Schedule of oral presentations:

January 12: Attitude theory	Ken Strickland
January 26: Ideology	Se-Jin Lee
February 2: Affect and motivation	Cory Smidt, Jennifer Moyer
February 9: Memory and inference	Yuh-yuh Li
February 16: Persuasion and influence	Eric Shaeffer
February 23: Framing and priming	Joe Lyons
March 1: Values	Del Daigle
March 8: Intergroup relations	Eric Russell

Your job will be to present a short oral critique of one of the assigned readings. Your discussion should include a brief synopsis of the theoretical orientation, major hypotheses, research method, and findings of the study. You should finish with a candid description of your favorable and unfavorable reactions to the reading. This presentation will ideally launch a class discussion of that paper and the other assigned pieces. The rest of this document contains my personal perspective on constructively critiquing empirical research. You might find it helpful in formulating your own evaluation and presentation.

Critiquing Empirical Research

Throughout this course we will spend a considerable amount of time evaluating the scientific integrity and theoretical significance of a number of empirical research papers. Each week we will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of one or more studies. You should prepare to chip in your two cents during every class meeting; during your moment in the sun as designated discussion leader, your contribution should run closer to a half-dollar. Below are listed some questions you should ask of every study, including your own, which will help guide our discussions. As the course moves along, you should think of adding your own questions to this list. During your leader week, you should be prepared not only to offer answers to these questions, but to help conduct your fellow seminar members through a discussion of these issues.

v What is the scientific problem, puzzle, or question the research addresses? Is it sufficiently important and intriguing?

v What is the major theoretical approach to the problem, or is the study merely exploratory? Are the theoretical constructs clearly demarcated and logically connected to the puzzle?

v Is there a truly testable hypothesis that follows directly from the puzzle?

v Is the research design and methodology suitable for the theoretical question?

· Are the empirical variables properly operationalized?

· Does the research design incorporate the relevant variables without becoming needlessly complex? Are potentially important interactions accounted for?

· How well do the design and methodology minimize potential threats to internal validity? How well does the researcher address, or at least answer, external validity concerns?

v Are conclusions appropriate to the quantitative/qualitative findings?

v Does the conclusion address relevant implications or extensions of the findings?