Originally posted by **edzob** May 4, 2022
**3. Methodology**
1. Overall -> we or I ?
2. " the steps of this research" -> implies the steps of execution, but it is called methodology.
**3.1. Research design**
1. "What is the quality we pursue, and how do we reach this quality?" -> why this term? The reader has no context to place this term, aka blindside
2. "We need answers to these questions before we can start with our research. " -> Perhaps start with this sentence
**3.1.1. Research quality**
1. "We increase the rigorousness of the research by applying quality principles." -> I .. and "the" -> mine or our. OR base this in content by Erik P or lend some references from Jan S.
2. "Applying four principles to the research increases the quality of the research (Recker, 2013, p. 15–17). These principles are replicability, independence, precision and falsification." -> perhaps merge these sentences. And Recker states these 4. Perhaps rewrite it a bit more to subject
3. "Precision defines all t" -> precision does not define :)
4. "Falsification implies that the research results can be disproven" -> personal pet peef. .this is a bit harsh and deserves some extra words. Again.. My personal pet peef.
5. "Preparing the research for replicability and reusability is essential." -> No it is not. We (you and I) think that. If you state that argue else use reference.
6. "We believe that
7. the results of this research should be available to the public. It is about the public sector and should be available to the public sector." -> los van eerdere feedback. Ik zou de zinnen omdraaien qua volgorde.
8. "We adopt the FAIR principles to support us in achieving this replicability and reusability" -> klopt de footnote URL? Ik snap het niet :) ik zou verwachten dat er staat wat FAIR is of de link tussen FAIR en replicatie en herhaalbaarheid .
9. "Findability is about" -> ik zou met grammarly of iets anders checken of dit qua engels goed is.
**3.1.2. Research method**
1. "The most popular research methods are either quantitative or qualitative (Recker, 2013,
2. p. 62). " -> I am not certain that this statement is correct. And so i tried to find the passage. I could not find this statement. In my pdf of 2013 page 62 starts with table 4.2; Can you help me find the paragraph you are referencing? Maybe you referenced the page in the pdf and not to the page in the book?
3. "A quantitative method uses quantitative data," -> I found it on page 36 (pdf page 46) and I must say.. This is not the best of statements by Recker. He who knows what quantitative is, does not need this sentence and for those no knowing this does not add value. A well..
4. You can add one sentence to make the bridge from quantitative / qualitative to grounded theory and action research. Provide some content on why this and not the 1000 other research types.
5. "Stating something by only using one source is not reliable. The statement can be biased or can be coincidental. A statement is better when a second source validates it." -> see the previous statements on scientific writing. :)
6. "from different methods" -> recker heeft het over verschillende methods en jij schrijft over verschillende bronnen. Deze zijn het niet zelfde.
7. "increase the robustness" -> ik zou even double checken of het gebruik van robustness hier overeenkomt met de defintie van robustness die eerder gegeven is in de context van fragile, robust en antifragiel. Anders zou ik hier een ander woord gebruiken.
**3.2.1. Literature study**
1. "e first five sub-question section 1.7 of this research" -> missing ()
2. "https://libguides.library.cityu.edu.hk/litreview/evaluating-sources/" -> for this is the source of which attributes you use. I would say add this as reference in apa style.
3. "These two sources" -> and you name three :) two authors and three sources
4. "Taleb2018" -> latex error? And bold?
5. "June 2020" -> hadden we niet een andere datum afgesproken? Want ik heb hem ingeleverd op mei 2020.. Volgens mij is 2019 veiliger als datum :) Ik zou even moeten zoeken in mijn thesis wat ik als datum heb staan voor de zoekopdracht
6. "We use the following keywords" -> mbt antifragile.. Waarom niet 1op1 de termen gebruiken die ik ook gebruikte? Incl dezefldeze repositories/databases?
**3.2.2. Interviews**
1. "We defined a set of topics for discussion" -> I think it addcs value to add a few sentences why these words.
2. " for further processing" -> further of future?
**3.2.3. Expert Group**
1. "the last part" -> the third part ? :)
2. "An expert group will brainstorm for possible new attributes" -> als het our expert group is, leg dan uit waarom.. Als het "an expert group" is, gebruik dan een verwijzing.
3. "Another" -> an ? zie de eerdere feedback over zinsvolgorde
WIP
Discussed in https://github.com/JRBliekendaal/master-thesis/discussions/160