• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How to Critically Analyze a research journal ? Can someone here please help me out?

amdguy

Banned
Hi people,

I have this assignment due on sept 30th which requires me to critically analyze a management research journal. I have never done it before and have no clue on how to approach it..the assignment stated that i must assess the research methods, evaluate the research methodology etc..

i have searched on the net but could not come up with any good info..can some here her please help out?
 
I'm currently taking an absolutely, craptastic, required POS 3 credit course, Nursing Research, which deals with how to evaluate research findings. (What a friggin waste of my time, BTW).

You might want to check out the text, Understanding Nursing Research by Burns and Grove, for some ideas.


 
Any serious paper (ie a journal not a trade magazine) will have a few common points. Here are things I definately include when I'm writing one:
[*]Well written abstract. Search engines usually only search the abstract. Is the abstract concise, clear, and relavant? Is it written in a way to get hits on searches that want the paper and not any other searches?
[*]Clear introduction. What is the paper about? Can you answer that without reading the whole paper? Do you understand the background (assuming you already have a basic knowledge in that field)? Are the goals of the paper clearly stated? Is the rest of the paper going to achieve those goals (you should know without reading the rest if the introduction is good)? Are the new ideas and relavant terminology properly defined?
[*]Clear description of research. Can you follow step by step what was done? Was the logic complete and accurate. Ie: a=b, b=c, thus a=c is logical and complete. But a=b, d=e, thus a=e is not complete and may or may not be logical.
[*]Concise and useful conclusion. Does the conclusion help summarize the paper? Are the conclusions clear from the paper or were they pulled out of the authors a$$? I once had to review a paper in a class and the formulas in the conclusion had nothing to do whatsoever with the graphs all throughout the paper. In my review, I derived the proper formulas from the paper's data and got the top grade in the class.
[*]Overall. Is it written with proper spelling, grammer, with proper citing? Is the work truely new (the authors cannot print a paper twice or copy other peoples work)? Is the paper laid out in a clear and meaningful order?

That ought to get you started.
 
Back
Top