Analytical Piece

SOC 251 2023 Assessment 2: Analytical Piece

Reminder from subject outline:

To develop writing and analytical skills, students should submit a short analytical piece linking a contemporary case study to a key concept/key findings from one of the essential readings and lecture content from weeks (1,) 2 & 3 or (1 &) 4. [details and suggestions on how to do this below]

The analytical piece should briefly summarise the key argument(s) or concept(s) from the reading that will be focused on; then it should show how these can help us analyse a contemporary example.

* Contemporary here means from the last 5 years: 2018-2023*

Due Saturday 8 April, 4pm (week 6), 1000-1250 words, 35%.

Harvard Referencing: Author, Date, page numbers for quotes and paraphrases. See referencing guide from the library for further information.

Further details

There are 2 options for this assessment.

Below I provide the question you should answer depending on which option you choose, and examples of how you might structure the essay and analysis.

Option 1

Drawing on the lectures and tutorial readings, especially weeks 2 and 3, answer the following question: To what extent are contemporary genetic practices eugenic? You should draw heavily on Ekberg (2007) to answer. You might also want to include concepts and references from the lecture (e.g. Shakespeare, 1998, which you would have to read too).

You should pick and research a specific case study, if possible in a specific country.

Your case study might be:

- NIPT and prenatal testing for specific conditions;

- Whole genome sequencing (fetal or adult);

- Precision medicine;

- Genetic databases (forensic, medical…);

- Germline gene editing;

- Another human genetics-related example of your choice.

Sources where you might find information about the practices of contemporary genetics (these are the references that will for the most part need to be 5 years old or less):

- Patient support website;

- News stories;

- Documentary;

- Data from a journal article which you re-analyse (it’s important that that article not be focused on eugenics and it should not cite Ekberg; rather it would be something like interviews with patients about their experiences, or with scientists about their experiences or views – you then re-interpret the data using Ekberg’s categories);

- Policy document about how a health district should implement a genetic technology;

- Anything that provides you with information that enables you to illustrate or contradict Ekberg’s claims.

Potential structures

Introduction

50-200 words (approx.)

Include an essay outline.

E.g. Some people have suggested that genetics today resemble/are different to eugenics of the past (e.g. Author 1, date; Author 3, cited in Marks 2023a, section 2.5). In particular, Ekberg (2007) has argued that….I examine this claim through the example of contemporary precision medicine/NIPT… in Sweden. NIPT is… [brief overview with some references]. In what follows, I examine the six strategies that Corrigan puts forward and which she argues… For each strategy I identify one example or counter-example from my case study. I conclude by suggesting that NIPT practices today are/not/partially eugenic.

E.g. Case study W is …. (author G date, Author T, date). This is an example of contemporary genetics. Ekberg (2007) has argued that genetics today……. Author B (date) similarly/by contrast, suggests that… This essay will argue that… First it will give a brief overview of case study W. Second it will provide an overview of Ekberg’s arguments. Then it will examine two key features of Case study W and show that these both illustrate/contradict Ekberg’s arguments. It concludes by reflecting on the implications of these findings. [note here that you don’t have to cover all 6; but you need to justify why you are focussing on the ones you do focus on].

E.g. Case study X is discussed in contemporary news media (e.g. author 1, date; author2, date; author 3, date). In this essay I examine news coverage of case study X in India. I pay particular attention to the use of images, metaphors and frames. I suggest that overall, case study X is framed so as to encourage…. In what follows, I first briefly explain case study X. I then provide some information about my data collection. I then draw on author A to examine metaphors and frames, and Author B to examine images. Overall, I find that… [note that this approach has a data collection section; not all essays need this; depends on your case study and what you are doing.]

E.g. Case study Y was the subject of a social medial debate in 20xx. This essay examines the framing of this debate drawing on author E (date). It first gives a brief overview of the debate. It then examines the voices that were put forward, then those that were missing. It then examines the rhetorical strategies used. Overall, it suggests that, like the debate on P examined by author E (date) and F (date), the framing of the debate on case study Y contributed to…

E.g. A number of scholars have examined how science and culture shape each other (e.g. Author A and Author B, cited in Marks 2023b section 3.1). For instance…. In this essay, I analyse how scientists talk about science fiction imagery to …. Drawing on author S (date) and (date), I examine interviews of scientists by research group x (ref 1; ref 2). I find that… This illustrates that author M’s concept of xxx is still relevant today.

Body

800-1000 words (approx.) (direct quotes from your data, especially for option 2, don’t count; you can insert quotes as images if you want)

You need to define key concepts (use referencing, direct quotes and explain in your own words).

You need to provide some information about your case study (but don’t let that take over your essay – this is not a science assignment)

Use specific points/concepts from the readings and show how the same thing/something

different is happening in your case study.

You can provide a summary of a paper, then go into your case study, or you can alternate

between specific points of the paper and your case‐study.

See the essay outlines above in the example introductions for ideas about how you might structure the body of the essay.

Make sure each section is foreshadowed in the essay outline in the introduction. I.e Don’t say in the essay outline that you will start with an explanation of your data collection, but then instead, start the body of the essay with an overview of the case study.

The body of your essay can have sub-headings (just like the readings you do for class)

Discussion/conclusions

50-150 words (approx.)

Pull together your main findings and reflect on them.

Reflect on the usefulness/limitations of your analysis.

Reflect on usefulness/limitations of your case studies.

Suggest future avenues of research.

Try not to repeat exactly what you said in your intro.

Comment on why your findings matter (from a policy/societal/medical etc. perspective) – ie. Why was it worth your time pulling together this argument and doing this analysis?

Reference list

- Needs to be alphabetical

- Must include everything you have read

- Must NOT include anything you have NOT read (if you are getting the reference from the lecture, cite the lecture, with the week and title. Put the relevant section in the body of the text.)

- You must read the references that are core to your analysis (e.g. ones about framing or rhetorical weapons if that’s what you’re investigating)

- References that are just for background or introduction, and that are not used in the analysis, do not need to be read or put in the reference list – cite the lecture instead.

- Includes references for your data (news stories, movies, documentaries etc.)