Talk:RM analysis Jacob Attipoe

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Exercise evaluation

Analysis vs. object of analysis 

* ability to differentiate between the analysis (knowledge creating process of studying real-world phenomena) and the phenomena that the analysis looks into

←--1: . The focus is mostly on the analyses and the knowledge they are intended to create. --Mikko Pohjola 10:40, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--2: . At times the evaluation however hovers between evaluating the analyses and evaluating or describing the decision/action options intended to be considered in the analyses. --Mikko Pohjola 10:40, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Score: 1/2

Analysis-use relationship 

* ability to consider the possible meaning/value of the knowledge intended to be created by the planned analysis in different uses by different users

←--3: . Differences between the perspectives considered. Interesting choice for the alternative perspective. --Mikko Pohjola 10:40, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Score: 2/2

Usability of evaluation 

* identification of major strengths as well as possible points of improvement
* critical and constructive remarks to help develop the analysis (plan) further

←--4: . Some strengths, points of improvement, and application options identified. --Mikko Pohjola 10:40, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--5: . Due to the evaluation being partly like a summary rather than an evaluation, it does not provide the best guidance for developing the plans/analyses further. --Mikko Pohjola 10:40, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Score: 2/4

Summarizing 

* wrapping-up of the individual evaluations and tying them into the context described in the exercise description

←--6: . An overall statement wrapping up the main ideas in different analysis plans exists. --Mikko Pohjola 10:40, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--7: . Tying into the given context remains somewhat vague. --Mikko Pohjola 10:40, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Score: 1/2

Bonus points 

* e.g. value adding extra work done

←--8: . Also the swine flu/narcolepsy model considered in evaluation. --Mikko Pohjola 10:40, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Score: 1/2

Total Score: 7/10

Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=Talk:RM_analysis_Jacob_Attipoe&oldid=20998"