Inquiry 1
Dr. Jeyran Aghayeva
Education Management
School of Education
1. Read the Abstract
2. Read Introduction (and literature review)
3. Read Methods section
a) participants
b)measures
c) procedure
4. Evaluate results
Critical what are the findings? what information is the
researcher reporting? any manipulation checks
Analysis reported? do they report significant and
nonsignificant results?
Steps 5. Analyze discussion Section
limitations and inferences
inclusion of non-significant relationships/variables?
Here you decide the strengths and
weaknesses of a text. This is
What is usually based on specific criteria.
meant by Evaluating requires an
evaluation understanding of not just the
or content of the text, but also an
judgment? understanding of a text’s purpose,
the intended audience and why it is
structured the way it is.
Analyzing requires
separating the content and
concepts of a text into their
What is main components and then
meant by understanding how these
interrelate, connect, and
analysis? possibly influence each
other.
Introduction
Usually one paragraph for a journal article
review and two or three paragraphs for a
longer book review.
Structure A few opening sentences that announce the
of a author(s) and the title, and briefly explain
the topic of the text.
Critical The aim of the text and summarize the
main finding or key argument.
Review a brief statement of your evaluation of the
text (can be a positive or negative
evaluation or, as is usually the case, a
mixed response).
Summary
Present a summary of the
key points along with a
limited number of examples.
You can also briefly explain
the author’s
purpose/intentions
throughout the text, and you
may briefly describe how the
text is organized. The
summary should only make
up about a third of the
critical review.
Critique
The critique should be a balanced discussion and evaluation of the strengths,
weakness and notable features of the text. Remember to base your discussion on
specific criteria. Good reviews also include other sources to support your
evaluation (remember to reference). You can choose how to sequence your
critique. Here are some examples to get you started:
Most important to least important conclusions you make about the text.
If your critique is more positive than negative, then present the negative points first and the
positive last.
If your critique is more negative than positive, then present the positive points first and the
negative last.
If there are both strengths and weakness for each criterion you use, you need to decide
overall what your judgment is. For example, you may want to comment on a key idea in the
text and have both positive and negative comments. You could begin by stating what is good
about the idea and then concede and explain how it is limited in some way. While this
example shows a mixed evaluation, overall you are probably being more negative than
positive.
In long reviews, you can
address each criteria you
choose in a paragraph,
including both negative and
positive points.
For short critical reviews
where your comments will be
briefer, include a paragraph
of positive aspects and
another of negative.
You can also include
recommendations for how the
text can be improved in terms
of ideas, research approach;
theories or frameworks used
can also be included in the
critique section.
Conclusion
This is usually a very short
paragraph.
• Restate your overall opinion of
the text.
• Briefly present
recommendations.
• If necessary, some further
qualification or explanation of
your judgment can be included.
This can help your critique
sound fair and reasonable.
Criteria: Significance and
contribution to the field.
Possible focus questions:
• What is the author’s aim?
Some • To what extent has this aim
General been achieved?
Criteria for • What does this text add to the
body of knowledge? (This could
Evaluating be in terms of theory, data
and/or practical application)
Texts • What relationship does it bear
to other works in the field?
• What is missing/not stated?
• Is this a problem?
Criteria: Argument and use of
evidence.
Possible focus questions:
Is there a clear problem, statement
or hypothesis?
What claims are made?
Is the argument consistent?
What kinds of evidence does the
text rely on?
How valid and reliable is the
evidence?
How effective is the evidence in
supporting the argument?
What conclusions are drawn?
Are these conclusions justified?
Criteria: Writing style and
text structure.
Possible focus questions:
Does the writing style suit
the intended audience?
(eg; expert/non-expert,
academic/non- academic)
What is the organizing
principle of the text? Could
it be better organized?
To the extent that this research is exploratory, results of this
study provide insights into the importance of recognizing
cultural differences for firms and companies that operate in
international settings. However, several limitations must be
considered in interpreting the study findings.
In their article, “Corporate Responsibility and Corporate
Philanthropy,” despite the lack of credibility of several
evidences, Klaus Leisinger and Karin Schmitt clearly indicate
how corporate philanthropy can motivate employees and create
future opportunities for the company.
Although the difference between altruistic and strategic
Sample
philanthropy is not indicated clearly, the concept of strategic
social investments is examined carefully, and persuasive details
are added to prove the business case for corporate
philanthropy.
Thesis Despite the fact that there is a shortcoming in the authors’
Statements
opinion about the shareholder value maximization, their
persuasive and well-supported claims about advantages of
corporate philanthropy and disadvantage of stakeholder value
are the main strengths of the paper.
Although the authors make debatable and biased claims related
to philanthropy, which are not supported with any credible
examples, they are successful to attract the attention of
audience on the crucial issues about corporate philanthropy and
well-being of society.
In the article, “Corporate Responsibility and Corporate
Philanthropy”, Klaus M. Leisinger and Karin Schmitt
successfully clarify how corporations can help to reduce poverty
although overgeneralisation, such as not specifying the exact
countries or regions where the alleged concepts can work
reduced the persuasiveness of the paper.
Analysis of an Article
