The Existing Knowledge on a Topic of Scholarly Interest
The scholarly review (2-3 pages double spaced, APA format) requires an actively engaged response to a writer’s ideas, which represents more than simply an opinion, and the informed engagement that the reviewer offers is always supported by thoughtful reasoning and proof. Hence, writing an article review is a way for graduate and professional students to display their knowledge of a scholarly topic; to engage with ideas, theories, research and information in their disciplines or programs; to rethink and extend ideas in their field of study; and to show how their analytical response to an article is worthy of consideration. An excellent scholarly review signals the reviewer’s absorption of and reaction to existing scholarly knowledge, and they are an important way for novice and advanced scholars to begin to do authentic academic work in preparation for the dissertation.
When you write a scholarly review, you indicate your dynamic participation in the important conversation presented within the scholarly work, and consequently you don’t merely say whether you enjoyed an academic article or disliked it, but instead participate in the scholarly conversation itself by offering an analysis and extension of the existing ideas, concepts, arguments, and the findings of the scholarly work itself.
When we set out to critique or review in an academic context, our goal is to contribute to existing knowledge on a topic of scholarly interest; and to make that contribution, again we need to do much more than say whether we liked the article or not. To reiterate, we need to make our own thoughtful contributions to the article’s analysis, and we need to support or offer proof for our thinking in any of following ways:
• By reporting the type of analysis, the writer performs (anecdotal, quantitative,
qualitative, case study) and assessing how this type of analysis supports the writer’s
reasoning and claims.
• By examining whether the writer’s analysis adequately supports the findings.
• By suggesting new information, methods of analysis, or theoretical approaches that
might contribute to the writer’s reasoning.
• By comparing the writer’s reasoning with another expert’s approach to the topic.
• By discussing how the same topic is examined in another discipline or from another
perspective.
• By pointing out conclusions or causes or effects of the writer’s reasoning that he or she
has not addressed or anticipated.
• By examining the article for signs of coherent connections between ideas and, if
appropriate, by showing how the lack of connections between ideas leaves the writer’s
conclusions or findings unsupported.
• By suggesting how to shore up the writer’s claims with further study, information,
data or analysis.
• By discussing what remains to be examined on the topic.
• By extending the writer’s attempts to make coherent connections between ideas with
your own reasoning.
• By showing your agreement with the writer’s lines of reasoning and claims and
explaining why they are a good fit with your own knowledge and experience.
• By supporting aspects of the writer’s claims and analysis and withdrawing your
support in relation to other ideas, revealing how, in places, the writer does not offer
convincing proof or analysis of claims or findings.
• By considering interpretations of data and information the writer has not by imagining
alternative claims, positions, and theories in relation to findings.
• By bringing new analytical terms to an analysis of the topic that the writer has not
considered.
• By suggesting new processes of reasoning or methodology by which the writer might
arrive at new, productive conclusions or thinking.
Scholarly engagement and evaluation clearly take many forms, and we can see by this list of possibilities that a review/critique involves expressing a position of analytical engagement with another writer’s ideas. Your job as a critical writer in a graduate-level, academic context is to show your understanding of an article’s ideas and to develop a thoughtful response to those ideas.
A single-case study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic assessment in adults. The case has been used to examine how change occurs during Therapeutic Assessment in a more controlled manner (Aschieri & Smith, 2012). It is separated into two parts: a Therapeutic Assessment presentation with a young woman and a discussed single-case time-series experiment findings. The research, however, has and has not been able to effectively personalize the individual needs of an adult client suffering from trauma, as we are going to discuss.
Firstly, the study focuses on the straightforward A-B (pre-post) design for the time-series arranged method that was successfully met in the two parts of the research (Aschieri & Smith, 2012). In part one of the research, the writers address the effect of advancement onset of treatment on Claire's illness. In the study, the client and the assessor defined five indexes to be measured daily during the pre- Therapeutic Assessment session. Each night, the client rated herself on the five items on the Likert-type scale, which ranged from 0 to 10. An 8-day baseline was gathered between the pre- Therapeutic Assessment session, the indices were identified, and the first Therapeutic Assessment session. She also had to report to the indexes every day for 28 days (Aschieri & Smith, 2012). In part two of the research, the change process was addressed to indicate how change unfolded over time and under what circumstances. These implications came in the results of the level-change analysis on the client's improved ability to express affection (r =0.70, p =0.001) and feelings of anxiety (r =0.32, p =0.062) between th...