Professional Documents
Culture Documents
How To Critique An Article
How To Critique An Article
Steps
This form of assignment is naturally challenging and rather confusing. It is no wonder
why students may begin to feel overwhelmed with figuring out how to write an article
critique.
To help you get your task done with ease, we have prepared a simple 3-step guide on
how to summarize and critique an article:
First of all, to critique the article, you need to read it carefully. It is recommended to read
the piece several times—until you fully understand the information presented for a
better outcome. Next, you need to address the following questions:
What makes a particular author's opinion sound valid? Does the author know about the
topic? What do other field experts say about the author? Is the article's author covered
in academic praise or not taken seriously?
What is the main message the author is trying to convey? Is this message clear? Or are
there just plenty of general phrases without any specific details?
Is the article geared toward a general audience? Or does it appeal to a specific group of
people and use only understandable language for that audience?
Are the sources used by the author from all over the place? Does it seem like some
sources are taken from areas that share a cult-like vocabulary?
Are there any logical blindspots? How much do they affect the outcome?
6. Is the conclusion clear and logical?
Did the author arrive at a clear outcome in his or her work?
Get Started
The first step will help you read and understand the piece, look at it from a critical point
of view, and reflect upon it. Now, when you have an idea about which way you should
be heading in your critique paper, it is the time to start gathering evidence. Here are the
main steps you should undertake:
Slippery Slope – when the author claims that an action will always end up being
the worst possible scenario.
Correlation vs. Causation – when the author concludes that actions 1 and 2
occurred one after the other, action two must be the effect of action 1. The
problem with such a statement is that the author concludes the correlation
between the two actions without looking deeper to see the real causes and
effects.
Wishful thinking – when the author believes something that is not backed up by
any proof. This issue typically occurs when someone thinks the information is
true because it makes them feel good.
3. Pay Attention to the Way the Author Interprets Others’ Texts. Does He or She
Look at Others’ Viewpoints through Inappropriate Political Lenses?
It takes much time and experience in research practice to recognize the fingerprints of
all the political slants out there. To grasp the concept, let's look at the subject of animal
studies. To begin with, it's worth noting that some people become involved in certain
industries due to their emotional involvement in their related topics. For example, people
who write about animals are likely those who genuinely love them. This can put their
work at risk of being biased toward portraying animals in a way that gives their topic
more importance than it deserves. This is a clear example of what you should be
looking for.
When reading and re-reading the article, find and highlight cases in which the author
overstates the importance of some things due to his or her own beliefs. Then, to polish
your mental research instruments, go back to point 1 of this list to review the list of
logical fallacies you can look out for.
4. Check Cited Sources
Another big step to writing a perfect critique paper is identifying whether the author cited
untrustworthy sources of information. Doing this is not easy and requires a certain
experience.
For example, let's look at Breitbart news. How would you define whether it is an
untrustworthy source or not? To rate trustworthiness, one should know about its long
history of distorting facts to suit a far-right agenda. Learning this requires paying a lot of
attention to local and international news.
Just to give you a clear example of what you should be looking for: some words have
cultural meanings attached to them, which can create a confrontation in the article.
Such terms can place people, objects, or ideas into the 'them' side in the 'us vs. them'
scenario.
For example,if someone conservative refers to an opponent using the word “leftist”, this
can be considered a form of attacking the messenger and not the message. A similar
concept applies to a case when someone progressive refers to an opponent using the
word “bigot”.
Using such language in an article is a clear sign of logical fallacies. Authors use it to
discredit their opponents on the merit of who they are rather than what they say. This is
poor word choice because the debate does not get resolved.
This may not always be mandatory, but if you write an article critique for a scientific
piece, you are expected to question and evaluate how the author did their research.
Does the research (or experiment) offer any real impact and/or value in its field of
science?
Just like any other written assignment, a critique paper should be formatted and
structured properly. A standard article critique consists of four parts: an introduction,
summary, analysis, and conclusion. Below is a clear checklist to help you grasp the idea
of how a good paper should be formatted:
Introduction
Summary
Critique
Conclusion
If you claim the research is relevant, explain why further study in this field can be
useful.
Title of the journal where it is published, along with the date and month of
publication, volume number, and pages where the article can be found.
Is the article's abstract presented in the correct form, relevant to the content of
the article, and specific?
Did you find any ideas that were overemphasized or underemphasized in the
article?
Has the author of the article been objective in his or her statements?
While reading:
Define how qualified the author is on the chosen topic. What are the author's
credentials?
Reflect on the research methods used. Are the methods the author chose
appropriate and helpful for answering the stated research question(s)?
Evaluate the results. Are there any signs of the generalizability of the outcomes?
Look for any bias in the article. Is there any conflict of interest or proof of bias?
Define the overall quality of the research work. Does the article seem relevant or
outdated?
Pay attention to the sources used. Did the sources back up their research with
theory and/or previous literature related to the topic?
Struggling to find the strong and weak points that can shape your critique? Here is a
simple checklist to help you understand what to critique in a research article (separated
by sections):
Introduction
1. Problem
Does the problem statement correspond with the focus of the study?
Does the author have decent enough qualifications to perform this particular
study?
Did the author analyze, critique, compare, and contrast the references and
findings?
Does the review competently inform the readers about the topic and problem?
3. Hypothesis
Are all hypotheses and research questions clear, logical, and accurate?
Method
1. Participants
Does the author describe the size and main characteristics of participant groups?
Does the author specify its size and characteristics if a sample is selected?
Are there any limitations or biases in the manner the author selected
participants?
2. Instruments
Does the author describe each instrument regarding reliability, purpose, validity,
and content?
If any instruments were developed specifically for this study, does the author
describe the procedures involved in their development and validation?
Are the specified design and procedures appropriate to investigate the stated
problem or question?
Do procedures logically relate to each other?
Results
Did the author explicitly use the inductive logic used to produce results in their
qualitative study?
Did the author provide additional tables and figures? Are those easy to
understand, relevant, and well-organized?
Is the information from the presented tables and figures also provided in the text?
Does the author discuss every finding concerning the original subject or
hypothesis to which it relates?
Does the author discuss the possible effects of uncontrolled variables in the
findings?
Does the author discuss the theoretical and practical implications of their
findings?
Does the author shape his or her suggestions based on the study's practical
significance?
Abstract or Summary
Did the author restate the problem?
Did the author describe the type and number of instruments and subjects?
Did the author restate all of their key conclusions and findings?
Overall Impression
The structure of the article – Is the work organized properly? Are all titles,
sections, subsections, and paragraphs organized logically?
The author's style and thinking – Is the author's style and thinking easy to
understand, clear, and logical?
As you go through all these steps, you can transition to writing. When writing your
critique paper, you should critically evaluate the research article you have read and use
the evidence collected from the piece. To help you structure your research article
critique properly, here is a sample outline of a critique of research for the article The
Effects of Early Education on Children's Competence in Elementary School:
1. Bibliographic Information
Dependent Variables: mastery skills, social skills, and use of time; Independent
Variables: Brookline Early Education Program; Controlled Variables: mother’s
level of education.
Sampling: The study engaged 169 students into the BEEP program. Students
were selected randomly from the same second-grade classrooms and matched
by gender. Also, the group was divided into children who continued their BEEP
program (104) and those who moved elsewhere but were still tracked (65).
Instrumentation: For the research, the authors used a specially developed tool –
the Executive Skill Profile – to help detect and track students’ mastery, social,
and time use skills.
Authors’ findings: The study showed that children who were engaged in the
BEEP program performed better on tests and showed better mastery and social
skills. There were no significant changes in students’ time use skills. The early
education program made a difference at all three levels of treatment for students
whose mothers have college educations. However, the same program made a
difference only at the most intense level for students whose mothers don’t have
college educations.
3. Critique
Possible Threats to the Internal Validity
History: Was not controlled as the comparison children may have not spent
their entire lives in the same area as the treatment students.
Instrumentation: The tool used may have been a subject to bias from the
observers' perspective.
Experimental mortality: Students who left the area were still tracked as a part
of the treatment group, though they should have been evaluated separately.
Unique features of the program: The program was available both for
community residents and non-residents.
4. Conclusion
Does the study have any significance and/or practical value for its respective field
of science?
You can always ask our professional essay writers for help. Leave us a notice write my
argumentative essay and we'll do it for you asap!