POLS7101 Framework for Text Analysis
Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit
TEXT ANALYSIS PAPER 2 - TASK DESCRIPTION
We want to provide you with a choice of three texts for the Text Analysis Assessment Task.
You can choose one text as the primary focus of your analysis paper.
Important Note: Please remember that the textual analysis is not an essay: you should directly answer the questions in the framework and the review question related to your chosen text. Do not be tempted to stray beyond the framework.
|
TEXT OPTION 1: Amin, A. (1996) Beyond associative democracy. New Political Economy, 1(3), 309-333. REVIEW QUESTION 7.1 According to Amin, what are the main shortcomings of ‘associative democracy’,and how can these shortcomings be addressed? Do other governance scholars agree? |
|
TEXT OPTION 2: Bacchi, Carol, & Goodwin, Susan. (2016). Making Politics Visible: The WPR Approach. In Poststructural Policy Analysis (pp. 13– 26). Palgrave Macmillan US. REVIEW QUESTIONS 10.1 Thinking about the WPR Approach, how has the way an issue been represented influenced an arena of policy or governance with which you are familiar? What does this framing silence (i.e. exclude from consideration)? How might it be disrupted? 10.2 How do you think problematisation contributes to how governance arrangements are chosen? Illustrate with reference to a policy response you are concerned about. |
POLS7101 Framework for Text Analysis
Note on use: don’t expect to answer all questions in all cases.
Important notes:
• You must answer the review question related to your chosen text.
• Refer to other authors/sources to support your answers (where relevant).
1. Core argument/point(s) that the author(s) are making.
1.1. State the key argument/points the author(s) are trying to articulate in the article.
Demonstrate your understanding of this: make notes of key quotations, and summarise, in your words, (i.e.,paraphrase) the argument of paragraphs, sections, or the entire reading.
2. Assumptions or approach to governance
2.1. Can the author(s) idea/concepts, theories enable the progress/formulation/promotion/ of a policy to address a situation, group(s) or individual(s)?
2.2. Can the authors idea/concepts, theories hinder the progress/formulation/promotion of a policy to address a situation, group(s) or individual(s)?
2.3. Consider the implications of who has power and who doesn’t have power to determine public policy and critically reflect on whether the author(s) ideas/concepts, theories work for some groups and not for others?
2.4. Where do these ideas come from – historically, culturally, and institutionally? Which
political ideologies, perspectives and understandings of public policy or governance are at play?
3. Aporia (gaps)
3.1. Are there topics/cases/evidence that you think are lacking or missing that cause problems for, or lead you to doubt, the argument/points/theory that the author(s) are making?
4. Weaknesses/criticisms you see in the core argument/point(s)
4.1. Do you see a mismatch between evidence and argument, problems of logic and reasoning?
4.2. Are there other issues in the argument/points/theory that the author/s are making?
5. Puzzles
5.1. Are there any contradictions (fundamental or otherwise), or other issues that are ‘puzzling’ to you, among the points that the author is making in generating the overall argument?
6. Questions for clarification, understanding, or substance (i.e., about the empirical or theoretical issues, the author/s elaborate/s)
6.1 Is there a particular phrase, term, or section that you are unclear about?
6.2 Are you unclear or unsure about the evidence or the conceptual ideas/ frameworks that the author/s are using to make their argument/points?
6.3 Do you experience challenges in understanding the point/argument of the overall reading or a section/s of it?
7. Review Question (see review question above).
2023-09-21