Validity: On its own terms

Synthesis: In relation to others

Relevance: Usefulness to you

Context: discipline/profession, authors, currency, bias

·         When was it published?

·         Where was it published?

·         What profession or discipline are the authors?

·         What else have they published – are they authoritative?

·         Are there any vested interests which might bias research?

·         Have others cited or drawn on this research?

·         How influential has it been?

·         Is it cutting edge/controversial or mainstream?

·         Is this part of a debate and where does it sit?

·         Are these authors coming at the issue from the same discipline perspective as you?

·         What is your overall response to the article?

What are they doing? Research Question/Aims/Hypothesis

·         Are the aims clearly stated? Are they vague?

·         Is the research question etc valid or rest on bias/assumptions?

·         Is the question interesting/significant?

·         Is this a radically new area of research or a tweak or new angle on existing question or topic?

·         How long have people been interested in this topic?

·         How similar are their aims to your own? How does that affect your use of it?

·         Is it still worth me doing my research?

How did they do it? Methods, Models and Materials

·         Are any theories/models appropriate and accurately understood? Do they develop their own?

·         Are the methods used for data gathering/interpretation appropriate?

·         Is the data set well chosen?

·         Are they developing a completely new method etc?

·         Are the methods etc used standard and acceptable practice?

·         Are they adapting or improving on previous methods etc?

·         Does this help me justify my own choice of  approach?

·         Can I adapt or improve their method?

·         Do I agree that this is an appropriate method for research like mine?

How do they know? Argument, evidence, logic and reasoning

·         Is their interpretation and analysis flawed or does it make logical sense?

·         Have they missed anything?

·         Do the results actually mean what they say they mean?

·         Do they use other literature appropriately to help interpret their findings?

·         Do later scholars criticise them?

·         Is there anything I should be watching out for when reading my own work critically?

·         Is there anything I can point to in order to save me having to explain it in full?

What do they say? Findings and conclusions

·         Are the conclusions actually related to their aims and results?

·         Are the conclusions drawn proportionate to the evidence presented?

·         Are their findings confirmed by other literature?

·         Are their findings significant and novel, compared to other literature?

·         Can I rely on their conclusions to build my own argument?

·         Do I disagree with their conclusions to some extent? Does that help justify my research?

·         Any gaps/missed opportunities to help justify my research?