Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Critique
The Critique
What is a critique? It is a professional analysis of the weaknesses and strengths of a particular piece of research. A
critique may be done for a variety of purposes: acting as an expert reviewer to assess whether this research paper
should be published; providing helpful comments on a work before it is submitted for publication (e.g., panel
discussant or reading a friends paper); or, as in the case here, as a learning experience for emerging scholars to
practice their developing research skills.
A critique emphasizes the same elements as a research design (and then some) and evaluates how well the author
has carried out these elements. The and then some part is that, for completed research, a critique also covers the
data analysis and whether that has been properly carried out and interpreted. A critique is not necessarily 100
percent, or even any percent, critical. It may be predominantly positive. Below are some items to consider in
preparing a critique. Not all will be applicable for every research paper nor are you required to comment on all of
them for each paper. Instead focus on items you identified as the most serious potential problems or most
praiseworthy. Each critique should be about 2-3 pages single spaced or 4-5 pages double spaced in length.
Literature Review
Has the author examined the relevant literature on the topic and persuasively explained why the research question
posed has not yet been satisfactorily answered? An author does not need to include all literature, no matter how
marginally relevant, but should have discussed what the field holds to be the latest and best investigations of the
topic. (NOTE: Journal reviewers and conference discussants are usually (not always successfully, but usually)
selected because they are experts in a field.) Graduate students reading the paper drafts of colleagues may not be in
that position. If so, focus on other elements of the critique.
Research Approach
How does the author explain and justify the contribution s/he will make with the research? What research approach
/ data generation method will be used -- cross-sectional survey, time series, participant observation, etc.? Are any
sampling issues involved / discussed? What is the population about which generalizations are drawn and do the
cases examined justify such a generalization?) If an experimental method is used, what is the generalizability /
external validity of the results? Is the unit of analysis clear?
How is each variable conceptualized and operationalized? Did the author develop the conceptual / operational
definition herself, borrow it from a specific piece of prior research, or simply refer to it as a variable commonly
used in the discipline (e.g., party identification)? Is the operational definition a valid one -- isomorphic with the
conceptual definition? You do not need to comment on every variable, but should comment on those that are new or
for which the author uses a different operationalization than is common with past literature.
Are the hypothesis to be tested clear? Is it global (X is related to Y) or conditional (under condition C, X is related
to Y)? What is the authors rationale for expecting the independent variables to be related to the dependent
variable? Is this logic persuasive to you? Is it well thought-out and fully developed or overly simplistic? Are the
operationalizations of the variables consistent with this logic? For example, if the author talks about a college /
non-college distinction as being related to political participation, is the variable operationalized as this dichotomy or
as a continuous variable reflecting years of education?
Is the direction of causality discussed and / or clear? Is it likely that causality might flow in ways not discussed by
the author, from the dependent variable to the independent variable or between independent variables?
Analytic Approach
What statistical technique does the author use? Based on the questions being asked and the data available, is this
an appropriate technique? What does the author have to say about meeting the assumptions of the technique?
Expectations
Is there a clear statement of expectations, either a separate statement or embedded in the hypotheses?
Findings.
What did the author find as the result of her research? Which expectations were borne out and which ones not?
Are you persuaded that the inferences drawn from the research about the hypotheses are valid? Are any post hoc
explanations given for some of the patterns discovered in the data?
Writing Style
Is the authors argument understandable? Are the arguments presented logically and coherently? Is the paper well
organized so you can easily follow what the author is doing and why? Is the narrative wordy and redundant? Are
there irrelevant sections that can be deleted? Are there errors in spelling or grammar? If so identify them (e.g. p.
12 george washington should be capitalized).
a) It is not legitimate to criticize the research paper for something beyond its purpose. Dont complain that an
author did not include something unless that something is a necessary part of a research article. For example, if a
study examines presidential use of news conferences from Kennedy to Reagan, dont complain that it did not
include later presidents unless there is a clear reason why doing so undermines the research. Focus on what the
author sought to accomplish, not what you wished they had done.
b) Do not require the unobtainable. We all would like perfect data and ideal measures for variables, but neither
usually exists in reality. It is legitimate to criticize data or measures if better ones are readily available. Otherwise
dont complain if the author has done the best she can with imperfect data.
c) Do not make an abundance of broad and general statements of the type: This research was well done with an
interesting question and good data. This means nothing. You must be concrete, describing specific strengths and
weaknesses. Clearly state your reasons for concluding that the author has either done a good or less-than-good job
on one or more parts of the elements of research.
d) Friends dont let friends turn in sloppy research. Making nothing but positive comments on a fellow students
paper is of no value whatsoever. We are here to learn, both as a graduate student and throughout your scholarly
life. Definitely praise items where the author was particularly creative, industrious, or ingenious. But also
comment (politely, but firmly) on weaknesses so the author can address them before turning a paper in for a grade
or as a journal submission.