a bit long

2 Y/N questions

not detailed enough -- what are universal standards? Smaller groups and large groups -- how do you define them? What do you mean by severe/moderate effects?

Improved: Given how interconnected social science disciplines are, how do they work together or come up with a universal standard?

Significance: universal standards can be important in collaboration between social science disciplines

significance: to determine who is responsible for the resolution of the crisis

assumes only government/citizens are responsible when there are others like corporations/NGO/UN

Doesn't specify the type of crisis because stakeholders involved depends on the type of crisis (vague)

Seems like we need to define the crisis, who are the stakeholders and what their roles are

What type of resolution are we looking for?

Disguised Y/N question

too long

addresses some characteristics of a crisis -- stable, time critical/urgent nature of crisis

how can experts balance between coming up with data and recommending something fast?

Technical experts conduct studies to assess crisis before proposal new policies. Given the urgency of crises, how can experts balance between being prompt and recommending suitable policies before the crisis worsens? Or is either one to be sacrificed?

original question phrased in an ambiguous way

relevant topic now; ensures justice for the victims

Focus should be on the prevalence of domestic abuse. What is this "conversation" they are trying to analyse?

What is the relationship between the conversation and the crisis / domestic abuse being a crisis?

Is crisis anything that sparks unrest? (is that the assumption behind the question)

Yes/No question

Would the unrest caused by a conversation define a crisis?

relevant and timely -- concerns citizens' welfare and encourages more transparency in the government

improve phrasing -- government and political elite can choose 1. "Taking advantage of crisis" is a bit vague -- how crises are exploited? How governments prioritise their self interest over public interest.

Make it an open-ended question

We can't really quantify a crisis -- should there be an objective definition? (WHO - how do they quantify something as a crisis -- how many cases then it's considered?)

Difference between perception and understanding; they can be influenced

Where are the boundaries that make things a crisis? Each group has their own boundaries.

Should there be an objective criteria for defining a criss and should the government establish a requirement?

Why ask? Know how each player can contribute and optimise the solution. If we know which party is best at doing what, then we can split the work better.

RELEVANT: It's relevant but not critical. Yeah of course we want to solve this. Anyone would ask this

To be more specific, since it's so broad, it feels like this can be applied to anything. The bad thing about this is, the type of crisis is not known so the dominant player, we cannot identify it and it's too general.

How to answer the question? First is case study -- we see how governments in other countries have responded to the crisis in question. Duplicate and see if it's suitable for our situation.

Conceptualisation, response and management seems to be the same thing

Ones in power may not be plugged into the ground sentiment on what's happening -- so that's a problem

Affects people's lives

Relevant and critical but a bit too convoluted -- 2 things to address, along with equity, and we still have to think about how people in power are affecting it.

While still not being leading question

Is it appropriate for privileged and powerful individuals to influence the less privileged (under-resourced) in times of crisis?

WHY ASK: prevent loss of welfare between organisations and people associated with those organisations?

Let's say if there's too much information revealed, organisation might face legal action -- social media companies like TikTok, FB -- they need to testify about their impacts on society. A lot of them are questioned about stealing people's data, etc. We should expect some level of transparency and organisations shouldn't hold back this information since it affects people's privacy.

Breaking down the question: a little bit cluttered; better if person were to contextualise question before asking. E.g. Transparency and legal risks, and how much they withhold information.

Better structure: For organisations withholding information can be seen as dishonest, while revealing too mcuh could pose them legal risks. How can organisations balance between these two factors in deciding how much to reveal in a crisis?

unclear -- they are saying that racial discrimination may have become a norm; is there a change in our internal perspective even though externally things are the same? Or is there an external change that has led to us changing our perspective? WHat changed and what stayed the same?

How would you think of it as a crisis if it's internalised? What would you consider a crisis if certain behaviours are internalised?

What constitutes a crisis -- that seems to be the heart of the question

REWORDED: What would lead to one categorising a situation as a crisis when the unstable behaviours contributing to the crisis has been internalised/normalised in society?

IMPORTANT: with the racial discrimination context, it gives a complex account of various voices in society

Scope of the question is too broad. Personal and societal development are two very big perspectives; role of crisis for yourself and everybody around you as well. So the answers/perspectives you'll be looking at will not be focused. (Choose 1, not both?)

Question is vague because they can refer to lessons or to the crisis and the answers will depend on your interpretations

If the question already assumes that crises definitely offer valuable lessons, so why ask about how it's essential?

Maybe, what benefits to personal/society?

Relevant in today's context - e.g. Russian-Ukraine war and how soldiers respond to their government infractions

During Covid pandemic how does the public respond

Hiking up prices of masks, etc. -- are they justifiable?

individuals may have their own reasons -- free will?

What's the distinction between what constitutes a crisis and what doesn't? Since the term of crisis has been conceptualised loosely in the media

REFINED: What constitutes a crisis and what constitutes a problem?

How does the government, journals, newspapers use the term?

WHY ASK: Want to explore stability of the environment and how crises can affect power dynamics; it's important because by studying impacts of crises, can learn how to cope with crises and whether they can end with +ve or 0ve outcomes in term sof power dynamics. For refining the question, we thought about asking, instead of HOW crises can catalyse, we can focus on specific outcomes, like how can crises move power from governments to grassroots leaders (redistribution of power dynamics at the moment is too generic)

affects a lot of society

too broad because advancement of technology is a very broad topic that's hard to answer because "what advancement of technology are we talking about?"

better context

too many aspects: AI, data analytics, then globalisation also -- what's the relationship between these variables?

Specify a topic or type of AI

Look into one area and research on how AI has been used so far, versus what was its purpose back then when researchers first created it; good or malicious intentions and how it affects whether it's a crisis or not