WE ARE GETTING DOWN TO THE WIRE AND ALL I CAN DO IS WRITE IN CAPS LOCK.
false alarm. deep breathes.
Alrighty… so I have literally no time and a million things to do still. Here I am going to digest some of Jim’s feedback and write a few clear goals to address the suggestions. Overall, from this feedback, I gather that I need to be a little more nuanced and subtle with how I explain science.
- Distanciation- I recently put a name to this section after realizing that this is what I was talking about anyway. However, I know I do not exactly follow Giddens’ definition. Jim’s feedback is basically that there has been a lot more recent scholarly debate about his original idea and there are other implications for its application to the sciences. I think I make a claim that local particularities are lost, but this is not actually the case. The distancing, which can be seen as more objective, coexists with particularities surrounding the local context. This is not inherently bad as both work together to produce knowledge.
- I might need to talk to Jim about this one. I can start my softening my language about “losing” local particularities. Add a paragraph in the BOH about how distanciation coexists with local contexts in cloud classification?
- We need both given misconceptions like “the notion is that the local = noise, the global = signal, and the more we eliminate the noise the better our understanding of the signal.”
- Situated Context- Jim says that he doesn’t see that I have a situated context. This is a BIG problem considering it is one of the things I keep struggling with and keep thinking that I have fixed. In taking out the network methodology, I think I have left the background framing of the situated context a little bare.
- I think this can be remedied by a paragraph after the introduction in my MOH. I can bring in some of the main authors and organizations and consider “material realities/interests/needs/expertises that make it happen in certain ways among certain networks of scientists, funders, beneficiaries, etc. “
- Bottom of Hourglass- Even though Jim didn’t get my specific feedback about my BOH, all the feedback need to come together at the end. Also, he didn’t seem very enthusiastic about the climate in climate debate/risk as both Liz and Jessica suggested…
- weave in my own observations and make some conclusions from them
- Interjections- emphasize the personal, local nature of these observations. They emphasize subjectivity in a good way.
- edit language
- possibly bring together more in results section