precisely and succinctly as possible what the main claim(s) of the paper are and explain the most important arguments or reasons the author offers for them.

Critical Reflection Guidance There are two readings to work on. Each Reading is 1000 words

Step 1: Close re-reading of the text
You should already have read the text through before, and in class should have made annotations on the text – especially highlighting passages that I have drawn your attention to during the discussion. And you should have in mind the sorts of issues that you are looking out for from the discussions in lectures and seminars. All this should give you a good start for a close re-reading of the text.
As you read, ask yourself: what questions am I asking myself? Are they the right sorts of questions? Think about the sorts of questions I raise in the lectures and seminars and ask yourself those questions about the text: what is the author saying about crime and justice? But, more importantly, how do they link that to broader questions about society or individuals or power or social regulation? Sometimes the author won’t say things explicitly; you will need to infer from what they do say what they must think.
Your aim in doing a close reading of the text is to identify what you think the author’s saying, picking out what seem to be the key passages. Bear in mind that it is okay if you don’t get it the first or second time you read it. Many texts require numerous readings before you begin to get a grip on them.
Step 2: Planning your critical reflection
Here is how your piece should look:
Reconstruction (aim/purpose and central arguments)
Critical assessment of 1-2 central arguments
Context and Wider Debates
‘So What’ Assessment/Conclusion

You can vary the order of these and some may be slightly longer or shorter. You might, for instance, have context and ‘so what’ assessment as a single paragraph or you may feel that they each need their own. But you should ensure to touch on each of these areas. Remember, this isn’t an essay, so you don’t need a traditional introduction and conclusion. Your reconstruction substitutes for the introduction and instead of a conclusion you can give a summary of what you think is the key take away or ‘so what’ of your assessment of the reading.

The first paragraph of your reflection should be a ‘reconstruction’ of the central claim – or one of the central claims – in the text, along with the argument as far as you can decipher it, that the author gives. Your aim in the reconstruction is: to say as precisely and succinctly as possible what the main claim(s) of the paper are and explain the most important arguments or reasons the author offers for them.

The remaining discussion should be devoted to:
advancing one or two critical arguments (you can think of it as objecting to or defending key elements of the text). The emphasis is not on number of criticisms (nor on number of references) but on depth of argument. It is better to develop your points in more depth than to throw some extra ones on top.
Locating the significance of the argument. Criminology is not philosophy as you know. The point of theory in criminology, following Marx, is not just to interpret the world but to change it, or at least change how we understand it or how we respond to it. You don’t need to do additional reading here but you might want to think about how the piece does or doesn’t help you think differently about crime or criminal justice institutions, or how it suggests that we should think differently or do things differently. You might want to draw on discussions in this class, other classes, or think about your professional interests. This is the section where you may find it useful to bring in other readings (for instance the other reading from the same week) but it isn’t necessary. You could say ultimately you don’t think it does offer anything substantial but you need to support this with argument as well. For older readings particularly, you might want to comment on whether you think they remain relevant and how so or not. (NB: This is different to whether or not you find it convincing – it is about the wider relevance)

As a general rule the critical arguments section should be the longest and constitute the main content of the assessment.

Step 3: Editing and Referencing
You will need to support your argument by referring closely to the text. This will mean either direct quotations or paraphrasing specific points. You will need to reference the text correctly when you do this – with in-text referencing, and a bibliography. Any additional texts that you use to support your discussion will also need to be properly referenced. Use the UWE Harvard Referencing style. Find the link below:

https://www.uwe.ac.uk/library/info/refbuilder/

Texts for Analysis

Each reflection is 1,000 words.

Reading 1 Power and Marginality – 1,000 words

Ellison, R. (1952). ‘Prologue’. In: Invisible Man, London: Penguin, pp. 7-16.

Reading 2 – Contemporary Debates – 1,000 words
Anderson, B. (2006 [1983]). ‘Introduction’ and ‘Patriotism and Racism’. In: Imagined Communities, London/New York: Verso, pp. 1-7 and 141-154.