NATIONAL AND KAPODISTRIAN
UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS
SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANG&LIT
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS
COURSE: PLANNING AND CONDUCTING RESEARCH
7th Semester, Fall 2015-16
INSTRUCTOR: Elly Ifantidou
REVIEW ARTICLE
Critical summary and assessment of (a piece of) existing research
1. Describe/Summarize the work produced by the researcher(s) you are
reviewing
2. Interpret and evaluate the work. Be critical.
When you review an article, you must:
 understand (and show that you understand) the article under review
HOW?
By showing:
 what the key issue(s) is/are
 how it has been researched
 what has the researcher achieved
Note: Your review should both
 summarize what others have done and thought on the topic discussed/researched AND
 indicate your own response to their work and conclusions.
Be critical – just because a work is published, even if by one of the key thinkers in your field,
this does not mean that it is the last word – but not destructively so.
ACTIVITY
Compare two sample Article Reviews in terms of Structure, Language, Style/Tone by filling
the tables below:
Article Review
Structure
Summary
Structure
Summary
Criticism
Criticism
Conclusion
Conclusion
Language (academic-technical)
Language (academic-technical)
1
SYNTHESIS OF SOURCES
The four academic extracts appear below in random order. Match extracts which refer
to the same topic (by two).
1
Over the last decennia, the dominant view has come to be that connectedness of discourse is a
characteristic of the mental representation of the discourse rather than of the discourse itself
(see Sanders and Pander Maat, 2006, for a recent overview). According to most cognitive
scientists, linguists and psycholinguists, understanding discourse means that readers construct
a mental representation of the information in the text (Graesser et al. 1997; Gernsbacher and
Givon 1995; Garnham and Oakhill, 1992).
2
The academic university registers included in Biber (2006) – classroom teaching, lab
sessions, study groups, textbooks, and course packs – all share the primary communicative
purpose of conveying information. Even though instructors and textbook authors are also
concerned with providing their own perspectives on information, epistemic stance expressions
(e.g. in classroom teaching, certainly, I don’t think, data indicate that) are much more
common in these registers than attitudinal expressions (e.g. in classroom teaching, I was
shocked to find out that).
3
Traditionally, linguists have approached coherence relations and connectives by looking at
overt linguistic elements and structures. In their seminal Cohesion in English, Halliday and
Hasan (1976) describe text connectedness in terms of explicit clues that make a text a text,
such as reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction. Cohesion occurs “when the
interpretation f some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another” (Halliday and
Hasan, 1976:4)
4
A closer consideration of stance features in the spoken academic registers shows that they are
often used for functions other than the expression of epistemic or attitudinal meanings. First,
stance features are commonly used for directive/obligation functions in academic spoken
registers. That is, interspersed with the discussion of informational content, we find classroom
instructors commonly telling students what they can do (i.e. what they are able to
accomplish), what I want you to do; and what they should, have to, or need to do. Second,
stance features are frequently used for discourse organization – for example, prediction
modals (I’m now going to talk, we will begin, I’ll make it completely clear) are often used to
structure a spoken lecture, identifying the upcoming steps in the presentation (or the course
overall).
Feedback on: Synthesis of academic sources

A synthesis is not a word-to-word paraphrase, but a synthesis of selective information
from the original, i.e. significant information only, or information relevant to the
main argument developed. As a consequence, a review is considerably shorter in
length compared to the reviewed source(s).

A synthesis involves your personal evaluation/comment when reviewing the literature
for the purposes of conducting your own research.
2

A synthesis should explicitly indicate the relation between synthesized sources – are
they contrasting, or complementary, or in a cause-effect relation?
Rank by using the criteria
(–) word-by-word paraphrase
(+) synthesis of selected (significant or relevant) information
(+) explicit indication of relation between sources (opposing, complementary)
(+) personal interpretation/comment
Student answer A
Research on spoken academic registers (Biber 2006) indicates by and large that university
instructors and textbook writers manifest a relatively strong perchant for the use of epistemic
stance features. The latter are usually employed for giving orders (obligation purposes) and
for discourse organization as opposed to the infrequent use of attitudinal expressions. In other
words, instructors and textbook authors are more likely to use epistemic stance expressions
when informing the students about what they can do, what they want them to do or what they
should do respectively. Moreover, when stance features are employed for the organization of
discourse, they usually come under the form of prediction modals, like “I am now going to/I
will, which intend to clarify the sequential steps of the oral presentation of information or
perhaps of the whole course structure.
Student answer B
Research into a series of academic registers has revealed a variety of features related to the
stance of speakers. In the case of instructors addressing students in the classroom, epistemic
stance was found to be expressed in much greater fluency than attitudinal stance. This finding
could perhaps have been expected, given the ‘tenor’ (instructor-student relation, i.e. unequal
power) and ‘field’ of the situations observed (instructor providing information and
judgements, serving knowledge with different amounts of probability/plausibility attached to
it). Beyond that, as shown by closer scrutiny of stance expressions used by instructors when
addressing their students in the classroom, stance expressions appear to serve functions other
than those on which previous research had focused. In particular, epistemic stance markers
were found to fulfil what the researchers termed “directive/obligation” functions, as in I need
you to hand in the paper by next Friday, and discourse organizing purposes, such as in I will
start the lecture on …
Student answer C
Stance expressions have been researched in terms of (a) epistemic expressions and (b)
attitudinal expressions (Biber 2006). In the suggested framework, it has been claimed that the
former are more frequently used compared to the latter. Upon closer observation and analysis,
however, additional functions of stance markers have been determined, namely, the
‘directive/obligation’ use, as in I want you to …; you should; have to; need to; and the
‘discourse organization’ use (I’m now going to talk, we will begin, I’ll make it completely
clear).
3
Jane Eyre:
A Research on How Gender and Religion Issues Are Perceived by the Novel
Reader and the Film Viewer
Charlton, Michael, Corinna Pette and Christina Burbaum. (2004) “Reading Strategies
in Everyday Life: Different Ways of Reading a Novel Which Make a Distinction.”
Poetics Today 25 (2): 241-263.
The article in hand presents a research on German readers, aiming at illustrating the
practices employed when dealing with a piece of literature, namely a novel, and their
meanings in terms of coping with everyday life and a person's past. In the first part of
the research, six volunteer readers who had spontaneously purchased a specific,
recently published novel were interviewed before, during and after they had read the
book. The subjects' responses suggested a vast variety of reading practices, which
were found to vary depending on the personal characteristics and goals of the readers.
The second part of the research consisted of telephone interviews with a
representative sample of 1.025 seasoned novel readers, which pointed to a
relationship between the reading strategies used and the gender of the readers, as well
as their sociocultural background.
The survey presented may be considered very important in the field of literary
reading, since researchers at large have been mostly avoiding tackling with the
specific area of interest. The survey's taking place in two phases was an optimal
choice, since there were no data from previous attempts to register reading practices.
Another strong point of the research presented in the article is the fact that a variety of
methods were used, such as interviews, questionnaires and self-observations, while
the number of participants was fairly large. Nonetheless, the criteria used for the
selection are not clarified. Furthermore, the classification to milieus is derived by
remarks limited to the German society, the differentiation between the genders is
subject to the above limitation too. As a result, reservations are held as to whether the
findings of the research may be applied in the Greek context or not.
In connection with the article's contribution to the research we are planning to
conduct, it must be noted that the methodological tools indicated are of great value.
There are hardly any studies on literary reading conducted in the form of a research
and the present one is deemed groundbreaking. In addition, the notion of
differentiation of reading patterns and perceptions in relation to the cultural
background is bound to be of help, since in the context of our research, novel-readers
and film-viewers will be of diverse backgrounds and comparisons will be made. The
theoretical foundation of the research in question, as well as its findings, may help us
formulate our hypotheses and evaluate our findings, even though its actual results
may not be congruent with ours due to its aforementioned limitations.
Violence through Language: How Innocent Are Words of
Everyday Speech?
Schweinle, William, Ickes, William, Rollings, Kathryn and Jacquot, Colette (2010)
“Maritally aggressive men: angry, egocentric, impulsive, and/or biased”.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29 (4): 399-424.
4
The article is concerned with the relationship between the language used by
maritally aggressive men, other characteristics of them (anger, impulsivity, inferential
bias and attentional disorder or impairment) and their wife-directed aggression. The
authors aspire to shed light on the significance lying in the language employed by
such men in predicting their violent behaviour towards their wives. As far as the
hypotheses are concerned, these are explicitly stated: the authors expect to indicate
that men who describe their marriages by means of linguistic expressions conveying
anger are quite maritally aggressive and so are thought to be highly impulsive men.
They also attempt to show that attentional disorder/impairment results in increased
wife-directed aggression and, finally, that the same holds true as regards the strength
of the men’s critical/rejecting-overattribution bias. The study relies on findings of
previous research, which actually pointed to the aforementioned characteristics as
crucial indicators of maritally men’s aggression. Rather than simply confirming, the
article further examines the specific issue and concludes with additional factors that
play a significant part in predicting these men’s violent behaviour. In the end, it
comes up with two types of maritally aggressive men, but suggests further research
into the specific characteristics of each type. The cornerstone of the study involved is
the assumption that language is the medium through which people express aspects of
their personality and emotional life, even unintentionally. Besides, the importance of
linguistic word count analyses has been supported by previous researchers (Cohn,
Mehl, Pennebaker, Forgas and Tehani) to whom explicit reference is made.
The article is of particular interest to my research topic, which concerns the
way that violence is reflected on everyday speech; it can actually provide valuable
assistance as regards its investigation through examining the language used by
ordinary people who are yet to be labelled as violent, abusive or otherwise aggressive.
Moreover, it generated certain ideas as regards the questionnaire of my research. For
example, I could employ pictures presenting scenes of mild or more intense violence
and then ask participants to write down what comes to mind while looking at them.
Although the article examines only men’s aggressive behaviour, it may come as a
surprise that certain findings could apply to women as well, since participants of my
research are expected to be mainly female.
The material presented by the authors includes: findings stemming from the
Linguistic Inquiry Word Count software, self-report items, responses to items on the
Revised Dyadic Adjustment, the Conflict Tactics Scale, a measure of socially
desirable response bias, one of four temperament facets as well as a version of the
empathic accuracy paradigm. It is particularly helpful that detailed explanation of the
material and tables enabling a visual and statistical representation of the findings are
provided, which in turn facilitates the comprehension of the scientific procedure.
Nevertheless, technical symbols such as M, SD, r, p and terminology like z-scores and
standardized coefficients are not explained; thus, a reader lacking relevant knowledge
understands their meaning solely by inferring from context. In addition, all the
participants involved come from Texas and are married, which admittedly raises
questions about whether the sample is representative enough. What is more, only
married men are examined. Nonetheless, aggressive behaviour may precede marriage,
meaning that analysing the behaviour of men in romantic relationships on the whole
could point to additional factors predicting and leading to marital aggression. The
authors explain that they focus on men because previous research has indicated that
violence on their part is the most prominent issue and suggest further investigation
into women’s violent behaviour. In fact, my research could potentially show that
similar findings apply to women as well, as a widely-held assumption is that the
5
“weaker” sex has become more aggressive and masculine nowadays in both personal
and professional life.
All, in all, this study is ground-breaking in that it suggests that first-person
singular and first-person plural references are not correlated with wife-directed
aggression. Instead, the use of third-personal singular pronouns interestingly enough
points to Machiavellianism, meaning that employing pronouns such as “we”, “us” and
“our” – which are seemingly collectivistic – can actually imply a manipulative
behaviour. The article, finally, can prove useful in recognising signs of aggression –
even when it comes to our own behaviour – which we ought to take care of in light of
stable and more “peaceful” social relations.
Μetaphor as a means of polarizing the audience and constructing a collective
identity in Obama’s political discourse
Savage, R. (2010) “Populist elements in contemporary American political discourse”.
The Sociological Review 58(52): 167-188.
The specific journal article argues that populism as a unified discursive sociopolitical phenomenon is to be found in both Latin-American and Western European
cases no matter of the Capitalist mode, developmental stage or degree of economic
production. More specifically, Ritchie Savage suggests that Laclau’s model of
populism can unite the various divergent instances of populism under a unified
theoretical framework and analyze them accordingly. In that spectrum, it is argued
that not only the contemporary rhetoric of Barack Obama contains populist elements
but also that populism there functions and proliferates itself the same way as in
seemingly non-comparable populist cases of Latin-America. Laclau’s discursive
model of populism basically perceives populism as a discourse with linguistic and
relational attributes that is inextricably related to Lacan’s symbolic order of society.
That is, the symbolic order is continuously disrupted by dislocations (antagonisms and
crises within society) and the instability of Saussurean signification between signifiers
and signifieds. At that point, populism functions by giving meaning to empty
signifiers (such as ‘people’) and thus ‘restoring’ the symbolic order of society by
forming political identities of belonging to a social totality or group. The signifying
totality, in turn, needs to exclude one of its differentiated elements so as to define
itself. However, when one of those elements comes to signify totality, a hegemonic
identity occurs. In taking into consideration the various definitions provided by
scholars throughout, Savage suggests that the one of Laclau’s seems to be the most
applicable one since it transcends regional, social and temporal variables and sets the
ground for a wider systematic schema of analyzing populist phenomena and that of
Obama’s populism in particular. More specifically, the author’s argumentation is
further supported by presenting and critiquing the various models that try to explain
the emergence of populism in both Latin-America and Unites states as failing
attempts to grasp the phenomenon of populism in its totality. Moreover, according to
the writer, the affiliations shared between Western European ‘New Populism’ and
Latin –America populism in promoting the same anti-system, centralized and
authoritarian structures, further suggest the above mentioned argument that populism
cannot be fully explained within economic and historical frameworks alone. Finally,
Obama’s election is illustrated as an instance of populism following Laclau’s model
of analysis accordingly. In Obama’s case, it is claimed that the symbolic order of
6
society was disrupted by the economic crisis along with people’s disenchantment with
the up to then Republican administration. This new state of affairs had left behind
unanswered popular demands that were linked to Laclau’s “equivalential chain of
demands” and finally filled in the system of abstract signification by providing with
meaning and identity the signifier of the ‘American people’.
This article is particularly enlightening in raising awareness of how populism has
been perceived so far across cases. We as readers trace throughout it the thesis that it
is insufficient to analyze populism only in terms of historical reasons and
developmental modes of capitalism alone; One should instead apply Laclau’s model
of analysis so as to draw parallels between strikingly divergent instances of populism
and understand its structural pattern. This suggestion is convincingly supported by
two theoretical assumptions. The first assumption in support of this thesis is that
despite the various populist instances, populism has always the same discursive
structure applied to all instances as well as that Laclau’s unifying model can indeed
always provide the larger theoretical framework. The second assumption which is
expressed is that the literature review of the various models of analysis in the United
States, Latin-America and Western Europe reveals itself the failure of a unified
conception of populism. In justifying these assumptions Savage extensively discusses
Laclau’s model and provides us with a historical overview of the various analyses.
Savage uses her material with awareness and cautiousness. She follows a logical order
in presenting them that bridges the gaps among the various theories and builds up a
solid argumentative sequence. She is also critical on omissions and reliability of each
theory. However, some Lacanian terms used in the article miss a proper definition. In
terms of validity though, one could argue that the specific article is not too strong.
Savage provides us with an extensive literary analysis of her topic accompanied by
historical accounts on populism which altogether are thoroughly discussed. However,
their interpretation is based mostly on theoretical grounds and on the author’s
personal observation. That is to say with the exception of the empirical evidence
provided by other scholars, the specific article lacks a solid methodology used of its
own.
As far as our own research project is concerned, the specific article’s contribution
to our topic is of high importance. First of all, it extensively discusses the
phenomenon of populism’s emergence in America which is of direct relevance to the
formation of the collective identity in political discourses studied by our research
project. Moreover, it offers indispensable insight on how populism systematically
manipulates the sense of totality by filling abstract significations with meaning and it
explains, thus, how populism disseminates itself across cultures. In addition, this
journal article is directly associated to our study by presenting Obama’s campaign
slogans such as ‘Yes we can’, ‘Hope’, ‘We Are the People We’ve Been Waiting For’
as genuine instances of populism. Finally, the discussed article, as a whole, is judged
to be thorough, clear and convincing enough in discussing populism through multiple
perspectives. However, there is yet one perspective which has been left undiscussed
and needs to be taken into account; the psychological one. In assuming that populism
is characterized by a structuralist pattern that is applicable to all cases its
psychological dimension is neglected. In other words, what is argued here for further
discussion is that people cannot be perceived as passive receivers of populist
significations. More or less they encompass different views, attitudes and thoughts
that vary their response even to the same instance of populism or ideology and thus
affect the whole approach to populism as such.
7
THE ARTICLE CRITIQUE:
ΕVALUATION CRITERIA
1. Length of reviewed journal article must be 15-25 pages.
2. Balance between summary-criticism: Criticism outweighs (or equals)
description/summary of article.
3. Criticism in the review includes a detailed, in-depth analysis of:
A. significance of study in the given research domain
B. hypotheses, methodology, findings. These are discussed not in
generic terms (e.g. the methodology is valid; the findings are
convincing; the study is useful for designing our questionnaire) but
illustrated and justified with reference to the reviewed study, and
with reference to specific aspects of your research (e.g. The study
instigated the design of several of the test questions we intend to
include, for example, by including pictures of mild or more intense
violence and asking participants to write down what they think.)
C. the content of the journal article, i.e. quality, sophistication,
significance of, repercussions of the study. How has the specific
study been taken up by later research? Do not comment on the
presence of introduction, academic language/style, tables, which are
‘given’ features of academic research.
4. Relevance to your study: in what specific ways the reviewed journal article is
expected to contribute to your research: has it expanded your theoretical
background? Has it instigated your methodology? Has it provided further
evidence for your findings? Has it contradicted your findings? Has it raised
intriguing questions? Avoid generalizations or platitudes.
5. English language proficiency: word order, vocabulary and academic style add
to the flow of ideas, rather than impeding it by convoluted writing.
8
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
What is a ‘review of literature’?
A review is a required part of research papers and often a chapter in theses and
dissertations. Generally, the purpose of a review is to analyze critically a segment of
a published body of knowledge through rough summary, classification, and
comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles.
A review may be a self-contained unit -- an end in itself -- or a preface to and
rationale for engaging in primary research.
Why review?
Benefits to the researcher-reviewer: In the mini-research project assigned for the
purposes of this course, you will have to review the existing research (in the
form of books, journals etc.) on your chosen topic. There are a number of
reasons and benefits for doing so.

You gain access to invaluable bibliographies in your research area.
Access to these bibliographies is sufficient justification, in itself, to get
actively engaged in researching the chosen topic.

You need a starting point, and reviewing the literature is certainly a good
place to begin: e.g. to search for a topic (if you do not already have one),
to update your knowledge on your topic, and especially, if you are
aiming at a promising and inspiring thesis, to adapt your topic to what is
currently at the forefront of academic discussions and/or open to
investigation.

You familiarize yourself with previous important achievements
relating to your topic as well as gaps or flaws in work already
conducted. This will help you (re)formulate your own research
interests and topic.

You sharpen up your judgement as an academic thinker and
researcher, because reviewing the literature gives you an insight into
how heavily research relies on originality, creativity, follow-up work
and counter-argumentation.
Writing the introduction

Define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern, thus
providing an appropriate context for reviewing the literature. Define
key terms.

Point out overall trends in what has been published about the topic; or
conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions; or gaps in
research and scholarship; or a single problem or new perspective of
immediate interest.
9

Establish your reason (point of view) for reviewing the literature;
explain the criteria to be used in analyzing and comparing literature
and the organization of the review (sequence); and, when necessary,
state why certain literature is or is not included (scope).

The criteria (see above) may refer to tracing the historical development
of the research, assessing the methodologies used in prior research,
comparing the findings of existing studies, assessing theories used to
account for the phenomenon under investigation.
Writing the body

Group research studies and other types of literature (reviews,
theoretical articles, case studies, etc.) according to common
denominators such as qualitative versus quantitative approaches,
conclusions of authors, specific purpose or objective, chronology, etc.

Summarize individual studies or articles with as much or as little detail
as each merits according to its comparative importance in the
literature, remembering that space (length) denotes significance.

Provide the reader with "umbrella" sentences at beginnings of
paragraphs, "signposts" throughout, and brief "so what" summary
sentences at intermediate points in the review to aid in understanding
comparisons and analyses.
Writing the conclusion

Summarize major contributions of most significant studies and articles
on your topic, maintaining the focus established in the introduction.

Evaluate the current "state of the art" for the body of knowledge
reviewed, pointing out major methodological flaws or gaps in research,
inconsistencies in theory and findings, and areas or issues pertinent to
future study.

Conclude by commenting on the relationship between the central topic
of the literature review and your topic. How does your topic fit in, or
emerged out of the body of literature reviewed?
GUIDELINES FOR THE ARTICLE REVIEW
The first and most important step in writing a review of a critical article is reading it carefully
a number of times until you come to a full understanding of the author's position. Your first
reading will give you a preliminary impression of the author's thesis and will help you
understand the basic structure of argument. When reading the article a second time, it may be
helpful to consider some of the following questions and jot down notes to clarify the author's
position:


What is the author's primary thesis?
What is the aim of the article?
10


What arguments or examples does the author use to support his/her position?
Are these arguments/examples adequate to defend his/her thesis?
Once you understand the author's position and the arguments he/she uses to support it, decide
whether or not you think his/her position is convincing. If so, explain how and why the
author's arguments successfully lead to his conclusion; if you can think of any further points
in support of the thesis, present them and explain why they are significant. If you disagree
with the author, determine why you feel his/her arguments are inadequate. Are the examples
he/she uses not concrete enough? Is he/she misinterpreting the data? Are there factors which
the author has failed to take into consideration in his/her analysis?
Steps to follow in writing your article review:






Start out with your own summary of the article.
Provide your general, overall reaction and specific comments.
List the article’s strengths.
Be kind.
Be frank, in a tactful way, about your own emotional reaction.
Make sure you do not produce a hostile or ignorant review. Expend extra efforts to
give the article a careful, constructive review. Be affirmingly critical, drawing
attention to any major significant points and to the article’s contribution to your
topic.
11