Read closely enough to test conclusions against design, a 2024 refereed trial of hybrid work and quits anchors this GB700 article critique for Unit 2. Searches like "gb 700 unit 2 assignment example", "gb700 unit 2 sample" and "gb700 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished GB700 Unit 2 article critique looks like
Six pages in the section's critique template. A full reference opens the paper, followed by a one-paragraph summary in the candidate's words: the question, the randomized design at one firm, the outcomes and the headline findings. The appraisal follows under four headings. Design asks whether assignment was truly random and whether employees in the comparison group could see who was treated. Measurement separates quits, drawn from company records, from performance, drawn from reviews and promotions that managers decide. Inference asks what failing to find a difference in performance can and cannot show. Transfer asks how far one firm in China generalizes. A closing judgment rates each conclusion as supported, partly supported or overstated, and one paragraph names what the paper contributes that earlier telework research did not.
How a GB700 Unit 2 example is structured
The critique is built around the question the course sets, whether each conclusion follows from the design the authors used, so every conclusion gets its own test instead of a section-by-section review. The retention finding survives well. Random assignment addresses the selection problem that weakened earlier telework studies, where people who chose home work differed from those who did not, and quits come from administrative records rather than self-report. The performance claim is handled more carefully. Reviews and promotions are managers' judgments, which may lag real differences, and a result that is not statistically different from zero is evidence of no large effect only if the study could have detected one; the critique checks the reported intervals rather than the title. Subgroup results are treated as exploratory unless shown to be planned in advance.
Summary in the candidate's words
One paragraph states the question, the design, the outcomes and the findings without quoting the abstract. Paraphrase is the first test of comprehension, and it shows the instructor that the appraisal rests on a correct reading of what the paper claims.
Why randomization matters here
Earlier telework research compared people who chose home work with people who did not, so any difference in quitting could reflect who chose. Random assignment removes that explanation for this sample, which is the paper's main contribution and the reason its retention result carries weight.
Two outcomes, two kinds of measure
Quits are recorded events. Performance reviews and promotions are judgments made by managers who knew who worked from home. The critique treats the first as strong measurement and the second as useful but open to rater effects, and it says so without accusing anyone.
What no difference can show
A performance difference indistinguishable from zero rules out only effects larger than the study could detect. The critique reads the confidence intervals the paper reports and rewrites the title's claim at the strength those intervals allow.
From one firm to others
Commutes, labor markets and norms at one large Chinese company differ from those at a US engineering consultancy. Transfer is argued mechanism by mechanism rather than dismissed, since the reasons employees stayed may travel even where the setting does not.
Verdicts, conclusion by conclusion
Retention effect: supported. No harm to performance: partly supported, within the limits of managerial ratings and the reported intervals. Generality: left open, as a single-firm design requires, and the critique declines to assume it either way.
Where marks go in GB700 Unit 2
Critiques that summarize the article at length and add a closing paragraph of opinion come back most often here, because the prompt generally wants judgment at method level. Criticism that applies to every study, a small sample or a single country, earns little unless it is tied to a specific conclusion it weakens. Misreading the design, calling a randomized trial a survey or confusing statistical significance with importance, costs credibility quickly. Doctoral readers also expect strengths to be named precisely; a critique finding only faults looks as uninformed as one finding none. Treating a result that did not differ from zero as proof of no effect is a frequent error that instructors correct in the margin. Reference accuracy, including the journal and year, is marked as substance.
Get a GB700 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Name the article and attach it if the library holds it; a critique template, where the section issues one, helps as much as the Unit 2 brief and rubric. A custom critique, returned within 24-48h, tests each conclusion against the study's design and names its real strengths. Your first sample is free.
GB700 Unit 2 questions, answered
Which article should a GB700 critique use?
Whatever the instructions allow, and many sections leave the choice to candidates within their area of interest. An empirical study with a clear design is easier to critique well than a conceptual essay, and a recent refereed article in a respected journal gives the critique something substantial to test. Choosing one relevant to a likely project topic pays off later.
How is a critique different from a summary?
A summary reports what the authors did and found. A critique judges whether what they found follows from what they did, names the design's strengths and limits, and says how much weight the conclusions deserve. At doctoral level the summary shrinks to a paragraph and the judgment becomes the paper.
Is it acceptable to disagree with a paper in a top journal?
Yes, provided the disagreement is specific and argued from the paper's own design and data. Publication in a leading journal means reviewers found the work sound enough to print, not that every conclusion is settled. A careful critique that separates the strongly supported claims from the weaker ones is exactly what doctoral faculty hope to see.