Each student will conduct a search online Library resources to find 1 recent peer reviewed article (within the past 3 years) that closely relates to Building Rapport in Negotiation. Your submission must include the following information in the following format:
Key Term:
- Building Rapport in Negotiation
DEFINITION: a brief definition of the key term followed by the APA reference for the term; this does not count in the word requirement.
SUMMARY: Summarize the article in your own words- this should be in the 150-200 word range. Be sure to note the article’s author, note their credentials and why we should put any weight behind his/her opinions, research or findings regarding the key term.
ANALYSIS: Using 300-350 words, write a brief analysis, in your own words of how the article relates to the selected chapter Key Term. An analysis is not rehashing what was already stated in the article, but the opportunity for you to add value by sharing your experiences, thoughts and opinions. This is the most important part of the assignment.
REFERENCES: All references must be listed at the bottom of the submission–in APA format.
Be sure to use the headers in your submission to ensure that all aspects of the assignment are completed as required.
Any form of plagiarism, including cutting and pasting, will result in zero points for the entire assignment.
You should incorporate these topics into your analysis section. If you do, then the chances of earning a high grade are GREATLY increased, in fact, this is the FIRST thing I look for when grading your papers.
1. Explain why you selected this particular article among all the articles you could have chosen on your selected term.
2. Explain why you agree or disagree with the author’s key positions in the article.
3. Explain how the article was easy or difficult to understand and why?
4. What did the author do well in your opinion? Explain.
5. Describe what you believe the author could have done better in your opinion?
6. What else should the author have included in the article and would the article benefit from a different perspective (such as from a different nationality or different industry or experience perspective). Explain.
7. What other sources or methods could the author have used to improve the research in the article? (Hint: look up the types of qualitative and types of quantitative research methods).
8. What information / in-depth study / or further research should the author focus on as a follow up to this article and why?
9. Explain what audience would gain the most benefit from your selected article and how they could apply it in their professional lives.
10. What did you personally gain from this article and how has it shaped your thinking on the topic?
11. What are the conflicting or alternative viewpoints of the author’s position? Or What additional research backs up and confirms or adds to the author’s position? (Hint: this will require you to find another peer-reviewed article that challenges, confirms, or adds to, or provides a different perspective to your chosen article.)
Next, I look for the summary, writing quality, and formatting.
I am typically very lenient on the writing because I am more focused on your content, but I will also point out how the paper could be better written. I only heavily penalize poorly written papers when there are excessive writing problems.
Why do I grade papers in this class this way?
One of the key differences in a Bachelor’s vs Master’s level is critical thinking. Bachelor’s level basically challenges direct knowledge and recall of information. The Master’s level is more about analysis and critical thinking and defending your position in a scholarly way. The analysis section of these papers is your opportunity to exercise critical thinking (that’s why I call this portion of your papers critiques).
Recalling or simply explaining the journal articles is a bachelor’s level task. When I see this in your papers I give the paper an automatic C. If the paper is poorly written it also gets an F.
To get a B or an A – you must provide a critique of the paper and the author and how well the author did and what you think of the article. The questions listed above do this properly.
I do not want to read your version of the journal article. I may as well read the journal article for myself. Just briefly describe the article in your summary section – but the analysis section is where you put in your personal critique – in other words, address the questions listed above and even add in additional thoughts based on your own creativity.
