pro

MPP – review of academic research

Review of:

The management of project management: A conceptual framework for project governance

1) According to the paper what is the difference between Governance and management?

2) What are the key differences between projects, programs and portfolios?

3) What are the two approaches to governance?

4) How might conflicts/contradictions arise between the management and governance of projects and programmes?

Evaluating the Quality of An Academic Research Paper – A General Guide

The questions below offer a general framework with which to evaluate academic papers which may be useful for your studies: -

1. Does the abstract adequately summarise the article?

2. Does the introduction fully set the context for the research?

3. Is there an adequate overview of relevant literature in the area?

4. Are the terms adequately defined?

5. Are the limitations and or strengths of existing studies discussed?

6. Is a critical or descriptive perspective adopted

7. Are there any gaps or oversights?

8. Is the sample large enough for any conclusions to be valid?

9. Are the research methods clearly described?

10. Are data gathering and analysis techniques and tools transparent and visible?

11. Is it clear what data sets are being used?

12. Do we learn a sufficient amount about the context in which the research was conducted?

13. Is the writing style clear or is there evidence of vagueness and / or repetition?

14. How successful is the paper in demonstrating an ability to move beyond description critically analyse data?

15. How easy is it to follow the thread of the argument? Is it coherent, well-structured or muddled?

16. Are there any unsupported statements / assertions?

17. Is the data related back to existing research in the area?

18. Are any quotations included supported by sufficient commentary?

19. Does the paper develop new theoretical insights or add constructively to existing theory?

20. Is use made of statistical significance?

21. Are the statistics mainly descriptive rather than confirmatory?

22. Are there any exaggerated claims?

23. What do you like about the paper? Why?

24. What do you dislike about the paper? Why?

25. Are the interpretations consistent with the result?

26. How well is the interpretation of the results linked to the theoretical background?

27. How strong is the conclusion?

28. Does the study show anything new, innovative or of particular interest?

29. If a theoretical or a philosophical perspective is employed, what is this perspective?

30. Is this consistent with the problem, methodology, data collection and the analytical techniques?