Instructions: Please answer 2 paper prompts. Use no less than 700 and no more than a 1000 words (double spaced) to answer each question. Answer the question with an argument that incorporates evidence from the readings and course lectures. DO NOT use outside sources. Please cite your sources both in-text and in a bibliography at the end of the exam. The best answers will combine concepts from multiple readings.
Creating a compelling argument is AS IMPORTANT as knowing the content of the class. This class is about media theory so I am testing to see that you can adapt the concepts and tools we have discussed to your understanding of your own media experience and the media experience of others. To that end, please ensure that your essays do the following:
• Foreground your argument with a clear statement that organizes the rest of your essay
• Connect each supporting argument to the main argument
• Be sure that your arguments are making claims about the way you are applying media theories and not just saying you believe. In other words, explain your logic and support it rather than simply offering unsubstantiated claims and opinions.
• Use evidence from the readings to support your arguments (NO outside sources)
• Organize your evidence so that you explain the connection to your arguments
• Do not let evidence or quotes speak for themselves, you must contextualize them and explain them. Go so far as to explain the words in a quote to make plain your interpretation.
• Cite your sources
• Conclude your essay with a summary of the logic of your argument
2 prompts to respond to:
1. What are the medium affordances of the Internet? How does the way the technology works foster a society of “do-it-yourself” global populism? What is the effect of this medium on narrative practices AND established institutions (governments, schools, and media)?
2. How are databases different from linear technologies? Reflecting on these differences describe how content aggregation and user recommendation algorithms filter the potentials of the internet. What are the social effects of software algorithms and how do they provide a sense of personal identity? Use two examples to support your explanation.
The writing that spotlights on watching how arranging is really done in associations, instead of on medicines of how it ought to be done, watches that two key measurements shape the arranging procedure. These are • • vulnerability about the ‘what’ of arranging, including agreement about goals as a result of decent variety of qualities and plans; and • • vulnerability about the ‘how’ of arranging, including vulnerability about the earth and the association’s work forms. Slide 3: Arranging procedures have been mapped against the scope of these two measurements of vulnerability by Pava, which gives a valuable heuristic. At the point when there is prepared agreement between partners about ‘what’ to get ready for, goals can be set in clear and unambiguous ways. This circumstance will probably happen when there are less partners. (The more there are, the more probable there will vary esteems and plans conveyed to the errand.) The less association there is with nature, the less outer partners, and the less relationship inside the association, the less inward partners. The front applies with more noteworthy association bringing about more probable uniqueness among partners – there are typically a greater amount of them and more is in question. At the point when partners have differing values about destinations, setting goals turns into the battleground where one needs to guarantee that one’s qualities win. Once the ‘wrong’ goals are set, the fight is lost. Winning involves power, or legislative issues. Maybe this is the reason so much exertion goes into the front-end of key arranging thus little leaves it? Slide 4: To create system in conditions of high vulnerability about ‘what’, the procedure must incorporate strategies for settling struggle. This might be accomplished by ‘strategic maneuvers’ that abrogate the interests of a few partners. Keep in mind, in conditions of contention about ‘what’, any decision implies agreeing with one stakeholder(s) to the detriment of others. The hazard is that those partners who are disappointed will pull back or offer inactive protection (or even participate in guerrilla fighting) against the usage of the key arrangement. All things considered, execution of most key designs is done all through the association by center administration. Slide 5: The cost to the association of partner withdrawal relies upon the criticality of the included relationship as well as the degree to which they can be substituted. For instance, overlooking the complaints of the Head of the Anesthetic Department may have little outcome if anesthetists are effortlessly supplanted. It might be hazardous for the association to do as such if anesthetists are MPH5304 Leading and overseeing in general wellbeing and social insurance hard to come by and the affronted anesthetist and associates ‘take their marbles and go home’. Disregarding the requirements of Department Heads may prompt inactive protection with spending control, for instance. Slide 6: Hence, in conditions of contention about the ‘what’, methodology arranging needs to join forms that prompt accord about the ‘what’ on the off chance that it is to amplify support and consistence from partners. Slide 7: (Test your comprehension) Slide 8: Accepting, for the present, that there is agreement about the ‘what’ of a vital arrangement, the subsequent stage is to decide the moves that are to make place to accomplish that ‘what’ – the ‘how’. Now and then accomplishing the target includes activities that, in spite of the fact that they might be perplexing, are known. Assembling a motorcar is a perplexing arrangement of steps that are, notwithstanding, surely understood – to such an extent that the procedure can be designed in a relatively programmed sequential construction system. Building a clinic is more mind boggling and altered, yet the means and their grouping are notable. Settling on another auto configuration to fabricate, or deciding how to choose where another healing facility ought to be manufactured, is more dangerous. Slide 9: The end result for the procedure of key arranging if the errands required to accomplish a ‘what’ have large amounts of vulnerability? At the point when this happens, the procedure of key arranging must consolidate learning. Assignments should be executed as investigations to check whether they work. Slide 10: Various scholars have depicted different arranging techniques that join accord building, when there is vulnerability about ‘what’, and realizing, when there is vulnerability about how. Obviously, if there are the two vulnerabilities about ‘what’ and ‘how’, the arranging procedure should both form accord about the ‘what’ and take in the ‘how’. (Snap each case to take in more and access the following slide.) Slide 11: Tragically, much vital arranging, since it is high request arranging, happens with regards to high vulnerability about both ‘what’ and ‘how’. You will soon be adapting more about the outcomes of this. Initially, what is a successful arranging process in this specific situation? Second, by what other means may the arranging procedure be influenced? In view of the trouble (inconceivability) of arranging normally in this unique circumstance, vital arranging goes up against different purposes. Slide 12: (Take after the directions to test your comprehension and access the following slide.) MPH5304 Leading and overseeing in general wellbeing and social insurance Slide 13: As we have just investigated, traditional formal arranging is dangerous in settings of high vulnerability about ‘what’ to plan and ‘how’ to accomplish the arrangement. Indeed, endeavors to build up clear targets, as the initial step of the levelheaded arranging process, regularly have the impact of crashing the entire procedure as partners scramble to accomplish their goal, best case scenario, or to guard against another partner accomplishing their goal. In any dubious circumstance, with numerous hypothetical results, partners under danger have a tendency to fantasize that the conceivable result will be the most exceedingly awful they can envision. It is this most exceedingly bad result that partners will safeguard against. For instance, if two associations are combining, the most exceedingly awful result for a staff part is that they will be saved. Of course, the main response to such a declaration is mechanical activity about employer stability. Slide 14: So what works in these conditions? Pava, among others, has watched fruitful usage of techniques in various conditions. The procedure has been depicted as nonsynoptic frameworks change. >