What should I include in the introduction of a research paper besides the thesis? Is it repetitive to mention the topic, main ideas/themes and then the thesis? How do I effectively use first person in the introduction?
Does the body of a research paper consists only what I find and the analysis are made in the critical reflection/conclusion?
By the way, I'm writing a sociological paper about women inequality at work.
The same thing you include in any introduction. So, start by introducing any background information you think the author needs to know. Then, try defining your key terms. If you are going to be looking at inequality, how are you defining that term? For that matter, what do mean by "work?" Are you looking at a specific work place, or a specific field of employment? Then present your thesis, and a summary of the main points that you plan to make to support it.
The answer to your second question depends on the format your professor wants you to use. If you have a section heading labeled "Critical Reflection" then yes, you'd probably put your analysis there. If you aren't using sections, though, but are writing it as an ordinary essay, there is no reason you can't analyze each piece of research as you introduce it. Really, you best bet is to ask the professor what he/she expects, since every professor has a slightly different set of expectations.
The critical reflection is formatted by sections.
What kind of analysis is included? Does it include my overall assessment of the themes I chose or the sources I chose? Does it include the 'flaws' such as a lack of something like excluding other groups and do I need to include proofs for this part?
By the way, what does this mean "What sorts of further study would be useful to know more"?
I know I will get an accurate answer if I ask my professor, but I've received no e-mail response...
I would say you should include all of the things you mention, backing them up where possible with specific references to your research sources. As for "What sorts of further study would be useful to know more"? it is often the case that, when looking at the research that has been done in a field, you notice areas that have not been covered that should have been, or potential biases or flaws in existing research that could be corrected by doing new or different studies. These would be the research that you would find it useful to carry out as further study.
Do I provide the same proofs from the research I presented from my paper for critical reflection?
my response for the question "What sorts of further study..." does not need to be backed up by evidence?? so for this part, are you implying to explain the methods use to evaluate/observe the study??
I should imagine that you would refer back to the research when performing your critical analysis. The evaluation of the studies would presumably have been carried out earlier in the critical analysis section, but the weaknesses you uncover there may point the way to new research that should be done.
Hey, interesting discussion here. I think the analysis of source involves discussing them thoroughly and sensibly... if you use 5 sources in the paper, then really master them and discuss them all in relation to one another.
Sometimes you might criticize the methodology of the research they did, if you are knowledgeable about research methods. Other times you might note if an article is very old, or if it is inconsistent with other accepted data. But it is not all about scrutiny, either. The idea is to really do some ALCHEMY, in the sense that you put 5 articles together in your paper, add your own sincere reflection, and you come up with a paper that is more than the sum of its parts.
I've used 7 sources, but I've only analyzed 3 of them specifically and generalized the bunch as they contain the same problem. Please criticize my critical reflection before tomorrow (the due date)?
This research proved that inequality persists in women's work because culture dictates the set of beliefs, norms and values for people to follow. The believed and acted upon the assumptions about women often strain their life chances.
Nevertheless, the theories presented are based on measuring inequality which is difficult to achieve, so that these theories are often false. The assumption that women were less committed due to "high turnover and absenteeism" was proved by using the representative sample method. Everyone has different reasons to leave work, and sociologists made correlations that made sense. Sometimes the inequality a certain group endures is unexplainable. Upward mobility to better pay of the 0.5% women out of the 4,012 well-paid officers does not fully explain why few women hold higher positions. On the other hand, inequality exists only as a mental concept. Women work in domestic economy because society has associated this group with the inside home responsibilities.
The majority of the authors and editors of the sources are female sociology and/or women studies professors, so that research can include biased information.
The concentrated group does not involve diverse ethnic citizens, the non-citizens of the nations, whether or not the studied group has children, the ages of these children and the socioeconomic class of the group. The evidences presented do not depict all situations of female work inequality. Women of this study live in developed nations, so that this research ignores the female work inequality in less-developed nations.
Further research of the topic, female inequality in the workforce, may reveal single-parent, immigrant, minority, working women who are below the middle class and minority men are at more disadvantaged positions than the group studied. Also, innovative technologies replaced most of the traditional women's work. However, women are slowly progressing to achieve homogeneity as men over time.
By the way, do I need to credit the proofs I've used previously again? The studied group is working, married, white women.
This is good information! Sorry I didn't get to this in time... I think you can find many answers to your question about citation by looking at other scholarly articles in journals related to your chosen field. However, I can tell you that you should cite over and over, rigorously, rather than assuming the reader knows that you intend credit to be given to the source. Having said that, it is also true that you should write in a way that makes it all clear, anyway as you talk about the sources... if you say the same facts more than once, it can be redundant; if you are talking about them in different ways, it is important to clearly cite the source again and again for each time you mention a fact... but really, it depends on how clearly you explain it in the paper.
Sorry, I feel like I was not much help with this answer!! :)
In general, it is better to cite too much than too little. Extra citations will be crossed out by the professor, probably without costing you much, if anything, in terms of your actual mark. Citing too little leaves you open to accusations of plagiarism, which could result in a mark of 0, along with other academic sanctions. So, really, err on the side of citing too much, if you must err.