According to Thury and Drott, in an analysis paper you explain the meaning of a source by describing the benchmarks for meaning you yourself identified while you were reading the source and trying to figure out its meaning (Chapter 5, pages 4-9).

According to Thury and Drott (Chapter 3, pages 5-6), the benchmarks for meaning are:

• Subject
• Audience
• Audience Assumptions
• Style of Writing
• Kind of Evidence
• Attitudes/Beliefs/Actions Encouraged

According to Thury and Drott, the analysis of an academic source is different from the analysis of a journalistic source (Chapter 5, page 21).

In particular, these benchmarks are most likely to be of interest in discussing an academic source are:

• Audience Assumptions will be found in the introduction, review of the literature and methodology sections. The article will explain:
  • what scholars currently know about this area of research
  • what work has been done in it so far
  • how the current piece of research fits in: it should be new enough to make a contribution, but it should build on what has been done thus far.
• Style of Writing. If the article has the standard academic form (Introduction-Methodology-Results-Conclusions-Implications), there may not be much to say about its style of writing. However, sometimes the authors will present a series of hypotheses or a group of tests which will structure the main part of the article. This structure may well be worth discussing, as it is a specific part of how these authors develop their points, not just a general description of all academic writing.
• Kind of Evidence will be found in the mostly in the methodology section. The article will explain the how the study was designed. Do not describe the methodology for its own sake. Describe it only if you can use it to show how the study is unique or important, or to explain the results.
• Attitudes/Beliefs/Actions Encouraged will be found in the results, conclusions and implications sections. The discussion there will be related back to the introduction which explained why the issues involved in the study mattered to scholars in the field.

Thury and Drott point out that the guidelines for writing an analysis are about the same as for writing any paper (Chapter 5, p. 8), and that they include being sure you have a focus, and that you include examples of the points you are trying to make.

Writer:

• Give copies of your essay to members of your writing group.
• Read the essay aloud to them, as they follow along on their copies.

Group members:

• As the writer reads, listen for the following.
  • the writer's thesis statement
  • benchmarks for meaning
  • examples of benchmarks
• Underline or circle any relevant sections of the paper.

Discussion:

• Take turns explaining what you identified as the writer's thesis.
• Does this thesis say something interesting about the source, or is it only about the benchmarks?
• Are the benchmarks discussed suitable to an analysis of academic writing?
• Discuss ways in which the writer supported the thesis with examples of benchmarks
• Did the author gave enough detail from the source so that someone who hasn't read it can understand the examples given?
• Consider how the writer can improve the paper.

Final points:

As a group, consider:

• The coherence of the paper. What do you take to be its main statement of its thesis?
• The development of the ideas in the paper. Do subsequent paragraphs add information to this thesis?