Hi all,
I am starting a reading group within our postgraduate group, and wondered how to get the best out of it.
I have circulated a paper around a week ago. Tomorrow is our first meeting and I'm wondering about the best way of critically discussing the article(s).
Discuss the topic the paper is on, thoughts and ideas around it.
Discuss any hidden biases, or agendas that may be present.
Analyse interpretation of sources, secondary as well as primary.
Examine methodology, form and structure of paper.
Conclude with how we might use paper to inform our own research, or how we might have tackled it differently.
Do this all sound sensible? Am I missing something obvious? Any advice, as always, much appreciated :)
This sounds fine. I'd try not to predetermine the discussion too much. These are the sorts of questions I'd ask if I were reviewing a reading with a group of undergraduates, and there's nothing wrong with them. But if I was reading something with a graduate-level reading group I'd tend to be more interested in the last question -- how the piece resonates with our work, what's missing, which ideas can travel and might point the way toward new and better kinds of work, and so on.
Just a note that I've moved the META flair on your question, as it's just for subreddit navel-gazing, but your question is allowed. :)