Mallory Long

Key Insight 1

The human brain is a mass of distinct interconnected circuits that function together in a synchronized manner which, in turn, enables our ability to perceive and live our lives as we do. There are two separately defined hemispheres of the brain, left and right, joined together by a complex white matter fiber tract facilitating the communication between the two sides.  I was first introduced to the functions of the two hemispheres of the brain in my PSYC 507: Cognitive Neuroscience course where we discussed how scientist used to believe that certain cognitive functions are localized to a specific side of the brain. Through a number of research experiments, the right side of the brain was understood to be responsible for comprehending music, expressing emotions, and creativity. On the other hand, the left side of the brain was thought to be exclusively responsible for certain aspects of language, logic, critical thinking, and reasoning. As research evolved, scientists soon realized that, although each hemisphere is responsible for different aspects of cognitive processing, they are interconnected and work seamlessly in conjunction with each other.

​

Before getting involved in neuroscience research, I believed that scientific research was straight forward. You run an experiment, acquire data, and analyze the results. I had the misconception that the only skills needed to be successful in research would be the ability to reason, know facts, and think critically. I was wrong. I very quickly learned that research requires you to think both critically as well as creatively, using “both sides” of your brain seamlessly.

​

As I embarked on my neuroscience research journey at the University of South Carolina’s School of Medicine, as a part-time research assistant, my mentor asked me to provide a presentation on an injection technique that was being used in the lab. I was so excited that I was asked to get involved and had a real chance to demonstrate what I could bring to the lab; I was feeling confident. However, my confidence level drastically shifted as soon as it set in that I did not know many details about what I was supposed to present on. I immediately felt flustered and unsure what I got myself in to. How in the world was I supposed to give a presentation on a seemingly foreign subject in front of a group of seasoned experts? I was provided with little-to-no instructions or information about what exactly I was required to do, which was something I was not accustomed to. Throughout the entirety of my collegiate and grade-school career, I have always been provided with a syllabus in all of my classes. Each individual syllabus was like the “holy grail” containing all of the important information you needed to know for that particular course, including detailed instructions for assignments. I quickly realized there was no syllabus and no explicit guidelines for the presentation. This was even more nerve wracking as it would be the first impression for new colleagues. I was pushed to figure it out alone.

​

 I began by learning as much about the topic as I could. I took to the internet to search for content, thumbed through countless books, and even polled my lab mates with questions. After I became somewhat familiar with the subject, I began to plan out what I wanted to say in my presentation. I grew more and more frustrated as time passed because I still was uncertain with what I needed to cover and how I was expected to present on the subject. Being asked to provide a presentation about an unfamiliar topic with little instruction forced me to open my mind and restructure how I would normally do things. I realized that the most beautiful aspect of research is it does not always come with instructions. I was unbound by the constraints of guidelines which fostered the need for my creativity. I was unable to simply rely on my current understanding of the topic to create the presentation, which challenged me to shift my approach in a different manner than what I was familiar with. For many of the presentation I have created for other classes over the years, I had been provided with detailed instructions on the format as well as the content.  Listed as one of my artifacts, at the bottom of the page you will see a presentation that I created for my BIO 102L: Biological Principles 2 Laboratory course. Right next to the presentation I created for my biology course, you will find the presentation I generated for my research lab. By looking at both presentations you will notice that the presentation assignment for my BIO: 102 course is filled with many more facts in comparison than my research presentation.

 By stepping away from my comfort zone, and accepting new approaches I learned that knowing endless amounts of facts and having the ability to reason are not the only skills needed for my future success in research; I also need creativity.

​

This realization challenged my understanding of what research was to me and enhanced my understanding of the interhemispheric communication of the brain. The right and left hemispheres of the brain were not designed to function independently of each other; where the logic and reasoning of the left hemisphere may fall short in some instances, the creativity of the right hemisphere compensates to overcome the challenges we face and vice-versa. I have grown to better understand that the compensatory relationship between the hemispheres of the brain parallels research in the sense that creativity and logic are meant to be used together, not independently.

I did not realize it then, but that presentation provided me a small glimpse of what it would be like to actually conduct research. Similar to my start with developing the presentation, often times in research, scientists only begin with a hypothesis or a question. They do not have guidelines, only ideas, and nothing more to tell them how to figure it out.  In most cases, the only guidelines that scientists have are the protocol instructions for making a frequently used solution. More often than not, a scientist can spend months, years, or even a lifetime developing a plan to be able to answer the questions they are interested in.

​

The most successful researchers ask the non-trivial questions of life, the questions that have yet to be answered. The ability to ask these unanswered questions stems primarily from past experiences, inspiration, but mostly creativity. The seemingly limitless nature of scientific research demands the need for creativity in order to ask the questions other scientists have yet to answer.

​

Furthermore, possessing the creativity to devise novel scientific questions is futile without the mental resolve to procure the answers. Research invokes the implementation of creativity and critical thinking in a symphonic manner, where both qualities are needed to be successful.  Developing a unique hypothesis is nearly useless without the plan or means to attempt to prove it, which urges the need for this synergistic relationship.

​

The process of answering these scientific questions does not always occur in a step-by-step manner or by simply following instructions. In fact, with almost all original questions, the only information to start with is previous knowledge and past experiences involving the subject. In my PSYC 405: Cognitive Psychology course, I learned that even your previous knowledge and past experiences can act as a road block to solving a problem. This process is called functional fixedness. Functional fixedness is where your familiarity and knowledge about a particular object’s function can inhibit your perception of other possible uses. An example of functional fixedness from a class lecture can be viewed at the bottom of the page. By simply being aware of the possibility of functional fixedness occurring, my awareness has allowed me to open my mind and be more creative with my problem-solving.

​

A few months into my research experience, I was afforded the task of figuring out a method for quantifying fluorescent images. Just like the presentation, I began with almost no instructions on how this task was supposed to be completed. In fact, my mentor informed me that the process of quantifying fluorescent projections was a method of analysis that has yet to be figured out, meaning that it has never been done before. My initial thought was to figure out a way to count the fluorescent pixels. After determining that simply counting the pixels was essentially not an ideal method of quantification, I was pushed to be a little more creative.  I began to realize that functional fixedness was occurring because I was stuck on counting the pixels as my method of quantifying. My logic and reasoning were falling short with my attempts to quantify the fluorescence so I began to attempt to use non-traditional tools, such as a histogram function used to measure brightness. Luckily, the tool worked! Learning about functional fixedness from PSYC 405: Cognitive Psychology, has really enhanced my research experience. When the logical, traditional uses, of particular methods, were not providing the results I needed, I was able to resort to my creativity in order to determine a different approach to resolve the problem.

​

In my PSYC 405: Cognitive Psychology course, I also learned about various theories of problem-solving. The problem-solving lecture can be viewed at the bottom of the page. Problem-solving, in general, can be defined as any attempt by a cognitive agent to reduce or eliminate a perceived problem. The Cognitive Approach to problem-solving involves means-end-analysis, this involves a step wise reduction between the difference of the problem state and goal state. This method of problem-solving often involves a number of sub-goals. This method is also needed in the lab when following strict protocols that require a number of steps, and even when developing a research plan to determine how to go about answering scientific questions At the bottom of the page you will find an example of one of my research plans I developed using problem solving techniques that I had learned about in PSYC 405: Cognitive Psychology.

​

Throughout my collegiate career, I have grown to realize that in order to be successful with research you need to be able to think both critically and creatively. With the strong creativity of the right hemisphere, you are able to develop new ideas and pioneer new techniques, but without the advanced critical thinking, logic, and reasoning of the left hemisphere you are unable to develop research plans and follow strict protocols. My learning from my psychology courses, PSYC 405: Cognitive Psychology and PSYC 507: Cognitive Neuroscience, has greatly impacted my research experience at the University of South Carolina. When attempting to problem solve, I grew from strictly relying on critical thinking and following instructions, to opening my mind up to the use of non-traditional problem solving techniques which required immense amounts of creativity. Overall, my within and beyond the classroom experiences have alluded to my deeper understanding that there is, and will always be, a need to think both critically and creatively. Over the years I have learned to embrace the balancing functions of my right and left brain hemispheres and this has allowed me to grow as a person, a student, and a scientist.