Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Religious radicalisation motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hi this is a really interesting topic and you have made a good start. I thought this might be useful. Keep going!!! Iannaccone, L. R., & Berman, E. (2006). Religious extremism: The good, the bad, and the deadly. Public Choice, 128(1-2), 109-129.

u3081127 3/10/2016 16:06

Hi there, This is a really interest topic that is definitely currently relevant! You've made a good start, only thing I'd say so far is doing a short overview as opposed to the very long introduction you have at the moment. The current section should probably instead be titled "Background of Monotheism, Divine Truth & The Other". If you then added an overview title before that and just gave a sentence or two on everything you are covering in the chapter I think that would work well! Otherwise, looks good and is really interesting :) --U3083764 (discusscontribs) 02:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Great development[edit source]

Hi, your book chapter is coming along nicely! I have fixed a few small grammatical errors for you in order to be consistent with Australian spelling of words, as listed in the marking criteria. Also, adding an interactive component like a quiz or a case study would be beneficial for your chapter. Best of luck :) --U3121176 (discusscontribs) 01:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Chapter development[edit source]


I've read through the beginning sections of your chapter and it's really interesting, especially using the history of religion as a point of reference for motivation in religious radicalisation. However, it's really dense and some parts I had to read a couple of times to understand what you were talking about. As well as where the information you were talking about related to.

For example, in your first paragraph you talk about a pantheon of pagan gods - What are the pagan gods? What is monotheism, polytheism etc.? If I have no idea about the history of religions or god(s), its hard to infer that religions once had multiple gods, such as those found the Roman, Greek or Hindu cultures.

Also, in the section "other", what is other? are you talking about other religions? belonging to another religion? What is the importance of belonging to the "other"? If you are talking about social identity theory and religion it may be helpful to talk about the theory, then talk about the consequences of being a part of non accepted religion, i.e., in-groups vs. out-groups.

To counter some of these problems, it may be helpful to include as prelude to these sections why religion is important and what belief meant through the ages. From this, you can talk about the historical events and developments of religion, giving the reader an understanding why religion has been so important. This will also help you build your chapter toward the motivational aspects of religious radicalisation, linking your chapter content together.

I hope this didn't come across poorly, as I am only trying to help.

Good luck and I look forward to reading the complete chapter, as religion and radicalisation are a fascinating topic.

Cheers, --Muzz2016 (discusscontribs) 05:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for breaking the text up[edit source]

Hey, I had a quick read of your chapter and I found it quite interesting. I just wanted to make a suggestion of maybe adding a case study or a quick quiz just to break up some of the sections of text. Other than this I think it is a really informative chapter--Jbboys (discusscontribs) 06:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Tangential[edit source]

Hey, I'll try not to echo other comments.

  • Check for "radicalization" vs. "radicalisation" typos - a really small thing.
  • Under the Religion and Radicalisation heading, you talk about radicalisation shifting from normative views to something which challenges the status-quo (arguably, I do that every day at work). But then you make the link that's radicalisation and they're then motivated to carry out a terrorist attack. This is oversimplified... It's also arguable there is not a huge amount of empirical research in this area. You might progress from being dissatisfied to dissonant to radicalised to an extremist. It would be good to further explore this... There's definitely vulnerability involved, but what is it?
  • Is there a difference between radicalisation and religious radicalisation? Is this the same motivation but under a different auspices?
  • I think your topic has deviated from the assessment criteria (theory and evidence) for motivation, but you've nailed the context part. What motivates someone to pursue a hard-line view? And turn that into action? Religion might be an enabler...

Sorry! I think it is tangential, but it is recoverable. I'd be more than happy to give more feedback too and I'll watch this article's development.

Tristan TristanMM (discusscontribs) 09:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Heading casing[edit source]

Crystal Clear app ktip.svg
FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use:

==Cats and dogs==

rather than

==Cats and Dogs==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Psychological theory and research[edit source]

The key marking criteria are related to coverage of the most relevant psychological theory and research - this is far more important than history etc. (links can be provided to relevant background material). So, make sure to clearly demonstrate how psychological theory and research help to understand the problem. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

looking good[edit source]

Hi, your chapter is great! Really well put together and informative. I'd suggest maybe adding another picture or two and putting some of the pictures on the left side too just to add to the visual appeal of it. You have a lot of text so breaking it up and adding interest with some more pictures would help. Other than that its great, well done. --U3117165 (discusscontribs) 11:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Feedback[edit source]

Hi Brendan,

First off, interesting topic! However, I think that your overview section shouldn't just list off everything you talk about in the chapter: it should function more as a proposed question that you answer through the chapter. Saying that Pagan religions are 'primitive' may sound biased, so I would remove it. I would also turn your your section on ingroups into a subsection and describe it in more detail. I edited your title "Examples radical religious ideology" to "Examples of radical religious ideology".

--Cora.boyle (discusscontribs) 01:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Chapter review and feedback

This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Chapter marks will be available later via Moodle, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a promising, but problematic chapter.
  2. The chapter is unnecessarily and overly focused on Islamic religious radicalisation - such a focus is not an inherent part of the question, although contemporary Islamic religious radication could serve as a useful example.
  3. The chapter is over the maximum word-count.
  4. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.
  5. Feel free to make ongoing changes to the chapter if you wish to address any of these comments or make other improvements.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Religious radicalisation isn't well defined.
  2. The religious history material should be removed or at least very significantly abbreviated, with links to further information because it is not necessary to answering the question. This would allow a greater focus on psychology theory and research which can help to understand and explain the motivation for religious radicalisation.
  3. The Overview could be improved by outlining the motivational theories which help to explain/understand religious radicalisation.

Research[edit source]

  1. There is relatively little detailed, critical consideration of relevant psychological research.
  2. Some statements were unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  3. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the method.
  4. When discussing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
  5. Was the Maslow (1943) source directly consulted? If not, don't cite it (or use a secondary citation).

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Use gender-neutral language (e.g., man-made -> human-made).
    2. Write in third person rather than first person (e.g., avoid "I', "we", "our", "your" etc.).
    3. Use an active rather than a passive voice.
  2. Layout
    1. Images were largely related to religious history and were largely tangential to the topic.
  3. Learning features
    1. Interwiki links (to relevant Wikipedia articles) were largely added for religious terminology, so were not particularly pertinent to the topic.
    2. Quiz questions could be used to encourage reader engagement.
  4. Spelling
    1. Use Australian spelling (some general examples are hypothesize -> hypothesise; behavior -> behaviour).
    2. Spelling could be improved - see the [spelling?] tags.
  5. Grammar and proofreading
    1. Use abbreviations such as "e.g." inside brackets and "for example" outside brackets.
    2. Check and correct the use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals').
  6. APA style
    1. Use APA style for table and figure captions.
    2. Check and correct the APA style for direct quotes.
    3. Check and correct the APA style formatting of in-text citations (e.g., et al.)
    4. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's Moodle site. Written feedback is provided below, plus see the general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener.


Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a basic, but sufficient presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Doesn't capture the problem for this presentation - i.e., what motivates religious radicalisation.
    2. Be careful to distinguish between what is personal opinion vs. what can be said based on psychological theory and research.
    3. Use the Overview to set up the problem to be solved (the question i.e., the subtitle for the book chapter).
    4. Tell the listener what they will find out about if they watch this presentation.
    5. There is no particular need/reason for the presentation to focus on Islamic radicalisation (although it could be used as an example) - what are some other examples?
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Basic coverage of theory, although its not entirely clear what is psychological theory and what is opinion Frowny.svg
    2. Citations to evidence for claims?
    3. References are included.
  3. Conclusion
    1. None provided.
    2. A Conclusion slide summarising the take-home messages / key points could be helpful.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Audio is reasonably clear and well-paced.
    2. Perhaps leave longer pauses between sentences.
  2. Image/Video
    1. Text is easy to read
    2. Consider abbreviating and reporting less text.
    3. Some images are used; consider including more images, figures, and/or tables.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, basic production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Well titled.
    2. Link to chapter provided.
    3. Excellent use of the Description field to provide relevant information.
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Sounds tinny - consider using an external microphone to improve audio recording quality.
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Effective use of simple tools.
  5. Licensing
    1. The stated license in the description doesn't match the selected youtube license.
    2. Direct links to image sources not provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)