How to write a journal article critique.
When reading peer reviewed research, the reader is to be “active” in that process. Meaning upon the conclusion of the study of the document, the reader should not only be able to describe the content of the article, but also have some critique/reflection about the content of that study. Below I have described the parts of journal articles using Roman numerals. The next sub-heading (A) lists general questions one may pose in regards to any research article. The second sub-heading
The goal of this document is to:
- Describe the parts of a peer-reviewed journal article.
- Provide you with questions to assist in your critical examination of a journal article.
There are roughly six main sections to journal articles.
- Abstract: A brief summary of the research article.
(Not much for you to do here. Just read it and consider it a preview)
- Introduction/Background: This section clarifies the purpose of the research. It usually identifies weaknesses in past research that sought to answer questions similar to the question being posed in the current article. The authors often conclude the introduction by explaining what is “original” or “useful” about the manner in which they conducted their study.
- What is the purpose of the research? Why does the current research need to be done?
III. Literature Review/Theory: Usually this section will explain and critique the related research on the topic under consideration. This section may also give the “basics” of the theoretical perspective being utilized in the particular study. This section may conclude by explicitly stating hypotheses of the current research.
- What are the weaknesses of previous research? What gap in knowledge does this article fill? Do the authors utilize a specific theory? Is that theory described? Does the data analysis reflect the theory? Do the findings and conclusion follow the theoretical position laid out in the beginning of the paper? Do you agree with the theoretical perspectives(s) used? Is there another perspective that might better explain the phenomenon under consideration? Which theory do you think makes more sense and why?
- Methodology: This section states specifically how the data was collected, how variables were defined.
- Do the authors clearly and specifically define their measures (i.e. what is violence?) as well as their sample (clearly described respondents)? Are the definitions/sample appropriate to the research question? Is it a random sample? Conveniences sample? How are their conclusions affected by the sample selection? Are they using a cross sectional or longitudinal design? Is the method appropriate in terms of its type of data collection (quantitative or qualitative?) Is this a survey? An Experiment? Secondary data analysis? Content analysis? Observations? If appropriate, are the hypotheses clearly explained and described? How might the findings differ if alternative methods were used? Do you think there is a better: definition, sample, method? Do the conclusions drawn by match other material you have learned? Should they have? How do you explain contradictory findings?
- Results: For an undergraduate student, this section is likely to be too full of sociological/statistical jargon to be of much use if it is a quantitative analysis. Luckily, if you get lost in this section, the results are re-stated in the “discussion” section.
- Is the appropriate data analysis used in terms of statistics?
VI: Discussion/Summary/Conclusion: This section summarizes the findings of the article. It identifies strengths and weaknesses of the current study. It should give a context to the findings. This section also addresses what the “next step” is in terms of future research.
- Do the conclusions draw directly from the theory and methods? What other questions need to be answered in regards to the topic? Do the authors “stretch” the extent of the findings?
