how to critique a qualitative paper

7/30/2019 how to critique a qualitative paper

1/6

Qualitative Research 1

Running Head: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Qualitative Research Article Critique

Erin Biddlecombe

Oregon State University


2/6


Preface

This paper seeks to critique the qualitative research article,Learning at university: the

international student experience found in the International Education Journal. This paper will be

broken down by section, with each segment being independently evaluated. These sections will

include: the introduction, research procedures, research findings, and discussion. Several large

flaws will be distinguished and improvements will be suggested.

Analysis

Introduction

The two researchers teach at Macquarie Universitys School of Education. This is the

only information provided of the researchers within this journal article. After searching online, I

was able to discover that Hellstens research area centers on international student pedagogy and

practice, while Prescotts research background is in teacher education pedagogy and practice.

Based on their combined areas of expertise, they are fully competent of studying the learning

experiences of international students studying in Australia.

In fact, the collaboration between these two researchers presents the ideal background

required for such a research project; these two researchers would be able to come at the research

problem from their different perspectives and challenge each others biases in this regard. This

being said, these researchers do not demonstrate any bias in describing the subject of their study.

The literature review presented by Hellsten and Prescott is somewhat unorganized and

incomplete. While it does include relevant studies to the research problem, these studies are not

presented in an organized manner. The researchers jump from study to study with little

elaboration on each study and with no linkages between study topics. For example, they cite a

study done by Reid in 2002. Here, they mention that Reid surveyed over 300 postgraduate


3/6


students, but they fail to explain the actual purpose of Reids study. Further to this, the

researchers fail to define key terms. For example, in speaking to international student

preferences to teaching styles, the researchers make reference to the teacher-centered

approach. Also, the researchers make statements without showing clear evidence in support of

these particular accounts; they claim that there exists a difference between international student

and academic personnel views of high quality teaching, without citing specific research or theory

that proves this statement to be true. The result-readers may have a hard time understanding the

background information presented to them in this introduction or may question the worth of this

study.

Research procedures

The researchers do not provide the readers with adequate information regarding their

research procedures to replicate the study, if they so wished. They only indicate semi-structured

interviews were conducted of 48 international students in their first year at Macquarie University

from various disciplines and various countries; the specific sampling technique employed cannot

be induced from this information alone as the researchers could have used any of several

techniques including maximum variation and snowball. The researchers not only interviewed

students, but also used these students word-of-mouth referrals to fellow students in their home

countries to collect data. Again, it is not presented in this article how the researchers were able

to access this information.

These data collection methods are effective ways of soliciting the opinions and feelings

of the student group toward their learning experience. Interviews allow the researchers to build

trust with their participants and the referrals would provide honest insight that may not have been


4/6


discussed in the interviews. Using this second method of data collection also allows the

researchers to ensure the soundness of their data via triangulation.

The researchers goal was to interview students regarding their first six months of study

in Australia, which is said to represent their transition period between the old learning

environment and new environment. To do this, they interviewed these 48 students each for a

one-hour period of time. The trustworthiness of this approach is questionable as the depth and

honesty of the student responses may have been compromised based on this time constraint: Can

a researcher pull enough useable information from a student in one hour? Will a student speak

honestly about their experiences to a stranger who theyve known for one hour (or less than)? I

am skeptical. No information is given as to whether the researchers collected data in a way to

ensure a reflection of the participants emic perspective.

Research findings

The researchers identified two central themes, (a) communicating in class and (b)

communication issues, through their research. Unfortunately, the actual voices of these students

are not clearly represented; the majority of the research findings section centers on the

researchers opinions, a discussion on assumptions made regarding international students, and

related research findings. The researchers, however, do infuse quotes taken directly from the

students into this section of the article. This allows the reader to see the communication style of

these student participants and to experience the emotions associated with their transition to

studying in Australia.

The researchers focus on writing a narrative account of these students transitional

experiences, but end up missing several key elements of the research findings section. For

example, they do not attempt to develop hypotheses that could be tested in further research; this


5/6


valuable information should have been included for those interested in pursuing further research

in this area. To ensure trustworthiness of this research, it would have been in the best interest of

these researchers to include information regarding member checking. The researchers do not

mention the use of member checking to ensure the information they presented was accurate and

reflected participants perceptions.

Discussion

The researchers do not make any clear conclusions based on the research findings. In

fact, the researchers continue to cite related research findings to further their argument, instead of

focusing on the results of their research. It makes me question whether they actually did any

research; perhaps they should have interviewed a smaller population of students to obtain richer

data with which to work.

While the researchers do not clearly make conclusions based on their research findings,

they do draw implications for future practice. For example, they feel that there is a need for

opportunities for faculty to communicate and reflect upon their experiences as teachers of

international students. The researchers also focus on the need for professors to ameliorate their

teaching practices to be more inclusive of diverse backgrounds and cultures. Finally, the

researchers suggest that future research should focus on comparing student commentary with

staff perceptions and experiences. These implications are not rooted in the research findings but

instead in related research.

Again, the researchers missed several key components to this section of the report that

would have increased the trustworthiness of their research. First, the researchers do not reflect

on their own values and perspectives in this report. The reader is therefore unaware of what role


6/6


researcher bias plays in this report. Also, researchers do not speak to the generalizability of their

research findings; this makes it difficult to rely on their implications for practice.

Conclusion

This paper served to critique the qualitative research article,Learning at university: the

international student experience from the International Education Journal. Each section of this

article was analyzed separately. Evaluated sections included: the introduction, research

procedures, research findings, and discussion. Flaws were exposed and appropriate

improvements were suggested.

References

Hellsten, M., & Prescott, A. (2004). Learning at university: the international student experience.

International Education Journal, 5(3), 344-351.

how to critique a qualitative paper

Documents