ARTICLE 1

What’s an Article Critique and How to Write

It
What Is an Article Critique Assignment?
An article critique, also known as a response paper, is a formal evaluation of a journal article or
another type of literary or scientific content. Your main goal is to show whether or not the author
provided reasonable arguments and facts for their main points.

How to Write an Article Critique

Although the concept is fairly simple, many students still end up wondering: “What is a research
article critique?” After the initial explanation, the professor doesn’t provide many additional
instructions. So you simply assume that you’ll need to read a research article and then discuss it
from a critical point of view. That assumption is correct. However, the article critique is a much
more complex challenge than most students expect.

Before we get any further, allow us to explain what a good article critique should deliver:

 Instead of simply summarizing the main points of the article, you must critique them.
This is where most students make a mistake; they offer a mere summary of the research
article they read. Journal articles already have summaries. Your professor doesn’t want to
get that. They want your unique opinion and discussion.
 You should provide not only your impressions of the article, but evidence that backs
them up as well.
 In addition to identifying the main idea of the article, you should also clarify its
background and purpose.
 Most of all, you’ll focus on the issues this article raises, as well as the ones it avoids.

Now that we elaborated on that definition, let’s get to the main point: how to critique an article.
We’ll give you specific steps to follow, so you’ll complete this paper with success.

Step 1: Active Reading

You cannot critique a research article before you read and understand it. These journal articles
can be quite lengthy, and they often involve terms you don’t understand. That’s why simple
reading won’t be enough. You’ll have to engage in active and close reading, accompanied with
some research, so you can define and understand the terms that are new to you.

During this process, you will observe facts and details about the text. You will identify the main
point of the author, as well as the arguments they used to support that point.
This means that you’ll definitely need a marker, as well as a note-taking app. If you prefer taking
notes the old-fashion way, get a notebook and start writing as you read.

Make sure to identify these main aspects of the research as you read through the article:

 Research problem and research goal

 Hypothesis
 Research methods
 Participants in the research
 Variables
 Main findings
 Conclusions

You’ll probably need to read the article several times before you’re done with this stage. You’ll
discover new layers with each reading, and new ideas on how to critique will come to your mind.
Take notes of those ideas, too.

Speaking of notes, don’t make them brief. Maybe you think that a brief note expresses your
entire idea, but it doesn’t. Remember: this is a complex type of academic paper. You’re
analyzing an advanced text, so it’s easy to forget some of your ideas when the time to write
comes. Yes; it will take more time for you to read and take notes of your observations. However,
you’ll minimize the obstacles during the writing process if you’re willing to make this effort.

Step 2: Develop a Preliminary Outline

Now that you have thorough understanding of the article and you took plenty of notes, it’s time
to organize them into a preliminary outline. Why is this a preliminary outline? – Because you’re
still not done with the process of critique. In this outline, you’ll just plan how you’ll discuss the
main points of the article.

Step 3: Question the Author’s Main Points

This is the first thing the professor will wonder when they start reading your critique: “Did this
student understand the difference between a summary and an analysis? The article critique is not
a summary; it’s an analysis from a critical point of view. Although your main purpose is not
persuasion, you still have to develop a convincing discussion.

To achieve that, you must wonder whether or not the writer’s overall message is logical. This
goal will demand additional research. You hardly have the entire base of knowledge needed for
analyzing a researcher’s work. Thus, you’ll have to search for similar examples and compare this
article’s hypothesis with them.

You can check the logic of the message in an easy way: compare the introduction and the
conclusion. Do the elements of these two sections match?

In addition to the main message and the logic of the article, you’ll question other aspects, too:
  The research methods
 The results
 The discussion
 The stylistic elements

Yes; even the stylistic elements are important. If the author’s style is incomprehensive, you may
use that argument as an element of your critique.

When you’re questioning the main elements and points of the article, remember: you’re not
obliged to write a negative critique. The critique can be positive as well. If you agree with all
points, you’ll write a positive critique. If you don’t agree, you’ll write your remarks. If you’re
somewhere in between (that’s the usual approach of article critiques), you’ll emphasize both the
positive and negative elements of the article. In any case, you must use strong arguments to
support your points.

Step 4: Identify Contradictions

Throughout the reading, maybe you identified some contradictions in the article. Researchers,
whether intentionally or unintentionally, can be biased. Thus, they may ignore contrary evidence
or even misinterpret it, so they will turn it to their advantage.

This bias can come from prejudices. An architect with traditional education, for example, has
prejudices towards feng shui, and they will ignore some evidence that might prove the benefits of
that method. A medical expert will have prejudices towards Chinese medicine. You get the point.

Note any biases, and you’ll find the contradictions. Whenever the author mentions another
author’s work, check out that source. Yes; it will require more reading, but it will help you
identify the weak points in the article, so you’ll be able to critique it.

If the author cited untrustworthy evidence, you may add that point in your critique.

Step 5: Write It!

You’ll have plenty of notes by this stage. Don’t worry; that’s a good thing. All you need to do is
organize them in a clear outline, so you’ll know what logical progression to follow as you
discuss the article. Once you’re ready, you may start with the writing process.

 Disclose Your Main Argument in the Introduction

It’s not that hard to start writing the introduction. You should provide the title of the article
you’re critiquing, its author’s name, the journal where it was published, and the publication date.
Then, you’ll make a statement about the focus of this research article. It has a thesis statement,
right? Include it in the introduction.
Most types of academic papers contain a thesis statement in the introduction. In the article
critique, the introduction should also outline your main argument. Disclose your main points of
critique in this statement, so it will give the reader an idea of what they are about to read.

 Write the Body Paragraphs

Now, the time for a real critique starts. Each one of the body paragraphs should expand on a new
point of the article. Since this is not a 5-paragraph essay (the article critique will be much
longer!), you may use subheadings for these sections. If you’re writing a brief article critique,
you don’t have to do that.

Each paragraph of the body should start with a topic sentence, which you’ll develop further in
the paragraph. Make sure there’s a logical connection between these parts of the paper.

 Summarize Your Arguments

In the conclusion, you’ll summarize your critique and you’ll suggest its potential implications.
You may recommend further research, which will shed new light on the issue and will improve
the work of the writer you just critiqued.

Step 6: Revise!

Do not skip this step! Don’t even think about it. The article critique is a serious project, which
should showcase your capacity of critical thinking and argumentation. If you fail to revise it,
even the slightest flaw will ruin the impression for the reader.

During this process, pay attention to the citations. Did you reference all sources properly?
Proofread the bibliography, too! If you don’t know how to format it, make sure to follow the
rules of article critique APA formatting style.

Conclusion
This is not a simple project. In fact, the article critique may be one of the most complex
academic writing challenges for students. However, it’s also very important. It teaches you how
to use the work of another writer without being completely convinced in their point of view. It
teaches you how to question and check their arguments.

You’re developing the skill of critical thinking, which is extremely important for your progress
in any career. So pay attention to this assignment; the results are well worth the effort.
ARTICLE 2

How To Critique A Journal Article

Sponsored by The Center for Teaching and Learning at UIS

So your assignment is to critique a journal article. This handout will give you a few
guidelines to follow as you go.

But wait, what kind of a journal article is it: an empirical/research article, or a review of
literature? Some of the guidelines offered here will apply to critiques of all kinds of articles,
but each type of article may provoke questions that are especially pertinent to that type and
no other. Read on.

First of all, for any type of journal article your critique should include some basic
information:
1. Name(s) of the author(s)
2. Title of article
3. Title of journal, volume number, date, month and page numbers
4. Statement of the problem or issue discussed
5. The author’s purpose, approach or methods, hypothesis, and major conclusions.

The bulk of your critique, however, should consist of your qualified opinion of the article.
Read the article you are to critique once to get an overview. Then read it again, critically. At
this point you may want to make some notes to yourself on your copy (not the library’s copy,
please).

The following are some questions you may want to address in your critique no matter what
type of article you are critiquing. (Use your discretion. These points don’t have to be
discussed in this order, and some may not be pertinent to your particular article.)

1. Is the title of the article appropriate and clear?

2. Is the abstract specific, representative of the article, and in the correct form?
3. Is the purpose of the article made clear in the introduction?
4. Do you find errors of fact and interpretation? (This is a good one! You won’t believe how
often authors misinterpret or misrepresent the work of others. You can check on this by
looking up for yourself the references the author cites.)
5. Is all of the discussion relevant?
6. Has the author cited the pertinent, and only the pertinent, literature? If the author has
included inconsequential references, or references that are not pertinent, suggest deleting
them.
7. Have any ideas been overemphasized or underemphasized? Suggest specific revisions.
8. Should some sections of the manuscript be expanded, condensed or omitted?
9. Are the author’s statements clear? Challenge ambiguous statements. Suggest by examples
how clarity can be achieved, but do not merely substitute your style for the author’s.
10. What underlying assumptions does the author have?
11. Has the author been objective in his or her discussion of the topic? In addition, here are
some questions that are more specific to empirical/research articles. (Again, use your
discretion.) 1. Is the objective of the experiment or of the observations important for the
field? 2. Are the experimental methods described adequately? 3. Are the study design and
methods appropriate for the purposes of the study? 4. Have the procedures been presented in
enough detail to enable a reader to duplicate them? (Another good one! You’d be surprised at
the respectable researchers who cut corners in their writing on this point.)

5.Scan and spot-check calculations. Are the statistical methods appropriate? 6. Do you find
any content repeated or duplicated? A common fault is repetition in the text of data in tables
or figures. Suggest that tabular data be interpreted of summarized, nor merely repeated, in
the text. A word about your style: let your presentation be well reasoned and objective. If you
passionately disagree (or agree) with the author, let your passion inspire you to new heights
of thorough research and reasoned argument.
ARTICLE 3

The purpose of the Article Critique assignment is to:

 Go through the process of thinking critically about the merits and faults within the
assigned article.
 Give you practice in applying your knowledge about the research methods you have
learned about in the course.
 Assess your competencies in research method content and critical thinking.

Assignment Directions:

Please write a 3 to 4 page paper (not including title page) that addresses the following questions:

1) Literature review. Do you now understand this topic and know why more information is
needed on it? Why or why not? Consider things like:

 The depth (i.e. the details) and breadth (i.e. the overview) in the literature review.
 The adequacy of the rationale for why this study was needed.

2) Methods. Do you think the components of the methods listed below were the best suited
in answering the study’s research questions? Why or why not? Address each of the
following elements:

a. Research design. Consider:

 The authors’ explanation for their chosen research design

 Any alternative designs that would be better suited

b. Sampling methods. Consider:

 Recruitment methods,
 Response rate,
 Types of participants (any one left out?)

c. Types of data and data collection methods. Consider:

 Ability of the data to answer the research questions

 Adequacy of the data collection methods in ensuring reliable and credible
data

3) Results, discussion and implications. Do you think this study’s findings fill a gap in the
knowledge base on this topic? Why or why not. Do you think the study’s findings have
relevance for practice and policy in this area? Why or why not. Consider:
  What new information did this study produce?
 How important do you think this new information is in terms of its impact
on practice and policy in this topic area?

4) Directions for future research. Do you think the directions for future research outlined
in the article will help improve on this study and move the field forward with respect to
this topic? Why or why not. Consider:

 The specificity of the authors’ recommendations for future research

 The originality of the authors’ recommendations for future research
 Your own ideas for future research

Tips:

 Be sure to explain the reasons for your opinions.

 Whenever possible, provide examples from the article to support your conclusions.
 If you find fault in an area of the article, consider an alternative approach that would
improve the methods.

FYI:

Definitions of “critique” include:

 A critical review or commentary

 A detailed analysis and assessment of something
 A method of disciplined, systematic analysis of a written or oral discourse
 Involves identifying both strengths and faults
SAMPLE OF AN ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Here is a really good example of a scholary research critique written by

a student. The student who submitted this paper earned a 100 on his
critique. The content of the paper is right on track. A succint summary
is provided in the first paragraph. This paper would have been even
better if the student had added a sentence or two about the results of
the study. That way, after reading the first paragraph, the reader would
know the purpose, hypotheses, and findings.

Next, the student described specifics about the research design,

including the sample, instrumentation, and data analysis. Ecological
and population generalizability were discussed. The student spoke at
length on threats to internal validity. Following the information on
threats to internal validity, the student provided suggestions regarding
how these threats could have been dealt with. This shows a high level
of understanding. Not only does the student know what the weakness
of the study are, he provides ways the study could have been improved.

One thing that was not discussed in this paper is the literature
review. In previous classes we spent more time talking about statistics
than the literature review. That's why you'll see some fairly complex
explanations in this paper on the data analysis but no information on the
literature review.

Your paper will contain information on the literature review and less
specific information on statistics.

****STATEMENTS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ARE THE CRITIQUES & THEY ARE

FOLLOWED BY THE AUTHORS SUGGESTION ON IMPROVEMENT

The purpose of the study was to determine possible differences in

leadership behaviors, using the Revised Leadership for Sport
Scale (RLSS), between male and female coaches and among
different coaching levels. The researchers submitted two
hypotheses. The first hypothesis was that male and female
coaches would respond differently to the RLSS in overall
leadership behaviors. The second hypothesis was that differences
on the RLSS would occur among coaching levels: junior high,
high school, and college.

The sample was nonrandom, including 162 coaches that were

chosen on a volunteer basis. Within the sample, 118 (0.73) of the
coaches were male, while 44 (0.27) were female. With regard to
coaching level, 25 (0.15) were junior high coaches, 99 (0.61)
high school, and 38 (0.24) at the college level. While this is a
good sample size, the problem lies with the distribution of the
sample. The sample number for junior high coaches, in particular,
is rather low. A larger sample with regard to all categories would
have aided in the data analysis, particularly when looking for
possible interactions between gender and coaching level.

The instrument utilized was the Revised Leadership for Sport

Scale (RLSS) developed by Zhang, Jensen, and Mann in
1996. This scale is used to measure six
leadership behaviors: training and instruction, democratic,
autocratic, social support, positive feedback, and situational
consideration. The scale uses 60 statements, which were
preceded by �In coaching, I:� A Likert scale was then given for
each statement: 1 = never; 2 = seldom; 3 = occasionally; 4 = often;
and 5 = always. This produced an ordinal level data
set. Scales were administered in a number of environmental
settings: classrooms, gymnasiums, practice fields, and
offices. The internal consistency for each section was calculated:
0.84 for training and instruction; 0.66 for democratic; 0.70 for
autocratic; 0.52 for social support; 0.78 for positive feedback; and
0.69 for situational consideration. There was no
information, however, regarding the validity of the RLSS.

A MANOVA was used to analyze the data for differences

between male and female coaches with regard to leadership
behaviors. This is not consistent with the type of
data collected. The RLSS used a Likert scale (ordinal), yet a
MANOVA would be most applicable for normally distributed,
quantitative data. The analysis showed there were no significant
differences between male and female coaches in overall
leadership behaviors.

When the six leadership styles were examined separately, there

was a significant difference in social support between males and
females. In general, females scored much higher than did the
male coaches.

A MANOVA was also used to examine the data for differences

between the three levels of coaching (junior high, high school,
and college) with regard to leadership behavior in general. There
were significant differences between the three levels. When
breaking down the six behaviors and examining them individually,
an ANOVA was used to analyze the data. Again, because the data
for the RLSS is ordinal, an ANOVA is not the best analysis
tool. The three coaching levels scored differently on three of the
six behaviors: democratic behaviors, training and instruction, and
social support. High school coaches scored much higher than
college level coaches in democratic behavior. Junior high
coaches were significantly lower in training and instruction than
either high school or college coaches.

Junior high coaches also demonstrated a lesser degree of social

support than either the high school or college coaches.

A MANOVA was again used to analyze the data for any

interaction between gender and coaching level with regard to
overall leadership behavior. Once again, a better analysis method
could have been chosen based on the nature of the data collected.
The results indicated no significant interactions.

The ecological generaliziability for the study is fairly high. The

surveys were mailed out, and returned on a volunteer
basis. However, due to the nonrandom nature of the sample, the
results would not generalizable beyond the 162 participants in the
study. There was no effect size is listed for the study.

In order to reduce threats to internal validity, the participants

were asked to respond honestly and confidentiality was stressed
so that the �coaches might feel more at ease
in responding.� No other efforts were indicated.

The researchers mention that the scales were given in a variety

of settings. This could present a threat to the internal validity in
that participants might not have been entirely focused on
completing the scale, but instead on coordinating practice,
completing paperwork, etc. There are a number of other factors
that could effect the internal validity of the study, yet were not
addressed by the researchers. Coaching experience would greatly
effect the responses of the participants, yet this was not
considered in the study. The gender of the athletes may be a
contributing factor to the coaches� responses. It is not
unreasonable to suppose that coaches of female athletes,
particularly at the junior high and high school levels, will
demonstrate more social support than those of male athletes. The
nature of the sport could also be critical. Certain coaching styles
are more applicable for individual sports (wrestling, track, and
tennis) than for team sports (football, soccer, and
basketball). The socioeconomics and population of the school
itself could play a factor. Certain schools have better athletes and
programs in a particular sport, while others may not be able to field
a winning team. In addition, at the high school level, coaches are
occasionally asked/forced to work with a program they have no
knowledge of or desire to coach due to staffing shortages. This
could dramatically influence a coach�s response to the scale
questions. The history of the program as well as the individual
coach�s personal coaching history could greatly influence
responses. If the program has had several losing seasons in a
row, perhaps the attitude of the coach could be different than that
of a coach who has recently won a state title.

An additional set of questions regarding the personal history of

the coach in question could have helped reduce many of these
threats. With additional information, the researchers may have
been able to use a modified matching system when analyzing
the results. By increasing the number of independent variables to
include things such as coaching experience and gender of the
athletes, the researchers could have reduced some of the
potential threats to internal validity. In addition, bringing coaches
together to a common setting could have reduced location
threat. Coaches meet seasonally for clinics. Perhaps obtaining
permission to administer the survey during these meetings would
have been possible. It would have also been possible to actually
go to individual schools and meet with the coaches as a group to
administer surveys. This method would have given a good cross-
section of gender and coaching experience for a variety of sports.

While the study has merit, the methods need to be re-

evaluated. The power of the study needs to be increased by
obtaining a larger sample size. The numerous potential threats
to internal validity need to be addressed and minimized where
possible. It would also be helpful to be given data regarding the
validity of the RLSS. Without these, it is impossible to evaluate
the potential meaningfulness of this study.