Review of two paper drafts

Constructing Reality: The Case of Innovation, Adoption, And Diffusion

When introducing the question of adoption, giving a brief overview of Goffman's general theories would be helpful in the section of (1), although the question of (2) is well-phrased. "De facto" is not usually used to refer to a system of institutions, but a series of practices, like "de facto segregation." A different word choice would be better -- and also a more focused introduction to the health care system. At present, it is so broad it takes up valuable space and does not give added value to the specific topic of the paper. The second page is much stronger, and you might want to consider beginning the paper as a whole on the second page, since the heart of the paper is about evidence-based practices. Cut the long section following, about innovation in general, and cut straight to the main subject of the paper: "We posit that the paradigms found in communication theory can effectively examine diffusion, adoption, and implementation of evidence-based practices in mental health services settings."

The following sections summarize the different theories you are studying, but do not specifically address why they are relevant to the problems of the mental health care system. Defining the problem first and foremost, and then the solution, might be a simpler and more effective way to structure the paper, rather than including so much pagination on summary. You will never be able to summarize all of these different theorists who have done work with evidence-based practice within a single proposal or even a paper -- pick out the aspects that are most relevant and apply them to your specific case! The discussion of subconscious routine is good, but why is this is particular problem within the mental health care system is unclear. Also -- is the bullet point method that effective in the middle of the paper? It seems to include a great deal of data without making an argument

Paper Draft -- Research Paper Scope/Outline

Enron

You have a strongly stated purpose and hypothesis that really grabs the reader's attention! Your outline is very clear and cogent. It is an interesting topic, as Enron has often been studied in terms of the complications it posed for the economy, investors, and accounting law, but not so much as an organizational breakdown of communications (at least not so far as I am aware). In terms of the length of your project, you have posed many questions to answer, but your hypothesis seems concentrated enough to keep you on 'track.' Also, all of your questions have a single focus, which is good. Selecting one theorist and theory to apply to a very complicated situation seems ideal, given the extensive literature that is available on Enron.