Reading Actively

1
Read through the article once to get the main idea. The first time you read through an
article, you should simply try to understand the overall argument that the author is
making. Note the author's thesis.[1]
2
Mark up the text as you read through it again. It is sometimes helpful to use a red pen to
make your markings stand out. Ask yourself questions like these as you read through a
second time:[2]
 What is the author's thesis/argument?
 What is the author's purpose in arguing said thesis?
 Who is the intended audience? Does the article effectively reach this audience?
 Does the author have ample and valid evidence?
 Are there any holes in the author's argument?
 Did the author misrepresent evidence or add bias to evidence?
 Does the author reach a conclusive point?

3
Create a legend for your markings. Create a unique symbol to differentiate between parts
of the text that might be confusing, important, or inconsistent.
 For example, you could underline important passages, circle confusing ones, and
star inconsistencies.
 Creating a legend with assigned symbols allows you to quickly mark up an article.
Though it may take a little bit of time to recognize your own symbols, they will
quickly become ingrained in your mind and allow you to breeze through an article
much quicker than without a symbol legend.

4
Take some longer notes during subsequent readings. In addition to a legend, it is helpful
to take notes when expanded thoughts come to you as you read. For instance, if you
realize that an author's claim can be refuted by noting a scientific study that you
previously read, make a note of it in the margins, on a separate piece of paper, or on a
computer so that you can come back to your idea.[3]
 Don't be foolish enough to think that you will remember your idea when it comes
time to write your critique.
 Spend the necessary time writing down your observations as you read. You will be
glad you did when it comes time to put your observations into a complete
analytical paper.

5
Develop a preliminary concept for your critique. Form a vague opinion of the piece in
question. Evaluate the author's overall argument after you have read the article through
two or three times. Record your initial reactions to the text.[4]
  Make a list of possible sources of evidence for your critique. Jog your memory for
any literature you've read or documentaries you've seen that might be useful for
evaluating the article.

Gathering Evidence

1
Question whether the writer's overall message is logical. Test the hypothesis and compare
it to other similar examples.[5]
 Even if an author has done research and quoted respected experts, analyze the
message for its practicality and real world application.
 Examine the author's introduction and conclusion to make sure they match up as
convincing and complementary elements.

2
Search the article for any biases, whether intentional or unintentional. If the author has
anything to gain from the conclusions demonstrated in the article, it's possible that some
bias has been demonstrated.[6]
 Bias includes ignoring contrary evidence, misappropriating evidence to make
conclusions appear different than they are, and imparting one's own, unfounded
opinions on a text. Well-sourced opinions are perfectly OK, but those without
academic support deserve to be met with a skeptical eye.
 Bias can also come from a place of prejudice. Note any biases related to race,
ethnicity, gender, class, or politics.

3
Consider the author's interpretations of other texts. If the author makes a claim about
another's work, read the original work and see if you agree with the analysis provided in
the article. Complete agreement is obviously not necessary or even likely; but consider
whether the author’s interpretation is defensible.[7]
 Note any inconsistencies between your interpretation of a text and the author's
interpretation of a text. Such conflict may bear fruit when it comes time to write
your review.
 See what other scholars have to say. If several scholars from diverse backgrounds
have the same opinion about a text, that opinion should be given more weight than
an argument with little support.

4
Notice if the author cites untrustworthy evidence. Does the author cite an irrelevant text
from fifty years ago that no longer holds weight in the discipline at hand? If the author
cites unreliable sources, it greatly diminishes the credibility of the article.[8]
5
Don’t completely ignore stylistic elements. The content of the article is likely the most
important aspect for your literary critique, but don't overlook the formal and/or literary
techniques that the author might use. Pay attention to obscure word choices and the
author's tone throughout the article. This is particularly helpful for non-scientific articles
dealing with aspects of literature, for example.[9]
 These aspects of an article can reveal deeper issues in the larger argument. For
example, an article written in a heated, overzealous tone might be ignoring or
refusing to engage with contradictory evidence in its analysis.
 Always look up the definitions of unfamiliar words. A word's definition can
completely change the meaning of a sentence, especially if a particular word has
several definitions. Question why an author chose one particular word instead of
another, and it might reveal something about their argument.

6
Question research methods in scientific articles. If critiquing an article containing a
scientific theory, be sure to evaluate the research methods behind the experiment. Ask
yourself questions such as these:[10]
 Does the author detail the methods thoroughly?
 Is the study designed without major flaws?
 Is there a problem with the sample size?
 Was a control group created for comparison?
 Are all of the statistical calculations correct?
 Would another party be able to duplicate the experiment in question?
 Is the experiment significant for that particular field of study?

7
Dig deep. Use your existing knowledge, educated opinions, and any research you can
gather to either support or disagree with the author's article. Provide empirical arguments
to support your stance.[11]
 While there is no such thing as too much good evidence, over-sourcing can also
be a problem if your arguments become repetitive. Make sure each source
provides something unique to your critique.
 Additionally, don't allow your use of sources to crowd out your own opinions and
arguments.

8
Remember that a critique doesn't have to be entirely positive or negative. In fact, the most
interesting literary critiques often don’t vehemently disagree with the author; rather, they
build upon or complicate the author's idea with additional evidence.[12]
 If you do agree entirely with the author, therefore, make sure to build upon the
argument either by providing additional evidence or complicating the author's
idea.
 You can provide contradictory evidence to an argument while still maintaining
that a particular point of view is the correct one.
 Don’t “take it easy” on the author due to misguided empathy; but neither should
you be excessively negative in an attempt to prove your critical bona fides.
Forcefully express your defensible points of agreement and disagreement.

Formatting Your Critique

1
Begin with an introduction that outlines your argument. The introduction should be no
more than two paragraphs long and should lay out the basic framework for your critique.
Start off by noting where the article in question fails or succeeds most dramatically and
why.[13]
1.
1. Be sure to include the name of the author, article title, the journal or
publication the article appeared in, the publication date, and a statement
about the focus and/or thesis of the article in your introductory
paragraph(s).
2. The introduction is not the place to provide evidence for your opinions.
Your evidence will go in the body paragraphs of your critique.
3. Be bold in your introductory assertions and make your purpose clear right
off the bat. Skirting around or not fully committing to an argument lessens
your credibility.

2
Provide evidence for your argument in the body paragraphs of your critique. Each body
paragraph should detail a new idea or further expand your argument in a new direction.
[14]
1. Begin each body paragraph with a topic sentence that summarizes the
content of the paragraph to come. Don't feel like you have to condense the
entire paragraph into the topic sentence, however. This is purely a place to
transition into a new or somehow different idea.
2. End each body paragraph with a transitional sentence that hints at, though
does not explicitly state, the content of the paragraph coming next. For
example, you might write, "While John Doe shows that the number of
cases of childhood obesity is rising at a remarkable rate in the U.S., there
are instances of dropping obesity rates in some American cities." Your
next paragraph would then provide specific examples of these anomalous
cities that you just claimed exist.

3
Complicate your argument near the end of the critique. No matter how solid your
argument is, there is always at least one dramatic way in which you can provide a final
twist or take your argument one step further and suggest possible implications. Do this in
the final body paragraph before your conclusion to leave the reader with a final,
memorable argument.
 You might, for instance, utilize a counterargument, in which you anticipate a
critique of your critique and reaffirm your position. Use phrases like
“Admittedly,” “It is true that,” or “One might object here” to identify the
counterargument. Then, answer these possible counters and turn back to your
strengthened argument with “but,” “yet,” or “nevertheless.”[15]

4
Present your arguments in a well-reasoned, objective tone. Avoid writing in an
overzealous or obnoxiously passionate tone, as doing so can be a turn-off to many
readers. Let your passion shine through in your ability to do thorough research and
articulate yourself effectively.[16]
 While writing “This piece of garbage is an insult to historians everywhere” might
garner attention, “This article falls short of the standards for scholarship in this
area of historical study” is more likely to be taken seriously by readers.

5
Conclude your critique by summarizing your argument and suggesting potential
implications. It is important to provide a recap of your main points throughout the article,
but you also need to tell the reader what your critique means for the discipline at large.
[17]
 Are there broad implications for the field of study being assessed, or does your
critique simply attempt to debunk the messy work of another scholar?
 Do your best to make a lasting mark on the reader in the conclusion by using
assertive language to demonstrate the importance of your work: “Challenging the
claims of such a distinguished scholar is no easy or enjoyable task, but it is a task
we all must agree to do for our generation and those to follow.”

REVIEW OF A JOURNAL ARTICLE: AN EXAMPLE (Unfortunately, I don’t have the

name of the reviewer.)
o Bibliography

Author, F. (1776). Effects of classroom testing by microcomputer. Journal of ABCDE, 99(9), 9-19.

o Problem

Microcomputers are being used for a variety of purposes, but research about their instructional
effectiveness lags behind adoption rates for the technology. Further, there is a limited research base
about the effects of microcomputers in vocational agriculture on learning in the affective, cognitive,
and psychomotor domains. The research base is even more shallow when effects of testing students by
computer technology are explored.
 Comments: The problem statements agreed with the title and seemed to be of educational significance.
The problem was not clearly visible to the average reader, and it required several readings to establish
why the researchers felt this study needed to be done. It was limited to the researchers’ capabilities and
resources.

o Review of Literature

o The author cited no clear review of literature; however, several appropriate references were used in the
introduction section. These statements contributed to the overall understanding of the subject and to the
reasoning for establishing the problem statement. Suggested section titles would have been: (1)
competencies vocational education teachers need to use computer technology effectively; (2) effects of
microcomputers on learning; and (3) effects of testing students by microcomputer.

o Hypothesis

This research tested hypotheses about how effectively microcomputers could be used to administer an
objective classroom test to students who had studied and used computer technology.

Comments: The purpose was clearly and concisely stated and agreed with the title. It was limited to the
researchers’ capabilities and resources.

o Objectives

Specifically, the study sought to determine: (a) the effect taking an objective final examination by
microcomputer would have upon student cognitive performance; (b) the effect this method of testing
would have on student attitude about computers immediately after the examination; and (c) whether
this method of testing would require more time than conventional paper and pencil testing procedure.

Comment: The author’s objectives were answerable, and they chose to obtain them by testing null
hypotheses. These hypotheses were testable and served to help explain the problem.

o Methodology

The treatment followed the post-test only control group design; consequently, the study involved two
replications. Both replications were conducted during a Nostate State University course. A two stage
random assignment was used in assigning groups and treatments. The three dependent variables
measured in this study were: (a) minutes to complete the test; (b) score on the test; and (c) score on the
attitudes about computers.

Comments: The methods used to gather the data for this article were clearly explained. The instruments
and development were explained, and the reliability coefficients of all possible tests were given. The
population used was adequate. No discussion of the statistical techniques was given in this particular
section.

o Findings

Personal data by treatment and control group was provided in table form and explained with a short
narrative.

Hypothesis one: A one way analysis of covariance revealed that the two groups were not significantly
different in terms of their scores on the 35 item final examination.

Hypothesis two: The mean attitudinal scores of the two groups were positive in both replications, and
there was no significant difference in the two groups’ attitudes about computers.
 Hypothesis three: There was a significant difference in minutes required to complete the exam in
replication one; however, there was no significant difference in replication two.

Comments: The findings were well organized, sectioned, and reported objectively. The tables were
well organized but, due to the difficulty of the statistical tests employed, would not stand alone to the
average reader.

o Summary

There was no summary given.

o Conclusions

Conclusions and implications were formulated with the knowledge that subjects for this study used
microtechnology extensively during a computer applications course. In this investigation, final
examination scores were independent of the method of testing. The method of testing was not a
determinant of how students felt about computers. Since time required was not consistent over the two
replications, the methods of testing as well as other factors appear to influence the time requirements of
test completion.

Comments: The conclusions were based on the findings and logically stated.

o Recommendations

"Additional research is needed in other classroom settings to see if consistent findings about cognitive
performances, time requirements, and attitude are achieved."

Comments: The recommendations were limited to a call for additional research in the area.

o Overall Critique

This was a very in-depth research project, particularly for a journal article. For the most part, it was
well written and well organized. There was a definite need for a short review of literature to develop
the situation. The article did get a little complicated in the reporting of data due to the complicated
statistical procedures used. Overall, it was a very interesting, significant contribution to the field of
research.

REVIEW OF A JOURNAL ARTICLE: AN EXAMPLE (Unfortunately, I don’t have the

name of the reviewer.)
o Bibliography

Author, F. (1776). Effects of classroom testing by microcomputer. Journal of ABCDE, 99(9), 9-19.

o Problem

Microcomputers are being used for a variety of purposes, but research about their instructional
effectiveness lags behind adoption rates for the technology. Further, there is a limited research base
about the effects of microcomputers in vocational agriculture on learning in the affective, cognitive,
and psychomotor domains. The research base is even more shallow when effects of testing students by
 computer technology are explored.

Comments: The problem statements agreed with the title and seemed to be of educational significance.
The problem was not clearly visible to the average reader, and it required several readings to establish
why the researchers felt this study needed to be done. It was limited to the researchers’ capabilities and
resources.

o Review of Literature

o The author cited no clear review of literature; however, several appropriate references were used in the
introduction section. These statements contributed to the overall understanding of the subject and to the
reasoning for establishing the problem statement. Suggested section titles would have been: (1)
competencies vocational education teachers need to use computer technology effectively; (2) effects of
microcomputers on learning; and (3) effects of testing students by microcomputer.

o Hypothesis

This research tested hypotheses about how effectively microcomputers could be used to administer an
objective classroom test to students who had studied and used computer technology.

Comments: The purpose was clearly and concisely stated and agreed with the title. It was limited to the
researchers’ capabilities and resources.

o Objectives

Specifically, the study sought to determine: (a) the effect taking an objective final examination by
microcomputer would have upon student cognitive performance; (b) the effect this method of testing
would have on student attitude about computers immediately after the examination; and (c) whether
this method of testing would require more time than conventional paper and pencil testing procedure.

Comment: The author’s objectives were answerable, and they chose to obtain them by testing null
hypotheses. These hypotheses were testable and served to help explain the problem.

o Methodology

The treatment followed the post-test only control group design; consequently, the study involved two
replications. Both replications were conducted during a Nostate State University course. A two stage
random assignment was used in assigning groups and treatments. The three dependent variables
measured in this study were: (a) minutes to complete the test; (b) score on the test; and (c) score on the
attitudes about computers.

Comments: The methods used to gather the data for this article were clearly explained. The instruments
and development were explained, and the reliability coefficients of all possible tests were given. The
population used was adequate. No discussion of the statistical techniques was given in this particular
section.

o Findings

Personal data by treatment and control group was provided in table form and explained with a short
narrative.

Hypothesis one: A one way analysis of covariance revealed that the two groups were not significantly
different in terms of their scores on the 35 item final examination.

Hypothesis two: The mean attitudinal scores of the two groups were positive in both replications, and
 there was no significant difference in the two groups’ attitudes about computers.

Hypothesis three: There was a significant difference in minutes required to complete the exam in
replication one; however, there was no significant difference in replication two.

Comments: The findings were well organized, sectioned, and reported objectively. The tables were
well organized but, due to the difficulty of the statistical tests employed, would not stand alone to the
average reader.

o Summary

There was no summary given.

o Conclusions

Conclusions and implications were formulated with the knowledge that subjects for this study used
microtechnology extensively during a computer applications course. In this investigation, final
examination scores were independent of the method of testing. The method of testing was not a
determinant of how students felt about computers. Since time required was not consistent over the two
replications, the methods of testing as well as other factors appear to influence the time requirements of
test completion.

Comments: The conclusions were based on the findings and logically stated.

o Recommendations

"Additional research is needed in other classroom settings to see if consistent findings about cognitive
performances, time requirements, and attitude are achieved."

Comments: The recommendations were limited to a call for additional research in the area.

o Overall Critique

This was a very in-depth research project, particularly for a journal article. For the most part, it was
well written and well organized. There was a definite need for a short review of literature to develop
the situation. The article did get a little complicated in the reporting of data due to the complicated
statistical procedures used. Overall, it was a very interesting, significant contribution to the field of
research.
Guidelines for a critique of a research report

A. Title of the research report

1. Does the title accurately describe the - type of study?

-Major variables?

-Population to which the study applies?

2. Does it written briefly ( containing no more than 15 words).

2. Does it contain an extraneous words (such a the relationship………, a study

 of…….., the effect of……..,)

CRITIQUE………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………….

B. Problem Statement.

1. Is the problem clearly stated ? ( interrogative form is preferable than

declarative). And should contain population, and the major variables and be

empirically testable.

2. Is there justification for the study?

3. Is the problem significant to nursing?

4. Is the problem researchable ( can data be collected and analyzed).

CRITIQUE………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………

C. Conceptual/ theoretical framework.

1. Is there a conceptual model or framework identified?

2. If not specifically identified, is a model or framework implied?

3. Is the conceptual framework applicable to the research?

CRITIQUE………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….

D. Review of literature

1. Are classic as well as current citations used?

2. Does the researcher cite supporting, as well as opposing, studies?

3. Is it logically organized? Are there appropriate subheadings?

4. Are most primary sources included?(most of references must be from journals)

5. Are the resources used relevance to the research understudy?

6. Does the literature review flow logically.(classic sources are presented, then

current sources are discussed, and paraphrasing is preferred rather than the

use of large numbers of direct quotation).

7. Does the author at the end of the literature review conclude with a sentence or

two that indicates how the present study will contribute to the existing

body of knowledge in that subject area)

CRITIQUE………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….
 E. Purpose of the study

1. Is there a purpose statement?( mostly written in declarative form such as…

To determine knowledge, attitudes, and risk-taking behaviors concerning HIV

infections among a low- socioeconomic population of women enrolled in the

Washington welfare health education program) …it contain information what

the researcher intends to do, the setting of the study , and the population

Note : you should remember that purpose statement can be written as a

declarative statement, as a question, or as a hypothesis.

CRITIQUE………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………………

F. Research questions/ hypothesis clearly identified?

1. Are the research question questions/ hypotheses clearly stated?

Note : (The hypothesis should contain the population and the variables and

reflect the problem statement, should be empirically testable)

CRITIQUE………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

G. Operational Definitions
 1. Are relevant variables operationally defined ?

Note: (indicate the observable, measurable phenomena associated with the

study variables)

CRITIQUE………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

H. Research Design.

1. Was the type of research design identified?

2. Does the research design fit appropriately according to the variables studied

and purpose of study.

Note:( In experimental studies which less common than non-experimental studies

in nursing the method of assigning subjects to both group experimental and

control should be discussed and the means to control threats to internal and

external validity should be included)

CRITIQUE………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………
 I. Sample.

1.Was the target and accessible population clearly described?

2.Was the method of choosing the sample (probability Vs non probability )

appropriate .

3. Based on the sampling procedures, were there any threats to external

Validity (generalization of findings)? If so does the author acknowledge

these threats?

CRITIQUE………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………

J. Data collection procedures

1. Were the steps in collecting data described clearly and concisely?

Note: Five general questions asked in evaluating the data-collection section(what,

How, who, where, and when). If the researcher employed the questionnaire for data

collection , he should peruse the reader that this the appropriate method, and if an

interview method was used the training session conducted to the assistants should be

reported)

CRITIQUE………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………………………

K. Data collection instruments

1. Were the instruments/ scale used to collect data appropriate for the

problem and method.

2. Were these instruments / scales reliable ? valid?.

3. Were the means of establishing reliability / validity discussed.

4. Was each instrument described as to how it was scored? Range of

possible scores? What does a high/ low score mean?

Note: 1.Scoring procedure and the range of possible scores on the

instrument should also be included.

2. Validity and reliability to the instrument in addition to the pilot study

should be identified.

CRITIQUE………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………

L. Ethical issues.

1. Was evidence of human subject review and approval discussed?

2.Were issues of subject anonymity or confidentiality addressed?

CRITIQUE………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………….

M. Data analysis

1. Was the choice of statistical procedures appropriate for the

methodology proposed ?

Note: 1. descriptive statistics on the characteristics of the study sample

should be presented first and then finally the inferential

statistics

2.The results of the statistics test, the degree of freedom, and the

probability value should be identified. and these are should be

presented in the text and the tables.

3.The author should state whether the study hypothesis was supported

or not supported

CRITIQUE………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………..

N. Results.

1. Are the characteristics of the sample described?

2. Are the research question and the hypothesis answered separately?

3. Do the results limited to data reflect the research questions /

hypothesis?

4. Are generalizations made that are not warranted on the basis of the

sample used?

5. Are tables , charts, and / or graphs used to present data? If so , were

they clearly labeled and discussed in the text?

CRITIQUE………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………………..

O. Discussion
 1. Were limitations of the study described?

2. Does the researcher state whether study results support refute previous
studies?

3. Does the researcher relate findings to the problem and purpose of

the studies?

4. Were there any unexpected findings?

Note: 1. Should be presented in a completely objective fashion.

2. The author should compare the present study findings with those of

other studies discussed in the literature review. No new literature

sources should be introduced in the discussion section and not

identified in literature review first.

3. Both statistical and clinical significance should be discussed.

4. Study limitation should be discussed well

CRITIQUE………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………................

P. Implication and recommendations

 1. Are generalizations made beyond the sample identified in the study?

2. Were suggestions/ recommendations made by the researcher for

nursing practice, administration, education, and / or further

research?

3. Were these suggestions/ recommendations based on the findings of

this study?

Note : 1. The implication section contain the should that result from the

research findings.

2. Suggestions may be to replicate study identified. or further development of the

instrument or use large sample size.

3. Should consider the limitation of the present study and the findings of the

previous study.

CRITIQUE………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………

Other considerations:
1. (Correct grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are essential.

2. Accuracy and completeness of the reference list

With best wishes from

Dr MOHAMMAD M. MOMMANI
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Step 1

Identify and evaluate the general character of the framework. Does the author clearly
define the framework that she is using in the study? An author may clearly define the
framework used for a study: empirical, hermeneutic, phenomenological, psychoanalytic,
quantitative or qualitative, and so forth. On the other hand, the author may not feel it
necessary to clearly state or identify the framework. In this case, the language, concepts,
and style of argument may indicate the nature of the framework. For example, an author
writing from a Marxist perspective might use words and concepts such as base and
superstructure, ideology, commodity fetishism, and dialectics.

Step 2
Compare and analyze the main concepts and the framework. The framework and the
concepts used by the framework may be thought of in terms of the metaphor of the
forests and the trees. A theoretical framework establishes a perspective in which to view,
interpret, and solve a problem. The framework's concepts are the lenses through which
everything is seen and colored. An example of this is the Jurgen Habermas's theory of
communicative action. The theory of communicative action forms the bigger picture and
the individual concepts concern how the picture hangs together as a whole. According to
Habermas, all knowledge -- scientific, ethical/moral, and aesthetic -- is based on implicit
knowledge claims. The specifics of Habermas's theory are worked out in terms of
individual concepts.

Step 3

Compare the framework with the specific problem or topic being addressed. Determine if
the framework is relevant to the problem. For example, Marx and Engels developed a
theoretical framework to analyze, evaluate and critique the economic foundations and
social consequences of capitalism. Marx and Engels argued that earlier economic theories
were theoretically flawed and could not accurately diagnose and understand the historical
development and economic structure of capitalism. In other words, Marx and Engels
claimed that the work of their predecessors in economic theory -- Adam Smith, David
Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, and the French economists -- was irrelevant when it came to
understanding the historical and social dimensions of economics and its relationship to
society because they thought of economics in terms of eternal and invariable laws rather
than as historical and variable.

Step 4

Determine if the results or solutions to the specific problem logically follow from the
premises and concepts of the framework. Researchers and writers sometimes,
intentionally or unintentionally, sneak hidden premises and presuppositions into an article
or study that determine the results and outcome. A valid argument is one in which the
conclusion follows logically from the premises. The author's desire to solve a problem
may lead to a hasty conclusion that is not fully supported by the theoretical structure of
the framework.

Strategies for Developing the Theoretical

Framework
I. Developing the Framework

Here are some strategies to develop of an effective theoretical framework:

1. Examine your thesis title and research problem. The research problem anchors
your entire study and forms the basis from which you construct your theoretical
framework.
 2. Brainstorm about what you consider to be the key variables in your research.
Answer the question, "What factors contribute to the presumed effect?"
3. Review related literature to find how scholars have addressed your research
problem. Identify the assumptions from which the author(s) addressed the
problem.
4. List the constructs and variables that might be relevant to your study. Group
these variables into independent and dependent categories.
5. Review key social science theories that are introduced to you in your course
readings and choose the theory that can best explain the relationships between the
key variables in your study [note the Writing Tip on this page].
6. Discuss the assumptions or propositions of this theory and point out their
relevance to your research.

A theoretical framework is used to limit the scope of the relevant data by focusing on
specific variables and defining the specific viewpoint [framework] that the researcher will
take in analyzing and interpreting the data to be gathered. It also facilitates the
understanding of concepts and variables according to given definitions and builds new
knowledge by validating or challenging theoretical assumptions.

II. Purpose

Think of theories as the conceptual basis for understanding, analyzing, and

designing ways to investigate relationships within social systems. To that end, the
following roles served by a theory can help guide the development of your framework.

 Means by which new research data can be interpreted and coded for future use,
 Response to new problems that have no previously identified solutions strategy,
 Means for identifying and defining research problems,
 Means for prescribing or evaluating solutions to research problems,
 Ways of discerning certain facts among the accumulated knowledge that are
important and which facts are not,
 Means of giving old data new interpretations and new meaning,
 Means by which to identify important new issues and prescribe the most critical
research questions that need to be answered to maximize understanding of the
issue,
 Means of providing members of a professional discipline with a common
language and a frame of reference for defining the boundaries of their profession,
and
 Means to guide and inform research so that it can, in turn, guide research efforts
and improve professional practice.

Adapted from: Torraco, R. J. “Theory-Building Research Methods.” In Swanson R. A. and E. F. Holton III ,
editors. Human Resource Development Handbook: Linking Research and Practice. (San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler, 1997): pp. 114-137; Jacard, James and Jacob Jacoby. Theory Construction and Model-
Building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Guilford, 2010; Ravitch, Sharon M. and
Matthew Riggan. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Second edition. Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2017; Sutton, Robert I. and Barry M. Staw. “What Theory is Not.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 40 (September 1995): 371-384.

Structure and Writing Style

The theoretical framework may be rooted in a specific theory, in which case, your
work is expected to test the validity of that existing theory in relation to specific events,
issues, or phenomena. Many social science research papers fit into this rubric. For
example, Peripheral Realism Theory, which categorizes perceived differences among
nation-states as those that give orders, those that obey, and those that rebel, could be used
as a means for understanding conflicted relationships among countries in Africa. A test of
this theory could be the following: Does Peripheral Realism Theory help explain intra-
state actions, such as, the disputed split between southern and northern Sudan that led to
the creation of two nations?

However, you may not always be asked by your professor to test a specific theory in
your paper, but to develop your own framework from which your analysis of the
research problem is derived. Based upon the above example, it is perhaps easiest to
understand the nature and function of a theoretical framework if it is viewed as an answer
to two basic questions:

1. What is the research problem/question? [e.g., "How should the individual and
the state relate during periods of conflict?"]
2. Why is your approach a feasible solution? [i.e., justify the application of your
choice of a particular theory and explain why alternative constructs were rejected.
I could choose instead to test Instrumentalist or Circumstantialists models
developed among ethnic conflict theorists that rely upon socio-economic-political
factors to explain individual-state relations and to apply this theoretical model to
periods of war between nations].

The answers to these questions come from a thorough review of the literature and your
course readings [summarized and analyzed in the next section of your paper] and the gaps
in the research that emerge from the review process. With this in mind, a complete
theoretical framework will likely not emerge until after you have completed a
thorough review of the literature.

Just as a research problem in your paper requires contextualization and background

information, a theory requires a framework for understanding its application to the topic
being investigated. When writing and revising this part of your research paper, keep
in mind the following:
  Clearly describe the framework, concepts, models, or specific theories that
underpin your study. This includes noting who the key theorists are in the field
who have conducted research on the problem you are investigating and, when
necessary, the historical context that supports the formulation of that theory. This
latter element is particularly important if the theory is relatively unknown or it is
borrowed from another discipline.
 Position your theoretical framework within a broader context of related
frameworks, concepts, models, or theories. As noted in the example above,
there will likely be several concepts, theories, or models that can be used to help
develop a framework for understanding the research problem. Therefore, note
why the theory you've chosen is the appropriate one.
 The present tense is used when writing about theory. Although the past tense
can be used to describe the history of a theory or the role of key theorists, the
construction of your theoretical framework is happening now.
 You should make your theoretical assumptions as explicit as possible. Later,
your discussion of methodology should be linked back to this theoretical
framework.
 Don’t just take what the theory says as a given! Reality is never accurately
represented in such a simplistic way; if you imply that it can be, you
fundamentally distort a reader's ability to understand the findings that emerge.
Given this, always note the limitations of the theoretical framework you've chosen
[i.e., what parts of the research problem require further investigation because the
theory inadequately explains a certain phenomena].

THE RESEARCH 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 friend’s 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.

The Research Question.

a). What is the research question? Does the author actually have one? Is there only one?
If more than one, is it clear that this particular research needs multiple questions (e.g., we must
first answer X before we can answer Y) or do the multiple questions reflect an inability of the
author to clearly identify his own purpose? If, instead of a question, the author states a research
purpose or task, identify this purpose but also attempt to restate it as a question.
b) How does the author justify the importance of this question to the scholarly
community? If important, how important? Is it something likely to be publishable in a major
journal, a minor one, or only as a conference paper?
c) How does the author demonstrate that the question remains unanswered? What prior
research on this question is mentioned and what is the author’s explanation of why answers
provided by the prior research are inadequate?

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?

Dependent Variable(s), Independent Variable(s), and Hypotheses.

Treat each variable separately, do not simply make general comments about all of them. Begin
with the dependent variable, then consider each independent variable in turn. Consider does not
necessarily mean comment upon, but rather has the author produced a novel conceptualization or
operationalization that deserves applause, used some measures you think are doubtful, or just
presented what they are going to do without any logical explanation of why?

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 author’s 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?
Confounding / Control Variables.
Are any variables introduced primarily to control for their confounding effects? Which ones?
What is the explanation given for why they might have a confounding effect? Are there other
confounding variables you can think of that the author ignores? Alternatively, if the authors
contend no controls are necessary is their reasoning persuasive to you?

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?

Time and Space

What temporal (e.g., 1996 election) and space (e.g., United States), limitations are there to the
data used in this study? Is the study generalizable beyond these data limits, or are there reasons
to believe that different conditions across time and space may limit the findings? If so, what do
you believe those conditions to be?

Conclusions and limitations

What does the author suggest, if anything, as possibilities for future research? If the analysis is
clearly limited in some way – e.g., only crude data or operationalizations are currently available –
is the author honest about those limitations? How severe do you think they might be?

Writing Style
Is the author’s 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).

WHAT NOT TO INCLUDE IN A CRITIQUE

a) It is not legitimate to criticize the research paper for something beyond its purpose. Don’t
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, don’t 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 don’t 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 don’t let friends turn in sloppy research. Making nothing but positive comments on a
fellow student’s 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.

As part of the planning

process you should have
done a LITERATURE
REVIEW, which is a
survey of important
articles, books and other
sources pertaining to
your research topic. Now, for the second main section of your research report you need to
write a summary of the main studies and research related to your topic. This review of the
professional literature relevant to your research question will help to contextualize, or
frame, your research. It will also give readers the necessary background to understand
your research.

Evaluating other studies:

In a review of the literature, you do not merely summarize the research findings
that others have reported. You must also evaluate and comment on each study's
worth and validity. You may find that some published research is not valid. If it
also runs counter to your hypothesis, you may want to critique it in your review.
Don't just ignore it. Tell how your research will be better/overcome the flaws.
Doing this can strengthen the rationale for conducting your research.

Selecting the studies to include in the review:

You do not need to report on every published study in the area of your research
topic. Choose those studies which are most relevant and most important.

Organizing the review:

 After you have decided which studies to review, you must decide how to order
them. In making your selection, keep your research question in mind. It should
be your most important guide in determining what other studies are revelant.
Many people simple create a list of one-paragraph summaries in chronological
order. This is not always the most effective way to organize your review. You
should consider other ways, such as...
 By topic
 Problem -> solution
 Cause -> effect

Another approach is to organize your review by argument and counter

argument. For example, You may write about those studies that
disagree with your hypothesis, and then discuss those that agree with it.
Yet another way to organize the studies in your review is to group them
according to a particular variable, such as age level of the subjects
(child studies, adult studies, etc.) or research method (case studies,
experiments, etc.).

The end of the review:

The purpose of your review of the literature was to set the stage for your own
research. Therefore, you should conclude the review with a statement of your
hypothesis, or focused research question. When this is done, you are ready to
proceed with part three of your research report, in which you explain the
methods you used.

How to Critique a Research Methodology

A research method is the specific procedure used to answer a set of

research questions. Popular methods vary by field, but include
qualitative as well as quantitative approaches. Qualitative approaches
rely more on observation and interpretation, while quantitative methods
focus on data collection and analysis. Research methods should not be
confused with research methodology, which is the study of research
methods.

Identifying and Critiquing a Research Method

Find the research method in a research paper by looking for a section by this title, which
will typically be toward the beginning of the paper, after the abstract and introduction.
The description of the research method should include a rationale for why it was chosen.
Ask yourself whether the method used makes sense in answering the research questions.
Most basically, research questions which seek to understand a phenomenon may be best
answered with qualitative methods such as case studies or narrative approaches. Research
questions which seek to describe a phenomenon may be better suited to quantitative
methods, such as experiments or surveys.

Match the research questions with the author’s conclusions. Make sure the research
questions were answered specifically. Incomplete answers often indicate improper choice
of research method.

Be aware of the most common methodological errors. First, even when a specific method
answers specific research questions, data disparities and questions that arise during
research often cause scientists to redesign their studies. Thus, a completed study should
proceed logically from question to method to discussion and conclusions. If there are
obvious questions left unanswered, a methodological error may be the cause.

Examine the researcher’s conclusions from a broad perspective. Ask yourself if they
make significant contributions to existing knowledge about the topic. For example, if a
study of apples reveals that they have seeds, this would not be a significant finding.
Studies that merely support existing knowledge can be helpful, but an overly basic study
can be the result of an improper method.

Tips

 Before critiquing any study, become familiar with the most common research
methods in your specific field.
 Critique a researcher's work based on what the work claims to be. It's unfair to
critique any research based on what it isn't.