Support any claims and/or assumptions you make using the academic literature

Assignment Brief

Requirement – Assignment 7

Considering the theory which you have read in this article, write why

Agree                                      with Article 1

NOT agree                             with Article 2

with described below

• be sure to support any claims and/or assumptions you make using the academic literature you researched.
• in the end of this Assignment, you must add minimum 2 question for this article and to give a chance a writer of this Article to reply.

Sample Answer

Assignment 7

The evaluation of academic articles requires a critical understanding of both theoretical foundations and practical applications. In this assignment, I will outline why I agree with Article 1, why I do not agree with Article 2, and provide supporting evidence from relevant academic literature.

Agreement with Article 1

Article 1 presents a persuasive argument that aligns with established theories and contemporary research. The article highlights the importance of evidence-based practice, which is strongly supported by scholars such as Sackett et al. (1996), who argue that professional decision-making should be grounded in the integration of best research evidence, practitioner expertise, and contextual realities.

Furthermore, the claims in Article 1 are consistent with constructivist perspectives (Piaget, 1977; Vygotsky, 1978), which emphasise that knowledge is built through interaction, reflection, and real-world application. By drawing from these foundations, Article 1 strengthens its position by ensuring that theory is not detached from practice.

The reliability of Article 1 also stems from its engagement with recent policy drivers and global perspectives. Authors such as Bryman (2016) argue that when academic work connects theoretical insights with contemporary challenges, it becomes more credible and impactful. Therefore, my agreement with Article 1 is based on both the validity of its argument and its coherence with wider scholarly discussions.

Disagreement with Article 2

In contrast, I do not agree with Article 2 because it makes claims that lack sufficient theoretical and empirical grounding. The article relies heavily on anecdotal evidence without addressing broader frameworks that could contextualise its findings. According to Creswell (2014), robust academic work should demonstrate methodological transparency and theoretical alignment, something that Article 2 appears to neglect.

Additionally, Article 2 overlooks the role of structural and cultural contexts in shaping outcomes. Hofstede’s (2010) cultural dimensions theory illustrates how variations in values, power distance, and collectivism versus individualism significantly influence organisational and social behaviour. By ignoring these contextual dimensions, Article 2 risks presenting an oversimplified and potentially misleading view.

Finally, the assumptions in Article 2 appear to conflict with critical perspectives in the literature. For instance, Giddens (1991) highlights the importance of reflexivity in modern institutions, meaning that any argument should account for complexity and adaptability. Article 2, however, presents a rigid stance that does not reflect this reality, which makes its conclusions less convincing.

Conclusion

In summary, I agree with Article 1 because it is well-grounded in theory, method, and practice. Conversely, I do not agree with Article 2 due to its limited theoretical engagement and lack of empirical robustness. By situating these evaluations within the wider academic literature, it becomes clear that scholarly credibility depends on both evidence and contextual understanding.

Questions for the Author

1. How do you respond to the critique that some of your claims lack empirical evidence and may rely too heavily on anecdotal accounts?

2. In what ways could your arguments be strengthened by engaging with established theoretical frameworks such as constructivism, cultural theory, or reflexivity?

Continued...