Both papers require you to apply a theory to relevant “everyday” examples; papers will proceed across
three sections, as follows:
In the first section, (1) identify the theory that you will be applying, including who is credited with advancing the theory and when; (2) identify the key tenets or principles of the theory, (a) briefly describing each and (b), in a concluding brief paragraph for this section, how they relate to each other and/or work together.
In the second section, identify an example that illustrates the theory that you have selected; briefly describe the example and, in general terms, why it is appropriate for application of theory (e.g., context; type of interaction; etc.)
In the third section, (a) identify each of the key principles of the theory that the example illustrates: it may not illustrate all of them, so just focus on the ones that it does; and (b) describe how each of those relevant principle plays out in the example.
In the fourth and final section, address gaps, partialities, or failures of the theory as applied to the example you have chosen: first, (a) identify principles that were not fulfilled, or not entirely; and/or principles that were challenged; and/or things that happened in the example for which the theory does not account. Conclude this section with a paragraph briefly discussing (b) why you think the theory falls short where it does; and (c) what you think this implies for the theory overall and, briefly why: does it mean that the theory is inherently flawed, at least in certain respects? Or that it is no longer relevant? Or perhaps limited to very specific contexts? Or does it have staying power, perhaps with a little updating/modification?