Skip to main content

Main navigation

Home
About
Collaborate
Analyze
Discover

User account menu

Log in

User account menu

Log in

Search

User account menu

Log in

Analyze

pece_annotation_1481683912

Zackery.White

Annotation of

Columbia University's Program in Narrative Medicine

In response to

How is the program funded?

Tuition from Columbia University

Choose focus for analysis

Annotation (1)

Contributor

People who added this content and can edit it.

ciera.williams (2)
Sara_Nesheiwat (2)
Zackery.White (1)
joerene.aviles (1)
Andreas_Rebmann (1)
tamar.rogoszinski (1)
erin_tuttle (1)
wolmad (1)
seanw146 (1)
Alexi Martin (1)
maryclare.crochiere (1)
Sara.Till (1)
xiaox (1)
harrison.leinweber (1)
a_chen (1)
josh.correira (1)
jaostrander (1)
john.hudak (0)

Annotated artifact type

Show annotations that have been made on artifacts of the selected content types.

Artifact - Website (1)

Annotated artifact

Show annotations that have been made on the selected artifacts.

Columbia University's Program in Narrative Medicine (1)

Analytic (Question)

Who are the authors, where do they work, and what are their areas of expertise? How is the author professionally situated in respect to emergency response? Note any other publications/research foci that are of relevance to the DSTS Network.
What are the main findings or arguments presented in the article?
Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
What three (or more) quotes capture the message of the article or report?
What were the methods, tools and/or data used to produce the claims or arguments made in the article or report?
How (if at all) is emergency response addressed in the article or report?
Where has this article or report been referenced or discussed?
Can you learn anything from the article or report’s bibliography that tells us something about how the article or report was produced?
What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your understanding of the complexities of emergency response?
What is the main point of the article, and how is it supported?
Who was the system built to serve, and why?
How was development of the system funded?
What functions does the system provide?
How is data visualized?
What two (or more) quotes capture the message of the article?
How did the author of the article conduct their research?
How does the article address public health inequities or emergency response?
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
What stakeholders are described or portrayed in the film, what were their experiences, and what kinds of decisions did they have to grapple with before, during, and in the aftermath of disaster?
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
What could have been added to this film to enhance its educational value?
What is the stated mission this organization today? How is the organization's mission explained (on its website, in public meetings, by individuals, etc)?
What is this organization's structure today? Who works in or is a member of this organization?
What initiatives (research, activism, education, etc.) are illustrative of this organization’s work?
How is this organization funded today?
What do people in this organization find challenging or concerning in the problem spaces in which they work?
Who actually uses the system?
Describe the routes of user engagement
What technical or organizational partnerships does the system rely on?
What kinds of data do users enter?
In what situations/settings would the system be difficult to work with?
What actors (individuals or organizations) are referred to? (Provide names and short descriptions)
What three points, details or references from the article did you follow up on to advance your understanding of the issues and actors described in the article?
How, if at all, are emergency responders portrayed in the film?
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
What perspectives or viewpoints are not included in this film?
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
Describe the object of the study.
Where is this study published? Give a brief description of the journal, including what types of studies and topics they usually publish and how the publication is regarded among health professionals.
Describe how this study has traveled. Has it been used in news reports, cited by health officials, or used as the basis of other studies?
How could technical professionals make use of the data from this study?
How was the study funded?
Does this organization claim to have a new or unique way of addressing the problems that they work on? Does their approach point to or suggest problems with other approaches?
What events (internal and external) or data have had a significant impact on the evolution of the organization?
What other organizations does this organization interact and collaborate with? What organizations does this organization criticize or distance itself from? How is collaboration conceptualized and talked about?
What is the policy and what does it aim to achieve?
Who drafted this policy?
Who does the policy apply to? (i.e. residents of California, globally, physicians)
Describe the history of the policy. Was it created in response to or to support existing policy or legislation?
What implications does this policy have for first responders and other technical professionals?
Describe the aims of the program.
Describe the origin story of the program. What event or conditions enabled or called for its formation?
Where is the program located?(Within another institution, virtually, etc.)
How is the program funded?
How is the program structured? (Length, requirements, etc.)
Who is program targeted for?

Powered by Drupal