For this creative challenge, you will continue analyzing the three studies you analyzed in the previous challenge:

• Genre Analysis of Research Questions,
• Literature Reviews, and
• Citation Practices.

In the previous challenges you conducted rhetorical analysis, genre analysis, and citation analysis of three research studies published in a PTC journal, analyzing how the investigators shaped research questions, wrote literature reviews, integrated citations, designed methods and gathered data, and interpreted results.

Now you will continue your analysis of those same three journals. However, you focus will turn from rhetorical analysis and genre analysis, to methodological critique.

Ultimately, in this fourth creative challenge, you will synthesize everything you’ve learned thus far about research methods, research communities, and epistemology to write an informed Research Note.

Why Does This Creative Challenge Matter?

Being able to assess the authority of a research study is a critical literacy—especially given the rise of predatory journals, which disguise themselves as rigorous, peer-reviewed publications but instead serve as marketing tools for products and services or as vehicles for ideological influence. While peer review is often seen as a mark of credibility and authority, not all studies adhere to high methodological or ethical standards. Misaligned research questions and methods, flawed data collection, overgeneralization, and ethical lapses can lead to misleading conclusions that shape public policy, industry decisions, and academic discourse in problematic ways. This creative challenge provides a framework for evaluating research integrity across Scholarly, Creative, Qualitative, Quantitative, Mixed Methods, and Design approaches. Students will examine both common methodological pitfalls—such as confirmation bias, misinterpretation of data, and failure to acknowledge the evolving nature of knowledge—and discipline-specific flaws that arise within different research traditions.

Required Template

Follow the template below for your methodological critique.

Your Name

APA 7 Citation for Each Article
(Do one article at a time; upload to Canvas as separate documents and provide links to your works as specified on the course sandbox.)

Total Word Count for Your Research Note

List the total contribution of your Research Note.

• As specified below, you should incorporate your analysis from the previous creative challenge below. And you should write at least 700 new words.

Authority Score

Rank each study on a five-star system, from poor (one star) to excellent (five stars). Provide a brief justification for your score.

Primary Method and Methodological Community (> 50 words)

Identify the primary methods used by the investigators (Click on the methods below to view definitions, as necessary.) If multiple methods were used equally, identify them and write an explanatory note.

1. Creative Methods
2. Design Research Methods
3. Empirical Research Methods
   • Qualitative Research Methods
   • Quantitative Research Methods
   • Mixed Research Methods
4. Scholarly Research Methods

[Line Break]

Paste in the information from the previous creative challenge. Ideally, this language should be revised to account for instructor and peer feedback.

Rhetorical Analysis Narrative (100 to 200 words)
Rhetorical Analysis Table
Research Question Analysis Narrative (100 to 200 words)
Research Question Table
Literature Review Analysis Narrative (100 to 200 words)
Literature Review Table
Citation Analysis Narrative (100 to 200 words)
Citation Table

[Line Break]

Summary of Methods (> 200 words)

Describe how data were gathered, analyzed, and reported. For mixed methods, specify each component (e.g., surveys for quantitative and interviews for qualitative). Provide enough detail for a reader to understand how the researchers gathered data. Future investigators should be able to review this summary in order to conduct a replication study.

Methodological Critique (> 500 words)

Critique the study’s methods, addressing both strengths and weaknesses. Consult the following readings to inform your critiques:

1. Methodological Pitfalls: Common Flaws Across Research Communities
2. Methodological Pitfalls: Flaws Unique to Specific Research Communities

Specifically:

1. Assess how well the researchers adhered to the conventions of their methodological community.
2. Evaluate whether the study demonstrates or avoids common problems across methodological communities, such as:
   • Misinformation or unwarranted causal claims
   • Ethical lapses or conflicts of interest
   • Overgeneralization of findings
   • Lack of rigor in research design, data collection, or analysis
3. Identify whether the study appropriately acknowledges the evolving nature of knowledge and incorporates current evidence.
4. Identify whether the study engages in any common pitfalls in specific methodological communities.

Evaluative Criteria for Assessing this Creative Challenge

Below are the criteria that will be used to evaluate your Research Note (aka, this synthesis of Creative Challenge #1, #2 and #3). The main focus of the critique is this question:

• Does the critique provide a balanced, in-depth analysis of the research question, literature review, use of citations, results, methods, results, and conclusions?

Responsiveness to the Template

1. Does the critique adhere to the required template, including all sections (e.g., authority score, methodological summary, and critique)?
2. Are the required word counts for each section met?
3. Are the articles properly cited in APA 7 format?

Depth of Analysis and Justification of Authority Score

1. Is the authority score justified with clear reasoning, supported by specific strengths and weaknesses identified in the critique?
2. Are examples used effectively to support the evaluation?

Consideration of Common Methodological Issues

1. Does the critique systematically evaluate the study against the common pitfalls outlined in the readings?
   • Methodological Pitfalls: Common Flaws Across Research Communities
     • Are issues such as confirmation bias, misalignment of methods and research questions, inadequate data collection and analysis, overgeneralization, and failure to acknowledge the evolving nature of knowledge addressed?
   • Methodological Pitfalls: Flaws Unique to Specific Research Communities
2. Does the critique assess potential ethical lapses or conflicts of interest in the study?

Critical Engagement with Methodological Communities

• What methodological communities (The Creatives, The Designers, The Interpreters, The Empiricists, The Scientists, The Synthesizers, The Scholars) does the study address?
  • Do the conclusions reflect how this community understands truth? For example, does a qualitative study acknowledge that knowledge is contextual and findings may not be transferable across communities? Does a scientific study establish causal relationships through controlled experiments, ensuring replicability?
• Does the critique address common flaws specific to each methodological community, such as lack of transparency, insufficient attention to context, or methodological inconsistencies?

PTC Style and Presentation

• Does the critique adhere to Professional and Technical Communication (PTC) style principles, such as clarity, brevity, coherence, flow, simplicity, and unity?
• Are the arguments professional, logically organized, and easy to follow?
• Is the critique logically structured, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion?
• Do arguments flow seamlessly between sections, ensuring readability and cohesion?

Required Readings

This assignment builds on past readings, and it introduces several new readings:

1. Epistemology – Theories of Knowledge
2. “But the Reviewers Are Making Different Criticisms of My Paper!”
3. Credibility and Authorial Authority – How to Develop Readers’ Trust and Respect
4. Epistemology – What Is Truth?
5. Facts vs. Opinion – How to Distinguish Facts from Opinion
6. Methodological Pitfalls: Common Flaws Across Research Communities
7. Methodological Pitfalls: Flaws Unique to Specific Research Communities
8. News vs. Opinion – How to Distinguish News from Opinion
9. SIFT – Stop, Investigate, Find, Trace Claims
10. The CRAAP Test –  Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose