The Management of Disasters,Hazards,Risk and Vulnerabilit

1) Did the authors find a relationship, show a trend, or demonstrate a new method?

2) Did they synthesize literature around a topic in a review?

3) Did they put forward a new conceptual framework?

4) Did they make any unsubstantial claims or conclusions?

5) Were the methods appropriate or did they use flawed assumptions about data or approaches?

6) Did the authors convince you of their interpretation of the results? Or do you disagree with their interpretation?

7) Were the figures and tables easily understandable, or were they confusing or inappropriate for what they were trying to visualize?

8) Do you agree with their implications, applications, and/or conclusions?

9) What would you have done differently, if you were conducting the experiment?

10) How do the week’s readings relate to each other? Do they differ on terminology, methodological approaches, or conclusions? Do they offer complementary knowledge?

11) Can you apply this to your prior education or career experiences (and vice versa)?

12) Who are the authors, and what are their backgrounds? Are they well known in the field, do they work at an established and well-regarded institution (e.g., university), do they have many related publications? Or are the authors new blood?













Sample Solution