how critique a research paper

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step

Table of contents

• 1 What is an Article Critique Writing?
• 2 How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps
• 3 Article Critique Outline
• 4 Article Critique Formatting
• 5 How to Write a Journal Article Critique
• 6 How to Write a Research Article Critique
• 7 Research Methods in Article Critique Writing
• 8 Tips for writing an Article Critique

Do you know how to critique an article? If not, don’t worry – this guide will walk you through the writing process step-by-step. First, we’ll discuss what a research article critique is and its importance. Then, we’ll outline the key points to consider when critiquing a scientific article. Finally, we’ll provide a step-by-step guide on how to write an article critique including introduction, body and summary. Read more to get the main idea of crafting a critique paper.

What is an Article Critique Writing?

An article critique is a formal analysis and evaluation of a piece of writing. It is often written in response to a particular text but can also be a response to a book, a movie, or any other form of writing. There are many different types of review articles . Before writing an article critique, you should have an idea about each of them.

To start writing a good critique, you must first read the article thoroughly and examine and make sure you understand the article’s purpose. Then, you should outline the article’s key points and discuss how well they are presented. Next, you should offer your comments and opinions on the article, discussing whether you agree or disagree with the author’s points and subject. Finally, concluding your critique with a brief summary of your thoughts on the article would be best. Ensure that the general audience understands your perspective on the piece.

How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps

If you are wondering “what is included in an article critique,” the answer is:

An article critique typically includes the following:

• A brief summary of the article .
• A critical evaluation of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.
• A conclusion.

When critiquing an article, it is essential to critically read the piece and consider the author’s purpose and research strategies that the author chose. Next, provide a brief summary of the text, highlighting the author’s main points and ideas. Critique an article using formal language and relevant literature in the body paragraphs. Finally, describe the thesis statement, main idea, and author’s interpretations in your language using specific examples from the article. It is also vital to discuss the statistical methods used and whether they are appropriate for the research question. Make notes of the points you think need to be discussed, and also do a literature review from where the author ground their research. Offer your perspective on the article and whether it is well-written. Finally, provide background information on the topic if necessary.

When you are reading an article, it is vital to take notes and critique the text to understand it fully and to be able to use the information in it. Here are the main steps for critiquing an article:

• Read the piece thoroughly, taking notes as you go. Ensure you understand the main points and the author’s argument.
• Take a look at the author’s perspective. Is it powerful? Does it back up the author’s point of view?
• Carefully examine the article’s tone. Is it biased? Are you being persuaded by the author in any way?
• Look at the structure. Is it well organized? Does it make sense?
• Consider the writing style. Is it clear? Is it well-written?
• Evaluate the sources the author uses. Are they credible?
• Think about your own opinion. With what do you concur or disagree? Why?

Article Critique Outline

When assigned an article critique, your instructor asks you to read and analyze it and provide feedback. A specific format is typically followed when writing an article critique.

An article critique usually has three sections: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.

• The introduction of your article critique should have a summary and key points.
• The critique’s main body should thoroughly evaluate the piece, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and state your ideas and opinions with supporting evidence.
• The conclusion should restate your research and describe your opinion.

You should provide your analysis rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the author. When writing an article review , it is essential to be objective and critical. Describe your perspective on the subject and create an article review summary. Be sure to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, write it in the third person, and cite your sources.

Article Critique Formatting

When writing an article critique, you should follow a few formatting guidelines. The importance of using a proper format is to make your review clear and easy to read.

Make sure to use double spacing throughout your critique. It will make it easy to understand and read for your instructor.

Indent each new paragraph. It will help to separate your critique into different sections visually.

Use headings to organize your critique. Your introduction, body, and conclusion should stand out. It will make it easy for your instructor to follow your thoughts.

Use standard fonts, such as Times New Roman or Arial. It will make your critique easy to read.

Use 12-point font size. It will ensure that your critique is easy to read.

How to Write a Journal Article Critique

When critiquing a journal article, there are a few key points to keep in mind:

• Good critiques should be objective, meaning that the author’s ideas and arguments should be evaluated without personal bias.
• Critiques should be critical, meaning that all aspects of the article should be examined, including the author’s introduction, main ideas, and discussion.
• Critiques should be informative, providing the reader with a clear understanding of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.

When critiquing a research article, evaluating the author’s argument and the evidence they present is important. The author should state their thesis or the main point in the introductory paragraph. You should explain the article’s main ideas and evaluate the evidence critically. In the discussion section, the author should explain the implications of their findings and suggest future research.

It is also essential to keep a critical eye when reading scientific articles. In order to be credible, the scientific article must be based on evidence and previous literature. The author’s argument should be well-supported by data and logical reasoning.

How to Write a Research Article Critique

When you are assigned a research article, the first thing you need to do is read the piece carefully. Make sure you understand the subject matter and the author’s chosen approach. Next, you need to assess the importance of the author’s work. What are the key findings, and how do they contribute to the field of research?

Finally, you need to provide a critical point-by-point analysis of the article. This should include discussing the research questions, the main findings, and the overall impression of the scientific piece. In conclusion, you should state whether the text is good or bad. Read more to get an idea about curating a research article critique. But if you are not confident, you can ask “ write my papers ” and hire a professional to craft a critique paper for you. Explore your options online and get high-quality work quickly.

However, test yourself and use the following tips to write a research article critique that is clear, concise, and properly formatted.

• Take notes while you read the text in its entirety. Right down each point you agree and disagree with.
• Write a thesis statement that concisely and clearly outlines the main points.
• Write a paragraph that introduces the article and provides context for the critique.
• Write a paragraph for each of the following points, summarizing the main points and providing your own analysis:
• The purpose of the study
• The research question or questions
• The methods used
• The outcomes
• The conclusions were drawn by the author(s)
• Mention the strengths and weaknesses of the piece in a separate paragraph.
• Write a conclusion that summarizes your thoughts about the article.
• Free unlimited checks
• All common file formats
• Accurate results
• Intuitive interface

Research Methods in Article Critique Writing

When writing an article critique, it is important to use research methods to support your arguments. There are a variety of research methods that you can use, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In this text, we will discuss four of the most common research methods used in article critique writing: quantitative research, qualitative research, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.

Quantitative research is a research method that uses numbers and statistics to analyze data. This type of research is used to test hypotheses or measure a treatment’s effects. Quantitative research is normally considered more reliable than qualitative research because it considers a large amount of information. But, it might be difficult to find enough data to complete it properly.

Qualitative research is a research method that uses words and interviews to analyze data. This type of research is used to understand people’s thoughts and feelings. Qualitative research is usually more reliable than quantitative research because it is less likely to be biased. Though it is more expensive and tedious.

Systematic reviews are a type of research that uses a set of rules to search for and analyze studies on a particular topic. Some think that systematic reviews are more reliable than other research methods because they use a rigorous process to find and analyze studies. However, they can be pricy and long to carry out.

Meta-analysis is a type of research that combines several studies’ results to understand a treatment’s overall effect better. Meta-analysis is generally considered one of the most reliable type of research because it uses data from several approved studies. Conversely, it involves a long and costly process.

Are you still struggling to understand the critique of an article concept? You can contact an online review writing service to get help from skilled writers. You can get custom, and unique article reviews easily.

Tips for writing an Article Critique

It’s crucial to keep in mind that you’re not just sharing your opinion of the content when you write an article critique. Instead, you are providing a critical analysis, looking at its strengths and weaknesses. In order to write a compelling critique, you should follow these tips: Take note carefully of the essential elements as you read it.

• Make sure that you understand the thesis statement.
• Write down your thoughts, including strengths and weaknesses.
• Use evidence from to support your points.
• Create a clear and concise critique, making sure to avoid giving your opinion.

It is important to be clear and concise when creating an article critique. You should avoid giving your opinion and instead focus on providing a critical analysis. You should also use evidence from the article to support your points.

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

You are using an outdated browser

Unfortunately Ausmed.com does not support your browser. Please upgrade your browser to continue.

How to Critique a Research Article

Let's briefly examine some basic pointers on how to perform a literature review.

If you've managed to get your hands on peer-reviewed articles, then you may wonder why it is necessary for you to perform your own article critique. Surely the article will be of good quality if it has made it through the peer-review process?

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Publication bias can occur when editors only accept manuscripts that have a bearing on the direction of their own research, or reject manuscripts with negative findings. Additionally,  not all peer reviewers have expert knowledge on certain subject matters , which can introduce bias and sometimes a conflict of interest.

Performing your own critical analysis of an article allows you to consider its value to you and to your workplace.

Critical evaluation is defined as a systematic way of considering the truthfulness of a piece of research, its results and how relevant and applicable they are.

How to Critique

It can be a little overwhelming trying to critique an article when you're not sure where to start. Considering the article under the following headings may be of some use:

Title of Study/Research

You may be a better judge of this after reading the article, but the title should succinctly reflect the content of the work, stimulating readers' interest.

Three to six keywords that encapsulate the main topics of the research will have been drawn from the body of the article.

Introduction

This should include:

• Evidence of a literature review that is relevant and recent, critically appraising other works rather than merely describing them
• Background information on the study to orientate the reader to the problem
• Hypothesis or aims of the study
• Rationale for the study that justifies its need, i.e. to explore an un-investigated gap in the literature.

Materials and Methods

Similar to a recipe, the description of materials and methods will allow others to replicate the study elsewhere if needed. It should both contain and justify the exact specifications of selection criteria, sample size, response rate and any statistics used. This will demonstrate how the study is capable of achieving its aims. Things to consider in this section are:

• What sort of sampling technique and size was used?
• What proportion of the eligible sample participated? (e.g. '553 responded to a survey sent to 750 medical technologists'
• Were all eligible groups sampled? (e.g. was the survey sent only in English?)
• What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
• Were there threats to the reliability and validity of the study, and were these controlled for?
• Were there any obvious biases?
• If a trial was undertaken, was it randomised, case-controlled, blinded or double-blinded?

Results should be statistically analysed and presented in a way that an average reader of the journal will understand. Graphs and tables should be clear and promote clarity of the text. Consider whether:

• There were any major omissions in the results, which could indicate bias
• Percentages have been used to disguise small sample sizes
• The data generated is consistent with the data collected.

Negative results are just as relevant as research that produces positive results (but, as mentioned previously, may be omitted in publication due to editorial bias).

This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It should not introduce any new material but should address how the aims of the study have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted. Any limitations of the study, including bias, should be clearly presented. You will need to evaluate whether the author has clearly interpreted the results of the study, or whether the results could be interpreted another way.

Conclusions

These should be clearly stated and will only be valid if the study was reliable, valid and used a representative sample size. There may also be recommendations for further research.

These should be relevant to the study, be up-to-date, and should provide a comprehensive list of citations within the text.

Final Thoughts

Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace. Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely, and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by existing literature.

• Marshall, G 2005, ‘Critiquing a Research Article’, Radiography , vol. 11, no. 1, viewed 2 October 2023, https://www.radiographyonline.com/article/S1078-8174(04)00119-1/fulltext

Help and Feedback

Publications.

Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here .

• All eBooks & Audiobooks
• Academic eBook Collection
• Home Grown eBook Collection
• Off-Campus Access
• Literature Resource Center
• Opposing Viewpoints
• ProQuest Central
• Course Guides
• Citing Sources
• Library Research
• Websites by Topic
• Book-a-Librarian
• Research Tutorials
• Use the Catalog
• Use Databases
• Use Films on Demand
• Use Home Grown eBooks
• Use NC LIVE
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary vs. Secondary
• Scholarly vs. Popular
• Make an Appointment
• Writing Tools
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
• Writing Center

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

• Writing an article SUMMARY
• Writing an article REVIEW

Writing an article CRITIQUE

• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author’s argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher’s claims.

Introduction

Give an overview of the author’s main points and how the author supports those points. Explain what the author found and describe the process they used to arrive at this conclusion.

Body Paragraphs

Interpret the information from the article:

• Does the author review previous studies? Is current and relevant research used?
• What type of research was used – empirical studies, anecdotal material, or personal observations?
• Was the sample too small to generalize from?
• Was the participant group lacking in diversity (race, gender, age, education, socioeconomic status, etc.)
• For instance, volunteers gathered at a health food store might have different attitudes about nutrition than the population at large.
• How useful does this work seem to you? How does the author suggest the findings could be applied and how do you believe they could be applied?
• How could the study have been improved in your opinion?
• Does the author appear to have any biases (related to gender, race, class, or politics)?
• Is the writing clear and easy to follow? Does the author’s tone add to or detract from the article?
• How useful are the visuals (such as tables, charts, maps, photographs) included, if any? How do they help to illustrate the argument? Are they confusing or hard to read?
• What further research might be conducted on this subject?

Try to synthesize the pieces of your critique to emphasize your own main points about the author’s work, relating the researcher’s work to your own knowledge or to topics being discussed in your course.

From the Center for Academic Excellence (opens in a new window), University of Saint Joseph Connecticut

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

Writing an Article Critique (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)

How to Critique an Article (from Essaypro.com)

How to Write an Article Critique (from EliteEditing.com.au)

• << Previous: Writing an article REVIEW
• Next: Citing Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

• Writing well

How to write a critique

• Starting well
• How to write an annotated bibliography
• How to write a case study response
• How to write an empirical article
• How to write an essay
• How to write a literature review
• How to write a reflective task
• How to write a report
• Finishing well

Before you start writing, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the work that will be critiqued.

• Study the work under discussion.
• Make notes on key parts of the work.
• Develop an understanding of the main argument or purpose being expressed in the work.
• Consider how the work relates to a broader issue or context.

Example template

There are a variety of ways to structure a critique. You should always check your unit materials or Canvas site for guidance from your lecturer. The following template, which showcases the main features of a critique, is provided as one example.

Introduction

Typically, the introduction is short (less than 10% of the word length) and you should:

• name the work being reviewed as well as the date it was created and the name of the author/creator
• describe the main argument or purpose of the work
• explain the context in which the work was created - this could include the social or political context, the place of the work in a creative or academic tradition, or the relationship between the work and the creator’s life experience
• have a concluding sentence that signposts what your evaluation of the work will be - for instance, it may indicate whether it is a positive, negative, or mixed evaluation.

Briefly summarise the main points and objectively describe how the creator portrays these by using techniques, styles, media, characters or symbols. This summary should not be the focus of the critique and is usually shorter than the critical evaluation.

Critical evaluation

This section should give a systematic and detailed assessment of the different elements of the work, evaluating how well the creator was able to achieve the purpose through these. For example: you would assess the plot structure, characterisation and setting of a novel; an assessment of a painting would look at composition, brush strokes, colour and light; a critique of a research project would look at subject selection, design of the experiment, analysis of data and conclusions.

A critical evaluation does not simply highlight negative impressions. It should deconstruct the work and identify both strengths and weaknesses. It should examine the work and evaluate its success, in light of its purpose.

Examples of key critical questions that could help your assessment include:

• Who is the creator? Is the work presented objectively or subjectively?
• What are the aims of the work? Were the aims achieved?
• What techniques, styles, media were used in the work? Are they effective in portraying the purpose?
• What assumptions underlie the work? Do they affect its validity?
• What types of evidence or persuasion are used? Has evidence been interpreted fairly?
• How is the work structured? Does it favour a particular interpretation or point of view? Is it effective?
• Does the work enhance understanding of key ideas or theories? Does the work engage (or fail to engage) with key concepts or other works in its discipline?

This evaluation is written in formal academic style and logically presented. Group and order your ideas into paragraphs. Start with the broad impressions first and then move into the details of the technical elements. For shorter critiques, you may discuss the strengths of the works, and then the weaknesses. In longer critiques, you may wish to discuss the positive and negative of each key critical question in individual paragraphs.

To support the evaluation, provide evidence from the work itself, such as a quote or example, and you should also cite evidence from related sources. Explain how this evidence supports your evaluation of the work.

This is usually a very brief paragraph, which includes:

• a statement indicating the overall evaluation of the work
• a summary of the key reasons, identified during the critical evaluation, why this evaluation was formed
• in some circumstances, recommendations for improvement on the work may be appropriate.

Reference list

Include all resources cited in your critique. Check with your lecturer/tutor for which referencing style to use.

• Mentioned the name of the work, the date of its creation and the name of the creator?
• Accurately summarised the work being critiqued?
• Mainly focused on the critical evaluation of the work?
• Systematically outlined an evaluation of each element of the work to achieve the overall purpose?
• Used evidence, from the work itself as well as other sources, to back and illustrate my assessment of elements of the work?
• Formed an overall evaluation of the work, based on critical reading?
• Used a well structured introduction, body and conclusion?
• Used correct grammar, spelling and punctuation; clear presentation; and appropriate referencing style?

Further information

• University of New South Wales: Writing a Critical Review
• University of Toronto: The Book Review or Article Critique

Global links and information

• Referencing and using sources
• Background and development
• Changes to QUT cite|write
• Need more help?
• Current students
• Current staff
• TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12079 (Australian University)
• CRICOS No. 00213J
• ABN 83 791 724 622
• Last modified: 28-May-2024
• Accessibility
• Right to Information
• Feedback and suggestions

Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners

QUT acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands where QUT now stands.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper

Affiliation.

• 1 School of Nursing, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland.
• PMID: 16114192
• DOI: 10.5172/conu.14.1.38

Learning how to critique research articles is one of the fundamental skills of scholarship in any discipline. The range, quantity and quality of publications available today via print, electronic and Internet databases means it has become essential to equip students and practitioners with the prerequisites to judge the integrity and usefulness of published research. Finding, understanding and critiquing quality articles can be a difficult process. This article sets out some helpful indicators to assist the novice to make sense of research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• A guide to critiquing a research paper on clinical supervision: enhancing skills for practice. Fothergill A, Lipp A. Fothergill A, et al. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2014;21(9):834-40. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12161. Epub 2014 May 13. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2014. PMID: 24818837
• Critiquing research. Preston J. Preston J. Nurs Stand. 2015 Dec 2;30(14):61-2. doi: 10.7748/ns.30.14.61.s47. Nurs Stand. 2015. PMID: 26639295
• A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care. Lipp A, Fothergill A. Lipp A, et al. Nurse Educ Today. 2015 Mar;35(3):e14-7. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.12.010. Epub 2015 Jan 24. Nurse Educ Today. 2015. PMID: 25638278 Review.
• Engaging nurses in research utilization. Wintersgill W, Wheeler EC. Wintersgill W, et al. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2012 Sep-Oct;28(5):E1-5. doi: 10.1097/NND.0b013e31826a008c. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2012. PMID: 22992644
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research. Ryan F, Coughlan M, Cronin P. Ryan F, et al. Br J Nurs. 2007 Jun 28-Jul 11;16(12):738-44. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2007.16.12.23726. Br J Nurs. 2007. PMID: 17851363 Review.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Taylor & Francis

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write an Article Critique

Tips for Writing a Psychology Critique Paper

Cultura RM / Gu Cultura / Getty Images

• Steps for Writing a Critique

Evaluating the Article

• How to Write It
• Helpful Tips

An article critique involves critically analyzing a written work to assess its strengths and flaws. If you need to write an article critique, you will need to describe the article, analyze its contents, interpret its meaning, and make an overall assessment of the importance of the work.

Critique papers require students to conduct a critical analysis of another piece of writing, often a book, journal article, or essay . No matter your major, you will probably be expected to write a critique paper at some point.

For psychology students, critiquing a professional paper is a great way to learn more about psychology articles, writing, and the research process itself. Students will analyze how researchers conduct experiments, interpret results, and discuss the impact of the results.

At a Glance

An article critique involves making a critical assessment of a single work. This is often an article, but it might also be a book or other written source. It summarizes the contents of the article and then evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of the piece. Knowing how to write an article critique can help you learn how to evaluate sources with a discerning eye.

Steps for Writing an Effective Article Critique

While these tips are designed to help students write a psychology critique paper, many of the same principles apply to writing article critiques in other subject areas.

Your first step should always be a thorough read-through of the material you will be analyzing and critiquing. It needs to be more than just a casual skim read. It should be in-depth with an eye toward key elements.

To write an article critique, you should:

• Read the article , noting your first impressions, questions, thoughts, and observations
• Describe the contents of the article in your own words, focusing on the main themes or ideas
• Interpret the meaning of the article and its overall importance
• Critically evaluate the contents of the article, including any strong points as well as potential weaknesses

The following guidelines can help you assess the article you are reading and make better sense of the material.

Read the Introduction Section of the Article

Start by reading the introduction . Think about how this part of the article sets up the main body and how it helps you get a background on the topic.

• Is the hypothesis clearly stated?
• Is the necessary background information and previous research described in the introduction?

In addition to answering these basic questions, note other information provided in the introduction and any questions you have.

Read the Methods Section of the Article

Is the study procedure clearly outlined in the methods section ? Can you determine which variables the researchers are measuring?

Remember to jot down questions and thoughts that come to mind as you are reading. Once you have finished reading the paper, you can then refer back to your initial questions and see which ones remain unanswered.

Read the Results Section of the Article

Are all tables and graphs clearly labeled in the results section ? Do researchers provide enough statistical information? Did the researchers collect all of the data needed to measure the variables in question?

Make a note of any questions or information that does not seem to make sense. You can refer back to these questions later as you are writing your final critique.

Read the Discussion Section of the Article

Experts suggest that it is helpful to take notes while reading through sections of the paper you are evaluating. Ask yourself key questions:

• How do the researchers interpret the results of the study?
• Did the results support their hypothesis?
• Do the conclusions drawn by the researchers seem reasonable?

The discussion section offers students an excellent opportunity to take a position. If you agree with the researcher's conclusions, explain why. If you feel the researchers are incorrect or off-base, point out problems with the conclusions and suggest alternative explanations.

Another alternative is to point out questions the researchers failed to answer in the discussion section.

Begin Writing Your Own Critique of the Paper

Once you have read the article, compile your notes and develop an outline that you can follow as you write your psychology critique paper. Here's a guide that will walk you through how to structure your critique paper.

Introduction

Begin your paper by describing the journal article and authors you are critiquing. Provide the main hypothesis (or thesis) of the paper. Explain why you think the information is relevant.

Thesis Statement

The final part of your introduction should include your thesis statement. Your thesis statement is the main idea of your critique. Your thesis should briefly sum up the main points of your critique.

Article Summary

Provide a brief summary of the article. Outline the main points, results, and discussion.

When describing the study or paper, experts suggest that you include a summary of the questions being addressed, study participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.

Don't get bogged down by your summary. This section should highlight the main points of the article you are critiquing. Don't feel obligated to summarize each little detail of the main paper. Focus on giving the reader an overall idea of the article's content.

Your Analysis

In this section, you will provide your critique of the article. Describe any problems you had with the author's premise, methods, or conclusions. You might focus your critique on problems with the author's argument, presentation, information, and alternatives that have been overlooked.

When evaluating a study, summarize the main findings—including the strength of evidence for each main outcome—and consider their relevance to key demographic groups.  

Organize your paper carefully. Be careful not to jump around from one argument to the next. Arguing one point at a time ensures that your paper flows well and is easy to read.

Your critique paper should end with an overview of the article's argument, your conclusions, and your reactions.

More Tips When Writing an Article Critique

• As you are editing your paper, utilize a style guide published by the American Psychological Association, such as the official Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association .
• Reading scientific articles can be challenging at first. Remember that this is a skill that takes time to learn but that your skills will become stronger the more that you read.
• Take a rough draft of your paper to your school's writing lab for additional feedback and use your university library's resources.

What This Means For You

Being able to write a solid article critique is a useful academic skill. While it can be challenging, start by breaking down the sections of the paper, noting your initial thoughts and questions. Then structure your own critique so that you present a summary followed by your evaluation. In your critique, include the strengths and the weaknesses of the article.

Archibald D, Martimianakis MA. Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews .  Can Med Educ J . 2021;12(3):1-7. doi:10.36834/cmej.72945

Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review . PLoS Comput Biol . 2013;9(7):e1003149. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Gülpınar Ö, Güçlü AG. How to write a review article?   Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):44–48. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.054

Erol A. Basics of writing review articles .  Noro Psikiyatr Ars . 2022;59(1):1-2. doi:10.29399/npa.28093

American Psychological Association.  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association  (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Writing a Critique Paper: Seven Easy Steps

Were you assigned or asked by your professor to write a critique paper? It’s easy to write one. Just follow the following four steps in writing a critique paper and three steps in presenting it, then you’re ready to go.

To standardize the format they use in writing a critique paper, I came up with the following steps to make their submissions worthwhile.

Table of Contents

Step-by-step procedure in writing a critique paper.

I quickly wrote this simple guide on writing a critique paper to help you evaluate any composition you want to write about. It could be a book, a scientific article, a gray paper, or whatever your professor assigns. I integrated the essence of the approach in this article.

The critique paper essentially comprises two major parts, namely the:

First, you will need to know the procedure that will guide you in evaluating a paper. Second, the format of the critique paper refers to how you present it so that it becomes logical and scholarly in tone.

The Four Steps in Writing a Critique Paper

Here are the four steps in writing a critique paper:

To write a good critique paper, it pays to adhere to a smooth flow of thought in your evaluation of the piece. You will need to introduce the topic, analyze, interpret, then conclude it.

Introduce the Discussion Topic

Introduce the topic of the critique paper. To capture the author’s idea, you may apply the  5Ws and 1H approach  in writing your technical report.

Here’s a simplified example to illustrate the technique:

The news article by John Doe was a narrative about a bank robbery. Accordingly, a masked man  (Who)  robbed a bank  (What)  the other day  (When)  next to a police station  (Where) . He did so in broad daylight  (How) . He used a bicycle to escape from the scene of the crime  (How) . In his haste, he bumped into a post. His mask fell off; thus, everyone saw his face, allowing witnesses to describe him. As a result, he had difficulty escaping the police, who eventually retrieved his loot and put him in jail because of his wrongdoing  (Why) .

Hence, you give details about the topic, in this case, a bank robbery. Briefly describe what you want to tell your audience. State the overall purpose of writing the piece and its intention.

Analyze means to break down the abstract ideas presented into manageable bits.

What are the main points of the composition? How was it structured? Did the view expressed by the author allow you, as the reader, to understand?

If you want to split a log, what would you do? Do you use an ax, a chainsaw, or perhaps a knife? The last one is out of the question. It’s inappropriate.

Now, you are ready to interpret the article, book, or any composition once the requisites of analysis are in place.

Visualize the event in your mind and interpret the behavior of actors in the bank robbery incident. You have several actors in that bank heist: the robber, the police, and the witnesses of the crime.

Imagine, his mode of escape is a bicycle. What got into him? Maybe he did not plan the robbery at all. Besides, there was no mention that the robber used a gun in the heist.

If we examine the police’s response, they were relatively quick. Right after the robber escaped the crime scene, they appeared to remedy the situation. The robber did not put up a fight.

If we look at the witnesses’ behavior, we can discern that perhaps they willingly informed the police of the bank robber’s details. They were not afraid. And that’s because the robber appears to be unarmed. But there was no specific mention of it.

Assess or Evaluate

Finally, judge whether the article was a worthwhile account after all. Did it meet expectations? Was it able to convey the information most efficiently? Or are there loopholes or flaws that should have been mentioned?

Format of Presenting the Critique Paper

The logical format in writing a critique paper comprises at least three sections: the introduction, the body, and the conclusion. This approach is systematic and achieves a good flow that readers can follow.

Introduction

In any scientific article, there is always a thesis that guides the write-up. A thesis is a statement that expresses what the author believes in and tries to test in his study. The investigation or research converges (ideally) to this central theme as the author’s argument.

If you need more information about this, please refer to my previous post titled “ How to Write a Thesis .”

How is the introduction of a critique paper structured? It follows the general guidelines of writing from a broad perspective to more specific concerns or details. See how it’s written here:  Writing a Thesis Introduction: from General to Specific .

This section is similar to the results and discussion portion of a scientific paper. It describes the outcome of your analysis and interpretation.

Besides, who wants to adopt the perspective of an author who has not even got hold of a mobile phone if your paper is about  using mobile phones to facilitate learning during the pandemic caused by COVID-19 ? Find a more recent one that will help you understand the situation.

Objectively examine the major points presented by the author by giving details about the work. How does the author present or express the idea or concept? Is he (or she) convincing the way he/she presents his/her paper’s thesis?

Therefore, always find evidence to support your position. Explain why you agree or disagree with the author. Point out the discrepancies or strengths of the paper.

If you have read up to this point, then thank you for reading my musings. I hope that helped you clarify the steps in writing a critique paper. A well-written critique paper depends on your writing style.

Read More : How to Write an Article with AI: A Guide to Using AI for Article Creation and Refinement

Final Tip : Find a paper that is easy for you to understand. In that way, you can clearly express your thoughts. Write a critique paper that rocks!

Related Reading

Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological bulletin , 105 (1), 51.

Related Posts

Discourse analysis of 20 newspaper advertisements, why are english language proficiency exams important, 10 pointers from one of the winners of a research paper contest, about the author, patrick regoniel.

Dr. Regoniel, a hobbyist writer, served as consultant to various environmental research and development projects covering issues and concerns on climate change, coral reef resources and management, economic valuation of environmental and natural resources, mining, and waste management and pollution. He has extensive experience on applied statistics, systems modelling and analysis, an avid practitioner of LaTeX, and a multidisciplinary web developer. He leverages pioneering AI-powered content creation tools to produce unique and comprehensive articles in this website.

SimplyEducate.Me Privacy Policy

A guide for critique of research articles

Following is the list of criteria to evaluate (critique) a research article. Please note that you should first summarize the paper and then evaluate different parts of it.

Most of the evaluation section should be devoted to evaluation of internal validity of the conclusions. Please add at the end a section entitled ''changes in the design/procedures if I want to replicate this study." Attach a copy of the original article to your paper.

Click here to see a an example (this is how you start) of a research critique.

Click here to see the original article.

The following list is a guide for you to organize your evaluation. It is recommended to organize your evaluation in this order. This is a long list of questions. You don’t have to address all questions. However, you should address highlighted questions . Some questions may not be relevant to your article.

Introduction

1.     Is there a statement of the problem?

2.     Is the problem “researchable”? That is, can it be investigated through the collection and analysis of data?

3.     Is background information on the problem presented?

4.     Is the educational significance of the problem discussed?

5.     Does the problem statement indicate the variables of interest and the specific relationship between those variables which are investigated? When necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?

Review of Related Literature

1.     Is the review comprehensive?

2.     Are all cited references relevant to the problem under investigation?

3.     Are most of the sources primary, i.e., are there only a few or no secondary sources?

4.     Have the references been critically analyzed and the results of various studies compared and contrasted, i.e., is the review more than a series of abstracts or annotations?

5.     Does the review conclude with a brief summary of the literature and its implications for the problem investigated?

6.     Do the implications discussed form an empirical or theoretical rationale for the hypotheses which follow?

1.     Are specific questions to be answered listed or specific hypotheses to be tested stated?

2.     Does each hypothesis state an expected relationship or difference?

3.     If necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?

4.     Is each hypothesis testable?

Method          Subjects

1.     Are the size and major characteristics of the population studied described?

2.     If a sample was selected, is the method of selecting the sample clearly described?

3.      Is the method of sample selection described one that is likely to result in a representative, unbiased sample?

4.     Did the researcher avoid the use of volunteers?

5.     Are the size and major characteristics of the sample described?

6.     Does the sample size meet the suggested guideline for minimum sample size appropriate for the method of research represented?      

Instruments

1.     Is the rationale given for the selection of the instruments (or measurements) used?

2.     Is each instrument described in terms of purpose and content?

3.     Are the instruments appropriate for measuring the intended variables?

4.     Is evidence presented that indicates that each instrument is appropriate for the sample under study?

5.     Is instrument validity discussed and coefficients given if appropriate?

6.     Is reliability discussed in terms of type and size of reliability coefficients?

7.     If appropriate, are subtest reliabilities given?

8.     If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are the procedures involved in its development and validation described?

9.     If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are administration, scoring or tabulating, and interpretation procedures fully described?

Design and Procedure

1.     Is the design appropriate for answering the questions or testing the hypotheses of the   study?

2.     Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to permit them to be replicated by another researcher?

3.     If a pilot study was conducted, are its execution and results described as well as its impact on the subsequent study?

4.     Are the control procedures described?

5.     Did the researcher discuss or account for any potentially confounding variables that he or she was unable to control for?

1.     Are appropriate descriptive or inferential statistics presented?

2.     Was the probability level, α, at which the results of the tests of significance were evaluated,

       specified in advance of the data analyses?

3.     If parametric tests were used, is there evidence that the researcher avoided violating the

       required assumptions for parametric tests?

4.     Are the tests of significance described appropriate, given the hypotheses and design of the

       study?

5.     Was every hypothesis tested?

6.     Are the tests of significance interpreted using the appropriate degrees of freedom?

7.     Are the results clearly presented?

8.     Are the tables and figures (if any) well organized and easy to understand?

9.     Are the data in each table and figure described in the text?

Discussion (Conclusions and Recommendation)

1.     Is each result discussed in terms of the original hypothesis to which it relates?

2.     Is each result discussed in terms of its agreement or disagreement with previous results

        obtained by other researchers in other studies?

3.     Are generalizations consistent with the results?

4.     Are the possible effects of uncontrolled variables on the results discussed?

5.     Are theoretical and practical implications of the findings discussed?

6.     Are recommendations for future action made?

7.     Are the suggestions for future action based on practical significance or on statistical

       significance only, i.e., has the author avoided confusing practical and statistical

       significance?

8.     Are recommendations for future research made?

Additional general questions to be answered in your critique.

1. What is (are) the research question(s) (or hypothesis)?

2. Describe the sample used in this study.

3. Describe the reliability and validity of all the instruments used.

4. What type of research is this?  Explain.

5. How was the data analyzed?

6. What is (are) the major finding(s)?

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Perspect Clin Res
• v.12(2); Apr-Jun 2021

Critical appraisal of published research papers – A reinforcing tool for research methodology: Questionnaire-based study

Snehalata gajbhiye.

Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Raakhi Tripathi

Urwashi parmar, nishtha khatri, anirudha potey.

1 Department of Clinical Trials, Serum Institute of India, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Background and Objectives:

Critical appraisal of published research papers is routinely conducted as a journal club (JC) activity in pharmacology departments of various medical colleges across Maharashtra, and it forms an important part of their postgraduate curriculum. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perception of pharmacology postgraduate students and teachers toward use of critical appraisal as a reinforcing tool for research methodology. Evaluation of performance of the in-house pharmacology postgraduate students in the critical appraisal activity constituted secondary objective of the study.

Materials and Methods:

The study was conducted in two parts. In Part I, a cross-sectional questionnaire-based evaluation on perception toward critical appraisal activity was carried out among pharmacology postgraduate students and teachers. In Part II of the study, JC score sheets of 2 nd - and 3 rd -year pharmacology students over the past 4 years were evaluated.

One hundred and twenty-seven postgraduate students and 32 teachers participated in Part I of the study. About 118 (92.9%) students and 28 (87.5%) faculties considered the critical appraisal activity to be beneficial for the students. JC score sheet assessments suggested that there was a statistically significant improvement in overall scores obtained by postgraduate students ( n = 25) in their last JC as compared to the first JC.

Conclusion:

Journal article criticism is a crucial tool to develop a research attitude among postgraduate students. Participation in the JC activity led to the improvement in the skill of critical appraisal of published research articles, but this improvement was not educationally relevant.

INTRODUCTION

Critical appraisal of a research paper is defined as “The process of carefully and systematically examining research to judge its trustworthiness, value and relevance in a particular context.”[ 1 ] Since scientific literature is rapidly expanding with more than 12,000 articles being added to the MEDLINE database per week,[ 2 ] critical appraisal is very important to distinguish scientifically useful and well-written articles from imprecise articles.

Educational authorities like the Medical Council of India (MCI) and Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS) have stated in pharmacology postgraduate curriculum that students must critically appraise research papers. To impart training toward these skills, MCI and MUHS have emphasized on the introduction of journal club (JC) activity for postgraduate (PG) students, wherein students review a published original research paper and state the merits and demerits of the paper. Abiding by this, pharmacology departments across various medical colleges in Maharashtra organize JC at frequent intervals[ 3 , 4 ] and students discuss varied aspects of the article with teaching faculty of the department.[ 5 ] Moreover, this activity carries a significant weightage of marks in the pharmacology university examination. As postgraduate students attend this activity throughout their 3-year tenure, it was perceived by the authors that this activity of critical appraisal of research papers could emerge as a tool for reinforcing the knowledge of research methodology. Hence, a questionnaire-based study was designed to find out the perceptions from PG students and teachers.

There have been studies that have laid emphasis on the procedure of conducting critical appraisal of research papers and its application into clinical practice.[ 6 , 7 ] However, there are no studies that have evaluated how well students are able to critically appraise a research paper. The Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics at Seth GS Medical College has developed an evaluation method to score the PG students on this skill and this tool has been implemented for the last 5 years. Since there are no research data available on the performance of PG Pharmacology students in JC, capturing the critical appraisal activity evaluation scores of in-house PG students was chosen as another objective of the study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Description of the journal club activity.

JC is conducted in the Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics at Seth GS Medical College once in every 2 weeks. During the JC activity, postgraduate students critically appraise published original research articles on their completeness and aptness in terms of the following: study title, rationale, objectives, study design, methodology-study population, inclusion/exclusion criteria, duration, intervention and safety/efficacy variables, randomization, blinding, statistical analysis, results, discussion, conclusion, references, and abstract. All postgraduate students attend this activity, while one of them critically appraises the article (who has received the research paper given by one of the faculty members 5 days before the day of JC). Other faculties also attend these sessions and facilitate the discussions. As the student comments on various sections of the paper, the same predecided faculty who gave the article (single assessor) evaluates the student on a total score of 100 which is split per section as follows: Introduction –20 marks, Methodology –20 marks, Discussion – 20 marks, Results and Conclusion –20 marks, References –10 marks, and Title, Abstract, and Keywords – 10 marks. However, there are no standard operating procedures to assess the performance of students at JC.

Methodology

After seeking permission from the Institutional Ethics Committee, the study was conducted in two parts. Part I consisted of a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey that was conducted from October 2016 to September 2017. A questionnaire to evaluate perception towards the activity of critical appraisal of published papers as research methodology reinforcing tool was developed by the study investigators. The questionnaire consisted of 20 questions: 14 questions [refer Figure 1 ] graded on a 3-point Likert scale (agree, neutral, and disagree), 1 multiple choice selection question, 2 dichotomous questions, 1 semi-open-ended questions, and 2 open-ended questions. Content validation for this questionnaire was carried out with the help of eight pharmacology teachers. The content validity ratio per item was calculated and each item in the questionnaire had a CVR ratio (CVR) of >0.75.[ 8 ] The perception questionnaire was either E-mailed or sent through WhatsApp to PG pharmacology students and teaching faculty in pharmacology departments at various medical colleges across Maharashtra. Informed consent was obtained on E-mail from all the participants.

Graphical representation of the percentage of students/teachers who agreed that critical appraisal of research helped them improve their knowledge on various aspects of research, perceived that faculty participation is important in this activity, and considered critical appraisal activity beneficial for students. The numbers adjacent to the bar diagrams indicate the raw number of students/faculty who agreed, while brackets indicate %

Part II of the study consisted of evaluating the performance of postgraduate students toward skills of critical appraisal of published papers. For this purpose, marks obtained by 2 nd - and 3 rd -year residents during JC sessions conducted over a period of 4 years from October 2013 to September 2017 were recorded and analyzed. No data on personal identifiers of the students were captured.

Statistical analysis

Marks obtained by postgraduate students in their first and last JC were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test, while marks obtained by 2 nd - and 3 rd -year postgraduate students were compared using Mann–Whitney test since the data were nonparametric. These statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism statistical software, San Diego, Calfornia, USA, Version 7.0d. Data obtained from the perception questionnaire were entered in Microsoft Excel sheet and were expressed as frequencies (percentages) using descriptive statistics.

Participants who answered all items of the questionnaire were considered as complete responders and only completed questionnaires were analyzed. The questionnaire was sent through an E-mail to 100 students and through WhatsApp to 68 students. Out of the 100 students who received the questionnaire through E-mail, 79 responded completely and 8 were incomplete responders, while 13 students did not revert back. Out of the 68 students who received the questionnaire through WhatsApp, 48 responded completely, 6 gave an incomplete response, and 14 students did not revert back. Hence, of the 168 postgraduate students who received the questionnaire, 127 responded completely (student response rate for analysis = 75.6%). The questionnaire was E-mailed to 33 faculties and was sent through WhatsApp to 25 faculties. Out of the 33 faculties who received the questionnaire through E-mail, 19 responded completely, 5 responded incompletely, and 9 did not respond at all. Out of the 25 faculties who received the questionnaire through WhatsApp, 13 responded completely, 3 were incomplete responders, and 9 did not respond at all. Hence, of a total of 58 faculties who were contacted, 32 responded completely (faculty response rate for analysis = 55%). For Part I of the study, responses on the perception questionnaire from 127 postgraduate students and 32 postgraduate teachers were recorded and analyzed. None of the faculty who participated in the validation of the questionnaire participated in the survey. Number of responses obtained region wise (Mumbai region and rest of Maharashtra region) have been depicted in Table 1 .

Region-wise distribution of responses

Number of responses obtained from students/faculty belonging to Mumbai colleges and rest of Maharashtra colleges. Brackets indicate percentages

As per the data obtained on the Likert scale questions, 102 (80.3%) students and 29 (90.6%) teachers agreed that critical appraisal trains the students in doing a review of literature before selecting a particular research topic. Majority of the participants, i.e., 104 (81.9%) students and 29 (90.6%) teachers also believed that the activity increases student's knowledge regarding various experimental evaluation techniques. Moreover, 112 (88.2%) students and 27 (84.4%) faculty considered that critical appraisal activity results in improved skills of writing and understanding methodology section of research articles in terms of inclusion/exclusion criteria, endpoints, and safety/efficacy variables. About 103 (81.1%) students and 24 (75%) teachers perceived that this activity results in refinement of the student's research work. About 118 (92.9%) students and 28 (87.5%) faculty considered the critical appraisal activity to be beneficial for the students. Responses to 14 individual Likert scale items of the questionnaire have been depicted in Figure 1 .

With respect to the multiple choice selection question, 66 (52%) students and 16 (50%) teachers opined that faculty should select the paper, 53 (41.7%) students and 9 (28.1%) teachers stated that the papers should be selected by the presenting student himself/herself, while 8 (6.3%) students and 7 (21.9%) teachers expressed that some other student should select the paper to be presented at the JC.

The responses to dichotomous questions were as follows: majority of the students, that is, 109 (85.8%) and 23 (71.9%) teachers perceived that a standard checklist for article review should be given to the students before critical appraisal of journal article. Open-ended questions of the questionnaire invited suggestions from the participants regarding ways of getting trained on critical appraisal skills and of improving JC activity. Some of the suggestions given by faculty were as follows: increasing the frequency of JC activity, discussion of cited articles and new guidelines related to it, selecting all types of articles for criticism rather than only randomized controlled trials, and regular yearly exams on article criticism. Students stated that regular and frequent article criticism activity, practice of writing letter to the editor after criticism, active participation by peers and faculty, increasing weightage of marks for critical appraisal of papers in university examinations (at present marks are 50 out of 400), and a formal training for research criticism from 1 st year of postgraduation could improve critical appraisal program.

In Part II of this study, performance of the students on the skill of critical appraisal of papers was evaluated. Complete data of the first and last JC scores of a total of 25 students of the department were available, and when these scores were compared, it was seen that there was a statistically significant improvement in the overall scores ( P = 0.04), as well as in the scores obtained in methodology ( P = 0.03) and results section ( P = 0.02). This is depicted in Table 2 . Although statistically significant, the differences in scores in the methodology section, results section, and overall scores were 1.28/20, 1.28/20, and 4.36/100, respectively, amounting to 5.4%, 5.4%, and 4.36% higher scores in the last JC, which may not be considered educationally relevant (practically significant). The quantum of difference that would be considered practically significant was not decided a priori .

Comparison of marks obtained by pharmacology residents in their first and last journal club

Marks have been represented as mean±SD. The maximum marks that can be obtained in each section have been stated as maximum. *Indicates statistically significant ( P <0.05). IQR=Interquartile range, SD=Standard deviation

Scores of two groups, one group consisting of 2 nd -year postgraduate students ( n = 44) and second group consisting of 3 rd -year postgraduate students ( n = 32) were compared and revealed no statistically significant difference in overall score ( P = 0.84). This is depicted in Table 3 . Since the quantum of difference in the overall scores was meager 0.84/100 (0.84%), it cannot be considered practically significant.

Comparison of marks obtained by 2 nd - and 3 rd -year pharmacology residents in the activity of critical appraisal of research articles

Marks have been represented as mean±SD. The maximum marks that can be obtained in each section have been stated as maximum. P <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. IQR=Interquartile range, SD=Standard deviation

The present study gauged the perception of the pharmacology postgraduate students and teachers toward the use of critical appraisal activity as a reinforcing tool for research methodology. Both students and faculties (>50%) believed that critical appraisal activity increases student's knowledge on principles of ethics, experimental evaluation techniques, CONSORT guidelines, statistical analysis, concept of conflict of interest, current trends and recent advances in Pharmacology and trains on doing a review of literature, and improves skills on protocol writing and referencing. In the study conducted by Crank-Patton et al ., a survey on 278 general surgery program directors was carried out and more than 50% indicated that JC was important to their training program.[ 9 ]

The grading template used in Part II of the study was based on the IMRaD structure. Hence, equal weightage was given to the Introduction, Methodology, Results, and Discussion sections and lesser weightage was given to the references and title, abstract, and keywords sections.[ 10 ] While evaluating the scores obtained by 25 students in their first and last JC, it was seen that there was a statistically significant improvement in the overall scores of the students in their last JC. However, the meager improvement in scores cannot be considered educationally relevant, as the authors expected the students to score >90% for the upgrade to be considered educationally impactful. The above findings suggest that even though participation in the JC activity led to a steady increase in student's performance (~4%), the increment was not as expected. In addition, the students did not portray an excellent performance (>90%), with average scores being around 72% even in the last JC. This can be probably explained by the fact that students perform this activity in a routine setting and not in an examination setting. Unlike the scenario in an examination, students were aware that even if they performed at a mediocre level, there would be no repercussions.

A separate comparison of scores obtained by 44 students in their 2 nd year and 32 students in their 3 rd year of postgraduation students was also done. The number of student evaluation sheets reviewed for this analysis was greater than the number of student evaluation sheets reviewed to compare first and last JC scores. This can be spelled out by the fact that many students were still in 2 nd year when this analysis was done and the score data for their last JC, which would take place in 3 rd year, was not available. In addition, few students were asked to present at JC multiple times during the 2 nd /3 rd year of their postgraduation.

While evaluating the critical appraisal scores obtained by 2 nd - and 3 rd -year postgraduate students, it was found that although the 3 rd -year students had a mean overall score greater than the 2 nd -year students, this difference was not statistically significant. During the 1 st year of MD Pharmacology course, students at the study center attend JC once in every 2 weeks. Even though the 1 st -year students do not themselves present in JC, they listen and observe the criticism points stated by senior peers presenting at the JC, and thereby, incur substantial amount of knowledge required to critically appraise papers. By the time, they become 2 nd -year students, they are already well versed with the program and this could have led to similar overall mean scores between the 2 nd -year students (71.50 ± 10.71) and 3 rd -year students (72.34 ± 10.85). This finding suggests that attentive listening is as important as active participation in the JC. Moreover, although students are well acquainted with the process of criticism when they are in their 3 rd year, there is certainly a scope for improvement in terms of the mean overall scores.

Similar results were obtained in a study conducted by Stern et al ., in which 62 students in the internal medicine program at the New England Medical Center were asked to respond to a questionnaire, evaluate a sample article, and complete a self-assessment of competence in evaluation of research. Twenty-eight residents returned the questionnaire and the composite score for the resident's objective assessment was not significantly correlated with the postgraduate year or self-assessed critical appraisal skill.[ 11 ]

Article criticism activity provides the students with practical experience of techniques taught in research methodology workshop. However, this should be supplemented with activities that assess the improvement of designing and presenting studies, such as protocol and paper writing. Thus, critical appraisal plays a significant role in reinforcing good research practices among the new generation of physicians. Moreover, critical appraisal is an integral part of PG assessment, and although the current format of conducting JCs did not portray a clinically meaningful improvement, the authors believe that it is important to continue this activity with certain modifications suggested by students who participated in this study. Students suggested that an increase in the frequency of critical appraisal activity accompanied by the display of active participation by peers and faculty could help in the betterment of this activity. This should be brought to attention of the faculty, as students seem to be interested to learn. Critical appraisal should be a two-way teaching–learning process between the students and faculty and not a dire need for satisfying the students' eligibility criteria for postgraduate university examinations. This activity is not only for the trainee doctors but also a part of the overall faculty development program.[ 12 ]

In the present era, JCs have been used as a tool to not only teach critical appraisal skills but also to teach other necessary aspects such as research design, medical statistics, clinical epidemiology, and clinical decision-making.[ 13 , 14 ] A study conducted by Khan in 2013 suggested that success of JC program can be ensured if institutes develop a defined JC objective for the development of learning capability of students and also if they cultivate more skilled faculties.[ 15 ] A good JC is believed to facilitate relevant, meaningful scientific discussion, and evaluation of the research updates that will eventually benefit the patient care.[ 12 ]

Although there is a lot of literature emphasizing the importance of JC, there is a lack of studies that have evaluated the outcome of such activity. One such study conducted by Ibrahim et al . assessed the importance of critical appraisal as an activity in surgical trainees in Nigeria. They reported that 92.42% trainees considered the activity to be important or very important and 48% trainees stated that the activity helped in improving literature search.[ 16 ]

This study is unique since it is the first of its kind to evaluate how well students are able to critically appraise a research paper. Moreover, the study has taken into consideration the due opinions of the students as well as faculties, unlike the previous literature which has laid emphasis on only student's perception. A limitation of this study is that sample size for faculties was smaller than the students, as it was not possible to convince the distant faculty in other cities to fill the survey. Besides, there may be a variation in the manner of conduct of the critical appraisal activity in pharmacology departments across the various medical colleges in the country. Another limitation of this study was that a single assessor graded a single student during one particular JC. Nevertheless, each student presented at multiple JC and thereby came across multiple assessors. Since the articles addressed at different JC were disparate, interobserver variability was not taken into account in this study. Furthermore, the authors did not make an a priori decision on the quantum of increase in scores that would be considered educationally meaningful.

Pharmacology students and teachers acknowledge the role of critical appraisal in improving the ability to understand the crucial concepts of research methodology and research conduct. In our institute, participation in the JC activity led to an improvement in the skill of critical appraisal of published research articles among the pharmacology postgraduate students. However, this improvement was not educationally relevant. The scores obtained by final-year postgraduate students in this activity were nearly 72% indicating that there is still scope of betterment in this skill.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the support rendered by the entire Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics at Seth GS Medical College.

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Editing and Style

How to Critique an Article

Last Updated: September 9, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Richard Perkins and by wikiHow staff writer, Christopher M. Osborne, PhD . Richard Perkins is a Writing Coach, Academic English Coordinator, and the Founder of PLC Learning Center. With over 24 years of education experience, he gives teachers tools to teach writing to students and works with elementary to university level students to become proficient, confident writers. Richard is a fellow at the National Writing Project. As a teacher leader and consultant at California State University Long Beach's Global Education Project, Mr. Perkins creates and presents teacher workshops that integrate the U.N.'s 17 Sustainable Development Goals in the K-12 curriculum. He holds a BA in Communications and TV from The University of Southern California and an MEd from California State University Dominguez Hills. There are 8 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 936,706 times.

A critique of an article is the objective analysis of a literary or scientific piece, with emphasis on whether or not the author supported the main points with reasonable and applicable arguments based on facts. It's easy to get caught up in simply summarizing the points of an article without truly analyzing and challenging it. A good critique demonstrates your impressions of the article, while providing ample evidence to back up your impressions. As the critic, take time to read carefully and thoughtfully, prepare your arguments and evidence, and write clearly and cogently.

Reading Actively

• What is the author's thesis/argument?
• What is the author's purpose in arguing said thesis?
• Who is the intended audience? Does the article effectively reach this audience?
• Does the author have ample and valid evidence?
• Are there any holes in the author's argument?
• Did the author misrepresent evidence or add bias to evidence?
• Does the author reach a conclusive point?

• For example, you could underline important passages, circle confusing ones, and star inconsistencies.
• Creating a legend with assigned symbols allows you to quickly mark up an article. Though it may take a little bit of time to recognize your own symbols, they will quickly become ingrained in your mind and allow you to breeze through an article much quicker than without a symbol legend.

• Don't be foolish enough to think that you will remember your idea when it comes time to write your critique.
• Spend the necessary time writing down your observations as you read. You will be glad you did when it comes time to put your observations into a complete analytical paper.

• Make a list of possible sources of evidence for your critique. Jog your memory for any literature you've read or documentaries you've seen that might be useful for evaluating the article.

Gathering Evidence

• Even if an author has done research and quoted respected experts, analyze the message for its practicality and real world application.

• Bias includes ignoring contrary evidence, misappropriating evidence to make conclusions appear different than they are, and imparting one's own, unfounded opinions on a text. Well-sourced opinions are perfectly OK, but those without academic support deserve to be met with a skeptical eye.
• Bias can also come from a place of prejudice. Note any biases related to race, ethnicity, gender, class, or politics.

• Note any inconsistencies between your interpretation of a text and the author's interpretation of a text. Such conflict may bear fruit when it comes time to write your review.
• See what other scholars have to say. If several scholars from diverse backgrounds have the same opinion about a text, that opinion should be given more weight than an argument with little support.

• These aspects of an article can reveal deeper issues in the larger argument. For example, an article written in a heated, overzealous tone might be ignoring or refusing to engage with contradictory evidence in its analysis.
• Always look up the definitions of unfamiliar words. A word's definition can completely change the meaning of a sentence, especially if a particular word has several definitions. Question why an author chose one particular word instead of another, and it might reveal something about their argument.

• Does the author detail the methods thoroughly?
• Is the study designed without major flaws?
• Is there a problem with the sample size?
• Was a control group created for comparison?
• Are all of the statistical calculations correct?
• Would another party be able to duplicate the experiment in question?
• Is the experiment significant for that particular field of study?

• While there is no such thing as too much good evidence, over-sourcing can also be a problem if your arguments become repetitive. Make sure each source provides something unique to your critique.
• Additionally, don't allow your use of sources to crowd out your own opinions and arguments.

• If you do agree entirely with the author, therefore, make sure to build upon the argument either by providing additional evidence or complicating the author's idea.
• You can provide contradictory evidence to an argument while still maintaining that a particular point of view is the correct one.
• Don't “take it easy” on the author due to misguided empathy; but neither should you be excessively negative in an attempt to prove your critical bona fides. Forcefully express your defensible points of agreement and disagreement.

Formatting Your Critique

• Be sure to include the name of the author, article title, the journal or publication the article appeared in, the publication date, and a statement about the focus and/or thesis of the article in your introductory paragraph(s).
• The introduction is not the place to provide evidence for your opinions. Your evidence will go in the body paragraphs of your critique.
• Be bold in your introductory assertions and make your purpose clear right off the bat. Skirting around or not fully committing to an argument lessens your credibility.

• Begin each body paragraph with a topic sentence that summarizes the content of the paragraph to come. Don't feel like you have to condense the entire paragraph into the topic sentence, however. This is purely a place to transition into a new or somehow different idea.
• End each body paragraph with a transitional sentence that hints at, though does not explicitly state, the content of the paragraph coming next. For example, you might write, "While John Doe shows that the number of cases of childhood obesity is rising at a remarkable rate in the U.S., there are instances of dropping obesity rates in some American cities." Your next paragraph would then provide specific examples of these anomalous cities that you just claimed exist.

• You might, for instance, utilize a counterargument, in which you anticipate a critique of your critique and reaffirm your position. Use phrases like “Admittedly,” “It is true that,” or “One might object here” to identify the counterargument. Then, answer these possible counters and turn back to your strengthened argument with “but,” “yet,” or “nevertheless.”

• While writing “This piece of garbage is an insult to historians everywhere” might garner attention, “This article falls short of the standards for scholarship in this area of historical study” is more likely to be taken seriously by readers.

• Are there broad implications for the field of study being assessed, or does your critique simply attempt to debunk the messy work of another scholar?
• Do your best to make a lasting mark on the reader in the conclusion by using assertive language to demonstrate the importance of your work: “Challenging the claims of such a distinguished scholar is no easy or enjoyable task, but it is a task we all must agree to do for our generation and those to follow.”

Sample Critique

Expert Q&A

• Avoid style-based critiques that include comments such as "I liked it" or "It was written poorly." Instead, focus on the content of the article. Thanks Helpful 18 Not Helpful 4
• Avoid summarizing the article at all costs. It is better to write a shorter critique than to attempt to fill up blank space with boring summation. Thanks Helpful 19 Not Helpful 5
• Write your critique in the third person and present tense, unless the style indicates another preference. Always review the style guidelines prior to starting to write. Thanks Helpful 40 Not Helpful 8
• Write with confidence and bold assertion. Thanks Helpful 30 Not Helpful 11
• Always proofread your written work at least twice before turning it in to your professor, boss, or publisher. Thanks Helpful 32 Not Helpful 13

You Might Also Like

• ↑ Richard Perkins. Writing Coach & Academic English Coordinator. Expert Interview. 1 September 2021.
• ↑ https://libguides.uta.edu/literarycriticism/steps
• ↑ https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/writinghandbook/chapter/chapter-1/
• ↑ https://www.jmu.edu/uwc/files/link-library/CritiqueHandout.pdf
• ↑ https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/hypothesis-testing/
• ↑ https://libguides.uwgb.edu/bias
• ↑ http://www.uis.edu/ctl/wp-content/uploads/sites/76/2013/03/Howtocritiqueajournalarticle.pdf
• ↑ https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/intro-to-biology/science-of-biology/a/the-science-of-biology

About This Article

To critique an article, first read it and take notes on the author's overall argument to help you develop a preliminary opinion. Then go back through the article to look for evidence that supports your position. Ask whether the author’s logic make sense, for example, or if they demonstrate any bias in their writing. Look at any claims the author makes about other texts, then read those texts yourself to see if the author's points are valid. For more information on critiquing an article, like including a counterargument, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Nov 5, 2017

Did this article help you?

Nov 16, 2017

Sanaa Hassane

May 30, 2017

Rose Ann Salceda

Jan 9, 2017

Chandler Lewis

Dec 30, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

Exploring Action Research Sponsorship: Role and Enactment

• Open access
• Published: 14 September 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Henrik Saabye 1 , 2 ,
• Paul Coughlan 3 &
• Thomas Borup Kristensen 1  

This paper explores the complexities of involving partner organisations in co-generative learning processes within Action Research (AR) initiatives. Despite formal agreements, action researchers often face challenges in collaboratively addressing specific organisational issues through AR cycles. When action researchers adopt the “friendly outsider’ role, their initial task is to secure commitment to an AR initiative from senior leaders as sponsors. However, the existing literature lacks comprehensive guidance on facilitating this commitment. Therefore, drawing from both literature and empirical cases, this paper examines the pivotal role of the AR sponsor in securing funding and political backing, offering constructive critique, and facilitating learning. It provides insights into how action researchers can facilitate sponsors to enact these roles effectively so as to ensure the success and sustainability of organisational changes resulting from AR initiatives.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

According to Greenwood and Levin ( 2006 ), action researchers can assume the friendly outsider role when engaging in research projects with organisations. A significant challenge for the action researcher as the friendly outsider is ensuring that the participating organisational members, as insiders, grasp the foundational premises driving the prospective collaborative and transformational activity (Levin 2004 ). This challenge remains of contemporary relevance and is the focus of this paper.

Recently, the primary author engaged in a conversation with a doctoral student who was struggling with involving an AR partner organisation in a co-generative learning process (Elden and Levin 1991 ). Despite the organisation signing an agreement and formally accepting to sponsor and participate in the AR initiative, the doctoral student still faced difficulties eight months later engaging leaders and employees in identifying, confronting, and framing a concrete organisational problem for the prospective collaborative work. The conversation prompted some practical questions: were these difficulties to be expected? Was there a misunderstanding in the original agreement? Was there a clear agreement but poor subsequent implementation? These questions and thoughts have prompted this article.

While facilitating co-generative learning as a collaborative and transformational activity is inherently challenging, the doctoral student’s experience highlights a recognisable but less reflected aspect of the AR literature regarding the preparedness of non-academic host organisations for participation in what they agree to sponsor (Bäckstrand et al. 2024 ). For instance, Coughlan and Coghlan ( 2024 , 232) noted that the organisation may be clear in its own terms on why it needs to engage in the action and why now. However, there is less developed guidance on how researchers should facilitate organisations in understanding the relevance of the research dimension of the initiative in prospect and their role as sponsors of the research process.

For Bäckstrand et al. ( 2024 ), engaging with senior organisational leaders to cultivate a commitment to AR represents a particularly significant and pivotal task for action researchers. However, facilitating genuine, active, and visible commitment from senior leaders as sponsors is challenging across different contexts (Kloppenborg et al. 2014 ) when aiming to involve them actively in the co-generative learning process of AR initiatives (Myers 2009 ). This commitment is crucial in ensuring the success of an AR initiative and the associated organisational change since research suggests that how sponsors enact their role is a significant contributor to the failure or success of such projects (Bryde 2008 ; Dolphin 2003 ).

So, what does this task mean for action researchers? Morten Levin emphasised the importance of making action researchers’ skills and personal traits explicit, focusing on their development, especially among doctoral students (Greenwood and Levin 2006 ; Levin and Martin 2007 ). While researchers may acknowledge a role for sponsors in the AR initiative, they may not anticipate their own role in facilitating a learning process where they must engage with and support the organisation’s members. Further, such active engagement and support may require them to evolve and undergo professional and personal change as the action learning associated with the AR initiative evolves (Saabye et al. 2024 ).

This perspective links to and extends the works of Morten Levin. While Klev and Levin ( 2012 ) contend that leadership is crucial in guiding learning processes, contributing significantly to the development and sustainable accumulation of resources within an organisation, the existing literature does not inform an understanding of the sponsor’s role and researchers’ responsibilities linked to an AR initiative. Yet, what is required to fill this gap includes understanding the sponsor’s role within a host organisation and how the action researcher can assist the sponsor in enacting this role. So, the research question arises: What role definition facilitates sponsorship of action research? How can action researchers facilitate impactful sponsorship of AR initiatives ?

At the heart of this paper is a contention that ensuring informed, active and visible engagement from sponsors is crucial for the success of AR initiatives and ensuring the sustainability of the emergent changes. In this paper, we aim to explore the role of the sponsor in AR in enacting three key responsibilities: (1) securing funding and political backing, (2) providing constructive critique as a critical friend, and (3) facilitating learning during an AR initiative.

We first review existing literature to identify relevant theoretical foundations, including project sponsorship, critical friendship, and action learning facilitation. Next, we extrapolate insights from two research cases illustrating how sponsors enacted their roles and how the action researcher facilitated this process and ensured valuable contributions to theory and practice. Overall, the paper, building on our case-based insights, aims to contribute actionable knowledge on how to sponsor co-generative learning in AR, ensuring long-term impact and sustainability of changes.

Research Design

In tackling the challenge of understanding the intricacies of sponsorship and facilitating the effective implementation of related roles, this research design is informed by Hansen and Madsen ( 2019 ). They characterise theorising as “the process through which a theory is created, from the first feeble hunch to the final theory, presented in print to the reader” (p. vii). For them, theorising entails a dynamic interplay of various intellectual activities within a scholarly community, including talking, listening, reading, and writing. These engagement processes are fundamental in shaping and refining our ideas as we engage in dialogue to explore different perspectives, actively listen to the insights and viewpoints of others, absorb knowledge from diverse sources through reading, and articulate our evolving thoughts and theories through writing this paper.

More specifically, the theoretical foundations were conceived through ongoing discussion and reflections among the authors, building on our combined insights into challenges faced when facilitating change in various settings as both researchers and practitioners, including (1) comprehending the nature of impactful sponsoring roles within action research, (2) understanding how senior leaders enact these roles, and (3) determining how action researchers can facilitate the development of impactful AR sponsorship. These discussions prompted our location of the theoretical foundations in the extant literature.

Reflecting on our collective experience engaging in action research, we identified two illustrative cases that exemplify impactful sponsorship emerging from an AR initiative at a Building Material firm (Case 1) and an action learning research project at a Toy company (Case 2). These two cases inform our understanding of the roles that can characterise impactful sponsorship of AR initiatives and how action researchers can effectively facilitate their enactment by senior leaders.

Each illustrative case offers a particular perspective on sponsorship, collectively showcasing ways sponsors can actively contribute to the success of AR initiatives. The cases also build empirically on the theoretical foundation emerging from the paper’s literature review of what constitutes impactful sponsorship to shed light on the interactions between sponsors and researchers. We conclude with actionable insights and recommendations for facilitating impactful sponsorship.

Locating our Theoretical Foundation

The foundations for our work are diverse but related. We begin by examining AR as a co-generative process. We examine then sponsorship in AR initiatives, considering what is known about the formality of the role, where the sponsor may be a critical friend or a learning facilitator. We conclude with a reflection on the potential for the interplay between these roles to foster a co-generative learning environment while engaging in real-world problem solving.

Action Research as a Co-Generative Learning Process

AR is a strategic approach to knowledge production that integrates various methods to address practical issues, empowering participants and researchers while expanding beyond disciplinary boundaries (Levin and Martin 2007 ). Greenwood and Levin ( 2006 ) portray the action researcher as a “friendly outsider”. The researcher often initiates the developmental process, guiding participants with supportive rather than critical insights (Levin 2004 ). Effective facilitation involves opening dialogue and uncovering tacit knowledge to enhance local conduct (Greenwood and Levin 2006 ). Moreover, researchers aid individuals in recognising internal resources within the company (Greenwood and Levin 2006 ), building on Argyris and Schön’s ( 1978 ) concept of open feedback to facilitate actionable possibilities (Finnestrand 2023 ).

The co-generative learning model, pioneered by Elden and Levin ( 1991 ), underpins action research, emphasising mutual learning between researchers and problem owners within a democratic framework. This model encapsulates organisational development as a learning process, delineating process elements, their interconnections, and the learning process itself (Klev and Levin 2012 ).

Practically, the co-generative learning model starts with jointly identifying real-life problems through dialogue between insiders (local participants) and outsiders (consultants or researchers) (Levin 1993 ). This problem-driven approach motivates experimentation within the AR circle, facilitating collective learning and continual improvement (Levin 2004 ). Facilitators play a crucial role in directing learning opportunities, with the model featuring dual learning circles for both insiders and outsiders (Levin 2004 ).

By serving as a framework for organisational learning, the co-generative model facilitates mutual learning between company insiders and researchers, leveraging theory in action to develop shared frameworks and eventually contribute to broader general theories and actionable strategies.

Existing literature has identified essential skills necessary for conducting action research, establishing a consensus that acquiring these skills transcends classroom instruction (Greenwood and Levin 2006 ). However, mastery necessitates experiential learning and deliberate practice, complemented by critical reflection upon one’s thoughts and behaviours as an action researcher (Reason and Torbert 2001 ). Yet, despite these insights, the challenge of effectively educating action researchers remains underdeveloped, including the more specific process of facilitating senior leaders in enacting the role of genuine sponsors (Levin and Martin 2007 ; Levin and Ravn 2007 ).

Sponsorship in Action Research

The sponsor of AR initiatives can play a multifaceted role with three primary responsibilities. Firstly, the sponsor plays a pivotal role in securing funding and garnering political support, advocating for budget allocations and navigating organisational and external dynamics to ensure financial stability and backing (Englund and Bucero 2006 ). Secondly, in the capacity of a critical friend, the sponsor offers invaluable feedback and constructive criticism to the initiative team, guiding them in refining goals, strategies, and implementation plans (Mat Noor and Shafee 2020 ). This role facilitates an environment of open communication, collaboration, and continual improvement throughout the initiative’s lifecycle. Lastly, as a learning facilitator, the sponsor promotes and facilitates a culture of knowledge-sharing, experimentation, and reflective practice within the initiative (Saabye 2023 ). By creating opportunities for learning and development, the sponsor empowers the initiative team to adapt to evolving circumstances, seize new opportunities, and drive innovation. Overall, the sponsor’s diverse involvement significantly contributes to the success and sustainability of the AR initiative and subsequent organisational change endeavours.

On reflection, the role of a sponsor evolves along a continuum, as illustrated in Fig.  1 , encompassing the three roles of setting direction as a formal project sponsor, ensuring progress as a critical friend, and facilitating learning through questioning and reflection. The task of the action researcher is to assist the sponsor in becoming consciously aware of these diverse roles, guiding the sponsor on how to enact them effectively and when to do so. We explore each role in turn.

AR Sponsor role continuum

Formal Sponsorship Role

In project management, a sponsor’s role is widely recognised as pivotal for success (West 2017 ). A sponsor is a guiding force, providing strategic direction, support, and advocacy throughout the project or change initiative (Englund and Bucero 2006 ). According to Kloppenborg et al. ( 2014 ), three sponsor behaviours significantly contribute to project success: (1) Defining success criteria by setting expectations, empowering project managers, communicating strategic value, and establishing success metrics; (2) Mentoring project managers by giving them a broader understanding, developing their interpersonal skills, and monitoring progress to increase value and contribute to the organisation’s future success; (3) Prioritising by aligning project objectives with stakeholder expectations and ensuring understanding and agreement on expected benefits among stakeholders, thus facilitating decision-making consistent with desired future outcomes.

An integral aspect of a sponsor’s project role is effectively managing organisational politics. Sponsors play a pivotal role in navigating interdepartmental dynamics and bolstering the project’s credibility within the organisation (Coghlan 2019 ; Holgersson & Melin 2015 ). This role entails mediating conflicts, aligning various stakeholders’ interests, championing the project’s objectives, and ensuring its visibility and support across different departments and hierarchies. By adeptly handling organisational politics, sponsors can mitigate resistance, facilitate collaboration, and facilitate smoother project execution, ultimately enhancing the project’s chances of success and its positive impact on the organisation.

In the context of AR, the role of the formal sponsor is essential, acting as a vital foundation for the initiative. The formal sponsor is not necessarily a titular appointee but with involvement can be a fundamental enabler for effective learning and collaboration. By securing resources, providing strategic direction, and navigating organisational politics, the sponsor creates the necessary conditions for co-generative learning. Therefore, this role can be conceptualised as a “hygiene factor,” signifying that while it may not directly motivate innovative outcomes, it establishes the foundation for successful collaboration and mutual knowledge creation (Herzberg 2003 ). Without the formal sponsor’s support, the potential for effective co-generative learning diminishes significantly.

Sponsors as a Critical Friend

The literature suggests that AR can be significantly enhanced through the involvement of critical friends, who play a multifaceted role in the initiative (Coghlan and Brydon-Miller 2014 ). Defined as trusted individuals selected for their knowledge, experience, and skills, critical friends serve as advocates for the initiative’s success (Campbell et al. 2004 ). They ask provocative questions, provide alternative perspectives on data, and offer constructive critiques of the work (Mat Noor and Shafee 2020 ; Costa and Kallick 1993 ). It is crucial to understand that critique from a critical friend is not intended to be negative but rather generative, aimed at facilitating more profound understanding and exploration (Coghlan and Brydon-Miller 2014 ). By assuming roles such as participant observers, peer reviewers, and facilitators, critical friends contribute to the initiative’s richness and depth (Costa and Kallick 1993 ). They seek to uncover deeper meanings, explore alternative explanations, and encourage the use of iterative protocols or processes. The roles of critical friends are diverse and context-dependent, ranging from facilitator and supporter to critic and challenger (Swaffield 2004 ). They can also act as external conversationalists, financiers, project consultants, rapport builders, and much more, playing a vital role in the success and evolution of AR initiatives (Foulger 2010 ; Kember et al. 1997 ).

The formal sponsor and the critical friend are both crucial for the success of AR initiatives. As noted earlier, the formal sponsor provides essential support and strategic direction, ensuring the allocation of resources, maintaining organisational alignment, and managing logistical challenges. This foundational backing is vital for initiating and sustaining the process. Meanwhile, the critical friend enhances the learning experience by offering constructive feedback, promoting reflective practice, challenging assumptions, and providing alternative perspectives. Moreover, the critical friend helps the action research participants to close the gap between their espoused theories and theories-in-use (Argyris and Schön 1978 ). They create an environment conducive to co-generative learning, facilitating effective problem-solving and continuous improvement. This collaborative approach addresses real-world problems, generates valuable academic insights, and contributes to broader research.

Sponsors as Learning Facilitators

AR and action learning are related (Coghlan and Coughlan 2008 ). While they share values and learning cycles, they differ in focus: action learning emphasises education and learning in action, while AR emphasises contributions to actionable knowledge. AR involves research methodologies that engage participants in addressing real-world issues through a collaborative and iterative process, contrasting with the more detached approach of positivist research methods (Coghlan and Coughlan 2008 ; Saabye et al. 2024 .). Both involve collaborative relationships, with action learning focusing on individual and group learning processes and AR emphasising inquiry and reflection, often within a group setting (Revans 1982 ; Reason and Torbert 2001 ).

Action learning centres on resolving complex organisational problems through a set of interactive components (Marquardt et al. 2018 , p. 28). These components encompass selecting and tackling a problem or opportunity, establishing a relevant group, commitment to action and learning, engagement in questioning and reflection, and the guidance of a learning coach or facilitator (similar to the ‘friendly outsider’ of action research). The guidance is essential for designing, initiating, and implementing action learning, fulfilling three roles: accoucheur or designer, set advisor or action-learning facilitator, and organisational learning facilitator (Pedler and Abbott 2013 ).

In the context of this paper, Revans’ ( 1982 ) theoretical foundations of action learning focus on developing middle and top managers’ capacity to learn and transform their own organisations. In this regard, Revans framed the principle of insufficient mandate: “Those unable to change themselves cannot change what goes on around them” (Revans 2011 ,76). Revans ( 2011 ) cautioned managers and leaders involved in AR to avoid several pitfalls. These include idolising past experiences, which can cloud interpretation and recollection; succumbing to the charismatic influence of other successful managers; prioritising immediate activity over thoughtful planning; and maintaining a hierarchical approach that keeps others confined to their roles. Revans ( 2011 ) also stated that top managers (as sponsors) must demonstrate unwavering confidence in all aspects of an action-learning intervention, actively define their roles, and participate in problem selection while being available to lower levels. The sponsors need to acknowledge their role as learners and are open to discussing unexpected turns in the mission. Additionally, they ensure all necessary conditions for initiative success, including support from other senior managers, are met. While they show interest and provide support, they refrain from making significant interventions, maintaining a balance between involvement and allowing participants to take the lead in advancing the initiative.

In other words, leaders as sponsors serve as learning facilitators (Saabye et al. 2022 ; Saabye 2023 ). Their role involves two key components. Firstly, they facilitate learning and reflection through questioning, recognising the inherent challenges of engaging in critical self-development, and openly acknowledging their mistakes and insights. Secondly, they embrace the idea that while leaders may not have all the answers, employees directly facing challenges, such as those on the shop floor, can possess valuable insights. This shift in mindset associated with these components allows leaders to adopt a curiosity-driven approach, making it easier to ask relevant questions and facilitate meaningful learning experiences (Saabye et al. 2024 ).

The roles of a critical friend and a learning facilitator are interlinked, each contributing to the co-generative learning process of AR. A critical friend provides constructive feedback and challenges assumptions, fostering deeper reflection and encouraging participants to examine their practices critically. Meanwhile, the learning facilitator role supports the learning process by structuring group activities, fostering an environment conducive to open dialogue, and ensuring that learning objectives are achieved. The learning facilitator role helps participants integrate the critical feedback the critical friend role provides into their reflective practices and learning activities.

For the formal sponsor to enact both the critical friend and the learning facilitator roles is what fosters a co-generative learning environment where constructive critique and structured guidance work synergistically. The formal sponsor establishes the setting for the intervention. The critical friend’s feedback drives reflective practice by encouraging participants to analyse and learn from their experiences. At the same time, the learning facilitator ensures that this reflection is systematically integrated into the co-generative learning process. This interplay enhances solving real-world problems and establishes a supportive framework for continuous learning, fostering a culture where reflective practices can thrive and contribute to meaningful, sustained change.

Illustrative Cases

In this section, we present two illustrative case studies, each set within a unique context, to demonstrate how sponsors of action research (AR) initiatives have enacted the three distinct roles associated with their opportunities and responsibilities.

Case 1: Building Material Firm

This AR initiative unfolded at a production site within a large international building materials firm that had embarked on introducing digital data-gathering systems across its production line. The aim was to provide operators with real-time data access, facilitating problem-solving and enhancing production performance. However, despite months of engagement, it became evident that the anticipated outcomes were not materialising. Neither did the production line witness improvement, nor did the operators actively engage in problem-solving endeavours. To address this emergent challenge, the first author, serving as an action researcher and industrial doctoral student, initiated a novel AR initiative in collaboration with a university. The primary objective of this initiative was to identify systemic obstacles hindering the successful adoption and utilisation of the new real-time digital data-gathering system. Subsequently, the focus shifted towards developing organisational capabilities to address these challenges effectively through an extensive action learning program (Saabye 2023 ; Saabye et al. 2022 ).

The AR initiative was deemed successful, effectively addressing a real problem within the host organisation and contributing to existing theory by publishing several academic articles. This success can largely be attributed to the exemplary executive sponsorship of the General Manager of the production site at the international building material firm. His proactive approach to fulfilling his role as formal sponsor played a crucial role in the project’s achievements. Initially, he was instrumental in defining the scope of the AR initiative, securing funding and political support, and laying the groundwork for its initiation.

As a formal sponsor, my primary responsibility was ensuring everyone understood the Action Research project was moving forward. At the same time, I focused on securing the necessary time and resources for our success and made it clear that I would actively work to remove any obstacles that might hinder our progress.

However, his impact on the project’s success was primarily due to his active involvement as a critical friend throughout its duration. He consistently participated in steering group meetings, learning sessions, and reflection sessions with participants and local managers. In these interactions, he demonstrated exceptional skill in asking thought-provoking questions, offering alternative perspectives on data, and providing constructive critiques.

When engaging with leaders and employees during the AR project, I concentrated on asking questions that challenged their thinking and reflections without causing too much frustration or anxiety. I also avoided questions with overly simple answers and remained mindful not to fall victim to my own assumptions or biases.

Notably, he understood that critique should be constructive and aimed at facilitating more profound understanding and exploration rather than being negative. As a learning facilitator, he played a pivotal role in creating a supportive learning environment. He encouraged learning and reflection by posing challenging questions and openly acknowledging mistakes and insights. By embodying the idea that leaders do not have all the answers and that frontline employees possess valuable insights, he empowered the senior leaders and first-line managers to adopt a curiosity-driven approach. This approach facilitated meaningful learning experiences and made it easier to address relevant questions and challenges effectively.

I focus on asking questions and guiding the process by applying situational leadership, finding the right balance, and establishing a strong framework. I also ensure trust, vulnerability, and psychological safety within the team by sharing personal examples of my own failures and the valuable lessons I’ve learned from those experiences.

Part of the success in fulfilling the sponsor role was also attributed to the General Manager’s innate curiosity and commitment to facilitating learning, personal development, and self-reflection, which provided a solid foundation. To ensure genuine and committed sponsorship, the action researcher initiated individual AR cycles with the executive sponsor and his senior leaders to comprehensively analyse what prevented the adoption and utilisation of the digital data-gathering system. This served a dual purpose: understanding the situation while also developing the sponsor’s and senior leader’s capabilities as a critical friend and learning facilitator. As part of this process, the sponsors engaged in self-evaluation regarding effective sponsorship behaviours supported by the first author.

This introspection revealed instances where senior leaders had often been passive or unsupportive throughout the lifespan of the digitalisation project, hindering their success. Furthermore, it became apparent that senior leaders sometimes exhibited overly directive or micromanaging behaviours, inadvertently stifling empowerment, initiative, and learning among project leaders and participants. Therefore, the objective of this first AR cycle was to transition sponsors and senior leaders from unconscious incompetence to conscious incompetence as critical friends and learning facilitators, thereby facilitating a shift toward a focus on learning that would lead to the success of the AR initiative.

He (the action researcher) helped us to see that we as leaders should not try to provide the right solutions. Instead, our job is to help our people learn to find a solution themselves.

Case 2: Toy Company

The second case study focuses on a toy manufacturer’s product development support department, where collaboration with a university characterised an AR initiative. The primary goal was to transfer lean problem-solving practices from a production environment to the knowledge work setting within the support department. This initiative aimed to empower department leaders to act as facilitators of action learning, supporting performance enhancement and cultivating a culture of continuous learning. As with many organisations, the company encountered challenges balancing short-term efficiency improvements with long-term learning capabilities necessary for evolving into a learning organisation. Serving as an insider action researcher, the first author navigated this endeavour.

Echoing the success of the first case study, where the AR initiative effectively tackled a real organisational challenge and contributed to academic literature. The success of this project also owed much to the inherent curiosity and dedication of the executive sponsors towards nurturing learning, personal development, and self-reflection (Kristensen et al. 2022 ). Initially, the sponsor was critical in securing necessary resources and political support. However, his impact on the project’s success was predominantly attributed to his active engagement as a critical friend throughout the project’s lifecycle. In meetings with his organisation, he was adept in posing thought-provoking questions, offering alternative viewpoints on data, and providing constructive feedback.

I used to ask a few questions and then draw my own conclusions. Now, I ask questions that lead employees to form their own conclusions, allowing me to see how they perceive and understand the problem.

Emphasising that critique should be constructive, facilitating more profound understanding and exploration, he created a supportive environment for learning and reflection. By embodying the belief that leaders do not have all the answers and that frontline employees hold valuable insights, he empowered senior leaders and first-line managers to embrace a curiosity-driven approach, facilitating meaningful learning experiences and effective problem-solving.

He (the sponsor) has helped me develop a completely different way of thinking about improving my area as a leader. The most significant insight I’ve gained is that the skills I have developed, such as critical analysis, goal setting, and challenging assumptions, are applicable to my professional work and enrich my everyday life beyond the workplace.

Similar to the first case, the initial AR cycle involved preparing and engaging the head of the support department as a sponsor. The sponsor was supported in experimenting towards facilitating learning and problem-solving using lean practices and thinking on selected projects. Once the department head had developed sufficient proficiency as a learning facilitator, the department initiated the second AR cycle, engaging first-line managers and employees.

Diccussion and Conclusion

The two cases illustrate how enacting and integrating the roles of the formal sponsor, critical friend, and learning facilitator can be crucial for the success of an Action Research (AR) initiative. The formal sponsor provides essential strategic direction, resources, and political support necessary to initiate and sustain the project (Englund and Bucero 2006 ; Coghlan 2019 ). Simultaneously, the critical friend enriches the co-generative learning process through constructive feedback and challenging assumptions, driving deeper reflection and exploration (Campbell et al. 2004 ). The learning facilitator bridges these roles by structuring learning activities, promoting open dialogue, and ensuring that reflections are integrated effectively into the co-generative learning process (Saabye 2023 ). These roles foster a learning environment that supports effective problem-solving, continuous improvement, and mutual knowledge creation. This ensures that the AR initiative achieves meaningful and sustained organisational change.

While both cases were deemed successful, it is essential to acknowledge the complexity of defining success in action research (AR). In the Building Material Firm case, success was reflected not just in the eventual adoption of the digital data-gathering system but also in the proactive involvement of the General Manager as a critical friend and learning facilitator, which significantly enhanced the process and engagement. Similarly, in the Toy Company case, success was evident in the transfer of lean practices and how the executive sponsor’s active engagement in asking thought-provoking questions and fostering a culture of continuous learning contributed to more profound reflections and effective problem-solving. Thus, success in AR is intimately linked to the quality of the processes, stakeholder satisfaction, and the specific context of the initiative. It encompasses the tangible outcomes and the effectiveness of engagement strategies, the responsiveness to feedback, and the alignment with organisational needs. Reflecting on these multidimensional factors offers a more nuanced perspective on what constitutes true success in AR, emphasising the importance of both procedural and contextual considerations in evaluating the overall impact of the initiatives (Coghlan 2019 ).

On reflection, the two cases highlight that impactful sponsorship of AR relies on sponsors enacting three roles: securing funding and political backing, acting as a critical friend, and facilitating learning throughout the initiative. However, these roles may not evolve naturally. The anecdotal conversation noted earlier between the primary author and the doctoral student highlighted the difficulties in engaging an organisation in a co-generative learning process (Elden and Levin 1991 ) despite a formal agreement. The doctoral student’s challenges might indicate that her initiative’s sponsors were not fulfilling these three roles, leading to difficulties in identifying, confronting, and framing concrete organisational problems. These challenges underscore the importance of action researchers securing and facilitating impactful sponsorship. As illustrated in the Building Material Firm and Toy Company case studies, sponsors were crucial in securing resources, actively participating in meetings, offering constructive critiques, and consciously facilitating a supportive learning environment (Kristensen et al. 2022 ; Saabye et al. 2022 ).

Researchers can help facilitate sponsorship commitment and behaviour by engaging sponsors to help them understand their need to transition from passive participants to active learning facilitators driven by curiosity and a commitment to personal and organisational development (Revans 2011 ). An action researcher cannot assume senior leaders know how to enact the different roles of sponsoring an AR initiative. Table  1 outlines the AR sponsorship roles and details how researchers can ensure that sponsors fulfil these roles.

The doctoral student noted earlier and other action researchers can better prepare the sponsors for their roles by initiating individual AR cycles with the sponsors, perhaps as a pre-step, much like the approach in the building material firm case (Saabye et al. 2022 ). Initiating individual AR cycles with the sponsors would involve working closely with sponsors to analyse project challenges and engage in conversations on how they can best mitigate these challenges through the lenses of the different sponsorship roles and especially develop their capabilities as a critical friend and learning facilitator.

These conversations can then inform a process of upstream and downstream learning where the sponsor identifies actions to enact the different roles, carries these actions out and reflects together with the AR as the “friendly outsider”, prompting them to scrutinise their existing flawed assumptions and adjusting their behaviours accordingly (Reason and Torbert 2001 ). Through these learning cycles, sponsors can better understand their responsibilities and how to support the initiative’s goals effectively. Ideally, this individual learning cycle should become regular check-ins and feedback loops with the sponsors. This continuous engagement allows for real-time adjustments and ensures sponsors remain actively involved and committed to the project’s success. By maintaining open lines of communication, the action researcher can address any emerging issues promptly and reinforce the importance of the sponsors’ roles in driving the AR forward (Saabye et al. 2024 ).

Looking ahead, we acknowledge from our combined experiences as action researchers that it can be challenging for a single sponsor to effectively fulfil all three critical roles required for a successful AR initiative in many organisations. That challenge presents an opportunity for further research. The demanding schedules of senior or middle managers may make it difficult for them to take on the role of critical friend and learning facilitator. Hence, in corporate settings where senior managers might be preoccupied with other responsibilities, it may be relevant to explore the separation of the formal sponsor role from the critical friend and learning facilitator roles. It can be asked how consciously allocating distinct individuals for the formal sponsor, critical friend, and learning facilitator roles might impact the effectiveness of support for the AR initiative. From the insights in this paper, we can consider, for example, what happens when the sponsor focuses on securing funding and high-level support, and how a dedicated critical friend and learning facilitator can enrich the learning process by providing necessary challenges and reflections. This separation may allow each role to be performed more effectively, enhancing the overall success and impact of the AR initiative, especially in cases where the actions researcher is coming from outside the organisation.

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Argyris C, Schön DA (1978) Organisational learning. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, Reading, Mass

Google Scholar  

Bäckstrand J, Fredriksson A, Halldórsson Á (2024) Middle-range theorising supporting and supported by action research: focusing on practitioner preparedness. Prod Plann Control, 1–14

Bryde D (2008) Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on project success. Int J Project Manage 26(8):800–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.12.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Campbell A, McNamara O, Gilroy P (2004) Critical friendship, critical community and collaboration. In A. Campbell, O. McNamara, & P. Gilroy (Eds.), Practitioner research and professional development in education (pp. 106–124). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024510

Coghlan D (2019) Doing AR in your own organisation, 5th edn. SAGE

Coghlan D, Brydon-Miller M (2014) Critical friend. In D. Coghlan & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of AR (pp. 207–208). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446294406

Coghlan D, Coughlan P (2008) Action learning and AR (ALAR): a methodological integration in an inter-organisational setting. Systemic Pract Action Res 21:97–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-007-9086-0

Costa AL, Kallick B (1993) Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadersh 51(2):49–51

Coughlan P, Coghlan D (2024) Action research. In: Karlsson C (ed) Research methods for operations and supply chain management. Routledge, pp 219–251

Dolphin RR (2003) Sponsorship: perspectives on its strategic role. Corp Communications: Int J 8(3):173–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280310487630

Elden M, Levin M (1991) Cogenerative learning: bringing participation into action research. In: Whyte WF (ed) Participatory AR. Sage, pp 127–142

Englund RL, Bucero A (2006) Project sponsorship: achieving management commitment for project success, 1st edn. Jossey-Bass

Finnestrand H (2023) Creating a learning organisation through a co-generative learning process – A nordic perspective. Learn Organ 30(3):326–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-09-2021-0109

Foulger TS (2010) External conversations: an unexpected discovery about the critical friend in AR inquiries. Action Res 8(2):135–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750309351354

Greenwood DJ, Levin M (2006) Introduction to action research: social research for social change, 2nd edn. Sage

Hansen AV, Madsen S (2019) Theorising in Organization studies: insights from key thinkers. Edward Elgar Pub, Northampton, MA

Herzberg F (2003) One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Rev 81(1):86

Holgersson S, Melin U (2015) Pragmatic dilemmas in action research: doing AR with or without the approval of top management? Systemic Pract Action Res 28(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-014-9316-1

Kember D, Ha TS, Lam BH, Lee A, Ng S, Yan L, Yum JC (1997) The diverse role of the critical friend in supporting educational AR projects. Educational Action Res 5(3):463–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650799700200036

Klev R, Levin M (2012) Participative transformation: learning and development in practising change. Gower Publishing

Kloppenborg TJ, Tesch D, Manolis C (2014) Project success and executive sponsor behaviors: empirical life cycle stage investigations. Project Manage J 45:9–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21396

Kristensen T, Borup H, Saabye, and Amy Edmondson (2022) Becoming a Learning Organization while enhancing performance: the case of LEGO. Int J Oper Prod Manage 42(13):438–481. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-10-2021-0676

Levin M (1993) Technology transfer as a learning and developmental process: an analysis of Norwegian programmes on technology transfer. Technovation 13(8):497–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(93)90065-4

Levin M (2004) Organising change processes: Cornerstones, methods, and strategies. In J. J. Boonstra (Ed.), Dynamics of organisational change and learning (1st ed., pp. 71–84). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753408.ch4

Levin M, Martin AW (2007) The praxis of educating action researchers: the possibilities and obstacles in higher education. Action Res 5:219–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307081014

Levin M, Ravn JE (2007) Involved in praxis and analytical at a distance. Systemic Pract Action Res 20(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-006-9045-1

Marquardt MJ, Banks S, Cauwelier P, Choon Seng Ng (2018) Optimising the power of Action Learning: real-time strategies for developing leaders, Building Teams and transforming organizations, 3rd edn. Nicholas Brealey, Boston, MA

Mat Noor MSA, Shafee A (2020) The role of critical friends in action research: a framework for design and implementation. Practitioner Res 3(July):1–33. https://doi.org/10.32890/pr2021.3.1

Myers MD (2009) Qualitative research in business & management. Sage

Pedler M, Abbott C (2013) Facilitating Action Learning: a practitioner’s guide. Open University, Maidenhead

Reason P, Torbert WR (2001) The action turn: toward a transformational social science. Concepts Transformations 6(1):1–37

Revans RW (1982) The origins and growth of action learning. Chartwell Bratt

Revans R (2011) ABC of action learning. Routledge

Saabye H (2023) Advancements on action learning and lean complementarity: a case of developing leaders as lean learning facilitators. Action Learning: Res Pract 20:38–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2022.2146655

Saabye H, Kristensen TB, Wæhrens BV (2022) Developing a learning-to-learn capability: insights on conditions for industry 4.0 adoption. Int J Oper Prod Manage 42:25–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-07-2021-0428

Saabye H, Finnestrand H, Kristensen TB (2024) Instituting learning mechanisms: an enabler for relevant and rigorous AR in operations management. Prod Plann Control, 1–15

Swaffield S (2004) Critical friends: supporting leadership, improving learning. Improving Schools 7(3):267–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480204049340

West D (2017) Project sponsorship: An essential guide for those sponsoring projects within their organisations (0 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315245898

Download references

An access agreement provides Open Access for the Royal Danish Library.

Open access funding provided by Aarhus Universitet

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

Henrik Saabye & Thomas Borup Kristensen

VELUX, Østbrik, Denmark

Henrik Saabye

Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Paul Coughlan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualized the study: HS, PC, TBK; Contributed to the development of the theoretical framework; HS, PC, TBK; Conducted the literature review: HS, PC, TBK; Contributed to the interpretation of findings: HS, PC, TBK; Integrating theoretical insights with empirical evidence: HS, PC; Drafting the manuscript: HS; Revising the manuscript: HS, PC, TBK; Finalizing the paper for submission: HS[Author 1 = Henrik Saabye (HS)][Author 2 = Paul Coughlan (PC)][Author 3 = Thomas Borup Kristensen (TBK)]

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henrik Saabye .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

Not applicable.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Saabye, H., Coughlan, P. & Kristensen, T.B. Exploring Action Research Sponsorship: Role and Enactment. Syst Pract Action Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-024-09693-z

Download citation

Accepted : 03 September 2024

Published : 14 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-024-09693-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Action Research
• Action Learning
• Sponsorship
• Co-generative learning

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research