Critiquing Research Papers

How would you describe the overall flow of the paper? Did the paper flow as a river (cohesive whole) rather than reading like a patchwork quilt (it read more like an annotated bibliography)?

The flow of the paper was great. Her research tied back to her theory really well. It went from autonomy to connection really well. She has not finished the opened/closed aspect of the relational dialectics or the predictability/novelty aspect. However, with how great the start of her paper is, I’m sure it will follow through. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the development of arguments in each paragraph/section? Consider the following criteria when answering this question: The claim she made about relational dialects functions in wealthy

(Refer to APA guidelines)

The only thing I would suggest is subheadings within the major headings such as the literature review, methodology, etc. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the paper’s introduction (rationale)? Consider the following criteria:

I like the rationale for her research has more theoretical significance based on the fact that there does not appear to be a lot of research in this particular field. What were the strengths and weaknesses in the ways concepts and/or theory(ies) were used to frame the analysis? Consider the following criteria:

She began by defining and explaining through practical examples that were and were not mentioned in the textbook to make the theory of relational dialectics more understandable. She did use a primary source for explaining relational dialectics. She did a great job of linking the documentary titled, “Born Rich: Children of the Insanely Wealthy” as a method for her analysis. Her selection of her theory worked really well with her paper. I thought her overall structure of her paper was great. What were the strengths and weaknesses in the description of the data collected and the method of