Reference no: EM131768718

Assignment

The specific details of this assignment are listed below. You should organize your review according to the sections identified. You should also make sure that your article is a communication related research article that comes from a scholarly journal. You may not use articles from "popular periodicals" (e.g., Psychology Today, Advertising Age). Make sure to correctly cite the article in your bibliography so I can easily access it (any articles I cannot access will result in a grade of zero). Do not share articles with your friends. If you have questions as to what constitutes a scholarly journal article, please ask me! Your article may be on any area of communication that has been discussed in class. It is advised that you choose an article on a topic in which you are interested. Your review should adhere to standard written work guidelines as cited in the syllabus. This assignment is due on Sunday, December 17 at 11:59pm on Blackboard Learn. Late papers will not be accepted under any conditions.

Introduction

• State the objectives of the article. In other words, what is the goal of the author(s)? [hint: look for the research question(s) or hypothesis]

• What is the article's domain (topic area)?

• Does this article relate to anything you read in class? If so, which chapter or reading assignment?

• State whether the article is social scientific, interpretive/naturalistic, or critical, and why you believe it is written from this perspective.

Summary

Briefly summarize the article (no more than 2-4 paragraphs; do not simply re-state the article's abstract).

Briefly summarize the important observations, conclusions, findings, and so forth presented in the article. Include any important details relevant to individual findings, and to the rest of your review.

Critique

A critique of a research article examines the strength of the evidence/analysis supporting the author's argument. It is not simply your opinion as to whether the study was interesting or good! Both strengths and weaknesses should be identified in a critique.

For each of the following ten issues, explain and justify each of your critique points in at least 2-3 sentences.

1. CLARITY: For example, are the article's purpose and argument clear? Do the researchers clearly develop a research question, proposition, or hypothesis that is to be examined in the article? If the study is exploratory (preliminary), is sufficient justification for an exploratory study given?

2. THEORETICAL GROUNDING: For example, is the researcher's argument grounded in theory? Is it clear how the constructs (variables), which are examined in the research, were derived from theory? If this is a theory-building article, is the need for new theory adequately established?

3. DESIGN OF RESEARCH INVESTIGATION: For example, is it clear exactly how the study was carried out/conducted? Is the design of the research (e.g., ethnography, experiment, questionnaires, etc.) adequate such that the study's results are valid and reliable? (Tip: If using a critical article, it is neither sufficient nor correct to simply state, "Not valid because it's just the author's opinion.")

4. MEASUREMENT: For example, are the measures used adequately described (i.e., what is measured/analyzed and how)? If applicable, are data on the reliability and validity of these measures reported?

5. ANALYSIS: For example, is the analysis of data conducted properly and/or thoroughly? Do any quantitative data conform to the requirements of statistical tests used? Are any qualitative data adequately described and presented? How confident are you in the article's results, and why?

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: For example, in discussing the results of the study, do the authors remain true to the actual findings of the study? Are the claims made in the conclusion of the article actually supported by the data? If the study is exploratory, do the authors offer research questions or hypotheses for future research?

7. LIMITATIONS: For example, what are the article's shortcomings (faults) and limitations (boundaries)? Did the author(s) justify everything adequately? Did the author(s) provide enough background information for the intended audience to understand it? For you to understand it?

8. CONTRIBUTIONS: An article makes a "contribution" by adding to the knowledge of researchers in a research field. In what way does this article make a contribution to the research field? How does it build upon prior research? Does it provide a new way to look at a problem? Does it provide new solutions? Does it provide new results? Does it identify new issues? Does it provide new insights? In other words, are its ideas really new or do the authors simply repackage old ideas and perhaps give them a new name?

9. BIASES: For example, do the biases of the authors affect the design of the research or the interpretation of the results? Are the authors aware of potential biases and their effect on the study?

10. FUTURE ISSUES: For example, what open questions or issues have the author(s) stated remain unresolved? (Explain each in "layperson's" terms, don't just restate what the author(s) wrote.) What open questions or issues remain unresolved in your opinion? Give suggestions for dealing with these questions/issues if possible (e.g., "I would propose ...").