Interlude: Creating Expertise, Learning from Within, and Undermining Critical Thinking
Why is the Discussion section of a research manuscript so hard to write? I’ve heard this question a lot over the years.
One reason is structural. Unlike other sections of a research manuscript, the Discussion has a more open-ended structure, which means you have to figure out how to best structure the text.
But the deeper reason is that the Discussion is where most of the critical thinking happens. You have to not only interpret the findings but also describe how they fit into the rapidly expanding literature—which means you need to think carefully about how your findings confirm, contradict, or otherwise build on what is already known.
This is hard work. Not because the writing itself is hard, but because the thinking needed to write is hard.
But what if that hard work is what actually makes you the expert? What if writing a strong Discussion section helps to create your expertise?
I believe that relationship between writing and thinking in the Discussion section is an important part of what expands your expertise.
So the next time you sit down to write your Discussion section, notice the friction you feel. That friction means that your expertise is expanding.
Now onto this week's round-up...
Round-up
Featured
How To Learn in a World of Information Overload
Last year, I had the honor of supporting a few remarkable researchers with their TEDxNewEngland (formerly TEDxCambridge) talks. In this talk, Tania Lombrozo, a professor of psychology at Princeton University, shares how learning doesn’t start with information outside our heads, but rather from within. She reveals how asking the right questions and transforming the information we already have can make us better learners in an age of information overload.
Reading
Will the widespread use of large language models in scientific writing undermine scientists’ critical thinking?
”Science is one of the pinnacles of human culture and writing is its main means of expression. Scientific writing is not only a vehicle for reporting outcomes once the “real” science is done, but a constitutive element of scientific thinking and practice, shaping how ideas are generated and how research is conducted, evaluated, and made publicly accountable. We need to maintain the integrity of scientific writing and continue to cultivate it.”
NIH Is Replacing Letters of Support with Letters of Collaboration to Reduce Administrative Burden
”With the implementation of Forms J in Fiscal Year 2027, the NIH will no longer allow letters of support but will instead require letters of collaboration. . . Letters of collaboration should be limited to stating the intent to collaborate or provide material support as described in the application and should not contain endorsements or additional information about or evaluations of the proposed project. An individual letter of collaboration must not exceed 100 words.”
Some Wikipedia citations to retracted papers persist for years, study finds
”The team found that while many corrections occurred swiftly, the median time for a correction was 3.68 years. . . Physical science citations are corrected the fastest, with a median correction time of 228 days. Corrections to life sciences and health sciences citations take significantly longer, with median correction times of 2,720 days and 1,846 days, respectively.”
Quote
“What I want to say is that in a certain sense, while the novelist is creating a novel, he is simultaneously being created by the novel as well.” –Haruki Murakami
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
