By Renée O’Leary, PhD(c)
I will admit that I am an information sponge. I came to university later in life, at 50 years old, seeking a diploma to obtain the points I needed for immigration. Quite unexpected, I was delighted to find research readily available through hundreds of databases, and I dove right in. The Diploma in the Humanities only whetted my appetite for more information, and I went on gathering research in sociology and tobacco control to fill my undergraduate and MA papers.
A 2009 summer position at the BC Centre of Excellence in Women’s Health provided my first experience with a rapid review, on partner support for smoking cessation by pregnant women. I loved every part of the process, and was proud of the report we wrote for the National Institutes for Clinical Excellence (UK). I was delighted to be hired for more systematic reviews, and over the next few years I enjoyed producing literature summaries and systematic reviews on smoking bans, domestic violence interventions, girls’ health promotion, and Aboriginal women’s tobacco cessation programs.
I was happy in my role as a research assistant, and had no plans for a PhD, until 2011 when I sat in on several post-doctoral lectures at the University of California’s Center for Tobacco Control and Education. The lectures were fascinating, but I was put off by how my ideas were dismissed because I was not a PhD. It was in my face: no PhD, no cred, and I decided I needed that credential. Fortunately, my alma matter UVic offered the doctoral program best suited to me: the Social Dimensions of Health, a research-based program.
It was during a SDH foundation class with Dr. Worthington that I came to understand that I had a special level of skill and experience with systematic reviews. I had prepped for her class by gathering copies of my reviews; they filled a good-sized binder. As the professor delivered her lecture, I had comments galore, and next thing I knew, she turned the class over to me! Spontaneously, I was able to detail the review steps to my cohort, and easily answered their questions. This experience was an eye opener to me, so I asked other professors and researchers for their thoughts on research synthesis, and was shocked to hear that everyone considered it a chore. I still find that hard to believe – what an exciting task, to learn everything available about a topic and share the information with those who will apply it to helping others.
The key to finding work is to find a need and fill it, so I decided to become a specialist in research synthesis. With my doctoral committee’s approval, I proposed a dissertation which incorporates two research syntheses on research questions on vapour devices (e-cigarettes). They kindly assigned research synthesis methodologies as one of my comprehensive exams, which allowed me to spend several months reading up on the many new types of systematic reviews, and to hone my skills. My co-supervisor Dr. Marjorie MacDonald and I obtained a CIHR grant to conduct a meta-narrative analysis on harm reduction and vapour devices. A little later Dr. Lynne Young invited me to the JBI meetings, and it feels so good to engage with other researchers and grad students who know the value of research synthesis for promoting health and best practices.
So as I enjoy finishing my dissertation, I am looking forward to hanging my shingle as a research synthesis service and doing more of my favourite research task for other research teams. Getting paid to learn and share information – wow, my dream job.
From the 2016 Spring Communiqué — Knowledge Synthesis
Recent Comments