Guidelines for Critical Reflection Paper #4:

For this paper, let’s continue what we practiced for the previous paper and keep things simple. Please pick 2 authors from the list below. Then, please present a conversation between their theories/concepts in connection with their case studies.

Juris, J. S. (2012)

Funke, P. N., & Wolfson, T. (2014)

Anden-Papadopoulos, K. (2013)

Bratich, J. Z. (2014)

Vaidhyanathan, S. (2012)

Bossewitch, J., & Sinnreich, A. (2013)

From the Recommended articles:

Deseriis, M. (2012) [from Week 11 Discussion 2]

1) Please do not bring any direct quotes from the articles. Paraphrase and use your own words to bring the arguments from the readings.

2) Please do not just summarize one author in one paragraph and the other author in the next paragraph. Please aim to connect their arguments. If you think they don’t connect, please present a conversation and build a theoretical framework from that conversation.

3) Please cite your sources and add a reference section. You can use as many sources as you want. (If it makes sense for you, you can bring our earlier discussions on tech determinism, SCOT, affordances, and ANT. But, please do not aim to match the author with these concepts; instead, use these above frameworks to organize and connect your arguments)

4) Optional: If you think it helps, you can bring only one case study and use your discussion/presentation of the conversation between two authors to analyze that case.

5) Please make sure to read my feedback for your first papers.

6) This paper is going to be an exercise to prepare you for your final papers as it will help to build skills on presenting/connecting/ synthesizing arguments instead of just summarizing them. We are not looking for perfect synthesis/connections, this is going to be a step for improving argumentations.

ORDER NOW

Open chat