SDM F603 Peer-Review Guidelines

The students have followed a strict format and structure for this paper, which is a perspectives-based academic article meant to argue improvement of an aspect of disaster management policy. There is an 18-page minimum requirement for content. The overall focus for reviewers is to consider whether the content and writing meets a reasonable demonstration of graduate-level work. For many students, this was the first time they had to fully develop and support a critical-thinking concept. Each of the students has different strengths and it’s critical that this assignment results in greatly improved sense of awareness and appreciation for the critical-thinking process as demonstrated in academic writing. Reviewers do not need to be content experts. The point of this assignment, and graduate-level work, is largely to demonstrate aptitude and original thought.

The next page has review guidance. Feel free to use this organizational approach or whatever preferred method. The organization of the papers is as follows:

Introduction

Gap

Thesis

Themes

All were highlighted and identified on the paper in the comments section.

Please provide guidance that helps explain strengths and weaknesses if possible. I believe it would help the students most if they can understand that the feedback is ultimately intended to help them strengthen their work.

Introduction:

Is the gap in knowledge apparent and reasonably valid? Did the writer effectively present the relevant established knowledge before presenting the gap? Yes

Is the research/exploratory question meaningful as a topic? Is it effectively narrow or appropriately macro level?

Yes but confusing when determining if the topic is looking at thesis from an international level, federal level, state level, tribal or local level.

Is the writers thesis/argument effectively presented? Is it well connected to the RQ?

Yes

Background: (students were instructed to put any info in the background (subsections) that is required to properly understand the themes)

Do the existing subsections in the background provide relevant information regarding the themes? Is more or less needed? Is it effectively based on authoritative information? Is it sufficiently concise with value-added clarifications?

The background is too long. It should only make up 20% of the paper. The background should in gaps that the reader would not know. In this case, a good example is education of emergency managers and leadership aspects and how it differs from other professions. Is it because of the youth of EM as a profession or consistency amongst educational institutions?

See the comments on the paper.

Themes: (the students were instructed to develop the themes as a section of evidence that directly support the thesis).

Do the themes, (individually and collectively), effectively support the thesis? Does the writer provide and present enough qualitative and/or quantitative evidence? Does the writer stay effectively focused?

Yes, the themes are good. They take in three salient issues in EM. However needs work to bring it together in the discussion.

Discussion: (the students were instructed to provide a discussion of the evidence, either in the themes or in a separate section. The main focus was to appropriately interpret the evidence in the theme(s) and effectively provide legitimate alternative perspectives in order to avoid bias and demonstrate awareness of limitations [this was completely new to them in practice]).

Is there an effective amount of discussion concerning the evidence while staying connected to the RQ and thesis?

Somewhat. Themes 1 and 2 are very challenging to connect to the thesis. The writer often refers to residents and preparedness but is not able to articulate how that relates to leaders in EM.

Theme 3 was better it needs some work however, the aspect of aptitude and its application is good.

In all themes, it should flow from one to another like your teeing up the reader for the next point.

Does the writer acknowledge and present alternative perspectives and limitations concerning the evidence? Yes, but some refinement is needed would like to see comparing during the discussion of both perspectives as you read.

Is there an opportunity to consider other relevant factors concerning the argument (something the writer may not have known)?

Competencies are discussed however seem limited. It is an excellent point and how does EM establish competencies and build on them. The writer talks about how to build on them. With some refinement, it will work. There is some good literature on competencies and how it can enhance leadership. There is literature on potential models. The writer might want to look at potential models as well as if have been implemented. This may help develop into further research even if there is limited research.

The writer mentioned cultural competencies, but the evidence and discussion were limited. It is a good point, and some expansion would be good.

Conclusion:

Does the writer effectively rephrase and present the RQ and argument as a refresher?

Yes

Does the writer effectively summarize the evidence and discussion?

Yes, but the discussion in the themes makes it hard to put the two together.

Does the writer effectively offer future research concepts as a result of their own work and acknowledged limitations? No, there is no indication for further research.

No further research was recommended.

Miscellaneous:

The writer is obviously passionate about the topic. Ensure that opinions are removed (if there are any) and ensure that if a statement is being made, a source is available to support the statement. It adds to the validity of the discussion as well as the analysis.

The author should look at where to cite sources and look and see if additional sources may be needed to support alternate and supporting perspectives. Reliance on one source to support the theme may not always work. The same can be said for alternate perspectives.

A lot of the background show accompany the discussion for the themes. It would improve the overall read.

Look breaks when starting a new idea it is almost like a breathing point for the reader.

The comparative analysis remains somewhat limited, meaning it seemed to restate what the authors already stated. In one case, specifically theme 2, aptitude remains a common theme between both authors, and there are differences in the approaches. That is a good example perspective of two authors agreeing how to get there but in agreement on aptitude as a necessary component.