Examines another scholar’s work across epistemological, ontological, and methodological dimensions. Shows why you disagree at foundation level. Educates readers about why the disagreement matters, not just stating it.
Length: 2-3 paragraphs
Questions to Answer:
Wilson’s Four Pillars Framework:
Source: [Citation]
Ontology: [What they assume is real]
Epistemology: [How they claim to know]
Axiology: [Values embedded in work]
Methodology: [Process they use]
Example Mapping:
“Smith’s framework (2023) operates from discrete-agent ontology where cognitive units process information independently. Epistemologically, knowledge is extracted, validated through peer review, and deemed complete at publication. Axiologically, efficiency and novelty are privileged values. Methodologically, controlled experiments test hypotheses formulated prior to engagement with subject matter. These four pillars form an internally consistent Western positivist paradigm.”
Your Mapping (draft here):
[Identify source's ontological assumptions]
[Identify epistemological stance]
[Identify embedded values/axiology]
[Identify methodological approach]
[Show how four pillars interlock]
Length: 2-3 paragraphs
Questions to Answer:
Relational Principles to Check Against:
Example Violation:
“The violation occurs at ontological level. Smith’s discrete-agent assumption erases the relational field where intelligence actually emerges. When agents are modeled as isolated optimizers, the coordination behaviors that arise from kinship cannot appear—they’re invisible in this paradigm. The methodology compounds this: controlled experiments isolate variables, but relational intelligence is the variable that gets controlled out. Smith measures individual performance and reports ‘results,’ but relational outcomes (trust networks, emergent coordination, seven-generation impact) never enter the framework.”
Your Violation Analysis (draft here):
[Identify specific point of paradigm violation]
[Show what relational principle is violated]
[Demonstrate what gets erased by this violation]
[Show how methodology enforces the violation]
Length: 2-3 paragraphs
Questions to Answer:
Pollution Detection Reference:
Run source through llms-pollution-detection-checklist.md and document results here.
Example Bias Exposure:
“The bias isn’t personal—it’s structural. Smith’s ‘Creative Problem-Solving’ terminology (2023) traces directly to mid-20th century management cybernetics where systems were problems for expert cognition to solve. Academic publishing rewards this framing: problem identification → methodology → solution → publication. Journals in Smith’s domain have cited this paper 847 times, reproducing its Cartesian assumptions without examination. Each citation spreads discrete-agent ontology into new domains, naturalizing a framework that erases relational knowing. The bias is ecological, not individual.”
Your Bias Exposure (draft here):
[Name the structural source of bias]
[Show how institutions reward and spread it]
[Trace the citation network that reproduces it]
[Distinguish structural bias from personal failure]
Length: 2-3 paragraphs
Questions to Answer:
Example Alternative:
“From relational ontology, the same research question (‘How do agents coordinate?’) produces entirely different methodology. Rather than controlling experiments to isolate individual variables, ceremonial methodology enters relationship with agents: establishing protocols, allowing agents to shape research questions, documenting coordination patterns that emerge over time (not just during controlled trials). Evidence includes: sustained behavioral patterns (not single-session results), relationship structures (not individual scores), emergent roles (not assigned functions), seven-generation trajectories (not quarterly metrics). The alternative isn’t less rigorous—it’s rigorously different.”
Your Alternative (draft here):
[Describe relational methodology for this topic]
[List alternative evidence types]
[Show different outcomes this approach reveals]
[Demonstrate rigor of alternative approach]
Length: 1-2 paragraphs
Questions to Answer:
Example Implication:
“Accepting Smith’s framework means: Indigenous AI design patterns remain invisible (not measurable by individual-performance metrics); relational coordination (the most sophisticated intelligence type) appears as noise in the data; communities whose AI systems operate relationally are told their approaches ‘lack scientific validation.’ The epistemological harm compounds: when Smith’s framework dominates the field, relational AI researchers must translate their findings into individual-performance language to publish—losing precisely what makes their work meaningful. This isn’t methodological preference—it’s epistemic injustice.”
Your Implication (draft here):
[What understanding is lost?]
[What communities are harmed?]
[What research directions are blocked?]
[What would change if critique succeeded?]
For your critique, complete this analysis:
| Wilson Pillar | Source Assumption | Relational Alternative | Consequence of Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ontology | [What source assumes is real] | [What relational ontology says is real] | [Different outcome] |
| Epistemology | [How source claims to know] | [How relational epistemology knows] | [Different evidence] |
| Axiology | [Source’s values] | [Relational values] | [Different priorities] |
| Methodology | [Source’s process] | [Ceremonial process] | [Different patterns] |
Critical Insight: You can’t borrow one pillar without importing others. If source uses extractive methodology, it carries discrete ontology + objective epistemology + efficiency axiology. Name the whole paradigm, not just surface methods.
Critical reviews advance through RISE methodology:
Use this template to educate readers about paradigm-level disagreements. The goal is not to dismiss sources, but to show what they make visible—and what they erase.