Critique Paper and Peer Review Critique Paper (Biology 302)
Critical Analysis
Critical analysis involves thinking about what you're reading and interpreting it and evaluating it.
Critical analysis of the books, papers, articles, and research that you read for your classes is an important skill. It is also an important skill in the workplace. Generally speaking, when you engage in critical analysis, you do the following things:
Critical Analysis Principles
Example Questions or Statements
Identify and challenge starting assumptions
Questions:
Did the authors base their conclusions on the appropriate facts? Did the author consider the social conditions of the appropriate time period? Did the author use the appropriate resources to adequately address the question?
Example:
The author used widely-held social beliefs in 2007 to explain social changes that occurred in 1910.
Distinguish facts from opinions, and distinguish objectivity from bias
Questions:
Has the author stated the facts from a research study, or did he just give us his opinion? Has the author explained the situation fairly? Did the author allow her personal opinion or involvement to prejudice her explanation and cloud her judgment?
Example:
This drug has been reported to be an effective treatment. However, all the reports come from the company that created and is selling the drug. There are no independent reports from uninvolved parties that support this claim.
Make inferences from the facts
Questions:
What do these findings mean? What are the implications of these findings? Do these findings impact other areas or concepts? Did the author interpret the findings in a reasonable manner?
Example:
The research showed that one of the moons contains oxygen. This finding could mean that life might survive on this particular moon.
Identify strengths and weaknesses of the experimental design and of the data
Questions:
Did the author use the appropriate subjects, tools, or resources to address the hypothesis or research question? Was the data or evidence presented clearly? Was the data analyzed appropriately? Do the results (data) directly address the original hypothesis or question?
Example:
This study of Alzheimer’s patients was good because it included a large number of participants. The study could have been improved by using a wider variety of people (for example, different cultures, ages, economic background).
Identify and sort conflicting claims, statements, data, or conclusions
Questions:
Are there inconsistencies or paradoxes in the findings? Do the authors talk about or explain conflicting results? Do the author’s conclusions and interpretations match the results (data) or evidence?
Examples:
The drug manufacturer claims that there are no side effects. However, independent doctors say that many of the people who take this drug have heart attacks.
Seek out and identify key pieces of information as well as information that is lacking
Questions:
Are there other resources that deal with this question? Is there additional evidence that should have been considered?
Example:
The chemical make-up of the rock was an important feature in understanding the results of this study. The weight and thickness of the rock are also important, but the author did not provide this information.
Imagine, explore, and explain alternative hypotheses, theories, and explanations
Questions:
Can the findings be explained by another hypothesis or theory? Are there other ways to explain these observations?
Example:
Compare and contrast (i.e., identify similarities and differences between or among) conditions, experimental subjects, and results
Questions:
How is the evidence similar? How is this evidence different? At what level are they similar and/or different? How do these similarities and differences impact the overall interpretation or conclusion?
Example:
The two cells were similar in their size and their role in sugar metabolism. However, these two cells were different in where they are located in the body and how much energy they use.
Identify the relevance and perspective of the research to the overall discipline
Questions:
Did the authors explore a new or original idea, or test an existing view? Is the perspective of the author considered controversial or radical, or represent the prevailing viewpoint in the discipline?
Example:
The authors' approach to evolution represents a departure from the Darwinian view and may be considered controversial to most evolutionary scientists.
Explore the applications of the ideas presented in the article
Questions:
How might this research and findings be applied to real-life situations?
Example:
The study on social groups of monkeys found that the incidence of affiliations between group members was correlated with reduced stress. I wonder if such stress reduction could apply to humans as well.
Critical analysis is often confused with the process of summarizing. Critical analysis and summarizing are two different processes and have two different purposes. When we summarize, we rephrase an idea, a concept, or a passage of text in our own words. When we do this we typically leave out some of the details and reduce the overall length of the original material. When summarizing, we simply restate the original material in an abbreviated version; we do not add our own interpretation or analysis of the original material (for this is critical analysis).
The following boxes will help to further illustrate critical analysis and summarizing. The first box provides an excerpt of an article titled Cellular Safety. The second box provides a summary of the article. Notice that it is merely a restatement of the information in the article. The third box provides a critical analysis of the article. Notice that it does not restate the original article. Instead, it asks questions about the article, points out strengths and weaknesses of the article, and presents some new ideas on the subject.
Article
Cellular Safety
For more than a decade, public debate has focused on whether cell phone radiation causes cancer, particularly brain cancer. Now researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis have found that radiation from cell phones doesn't appear to cause cancer in rats. The research team exposed rats to the two most common types of cell phone radiation for four hours a day, five days a week for two years. "We tried to mimic a high level of exposure that humans might experience," says study leader Joseph L. Roti. "We found no statistically significant increases in any tumor type, including brain, liver, lung, or kidney, compared to the control group." From The Science Teacher, Sept 2002, pg 12.
Summary
Researchers exposed rats to two common types of cell phone radiation for four hours a day, five days a week for two years. These rats did not exhibit an increased number of tumors of any type.
Notice how this is merely a restatement of the facts in the article above.
Critical Analysis
Although these research results are promising, it's difficult to determine whether this experiment really did mimic humans' exposure to cell phone radiation. Was the intensity of the radiation signal modulated appropriately to compensate for the differences between the thickness and density of the human and rat skulls? And although this research may have provided promising results for the two most common forms of cell phone radiation, we have no idea whether these results are applicable to other forms of cell phone radiation. So the title of the article "Cellular Safety" is misleading and this conclusion does not necessarily apply to all cell phone usage in humans.
Notice how this does not include a restatement of anything in the original article. Instead, this passage shows that the reader has thought about the information provided and come up with some new ideas and questions, and has identified weaknesses in the research.