9.

General Critique

In this section you should state your opinions of how well (or poorly) the authors did their
research and presented the research results in the article. Your critique can contain both
positive and negative comments. Justify and explain in detail each of your critique points in
a separate paragraph of at least 4-5 sentences.

The following are suggestions only:

Does it build upon the appropriate foundation (i.e., upon appropriate prior research)?
There is the strong relationship between literature review and data analysis
results.
Did the authors choose the correct approach, and then execute it properly?
Weakness in sampling frame base that the authors used data to obtain the number of MSEs
operating in the district from District MSEs Promotion Agency. The problem here is that
usually this government agency has data about those MSEs that are registered and supported
by the agency. Those MSEs out of the agency’s reach might not be included in the sample
frame. The authors should check this from other organization’s data like the city’s
municipality or other census data
The authors use appropriate survival ratio model and cox regression model.
Use appropriate stage of sampling (multi stage)
How confident are you in the article's results, and why?
Keeping long period of time (5year) is strong side.
Are its ideas really new, or do the authors simply repackage old ideas and perhaps give them a
new name?

Do the authors discuss everything they promise in the article's introduction and outline?
As indicated in the last paragraph of the article’s introduction, the authors promised that “This
study seeks to provide empirical evidence about the role of the institutional environment and
business formation process for the survival and profitability of MSEs.” When we examined
the study’s objectives with its analysis and results …….

What are the article's shortcomings (faults) and limitations (boundaries)? Did it discuss all of
the important aspects and issues in its domain (topic area)?

In what way should the article have made a contribution, but then did not?
Do the authors make appropriate comparisons to similar events, cases or occurrences?

How complete and thorough a job did the authors do? Do the authors include an adequate
discussion, analysis and conclusions? Did they justify everything adequately? Did they
provide enough background information for the intended audience to understand it? For you
to understand it?
The findings of the study may have implications for designing effective support programmes
promoting entrepreneurship in the context of SSA
Were there adequate and appropriate examples and illustrations?

Ask yourself these questions when justifying your critique points:

why/why not?

how?
what distinguishes the differences/different approaches, and in what ways?
9.2. Further Critique of an Empirical Article (only for empirical articles)

A critique of an empirical article examines the strength of the empirical evidence

supporting the author's argument. Both strengths and weaknesses should be identified in a
critique. Explain and justify each of your critique points in at least 3-4 sentences.

To the best of your abilities, discuss each of the following categories in a separate
paragraph:

1. CLARITY: Is the article's purpose and argument clear? Do the researchers clearly
develop a major research question, proposition, or hypothesis that is to be evaluated in the
empirical study and discussed in this article? If the study is exploratory (preliminary), is
sufficient justification for an exploratory strategy given?

2. THEORETICAL GROUNDING: Is the researcher's argument grounded in more basic

theory? Is it clear whether the structure of the empirical study (i.e., what they do) was
derived from theory, or just made up? In theory-building articles, is the need for new
theory adequately established?

3. DESIGN OF RESEARCH INVESTIGATION: Is it clear exactly how the empirical

study was carried out? Is the design of the research approach (field study, experiments,
questionnaires, etc. - both contents and how they will be used) adequate to address the
common threats to internal and external validity? Have appropriate controls been
established, and is the selection of research sites justified? Are the hypotheses and
experiments, etc., significant?

4. MEASUREMENT: Empirical studies can have quantitative measurements (i.e., numeric

results) and qualitative or subjective measurements. Are the measures used adequately
described (i.e., what is measured in the study and how)? Are data on the reliability and
validity of these measures reported? Does the article feel anecdotal or solidly supported
with evidence? For example, in case or field studies, are the results well documented? Is it
clear who the subjects were, and with whom interviews were carried out? Were important
results cross-checked, i.e., determined across a range of subjects or just gotten from one or
two subjects?

5. ANALYSIS: Is the analysis of empirical data conducted properly? Do the data conform
to the requirements of any statistical tests used? Are qualitative data adequately described
and presented?

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: In discussing the results of the empirical study,

do the authors remain true to the actual findings of the study? Are the claims made in the
conclusion of the article actually supported by the empirical data? If the study is
exploratory, do the authors offer research questions or hypotheses for future research?
7. BIASES: Do the biases of the authors affect the design of the research or the
interpretation of the results? Are the authors aware of potential biases and the affect on the
study?