Critiquing a Scholarly Article

When reading a published article students often make the mistake of assuming that the information they’re reading must be the truth.  Such assumptions are dangerous because scholars, like everyone else, are affected by their own history/their own experiences/their own training.  Any time you read an article you should approach it with a critical eye.  Think carefully about what the author has written and ask yourself whether or not he or she has done a good job of supporting his or her argument.

In this exercise you will be selecting and critiquing a scholarly article. Select a journal article that interests you.  The article you select must conform to the following criteria:

• Use an academic data base such as JSTOR
• The article must be substantial
• The article cannot be a book review.
• The article’s date of publication must be after 1990.

Article selection is perhaps the most important part of this assignment.  Many students get in hurry and select the first article they find that satisfies the criteria.  This usually proves to be a big mistake because they end up with a confusing article that is of little or no interest to them.  A better approach would be to browse and find a couple of topics that interest you.  Once you have identified a couple of topics then you can begin looking for an article that makes sense and will hold your interest (but do not forget about the above criteria).

Format

Your response paper (about 2-3 pages in length) should include:

• A complete citation of the article, using the citation format summarized by Turabian. From the publisher of the Turabian Style Guide: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/books/turabian/turabian_citationguide.htm

You should write in response to the following: topics:

• What is the main purpose of the article? What is the key question the author is writing about?
•  What is the most important information in the article?
  • Identify the facts, data, or resources the author uses to support his/her argument.  To expand on this statement you will have to look at the foot or endnotes.
• What are the main conclusion[s]/inference[s] in this article?
  • Identify the key conclusions the author(s) come(s) to and presents in the article.
• What are the main assumptions underlying the author’s thinking ? Think about what the author is assuming to be true and what might be questioned. 
• If you accept the author’s line of reasoning, the implications are . . .
  • What consequence does the author’s argument have on our understanding of the past and the present?
• If you reject the author’s line of reasoning, the implications are . . .
  • What consequence does rejecting the author’s argument have on our understanding of the past and the present?
• When writing this article, the author’s point of view may have been influenced by . . .
  •  It is important to remember that historians are influenced by events that occurred during the time when they wrote.  For example, historians writing in the 1950s tended to be very proud of America and its history.  During the 1960s that pride turned to criticism and even anger. You might find out information (academic credentials) about the author(s).

  (The statements are an adaptation from The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools by Richard Paul and Linda Elder.)

  The most important pages in a scholarly article are usually the first 2-3 pages and the last 2-3 pages.  In fact the answers to many of these questions will be found at the beginning and/or end of the article.  Thus, before you delve into the article, spend a few minutes reading the first couple of pages and the last couple of pages (don’t worry about spoiling the ending, unlike literary writers, scholars seldom finish their works with a big surprise).  The important thing is that you understand what the author is trying to say; you can then read the full article and determine for yourself whether he or she has done an adequate job of arguing the point.

  Writing Rubric

  Formal papers will be evaluated using the following criteria (rubric):

5 = Paper demonstrates superb composition skills including a clear and thought-provoking main idea, an appropriate sense of audience, effective organization, interesting and convincing supporting materials, effective word choice and sentence skills, and perfect or near-perfect mechanics including spelling and punctuation. The writing superbly accomplishes the objectives of the assignment and shows original thinking.

4 = Paper contains strong composition skills including a clear, insightful main idea, although there may be minor deficiencies in development or word choice. Style may not be consistently clear and effective. Shows careful and acceptable use of mechanics. Accomplishes the goals of the assignment effectively overall.

3 = Paper demonstrates satisfactory composition skills. There is adequate development and organization, although the development of ideas may be trite, assumptions may be unsupported in more than one area, the main idea may not be original, or the word choice and sentence structure may not be clear and effective. Accomplishes the basic goals of the assignment.

2 = Composition skills are flawed in either the clarity of the main idea, the development, or the organization. Word-choice, sentence structure, and mechanics may seriously affect clarity. Minimally accomplishes the majority of the goals of the assignment.

1 = Composition skills are seriously flawed in two or more areas. Word-choice, sentence structure, and mechanics are excessively flawed. Accomplishes few of the goals of the assignment.