Purpose: The purpose of this assignment is to apply course concepts to an in-depth critique of a research
article appearing in the communication research literature. Becoming a good consumer of research is not
something that comes easily to most people (as I am sure many of you have discovered). It is a set of skills
we have been learning throughout the semester. Research really is a way to generate new knowledge about
human communication. As a result, it is important to know how to carefully evaluate the merits and
demerits of a work.
Article selection: The article must report a study using a form of analysis from the interpretive and critical
paradigms that we have explored in some detail during this semester. These include conversational
analysis, discourse analysis, rhetorical criticism methodologies from the two paradigms, ethnography,
critical ethnography, and critical studies. Please include a full citation of the article with the paper you
turn in to me. Do not use experimental studies, survey research, or content/interaction analyses using
statistical analyses to test research questions or hypotheses. You may use any article that fits the
requirements you used for previous homework assignments.
Your paper should include the following sections (and please make these clear by main and subheadings):
I. Paradigm: Identify the paradigm from which the study is generated. Discuss at least three
underlying assumptions that seem to apply directly or indirectly to your study.
II. Claim: Identify at least one central claim of the study. It may be in the form of a research question
or hypothesis, or it may appear as a central purpose or thesis statement. Watch for language such as, “I
contend . . .” as a clue to a thesis statement. Be sure to cite the page number where it occurs.
III. Data: In this section, you should have the following subheadings:
Selection: Identify the sampling unit and the method of sampling or how the text(s) was
selected (students, romantic partners, advertisements, speech, film scenes, etc.).
Setting: Identify the setting in which the data are collected.
Source: Explain whether the data are self-report, other-report, observations, or texts.
Data collection strategy: Identify whether the data were collected by interview,
questionnaire, observational coding scheme, and/or a textual framework. In the case of a text,
include any description the author(s) may make regarding why particular texts were selected.
Interpretive or critical framework: The framework will change depending on the type of
study done. Here are some general guidelines:
Conversational analysis: Turns at talk are usually examined for some pattern or
feature derived usually from a theoretic framework (like Tracy and Tracy’s use of speech
act theory to examine adjacency pairs).
Discourse analysis: General patterns of discourse are examined to show that various
social roles and/or rules are enacted or constructed through discourse.
Rhetorical criticism: One or more general theoretic approaches are selected to be
applied to the analysis of the text, e.g., using Burke’s dramatistic criticism in the analysis
of a film.
Ethnography: Communicative practices of a culture are explored using a grounded
theory approach where the researcher moves back and forth between the data and
inferences drawn about the data to identify various patterns; examples of emergent
patterns might be kinship rules for who may address and be addressed by various
members of the group, what constitutes patterns of influence in a particular group, and so
forth. Some external theoretic framework or concept may be applied (e.g., Eisenberg and
Smith’s interpretive “root metaphor” concept or feminist critical theory).
Critical studies: Texts of varied formats can serve as the basis for any critical studies
analysis you wish to critique; among the easier to identify are structuralists’ positions
(e.g., feminist studies, cultural studies).
IV. Warrants: You should discuss how at least one value and one warrant are established for your
study. These vary by paradigm:
Interpretive paradigm studies: Show how subjectivity or rich description is used as a value.
For example, subjectivity is often implicit in the arguments for the observer’s role in ethnographic
studies. Rich description takes the place of quantitative analysis as researchers establish why it is
important to explore more qualitative dimensions (rather than relying on reductive quantitative
techniques). Then illustrate how the researchers use researcher credibility, plausibility of
interpretations, or transferable findings as a warrant for their claims.
Critical paradigm studies: Show how the researchers value their claims by giving voice to and
therefore liberating marginalized groups. Show how they warrant their claims by reflecting the
positionality of the researchers. For this paradigm, also indicate how the form of argument is used
by evaluating standard social policy or by moving beyond evaluation to advocating social reform.
V. Critique: Based on the approach of the particular study you chose to examine, identify the relative
strengths and weaknesses of your particular study. These should include any limitations the authors
note in discussing their research. Be sure to distinguish these from your own.
VI. Reference: At the end of your critique, include the study’s cite according to APA format.
VII. Article copy: Be sure to attach a copy of the full article (including references and appendices) to
your critique
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|