2.8. Data analysis strategy
VERY IMPORTANT!
2.9. Claimed findings and contributions. Explain statistical tests used to test hypotheses, findings and their significance. (R square, p-value, mediation, moderation, etc.)
2.10. Your overall assessment of the of the quality of the research
3. Critique of study (3)
This section is your informed commentary on each aspect of the study, and should be heavy on evaluation and assessment, with description kept to a minimum. Use the questions below only as the basis of your critique but customize them to your article’s evaluation. Some sections can be omitted if appropriate. Likewise, new sections can be added.
3.1. Is the relevancy of the study justified?
3.2. Is it clear why each theory was needed and how each theory was used?
3.2.1. Was theory used to formulate hypotheses?
3.2.2. Is the paper consistent? Are the components aligned? Research questions to theories, Research questions and theories to model, Model to hypotheses, Hypotheses to variables, variables to measures, Model to methodological design, Model to data analysis strategy
3.3. Critique utility and value of model
3.3.1. Clarity
3.3.2. Comprehensiveness and parsimony
3.3.3. Appropriateness of level(s) of analysis
3.4. Critique Population/sample(s).
3.4.1. Population from which sample (or census) is drawn
3.4.2. Type of sample
3.4.3. Is sampling procedure adequate?
3.4.4. Is sample appropriate to address research questions?
3.5. Operational definition and measurement
3.5.1. Clarity and specificity of operational definitions of constructs and variables
3.5.2. Appropriateness of level of measurement
3.5.3. Reliability of measures
3.5.4. Internal and external validity of measures
3.5.5. Construct validity of measures
3.6. Statistical analysis
3.6.1. Appropriateness of analytical procedures to model
3.6.2. Appropriateness of procedures to data
3.6.3. Appropriateness of test statistics and other reported indicators to data analysis
3.6.4. Correctness of interpretation of data analysis
4. Credibility, future value, and recommendations (1)
4.1. Credibility of contribution
4.1.1. Who cares?
4.1.2. Implications for theory
4.1.3. Implications for practice
4.2. What might have been improved in present study to enhance its credibility and contribution?
4.2.1. Design, Measures, Analysis
Guidance on Writing
All sections of the critique should answer the questions of the exam in narrative form using complete sentences. It should resemble the kind of reviews found in high-quality journals.
Plan your exam carefully after you have scanned and understood the requirements, so that you know what you are going to address and where, before you start writing.
Remember, you are not just reporting on the study, but critically assessing its elements and evaluating their appropriateness and effectiveness. Being “critical” does not mean just pointing out negatives, but mentioning particularly positive elements as well. Of course, it is important to point out negatives where you find them. Just because something got published in a good journal does not mean there cannot be real problems with it, and it is your job to identify them when present. More often than you might suspect, there are critical flaws in published research studies, and if there are any in your article, we expect you to find them. We also expect you to make the connection of this paper with the overall research in the field and your area of future research.
Try to maintain academic language norms throughout, rather than a conversational tone. Use appropriate APA-style citations where needed. When in doubt, take a look at any good journal (AMJ, AMR, ASQ, etc.) and see how closely your work is mirroring that style. If it’s not, make it so.
Your assessment of the statistical analysis is particularly important, and will undoubtedly be further explored in your subsequent oral exam. Be clear in your discussion; if you do not immediately understand the statistical procedures being used, do some quick research on them using online statistical resources. You do not need to know everything about a procedure to comment on it effectively, just enough. Do not try to give the impression that you know more than you do; the oral will surely catch you up in that event. Be sure to comment on the reported numbers/tables and their interpretations, showing that you understand what particular statistics tell you.
In Section 4, you need think creatively about possible improvements, using any shortcomings that your critique identified as take-off points for your suggestions. Think even more creatively (but reasonably) about possible extensions of the study and new areas of research that it might open up leading to your own research study