Critical Article Review: DueFriday, 14 September 2018 by 5 pm – 20%
We know that most, if not all of you, will never have critiqued an article before. The ability to summarise and develop an argument based on a research source is a crucial skill inbusinessand public policy roles, as well as in academic work. It is about identifying what is important in the article, what is useful, what is different or unique and how that might be informative.
So, how do you do the article critique?
a) You need to read the article – you are critiquing Morgan, G. (1988), Accounting as reality construction: Towards a new epistemology for accounting practice, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(5), 477 – 485.
This means read closely. We would suggest read once, generally. Then, read again, with a highlighter – but highlight selectively – what is interesting/new/challenging for you. I would then read a third time, this time, taking notes based on the key ideas that you have highlighted. This will be the beginnings of your overview.
PART ONE: Briefly overview the article (max 150 words) 30%
b) Develop a sentence to respond to this question: What is the main argument in the article? What is the author/s trying to tell you aboutaccounting? This is likely to be the lead sentence in your assignment.
a. Eg. in relation toBrown & Fraser (2006)in “Approaches and Perspectives in Socialand Environmental Accounting”, I would argue:
Brown & Fraser (2006) argue that the centralissue in corporate social responsibility [CSR] is about power and whether business is in control of society or society is in control of business.
This is a subjective process – there is no right answer per se, as each understanding of the article is personal.
However, there are wrong interpretations – eg.Brown & Fraser(2006)suggests there is only one correct way of understanding CSR.
Given the word count for this overview section, you will need to work hard on each sentence here. So, you need to display good editing skills: write, rewrite, read, edit, rewrite (it is an iterative process).
c) Develop an overview of the article (at no more than 150 words). Begin with your lead sentence and then write 3 or 4 more sentences to provide support for how your article develops this position.
You should reference where necessary (reference ideas).
However, in this section, we do not want you to quote from the article – this is your words to understand someone else’s words. Thus, the abstract of the article is the author’s idea of contribution to the academic world, and thus, is not representative of what you found interesting or useful or different about the article.
PART TWO: Critically reflect on what is positive or negative about the article from an academic perspective (max 250 words)
To critically reflect on something means to develop a way, with support, of telling us whether you agree with the article that you selected.
You may use ‘I’ in this section because you are expressing your personal viewpoints about the article, but you should provide as much support from other sources (preferably published: journal articles, books (see the unit outline) – not just from the Internet and not from Wikipedia or other online sources) in the development of your opinion.
The Analytical Technique
Identify TWO statements or ideas from Morgan (1988) that you find interesting or significant. These could for example, be statements that you strongly agree or disagree with. You will need to quote the statement or ideas, but this does not count towards your word count.
Thus, your 250 words should follow this pattern:
i) Present Example 1 (this is not part of the word count)
ii) Evaluate why you find this example interesting. You should use support (from otherpublishedsources) in why it is interesting.
iii) Present Example 2 (this is not part of the word count) and evaluate this example.
PART THREE: Identify whether, how and why this article would or would not be useful for answering a question about the culture of accounting (max 100 words)
This is asking you to focus on how Morgan (1988) would or would not help you to answer a question about accounting and culture. The ‘how’ needs reflection. This part requires you to do two things:
a) What you have learnt from evaluating Morgan (1988) in relation to culture and accounting?
b) Would Morgan (1988) help you to develop an argument about accounting and culture?
a. If yes, how would Morgan (1988) help you to do that?
b. If no, why has Morgan (1988) not helped you to make an argument about accounting and culture?