The Art of Critique

By Asim Majid Khan

The Definition of Critique…• A critical review or commentary, especially one dealing with works of art

or literature.

• A critical discussion of a specified topic.

• The act of criticizing, especially adversely.

• A critical comment or judgment.

• The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary

or other artistic works.

• A critical article or essay; a critique.

• The investigation of the origin and history of literary documents; textual

criticism.

Different types of papers

•Primary literature

•Secondary literature

•Tertiary literature

Primary Literature

•Research Papers

•Case Studies

•Conference Proceedings

•Dissertations

Primary Literature• Research papers

• Original data

• First published record of the findings of an

experiment of series of experiments

• Peer reviewed

• Normally a group of authors

Primary Literature• Case studies

• Medical/veterinary/psychology literature

• Normally peer reviewed

• Report the circumstances of a particular case

• i.e. an unusual repair technique for a ruptured

achilles tendon

Primary Literature

• Conference proceedings

• Vary in length and quality!

• Sometimes reviewed, sometimes not

• Often preliminary data

• Will often appear later in research paper form

Primary Literature• Dissertations

• Undergraduate research (BSc, MSc, BEng or MEng)

• Graduate research (MSc, MPhil, PhD)

• University published

• BSc all dissertation that achieve mark of 50% or above in library

• MPhil & PhD theses are examined and corrected

Secondary Literature•Review articles

• Information about primary sources

• Compilation or synthesis of ideas and data

• Should be reasonably objective (although often

aren’t)

• Usually peer reviewed

Tertiary Literature• Textbooks – present science theory rather than contributing to it

Research Paper Structure• Abstract

• Introduction

• Materials and Methods

• Results

• Discussion

• References

Abstract•Advertisement for the paper

• Summary of paper

• Reason for performing the study

• Hypothesis

• Important results

• Implications of the findings

Introduction• Background to the study

• Brief overview of the current state of the field

• Citing other people’s work

“The function of tendons can be classified into two categories: tensile

force transmission, and storage of elastic strain energy during

locomotion (Ker et al., 1988, 2000; Shadwick, 1990; Pollock and

Shadwick, 1994).”(Maganaris and Paul, 2002)

Introduction• Background to the study

• Brief overview of the current state of the field

• Citing other people’s work

• How the authors arrived at their research question

• Why this is the most important question in the world!

• HYPOTHESIS

• Simple

• Easily answered

Materials and Methods• Clear concise description of what they did

• Often includes figure of experimental setup if appropriate

• Subjects

• Data collection – what they were measuring and how

• Analysis

• Statistics

• Methods should be clear enough to repeat the experiment and

give the same results

Results• What they found

• Visual representation of the data

• Graphs

• Tables

• Good figure legends

• Description of their results - no

discussion of the implications

Discussion• Interpretation of the results

• How they relate to previous research

• Implication and/or applications of the findings

• How supplement A might improve endurance

• How knowledge of the forces at the knee during a cutting manoeuvre might be used to

reduce injury risk

• Future directions for research

References• Expansion of the citations in the text

• Record of the authors, title and journal where the papers were published

• Critically important to avoid plagiarism – must include the sources of all

information that is other people’s intellectual property

• Two citation methods

• Harvard System

• Numeric System• Individual journals will request specific methods

References• Harvard System

• Cite references in the text by giving author’s surname(s) and year of

publication.

“The function of tendons can be classified into two

categories: tensile force transmission, and storage of

elastic strain energy during locomotion (Ker et al., 1988,

2000; Shadwick, 1990; Pollock and Shadwick, 1994).”

References• Harvard System• Cite references in the text by giving author’s surname(s)

and year of publication.“The function of tendons can be classified into two categories: tensile force

transmission, and storage of elastic strain energy during locomotion (Ker et al., 1988, 2000; Shadwick, 1990; Pollock and Shadwick, 1994).”

(Maganaris and Paul, 2002)

• Reference list – alphabetical orderKer, R.F., Alexander, R.McN. and Bennet, M.B. 1988. Why are

mammalian tendons so thick? Journal of Zoology, London 216, 309-324

• Don’t use capitals for authors’ names as in library guide to referencing

References• Numeric System

• Each citation is given a number in parentheses. These are numbered according

to where they appear in the text. First reference is (1), second reference is (2)

etc

• “However, excess tendon elongation leads to a partial or complete tendon rupture (4), and the Achilles tendon is one of the most frequently injured tendons in the human body (5)”

(Muraoka et al., 2005)

• Reference list – listed in numerical order based

on number you have given each citation in the

text.

4. Butler, D.L., Grood, E.S., Noyes, F.R.and Zernicke, R.F. 1978.

Biomechanics of ligaments and tendons. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 6, 125-

181

References

• Library Guide to Referencinghttp://www.bath.ac.uk/library/guides/references.html

What is a literature review?• Critical look at existing research relevant to your question in

order to• Identify the problem

• Develop a hypothesis

• Develop a method

• It is NOT just a summary of a series of research papers

• You must evaluate the research papers and show the

relationships between different work

What is a literature review?• Approach it with the following questions

• What do we already know in the area concerned?

• What are the key concepts?

• What are the existing theories?

• What are the inconsistencies?

• What evidence is lacking, inconclusive, contradictory or too limited?

• What views need to be tested further?

Selecting a topic• Real World vs Theoretical

• Research at your school or another institution

• Controversial issues

• Relevant to your sport

• Review papers

• Interesting!!!

Writing Style

• Spelling, grammar and punctuation matter!

• Use spell check

• Ask someone to read your paper for you before handing it in

• Fonts and Symbols

• Do not use stylised fonts

• Many of the symbols needed for scientific information can be

found in insert-symbol

• Normal text (° ± Δ ½)

• Mathematical operators (Ω √ ≤ ∑)

Writing Style• Abbreviations and Acronyms• Keep to a minimum• Only use if full expression is excessively long or abbreviation is

in common use• Define the first time it is used

• Use SI (Systeme Internationale) Units• km, m, cm, mm, µm• kg, g, mg, µg• L, ml• d, h, min, s, ms• °C• mol• ms-1 or m/s

Writing Style

• Tables

• Insert-Table in word

• Units in column and row headings

• Use a realistic number of significant figures

• Include a legend which describes the table

• Figures

• Create figure in powerpoint of graphics software

• Insert-picture from file

• Create graphs in Excel or other graph drawing package

• Paste into word

• For this review paste figures into appropriate place in the text. For

publication figures should be separate

Writing Style• Use of Words• Be economical – don’t waffle• Be precise – don’t generalise, be specific if you can• Don’t use however more than once in a paragraph

• changing the direction of an argument twice in one paragraph can confuse the reader

• Don’t use however too often• Thesaurus for synonyms

• Keep technical terms to a minimum• Avoid colloquialisms such as steer clear of

Writing Style• Use of Words

• Don’t use long complicated sentences

• Beware of tenses

• When describing experiments and reporting results use past tense

• When discussing implications use present tense

• Beware of singular and plural terms

• Datum – data

• Medium – media

• Phenomenon – phenomena

Writing Style• Flow of Ideas

• Focus your thoughts by writing a plan/outline first

• The first sentence of a paragraph usually sets the topic for the paragraph

• Check that you don’t contradict yourself

• Aim for simplicity!

READ YOUR WORK BEFORE YOU HAND IT IN!!!

Preferably ask someone else to read it too!

HOW TO CRITIQUE A JOURNAL ARTICLE

First of all, for any type of journal article your critique should

include some basic information:

1. Name(s) of the author(s)

2. Title of article

3. Title of journal, volume number, date, month and page

numbers

4. Statement of the problem or issue discussed

5. The author’s purpose, approach or methods, hypothesis,

and major conclusions.

• The bulk of your critique, however, should consist of your

qualified opinion of the article. Read the article you are to

critique once to get an overview. Then read it again,

critically.

• The following are some questions you may want to address

in your critique no matter what type of article you are

critiquing. (Use your discretion. These points don’t have to

be discussed in this order, and some may not be pertinent

to your particular article.)

1. Is the abstract specific, representative of the article, and in the correct

form?

2 Is the purpose of the article made clear in the introduction?

.3 Do you find errors of fact and interpretation? (This is a good one! You won’t

believe how often authors misinterpret or misrepresent the work of others.

You can check on this by looking up for yourself the references the author

cites.)

4. Is all of the discussion relevant?

5. Has the author cited the pertinent, and only the

pertinent, literature? If the author has included

inconsequential references, or references that are

not pertinent, suggest deleting them.

6. Have any ideas been overemphasized or

underemphasized? Suggest specific revisions.

7. Should some sections of the manuscript be

expanded, condensed or omitted?

8. Are the author’s statements clear? Challenge ambiguous statements.

Suggest by examples how clarity can be achieved, but do not

merely substitute your style for the author’s.

9. What underlying assumptions does the author have?

10. Has the author been objective in his or her discussion of the topic?

In addition, here are some questions that are more specific to empirical/research articles. (Again, use your discretion.)

1. Is the objective of the experiment or of the

observations important for the field?

2. Are the experimental methods described

adequately?

3. Are the study design and methods appropriate for

the purposes of the study?

4. Have the procedures been presented in enough detail to enable a reader

to duplicate them? (Another good one! You’d be surprised at the

respectable researchers who cut corners in their writing on this point.)

5. Scan and spot-check calculations. Are the statistical methods

appropriate?

6. Do you find any content repeated or duplicated? A common fault is

repetition in the text of data in tables or figures. Suggest that

tabular data be interpreted of summarized, nor merely repeated, in

the text.

A word about your style: let your presentation be well-reasoned

and objective. If you passionately disagree (or agree) with the

author, let your passion inspire you to new heights of thorough

research and reasoned argument.

Helpful Hints for Writing A Critique

• Read the entire article, trying to identify the writer’s main point.

Underline any unfamiliar words as you read, but do not stop to look them

up until you have finished reading.

• Look up the unfamiliar words, and then carefully and slowly read the

article again. This time look for the ideas the author uses to support the

main point.

• Summarize the article in your own words, using just one or two sentences

• Check out the author’s credentials and the reliability of the

sources. Is this a reliable author?

• Can he or she be considered an authority on the subject? Are the

sources upon which the article is based clearly and accurately

indicated?

• Read the article one more time to analyze how the

author has supported his or her ideas.

• Are there examples, facts, or opinions?

•What is the author’s bias? Are opposing arguments

addressed competently?

• Are you convinced or unconvinced about the author’s main point?

• Why? Will you incorporate the information you read into your life

or do you reject it? Why? (You may agree with some points and

disagree with others.)

Now that you have thoroughly read and analyzed the work, you are

ready to plan how you will WRITE about it..

SOME KEY WORDS TO USE IN A CRITIQUE:

evidence statistics logical appeals

reasonable

facts expert opinions relevant logical

opinions emotional appeals

representative

fallacies

examples ethical appeals accurate lawed

The Difference between Critique and Criticism

About Criticism

•Criticism finds fault•Criticism looks for

what's lacking•Criticism condemns

what it doesn't understand

About Critique

•Critique looks at structure•Critique finds what's

working•Critique asks for

clarification

• Criticism is spoken with a cruel wit and sarcastic tongue• Criticism is negative• Criticism is vague and

general• Criticism has no sense of

humor• Criticism looks for flaws

in the writer as well as the writing

• Critique's voice is kind, honest, and objective

Critique is positive (even about what isn't working)• Critique is concrete and

specific• Critique insists on

laughter, too• Critique addresses only

what is on the page

Thank You

Once you know what you want to say, follow this pattern:

• Introduction: Introduce the work by stating the author, title, and

source along with the date ofpublication.

• Polish the one- to two-sentence summary of the work that you developed

earlier and add it to the introduction, leading up to your thesis statement.

· Body: Use about three to five points to support your thesis statement.

The questions you answered

as you read should serve as a guide to help you select your points. For

example you can discuss

· the author’s credentials or lack of credentials

· the audience he or she aims at and the appropriateness of the vocabulary

How to Write a Literature Review• Background

• Introduce to topic to the reader

• Make it interesting and easily understandable by explaining it in plain

language and relating to actual or potential applications

• Explain scientific principles underlying the topic

• Define and justify the scope of the review – i.e. your question

How to Write a Literature Review

• Critique of the Literature

• Do not give a summary paper by paper

• Deal with themes and try to draw together the results from several papers into

each theme.

• Use sub-headings to identify your themes• Try and create a logical progression through the subject/argument• Use what you have learnt about research design to critically evaluate the

results of the papers you are discussing

How to Write a Literature Review

• Tables and Figures

• Tables can be a useful, concise way of summarising the findings

of a number of similar studies

• You must cite the sources of the information

• Use tables alongside your evaluation of the data in the text,

not instead of it

• Figures and diagrams can be very useful to explain important

principles

• Cite source of information

How to Write a Literature Review

• Conclusions

• Should be short and concise

• What is your opinion

• Further Research

• Finish your review with some ideas for further research that needs to be

done in the area and why.

How to Write a Literature Review• References

• As used in Journal of Sports Sciences

• Names of author (s) and date of publication in the text

• Full references listed in alphabetical order in the reference list

• Instructions on formatting references can be found in all issues of JSS or on the

JSS website

• http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/rjspauth.pdf Section 5(h)