Research Review Papers

Your review papers should be about 1 to 2 pages long and have three sections.  First decided whether the paper your are reviewing is a Theoretical/Review paper (with no presentation of new data) or an empirical paper (with a presentation of new data).  The first few weeks of class will

Theoretical/Review papers.

First and foremost, explain the general idea being presented and the broader issues which it addresses. The general idea may appear in the opening paragraphs, but wait until you read the whole paper to digest it as much as possible before jumping to conclusions about what the paper was about. Although this section may only be a paragraph or two it is very important.

In the second section, you should present a SHORT (I mean it) review of the paper's arguments and/or claims. That is, following from the opening paragraph which offers a general account of the paper, provide a specific account of the paper's arguments or claims. You will find the key arguments and claims by reviewing the headings and subheadings of the paper.  To gauge whether you are presenting the appropriate level of detail, focus on whether your provide enough information to explain what was claimed and offer a criticism. So, for example, mentioning subtle details  of the arguments or claim would only be justified if you were critiquing these points. Stay focused on the key arguments and/or claims which bear on the central question articulated in the first section above.

In the third and final section, comment on the strengths and limits of the analysis as you see them.  This can be done most directly by explaining what arguments or claims you find compelling and interesting and which ones you find vague and confusing.  For the strengths explain what makes them compelling and the evidence in support of them. For the weaknesses, explain what you find unclear and whether it is something you do not understand or do not agree with. 

Empirical papers

First and foremost, explain the general idea being tested and why anyone should care about it. Focus on the general question being posed without regard to details of how the study was done or variables were measured. The authors of the paper you are reviewing will spend the first part of their introduction and last part of their discussion highlighting these issues.  This paragraph may be very short but it is very important.

In the second section, you should present a SHORT (I mean it) review of the assigned paper's procedures and findings. In describing the procedure, explain how the research was designed and the variables were measured. That is, following from the opening paragraph which offers a general conceptual account of the study, provide a specific procedural account of it.  How much is the right amount of detail?  Good question!  Provide the right level of detail to be able to explain what was found and to offer a critique. So, for example, mentioning details of how and how many participants were sampled would only be justified if you were critiquing their sample selection process. When presenting the results, stay focused on the key ones--those which bear on the central question articulated in the first section above. Don't worry too much about the statistics, which will be at time very difficult to wade through.  I will discuss statistical  issues in class.

In the third and final section, comment on the strengths and limits of the study as you see it.  This can be done most directly by assessing the study's internal and external validity (click on this link for definitions). This may be difficult to do if you have not done it before. For those with no background with these concepts, I suggest you review the methodological concepts which I present in my adolescence course (click here).  But even the more seasoned reviewers among you may need to read a paper several times in order to effectively comment on its validity.