A Guide to Critical and Creative
Similar illness in one community suggests that there must be a connection between the environment and the illnesses. Acting on that hunch, I would conduct interviews with the families and people that are affected. All ideas and procedures in this easy can be found in chapter 10. (Ruggiero, 2012). I would ask them when did the symptoms start and what their official diagnosis, if any, has their doctor gave them. The assumptions that the land itself has to be the source of the contamination could hinder the investigation. To critically think about the issue I will have to brainstorm some questions to be answered.
What company or companies built the houses? Who was in charge of overseeing the building codes? What companies were the building materials bought from? Is this company following all rules of the EPA? What industries are close by? What do they produce and what is their environmental impact? At this time, I cannot assume that everyone will be open for interviews or share my passion for investigating the issue. I will keep in mind that some of the information will be hear-say or secondhand information that may not be accurate.
This type of information may lead to more interviews to check the source of the information. I would do research at the library to check maps of the area before it was developed. The court house would have information about the land to look into also. Close by communities that have been developed years earlier may hold clues. I would ask around in those communities for a few leads on whom I may interview there. The symptoms and diagnosis of the people involved was the first clue as to what is the common denominator of this issue. Investigating the land before it was developed may lead to answers.
This was the first assumption or hunch. The answers received from this part of the investigation may not match up to the symptoms that could arise from the state of the land before it was developed. The next investigation would involve the materials that the homes are built out of. Even if the same contractor did not build all the houses, I must find out if the contractors may have used a common supplier. All through the investigation, the symptoms and illness must match the possible causes. To critically think about the issue, all possibilities must be considered.
It could be that two materials that by themselves are harmless, were used together to create a harmful environment. It is possible that the contractors may not want to speak about their practices concerning the development of this community. This would be the time to look for ex-employees to interview. I may face criticism for my efforts to find the cause of the illnesses. The criticism may be very helpful to my investigation. No matter how much I think I am correct or perfect, there is always room for more information and improvement.
I must take into consideration how my ideas match up with the information collected with both positive and negative feedback. Trying to save face and convincing people that my ideas are correct are not important. My curiosity will lead me to ask questions that lead to answers that lead to more questions. I will fight the erg to become trapped by my previous miscalculations. The facts in the case and the process of elimination will help lead the way. I must stay open to the possibilities that a previous eliminated cause or idea may still have a role to play in solving the problem.
Similar illness in one community suggests that there must be a connection between the environment and the illnesses. Acting on that hunch, I would conduct interviews with the families and people that are affected. All ideas and procedures in this easy can be found in chapter 10. (Ruggiero, 2012). I would ask them when did the symptoms start and what their official diagnosis, if any, has their doctor gave them. The assumptions that the land itself has to be the source of the contamination could hinder the investigation. To critically think about the issue I will have to brainstorm some questions to be answered.
What company or companies built the houses? Who was in charge of overseeing the building codes? What companies were the building materials bought from? Is this company following all rules of the EPA? What industries are close by? What do they produce and what is their environmental impact? At this time, I cannot assume that everyone will be open for interviews or share my passion for investigating the issue. I will keep in mind that some of the information will be hear-say or secondhand information that may not be accurate.
This type of information may lead to more interviews to check the source of the information. I would do research at the library to check maps of the area before it was developed. The court house would have information about the land to look into also. Close by communities that have been developed years earlier may hold clues. I would ask around in those communities for a few leads on whom I may interview there. The symptoms and diagnosis of the people involved was the first clue as to what is the common denominator of this issue. Investigating the land before it was developed may lead to answers.
This was the first assumption or hunch. The answers received from this part of the investigation may not match up to the symptoms that could arise from the state of the land before it was developed. The next investigation would involve the materials that the homes are built out of. Even if the same contractor did not build all the houses, I must find out if the contractors may have used a common supplier. All through the investigation, the symptoms and illness must match the possible causes. To critically think about the issue, all possibilities must be considered.
It could be that two materials that by themselves are harmless, were used together to create a harmful environment. It is possible that the contractors may not want to speak about their practices concerning the development of this community. This would be the time to look for ex-employees to interview. I may face criticism for my efforts to find the cause of the illnesses. The criticism may be very helpful to my investigation. No matter how much I think I am correct or perfect, there is always room for more information and improvement.
I must take into consideration how my ideas match up with the information collected with both positive and negative feedback. Trying to save face and convincing people that my ideas are correct are not important. My curiosity will lead me to ask questions that lead to answers that lead to more questions. I will fight the erg to become trapped by my previous miscalculations. The facts in the case and the process of elimination will help lead the way. I must stay open to the possibilities that a previous eliminated cause or idea may still have a role to play in solving the problem.
