Week 5 - Working in a team.

     From the sports field, through the class room to the work place - almost every one of us has or will have worked in a team environment at some point in our lives. Personally I have worked, played and learnt in a wide variety of team environments, in a wide variety of roles - bass player in a band, unskilled labourer at a work site, supervisor of a crew of trail builders and so on. For the most part I find working in a team beneficial and enjoyable, but at other times, when the structure is incohesive it can become downright frustrating. One of the things I have learnt is that for a team to be productive, often it is important to have some kind of structure, so that everybody knows what is expected from them in their particular role.

After finishing high school I worked for a temping agency in Dunedin for a while, being placed in various manual labour positions throughout the city. Working as an unskilled labourer on a construction site, I was at the bottom of the ladder. As the least experienced, least qualified and most easily replaceable employee on the site, I knew that my role was to do what I was told and not complain. I accepted this, and although the work was tedious, I got on with it. This did not mean I couldn't use my initiative, and I continued to look for ways to improve the efficiency and safety of the work site, but my input was limited by my position in the team. This was frustrating at times, to hold such a low position, but necessary for the structure of this particular team. It was dirty work, but someone had to do it.

     On the other hand I have also worked in supervisory roles. Although these positions are much more fulfilling and mentally stimulating, sometimes I missed the days of having no responsibility. For example one position I held was as crew leader of a group of eight mountain bike trail builders. We were working together for three months in the remote desert of north Mexico, a harsh and strange landscape, so naturally we became friends. The work was arduous and motivation levels would ebb and flow. The challenge for me in this particular team environment was to know when to crack the whip so to speak, even when I didn't want to. Although it was difficult, if I had slacked off in this regard, our productivity as a team would have dropped. 

     In 2004 I undertook a polytechnic course in Outdoor Recreation. We were a group of students ranging in age from 18 - 25 or so. As well as teaching outdoor skills like kayaking and bushcraft the course aimed to provide students with leadership skills. With a lot of strong personalities and no official hierarchy within the group of students, there was often conflicting opinions. This led to arguing and indecision. Through this experience I learnt that sometimes it is hard for us to step back and let others take a leadership role, but it can benefit the team as a whole. This doesn't mean that we can't have input into the team, only that the team usually works better if there is some kind of structure which includes a leader or facilitator.

One useful way of ensuring that a team works is to designate roles within the team. Sometimes this is part of the team structure, for example in a rugby team. Each team member has a clear cut position, each with their own roles and responsibilities. This approach can sometimes be hard to implement, but a structured team will almost always work better than an unstructured one.

Week 4 - The things I think are most important for writing in science

I believe that one of the most important aspects of scientific writing is accuracy. When writing in science you are accepting a responsibility that what you're writing is, to the best of your knowledge, truthful. It is about adding to the knowledge of your readers, not just feeding them entertaining half truths. The cross referencing and checking up of facts is, therefore, extremely important. In saying that, what is the use of all that research and striving for accuracy, if nobody reads what you've written?  This is where another extremely important aspect of scientific writing comes in - relevancy.

Science writers are often tackling very complicated subjects. Just as important and often more difficult than good research is making the subject relevant to the reader. In our first assignment our target audience were the readers of a local newspaper. Therefore long technical and wordy scientific explanations were not going to grab their attention, rather the content had to be entertaining - interesting yet not overbearing - and conveyed in a way which they could relate to their everyday lives. This was quite a difficult balance to achieve, as newspaper readers could mean anything from a professor in the subject to someone who knows nothing, or next to nothing about it. It is important to be able to reach a wide range of interest levels and prior knowledge.

Our next assignment on the other hand is a report meant for the Executive Leadership Team at the Ministry of Health, This means our target audience is not so interested in being entertained over breakfast, rather they are looking for a convincing and well thought out report which they can put into action. An all together different kettle of fish. Although a lot of the information is going to be exactly the same, the way in which it is delivered will most likely be totally different.

From writing an article in a magazine covering why kids should brush their teeth, to delivering an in depth scientific report on the benefits of dental programmes in schools, writing in science covers a broad scope of intended audiences. In every instance it is important to be able to stand by what you've written with total conviction in it's accuracy. It is just as important, however, that the information is delivered in a suitable way, otherwise all that hard work could be for nothing.

Week 3 - Summarising the debate

Like any interesting subject, providing a tax subsidy on fruit and vegetables is far from being black and white. The more research I have undertaken on the subject the more points of view I have discovered and the less certain I have become of my own opinion. At face value at least, making healthy food more financially accessible to New Zealanders has obvious benefits. The less wealthy members of society for example, who are more affected by poor health associated with poor diet, would presumably benefit. As Donna Wynd argues in her article "Why taking GST off fresh food won't help the poor, improve their health or make them slim"  however, the influence that the price of food has on the eating habits of low income households is comparatively small.

Eating habits, Wynd (2010) states, are "a complex mix of learned behaviour, education, food preparation and cooking skills, cultural expectations, food availability and affordability, income, expectations, and personal preferences." In other words, it is impossible to point to one aspect of our society, i.e the price of fruit and veg, and say, 'here is the problem, fix that and we will be slim and healthy in no time!' Real life, unfortunately, is seldom so simple. In Wynd's opinion the main factor of the prevalence of unhealthy diets in low income households has more to do with income equality. She argues that until this issue is confronted "then we might as well collect the GST off fruit and vegetables and use it for something socially useful." The point Wynd makes is that a subsidy on fruit and vegetables could be seen as a way of avoiding the much larger issues of income inequality and poverty in our society.

So, as Wynd argues, there seems to be no silver bullet cure for our poor diet but should we totally write off a fruit and vegetable subsidy? Veerman and Cobiac (2013) think not. In an article published in the Medical Journal of Australia they postulate that removing the GST exemption on fresh fruit and vegetables in Australia, effectively raising their price by 10%, "could have a large detrimental impact on health and health care budgets."  In fact, using models based on scientific evidence they estimate that "the extra disease burden could add a billion dollars in health care costs" over the life time of the 2003 Australian adult population. In their research Veerman and Cobiac have touched on a very important part of the argument - the direct correlation between a healthy diet and disease prevention. They argue that a subsidy on fruit and vegetables not only saves lives, but saves money in medical costs as well.

This assignment has been very interesting. I have enjoyed thinking deeply about a particular topic, especially one which is so relevant in today's society. Although my opinion has been broadened now and I better understand why people don't agree with the proposed tax subsidy on fruit and vegetables, I do believe that if it was introduced society would benefit. What's your opinion?

Wynd D. (2010) Why taking GST off food won't help the poor, improve their health, or make them slim. Retrieved from http://www.policyprogress.org.nz/2010/12/why-taking-gst-off-fresh-food-won%E2%80%99t-help/

Veerman JL, Cobiac LJ. (2013) Removing the GST exemption for fresh fruits and vegetables could cost lives. The Medical Journal of Australia, 199 (8): 534-535