Critical Analysis of Articles

Answer

Critical Analysis of Articles

This paper presents a critical analysis of five articles. The articles under critical assessment are those for weeks seven, eight, nine, ten, and eleven. These articles are critically assessed in the subsequent paragraphs. The parameters employed in assessing the articles are appropriateness of arguments, reliability, strengths and weakness persuasiveness, methods, evidence, setting and participants, and worldviews held by the articles.     

In week seven’s article entitled INEQUALITY REGIMES Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations by Acker Joan, the author argues that inequality regimes serve as analytic approach to comprehending the establishment of inequalities within work organizations. Acker (2006) defines inequality regimes as the interlocked process and practices resulting into ongoing inequalities within all work organizations. Acker (2006) justifies her argument by focusing on two feminist issues. The first issue concerns how the aspect of intersectionality, which entails mutual reproduction of racial, gender, and class relations of inequality, can be conceptualized. The second issue involves how to recognize barriers to establishing equality within work organizations. As such, the author’s approach to justifying the paper’s argument is effective as it discusses the bone of contention from more than one perspective.

Prior to commencing her arguments, the author provides a brief historical background to the issue of economic and social inequality in the United States. This approach enables the reader to have a comprehension of the historical context within which the authors argues her point. Besides, Acker (2006) justifies her argument using the findings of other scholars such as Davis (1981), Hooks (1984), and Joseph (1981). The fact that the author relies on the primary findings of other authors, it can be argued that her claim is reliable. Moreover, the author augments the strength of her argument by alluding to specific organizations, particularly elite universities like Yale and Harvard. In this manner, the author enables the reader to have real world exemplars to which the reader can confirm the paper’s claims. Even though Acker (2006) has made significant efforts in justifying her claims using primary findings of other authors, two factors introduce the aspect of bias in her judgment or claim. First, Acker (2006) bases her analysis on some of her findings in studies conducted in the years 1989, 1991, and 1994. By focusing on her findings to justify her arguments, Acker (2006) must have been influenced by personal bias. The second aspect that can compromise the author’s claim is her inclination to the feminist world view. This notion must have negatively impacted the author’s ability to make impartial judgments. Nevertheless, the fact that the author has focused on the findings of other authors, provided a background context of the subject matter, and referred to specific organizations validates her claim.

In week eight’s article entitled, Corporeal ethics and the politics of resistance in organizations, by Allison Pullen and Carl Rhodes, the authors argue that ethics within organization manifests politically via resistance seeking to defy normalization and categorization, and types of discrimination they trigger. The authors commence their article by offering a brief background of the subject matter. This approach ensures that the reader comprehends the context within which the authors argue their idea. Pullen and Rhodes (2014) enhance the strength of their argument by drawing from the theories of prominent scholars such as Weber and Rosalyn Diprose. Moreover, the authors justify their claims by referring to the finding of other scholars on the subject matter, which is ethics in organizational. The focus on primary findings of other authors reinforces the authors’ argument in the sense that it emphasizes the existence of the article’s claim in real world organizational context.

Relying on the outcomes of primary findings and other secondary with valid authors, whose works are cited at the reference section, not only contributes to the validity of the article, but also to the reliability of the authors’ claim. Moreover, Pullen and Rhodes demonstrate their effectiveness in persuading the reader to embrace their claim by employing a systematic approach that commences from a broader view of their argument to a narrow perception of their claim. The authors accomplish this goal by comparing the ethics in organization by several concepts such as organizational ethics and corporeal generosity after which they discuss organizational resistance in relation to politics. Such an approach enables the researchers to establish a robust theory that draws from various views. However, the authors seem to rely on outdated sources, which limit their ability to focus their argument on current patterns or trends in organizations. In addition, the justification of the articles claim could have been made solid by executing a primary study on the subject matter. Therefore, the argument that Pullen and Rhodes pose can be made more reliable and convincing by conducting a primary research in a contemporary organization or organizations. Embracing this approach will also make the authors’ claim more solid.

In week nine’s article entitled Ethics, politics and feminist organizing: Writing feminist infrapolitics and affective solidarity into everyday sexism by Sheena Vachhani and Allison Pullen, the authors critically examine the rebellion against a systemic, entrenched and institutionalized sexism within society including organizations. Vachhani and Allison (2018) argue that an ethico-politics of feminist rebellion shifts away from sexism’s individualizing experiences towards collective rebellion and organizes solidary empathy and experience that may combat ignorance as well as violence towards women. While the authors enhance the effectiveness of their argument by drawing from a range of findings from other studies, their argument is made more solid by their embracement of the case study approach, whereby they focus on the Everyday Sexism Project (ESP). For example, the authors' augment their argument by referring to posts made by women on the ESP. Moreover, Vachhani and Allison (2018) draw from the works of feminists such as Mohanty to advance the notion that the feminist resistance against sexism is founded on affective solidarity and entails two feminist organizing modes including the politics of empathy and experience.

Vachhani and Allison (2018) demonstrate effectiveness of their persuasion of the reader. For instance, the evidences provided by the authors to back their claim, especially direct quotes from women with experiences of prejudice, are convincing. In addition, the sources of the authors’ evidence are reliable. For instance, the experiences of women to which the authors allude can be found on the ESP website. The authors have also acknowledged the authors of the sources employed in supporting their argument by listing these sources in the reference section. However, the fact that the authors seem to be inclined towards the feminist worldview might have led to the aspect of bias in their judgment or argument. Nonetheless, the focus on real life experiences of women in the article enables the reader to substantiate the argument presented in it. As such, it can be argued that the argument championed by Vachhani and Allison (2018) is valid and reliable. Indeed, an ethico-politics of feminist revolt swings away from sexism’s personalizing experiences towards mutual rebellion and organizes solidarity empathy and experience that may contest ignorance as well as ferocity towards women.

In week ten’s article entitled, Economic inequality of the badli workers of Bangladesh: Contested entitlements and a ‘perpetually temporary’ life-world by Fahreen Alamgir and George Cairns, the authors argue that badli employees are clearly exposed to economic inequality relative to other workers of comparable economic value. The authors commence their argument by conceptualizing the aspect of economic inequality. This approach ensures that the reader develops a deep understanding of the context within the study is founded. Contrary to the authors of the previous articles (weeks 8, 9, and 10 articles), Alamgir and Cairns (2015) adopt an empirical approach to substantiate their argument. Multiple method comprising gazettes and circulars from ministries, local newspaper reports, semi-structured interviews, participant observations, numerous informal tea stall discussions and focus group discussions is employed in data gathering.

 Alamgir and Cairns (2015) also employ findings of other authors in substantiating their claim. The focus on both the primary findings of the authors and outcomes in studies executed by other authors ensure that the claim presented by Alamgir and Cairs (2015) is robust. Such an approach ensures that the findings of the authors can be cross-examined by the literature in the existing study. Moreover, the fact that the outcomes of the study by Alamgir and Cairns (2015) are in line with the findings in the existing literature validates their argument. Moreover, the authors present their information in a logical manner from the introduction to the conclusion. It is also vital to note that the mix methods design ensures that weaknesses of one method are compensated by the other method. Besides, the setting in which the study was conducted and the participants involved is also suitable to the topic under investigation. However, the employment of mixed method approach could have resulted into loss of crucial information, especially during the merging and analyzing of data from quantitative and qualitative techniques of data gathering. The outcomes of the study can also be compromised by the employment of outdated sources of evidence in justifying the paper’s positions. However, the adoption of the empirical research approach involving mixed methods design ensured that the author gather current information. Therefore, it can be argued that the findings of the article are valid and reliable, and contribute largely to the body of knowledge within the field of economic equality or inequality experienced by workers.

In week eleven’s article entitled, The knowing body as a floating body, by Anu Valtonen, Susan Meriläinen, Pikka-Maaria Laine, and Tarja Salmela-Leppänen, the authors argue that three sensory forms including sensory entanglement in dreams, within-corporeality, and sensory release dreams emphasize the uncertain and inconstant form of embodied knowing, implying a new onto-epistemological position in which the knowing body is conceived as a free body that is never immobile. The article commences by providing a brief illustration of the factors that inspired them to execute their research. Valtonen et al. (2017) also offer a brief background of their study. In this manner, the reader’s comprehension of the insights and theory underpinning the study is enhanced.

The authors focused on the findings of the existing literature, which provided a suitable platform on which the findings of the study could be validated. However, most of the studies reviewed in the article are outdated, and this might have compromised the validity of the study findings. Nonetheless, the adoption of an empirical research enabled Valtonen et al. (2017) to develop their theory and validate their argument. The auto-ethnography method embraced for the research was suitable to the study objectives, as it permits an intimate closeness to the manner in which wakefulness and sleep are constantly existent within the embodied practices of academia through which knowing happens. Moreover, self-reflections and participatory observations were employed in the study. Despite participatory observation being effective in gathering information from their sites, this method could have resulted into researcher bias. The authors must have interpreted the information in a subjective manner, as opposed to focusing on the views of participants or study subjects. Nevertheless, the authors ensured that this form of bias was eliminated by comparing their findings prior to proceeding to data analysis (Valtonen et al., 2017). It is also vital to note that the participants and university setting selected for the study was also in line with the topic and objective of the research. The appropriateness of the setting chosen for the study lies in the fact that academia plays a vital role in disseminating ideals of management, which is a primary target of the study. As such, it can be argued that the findings of the article are reliable and valid.

In conclusion, the paper has successfully presented a critical analysis of the articles of weeks 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. The paper has accomplished this goal by focusing on the strengths and weakness, reliability, persuasiveness, evidence, methods, participants, and setting key arguments, and worldviews embraced by the articles.