge research and may be interested in collaboration. Finally, a clinician's note is very important to keep track of the procedures and care that has been provided to a patient so that all medical professionals whom are working together with a patient are aware of what is being done.

• Some of these genres are often found in mass media as well. An oral presentation has a specific connotation in medical research, but it has the same procedure as any other meeting or presentation. In that sense, we all do oral presentations frequently. A journal manuscript is far less likely to be found in mass media, but many other professional fields use similar peer-reviewed processes with detailed results and conclusions found in a study that can be replicated. 

Academic Discourse and Genre

Now that I've found a journal to analyze more closely (the New England Journal of Medicine's latest volume, published in February 2016), I wanted to browse through it and get a sense of the different genres found within. Here's what I found:

• There appear to be three different primary genres in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

• The heart of the issue represents 'Journal Articles' which are full-length submissions to the journal that include an introduction, experimental section, a results and a full discussion about cutting-edge research being performed by medical researchers. 

• At the beginning of the journal are News Stories, which are typically written in a journalistic format targeting a wider, more general audience that appreciates medical news updates. A reader interested in the news stories won't necessarily be able to follow the more in-depth research papers found in the journal articles. 

• After News Stories are presented, but prior to the Journal articles, are a series of 'Letters' to the Journal, which represent long abstracts of ongoing research. This is usually slightly more current work that is still being performed and hasn't been fully analyzed. Rather than a full manuscript being presented, these usually just include major details of what has so far been discovered in an ongoing clinical trial. 

• So, what defines these genres? A Journal Article seems to me to be primarily defined by its ability to encapsulate the entire scientific process. A Journal Article's experiment can be replicated by anyone because the experimental section is outlined in detail. These are the type of experiments that can ultimately get aggregated in a literature review. A New Story, in contrast, is more like a quick reference guide or headline story for a layman audience. It is defined by its accessibility, its short paragraph structure, and its author is typically not the principle investigator of the study. Finally, a Letter resembles a short article, but it highlights primarily the conclusions that can be drawn from an ongoing study. It is the most cutting edge, but it is not fully replicable because an experimental section is not necessarily included.
  

My Discipline

Since the focus of this project is on how people in my field communicate among various audiences, it's important to get a sense of who is in my field. For the purposes of this project, I chose medical care and research as my field, rather than chemistry. For that reason, I answer a series of questions about students and professionals in medicine, particularly in the areas of medical research and clinical care:

• So, what do students preparing for a career in medicine learn to do? Students in medicine need to learn to diagnose patients, communicate effectively with people who need to trust them, and learn to set up experimental trials and conduct studies. 

• Medical students who get a degree have a wide variety of options available. Many will become clinicians, either in primary care or in one of dozens of sub-specialties. Others may become full-time researchers within the medical field, or they may choose to switch to a career in health library science, consulting, or executive positions within hospital settings. Typically, medical schools seek people who want to be practicing clinicians who treat patients. 

• I was drawn to this field because I believe medicine is the rare intersection of hands-on practice and the interaction with real people. It also provides avenues for both research and teaching in the future, which I have really enjoyed as a teaching and research assistant. The hours are terrible but it looks to be extremely rewarding.

• Who are the exciting leaders in this field? I think this is a fairly subjective question, so I will answer with my personal favorites. I think Dr. Marvin Slepian, who helped introduce a working artificial heart and is currently affiliated with the local Sarver Heart Center is a fascinating cardiologist. As for famous organizations, the American Diabetes Association is intimately involved both in primary care as well as playing a large role for certain orthopedic surgeons who specialize in common issues like diabetic foot issues.

• What are the major journals in the field? The three most famous medical journals are, by far, the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and the British Medical Journal (BMJ). The NEJM and JAMA are published in the United States, whereas BJM is published in the United Kingdom. 

My Interviewees on Social Media

To get a sense of the informal social media my interviewees are using, I searched for them on popular social media networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, Reddit, and other common blogging and sharing sites. Here's a quick recap on where you can find these medical professionals:

• What social media networks do Nicole Achenbach, PT and Dr. David G. Armstrong use? Nicole Achenbach is found on Facebook and LinkedIn, but not on any other social media sites examined. She appears to use Facebook primarily as a social tool among friends, while LinkedIn is rarely updated. David Armstrong uses nearly every social media site examined, including Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

• How are they using their accounts? David Armstrong primarily uses his accounts professionally. His LinkedIn constantly updates with links to ongoing research in diabetic foot journals. The same is true for his Twitter and Facebook accounts. His YouTube videos are often quick posts of himself and colleagues chatting or preparing for surgeries outside of operating rooms. These are often more collegiate, but they are still in office settings. In contrast, Nicole Achenbach does not appear to use any social media sites for professional development. Her LinkedIn is not updated often, and her Facebook posts target friends and family. 

• How do their social media posts differ from their tone in academic journals? In some senses, David Armstrong's tone doesn't change dramatically between academic journals and social media posts. Both focus extensively on diabetes care and management. He is far less formal in his YouTube postings. However, his online blog and twitter updates often hyperlink directly to peer-reviewed journal articles. In this sense, he uses social media as a tool to draw a larger audience to more formal manuscripts. Nicole Achenbach, on the other hand, is professional, formal and PT-focused in her literature review. On Facebook, however, she is less formal and uses it in a social environment. Thus, her audience is completely different between the two media. 

My Interviewees as Professional Writers

To further acquaint myself with my interviewees, whom I will be interviewing this week, I went ahead and found their CV and publication pages to see what they've been recently authoring. Here is what I found:

• Dr. David G. Armstrong publishes extensively. In the past twenty years, he has had over 425 peer-reviewed publications. Most of these are full-length manuscripts; however, many are also abstracts. In addition, he frequently is a keynote speaker at major conferences on diabetes and the diabetic foot. He occasionally participates in poster presentations as well, although this occurred more frequently earlier in his career. Nicole Achenbach, PT, DPT does not formally publish frequently. She had a literature review on the physiology and treatment of cellulite which she authored during her time at the University of New Mexico. She writes formally on a daily basis in the form of clinician's notes, but she does not actively participate in medical research since she is a care provider.

• Nicole has only published the single literature review. Thus, I cannot provide an additional research manuscript that she has authored. The lit review shown above is written as a professional manuscript. It summarizes the current research literature to determine the causes of cellulite as best understood today. In this sense, it operates almost as a QRG, but for professional PT peers. 

• Dr. Armstrong has many examples of his publications available readily online. Two particular examples include his systematic review on Preventing Foot Ulcers in Patients with Diabetes, and his clinical trial on Off-loading the Diabetic Foot Wound: A Randomized Controlled Trial. The first is a systematic review intended to aggregate the current research and prevent summary results indicating the best clinical methods for reducing ulceration risk. In contrast, the randomized controlled trial focuses on one clinical trial, led by Dr. Armstrong, that tries to quantify the effect of proper offloading on wound sizes. The systematic review ranks the trials and tries to determine how reliable the data is. In contrast, the randomized trial does not self-assess itself as much, and includes a more optimistic tone in terms of the ability for off-loading to improve wound care.

• Let's quickly describe the context for each work. Nicole's literature review was written in 2012 while she was a doctoral student at the University of New Mexico. The review targets professionals in Physical Therapy field who seek to better understand the physiology and causes of cellulite buildup. It is not intended for a lay audience. It appears to be written as a Master's thesis, and was likely a required document for completing her higher education degree. Dr. Armstrong's first paper was actually written by a resident whom he likely mentors. In that systematic review, written in 2011, Dr. Armstrong served as the corresponding author. In contrast, the other clinical trial was authored by Dr. Armstrong as the primary author and was written in 2001--far earlier in Dr. Armstrong's career. At this early point, he was still an up-and-comer and likely did not have the sway to publish a literature review, which often requires a request by the journal that ultimately publishes it. 

• So, what is the message of each piece? Nicole's literature review concludes that cellulite buildup can often be misunderstood to arise inevitably during significant weight loss. However, there are proven techniques in PT that can minimize cellulite buildup and that this build is often unnecessary. Dr. Armstrong's systematic review's message is that many publications have to be somewhat discredited if they are not performed using gold-standard experimental procedures. In addition, the conclusion is that foot ulcer prevention requires proper off-loading and plantar pressure redistribution.

• Finally, what is the purpose of each piece? Nicole's lit review is targeting PT professionals, and it is hoping to convey to them their role in preventing unnecessary cellulite buildup. It is also serving as a quick reference guide for physical therapy students who may need to brush up on the physiology of how cellulite develops. Dr. Armstrong's literature review hopes to assist clinicians in treating patients who have diabetes and peripheral neuropathy. Ultimately, such lit reviews can aggregate the knowledge of many studies without forcing clinicians to read each individually. 

My Interview Subjects

It's time to begin preparation for the second project, where I'll be analyzing the most common genres used to disseminate information in the medical field. The research will involve two primary sources, so I started off by finding two medical professionals that I could interview one-on-one. Here's an overview of Dr. David G. Armstrong and Nicole Achenbach, PT, DPT--a podiatrist and a physical therapist whom I'll be interviewing:

• The two people I'll interview are David G. Armstrong and Nicole Achenbach. Dr. Armstrong is an orthopedic podiatrist who specializes in treating the diabetic foot. Nicole is a physical therapist at an othropedic outpatient clinic. Dr. Armstrong earned his podiatric degree in the United Kingdom and subsequently received honorary M.D. and Ph.D degrees from Rosalind Franklin Medical School in Chicago. Nicole graduated with a doctorate in physical therapy from the University of New Mexico. Dr. Armstrong was board certified in 1999 and has worked in his field for nearly 20 years. Nicole was board certified in PT in 2013, and has worked at her clinic for over 2 years. 

• As for the interviews themselves: Dr. Armstrong's interview will be conducted at noon on March 2nd, 2016. It has been scheduled at his office at the University Medical Center and was slotted for 45 minutes. Nicole's interview will occur on March 7th at 9am. The exact location is still to be determined. Included below are photos of my two interviewees:

Dr. David G Armstrong at a Diabetic Limb Salvage conference. 

Nicole Achenbach, PT, DPT at the Desert Palms Physical Therapy Clinic

• To prepare for each interview, I created a list of possible interview questions.I start with Dr. Armstrong:

• You are constantly posting informally on blogs such as your DFblog, and via social media sites such as Facebook. Why devote so much time and money to communicating professionally through informal channels?

• Do you believe you're communicating to a different audience when you post on  Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn in comparison to more traditional formats? Or, do you see it as a different way to interact with the same peers?

• At the start of your career, many of your publications were as first-author. Today, many are written with you as corresponding author. Has this shifted your role in the manuscript-creation process?

• Do you believe the peer-review journal will get superceded in your world of biosensors and medical technology due to the long review times and the necessary delays between submission and publication?

• There is often two goals in publishing: collaboration and improving the research base, and building your career and yourself as a brand. Do you think that different genres and media are used to accomplish each goal?

• Do you present yourself different at conferences tailored to biomedical technology as opposed to conferences targeting medical professionals? Why are such adjustments necessary?

• How often are medical researchers in orthopedic specialties expected to publish? Do these publications have to be through peer-reviewed journals?

• Additionally, I prepared some interview questions for Nicole Achenbach:

• You primarily deal with clinical care rather than medical research. What type of writing are you required to do on a day-to-day basis?

• Who do you picture yourself addressing when you write your patient notes? Are you addressing yourself in four weeks, or are you addressing the patient's physician? Someone else?

• Your facility accepts Medicare patients, who often require the most documentation. Do you approach note transcribing differently with these patients than others?

• Besides clinical notes, are there other forms of communication that clinical PTs have to communicate with each other and stay up-to-date on PT techniques and research?

• Your notes also serve to protect you from liability in case anything happens to your patients. Do you consider your audience to include potential jurists in a courtroom setting?

• Would an active researcher in the physical therapy field be writing in different genres or through different medias than a physician medical researcher? Why or why not?