Coursework: Critical Evaluation Essay

The coursework component for this module is a 1000-word essay. For the essay you will have to critically evaluate the following journal article:

• Reicher, S., & Haslam, S.A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 1-40.

In order to appropriately evaluate the article you will need to read other appropriate sources, such as social psychological textbooks and journal articles. You should begin by reading the following two articles:

• Zimbardo, P.G. (2006). On rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 47-53.

• Haslam, S.A., & Reicher, S. (2006). Debating the psychology of tyranny: Fundamental issues of theory and perspective and science. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 55-63.
Digital copies of all the above articles availed on online library of my university.
Login: Bps109
Password: 4582628chp
http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk ( Please be carefull when you use the online library don’t put me in a trouble.)
Your critical analysis should be written in a way that argues for Reicher and Haslam’s (2006) perspective and counters Zimbardo’s (2006) perspective.
ESTABLISHED THE FACTS
This document will be useful to you as a starting point, after you have considered different strategies for reading journal articles.

Use these questions to help you with your initial detailed reading of the journal article. The answers to these questions can serve as a basis on which to then move on to critical evaluation.
1. What question(s)/issue(s) does the article address?
2. Does the article specify a hypothesis? If so, what is it? ?
3. Specify all the variables in the investigation. ?
4. Indicate what sort of variables they are (e.g.dependentvs. independent, number of levels, irrelevant/nuisance variables, etc.), and what level of measurement has been achieved (nominal, interval, etc.). ?
5. What did the participants have to do? ?
6. What design was used? ?
7. Draw up an outline table for summarizing the results. ?
8. What analysis was used? ?
9. What was the main result? ?
10. What conclusions were drawn?

BASIC EVALUATION GUIDELINES
Once you have understood the target journal article (and have ‘Established the facts’), you can use the questions below to begin to think evaluative about the article. You may find some of these questions are more relevant to your essay than others. In addition, your answers to these questions will be starting points in the development of your evaluation. You can, for example, use your answers to help you to identify additional relevant research and theory. You should also read the ‘CSP Coursework Guidance’ document on the VLE.
11. Are the aims of the research clear? Do they rise convincingly from previous research or observation? Have the authors convinced you that the study is worth carrying out? ?
12. If the research is quantitative, how are the variables operationalized? Is there a good argument for the validity of the operationalization? ?
13. Is the hypothesis (if there is one) clear? If there is no hypothesis, is the purpose of the paper clear? ?
14. Is the design appropriate for the purposes of the research? ?
15. Do the authors give sound practical or theoretical reasons for all their design ?decisions? ?
16. Could you, in principle, make a reasonable stab at replicating this ?investigation using the information provided? ?
17. Is the sample appropriate? To what extent can we generalise from it? ?
18. Are the results clearly presented? ?
19. Have the authors used appropriate statistical tests? Do they report missing ?data or outliers and say how these were dealt with? ?
20. Is it obvious how the research questions or hypothesis/es are being answered ?by the results? ?
21. How do the authors interpret their results? Are the authors’ claims supported ?by the actual data? ?
22. Are there any new or unexpected findings? If so, are they presented as a ?coherent part of the story? ?
23. Does the research come together as a unitary whole? Does the discussion ?refer back to the issues identified in the introduction? ?
24. Have the authors done what they set out to do? ?
25. What leads for future research does the paper give? Are these sensible in the ?light of their findings? ?
26. What is the value of the research? Does it answer an important question or ?does it seem trivial? Has it contributed to our understanding of the subject ?area? ?
27. Look back at the title and abstract. Do they give an accurate account of what ?you have just read? ?

PLEASE CHECK THE CSP COURWORK GUIDE the one I uploaded, it explains what you have to do step by step for each section (title, introduction, main body of the essay and conclusion).

Coursework: Critical Evaluation Essay

The coursework component for this module is a 1000-word essay. For the essay you will have to critically evaluate the following journal article:

• Reicher, S., & Haslam, S.A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 1-40.

In order to appropriately evaluate the article you will need to read other appropriate sources, such as social psychological textbooks and journal articles. You should begin by reading the following two articles:

• Zimbardo, P.G. (2006). On rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 47-53.

• Haslam, S.A., & Reicher, S. (2006). Debating the psychology of tyranny: Fundamental issues of theory and perspective and science. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 55-63.
Digital copies of all the above articles availed on online library of my university.
Login: Bps109
Password: 4582628chp
http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk ( Please be carefull when you use the online library don’t put me in a trouble.)
Your critical analysis should be written in a way that argues for Reicher and Haslam’s (2006) perspective and counters Zimbardo’s (2006) perspective.
ESTABLISHED THE FACTS
This document will be useful to you as a starting point, after you have considered different strategies for reading journal articles.

Use these questions to help you with your initial detailed reading of the journal article. The answers to these questions can serve as a basis on which to then move on to critical evaluation.
1. What question(s)/issue(s) does the article address?
2. Does the article specify a hypothesis? If so, what is it? ?
3. Specify all the variables in the investigation. ?
4. Indicate what sort of variables they are (e.g.dependentvs. independent, number of levels, irrelevant/nuisance variables, etc.), and what level of measurement has been achieved (nominal, interval, etc.). ?
5. What did the participants have to do? ?
6. What design was used? ?
7. Draw up an outline table for summarizing the results. ?
8. What analysis was used? ?
9. What was the main result? ?
10. What conclusions were drawn?

BASIC EVALUATION GUIDELINES
Once you have understood the target journal article (and have ‘Established the facts’), you can use the questions below to begin to think evaluative about the article. You may find some of these questions are more relevant to your essay than others. In addition, your answers to these questions will be starting points in the development of your evaluation. You can, for example, use your answers to help you to identify additional relevant research and theory. You should also read the ‘CSP Coursework Guidance’ document on the VLE.
11. Are the aims of the research clear? Do they rise convincingly from previous research or observation? Have the authors convinced you that the study is worth carrying out? ?
12. If the research is quantitative, how are the variables operationalized? Is there a good argument for the validity of the operationalization? ?
13. Is the hypothesis (if there is one) clear? If there is no hypothesis, is the purpose of the paper clear? ?
14. Is the design appropriate for the purposes of the research? ?
15. Do the authors give sound practical or theoretical reasons for all their design ?decisions? ?
16. Could you, in principle, make a reasonable stab at replicating this ?investigation using the information provided? ?
17. Is the sample appropriate? To what extent can we generalise from it? ?
18. Are the results clearly presented? ?
19. Have the authors used appropriate statistical tests? Do they report missing ?data or outliers and say how these were dealt with? ?
20. Is it obvious how the research questions or hypothesis/es are being answered ?by the results? ?
21. How do the authors interpret their results? Are the authors’ claims supported ?by the actual data? ?
22. Are there any new or unexpected findings? If so, are they presented as a ?coherent part of the story? ?
23. Does the research come together as a unitary whole? Does the discussion ?refer back to the issues identified in the introduction? ?
24. Have the authors done what they set out to do? ?
25. What leads for future research does the paper give? Are these sensible in the ?light of their findings? ?
26. What is the value of the research? Does it answer an important question or ?does it seem trivial? Has it contributed to our understanding of the subject ?area? ?
27. Look back at the title and abstract. Do they give an accurate account of what ?you have just read? ?

PLEASE CHECK THE CSP COURWORK GUIDE the one I uploaded, it explains what you have to do step by step for each section (title, introduction, main body of the essay and conclusion).

Coursework: Critical Evaluation Essay

The coursework component for this module is a 1000-word essay. For the essay you will have to critically evaluate the following journal article:

• Reicher, S., & Haslam, S.A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 1-40.

In order to appropriately evaluate the article you will need to read other appropriate sources, such as social psychological textbooks and journal articles. You should begin by reading the following two articles:

• Zimbardo, P.G. (2006). On rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 47-53.

• Haslam, S.A., & Reicher, S. (2006). Debating the psychology of tyranny: Fundamental issues of theory and perspective and science. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 55-63.
Digital copies of all the above articles availed on online library of my university.
Login: Bps109
Password: 4582628chp
http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk ( Please be carefull when you use the online library don’t put me in a trouble.)
Your critical analysis should be written in a way that argues for Reicher and Haslam’s (2006) perspective and counters Zimbardo’s (2006) perspective.
ESTABLISHED THE FACTS
This document will be useful to you as a starting point, after you have considered different strategies for reading journal articles.

Use these questions to help you with your initial detailed reading of the journal article. The answers to these questions can serve as a basis on which to then move on to critical evaluation.
1. What question(s)/issue(s) does the article address?
2. Does the article specify a hypothesis? If so, what is it? ?
3. Specify all the variables in the investigation. ?
4. Indicate what sort of variables they are (e.g.dependentvs. independent, number of levels, irrelevant/nuisance variables, etc.), and what level of measurement has been achieved (nominal, interval, etc.). ?
5. What did the participants have to do? ?
6. What design was used? ?
7. Draw up an outline table for summarizing the results. ?
8. What analysis was used? ?
9. What was the main result? ?
10. What conclusions were drawn?

BASIC EVALUATION GUIDELINES
Once you have understood the target journal article (and have ‘Established the facts’), you can use the questions below to begin to think evaluative about the article. You may find some of these questions are more relevant to your essay than others. In addition, your answers to these questions will be starting points in the development of your evaluation. You can, for example, use your answers to help you to identify additional relevant research and theory. You should also read the ‘CSP Coursework Guidance’ document on the VLE.
11. Are the aims of the research clear? Do they rise convincingly from previous research or observation? Have the authors convinced you that the study is worth carrying out? ?
12. If the research is quantitative, how are the variables operationalized? Is there a good argument for the validity of the operationalization? ?
13. Is the hypothesis (if there is one) clear? If there is no hypothesis, is the purpose of the paper clear? ?
14. Is the design appropriate for the purposes of the research? ?
15. Do the authors give sound practical or theoretical reasons for all their design ?decisions? ?
16. Could you, in principle, make a reasonable stab at replicating this ?investigation using the information provided? ?
17. Is the sample appropriate? To what extent can we generalise from it? ?
18. Are the results clearly presented? ?
19. Have the authors used appropriate statistical tests? Do they report missing ?data or outliers and say how these were dealt with? ?
20. Is it obvious how the research questions or hypothesis/es are being answered ?by the results? ?
21. How do the authors interpret their results? Are the authors’ claims supported ?by the actual data? ?
22. Are there any new or unexpected findings? If so, are they presented as a ?coherent part of the story? ?
23. Does the research come together as a unitary whole? Does the discussion ?refer back to the issues identified in the introduction? ?
24. Have the authors done what they set out to do? ?
25. What leads for future research does the paper give? Are these sensible in the ?light of their findings? ?
26. What is the value of the research? Does it answer an important question or ?does it seem trivial? Has it contributed to our understanding of the subject ?area? ?
27. Look back at the title and abstract. Do they give an accurate account of what ?you have just read? ?

PLEASE CHECK THE CSP COURWORK GUIDE the one I uploaded, it explains what you have to do step by step for each section (title, introduction, main body of the essay and conclusion).