Preparing
for Your Review
The
purpose of research articles is to present new or refine conceptual ideas, or
to present new evidence for conceptual ideas. A research article review results
from critically examining a research article. You will have to read your
article several times to understand it fully enough to review
properly.
Often,
comparing your article to others will help you determine its quality.
Also,
think about the article and its research ideas in terms of each of the
different week’s concepts and frameworks we study in class. Do the ideas in the
article fit all the categories of appropriate class concepts, models and
frameworks? This often will help you see things the authors missed, think about
things the authors write in a new light, or see that the authors indeed covered
a topic thoroughly.
1.
Full Bibliographic Reference
State
the full APA bibliographic reference for the article you are reviewing
(authors, title, journal name, volume, issue, year, page numbers, etc.)
Important: this is not the bibliography listed at the end of
the article, rather the citation of the article itself!
2.
Introduction: Objectives, Article Domain, Audience, Journal and
Conceptual/Empirical Classification
Paragraph
1: State the objectives (goals or purpose) of the article. What is the
article’s domain (topic area)?
Paragraph
2:
- Audience: State the
article’s intended audience. At what level is it written, and what general
background should the reader have; what general background materials
should the reader be familiar with to understand the article? - Appropriate Journal:
Why is the journal appropriate (or inappropriate) for this article? (Check
the mission statement or purpose of the journal itself from its cover or
its Web site.)
Paragraph
3: State whether the article is “conceptual” or “empirical,”
and why you believe it is conceptual or empirical. Empirical articles and
conceptual articles have a similar objective: to substantiate an argument
proposed by the author.
·
While a conceptual article supports such an argument based
on logical and persuasive reasoning, an empirical article offers empirical
evidence to support the argument.
·
Empirical articles offer substantial, detailed evidence
which the authors analyze using statistical methods. Empirical articles must
include hypotheses (or propositions), detailed research results, and
(statistical) analyses of this empirical evidence. Empirical research includes
experiments, surveys, questionnaires, field studies, etc., and to a limited
degree, case studies.
·
Conceptual articles may refer to such empirical evidence,
but do not provide the detailed analysis of that evidence. Of course, both
types of articles can use real life examples to back up their points. Just
because an article provides examples, does not necessarily mean that it is
empirical. (The lesson to take home is
not to consider a conceptual article to be an empirical one just because it
provides some summarized or some unanalyzed data.)
3.
Very Brief Summary
For
our article reviews, we do not want you to spend much space summarizing the
article. Instead we are more interested in your analysis of the article.
Thus,
in this section, summarize the article only very briefly (2-3 paragraphs).
- Paragraph 1: what is
the problem or opportunity being addressed - Paragraph 2: which
solution is proposed (the solution could be a new model or a theory that
explains the problem) - Paragraph 3: what
evidence is put forth that this solution is appropriate (If this is an
empirical article, be sure to briefly describe what kind of empirical
study was done as part of the evidence)
4.
Results
In one
paragraph, very briefly summarize the important points (observations,
conclusions, findings) and “take home messages” in the article.
Please
do not repeat lists of items in the articles – just summarize the essence of
these if you feel they are necessary to include.
5.
Foundation
Good
research often is built upon theories and frameworks that other researchers
have developed. Sometimes articles will be substantially based upon this prior
work, and refer back to it in some detail. (Not all research articles will do
this.)
Which
theoretical foundations does this article and research build on, if any? In
what ways? Include references/citations of the foundation work. (You can
determine this in part from the works the article cites.)
Note,
however, that most works cited are not core foundational work, but rather just
support certain aspects of the article. Similarly, do not confuse a general
discussion of related topics as foundational work.
If the article does not build upon key pieces of prior
research, then SELECT ANOTHER ARTICLE!!!
Specifically,
in your assessment of the article’s foundation, state if the article and
research builds on, for example:
· Van de Ven and Poole (1995) Teleological theory and
dialectical theory
· Friedlander and Brown’s (1974) “Approaches to Organization
Development
· Porras and Silvers’ (1991) “Planned Process Model
of Organizational Change,”
· Beer and Walton (1987) The four types of problems
with organization change research
· Transition Models – Schein (1987), Lippitt, Watson
and Westley (1985), Lewin (1947)
6.
Contributions
An
article makes a “contribution” by adding to the knowledge of
researchers in a research field. An article can make a contribution to the
research field in many ways. Does it provide a new way to look at a problem?
Does it bring together or “synthesize” several concepts (or
frameworks, models, etc.) together in an insightful way that has not been done
before? Does it provide new solutions? Does it provide new results? Does it
identify new issues? Does it provide a comprehensive survey or review of a
domain? Does it provide new insights?
Also,
is it salient (relevant and current) to a particular scientific issue or
managerial problem? Are the issues addressed introduced in a way that their
relevance to practice is evident? Would answers to the questions raised in the
article likely to be useful to researchers and managers?
NOTE:
Do not discuss the contributions of the technologies the article describes, but
rather the contributions of the article itself
Consider
the extent to which the article contributes our understanding of system
thinking.
·
The article’s contributions should be original. To the best
of your knowledge, are they? Are the article’s take-home messages new?
·
Describe each contribution clearly in a separate paragraph
or bullet point. Discuss why the contribution is important.
·
Alternatively, if you believe the article makes no
contributions, explain why clearly.
7. 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)? - Did the authors choose
the correct approach, and then execute it properly? - How confident are you
in the article’s results, and why? - 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? - 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? - Were there adequate
and appropriate examples and illustrations?
8.
Issues (listed by the author)
What
open questions or issues has the author stated remain unresolved? Discuss each
in a separate paragraph of 5-10 sentences. Each issue’s paragraph should take
the following format:
- what is the issue?
- why do you believe
this is an important issue? - in what way is it
unresolved - suggestions for
resolving it – if you give your own suggestions (instead of or in addition
to the authors’, then precede each with “I would propose …” If
it has been resolved since the article was written, then state how it was
resolved.
NOTE:
If you have any critiques in this section, they most likely belong in the
General Critique section instead.
9.
Issues (in your opinion)
List
several open questions or issues that remain unresolved in your opinion? For
example, what possible future research questions could arise from this article?
Discuss each in a separate paragraph of 5-10 sentences. Each issue’s paragraph
should take the following format:
- what is the issue?
- why do you believe
this is an important issue? - in what way is it
unresolved - suggestions for
resolving it
Note:
If you have any critiques in this section, they most likely belong in the
General Critique section instead.
10.
Questions
List
three insightful questions of your own, arising from this article. Do not ask
definitions, but rather questions that really make one think.
11.
Annotated Bibliography
For
every item you have cited in your report, you need a full reference and an
annotation explaining it. This includes references to any class materials. List
the full bibliographic references (authors, title, journal name, volume, issue,
year, page numbers, etc.) for anything you have cited in your review.
The
annotation will include:
- 2-4 sentences
describing the article. - 2-3 sentences
describing why you cited it.
IMPORTANT:
This is NOT
the reference list at the end of the article review. It is the bibliographic
references for any readings you yourself referred to inside your review.