Journal Article Critique
Critique
The critique should be a balanced discussion and evaluation of the strengths, weakness and notable features of the text.
also include other sources to support your evaluation
point to be Focus on
1) Most important to least important conclusions you make about the text.
2) If your critique is more positive than negative, then present the negative points first and the positive last.
3) If your critique is more negative than positive, then present the positive points first and the negative last.
4)If there are both strengths and weakness for each criterion you use, you need to decide overall what your judgment is
5) include recommendations for how the text can be improved in terms of ideas,
research approach theories or frameworks used can also be included in the critique section.
Questions that should answer in critiqe
Some General Criteria for Evaluating Texts:
1)Significance and contribution to the field:
▪ What is the author’s aim?
▪ To what extent has this aim been achieved?
▪ What does this text add to the body of knowledge? (This could be in terms of theory, data and/or practical application)
▪ What relationship does it bear to other works in the field?
▪ What is missing/not stated?
▪ Is this a problem?
2)Methodology or approach
▪ What approach was used for the research? (eg; quantitative or qualitative, analysis/review of theory or current practice, comparative, case study, personal reflection etc…)
▪ How objective/biased is the approach?
▪ Are the results valid and reliable?
▪ What analytical framework is used to discuss the results?
3)Argument and use of evidence:
▪ Is there a clear problem, statement or hypothesis?
▪ What claims are made?
▪ Is the argument consistent?
▪ What kinds of evidence does the text rely on?
▪ How valid and reliable is the evidence?
▪ How effective is the evidence in supporting the argument?
▪ What conclusions are drawn?
▪ Are these conclusions justified?
4)Writing style and text structure:
▪ Does the writing style suit the intended audience? (eg; expert/non-expert, academic/non-academic)
▪ What is the organising principle of the text? Could it be better organised?
Main questions including: (Summary)
• Present a summary of the key points along with a limited number of examples.
• You can also briefly explain the author’s purpose/intentions throughout the text and you may briefly describe how the text is organized.
• The summary should only make up about a third of the critical review.
What is (are) the research problem(s)?
• What is (are) the research question(s) (or hypothesis)?
• Is the research important? Why?
• In your own words what methods and procedures were used? Evaluate the methods and procedures.
• Describe the sample used in this study.
• Describe the reliability and validity of all the instruments used.
• What type of research is this? Explain.
• How was the data analyzed?
• What is (are) the major finding(s)? are these findings important?
• What do you suggest to improve this research?
Introduction
• Include a few opening sentences that announce the author(s) and the title, and briefly explain the topic of the text.
• Present the aim of the text and summarise the main finding or key argument.
• Conclude the introduction with a brief statement of your evaluation of the text. This can be a positive or negative evaluation or, as is usually the case, a mixed response.
Problem:
-Is there a statement of the problem?
• Is the problem “researchable”? That is, can it be investigated through the collection and analysis of data?
• Is background information on the problem presented?
• Is the educational significance of the problem discussed?
• Does the problem statement indicate the variables of interest and the specific relationship between those variables which are investigated? When necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?
2)Review of Related Literature:
. Is the review comprehensive?
. Are all cited references relevant to the problem under investigation?
. Are most of the sources primary, i.e., are there only a few or no secondary sources?
. Have the references been critically analyzed and the results of various studies compared and contrasted, i.e., is the review more than a series of abstracts or annotations?
. Does the review conclude with a brief summary of the literature and its implications for the problem investigated?
. Do the implications discussed form an empirical or theoretical rationale for the hypotheses which follow?
3)Hypotheses:
. Are specific questions to be answered listed or specific hypotheses to be tested stated?
. Does each hypothesis state an expected relationship or difference?
. If necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?
. Is each hypothesis testable?
Method
1) Subjects:
. Are the size and major characteristics of the population studied described?
. If a sample was selected, is the method of selecting the sample clearly described?
. Is the method of sample selection described one that is likely to result in a representative, unbiased sample?
. Did the researcher avoid the use of volunteers?
. Are the size and major characteristics of the sample described?
. Does the sample size meet the suggested guideline for minimum sample size appropriate for the method of research represented?
2)Instruments and Design :
• Is instrument validity discussed and coefficients given if appropriate?
• Is reliability discussed in terms of type and size of reliability coefficients?
• Is the design appropriate for answering the questions or testing the hypotheses of the study?
• If a pilot study was conducted, are its execution and results described as well as its impact on the subsequent study?
Results
• Are the tests of significance described appropriate, given the hypotheses and design of the study?
• Was every hypothesis tested?
• Are the tests of significance interpreted using the appropriate degrees of freedom?
• Are the results clearly presented?
• Are the tables and figures (if any) well organized and easy to understand?
• Are the data in each table and figure described in the text?
Discussion (Conclusions and Recommendation)
-Is each result discussed in terms of the original hypothesis to which it relates?
• Is each result discussed in terms of its agreement or disagreement with previous results obtained by other researchers in other studies?
• Are theoretical and practical implications of the findings discussed?
• Are recommendations for future action made?
• Are recommendations for future research made?
SAMPLE TO FOLLOW
• [1] A Critical Review of Goodwin et al, 2000, ‘Decision making in Singapore and Australia: the influence of culture on accountants’ ethical decisions’, Accounting Research Journal, vol.13, no. 2, pp 22-36.
• [2] Using Hofstede’s (1980, 1983 and 1991) and Hofstede and Bond’s (1988) five cultural dimensions, Goodwin et al (2000) conducted
• [3] a study on the influence of culture on ethical decision making between two groups of accountants from Australia and Singapore.
• [4] This research aimed to provide further evidence on the effect of cultural differences since results from previous research have been equivocal.
• [5] The study reveals that accountants from the two countries responded differently to ethical dilemmas in particular when the responses were measured using two of the five cultural dimensions. The result agreed with the prediction since considerable differences existed between these two dimensions in Australians and Singaporeans (Hofstede 1980, 1991).
• [6] However the results of the other dimensions provided less clear relationships as the two cultural groups differed only slightly on the dimensions.
• [7] To the extent that this research is exploratory, results of this study provide insights into the importance of recognising cultural differences for firms and companies that operate in international settings. However several limitations must be considered in interpreting the study findings.
• [8] In summary, it has to be admitted that the current study is [9] still far from being conclusive.
• [10] Further studies must be undertaken, better measures must be developed, and larger samples must be used to improve our understanding concerning the exact relationship between culture and decision making.
• [11] Despite some deficiencies in methodology,
• [12] to the extent that this research is exploratory i.e. trying to investigate an emerging issue, the study has provided some insights to account for culture in developing ethical standards across national borders.
KEY
• [1] Title and bibliographic details of the text
• [2] Introduction
• [3] Reporting verbs
• [4] Presents the aim/purpose of the article and Key findings
• [5] Sentence themes focus on the text
• [6] Transition signals provide structure and coherence
• [7] Reviewer ’s judgement
• [8] Conclusion summarises reviewer’s judgement
• [9] Modality used to express certainty and limit overgeneralising
• [10] Offers recommendations
• [11] Concessive clauses assist in expressing a mixed response
• [12] Qualifies reviewer’s judgement
