As you critically evaluate a research paper for this course, you should
be conscious of a number of items:
-
What are the central questions the research is addressing? What are
the hypotheses being tested? These are often somewhat different things.
Questions are often broader in scope than the project is designed to handle.
Hypotheses may be adequately tested, but the outcome may only provide insights
into the questions' answers.
-
What testing methods are employed? How is the test conducted?
Are the methods appropriate or adequate for the study?
-
What are the assumptions that are made prior to testing? Always remember
the adage "good science, false premise"; the science is only as good as
the assumptions upon which it is founded.
-
Have any hypotheses been falsified and how? Which hypotheses are
corroborated by consilient arguments and how?
-
What are the paper's conclusions, and, more importantly, are the conclusions
justified? Often wrong conclusions are drawn or results are over-interpreted.
-
How might the study be improved?
-
What are the implications of the research beyond the scope of the study?
How does this work relate to other studies you are familiar with?
You should always be interrelating papers you read.
After a while, this style of analysis will become second nature -- every
time you read a scientific paper you will consider these questions / criteria.
Review papers, those that do not directly present a scientific design and
research results, cannot be treated this way.
|
