90
edits
Talk:Justifiable Risk or headless Fear? The Difference between experienced and factual Disadvantages of a Process called Globalisation: Difference between revisions
Talk:Justifiable Risk or headless Fear? The Difference between experienced and factual Disadvantages of a Process called Globalisation (view source)
Revision as of 18:57, 9 December 2010
, 18:57, 9 December 2010→Caroline Reibe: "vote on the quality": new section
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
(→Caroline Reibe: "vote on the quality": new section) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Peer-Review= | 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. | ||
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|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 | Paper title: Justifiable Risk or headless Fear? The Difference between experienced and factual Disadvantages of a Process called Globalisation | ||
| Line 49: | Line 52: | ||
**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. | **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 protectionism is not a result of globalisation but of the | '''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. | **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. | ||
| Line 70: | Line 73: | ||
--[[User:Jule|Jule]] 11:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC) | --[[User:Jule|Jule]] 11:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Assessment from January 4th == | == Assessment from January 4th: Jana Dlouhá == | ||
Remarks: | Remarks: | ||
| Line 84: | Line 87: | ||
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 13:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | --[[User:Jana Dlouha|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 | |||
--[[User:Reibe|Reibe]] 17:57, 9 December 2010 (CET) | |||