Reaction paper (broad) guidelines
It should be 500 to 550 words max.
There is no single way to do a reaction paper, these guidelines aim to help you while writing yours, but there is no fixed recipe.
Unsurprisingly, the objective of a reaction paper is to see how you react to a text. You need to do at least two things: first, reconstruct or summarise the text (or one part, idea, or argument) of the text; then you need to engage critically with it. Reaction papers help you to develop synthetic and analytical skills—select and reconstruct arguments, and critical skills—engage with the text’s ideas. Usually reaction papers are short, so to give yourself sufficient space to develop your own argument you must exercise your judgment and avoid doing a summary of everything that the author says.
The RP’s objective is to show that you understand the text by giving an original response on the content of the reading. To do that, you would need to explain the main terms, concepts, and assumptions. You must be as precise as possible. You will need to reconstruct the argument you plan to engage with. Reconstruct the best version of the argument before criticising it. Avoid constructing a strawman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). Engage with the argument the author is defending, rather than the argument you would like s/he were defending. Be careful with your connectors (e.g. do not use ‘hence’ unless you claim a logical implication).
Be as specific as possible in your criticisms and claims.
Use paragraphs to separate ideas and use the writing techniques that you
learned during your academic writing seminar.
A typical reaction paper has 3 main sections: and introduction, the main body, and the conclusion. In the introduction you explain the main terms and concepts. You also should give a short description of what you will claim in the RP: (e.g. A. Swift claims that the distinction between positive and negative liberty is unclear and not particularly useful. In this paper I will defend the distinction by showing that Swift’s alternative account also lacks clarity. By negative liberty I will understand …By positive liberty I will understand …After reconstructing Swifts critique, I will defend claims X and Y. for guidance look at https://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/signalling-transition/
In the main body, you develop the ideas described in the introduction. Use one paragraph for each idea. Given the length of the RP, you will not be able to do more than 2 or 3 short paragraphs. You should also pose 2 questions to the author/s. It can be clarificatory or substantive (challenging the author’s position).
In the conclusion—2-3 sentences—you summarise your main claim.
Try to be precise about the scope and strength of your claims. Are you objecting to a point made by the author, or are you pointing at a difficulty that the author needs to overcome? Are you refuting a claim or merely showing that the argument is incomplete? It is common for students to suggest that an argument ‘doesn’t work in practice’. This might be true, but before making this point, ask yourself: is the argument supposed to work in practice? Is the author offering a policy or institutional recommendation or merely suggesting values or evaluative standards? Even if the argument does not work in practice you might want to suggest why it does not. Is it because of technological limitations or natural limitations? Is it because people are unable or unwilling to comply with certain rules? Is it because it would be self-defeating or because it might have undesirable side-effects?
We want to hear your voice and your thoughts about the text, and a large part of the grade will depend on hearing your voice.