Critical Analysis: Students are to provide a critical analysis of ONE of the scholarly works listed below Custom Essay

Critical Analysis: Students are to provide a critical analysis of ONE of the scholarly works listed below. The
articles are from the Canadian Journal of Political Science and are available online from
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=CJP&bVolume=y or in the library (call
number H1.C36).
The criteria for critical analysis provided in Part 2 of “What is Expected of the Student?” should
guide your work. Students are expected to use the information gathered through their critical
reading of the article to write their analysis. The paper should be structured in 3 parts. The first
part, the introduction, should contain background information about the article, including the full
citation and a statement of the topic, as well as a thesis statement about the student’s overall
evaluation of the piece. The second part should be a concise summary of the article, describing
the author(s)’ argument and what evidence is provided as support. The third section should
include the student’s analysis of the article, referencing concepts, assumptions, structure,
evidence, logic and conclusions and their appropriateness.
Your critical analysis should be approximately 2500 words (excluding endnotes, parenthetical
notes, and bibliography), typed and double-spaced, using a standard 12 point font and standard
(1″/2.54 cm) margins. Cover pages are not necessary for this assignment. At the top of your
assignment, please include your name, student number, and the name of your T.A., as well as the
title of the article you have chosen to analyze.
Students will be graded on their understanding of the article, the strength of their critical
analysis, and their organization and writing style (including grammar and proper use of citation).

Article to Review
– Lewis, J.P. 2013. “Elite Attitudes on the Centralization of Power in Canadian Political
Executives: A Survey of Former Canadian Provincial and Federal Cabinet Ministers,
2000–2010.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 46 (4): 799-819.

Each analysis must include endnotes or parenthetical notes and a bibliography, organized according to the Chicago Style.

NOTE: ALL CITATIONS (whether using footnotes, endnotes or in-text citation) MUST INCLUDE REFERENCES TO PAGE NUMBERS. Students will be penalized for incorrect citation style.

CRITERIA FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF READINGS
Given this objective, particular emphasis will be placed on the student’s ability to deal critically
with assigned readings. Some of the questions you will need to consider in approaching the
readings are listed below. Others may occur to you in the course of your studies. It is not
necessary that you attempt to answer all of these questions. Some will be more appropriate to
your analysis than others.

Objectives
$ What specific purposes does the author have?
$ Do these purposes serve some broader purpose? For example, does the author wish to
defend or attack a particular theory or ideology?
$ Are the purposes (both kinds) clearly stated?
$ Does the author formulate the questions to be answered in a way which makes the
conclusions inevitable?

Concepts and Assumptions
$ What concepts are adopted in the analysis? Are they clearly defined? Are they
specifically stipulated to suit the author’s purpose or are they generally accepted?
$ What basic assumptions and premises enter the analysis? Are they made explicit or are
they hidden? Are they generally accepted or are they contestable?

Structure, Evidence, Logic
$ What is the method of argument? Does the author propose hypotheses which are to be
tested or does he/she develop a thesis?
$ What kind of evidence is used? (For example, official documents, newspaper accounts,
survey research, personal interviews, aggregate economic or social data.) What are the
strengths and weaknesses of analysis with evidence of this kind? Has the author taken
account of the weaknesses?
$ Is the presentation of the evidence consistent with the method adopted? For example, if
hypotheses are to be tested, is that what the author really does?
$ Is the argument internally consistent? Does it follow logically?
$ Is the interpretation of evidence reasonable?
$ What, if any, are the alternative interpretations and/or explanations for the findings the
author presents? Does the author anticipate and effectively respond to alternative
interpretations and/or explanations?

Conclusions
$ What are the author’s conclusions? Are they reasonable? Or does one of the questions
suggested above serve to call them into question?
$ What implications do the conclusions have for the general subject you are dealing with?
What implications do they have for the broader subjects of the course?