Today I have a meeting with S and P. Really I don't know what to expect!
The last time I saw them it was not the best experience... well it is always like that
So here I'm. back from that first good meeting with S. A first meeting where I actually find myself learning from a tutor. Why it is like that? Well, it appears that the story that I'm telling could make more sense without using ingredients for the management and/or business area.
Perhaps, this is happening only because I haven't done the writing as P could have done it, maybe it is just because I haven't learned yet to do it right. The idea behind S, is to tell things clearly and avoid arguments that only try to make the story suitable into other selves suits.
The idea that S gives me is to tell a story that everybody would like to read. Something that explains a phenomenon from economics, something that people knowing about apps would be as interested as people not knowing anything about. However, all people know a little about apps,
but not all people is interested in knowing more about that. So, explaining to them why this is not a story of apps, and this is a story about the phenomenon from economics could have a higher potential to like readers. This idea is also shared by P.
I have a second feeling that I would never know, this feeling comes from the frustration of not receiving from P what I would like to receive. For example, P could have improved the writing of my text before going to S. (Maybe P wanted to do it, but didn't have the opportunity to do so).
Today, P supported the ideas P gave me in previous meetings. With few successes conviencing S. S was also close to his first impression, so we didn't have a lot of chance. I couldn't really satisfy the motivation behind certain sentences of my writing. This is in a part due to
my misunderstanding of how to do nice and rigorous academic writing, and also it is because in previous discussions with P I haven't developed the right arguments supporting the ideas. P seems to be frustrated with working with S. P would like that I answered better the ideas of
S. Who knows all those things.
Now, I want to make progress in my paper. That is the only thing it counts for me. I'm now working behind the advice of S. P already gave ideas, but S helped me with the next 2 weeks work.
So for the next time: I have to explain in a 3 pages length three main aspects of the theoretical framework.
First, what is the app store and how does it work transactions of apps
Second, what are the revenue models for products, using examples outside the apps (if possible offline). Here I have to highlight the uniqueness of the data sold as revenue model of the apps or online goods.
Third, Privacy aspect of data used to fuel revenue models. Privacy paradox + Users consent less info disclosing when it is more precise and clear what data is collected and why.
The introduction is better and almost done. Nice done! I only had some mistakes in the grammar, but it is feasible to improve it. S did correction of the intro with few comments that I have to change! Intro needs still one closing paragraph, to be done later!
Confirming what I also suspected that is better to close afterward. For the moment lets keep it open. It is difficult to say for them as it is for me. So here, I decided well what to do!
The theoretical frame needs to improve, in order to supports, the story told at the introduction.
So that is all for today's meeting.
N
Later today I had P coming to my office asking to have a short talk. That is cool from P sides. We had a discussion of 30 mins about the end of the talk with S, and other stuff related to paper. Good to see that she is not taking a position against S, but always trying to build together. P said I managed very well some of the comments P previously made on the last version. P is glad to see that the intro was validated by S. Same feeling I got. Like too much that P wanted to know what was my feeling after the meeting of the morning.
Finally, P said we will split the course into two groups, so the quality of the teaching goes higher. Also, I see that P is open to remarks and suggestions about SBM, maybe about the methodology, about the reading. maybe we could have more discussions with the students about the reading list. Students want to have more lectures with content provided by experts!
Well, P is cool with me, I think P likes to work togehter!
The last time I saw them it was not the best experience... well it is always like that
So here I'm. back from that first good meeting with S. A first meeting where I actually find myself learning from a tutor. Why it is like that? Well, it appears that the story that I'm telling could make more sense without using ingredients for the management and/or business area.
Perhaps, this is happening only because I haven't done the writing as P could have done it, maybe it is just because I haven't learned yet to do it right. The idea behind S, is to tell things clearly and avoid arguments that only try to make the story suitable into other selves suits.
The idea that S gives me is to tell a story that everybody would like to read. Something that explains a phenomenon from economics, something that people knowing about apps would be as interested as people not knowing anything about. However, all people know a little about apps,
but not all people is interested in knowing more about that. So, explaining to them why this is not a story of apps, and this is a story about the phenomenon from economics could have a higher potential to like readers. This idea is also shared by P.
I have a second feeling that I would never know, this feeling comes from the frustration of not receiving from P what I would like to receive. For example, P could have improved the writing of my text before going to S. (Maybe P wanted to do it, but didn't have the opportunity to do so).
Today, P supported the ideas P gave me in previous meetings. With few successes conviencing S. S was also close to his first impression, so we didn't have a lot of chance. I couldn't really satisfy the motivation behind certain sentences of my writing. This is in a part due to
my misunderstanding of how to do nice and rigorous academic writing, and also it is because in previous discussions with P I haven't developed the right arguments supporting the ideas. P seems to be frustrated with working with S. P would like that I answered better the ideas of
S. Who knows all those things.
Now, I want to make progress in my paper. That is the only thing it counts for me. I'm now working behind the advice of S. P already gave ideas, but S helped me with the next 2 weeks work.
So for the next time: I have to explain in a 3 pages length three main aspects of the theoretical framework.
First, what is the app store and how does it work transactions of apps
Second, what are the revenue models for products, using examples outside the apps (if possible offline). Here I have to highlight the uniqueness of the data sold as revenue model of the apps or online goods.
Third, Privacy aspect of data used to fuel revenue models. Privacy paradox + Users consent less info disclosing when it is more precise and clear what data is collected and why.
The introduction is better and almost done. Nice done! I only had some mistakes in the grammar, but it is feasible to improve it. S did correction of the intro with few comments that I have to change! Intro needs still one closing paragraph, to be done later!
Confirming what I also suspected that is better to close afterward. For the moment lets keep it open. It is difficult to say for them as it is for me. So here, I decided well what to do!
The theoretical frame needs to improve, in order to supports, the story told at the introduction.
So that is all for today's meeting.
N
Later today I had P coming to my office asking to have a short talk. That is cool from P sides. We had a discussion of 30 mins about the end of the talk with S, and other stuff related to paper. Good to see that she is not taking a position against S, but always trying to build together. P said I managed very well some of the comments P previously made on the last version. P is glad to see that the intro was validated by S. Same feeling I got. Like too much that P wanted to know what was my feeling after the meeting of the morning.
Finally, P said we will split the course into two groups, so the quality of the teaching goes higher. Also, I see that P is open to remarks and suggestions about SBM, maybe about the methodology, about the reading. maybe we could have more discussions with the students about the reading list. Students want to have more lectures with content provided by experts!
Well, P is cool with me, I think P likes to work togehter!
Comments
Post a Comment