Respond to your assigned presentation in an edited 3-paragraph, formal academic peer review.

DDBA 8580 Week 7 Discussion 2

Discussion 2: Presentation Peer Review: Presenter and Participants

Participants:        ( 2 Pages )

By Day 3 of Week 7

Respond to your assigned presentation in an edited 3-paragraph, formal academic peer review. Upon review and consideration of the Presenter’s PowerPoint presentation, and based on your own research.

Posit your preferred process, of the many possible approaches, which you believe best ensures that a designed process is working as planned, thus most capably offsetting any untoward or unanticipated outcomes. The defense of your rationale is important, to make it compelling.

In your review, be sure to:

• Assess the conceptualization, analysis, and synthesis of key research concepts presented.
• Determine whether or not the presentation provides a cohesive summary of the assigned concepts with an effective evaluation of their implications for human resources.
• Assess whether or not the presenter made a meaningful academic argument or interpretation that demonstrated fluency with the material.
• An annotated bibliography of at least five additional resources related to the research topic.

In the subject line of your reply, replace the text with “Your First Name Last Name’s Response to First Name Last Name’s Presentation” (for example, “Jeff Smith’s Response to Melissa Gore”). This will ensure it is easily identifiable by your Instructor and your colleagues.

 
Presenter(s) and Participants:    ( 1 Page )

Between Day 3 and Day 7 of Week 7, continue the Discussion on both the Participants’ and Presenter(s)’ postings by addressing the following summative considerations that pertain specifically to the topics for this 2-week unit:

• In what ways do the readings, provided in this week’s Learning Resources and those identified by you and your colleagues, answer important “so what?” questions in the field of human resources?
• How are these readings potentially valuable for research in the field?
• Are there any important gaps (i.e., contradictions, arguments, disagreements, or areas of divergence) within this set of readings that point to potential topics for future research?
• How would you follow up to extend or explore these gaps?