Critical Analysis Papers
Weight: 10% | Due: Week 2, 3, 4, 5 | Format: Essay
Overview
Building on the critical reading and analysis skills you’ve developed through your seminar assignments, you will now write three focused critical analysis papers that examine psychological research through a diversity science lens. These papers allow you to expand and deepen the insights you’ve begun developing in your weekly seminar work.
Learning Objectives
By completing these assignments, you will:
-
Develop critical reading skills focused on diversity and inclusion
-
Apply diversity science frameworks to analyze existing research
-
Identify patterns of bias and exclusion in psychological research
-
Generate thoughtful discussion that advances the class’s understanding
-
Prepare for seminar with substantive analysis rather than surface-level reading
Submission Requirements
-
You will have the opportunity to submit four critical analysis papers over the semester, but only three are required for your final grade. This means you can miss one paper, for whatever reason, without it affecting your grade. It also means that if one paper doesn’t go as well as you’d hoped, completing the remaining assignments gives you the chance to have that grade replaced by a stronger one.
-
650 words (100 words) per assignment.
-
Choose readings from the current week.
- Citations/reference pace.
Paper Structure
Part 1: Initial Analysis (~250 words)
-
Pick a theme
-
Summarize the key idea of the readings
-
Provide brief description of main arguments supporting the key ideas
-
Include introduction, methods, results, discussion (IMRD) for journal articles
-
Identify the populations, perspectives, or contexts included/excluded in this research
Part 2: Critical Response (~250 words)
Choose at least two prompts to address thoroughly, framing your responses specifically through a diversity and inclusion perspective:
Bias and Exclusion Analysis
-
What biases or exclusions do you identify in the methodology, sample, or interpretation?
-
How might the researchers’ positionality have influenced their approach or conclusions?
Framework Application
-
How do course readings on diversity science help you understand limitations in psychology and beyond?
-
What diversity science concepts (intersectionality, cultural validity, etc.) apply to critiquing this work?
Alternative Approaches
-
How could this research be conducted more inclusively?
-
What different questions or methods might a diversity lens reveal?
Broader Implications
-
How does this research reflect larger patterns of inclusion/exclusion in psychology?
-
What are the real-world consequences of these limitations for different communities?
Connection to Class
-
How does this reading’s approach to diversity compare with other course materials?
-
What connections do you see between this work and our class discussions about inclusive research?
Part 3: Synthesis (~100 words)
-
Connect your analysis to broader patterns in psychological research
-
Reflect on how this reading changes or reinforces your understanding of diversity issues in psychology
-
Consider implications for future research or practice
- Propose concrete suggestions for more inclusive research
- Discuss what different findings or interpretations might emerge
- Connect to broader implications for the field
Assessment Criteria
Criterion
|
Developing
|
Proficient
|
Exemplary
|
Part 1 Summary & initial analysis
|
A theme is identified and the reading is summarized, but the summary is general or incomplete. The diversity lens is present but underdeveloped, populations or perspectives included/excluded are mentioned without explanation.
|
A clear theme is identified and the reading is accurately summarized, covering key arguments and (for empirical articles) the core IMRD sections. Identifies which populations or perspectives are centered or excluded, with some explanation of why this matters.
|
Theme is explicitly tied to a named diversity science concept from course readings. Summary accurately covers all IMRD elements with specific detail. Identifies at least two populations centered or excluded and explains the mechanism or consequence of each.
|
Part 2 Critical response
|
Addresses at least one to two prompts but engages with them at a surface level. Diversity and inclusion framing is present but relies on general observations rather than course concepts or specific evidence from the reading.
|
Addresses at least two prompts with clear diversity and inclusion framing. Applies course concepts (e.g. intersectionality, cultural validity, positionality) accurately to analyze bias, limitations, or alternative approaches in the reading.
|
Names and correctly applies at least two diversity science frameworks (e.g., intersectionality, positionality, cultural validity) with direct evidence from the reading. Extends analysis to at least one implication not explicitly stated in the reading itself.
|
Part 3 Synthesis
|
No course concepts are referenced. Suggestions for inclusive research are absent or generic (e.g., ‘use more diverse samples’ without specifying who, how, or why).
|
Names at least one broader pattern in psychological research and links it to a specific element of this reading. Any suggestion specifies populations, methods, or questionsnot just ‘more diversity.
|
Supports a broader pattern with reference to at least one other course reading or concept. Proposes at least two concrete suggestions naming specific populations, methods, or questions. Considers real-world consequences for at least one community.
|
Citations & APA Format
|
In-text citations are present but inconsistent or incorrectly formatted. The reference list is incomplete or contains notable APA errors (e.g., missing authors, incorrect capitalization, inconsistent formatting).
|
In-text citations are used consistently and follow APA format with minor errors. The reference list is complete and mostly correctly formatted, with only small deviations from APA style.
|
In-text citations and the reference list are complete, accurate, and consistently formatted according to APA style with no or negligible errors. Sources are integrated smoothly and appropriately support claims throughout the paper.
|
Additional Resources:
For your summaries please see the how to read a journal article (Getting the Most from Reading an Empirical Research Article) document in our shared folder. These will be similar to the presentations in that they should cover the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections of the journal article.
A: Critical Reading Practices
- To read critically is to make judgments about how a text is argued. It often occurs best after some preliminary process of reading (a quick read or a strategic glance at the beginnings and ends of chapters/sections/paragraphs). The key is: dont read only for information, do read looking for ways of thinking about the subject matter. Ask How does this text work? How is it argued? How is the evidence (the facts, examples, etc.) used and interpreted? How does the text reach its conclusions?
– adapted from Critical Reading Toward Critical Writing, University of Toronto
A strong critical reading practice will help you prepare for this assignment and for seminar. Here are some things you might do while reading to support your understanding and engagement:
- Notice what reading conditions help you to focus and process information.
- Does reading paper copies or PDFs function better for you?
- Do you prefer quiet or music/background noise?
- Do you prefer to sit at a desk/table or get comfy on a couch?
- Does it work better to read in the morning, afternoon, or evening?
- How long can you read before you need a break? What kinds of breaks help you get back into it?
- Start by looking at the whole text and gathering your knowledge about the context.
- How long is the article/chapter? Do the section headings or other formatting tell you how it is structured?
- What journal or book is the text from? When was it published?
- Who is the author and what do you know about them?
- Can you glean anything initially about the discipline or methodologies the author draws upon? What types of arguments and evidence do you expect to see?
- What can you guess about the primary intended audience?
- Use notes and annotations to enhance your comprehension and retention of the content.
- Get a pen/pencil and/or highlighter ready (some people use sticky notes or page flags). If youre reading a PDF, use an application with annotation features and familiarize yourself with them.
- Look for key steps in the authors argument to mark: those places in a text where they explain their analytical moves, concepts they use, how they use them, how they arrive at conclusions.
- Minimize marking of parts that serve as supporting evidence or examples.
- You might also mark: key terms and ideas, dates/names/places, passages that confused you or excited you.
- In the margins, on stickies, or in a notebook, you can write down: quick summaries of main ideas (even a word or two); notes on structure/patterns in the text; connections to other program materials/concepts and/or your own experiences; your reactions, opinions, questions.
- Scholarly readings may be dense and contain unfamiliar language. You should expect to find some of the texts challenging to read! Here are ideas for problem solving when you encounter difficulties.
- Use an online dictionary or Wikipedia if you see words or terms you dont recognize.
- Slow down and work through a difficult passage sentence by sentence or even word by word (especially if it seems central to the overall argument).
- Alternately, speed up: if a passage is giving you a lot of trouble, you can move on rather than getting stuck there.
- Get a sense of the whole article/chapter by reading the introduction and conclusion and/or the first sentence of each paragraph. Alternately, you can start out with a quick read or skim before going back to read more deeply.
- Look for clues that might help you get oriented: if there are other authors cited, look them up; find more information on the journal or book that published the text; look over the endnotes and bibliography; try to categorize the methodology (theoretical approaches and types of evidence) the author is working with.
B: Identifying Key Concepts
If you read carefully and systematically, you may be able to identify a key concept thats significant to you as you go along. When you finish an article/chapter, take a moment to write down an idea that you could use for this assignment. If youre not there yet, set it aside; go back later and reread/review your markings, annotations or notes: what stands out to you now?
When synthesizing a reading and zeroing in on a brief summary of a key idea, here are some prompt questions that could help guide your thinking:
- What is the authors main argument in the article/chapter? (You can certainly make this the concept you summarize.)
- What question is the author trying to answer? Why is that question important?
- What did you learn that deepened your critical understanding of our program themes and questions?
What concepts resonated with other material and conversations in the program?
C: How to write a Seminar Question
Try to develop discussion questions that are not easily answered by looking up a fact or with a yes/no. A discussion question is usually a genuine question to which you do not have an answer and will prompt discussion of the powerful text (a text can be a film, work of art, article, book, etc.). While factual questions may be included, the bulk of seminars revolve around interpretive and evaluative questions that you are genuinely curious about.
Literal/factual questions: Questions that ask us to find and articulate a text’s statements- propositions, lines of argument, conclusions. There is only one correct answer to a question of fact. (e.g. When was Emergent Strategy written?)
Interpretive questions: Questions that allow for multiple explanations of the texts meaning. Often referred to as head scratching questions, responses to interpretive questions are multiple, but all should be supported by evidence in the text itself. (In what ways does how we recover from life’s events impact our learning? pg. 123, Emergent Strategy)
Evaluative questions: Questions that ask us to think about something in the work, considering prior knowledge or personal values or experiences. Often these questions can be connected with prior experience or connections with other materials. (Does it make sense to start by trusting people if we don’t even know them yet? pg. 42, E.S.)
– adapted from An Introduction to Shared Inquiry, Great Books Foundation (1992) & by Cynthia Kennedy, TESC faculty.