- Prior writing any summary and critique of research article, consider the following:
It is a requirement to write concise summary of research article with attribution (giving credit to authors where the credit is due, in other words, writing with attribution means to clearly state whose research you summarizing and what is the year of publication, e.g., Smith (2017) claimed that ….. (p. 37).
(See also Appendix A in Cozby & Bates ).
In your paper, you are concisely describing researchers’ work in a form of a summary and then you are adding a constructive critique of the work. For elements of critique, see Paul and Elder’s (2009, p. 18) or Paul and Elder’s (2019, pp. 32-33) sections about how to analyze research article or essay. Anytime you paraphrase or use direct quotations (“…..”), you will need to use page number (p. xy).
For the purposes of today write-up, read the selected article, and then in concise way, in your first paragraph, explain what you plan to do in the rest of the paper. Then summarize the following:
From Introduction, select:
What was the goal (aim, purpose) of the researcher’s or researchers’ work? (Remember, the article has authors who have names and the work was published in a specific year—be precise in this attribution.) What were the research question and/or hypothesis?
From Method, select:
How did the researchers go about accomplishing the research: Who were the participants (males/females, age range, any other demographical and socio-economic information)?
What kind of questionnaires, measures, scales, and/or inventories (include titles, names of authors and year of publication) did researchers use? (Attribute all pertinent information in text and in the list of References.) Is there any other technique researchers used in method section?
From Results, select:
What were the results of the study?
From Discussion, select:
How did the researchers interpret the results? What were the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research?
For the purposes of this paper (and for other papers for Psych 201, 234, 338, and 436), constructively critique which part(s) of research article could be improved and how. Do not select more than two areas for improvement. If in doubt, look over Paul and Elder (2009, p. 18) or Paul and Elder (2019, pp. 32-33) about areas of research article that could be constructively critiqued. It would be sufficient to critique constructively one or two areas in a selected article.
List all sources you have used in-text in your paper.
Cozby, P. C., & Bates, S. C. (2017). Methods in behavioral research. 13th ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. [Can be found on BlackBoard.]
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2009). The miniature guide for critical thinking: Critical thinking concepts and tools. Tomales, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2019). The miniature guide for critical thinking: Critical thinking concepts and tools. 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
The post What was the goal (aim, purpose) of the researcher’s or researchers’ work? (Remember, the article has authors who have names and the work was published in a specific year—be precise in this attribution.) What were the research question and/or hypothesis? appeared first on nursing writers.