Guidelines and strategies for critiquing scientific material

Choose appropriate articles from academic journals (these have been chosen for you but for your dissertation)

· Academic journals vs popular periodicals

Journals tend to publish original ideas and research for a specific and limited audience; popular periodicals offer more "second hand" material aimed at a general audience

· You may want to make a photocopy or a printout of the material so you can make notes on your copy, ignore the underlined material if you have borrowed or photocopied the article from somebody else !

· Survey the article intelligently

· Survey the material's main idea and key subtopics by reading carefully the

abstract
subheadings
first and last paragraphs

· Try to determine the overall picture of the material in terms of

what is said (topics)
how it is presented (structure)

· Many academic materials include at least these five major sections:

o Introduction

-Should ‘set the scene’
-May offer background information

o Review of Literature:
-Should be clearly identifiable

-Should offer evidence of a ‘balanced’ view of pertinent literature
-May not be available in some qualitative research

o Methods and Procedures

-Should detail methodology, tool(s) used, data collected, data analysis, results
-Indication of pilot studies/
-May contain within this section information on consent, ethical approval

o Results
-Might contain tables, diagrams to assist in clarity of data /results

o Conclusions

- Value of hindsight
Does author indicate any weaknesses in the research e.g. sample size, questionnaire returns, resource constraints, etc?

- Was anything amended/changed during the process that might have had an impact?

· Jot down your first impression of the material, especially how useful you think it might be to you and to others

· Read the article while making notes

· Summarise passages in your own words in the margins or on another sheet of paper and note especially key facts and details, but not all- we don’t want to be reproducing the whole article !!

· If there is an omission in the article, do not automatically assume that the author(s) have not addressed the issue in their actual research activity e.g. no mention of an ethics committee’s approval does not mean that they did not apply and receive one. It may mean that it has been omitted in the published article.

· The aesthetics of an article are an important consideration for most readers. How an article ‘looks and feels’ in terms of print, spacing, tables, diagrams, language are all pertinent issues to be considered when presenting your interpretation of the work’s ‘value’.

· Identify points that you react to with
agreement or disagreement
questions or confusion or total bewilderment !

· Organise and develop your own ideas and notes

· Compose a one-sentence statement of the purpose of the entire article or book

· Write one-sentence statements of the main point and each supporting idea

· Together, these statements should answer the questions who, what, where, how, why and when

· Compose a one-sentence statement of your evaluation of the article

· Write one-sentence statements that support your evaluation by pointing out specific strengths and weaknesses. Together, these statements should answer the questions how do I value this article and why do I feel that way.

· Write a rough draft and show it to your supervisor (in the case of your dissertations)

· Analyse the audience for your summary/critique, who will be your peers and me !

· The purpose for your summary/critique is to enable you to broaden your knowledge in a specific area and continually question and evaluate and also impart knowledge upon others (in this case !)

· Write the critique portion

Begin with the one-sentence statement of your evaluation. Show and explain how you reached that evaluation using the statements that support your evaluation.

· Introductions of summary/critiques sometimes state
why the piece was chosen
an overview of the article

· Check for these key elements in your critique:

o A clear statement of your evaluation of the material

o Clear presentation of your reasons or criteria for your evaluation

o Evidence from the article and explanation that support your views

o Work to remove these common problems:

o Key ideas omitted, blended, or misrepresented

o Too much detail from the original

The completed critique should provide a balanced, professional analysis of the article. It should ensure that where doubt exists that any interpretation by the student is explained. You may wish to use your own experiences to extend the knowledge presented within the work but not to discredit the work; i.e. variations in your experience from those published can be added into your work. The use of that experience to indicate right / wrong is less desirable.

Conclusions of longer summary/critiques sometimes include a restatement of the material's purpose and reviewer's evaluation connections to other related material.