Preliminary written examination: Critical Review Paper

Purpose:

The purpose of the Critical Review is for doctoral students to demonstrate the breadth and depth of their knowledge and understanding in a particular content area of family social science. It provides evidence of their ability to synthesize and critically analyze a body of literature focusing on theoretical concepts, research methodology, and application of findings. This exam determines whether or not the student is prepared to continue in the PhD program.

The paper should critique the theoretical and methodological approaches, including the implicit values and assumptions, missing questions and answers, and the applications of these theories, methods, and findings in education, policy, and/or interventions. Based on the reported results and critique, the student will outline the implications for research, education, policy, therapy, and/or other applications in a manner that demonstrates breadth, depth, creativity, and intelligence. The paper may be background for the student’s dissertation research.

Evaluation Criteria:

The faculty evaluate the Critical Review for the student’s ability to focus the paper appropriately with conceptual accuracy and sophistication, methodological accuracy and sophistication, organizational coherence, precision and clarity of writing, and technical accuracy. The Critical Review must demonstrate a thought stream of explicit, logical linkage across theory, research, and application sections.

This document contains the rubric (method) by which the Critical Review will be evaluated by faculty.

Parameters

The minimum number of studies to be reviewed is 12 although committees may adjust this requirement in special circumstances. There is no maximum number of articles that can be reviewed.

The final paper can be no more than 30 pages, double-spaced, with one-inch margins, excluding references and appendices. A PRISMA flow diagram should be completed and attached as an appendix to the Critical Review paper that is submitted to the student’s committee for evaluation. Here is the PRISMA flow diagram to use.

Process:

Stage I - Proposal preparation and approval

1. Student regularly consults with their adviser during their first year in the program and conducts preliminary work by reading articles in a general area of interest to identify focus, guiding question, and initial inclusion and exclusion criteria for their Critical Review topic and search.

(Recommended timeline: Fall/Spring/Summer Year 1)

2. Student follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) process to conduct a systematic search and identify articles for their Critical Review; see http://www.prisma-statement.org/

Student may consult with Stephanie Sparrow (ssparrow@umn.edu), FSoS-University library liaison.
Student may use resources on the CEHD Research Methodology Consulting Center website: Resources

3. Student conducts preliminary analyses of articles based on guiding question and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Student documents results in an Excel spreadsheet.

4. Student completes the Critical Review Application Form and attaches:

Brief description of proposed project,
Bibliography (APA format) of the proposed set of articles to be critiqued,
Draft of the PRISMA flowchart, and
Excel spreadsheet containing preliminary analyses results.

5. Student submits materials in #4 to the internal members of their committee and arranges a meeting approximately 2 weeks after sending them.

6. Student meets with the internal members of their committee to discuss their ideas and arrive at agreement on their Critical Review proposal, including the set of articles.

7. Student submits the following documents to the FSoS GPC.

The signed FSoS Critical Review Proposal form
Brief description of the proposed project,
Bibliography (APA format) of the proposed set of articles to be critiqued,
Draft of the PRISMA flowchart, and
Excel spreadsheet containing preliminary analyses results.

(Recommended timeline: Fall Year 2)

Stage II - Paper development and submission

Student may consult with their advisor and committee members during the Critical Review development/writing phase. This may include conversations, but no review of written work.

(Recommended timeline: Fall/Spring Year 2)

Student submits a penultimate draft of their Critical Review to their chosen faculty reader. This is the only formal review of the written paper in its entirety allowed.
The faculty reader completes a thorough review of the written Critical Review paper and provides extensive written feedback and editing suggestions to the student within two weeks of receiving it from the student.
Student makes changes based on the faculty reader’s feedback.
Student submits the final Critical Review Exam, which is comprised of their Critical Review paper and PRISMA flowchart, in electronic format to the GPC.
GPC distributes the Critical Review Exam documents and individual evaluation forms to internal committee members for evaluation and decision. Advisor also receives the Final Evaluation Form.

Committee members have 4 weeks to evaluate the paper.
GPC will notify both student and faculty when the decision is due.

NOTE: While calculating the decision dates,

University holidays will not be counted; and,
if the Critical Review is submitted around summer break, the advisor/committee can decide the deadline based on their availability; it can be after the summer break, due to faculty contracts. In this scenario, the advisor will inform the GPC about the revised due date.

Prior to the decision due date, the advisor coordinates a meeting of the internal committee members to discuss their evaluations, reach a decision, collect individual evaluation forms with feedback, and complete the Final Evaluation Form (sent by GPC to adviser).
Advisor prepares a summary of the committee’s primary feedback points to share with the student.

Stage III - Post decision (what happens following submission)

Stage III Post Decision

A. ‘Pass’ decision

If a ‘pass’ decision is reached, the adviser will:

a) Email the student, copying the GPC, to inform them of the committee’s decision..

Note: The summary of reviewers’ feedback comments should be included in this email.

b) Submit all individual evaluation forms and the Final Evaluation Form to the GPC.

c) If a ‘pass’ decision is reached, there is nothing further for the student to do except Celebrate!

B. ‘Revise and Resubmit’ decision

If a ‘Revise and Resubmit’ decision is reached, the advisor will:

1. Email the student, copying the GPC, to inform them of the committee’s decision.

Note: The summary of reviewers’ feedback comments should be included in this email.

2. Submit all individual evaluation forms and the Final Evaluation Form to the GPC.

If a ‘Revise and Resubmit’ decision is reached, the GPC will:

a) Email the student, with a copy to committee members, confirming the decision and communicating the 4-week deadline by which the student must submit their revised paper and response document (see next section).

If a ‘Revise and Resubmit’ decision is reached, the student will:

Complete revisions based on feedback and prepare a document outlining responses to the requested revisions.

Note: Students may follow up with committee members for clarification of feedback.

Submit to the GPC their revised paper and a separate document outlining responses to the requested revisions by the 4-week deadline.

C. Revised Paper Evaluation and Decision

1. GPC distributes the revised paper and response document to committee members, who have 2 weeks to review and reach a final decision. The deadline will be noted in the email.

2. Advisor coordinates a process by which committee members reach consensus on whether or not the student’s revised paper has adequately addressed the committee’s requested revisions and meets the standards for a ‘pass’ decision.

a) If a ‘pass’ decision is reached, follow steps outlined in Stage III Section A for a “Pass” decision.

b) If a ‘fail’ decision is reached, continue to the next section.

D. ‘Fail’ decision

If a ‘fail’ decision is reached, the advisor will:

Call and/or email the student about the decision; if the student is informed via a phone call, an email should be sent to inform the GPC that this step has been completed.
Submit all individual evaluation forms and the Final Evaluation Form to the GPC for the student’s file.
Schedule a meeting with the advisor, student, and the DGS to discuss next steps.

NOTE: While calculating the decision dates,

University holidays will not be counted; and,
if the Critical Review is submitted around summer break, the advisor/committee can decide the deadline based on their availability; it can be after the summer break, due to faculty contracts. In this scenario, the advisor will inform the GPC about the revised due date.
Note to Students: Please keep in mind that many faculty have 9-month appointments and may not be available or will be available sporadically during June, July, and August. Therefore, it is wise to discuss plans for the timing of your Critical Review submission with committee members.

As a general guideline, if students want to complete their Critical Review Preliminary Written Exam before the end of Spring Semester in Year 2 of their program, they should submit a draft to their reader by the first week in February in Year 2 and their final paper to the GPC for distribution by the first week in March.

Page updated

Report abuse