It's a comparative review of the two readings that are mentioned below. Please read the instruction carefully
You are to conduct a comparative review of the 2 articles listed below, identifying their key themes or content and analysing the main issues discussed. In the process, you should identify the similarities and differences between the two articles; evaluate their strengths and weaknesses; comment on the validity of their arguments and the appropriateness of their research methodology (if relevant).
Readings
Windscheid, L., Bowes-Sperry, L., Mazei, J. and Morner, M. (2015). The Paradox of Diversity Initiatives: When Organizational Needs Differ from Employee Preferences.Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), pp.33-48.
Dobson, J., Hensley, D. and Rastad, M. (2017). Toward Gender Diversity on Corporate Boards: Evaluating Government Quotas (Eu) Versus Shareholder Resolutions (Us) from the Perspective of Third Wave Feminism.Philosophy of Management, 17(3), pp.333-351.
Use an essay format for your analysis. You may choose to conduct a thematic comparison of the two articles or a discussion of the first article followed by a discussion of the second article.The key point to remember is to compare the arguments of the two articles and include your opinion– in other words,a summary of the articles is NOT enough.Similarly, a critique of writing style without discussion of substantive content does not constitute satisfactory analysis. For example,‘t
he paper was difficult to read because the author/s used a lot of jargon’or‘the article was good because it used real life examples’are not relevant for a critical review.
Instead, discuss the issues that you find meaningful, interesting and/or controversial.We are looking for reflections on the ideas and arguments of the whole article– not minor points. The use of expressions such as ‘I think’ is acceptable in a comparative review.
Each review should be1,500 words in length. +-10% on the word limit is allowed (suggesting that a review could range from 1,350 to 1,650 words excluding references).
A
suggestedstructure is the following:
- 500 words - summary of the main issues/ themes for the two articles
- 500 words – discussion of the authors’ ideas, arguments, underlying assumptions, as well as the strengths and limitations of those arguments
- 200 words for any further comparison of the two pieces (e.g. methodology)
- 300 words for your own reflections.
TheUniversity of New South Waleshas a useful website on how to write critical reviews.
WRITING STYLE
You mayNOTuse bullet points or bracketed comments. You mayNOTuse headings.
Assessment criteria:
- Articulation of the issue/s: main issue/s is/are clearly stated and succinctly yet comprehensively explained
- Critical Analysis:
- Strengths, assumptions, influences, biases, constraints, weaknesses, limitations, implications and/or consequences of the designated readings are appropriately identified.
- The articles are interpreted, evaluated and synthesised to support and provide evidence for a clear overall argument, demonstrating independent well-reasoned judgement
- Writing style: Text demonstrates effective planning and is clearly and appropriately structured for the purpose. Sentences are correctly structured and fluent. Written text shows proper formatting, proofreading and editing (spelling, word choice/terminology, grammar, referencing) and is the required length.
- Correct use of Harvard/APA referencing style