When you disagree with an academic source on epistemological, ontological, or methodological grounds, you’re engaging in deep disagreement — not surface-level debate about findings, but fundamental divergence about how we know things, what exists as real, and how knowledge is produced.
Stakes out your alternative paradigm without extensive critique.
Examines another scholar’s work across epistemological dimensions.
Traces how a concept became “truth” through historical/power analysis.
Names fundamental incompatibility between two approaches.
Analyzes how a framework silences or discredits other knowledge.
Makes your epistemological position explicit then critiques.
❌ “Smith claims X. This is wrong because…” ✅ “Smith, working from individual-cognition assumption, claims X. From relational ontology, we see instead: Y.”
❌ Neutral-sounding critique hiding your position ✅ “From my paradigm of structural dynamics…” / “Writing from relational epistemology…”
❌ “Smith assumes X. I assume Y.” ✅ “Smith’s assumption produces oscillating patterns. Relational ontology produces advancing patterns. The difference determines sustainability.”
| Bias Language | Advancing Language |
|---|---|
| “Solving X problem” | “Creating desired outcome from current reality” |
| “Eliminating deficiency” | “Bringing vision into being” |
| “Bridging gaps” | “Structural tension resolution through advancement” |
| “Fixing broken…” | “Manifesting potential…” |
Don’t prematurely resolve disagreement. Hold the tension: “Smith’s framework assumes [A]. Mine assumes [B]. Rather than reconcile them, I’ll show: when [A] holds sway → [consequence]. When [B] guides practice → [different consequence]. Choose which pattern you want to create.”
When a source is assessed as incompatible or mixed, use this mapping to select the appropriate counter-article type:
| Incompatibility Type | Recommended Article Type | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Problem-solving orientation | Type 4: Methodological Schism | Core assumption incompatibility at the methodological foundation |
| Extractive epistemology | Type 2: Critical Review or Type 3: Genealogical Critique | Systemic institutional origin; requires paradigm mapping or historical analysis |
| Autonomous agent ontology | Type 2: Critical Review | Requires full paradigm mapping across all four pillars |
| Linear progress methodology | Type 3: Genealogical Critique | Historical/power analysis of naturalized linearity |
| Unmarked Western universalism | Type 5: Epistemic Injustice or Type 6: Positioned Response | Silencing mechanism requiring injustice analysis or standpoint foregrounding |
| Multiple types present | Type 2: Critical Review (comprehensive) or Type 4: Methodological Schism (if the divergence is fundamental) | When multiple incompatibilities co-occur, systematic treatment is needed |
# Source Analysis: [Citation]
## Pollution Detection Score: [score] / Rating: [compatible|mixed|incompatible]
## Problem Identified
## Epistemological Assumption
## Ontological Assumption
## Methodological Violation
## Consequence/Harm
## Your Counter-Position (one sentence)
## Article Type for Response
## Keywords to Track
/creative-orientation): Advancing vs. oscillating patterns as evaluation framework/relational-research): Indigenous epistemology provides the paradigmatic alternative/delayed-resolution): Hold genuine disagreement rather than false synthesis/incompatible-sources-registry): Pre-loaded reference of sources with known paradigmatic incompatibilities; check before citing, update when new incompatibilities are identified/deep-research-foundations): Source compatibility assessment (Phase 3.5) and handoff protocol (Phase 3.6) integrate with this protocol during research workflows/pollution-detection-checklist): Structured scoring checklist for paradigm compatibility assessment with severity levels and contextual discrimination guidance