WRITING A CRITICAL REVIEW
WHAT IS A CRITICAL REVIEW?
A critical review (sometimes called a critique, critical
commentary, critical appraisal, critical analysis) is a detailed commentary on
and critical evaluation of a text. You might carry out a critical review as a
stand-alone exercise, or as part of your research and preparation for writing a
literature review. The following guidelines are designed to help you critically
evaluate a research article.
PURPOSE OF A CRITICAL REVIEW
The critical review is a writing task that asks you to
summarise and evaluate a text. The critical review can be of a book, a chapter,
or a journal article. Writing the critical review usually requires you to read
the selected text in detail and to also read other related texts so that you
can present a fair and reasonable evaluation of the selected text.
WHAT IS MEANT BY CRITICAL?
At university, to be critical does not mean to criticise
in a negative manner. Rather it requires you to question the information and
opinions in a text and present your evaluation or judgment of the text. To do
this well, you should attempt to understand the topic from different
perspectives (i.e. read related texts) and in relation to the theories,
approaches and frameworks in your course.
WHAT IS MEANT BY EVALUATION OR JUDGEMENT?
Here you decide the strengths and weaknesses of a text.
This is usually based on specific criteria. Evaluating requires an
understanding of not just the content of the text, but also an understanding of
a text’s purpose, the intended audience and why it is structured the way it is.
WHAT IS MEANT BY ANALYSIS?
Analysing requires separating the content and concepts of
a text into their main components and then understanding how these interrelate,
connect and possibly influence each other.
STRUCTURE
OF A CRITICAL REVIEW
Critical
reviews, both short (one page) and long (four pages), usually have a similar
structure. Check your assignment instructions for formatting and structural
specifications. Headings are usually optional for longer reviews and can be
helpful for the reader.
Introduction
The length of an introduction is usually one paragraph for
a journal article review and two or three paragraphs for a longer book review.
Include a few opening sentences that announce the author(s) and the title, and
briefly explain the topic of the text. Present the aim of the text and
summarise the main finding or key argument. Conclude the introduction with a
brief statement of your evaluation of the text. This can be a positive or
negative evaluation or, as is usually the case, a mixed response. The introduction may be part of the
literature review itself. It should clearly state the aim of the research, and
give a brief rationale for this. The literature
review should provide a background to the study by examining
and evaluating other research in the area. It should synthesise this to help
identify the need for the new research that is being presented. It should be
organised clearly, and provide a balance of related and recent literature.
Summary
Present a summary of the key points along with a limited
number of examples. You can also briefly explain the author’s
purpose/intentions throughout the text and you may briefly describe how the
text is organised. The summary should only make up about a third of the
critical review.
Critique
The critique should be a balanced discussion and
evaluation of the strengths, weakness and notable features of the text.
Remember to base your discussion on specific criteria. Good reviews also
include other sources to support your evaluation (remember to reference). You
can choose how to sequence your critique. Here are some examples to get you
started:
-
Most important to least important conclusions
you make about the text.
-
If your critique is more positive than
negative, then present the negative points first and the positive last.
-
If your critique is more negative than
positive, then present the positive points first and the negative last.
-
If there are both strengths and weakness for
each criterion you use, you need to decide overall what your judgement is. For
example, you may want to comment on a key idea in the text and have both
positive and negative comments. You could begin by stating what is good about
the idea and then concede and explain how it is limited in some way. While this
example shows a mixed evaluation, overall you are probably being more negative
than positive.
-
In long reviews, you can address each criteria
you choose in a paragraph, including both negative and positive points. For
very short critical reviews (one page or less) where your comments will be
briefer, include a paragraph of positive aspects and another of negative.
-
You can also include recommendations for how the
text can be improved in terms of ideas, research approach; theories or
frameworks used can also be included in the critique section.
Conclusion
This
is usually a very short paragraph.
-
Restate your overall opinion of the text.
-
Briefly present recommendations.
-
If necessary some further qualification or
explanation of your judgement can be included. This can help your critique
sound fair and reasonable.
References
If you have used other sources in you review you should
also include a list of references at the end of the review.
SUMMARISING AND PARAPHRASING FOR THE CRITICAL REVIEW
Summarising and paraphrasing are essential skills for
academic writing and in particular, the critical review. To summarise means to
reduce a text to its main points and its most important ideas. The length of
your summary for a critical review should only be about one quarter to one
third of the whole critical review. The best way to summarise is to:
i.
Scan the text. Look for information that can be
deduced from the introduction, conclusion and the title and headings. What do
these tell you about the main points of the article?
ii.
Locate the topic sentences and highlight the
main points as you read.
iii.
Reread the text and make separate notes of the
main points. Examples and evidence do not need to be included at this stage.
Usually they are used selectively in your critique.
Paraphrasing means putting it into your own words.
Paraphrasing offers an alternative to using direct quotations in your summary
(and the critique) and can be an efficient way to integrate your summary notes.
The best way to paraphrase is to:
i.
Review your summary notes.
ii.
Rewrite them in your own words and in complete
sentences.
iii.
Use reporting verbs and phrases (eg; The author
describes…, Smith argues that …).
iv.
If you include unique or specialist phrases from
the text, use quotation marks.
SOME GENERAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING TEXTS
The
following list of criteria and focus questions may be useful for reading the
text and for preparing the critical review. Remember to check your assignment
instructions for more specific criteria and focus questions that should form
the basis of your review. The length of the review/assignment will determine
how many criteria you will address in your critique.
Possible
focus questions
i.
What is the author’s aim?
ii.
To what extent has this aim been achieved?
iii.
What does this text add to the body of
knowledge? (This could be in terms of theory, data and/or practical
application)
iv.
What relationship does it bear to other
works in the field?
v.
What is missing/not stated?
vi.
Is this a problem?
vii.
What approach was used for the research?
(eg; quantitative or qualitative, analysis/review of theory or current
practice, comparative, case study, personal reflection etc…)
viii.
How objective/biased is the approach?
ix.
Are the results valid and reliable?
x.
What analytical framework is used to discuss
the results?
xi.
Is there a clear problem, statement or
hypothesis?
xii.
What claims are made?
xiii.
Is the argument consistent?
xiv.
What kinds of evidence does the text rely
on?
xv.
How valid and reliable is the evidence?
xvi.
How effective is the evidence in supporting
the argument?
xvii. What
conclusions are drawn?
xviii. Are
these conclusions justified?
xix.
Does the writing style suit the intended
audience? (eg; expert/non-expert, academic/non- academic).
xx.
What is the organising principle of the
text? Could it be better organised?
CRITERIA
Significance
and contribution to the field
Methodology
or approach
(This
usually applies to more formal, research- based texts) argument and use of evidence
EXAMPLE
Writing
style and text structure
Prepared
by Pam Mort, Lyn Hallion and Tracey Lee Downey, The Learning Centre © April
2005 The University of New South Wales. This guide may be distributed or
adapted for educational purposes. Full and proper acknowledgement is required.
A Critical Review of Goodwin et al, 2000, Decision making
in Singapore and Australia: the influence of culture on accountants’ ethical
decisions, Accounting Research Journal, vol.13, no. 2, pp 22-36. Using
Hofstede’s (1980, 1983 and 1991) and Hofstede and Bond’s (1988) five cultural
dimensions, Goodwin et al (2000) conducted a study on the influence of culture
on ethical decision making between two groups of accountants from Australia and
Singapore. This research aimed to provide further evidence on the effect of
cultural differences since results from previous research have been equivocal.
The study reveals that accountants from the two countries responded differently
to ethical dilemmas in particular when the responses were measured using two of
the five cultural dimensions. The result agreed with the prediction since
considerable differences existed between these two dimensions in Australians
and Singaporeans (Hofstede 1980, 1991). However the results of the other
dimensions provided less clear relationships as the two cultural groups
differed only slightly on the dimensions. To the extent that this research is
exploratory, results of this study provide insights into the importance of
recognising cultural differences for firms and companies that operate in
international settings. However several limitations must be considered in
interpreting the study findings.
….
In
summary, it has to be admitted that the current study is still far from being
conclusive. Further studies must be undertaken, better measures must be
developed, and larger samples must be used to improve our understanding
concerning the exact relationship between culture and decision making. Despite
some deficiencies in methodology, to the extent that this research is
exploratory i.e. trying to investigate an emerging issue, the study has
provided some insights to account for culture in developing ethical standards
across national borders. Here is a sample extract from a critical review of an
article. In this brochure only the introduction and conclusion are included. We
thank Suwandi Tijia for allowing us to use his critical review in this
resource.
i.
Title
ii.
Introduction
iii.
Introduces the author and topic area.
iv.
Presents the aim/purpose of the article
v.
Key findings Reviewer ’s judgement
vi.
Conclusion
vii.
Summarises reviewer’s judgement
viii.
Offers recommendations
ix.
Qualifies reviewer’s judgement
Structural
features
i.
Bibliographic details of the text
ii.
Reporting verbs
iii.
Sentence
iv.
themes focus
v.
on the text
vi.
Transition signals provide structure and coherence.
vii.
Modality used to express certainty and limit
over generalizing
viii.
Concessive clauses assist in expressing a mixed
response
ACADEMIC
CONVENTIONS & LANGUAGE FEATURES
Language
features of the critical review
i.
Reporting verbs and phrases
These
are used to tell the reader what the author thinks or does in their text. Komisar
begins his article claiming that the new teaching machines represent a new kind
of encounter.1
ii.
Modality
Modal
verbs and other expressions are used to express degrees of certainty and
probability (from high to low). Writers use modality to present ideas as
opinions rather than facts. The word ‘theory’ has an honorific status. … The
same could probably be said for ‘practice’. 1
iii.
Conceding (Concessive clauses)
Here
an adverbial clause can be used to describe a circumstance that is in contrast
or unfavourable to another circumstance. In academic writing, concessive
clauses are one way (there are others!) to acknowledge the strength/validity of
an idea before presenting an alternate view. This does not weaken your
critique; rather it can show balance and fairness in your analysis. Though by
no means the first empiricist among the Greek philosophers, Aristotle stood out
among his contemporaries for the meticulous care with which he worked.
REFERENCES
(Adapted
from: 1 Hyman R (Ed) 1971, Contemporary thought on teaching,
Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. 2 Dunbar R 1995, The trouble with science,
Faber & Faber, London.)
No comments:
Post a Comment