Ritical analysis of a book, Nectar in a Sieve
What is the authors central thesis or hypothesis? What is the suthor trying to prove?
What methodology does the author use to study the problem, period, leader, or experience which the author is writing about? Is this an historical analysis utilizing statistical data ethnographic materials, or diaries? Or a review of the literature on the subject? Oral history interviews with a given population? Which types of archival resources? Is it comparative? How effective is the authors choice of methodology? Does it work? Are the sources too limiting? Why or why not? What would have improved the study methodologically?
How does the author define the problem? What are the authors sympathies versus the authors antagonisms? With whom do the identify? A clue to this would be a close analysis of the authors language. Does the text have judgmental or disapproving comments, or references to what could or should have been in the body of the book? If possible, note who supported the authors research or what institution and program they are affiliated with (check preface or acknowledgments). Does the author compare their work to a specific body of literature that could identify them with a particular School of thought”? Is the author influencd by other disciplines? If the approach is cross-disciplinary, how is the work affected? Does the suthors approach include an analysis of race, class, and gender issues? Be specific and expansive enough to explain your position. Lastly, are there more specific and personal influences which affected the author?
How does this work relate to other books or experiences you are familiar with? Can you integrate this book with other readings in this course or other courses? For example, a book about Junipero Serra might relate to religious studies, architectural design, ritualized behavior, economic analyses, geographic study, imperial design, historical overview (Mexican, California, U.S. histories), demographic studies, and sociological behavior…
What conclusion does the author reach? Is the solution implied or explicit? Do you agree with the conclusion? Why, or why not? Be specific.