MKTG2023 Chap.11 Writing the Evidence-Based Reading Critiques
Writing the Evidence-Based Reading Critiques
What Task 1 asks
Task 1 is three individual 500-word critiques, worth 20% together, of assigned articles from four service journals. Each critique summarises the theoretical contribution, appraises the methodology and evaluates how far the findings would generalise to Australian settings, from banks, hospitals and universities to hotels, shops, tourism and digital platforms.
Anything past the word limit is not read.
The method behind a good critique
The instruction sheet defines the verbs and suggests a budget: roughly 120 to 150 words on contribution, 150 to 180 on method, 150 to 180 on generalisability and a short concluding judgement.
Markers look for an accurate reading, judgement beyond description, correct disciplinary language, a clear line between claims and evidence, and concrete Australian application.
Lessons from the first round
After the first critique, the convener named the problems that cost marks: ignored instructions, unassigned articles, incomplete disclosure forms, paraphrased prompt logs, AI-written drafts and too much summary.
The fixes were specific, including a 20 to 25% ceiling on summary and Australian primary sources behind local claims.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Summarise, appraise and evaluate
- 02
What counts as theory and as methodology
- 03
Generalisability to Australian service contexts
- 04
The 500-word budget
- 05
Disclosure and the prompts log
- 06
Convener feedback on the first critique
Worked example · free
Budget a 500-word critique
- 1Take the midpoints of the ranges: 135 words for contribution, 165 for methodology, 165 for generalisability and 30 for the verdict.
- 1These total 135 + 165 + 165 + 30 = 495 words, inside the 500 limit.
- 1The summary ceiling is 25% of 500 = 125 words, below the 135-word contribution part.
- 1So the contribution part must already judge the paper’s idea, with no more than 125 words of plain restatement.
Key terms
- Theoretical Contribution
- The services marketing idea an article develops, extends, tests or challenges, such as a framework, relationship or mechanism.
- Methodological Appraisal
- Reasoned judgement of how a study was designed and run, including its sample, context and measures, and what that lets it claim.
- Generalisability
- Extent to which a study’s findings would hold beyond its original setting, judged here for Australian service contexts.
- Progression of Prompts
- Log of the actual prompts sent to an AI tool, in order and reproduced verbatim, required for Green tasks where AI was used.
Writing the Evidence-Based Reading Critiques FAQ
How should a 500-word critique be divided?
The instruction sheet suggests about 120 to 150 words on the theoretical contribution, 150 to 180 on methodology, 150 to 180 on generalisability to Australian contexts, and 20 to 40 words for a concluding judgement. The convener later asked that no more than 20 to 25% of the words be summary.
Can I critique any article from the service journals?
No. Critiques must be based on the article assigned to you from the published lists. The convener reported that critiques of unassigned articles received zero marks, and advised students whose names were missing from a list to ask before drafting rather than choosing an article themselves.
Do I need an AI disclosure if I did not use AI?
Yes. This Green task needs the signed form appended whether or not you used AI. If you did not, the convener asked you to complete Section 1, tick Green in Section 2, sign Section 6 and add a line saying no prompts log applies because no AI was used.
What evidence supports a claim about Australia?
The convener asked for one or more Australian primary sources, found independently, behind any generalisability claim, naming bodies such as the ACCC, APRA, ABS, the Department of Education and AHPRA, or legislation.gov.au. Specific sectors and conditions are expected, not general statements about Australia.
Assessment move
Before drafting, read your article once for its argument and once for its method, and write three lines: what it adds, how convincing the evidence is, and where in Australia it would and would not apply. Draft in your own words against the rubric, mark every summary sentence, and cut until summary is at most a quarter of the text. Only then use AI to check, keeping the prompts verbatim.
Working through Writing the Evidence-Based Reading Critiques in MKTG2023? Sia is AskSia’s AI Marketing tutor — ask any MKTG2023 Writing the Evidence-Based Reading Critiques question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how MKTG2023 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.