Seminar discussion has a long tradition and is not far removed from the criteria for writing what we have called ‘critiques.’ The following should be considered in dealing with writing, whether in preparing critical reviews of required texts or seminar discussion.
- It is important to state succinctly, in several sentences, the author’s thesis. The thesis statement represents the author’s position and interpretation regarding the subject/content of the writing.
- What are the author’s objectives? Why do you think the author chose this topic or selected this problem? What is the purpose of this book? Is it good problem selection? Does the work continue an historiographic tradition? Does it respond to a different tradition? Is there an ax to grind?
- Having addressed the thesis, purpose, and objectives, what are the most important claims? Conclusions? Always use succinct direct quotation to demonstrate your point.
- Good writing involves argument and evidence. Describe the structure and show how the organization relates to the argument. Are assumptions implicit? Explicit? Are there superfluous and irrelevant statements? Is presentation cogent? Are counter arguments anticipated?
- What kinds of evidence are used? Does the writer use relevant examples? What types of examples and evidence are omitted? What kinds of evidence are used–factual, empirical, statistical? Does the author employ hypotheses? Are there speculations? Is the author clear when using interpretive models?
- Concerning appeals to authority: Are citations numerous? Do citations refer to descriptive, summary statements; close arguments; direct quotations of contemporary authors? contextual ‘historical texts’?
- How would you characterize the audience? How would the author characterize the audience? What are the contexts of the text–essay, chapter, journal, publisher, country, discipline, specialty, etc.
- Characterize the author’s use of language and tone; do definitions serve the purpose? What of the use of metaphor, mathematics, statistics, technical language, diagrams, pictures, jargon?
- Is the writing convincing and persuasive? Why or why not? Relate your evaluation to the thesis, purpose, and objectives and make clear what standards or criteria you are using to analyze the argument. How is the author’s writing best described? Is it descriptive; prescriptive; explanatory? Is it issue- oriented; directed toward problem-solving? solution-presenting? Is the problem or solution defined and discussed fairly and adequately? Do you find unsupported opinion or bias?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the work? Specifically, how could it be improved? Formulate one or two questions that need to be addressed. Attempt to describe where in the text you would engage this writer in order to enter into the reformulation of the problem and/or argument. Refine your position; consider your assumptions, thesis, objectives, purpose, argument, evidence, structure, tone.
r.hatch.jan.94