CRITICAL JOURNAL REPORT

Based on Semester Lesson Plan Of MK. PENGANTAR ILMU BAHASA

Faculty of Language and Art of UNIVERSITAS NEGERI MEDAN (UNIMED)

First Semester (2008) Critical Journal Report is used for giving information or

describing about a journal and expresses an evaluative judgment on the quality,

meaning, and significance of the journal.

A. Report System

1st Chapter In this content it tells about in generally of

Preface journal identity that is going to be criticed that

involve of, as follows :

- Title

- Author

- Publisher

- Publish Year

- ISBN or ISSN

- Pages

- Volume
nd
2 Chapter In this content it tells about of journal summary

Summary Of The Journal in each chapter or pages.

3rd Chapter In this content tell about how it is content make

The Strength Of The Journal an impact for the reader, the connection of title

and the content as a strength of that journal.

4th Chapter In this content tell about the connection of title

1
 The Weakness Of The with the content as a weakness of that journal

Journal
5th Chapter In this content tell about argument or comment

Analysis Result as a theory analysis result based on strength and

weakness of that journal.

th
6 Chapter Giving conclusion and fixed suggestion of that

Conclusion and Suggestion critical journal

B. Working Step

The way that have to do in doing Critical Journal Report are :

a) The Lecturer point the kind of Journal is going to review by collegian as

individual or group.

b) The lecturer give a guidline of how to do a journal analysis as a critical

journal report assignment.

c) The collegian doing the assignment as individually or group and the

lecturer giving the guidance to collegian as long as doing the critical

journal report assignment.

d) The collegian submit the critical journal report as time is approved

e) The lecturer doing marking of Critical journal report using rubric as a

guidance.

2
 C. Example Of Critical Journal

CHAPTER I

PREFACE

Title : “Administrators and Accountability: The Plurality of Value

Systems in the Public Domain”.

Author : Udo Pesch

Publisher : Public Integrity, Fall.

Publish Year : 2008

ISBN or ISSN : -

Pages : 335 - 343

Volume : 10

CHAPTER II

SUMMARY

The first of these images presents administrators as functionaries, and in

this image administrators are given the assignment to fulfil the public interest in a

neutral way. In the other image, administrators are seen as citizens, and therefore

they are allowed to directly contribute to the realisation of the public interest. In

short, the public interest confronts an administrator with two different kinds of

responsibilities. This description of the administrator's functioning in terms of a

3
confrontation of images is not a recent one. In the United States, a discussion

about the ethical role of the administrator has been going on since the

Friedrich/Finer debate in the 1940s (cf. Yang and Holzer 2005 ). The two

administrative positions proposed here can be related with the approaches of

'compliance' and 'integrity', which are for instance used by the OECD (1996).

Maesschalck notes that many authors emphasise that these two approaches

"should be seen as the opposite ends of a continuum" (Maesschalck 2005, 22).

This article, however, will claim that there are occasions in which the two images

of the administrator are incommensurable, and that they cannot be plotted on a

straight line. The two images are not always mutually reinforcing (cf. Cooper

1998, 163), but often imply contradictive courses of action.

Another difficulty is that having a certain repertoire of principles and

values does not determine the actual decisions of administrators. It only guides

them through their deliberations. The actual outcome of these deliberations will

always be unpredictable, as it is not just a moral character that makes a moral

decision. More frequently it is the other way around: the moral decision makes the

moral character (Minogue 1963, 78). Administrators have a considerable chance

to come across moral dilemmas that contribute to the formation of their moral

character. However, as administrators were never made aware of this possibility –

their functioning is predominantly formulated along the lines of passive

responsibility and a hierarchical chain of command –, the administrators will not

consider the entanglement in such a dilemma as a dilemma. Consequently, they

might reason the moral burden away as something not belonging to their

functional tasks. The existence of a proper accountability forum will never be

4
able to determine the decisions of individual administrators. However, if such a

forum is internalized into their 23 deliberative repertoires, it increases the chance

that administrators will make their decisions along the lines of this accountability

forum. In administrative practice, some arrangements can be found that come

close to this description of the prerequisites of an accountability forum. Of these

arrangements, the function of an ombudsman, as it exists in many countries and in

some American states (Caiden 1983; Hill 2002; Allmendinger et al. 2003),

probably converges most with these prerequisites. Such an ombudsman

investigates and addresses complaints reported by individual citizens about certain

administrative acts. In that way, the public can address administrative behaviour

in a direct way, and express which actions are in line with the 'public interest'. In

the report of the ombudsman, the legitimacy of the administrative act at stake is

assessed, and thus administrators can calibrate their own acts with this assessment.

Of course, the function of the ombudsman has its shortcomings, as it involves

human judgment, susceptible to subjectivism, manipulation, and error – that is

why it is quintessential for the ombudsman's to account for his or her findings in

public. Still, one has to be aware that there is neither a single best design of a

'proper' accountability forum, nor a perfect one. Different articulations are

possible, each of them having their specific strengths and weaknesses.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to acknowledge the reality of moral dilemmas, which

have to be addressed in administrative practice, one way or the other. If not, the

moral experience of administrators will have no external point of reference;

administrators will be left to themselves or to a close circle of colleagues. The

5
result will be the avoidance of responsibility and clutching at routines, which is

one thing we have to avoid at all costs.

CHAPTER III

THE STRENGTH

Outside of individual morals and right guidelines, is the existence of social

context. Social surrounding can help an individual determine a good decision

from a bad one, but at the same time complicates the idea of accountability. To

support his claim the author uses the example of viewing the public administrator

as a citizen. The author sums the research up well by saying that there are times

when a public administrator has to violate their own moral codes. A public

administrator can hide behind laws and organizational procedures, but there is no

reason to disregard accountability and there are ways that these individuals can act

morally.

CHAPTER IV

THE WEAKNESS

He article seeks to address how accountability and value systems interact

in the decisions made by public administrators. The research problem being

addressed is whether public administrators are free from accountability for their

decisions and what are the different influences that can affect their decisions.

From the abstract of the article, it is clear that this is no simple issue. What can

6
make accountability more complicated are the motivations of the administrator

and also the individual’s failure to see future consequences of their decisions.

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS RESULT

Procedural arrangements that safeguard accountable conduct of civil servants

generally assume a univocal set of moral values. Yet public administration is

characterized by a plurality of sets of values. The problems of the "many hands"

and the "dirty-hands" make clear that activities of officials involve contrasting

moral values. The absence of moral consistency is attributed to the fact that

officials have to pursue the public interest, an intrinsically ambiguous concept.

Accountability arrangements that acknowledge ethical plurality have to provide

mechanisms for evaluating administrative judgments beyond conduct codes of

legitimate and illegitimate activities.

The article isn’t very direct in the beginning and it’s not until the second

page that you realize where the article is headed. In order to have more people

read the whole article it needs a new short introduction. Once the reader gets to

the really good examples that are related to the everyday life of a public

administrator, a good portion of the article has already past. Overall it is a good

and well‐written article with an important message for public administrators and

organizations.

7
 Chapter VI

Conclusion and Suggestion

A. Conclusion

This is good concept for how the problem of multiple value systems and

accountability should be handled. However, there doesn’t appear to be any

concrete guidelines for carrying this out. In other words this sounds great on

paper but it doesn’t translate as easily to everyday life. There isn’t research in

the traditional sense for this article, but the author does include many examples

of work written by those who have written on this subject in the past. Pesch

cites people like Locke, Montesquieu, and Machiavelli. These are good,

wellknown examples and authors and I think it adds a great deal credibility to

the piece as a whole. Overall this article isn’t very straight forward in the

beginning and it’s not until the second page that you realize where the article is

headed. In order to have more people be engaged and read the whole article it

needs a new, more concise introduction. Once the reader gets to the really good

examples that are relevant to the everyday life of a public administrator, a good

portion of the article has already past. Overall it is a good, well written article

with an important message for public administrators and organizations. The

piece, when taken as a whole, is relevant and very convincing in theory but starts

slow and never lays out a concrete way of approaching this complex pro.

B. Suggestion

We hope in the future that there are some people that can make a good

journal to educated the people in their environment.