Talk:Assessment: Difference between revisions
(Parameters corrected) |
(Rationale for scope (and decision?)?) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Rationale for scope? == | |||
{{discussion | |||
|Statements= Rationale is needed also for Scope. | |||
|Resolution= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) | |||
|Argumentation = | |||
{{defend|1|The current Rationale is mostly about reasoning why the answer is good with regard to the question. Only the subattribute Stakeholders considers issues related to the goodness of the question.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 14:47, 23 January 2013 (EET)}} | |||
:{{comment|4|The subattribute Stakeholders is confusing, e.g. because participants and user are listed elsewhere. How about Needs?, Impacts?, Values?, Interests?, (Secondary) Aims/Goals|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 14:47, 23 January 2013 (EET)}} | |||
{{defend|2|There is a need for a place for explicating e.g. the aims of decision makers (perhaps also means of evaluating success in reaching them) and the relevant value judgments of different stakeholders etc. that (should) result from the development of shared understanding between relevant participants in the assessment question formulation phase.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 14:47, 23 January 2013 (EET)}} | |||
:{{defend|3|Rationale could be split into two - Rationale for question & Rationale for answer - or then the subattributes of Rationale could just be complemented/adjusted to address the needs of explicit reasoning for question.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 14:47, 23 January 2013 (EET)}} | |||
:{{comment|5|How about the outcomes of developing shared understanding in the interpretation of assessment results? Should they also have a place within the assessment structure or should they belong to some other part within a management system of knowledge-based decision making (e.g. Rationale for decision?)|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 14:47, 23 January 2013 (EET)}} | |||
}} | |||
== Clarification of terms == | == Clarification of terms == | ||
Revision as of 12:47, 23 January 2013
Rationale for scope?
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Rationale is needed also for Scope.
Closing statement: Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--1: . The current Rationale is mostly about reasoning why the answer is good with regard to the question. Only the subattribute Stakeholders considers issues related to the goodness of the question. --Mikko Pohjola 14:47, 23 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
←--2: . There is a need for a place for explicating e.g. the aims of decision makers (perhaps also means of evaluating success in reaching them) and the relevant value judgments of different stakeholders etc. that (should) result from the development of shared understanding between relevant participants in the assessment question formulation phase. --Mikko Pohjola 14:47, 23 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|
Clarification of terms
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Clarify the meanings of the words "assessment product" and "endpoints"
Closing statement: The need for clarification accepted. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--1: . Using assessment product and endpoints is a bit confusing. what do you mean by this? results of the indicator variables?, results of the assessment? (whatever this is), health endpoints? Is the assessment product the assessment as a whole (i.e. net of variables at a certain stage in time) or the results of certain indicators? --Alexandra Kuhn 12:17, 14 May 2008 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|