https://youtu.be/uIbqktnV4Uc (WATCH THIS FIRST)

The opposition is part of the seminar as a whole and each student will receive a grade for the part. The chair of the seminar will tell you how much time you have to carry out the opposition. It is you as the opponent who drives the conversation forward, not the seminar chairman. During the conversation, you should give the author the opportunity to answer your questions and reflections.

Opposition points:

Start with a brief overall description of the essay. Tell what the essay is about and then give the author the opportunity to answer if you have understood the content of the essay correctly. You can also ask if the author has anything to add (if the author himself wants to highlight something that others need to know about the essay).

2. Remember to set a positive basic tone for the seminar. Then go step by step through the following points:
3. The main problem of the essay. Describe the purpose and question (s) of the essay. Ask questions such as; Are the theme and the more specific research questions clear? Do these questions naturally follow one another, or do they seem fragmented? Will the questions be answered at the end of the essay?

4. Theory – theory testing or theory-developing ambition? Give a brief description of the theoretical framework. Ask questions such as; Has the author started from any perspective or theory for his work, or does the author have a theory-building ambition (ie to create aconcept or a whole theory?).

5. Method. Describe the method used in the essay. It is in the method chapter that the author describes how material has been collected, what delimitations have been made and how the collected material has been analyzed. Ask questions such as; Is the author’s method well justified? Are there other ways that would be just as good? Are these possibilities of choosing a method discussed by the author? Does the author seem to master the method chosen? Which methodological literature does the author refer to?

6. Material. Tell about the material that the author has used in the essay. Ask questions such as;

How did the author get hold of his material? Interview answers / books /

surveys / participatory observation or in another way? Has the material been used on one effectively way? Is there more information to retrieve that the author did not include? Is the material reliable (can you trust the lyrics)? Does the author seem aware of the limits of the material’s informational value? This is being discussed!

 

7. The analysis. Describe how the analysis was done in the essay. Ask questions such as; When the author makes his analysis of the material – is it well structured and easy to follow? Are the conclusions reasonable based on what the material offers? Is there any aspect that has been forgotten? Does the author base his claims?

8. Results and conclusions. Tell what the author has come to in the results and conclusion. Ask questions such as; Has the author put the results in context, and given feedback on the questions in the introduction? Is the essay a test of a theory or of concepts, or can one create concepts or perhaps a theory, of the result and if so, has the author done so? (Compare point 3 above!). Finally: has the author shown what you could go on with, “in the next essay” if you want to work further with the problem (suggestions for further research)?

9. The language and formalities of the essay. As an opponent, do not burden your opposition with misspellings, shortcomings in the music machine, etc. under each of the points above, but put these things in a special point within the opposition. (First or last). Give only one or two examples of which errors you want corrected and then leave a list (or the entire essay with your notes inserted) to the author stating what errors you have found. Also comment on the language, ie. the author masters itgenre which a scientific text constitutes? Feel free to give examples of good, and perhaps less good, formulations.

10. End your opposition by linking to your introductory words under point 1 above and thank the author.