How to Read and Critique Papers

Ideally, a critique should describe the context, aim, and content of the paper. Then you should
evaluate whether it succeeds and what its shortcomings are and what the next steps should be.
Context and Aim of the Paper
1.

Question addressed/aim

stated/expressed
inferred/unexpressed

2.

How does this question relate to the present body of knowledge does it plan to make a
new contribution? What is that contribution?

3.

Philosophy of author/ideology The Paradigm

Knowing what the paradigm/discipline is, allows us to criticize fairly and not only on our
own philosophical grounds.

Content of the Paper

Most papers contain the following:
1.
2.

3.
4.

Methods
Data / evidence this need not be numerical data a survey of the literature involves
assessing the data in terms of publications. Even a purely deductive paper makes
assumptions about the models used.
Outcomes/Results Interpretation how does the author use the results to address the questions posed.

Evaluation of the Paper

Does the author succeed in the aims of the paper? Are the methods suitable for answering the
question posed? Is the data suitable for answering the question? Does the author interpret the
results appropriately? Does the paper succeed in making a useful new contribution?
Is the question that was posed interesting and/or useful?
How would you improve things? Criticism should be constructive. What further information you
would like the author to provide? For our seminar you ought to think of questions you would like
to ask the author.
Overall evaluation of paper quality.