Gender Differences in Satisfaction with the Type of Work University Employees Do

1000 Words +(reference)
Structure for a Critical Review of an article or chapter reporting research (1,000 words)
Title

• Your choice of title should include the keywords that will indicate to the reader what you are doing (a Critical Review of a selected

piece of literature) and the aspect of the social world that forms your focus.

Introducing the Critical Review (50–150 words)

• A statement of your purpose – critically to review the selected text (give the names of the authors, the title of the chapter or article

and the date of publica- tion) as a contribution to answering your review question or questions. You should list the review questions to

give the reader an indication of the focus for your review. (For this exercise, we will use the same review questions as those for the

Critical Analysis of Wallace’s article that you were invited to try out earlier:

1 What does the text suggest may be key factors promoting or inhibiting the effectiveness of a particular aspect of educational leadership

and management practice?
2 To what extent are the factors identified applicable to the leadership and
management of my organization or one known to me?)

Introducing the text being critically reviewed – what the authors were trying to find out and what they did (150–250 words, beginning to

build the warranting for your argument)
• A summary of the authors’ purposes for the text and the kind of enquiry they engaged in, including an indication of the type of

literature they produced and their intellectual project.
• A brief indication of why this text is relevant to the review questions guiding your
Critical Review.
• A brief summary of how they went about their investigation (e.g., the research design, methodology, sample, methods of data collection

and analysis).

The authors’ main claims relating to the review questions (150–250 words, continuing to build the warranting for your argument)
• A summary of the main claims made by the authors of the text, as relevant to answering your review questions – a synthesis of, say, up

to five main points.
• An indication of the range of contexts to which the authors claim, explicitly or
implicitly, that their findings may apply (e.g., they imply that their claims apply to all contexts or do not specify any limits on the

extent to which they may be universally applicable).

Evaluating the authors’ main claims relating to the review questions (200–400 words, continuing to build the warranting for your argument)
• Your evaluation of these findings and any broader claims, critically assessing the extent to which they are convincing for the context

from which these claims were derived. In your critique, you may wish to refer back to your earlier account of the authors’ purpose,

intellectual project and how they went about their enquiry (e.g., you may wish to assert that the value stance of particular authors led

to bias which affected their findings).
• Your critical assessment of how far the claims made by the authors of the text
may be applicable to other contexts, including those in your own experience (. In your cri- tique, you may wish to refer back to your

earlier account of how the authors went about their enquiry (e.g., you may wish to assert that the findings from a particular intellectual

project were derived from a context which is so different from yours that you consider the prescriptions for practice emerging from this

work are unlikely to apply directly to your context).

Conclusion (150–250 words)
• Your brief overall evaluation of the text, to assess its contribution to answering your review questions.
• For this exercise, your summary answer to the first review question. This will include
a statement of your judgment, with reasons, about how far the findings and any broader claims are convincing for the context from which

they were derived.
• For this exercise, your summary answer to the second review question. This will
include a statement of your judgment, with reasons, about how far the findings and any broader claims are applicable (e.g., at how high a

level of abstraction?) to your professional context or one known to you.

References
• Give the full reference for the text you have reviewed.

WE ACCEPT