======= Date Modified 03 24 2008 01:24:56 =======
ive to critique methodological approaches used by 6 authors, but it is a literature review of 3,000 words

my problem is if i identify the methodology as a topic sentence. then proceed to point out the aspects in the supporting sentences etc.

my problem is where does a discussion of the methodological approaches end? what kinds of points or aspects do you point out and when do you know the end point, so you know thats a sufficient amount to get a really good grade?:$

am looking for advice from a phd who has experience of doing on from the masters or phd?

I am a PhD who finished her masters a couple of months ago. I dont know what you'd call a really good grade (i have a class mate who was depressed because he doesnt have a 80 in his fav paper, yes, yes believe me)...I have a 70 + in all except one, and I think thats good enough for me!

What'd i do for that...hmm i'm not sure i fully get your question, or how you have figured out a list of 6. These shortlists are very diff to prepare, and you can get at a meaningful selection only after a pretty high amlunt of reading and appreciation of the field and its debates. In other words its not a question of which are 6 people who;ve been writing on this issues and let me get them together in a single room.

assuming you've decided on those 6 people based on not themselves per say, but their own unique (or not) entry points/positions/approaches to the subject in question....wow then u already have your answer. If at all the selection of these 6 was a conscious one, you must have a working knowledge of :

1. Why are these people important instead of others?
2. What is it they agreed on?
3. Where it is that they (would have) disagreed?
4. What were the top key points, theoretically and methodologicaly that they've been making?
5. How could thse be argued against?
6. Finally, once you've spotted the divergences, maybe you could look for possible routes of (thoughtful) convergence?


I always find it very very fruitful to make scholars come into a room and have a conversation with each other, in my head, when i write, its only then the debates emerge, its only then that things start looking interesting.


PS: All these are lessons learnt from my supervisor who is a great advicate of seeking out the debates, making sense of arguments, and then searching for positions of convergence..


Good luck. This was my strategy for my Masters and something that helps me endlessly while critiquing theory and/or method. Dont know what will work for you...