i read the manuscript by Archard with interest and found it to be of quite satisfactory in regard to its definitions, presumptions, methodology and presentation. This being in clear contrast with the critical voice in part D, here are my personal answers to analytical questions:
Who is speaking or writing?
the writer is female, adult, holds an academic position.
What is their point of view or perspective?
she states that adolescent leadership is an area that is not very deeply studied, especially for female adolescents.
What ideas and information are presented and how were they obtained?
the author states the problem with appropriate references from the literature.
Are there unsupported assertions?
most assertions are supported with references, save some (as stated by the video), like the adolescents familiarity with texting.
Are reasons or evidence provided?
yes.
Are the reasons and evidence given relevant?
yes.
Is the method used to find the evidence sound?
yes. i do not agree that there should have been reference to other alternative methodologies. the questions here should be; a) is this methodology appropriate for the purpose? (yes), and b) is it reproducible? (yes). we can make an everlasting discussion on whether it is the best but i don't think it would be relevant.
Is the evidence correct or valid?
the evidence appears to be correct (i.e., does not appear to be manufactured). validity depends on the number of participants (is it adequately powered?), and whether there had been biases in their recruitment.
What assumptions have been made?
a) that this methodology is correct (i agree)
b) that the number of participants and their selection process is adequate and impartial
What is fact and what is opinion?
this being qualitative research, i don't think it is aimed at establishing 'facts'. this paper is set to provide an insight into what adolescent female leaders think about leadership and provides it.
What are the implicit and explicit values?
the main value proposition (both implicit and explicit) is to have more women involved in leadership. but again, this is an endpoint, and this paper does not claim achieving this endpoint through (only) this study at any point.
Are there unreasonable generalisations?
adolescents familiarity with online texting amy be an example.
What has been omitted?
alternative methodologies (probably not necessary)
a clear framework through which the results of this study may be useful in reaching the defined endpoint
implications of the findings of this study apart from the description of the female adolescent leader voice. e.g., would it affect learning?
How was the conclusion reached?
summarising the results
Is the conclusion reasonable?
yes.
What other perspectives or points of view could there be?
there could have been the perspective of the other stakeholders in the adolescent education system. is it necessary? i doubt it.
EE811 Activity 2.8
On reading Archard (2013) critically
i read the manuscript by Archard with interest and found it to be of quite satisfactory in regard to its definitions, presumptions, methodology and presentation. This being in clear contrast with the critical voice in part D, here are my personal answers to analytical questions:
the writer is female, adult, holds an academic position.
she states that adolescent leadership is an area that is not very deeply studied, especially for female adolescents.
the author states the problem with appropriate references from the literature.
most assertions are supported with references, save some (as stated by the video), like the adolescents familiarity with texting.
yes.
yes.
yes. i do not agree that there should have been reference to other alternative methodologies. the questions here should be; a) is this methodology appropriate for the purpose? (yes), and b) is it reproducible? (yes). we can make an everlasting discussion on whether it is the best but i don't think it would be relevant.
the evidence appears to be correct (i.e., does not appear to be manufactured). validity depends on the number of participants (is it adequately powered?), and whether there had been biases in their recruitment.
a) that this methodology is correct (i agree)
b) that the number of participants and their selection process is adequate and impartial
this being qualitative research, i don't think it is aimed at establishing 'facts'. this paper is set to provide an insight into what adolescent female leaders think about leadership and provides it.
the main value proposition (both implicit and explicit) is to have more women involved in leadership. but again, this is an endpoint, and this paper does not claim achieving this endpoint through (only) this study at any point.
adolescents familiarity with online texting amy be an example.
alternative methodologies (probably not necessary)
a clear framework through which the results of this study may be useful in reaching the defined endpoint
implications of the findings of this study apart from the description of the female adolescent leader voice. e.g., would it affect learning?
summarising the results
yes.
there could have been the perspective of the other stakeholders in the adolescent education system. is it necessary? i doubt it.