The article I chose was The
Untested Drug Cocktail. The article contained an intriguing subject matter.
When creating my stakeholder map I went for the simple ‘for’ and ‘against’
argument, only difference is that I listed the two sides as ‘inhumane’ or ‘justified’.
Throughout the comments, it seemed that everyone was for the idea of keeping
the death penalty and not outlawing it, yet opinions differed when it came down
to whether or not testing new types of lethal injections on death row inmates
was morally acceptable. After sifting through those opinions I listed them
under their respective sides. Now what was difficult about this, was the
process of morphing the opinions into their most basic forms, meaning:
compacting them into phrases to be listed. Every person on the comments section
really had their own unique perspective on why they were supporting the side
that they were but I had to generalize those opinions, which I’ll end up
elaborating more in depth when I continue on to the essay portion of this
project. I’ve really been putting this off because I’m still, for the most part,
new to the idea and concept of stakeholder maps and truthfully I’m not sure if
I even composed this one right. I hope I ended up doing this correctly, but I
made this map to the best of my understanding and knowledge of what an acceptable
one may actually look like.
The map was good, but lacked a bit of detail. Your initial reasons on justified and inhumane are a really awesome starting point because often people lack to look over both sides of an argument and become sucked into one sole reason. PERIOD. I Think you should elaborate, in general, on your own thoughts for each side. State why you personally believe no one should die a cruel death, state your opinion on what cruel and unusual means to you. When explaining, pretend that you actually believe what you're saying, even if you definitely disagree. Gotta fake it till' we make it!
ReplyDeleteI liked that you kept your map organized into the two different sections of inhumane and justified. This makes it much more organized. I do think you need to expand on your ideas some and answer the question "why?" for each piece. There's a lot more to these pieces, and explaining why testing the new lethal drug cocktail on a death row prisoner is considered "cruel and unusual" punishment by some or why others believe it's okay because death is the ultimate goal helps to support each side. I also think you should state the stakeholders for each side, but other than that you're on the right track and it looks great!
ReplyDeleteThe map didn't really describe who is being affected by it. The person is number one, then the family i would guess...both of those are givens. But what I would like to see are the things that we cant guess off the bat. Maybe, the person who is doing the lethal injection. Or maybe students who observe the effects it can have on people. More detail, please!
ReplyDeleteNice map. Very short and to the point but you need to state the "why" for each people. Even though your common sense can depicts who is getting affected for the sake of the requirements it has to be done. Going back the the article, I do think it is inhumane to try a new killing product on a person. But for the sake of his life he should die in piece. The medical doctors can tester it on say an animal like a rat or something small then up the dosage to the human. Overall, well done.
ReplyDeleteI was a bit confused by your map. I like the idea that you went for but it was confusing to identify the stakeholders from just your map. I think that you need to go through the comments and article again to really pick out those stakeholders.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you organized your stakeholder map. It made it really clear to read by separating it into the two opposing sides. I feel like you did a good job describing what the opinions on the topic are, but you didn’t really say what group of people would have that opinion. I feel like you might want to go back and identify the different groups of people that share the same opinion. For example, one stakeholder might be family of the prisoners. That would be your overall stakeholder and then below that you would describe what you believe their opinion on the topic might be. Overall, I think you have a good start, but you have some editing you might want to do.
ReplyDeleteI like your presentation of the two dominant stakeholders. I appreciate the generalization of "inhumane" and "justified". This is a great way to divide different arguments and opinions because it brings the reader/viewer into certain boundaries of thinking. It is much easier to visualize the different arguments because of how simple it is laid out here. I also like the subtopics for each major argument. It reminds me much of an organized essay format.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I noticed about your map is the two different colors, which is awesome. I think your goal was to be short and sweet, and you definitely accomplished that. I like the fact I was able to read your map so easily because it was to the point. However, you might want to add a bit more detail to help you with the rest of the project. Good job though :)
ReplyDeleteI like how your map was short and to the point and didn't have much extra/unneeded information. I also like how you have a side bubble for someone who is neutral to the argument. Overall good job and keep going on with it!
ReplyDeleteIt’s very smart of you to organize your map into inhumane and justified because that definitely nails both sides of stakeholders in this matter. This is also one of the best organizational maps I’ve looked at so far. I think it would be good to add detail and to go further into explaining the points you made about inhumane and justified. The points listed are very vague, and although that is a good thing for a mind map, a little more focus may help it out greatly. Also maybe adding a subset of typical stakeholders on each side would help out greatly as well. But overall it is a good map!
ReplyDeleteThis is a very solid map! Its straight to the point and gives all the information that you need for this topic. But I have a few suggestions that you could implement to make this map even better such as adding some posts from the blog that was written about this topic. You could also add some articles that you research about this topic to get a even bigger view of the topic. One really good thing that i notice though is that you separated the view points into different categorizes such as inhuman, neutral and justified. One other thing I really like in your map is the use of color for the different categorizes, it makes it easier to read and understand what is being written. Other then those few touch ups, this is a very well done map.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really organized and effort-filled map. I can tell that you put quite a bit of thought into it when you were creating it. I also like that you're going to be doing your project about this topic. I have chosen a similar topic and I think that the projects involving these topics will be very interesting.
ReplyDeleteMy criticisms of your map would be to elaborate on who is in the "neutral" bubble. Is it just people who don't care about him, people who don't care about the issue and it's outcome, or something else? I think that would be something that could strengthen your map and your project. I like the way that you organized your map. It's very easy to read and easy to understand. I think your points are well-made. Overall, I think you did a really good job.