An oral presentation usually includes:

1.     the written elaboration (see also hints for the formal design of term papers),
2.     an oral presentation in the seminar,
3.     the discussion of the presentation.

I.e., the sessions are always prepared and led by the speakers in consultation with the lecturers.

The essential task of a presentation is to present the material, e.g. the theses of an author or the controversies about a topic or the knowledge about a subject as accurately as possible on the basis of the relevant studies and to reflect critically. In doing so, it is necessary to separate the presentation of the subject matter from one's own assessment and criticism.

What has been presented should be presented in one's own words, i.e. the speaker should not stick closely to the text in terms of language and should not use extensive quotations. Quotations must always be marked as such in presentations as well.

For the oral presentation, appropriate use of media and, if necessary, a thesis paper should be prepared.

A) Rough outline for presentations in which a study or a work is discussed

1. Interest in knowledge, central question: What does the author want to find out, why does he deal with the topic, in which context does he see the topic, against the background of which considerations does he treat the problem?
2. What are the central theses, essential assertions that the author wants to prove?
3. Methods: What are the empirical foundations of the study?
4. Presentation of the main statements and results. What does the author say? Here it is important to present the author's statements in detail, so that each seminar participant can get an overview of the main statements, results and their context. This is the main part of a paper.
5. Argumentative structure of the refereed paper. How does the author proceed in the attempt to prove his theses? Which argumentation patterns are used?
6. Critical assessment, own evaluation. It is possible in different ways

• Immanent criticism, i.e. is the evidence correct in itself, are the methods and the data cited appropriate?
• Are there opposing views, opinions of other authors, which refute the opinion of the author?
• Is the subject of the paper correctly determined or is only a section of reality perceived?
• Is any shortening of reality due to a particular interest and if so, to which one?
• Own estimations, experiences, opinions of the referee.
• Summary

B) Rough outline for presentations in which a question is dealt with

1. Interest in knowledge, central question: Which problem is treated, why is it a relevant topic in social science, what is the political relevance of the topic, what is the goal (interest in knowledge) of the presentation?
2. What are the central theses, essential assertions, on the issue being addressed? Briefly outline the positions on the topic and justify which positions you will deal with in more detail below.
3. Present the main propositions and findings. What does the authors state? Here it is important to present the positions in more detail so that the seminar participants can get an overview of the main statements, results and their context. This is the main part of a paper.
4. Argumentative structure: How do the authors proceed in trying to prove their theses? Which argumentation patterns are invoked? On what basis do you argue (theoretically / empirically)?
5. Summary and critical assessment, own evaluation of the positions. It is possible in different ways (see above). Given the current state of research, is it possible to formulate political consequences already? What further research would be necessary to decide in a controversy which position is the right one?