Talk:Society and Globalization

Hello, Corina, this is well done, I appreciate your very clear positive and negative comments. On the other hand, you are not mentioning the problem itself (main thesis or question posed in the article) and how it is approached by the author – or only in the introductory remarks you write some positive comments. On the other hand – the article has strong personal viewpoint and what could we do about it?

--Jana Dlouha 15:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Paper title: Society and Globalization
Reviewer´s assessment - Corinna Lohrengel

1. Basic criteria

1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High/Medium/Low) high

1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis (High/Medium/Low) medium

1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low) high

1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low) high

2. Summary Comments for Author(s)

2.1. Contribution to theory or practice (High/Medium/Low) high

2.2. Originality of the paper (High/Medium/Low) medium

2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors (High/Medium/Low) high

2.4. Accurate information (Yes/No) high

2.5. Current information (Yes/No) high

2.6. Methodology (Yes/No) high

2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) for the most part excellent, sometimes readable

2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes/No) yes

2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No) in between

2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No) yes

3. Written Comments for Author(s)

Dear Julia:)

First I want to say this is a very good paper! There are many positive aspects to emphasize:

Your citation is excellent! The text is fluently readable without the quotations interrupting the text as is could happen sometimes. You have inserted the quotations in the text well. I also liked that you introduced the authors you have cited in your introduction. You wrote which articles you used for your essay and you gave information about their content. In the last paragraph you posed interesting questions which you have tried to answer in your essay. Also the introduction to your main part is very good. The question So Individual means –what? makes the reader curious of the following lines.

Another very good aspect is the way you explain ideas of other authors, as Beck’s “Globality” and “Globalization” or Habermas’ point of view considering the welfare state. You cited many different authors and made their ideas clear. I also liked the subject of your essay. We are the society, and we are part of the globalization process. Nobody can refuse it so it’s an important topic for everyone.

To finish my laud I want to say that I liked that you gave good and current examples :) Your end of the paper was really good: Ending with a quotation is always a good and interesting ending I think. The question is not only how to live but the right way to live – that is a good sentence everyone should think about for himself or herself.

Now I come to the negative points I remarked.

Maybe I would choose a different title for your essay. Society and Globalization is very vague and wide. You could change it into "The transformation process of society" or something like that. In addition I would give some more information about your topic in your introduction. You only wrote that your essay is written in the disciplinary perspectives of sociology and in the end you posed some questions. I would like to have details in the introduction what the text is about and which topic it deals with.

Besides you made several spelling mistakes and some sentences are too long. In the end of those sentences I didn’t remember the beginning so I would change that. In some cases your writing style is colloquial ("so it’s a pity") that’s why I was unsure what to write in 2.7 – mostly your writing style is excellent and easy to read and understand but sometimes you make little mistakes.

Another thing I must criticize is that you mentioned the Maslow’s pyramid but didn’t explain what it is. If you give an example or attach a new point you must explain it, you can’t assume that everybody knows what the Maslow’s pyramid is showing. That's why sometimes your ideas are not cleary presented.

But all in all I really have to say that this is a felicitous essay with interesting ideas, excellent quotations and a very good structure.

4. General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option):

4.1. Publish as is

4.2. Acceptable with minor modifications which you can read above

4.3. Might be accepted after major modifications

4.4. Unacceptable (select following option):

4.4.1. Not appropriate for the content/theme of the Course

4.4.2. Technically deficient

4.4.3. Quality of presentation is poor

--Cori 17:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment from January 4th: Jana Dlouhá
Remarks:

Your article is about individual freedom which is (as you have recognized very brightly) attached to the personal ethics – to be free the human being needs to realize that he/she is not depending on some abstract or concrete forces (including economical), on the contrary, he/she could shape these forces by individual decision. Individual freedom is a value that should be protected within a “logic of globalisation” and it is probably most difficult when you are “logically” part of the process.

Maybe your proposal could be extended into an attempt to create a new “global” culture with its specific values based on solidarity of people worldwide. It is a pity that this culture relies on values related to consumption – but what could we do if it is the only thing we have in common? Or is there something else that we could share globally?

--Jana Dlouha 14:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment from December 8th
The text is really interesting, even working "methodologically" analyzing the term "Globalization". My only remark - it starts with all of the social problems and finish with only one - how not to feel quilty as a winner of globalisation?

You could write something as an interface - winners obviously have some political power or instruments, so maybe your "behaviorist" solution would have limited impact on the state of affairs (or document the opposit). It is more the way how to live honestly within all these processess. Then you might mention some psychological features connected to the problem.

--Jana Dlouha 11:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)