Is there a way of enhancing the examined theory?.
An assessment of Ángel Manuel Rodríguezs understanding of the concept of remnant
1) Context: Whats the state of things?
2) Problem: Wherein lies the gap/question/problem?
3) Aim: What am I going to do?
4) Significance: Why does it matter?
5) Method: How am I going to do it?
6) Limitations: What am I not doing?
7) Design/Structure/Outline: How am I going to present it?
The structure of the main body varies from paper to paper
and depends on the way you define your aim and method.
The most commonly used structural template may (but need
1) Description: What is the author/text/theory saying?
2) Comparison: How would you compare and contrast this
theory with another/others? How is it similar to and
different from them?
3) Analysis: Why is the author saying what they are saying?
What is the ground for their theory/proposal? What
assumptions lie behind their claims?
4) Assessment/Evaluation: What are the weaknesses &
strengths, limitations & potentials of the presented
theory? Is the theory biblical/coherent/adequate/well
argued? Does it deliver what it promises to?
5) Construction: Is there a way of enhancing the examined
theory? Can the insights from the writings of some other
author be used to enrich it? How would you take this
1) Summary: What did I discover? What is the answer to
my research question?
2) Implications: So what? What difference does it make?
3) Possibilities for further research: Where to now? Which
new questions can be asked? What are the pathways
for further research?