Talk:Assessment: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Rationale for scope (and decision?)?) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
{{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)}} | {{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)}} | :{{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)}} | ||
:: {{comment|# |I agree. The table ''Stakeholders'' does not really talk about stakeholders but their values or impacts they value. Secondary in front of aims is not good, because also the decision maker's aims (the primary aims of the assessment) are described in the same table. Values is a problematic word because it can be confused with numbers. ''Needs'' is not good because this contains both needs and wants. In conclusion, I'm tempted to suggest ''Interests'', which are then associated with impacts (outcomes of interest).|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 16:02, 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|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)}} | :{{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)}} | ||
:: {{defend|# |Under ''Rationale'', there could be a subattribute ''Rationale for scope''. I wouldn't split ''Rationale'' into two, because it is a nice and clean system to have question - answer - rationale everywhere. But scoping (not only the question) really needs rationale, and a good place for that is under Rationale.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 16:02, 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)}} | :{{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)}} | ||
:: {{comment|# |I have tried to develop the modelled assessment structure in such a way that it would capture at least most parts of shared understanding: different valuations are explicated in the table ''Interests'' (previously ''Stakeholders''); different hypotheses are described in the relevant variables; and different worldviews can be described as scenarios irrespective of their scientific support. In theory, this system should be able to capture and propagate most aspects of shared understanding. Of course, interpretation of results is needed, but that happens under ''Results'' and ''Conclusions'' and there is no need for a separate subheading for shared understanding. Actually, it would be worrying if there was a need for it.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 16:02, 23 January 2013 (EET)}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
== Clarification of terms == | == Clarification of terms == | ||
Revision as of 14:02, 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)
|