antritu – [Anthony’s Peer Review]

<text 2 v. 2.0>
> [17.02.2017](Peer critique) <this text is formated in sublime text ‘Monokai extended’-scheme. As a piece of feedback, I really dislike character limits. :/


# Summary
‘The Energy Walk’ is a practiced method by Line Marie Thorsen, describing her approach to write narrative scientific tests, while integrating John Dewey’s ‘aesthetic philosophy’. The Text introduces methods and theories, but also provides examples of content of the actual walk.
<points of critique>
This text is covering a wide range of topics, of which few lie withing my competencies. So take this critique with a grain of salt.

_1. example_
> “In this paper I argue, that the walk manoeuvres a layered landscape of energetic and infrastructural visibility and invisibility, hereby sensitizing the participant to the manifold energy forms constantly present in our daily lives.”

_1. explanation_ Structure: Little focus.
The texts structure left me a bit confused about where this text what the ultimate aim was. Introducing the method, she covers a wide theoretical ground, and she seemingly attempts to apologize at end of the text for this. She then continues to give us a chronological overview of the walk, while explaining some of the methods. Explaining theory at the end and referencing even more texts, overall the structure felt very strange, and weary to read.
_2. example_ Name Dropping: refer to “Aesthetic Method?”
_2. explanation_ The author is naming too many theories and authors. This can be helpful for further research, but there is confusingly little explanation. This fact becomes apparent in contrast to the first two sections, the introduction and ‘The Energy Walk’, which she mostly manages without referencing. Especially as someone, who is not from that field, these references create more questions than answers.
_3. example_ All the titles and their format:
“Abstract – [Introducton] – The Energy Walk – (In)Visible Energy and Infrastructures – Aesthetic Method?”
_3. explanation:_ This critique is very specific. The paper’s overall structure, quoted above, becomes difficult to understand, examining where the different between “The Energy Walk” and “(In)Visible Energy and Infrastructures” lies. I would thus combine those. The Format is also a mess: While “Introduction” doesnt exist as title, “Abstract” and the other three sections are formatted differently. I’d suggest a uniform title format.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s