Just like with the pitch, I am again providing feedback on others BETA’s.
My aim Throughout my commenting process was to both support them by stating what I enjoy about their DA (Which I loved all three of then) and also tips or advice on what they could work on to help build their DA and research.
I did a total of three comments providing feedback for peers. The first one, I focused on their strengths and didn’t touch on weaknesses or any opportunities I could provide for them (If you were to follow similar to the SWOT method (Kenton, W. 2021). After this original comment, I felt I could provide more further in depth feedback which could help them build their DA and future opportunities. I looked at the first comment as a ‘guide’ or a ‘test run’ for my feedback, and I learnt for the next 2 a more constructive method of providing advice and help. Each BETA and comment taught me a valuable lesson which can help me in later improving my own DA and perspective.
In Maddy’s BETA, she discussed her process of changing her media niche all together in order to find a balance that worked for her. I particularly loved this because it demonstrated that not all research works out and may not be right for us. By changing her media niche, she found something she was more passionate about, something she could research properly, and a niche she felt comfortable building a DA in. Which was very evident in her BETA. This helped me reflect on my own DA, as it showed me that not all research and feedback will be progressive, but you make changes in order to encourage different results. Looking back on it now, I do wish that I had provided some opportunities or sources for her to use in order for further research and growth. But, as I stated, Maddy’s was a stepping stone into how I decided to structure my comments.
Katrina is doing a DA surrounding books and more specifically feminism in fantasy, importance of book covers in immersing audiences, and influence on capitalisms. Her BETA focused on the research has already conducted and her research methods through auto ethnographic research methods. Although, there were bits of important information missing which i touched on slightly in my feedback. I touched on the idea that Katrina could’ve discussed more about her epiphanies as she did mention in her blog post how she has a shift or ‘expansion’ of her paradigm and main topic of research. I would’ve loved to hear why there was this shift and what caused it. Here, some epiphanies could’ve been added as a further explanation. As Katrina is starting her blog post very soon, I thought I could provide a tool for her to create a successful online persona as she moves into this next stage of development. Here is where I aimed at providing opportunities.
Sophie’s I was very excited to comment on, as I was excited to see her growth since the pitches which I provided feedback on. It was really nice to hear through her BETA, that my feedback was helpful and something she used to inspire an Instagram page. This taught me that feedback is important and something we should take seriously in providing help for others, in a constructive way. I noticed Sophie hadn’t touched on the type of persona she had created or wanted to create for her page. So, I provided a source which has really helped me build a persona which works in my niche (a pattern I noticed with Katrina’s). And also distinguished a connection with lecture content by mentioning the possibility of incorporating qualitative research methods in her research moving forward.
Kenton. W, 2021, Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threat (SWOT) Analysis, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/swot.asp
T's Timeline 