Article Critiques

The purpose of the article critique is to practice and improve your written critical review of empirical research. Truly, there is no more important component of academic literacy for you to develop, quickly and deeply, than the ability to “critique” empirical research (i.e., research that gathers data (hence, empirical) and draws inferences from those data). Article critiques should be 5- to 7-pages, double-spaced.

Instructor’s Notes on Yoshida Article Critique

SAMPLE ARTICLE CRITIQUE (from 2015 Prosem with permission. *Note: this sample is missing Part D, which you need to have )

Freeman, M. deMarrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36, 25-32. doi:10.3102/0013189X06298009

American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33-40.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837-851. doi:10.1177/1077800410383121

The questions that each article critique should address are:

A. Overall framework (1 – 2 pages)

  1. Critique the author’s conceptual framework.
  2. Comment on the need for this study and its importance.
  3. How effectively does the author tie the study to relevant theory and prior research?
  4. Evaluate the clarity and appropriateness of the research questions or hypotheses.

B. Research Design and Analysis (1 – 2 pages)

  1. Critique the appropriateness and adequacy of the study’s design in relation to the research questions or hypotheses.
  2. Critique the adequacy of the study’s sampling methods (e.g., choice of participants) and their implications for generalizability.
  3. Critique the adequacy of the study’s procedures and materials (e.g., interventions, interview protocols, data collection procedures).
  4. Critique the appropriateness and quality (e.g., reliability, validity) of the measures used.
  5. Critique the adequacy of the study’s data analyses. For example: Have important statistical assumptions been met? Are the analyses appropriate for the study’s design? Are the analyses appropriate for the data collected?

C. Interpretation and Implications of Results (1 – 2 pages)

  1. Critique the author’s discussion of the methodological and/or conceptual limitations of the results.
  2. How consistent and comprehensive are the author’s conclusions with the reported results?
  3. How well did the author relate the results to the study’s theoretical base?
  4. In your view, what is the significance of the study, and what are its primary implications for theory, future research, and practice?

D. Consistency across sections A, B, and C  (less than a page)
Do the sections seem to cohere and build on each other? If so, how so and how well do they do this (remember to critically evaluate)? If not, why not and what would you suggest to fix the problem(s)?

How are the article critiques scored?

Each of your responses should include 3 elements: (1) a brief summary of what the authors did/reported, (2) your critique / evaluation of what the authors did/reported, and (3) support for your evaluation (e.g., reasons, rationale, evidence, etc.)

  1. Strong responses (i.e., scores ~ 7-8) do all three with substance and, at times, insight.
  2. Above average responses (i.e., scores ~ 5-6) do two of three explicitly – i.e., clear writing, clear evaluation and/or clear rationale/evidence.
  3. Average responses (i.e., scores ~ 4) do two of three, but not very explicitly.
  4. Below average responses (i.e., scores ~ 2-3) do one of the 3, often vaguely.
  5. Low score responses (i.e., 0-1) fail to address the question.

Directions for Revising Article Critiques
Revising the individual article critique is optional. When revising, students should make clear how they addressed the raters’ feedback. Students should highlight all revised sections and include a brief note at the beginning of each revised section indicating which feedback point they are addressing and how they addressed it. Your instructor will focus on the highlighted sections and will not be required to read the entire response again (These directions are drawn from EPET Comps directions).