Part 1 is the identification of the article. What is important here is that you provide the reader with enough information about your article so that they will be able to locate the article.
Part 2 is a summary. List the main points that the author has tried to establish, i.e. 1, 2, 3 or first, second, third. There normally will be 3 to 5 main points. If you are summarizing a court case you should discuss: What provision of the law was at issue? Briefly state the facts of the case. What legal tests were applied? Were there any unusual elements in the case? Include all major key points of the author. If the author addressed any major concepts or methodology this should be explained.
Part 3 is your critique. You are to provide your reaction (insightful, critical, and logical) to the points that the author tried to make, or an overall critique of the entire article. A simple statement of agreement or disagreement is not enough. While you may make such a statement by way of introduction to your reaction, you must clearly and logically state the reasons for the post that you have taken.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 7:01 am ad1c9bdddf
Staudohar, P. (2005, Summer). Performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. Labor Law Journal, 56(2), 139-149.
This article deals with the following points:
1. Major league baseball has plagued with scandals over steroids and other performance -enhancing drugs for decades. This is affecting the fans, the players' health, and the legitimacy of baseball records.
2. Cheating is more common in baseball than in other sports. Steroids, human growth hormone, and illegal drugs are a problem that MLB has refused to address until recently. There are adverse side effects, including early death due to heart issues. As more MLB athletes use steroids, the average time spent on the disabled list has increased. Estimates range from 25 to 80 percent of MLB players having used steroids. Until recently, the players' union has allowed players to continue to use drugs without punishment.
3. Part of the problem is athletes enjoy the performance enhancing benefits of the substances that they are willing to gamble with their health. A study by Bob Goldman asked 198 athletes is taking a drug would provide a certain win and no probability of being caught, only two athletes stated they would not take the drug. Goldman then asked, if taking a drug would provide a certain win and no probability of being caught could be repeated for five consecutive years with certain death caused as a result of the drug after the five years, would they still take the drug, and more than half of the respondents said they would.
4. Other sports, including the Olympics, National Basketball Association and National Football League have much stricter drug testing policies and penalties. MLB attempted to enact stricter policies in 2002 but testing was done in a fashion that allowed players to continue to use steroids without recrimination as well as continue to hide steroid use. In 2003, as a result of the BALCO case, a broader spotlight was ...
This solution discusses the article by Staudohar, P. (2005, Summer). Performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. Labor Law Journal, 56(2), 139-149.
Empirical Scholarly Journal Article Critique
Consider the following questions in your analysis clearly, succinctly, and in your own words.
Be sure to support your statements with thorough explanations and cited references.
Your critique will include the following:
1. Bibliographic Entry for the article in APA format. (Do not copy the whole reference list. Simply create a reference list entry for your article.)
2. Start with a summary of the article. This does not mean copy word for word or explain every detail. No direct quotes should be included.
3. Question being investigated and why the authors think it is interesting.
4. Hypothesis being tested, and how it was operationalized (i.e., methodology: independent and dependent variables, control conditions, etc.)
5. Summary of the findings, and how the authors interpreted them
6. The conclusions presented by the authors.
7.. Discuss the merits as well as deficits of the article:
8. Do you think that they asked the question right, and is it an interesting question?
9. Is the hypothesis testable, and does the operationalization make sense? Were the independent and dependent variables well-chosen?
10. Was the report of the findings complete and clear? Do you agree with the interpretations? Why or why not.
11. Was there enough support for the conclusions?
12. Making connections: Does the article add to knowledge in the field?
13. Is it well-balanced or is there bias in the findings?
14. Are there unanswered questions in your mind?
15. What future research would you suggest and why?View Full Posting Details