Talk:RM analysis June

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 evaluation focuses on the planned analyses and the knowledge they intend to create. --Mikko Pohjola 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Score: 2/2

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

←--2: . The different perspectives properly considered. --Mikko Pohjola 11:14, 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

←--3: . The evaluation indicates some strengths, some points of improvement, and provides some good advice on taking the analysis plans further. --Mikko Pohjola 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--4: . Some of the guidance power of the evaluation is lost due to a bit of unnecessary description of the analysis contents. --Mikko Pohjola 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Score: 3/4

Summarizing

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

←--5: . The evaluations are wrapped up and tied to the given context. --Mikko Pohjola 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Score: 2/2

Bonus points

* e.g. value adding extra work done

←--6: . Also the swine flu/narcolepsy model evaluated. --Mikko Pohjola 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Score: 1/2

Total Score: 10/10