MDST*1010 Lecture 2: Analyzing Academic Articles P2
Analyzing Academic Articles By: Amanda Graham
Glossary
-Convention: General (often implicit) consent; practice based on this; accepted
social behaviour especially if artificial or formal; accepted method of conduct
used to convey information (Oxford Concise Dictionary).
-Critiquing: This activity is not limited to noting what’s wrong or bad about an
article or accomplished by trying to justify your opinion of the article. Critiquing a
piece of writing involves considering what the author has either told you or
implies she or he is going to do (prove, explain, interpret) in the article and
evaluating how well or not the author has done so. A critique can also serve to
explain to its readers in what ways the article advances knowledge in the field (or
not). In this context, it means an evaluative, thoughtful overview of literature
(articles and books) in a particular field.
-Implications: What we mean when we talk about implications in this context, is
the larger meaning that the research or the idea the author has presented might
have. When academics conduct and write about research, they intend it to make
a difference, even if it’s only in a small A Guide to Reading and Analyzing
Academic Articles, by Amanda Graham, 1997-2012, is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. 11 way.
What might a reader do with the results or the new knowledge presented in the
paper?
-Looking things up: Part of the academic experience involves coming up against
new or unfamiliar terms or words. The best way to expand your grasp of the
subject you’re studying is to look things up in dictionaries, textbook glossaries or
encyclopedias. Believe me, there is no shame in using a reference book or site.
It’s an accepted, and expected, academic activity. It may be helpful to develop a
personal glossary as you read; keep a list of words or concepts you’ve looked up.
-Non-traditional evidence: I’m using this term to mean those sources of
information that have generally not been considered “appropriate” by most
academics. This is becoming a matter of great concern, especially in the social
sciences and such multidisciplinary fields as Women’s Studies, First Nations
Studies, or Northern Studies. In these fields, personal histories, oral testimony,
biographies, even the researcher’s own thoughts and experiences of the
research are now being used more and more, leading to debate about the
“quality,” “bias” or “appropriateness” of such sources.
-Primary evidence: Facts and details that have been drawn from documents
rather than from other, more recent, explanatory articles or books. The main
distinction is that primary materials are the documents or other non-text evidence
(incl., newspapers, media programs, interviews, coins, etc.) that are produced at
the time. (Also often referred to as “primary sources.”)
-Secondary evidence: Information that has been drawn from other articles,
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Convention: general (often implicit) consent; practice based on this; accepted social behaviour especially if artificial or formal; accepted method of conduct used to convey information (oxford concise dictionary). Critiquing: this activity is not limited to noting what"s wrong or bad about an article or accomplished by trying to justify your opinion of the article. A critique can also serve to explain to its readers in what ways the article advances knowledge in the field (or not). In this context, it means an evaluative, thoughtful overview of literature (articles and books) in a particular field. Implications: what we mean when we talk about implications in this context, is the larger meaning that the research or the idea the author has presented might have. When academics conduct and write about research, they intend it to make a difference, even if it"s only in a small a guide to reading and analyzing. Academic articles, by amanda graham, 1997-2012, is licensed under a creative.
