Talk:Justifiable Risk or headless Fear? The Difference between experienced and factual Disadvantages of a Process called Globalisation

Hello Jule, well written, you have understood the main problems of this excellent article: Svea does not want to accept some extreme or more one-sided position and tries to be very rightful in all aspects. It is very difficult to achieve, I think that it is a position of some God who knows everything from every possible viewpoint. We, normal people are (and maybe have to be) biased in some respect, otherwise we cannot move from the spot.

--Jana Dlouha 15:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer-Review By Jule Kathinka Plawitzki

Paper title: Justifiable Risk or headless Fear? The Difference between experienced and factual Disadvantages of a Process called Globalisation

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) high

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

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

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) very high

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

2.4. Accurate information (Yes/No) Yes

2.5. Current information (Yes/No) Yes

2.6. Methodology (Yes/No) Yes

2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) Excellent

2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes/No) Yes (see below)

2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No) Yes (see below)

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

3. Written Comments for Author(s)

Hey Svea, first of all I want to say that it was really interesting to read your essay- from my point of view it is a real good work!!! There are a few comments I want to make (but I want to emphasize that in total I really liked it) and I will differ them in the formal/ methodical ones and the ones in terms of content.

• The formal/ methodical ones are finally two aspects: Your formal work with resources and your logical structure.

• • I think you worked with lots of different resources that’s quite good. But, and I’m not quite sure if this comment is justifiable: With want kind of citation style did you work: Maybe I got it wrong but I though we are supposed to use the APA style? Therefore it is common to write authors name (!), year and page in brackets. A few times I think you wrote the title in brackets. And to your reference list: In the APA style I think it is common to write the year just after the author, add the publishing house as well and end with a full stop. But probably I’m totally wrong and you used just another citation style we could work with. Then sorry!!!

• • When I first read your title I thought: “Wow, that could be everything”. But you solved this wide ranging theme in a fantastic way (see below). However because this theme so wide, from my point of view it is even more important for the (first) reader that the article has an logical structure the reader can realize really fast. Therefore you could maybe at the end of your introduction add a paragraph where you say what (and why) you will do in the following article to make the following logical structure clear. To emphasize this logical structure it would help if you would add small headings as well. As I sad above I think your essay is well structured, but this suggestions would make it even more pleasant to read (especially in the first time).

Dear Jule, I think your idea of writing a small abstract about what is going to be examined in this essay is excellent. Small headings would be too small, though, I tried it before and it totally destroyed the coherence I am so concerned of. Nevertheless, I would really appreciate if you had another look on the last paragraph of the introduction. It is really short, but I think it will fulfil its purpose.

Before I will add a few comments to your essay in terms of content I want to emphasize that I really like your style of writing: You have obviously a good vocabulary and you use this well.

• First of all your theme is very original and really important!!! Probably we do have different opinions in general to some aspects...But we should discuss about this in another place.
  • One main critical point is the part with “herefore the globalisation process did not narrow any of the countries‘ chances to improve their situation”. As I understand your essay in total you plead for a more pragmatic, differentiating discussion about the risks of globalization. From my point of view in this part you did almost the same mistake: Of course you cannot say that the “bad, bad globalization” is responsible in total for the situation of the lower developed countries. But for example through the globalization the EU-Agricultural-Subventions do haven an impact on the chances to improve their situation.

Definitely true. But we need to consider that the EU is, as far as I can see, not the result of the globalisation process. I thought of this in the beginning, too (You might noticed my deep reluctance concerning the EU politics). However, we should keep in mind that roots of European protectionism is not a result of globalisation but of the hope for economic growth.

• • And last but not least another aspect would be very interesting in your essay: The relation between concerns and risks. That the globalization is not driven only by rational strengths. For example in the financial sector psychology plays a huge role. Therefore in some cases irrational concerns could turn into actual risks and get a real impact on the globalization.

4. General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option)

4.1. Publish as is

4.2. Acceptable with minor modifications

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

--Jule 11:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment from January 4th: Jana Dlouhá

Remarks:

Dear Svea, your text is one of the best one in the course, you have done an excellent work and spent very much time even on details so that it is also formally very good. You are concerned with social problems in the first place, there could be much more topics in other areas (e.g. technology which is not understandable and is very powerful; global disasters such as environmental and health catastrophes etc.) You might speak explicitly about social dimension but it is OK – you have your personal viewpoint and this has developed considerably during your work.

--Jana Dlouha 14:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment from December 8th

Thank you for ideas of improvement!

The text is very good and I see now that strong conclusions could be written even if you are dealing with not very concrete issues. The idea of accepting global risks and necessity to act under the threats is perfect - you only need to make clear what is common weal as it is culturally or even historically specific (now it is probably attached to economical benefits for everybody).

I still have difficulty to understand the paragraphs "logically" as different reason and consequences are mixed. But the text would be a perfect introduction to the articles of others. Make sure that you point out the social dimension of your concern.

--Jana Dlouha 13:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Reibe: "vote on the quality"

Hello Jana, hello Svea,

as a part of the specific assignment of the first weeks of module 2 of ISPoS I like to vote on the quality of Sveas last years essay. It was very interesting to read through the last year texts to get a good first impression on how to write such an essay.

First of all I have to say that I really enjoyed reading the essay because the theme was interesting and it was well written. The vacabulary was very diversified. I really liked the different examples that you used to support either the positive or the negative aspects of globalisation. It was nice to have a short introduction during which the most important keyword were explained by definitions. You did a good research-work and I had always the feeling that your statements are based on fact and therefore reliable.

The overall structure was good to follow but I would have preferred a clear differentiation between the pros and cons of globalisation in individual paragraphs. And after that part a conclusion paragraph would have been nice where you come to the conclusion which side you really prefer.

Best regards and thanks for your good work, Caro --Reibe 17:57, 9 December 2010 (CET)