critical review of an essay

How to Write Critical Reviews

When you are asked to write a critical review of a book or article, you will need to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. In other words, you will be examining another person’s thoughts on a topic from your point of view.

Your stand must go beyond your “gut reaction” to the work and be based on your knowledge (readings, lecture, experience) of the topic as well as on factors such as criteria stated in your assignment or discussed by you and your instructor.

Make your stand clear at the beginning of your review, in your evaluations of specific parts, and in your concluding commentary.

Remember that your goal should be to make a few key points about the book or article, not to discuss everything the author writes.

Understanding the Assignment

To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work–deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole.

Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain points and prevent you from merely summarizing what the author says. Assuming the role of an analytical reader will also help you to determine whether or not the author fulfills the stated purpose of the book or article and enhances your understanding or knowledge of a particular topic.

Be sure to read your assignment thoroughly before you read the article or book. Your instructor may have included specific guidelines for you to follow. Keeping these guidelines in mind as you read the article or book can really help you write your paper!

Also, note where the work connects with what you’ve studied in the course. You can make the most efficient use of your reading and notetaking time if you are an active reader; that is, keep relevant questions in mind and jot down page numbers as well as your responses to ideas that appear to be significant as you read.

Please note: The length of your introduction and overview, the number of points you choose to review, and the length of your conclusion should be proportionate to the page limit stated in your assignment and should reflect the complexity of the material being reviewed as well as the expectations of your reader.

Write the introduction

Below are a few guidelines to help you write the introduction to your critical review.

Introduce your review appropriately

Begin your review with an introduction appropriate to your assignment.

If your assignment asks you to review only one book and not to use outside sources, your introduction will focus on identifying the author, the title, the main topic or issue presented in the book, and the author’s purpose in writing the book.

If your assignment asks you to review the book as it relates to issues or themes discussed in the course, or to review two or more books on the same topic, your introduction must also encompass those expectations.

Explain relationships

For example, before you can review two books on a topic, you must explain to your reader in your introduction how they are related to one another.

Within this shared context (or under this “umbrella”) you can then review comparable aspects of both books, pointing out where the authors agree and differ.

In other words, the more complicated your assignment is, the more your introduction must accomplish.

Finally, the introduction to a book review is always the place for you to establish your position as the reviewer (your thesis about the author’s thesis).

As you write, consider the following questions:

Is the book a memoir, a treatise, a collection of facts, an extended argument, etc.? Is the article a documentary, a write-up of primary research, a position paper, etc.?
Who is the author? What does the preface or foreword tell you about the author’s purpose, background, and credentials? What is the author’s approach to the topic (as a journalist? a historian? a researcher?)?
What is the main topic or problem addressed? How does the work relate to a discipline, to a profession, to a particular audience, or to other works on the topic?
What is your critical evaluation of the work (your thesis)? Why have you taken that position? What criteria are you basing your position on?

Provide an overview

In your introduction, you will also want to provide an overview. An overview supplies your reader with certain general information not appropriate for including in the introduction but necessary to understanding the body of the review.

Generally, an overview describes your book’s division into chapters, sections, or points of discussion. An overview may also include background information about the topic, about your stand, or about the criteria you will use for evaluation.

The overview and the introduction work together to provide a comprehensive beginning for (a “springboard” into) your review.

What are the author’s basic premises? What issues are raised, or what themes emerge? What situation (i.e., racism on college campuses) provides a basis for the author’s assertions?
How informed is my reader? What background information is relevant to the entire book and should be placed here rather than in a body paragraph?

Write the body

The body is the center of your paper, where you draw out your main arguments. Below are some guidelines to help you write it.

Organize using a logical plan

Organize the body of your review according to a logical plan. Here are two options:

First, summarize, in a series of paragraphs, those major points from the book that you plan to discuss; incorporating each major point into a topic sentence for a paragraph is an effective organizational strategy. Second, discuss and evaluate these points in a following group of paragraphs. (There are two dangers lurking in this pattern–you may allot too many paragraphs to summary and too few to evaluation, or you may re-summarize too many points from the book in your evaluation section.)
Alternatively, you can summarize and evaluate the major points you have chosen from the book in a point-by-point schema. That means you will discuss and evaluate point one within the same paragraph (or in several if the point is significant and warrants extended discussion) before you summarize and evaluate point two, point three, etc., moving in a logical sequence from point to point to point. Here again, it is effective to use the topic sentence of each paragraph to identify the point from the book that you plan to summarize or evaluate.

Questions to keep in mind as you write

With either organizational pattern, consider the following questions:

What are the author’s most important points? How do these relate to one another? (Make relationships clear by using transitions: “In contrast,” an equally strong argument,” “moreover,” “a final conclusion,” etc.).
What types of evidence or information does the author present to support his or her points? Is this evidence convincing, controversial, factual, one-sided, etc.? (Consider the use of primary historical material, case studies, narratives, recent scientific findings, statistics.)
Where does the author do a good job of conveying factual material as well as personal perspective? Where does the author fail to do so? If solutions to a problem are offered, are they believable, misguided, or promising?
Which parts of the work (particular arguments, descriptions, chapters, etc.) are most effective and which parts are least effective? Why?
Where (if at all) does the author convey personal prejudice, support illogical relationships, or present evidence out of its appropriate context?

Keep your opinions distinct and cite your sources

Remember, as you discuss the author’s major points, be sure to distinguish consistently between the author’s opinions and your own.

Keep the summary portions of your discussion concise, remembering that your task as a reviewer is to re-see the author’s work, not to re-tell it.

And, importantly, if you refer to ideas from other books and articles or from lecture and course materials, always document your sources, or else you might wander into the realm of plagiarism.

Include only that material which has relevance for your review and use direct quotations sparingly. The Writing Center has other handouts to help you paraphrase text and introduce quotations.

Write the conclusion

You will want to use the conclusion to state your overall critical evaluation.

You have already discussed the major points the author makes, examined how the author supports arguments, and evaluated the quality or effectiveness of specific aspects of the book or article.

Now you must make an evaluation of the work as a whole, determining such things as whether or not the author achieves the stated or implied purpose and if the work makes a significant contribution to an existing body of knowledge.

Consider the following questions:

Is the work appropriately subjective or objective according to the author’s purpose?
How well does the work maintain its stated or implied focus? Does the author present extraneous material? Does the author exclude or ignore relevant information?
How well has the author achieved the overall purpose of the book or article? What contribution does the work make to an existing body of knowledge or to a specific group of readers? Can you justify the use of this work in a particular course?
What is the most important final comment you wish to make about the book or article? Do you have any suggestions for the direction of future research in the area? What has reading this work done for you or demonstrated to you?

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
Guided brainstorming exercises
Get more help with your essay
Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

IOE Writing Centre

Writing a Critical Review

Writing a Critique

A critique (or critical review) is not to be mistaken for a literature review. A 'critical review', or 'critique', is a complete type of text (or genre), discussing one particular article or book in detail. In some instances, you may be asked to write a critique of two or three articles (e.g. a comparative critical review). In contrast, a 'literature review', which also needs to be 'critical', is a part of a larger type of text, such as a chapter of your dissertation.

Most importantly: Read your article / book as many times as possible, as this will make the critical review much easier.

1. Read and take notes 2. Organising your writing 3. Summary 4. Evaluation 5. Linguistic features of a critical review 6. Summary language 7. Evaluation language 8. Conclusion language 9. Example extracts from a critical review 10. Further resources

Read and Take Notes

To improve your reading confidence and efficiency, visit our pages on reading.

Organising your writing

You first need to summarise the text that you have read. One reason to summarise the text is that the reader may not have read the text. In your summary, you will

focus on points within the article that you think are interesting
summarise the author(s) main ideas or argument
explain how these ideas / argument have been constructed. (For example, is the author basing her arguments on data that they have collected? Are the main ideas / argument purely theoretical?)

In your summary you might answer the following questions: Why is this topic important? Where can this text be located? For example, does it address policy studies? What other prominent authors also write about this?

Evaluation is the most important part in a critical review.

Use the literature to support your views. You may also use your knowledge of conducting research, and your own experience. Evaluation can be explicit or implicit.

Explicit evaluation

Explicit evaluation involves stating directly (explicitly) how you intend to evaluate the text. e.g. "I will review this article by focusing on the following questions. First, I will examine the extent to which the authors contribute to current thought on Second Language Acquisition (SLA) pedagogy. After that, I will analyse whether the authors' propositions are feasible within overseas SLA classrooms."

Implicit evaluation

Implicit evaluation is less direct. The following section on Linguistic Features of Writing a Critical Review contains language that evaluates the text. A difficult part of evaluation of a published text (and a professional author) is how to do this as a student. There is nothing wrong with making your position as a student explicit and incorporating it into your evaluation. Examples of how you might do this can be found in the section on Linguistic Features of Writing a Critical Review. You need to remember to locate and analyse the author's argument when you are writing your critical review. For example, you need to locate the authors' view of classroom pedagogy as presented in the book / article and not present a critique of views of classroom pedagogy in general.

Linguistic features of a critical review

The following examples come from published critical reviews. Some of them have been adapted for student use.

Summary language

This article / book is divided into two / three parts. First...
While the title might suggest...
The tone appears to be...
Title is the first / second volume in the series Title, edited by...The books / articles in this series address...
The second / third claim is based on...
The author challenges the notion that...
The author tries to find a more middle ground / make more modest claims...
The article / book begins with a short historical overview of...
Numerous authors have recently suggested that...(see Author, Year; Author, Year). Author would also be once such author. With his / her argument that...
To refer to title as a...is not to say that it is...
This book / article is aimed at... This intended readership...
The author's book / article examines the...To do this, the author first...
The author develops / suggests a theoretical / pedagogical model to…
This book / article positions itself firmly within the field of...
The author in a series of subtle arguments, indicates that he / she...
The argument is therefore...
The author asks "..."
With a purely critical / postmodern take on...
Topic, as the author points out, can be viewed as...
In this recent contribution to the field of...this British author...
As a leading author in the field of...
This book / article nicely contributes to the field of...and complements other work by this author...
The second / third part of...provides / questions / asks the reader...
Title is intended to encourage students / researchers to...
The approach taken by the author provides the opportunity to examine...in a qualitative / quantitative research framework that nicely complements...
The author notes / claims that state support / a focus on pedagogy / the adoption of...remains vital if...
According to Author (Year) teaching towards examinations is not as effective as it is in other areas of the curriculum. This is because, as Author (Year) claims that examinations have undue status within the curriculum.
According to Author (Year)…is not as effective in some areas of the curriculum / syllabus as others. Therefore the author believes that this is a reason for some school's…

Evaluation language

This argument is not entirely convincing, as...furthermore it commodifies / rationalises the...
Over the last five / ten years the view of...has increasingly been viewed as 'complicated' (see Author, Year; Author, Year).
However, through trying to integrate...with...the author...
There are difficulties with such a position.
Inevitably, several crucial questions are left unanswered / glossed over by this insightful / timely / interesting / stimulating book / article. Why should...
It might have been more relevant for the author to have written this book / article as...
This article / book is not without disappointment from those who would view...as...
This chosen framework enlightens / clouds...
This analysis intends to be...but falls a little short as...
The authors rightly conclude that if...
A detailed, well-written and rigorous account of...
As a Korean student I feel that this article / book very clearly illustrates...
The beginning of...provides an informative overview into...
The tables / figures do little to help / greatly help the reader...
The reaction by scholars who take a...approach might not be so favourable (e.g. Author, Year).
This explanation has a few weaknesses that other researchers have pointed out (see Author, Year; Author, Year). The first is...
On the other hand, the author wisely suggests / proposes that...By combining these two dimensions...
The author's brief introduction to...may leave the intended reader confused as it fails to properly...
Despite my inability to...I was greatly interested in...
Even where this reader / I disagree(s), the author's effort to...
The author thus combines...with...to argue...which seems quite improbable for a number of reasons. First...
Perhaps this aversion to...would explain the author's reluctance to...
As a second language student from ...I find it slightly ironic that such an anglo-centric view is...
The reader is rewarded with...
Less convincing is the broad-sweeping generalisation that...
There is no denying the author's subject knowledge nor his / her...
The author's prose is dense and littered with unnecessary jargon...
The author's critique of...might seem harsh but is well supported within the literature (see Author, Year; Author, Year; Author, Year). Aligning herself with the author, Author (Year) states that...
As it stands, the central focus of Title is well / poorly supported by its empirical findings...
Given the hesitation to generalise to...the limitation of...does not seem problematic...
For instance, the term...is never properly defined and the reader left to guess as to whether...
Furthermore, to label...as...inadvertently misguides...
In addition, this research proves to be timely / especially significant to... as recent government policy / proposals has / have been enacted to...
On this well researched / documented basis the author emphasises / proposes that...
Nonetheless, other research / scholarship / data tend to counter / contradict this possible trend / assumption...(see Author, Year; Author, Year).
Without entering into detail of the..., it should be stated that Title should be read by...others will see little value in...
As experimental conditions were not used in the study the word 'significant' misleads the reader.
The article / book becomes repetitious in its assertion that...
The thread of the author's argument becomes lost in an overuse of empirical data...
Almost every argument presented in the final section is largely derivative, providing little to say about...
She / he does not seem to take into consideration; however, that there are fundamental differences in the conditions of…
As Author (Year) points out, however, it seems to be necessary to look at…
This suggest that having low…does not necessarily indicate that…is ineffective.
Therefore, the suggestion made by Author (Year)…is difficult to support.
When considering all the data presented…it is not clear that the low scores of some students, indeed, reflects…

Conclusion language

Overall this article / book is an analytical look at...which within the field of...is often overlooked.
Despite its problems, Title offers valuable theoretical insights / interesting examples / a contribution to pedagogy and a starting point for students / researchers of...with an interest in...
This detailed and rigorously argued...
This first / second volume / book / article by...with an interest in...is highly informative...

Example extracts from a critical review

Writing critically.

If you have been told your writing is not critical enough, it probably means that your writing treats the knowledge claims as if they are true, well supported, and applicable in the context you are writing about. This may not always be the case.

In these two examples, the extracts refer to the same section of text. In each example, the section that refers to a source has been highlighted in bold. The note below the example then explains how the writer has used the source material.

There is a strong positive effect on students, both educationally and emotionally, when the instructors try to learn to say students' names without making pronunciation errors (Kiang, 2004).

Use of source material in example a:

This is a simple paraphrase with no critical comment. It looks like the writer agrees with Kiang. (This is not a good example for critical writing, as the writer has not made any critical comment).

Kiang (2004) gives various examples to support his claim that "the positive emotional and educational impact on students is clear" (p.210) when instructors try to pronounce students' names in the correct way. He quotes one student, Nguyet, as saying that he "felt surprised and happy" (p.211) when the tutor said his name clearly . The emotional effect claimed by Kiang is illustrated in quotes such as these, although the educational impact is supported more indirectly through the chapter. Overall, he provides more examples of students being negatively affected by incorrect pronunciation, and it is difficult to find examples within the text of a positive educational impact as such.

Use of source material in example b:

The writer describes Kiang's (2004) claim and the examples which he uses to try to support it. The writer then comments that the examples do not seem balanced and may not be enough to support the claims fully. This is a better example of writing which expresses criticality.

^Back to top

Further resources

You may also be interested in our page on criticality, which covers criticality in general, and includes more critical reading questions.

Further reading: Read and Write Critically

We recommend that you do not search for other university guidelines on critical reviews. This is because the expectations may be different at other institutions. Ask your tutor for more guidance or examples if you have further questions.

IOE Writing Centre Online

Self-access resources from the Academic Writing Centre at the UCL Institute of Education.

Anonymous Suggestions Box

Information for Staff

Academic Writing Centre

Academic Writing Centre, UCL Institute of Education [email protected] Twitter: @AWC_IOE Skype: awc.ioe

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Writing Critical Reviews

Dawn Atkinson

Chapter Overview

This chapter aims to help you build strong arguments in your own work by learning to write critical reviews, or critiques , of texts. A critical review requires a close examination of the argument presented in a text (analysis) and a subsequent explanation of how effective the argument is (evaluation). Critiques are assigned in both academic and technical writing classes because they encourage critical reading practices; in other words, this type of assignment calls for a sharp eye to discern what a piece says and how it communicates in order to arrive at a reasoned judgement about its argument. Ultimately, a critical review may discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of a document.

How might the skills used to develop a critical review be applicable in a workplace setting?

Understand Expectations before Starting a Critical Review Assignment

As with any assignment, make sure you understand the expectations for a critical review before beginning work on it. Pay attention to specifications regarding the paper’s audience, purpose, genre, and design; in addition, determine how many and what type of sources are required. You may be asked to restrict your evidentiary source list to the document under review rather than search for additional sources. Read the critical review directions carefully, and approach your instructor if you have unresolved questions.

Read a Text Closely to Prepare for a Critical Review

A critical review requires close engagement with a text: you cannot effectively analyze and evaluate a document if you have not read and attempted to comprehend it. To develop a broad understanding of a text’s focus and composition, begin by previewing the document. While other chapters of this textbook discuss previewing in detail, Figure 1, adapted from Excelsior Online Writing Lab (2020c), offers a reminder of how to undertake this activity.

Figure 1. How to preview a text before reading it in full

Previewing should give you an overall sense of what the text is about, how it is organized, and what information it contains.

After previewing the piece, it is time to read it though, while keeping the assignment purpose in mind. Because a critical review demands close work with a text, be prepared to annotate as you read by reflecting on the document’s content and meaning, recording comments and questions in the margin, highlighting important examples and evidence, underlining and defining new vocabulary, and making notes about your reactions to the text. These activities can facilitate understanding of and connection with a piece, aspects crucial to writing a successful critical review.

Your active engagement with the text should continue even after you have read it in full. To illustrate, you can use the prompts in Figure 2, adapted from Excelsior Online Writing Lab (2020a), to investigate the author’s intent for writing the document.

Figure 2. Prompts for evaluating an author’s intent

In addition to evaluating an author’s intent, think carefully about your own reactions to the text as a means to interrogate it further. The following questions, adapted from Excelsior Online Writing Lab (2020d) and Student Academic Success Services at Queen’s University (2018, “Strengths/Weaknesses”), may help in this regard.

What, if anything, about the reading is unclear? Why is it unclear?
Does the text deliver on the promises it made in its title and introduction?
Do you find the author’s writing style persuasive? Why or why not?
Are the author’s arguments logical? Do they make sense?
Are points illustrated with relevant and comprehensible examples?
What kind of evidence does the author provide to support claims? Given the purpose of the piece and its audience, is the evidence from suitable sources?
Is the evidence relevant? Is it sufficient? Is it credible?
Does the author supply stated or unstated reasons to support claims?
Does the author consider alternative points of view, reasons, and evidence?
How does the reading compare with other texts on the same topic?
What ideas do you find most thought-provoking?
What points do you want to investigate further?

The activities described here are intended to promote active engagement with a reading for purposes of eliciting a critical response to it.

Take Advantage of Opportunities to Discuss the Text

Discussions can sometimes inspire thoughtful reflection about a text and clarify lingering uncertainties, so seize opportunities to discuss the document with your classmates. If your instructor schedules a seminar or class discussion period to focus on the text, aim to get as much out of it as you can by preparing in advance, by contributing during the activity, and by reflecting on the experience afterward. Figure 3, adapted from McLaughlin Library, University of Guelph (n.d.), shares tips for participating in class discussions.

Can you think of any other advice you would add to the visual?

Figure 3. How to take part in class discussions

Always be respectful of others’ ideas during a class discussion to encourage a positive and productive session. Remember that one of the reasons to engage in discussion is to hear viewpoints different from your own—ultimately these viewpoints may help to refine your own understanding of the reading.

Meeting with your instructor to discuss the text might also help bring your own ideas into focus. Faculty members appreciate talking with students who take active steps to ensure their own success, so be sure to read the document prior to the appointment. Schedule the meeting with your instructor by sending an email that applies the best practices discussed in this textbook, and arrive on time to the session prepared with your questions. Figure 4, a multipage handout adapted from Roux et al. (2020), illustrates these pieces of advice.

Can you think of any other tips you would add to the visual?

How might the skills used to schedule and participate in a meeting with an instructor be transferred to a workplace context?

Figure 4. Tips for emailing and meeting with an instructor

Do not be afraid to discuss points of uncertainty or confusion during a meeting with an instructor. After all, your purpose is to seek clarification about a text so that you may write about it confidently in a critical review.

Understand How to Organize a Critical Review

Once you have read the text and feel confident about discussing it, you can make plans for your critical review. This type of paper generally follows an introduction, body, and conclusion structure, the same organizational configuration you have applied when writing memos and letters.

The Introduction

To establish context for readers, begin the introduction with a concise summary of the document under review; list the document’s title and author at the beginning of the summary. This summary serves as a foundation for the subsequent critical discussion of the text presented in the body section of the paper. Recall that when composing a summary, a writer uses his or her own words and sentence structures, focuses on main points, excludes details, and cites and references source material. The following summary, adapted from the Writing and Communication Centre, University of Waterloo (n.d., para. 4), demonstrates application of these summary guidelines.

In their article “British Columbia’s Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax: A Review of the Latest ‘Grand Experiment’ in Environmental Policy,” Murray and Rivers (2015) examine the outcome of that province’s first attempt to institute a carbon tax. The main goal was to try to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Following principles favored by economists, the authors explain that the province began with a small tax and increased the rate over several years, allowing taxpayers to ease into the plan slowly. By reviewing other research studies and using a simulation model, Murray and Rivers (para. 1) find that GHG emissions decreased by 5 to 15 percent as a result of the carbon tax. This reduction was higher than expected, and the authors suggest that a carbon tax not only works because of the extra financial burden, but also because of some other social cost of consuming fossil fuels; however, the exact mechanism is not yet understood. Their study also revealed that public support for the carbon tax grew post-implementation.

Murray, B., & Rivers, N. (2015). British Colombia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax: A review of the latest ‘grand experiment’ in environmental policy. Energy Policy, 86 , 674-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.011

Notice how compact this summary is: it communicates the central points of a nine-page journal article in one concise paragraph.

After the summary, continue the introduction by supplying a thesis statement that reveals the critical review’s purpose and your determination regarding the effectiveness of the text’s argument: this determination is the result of your analysis and evaluation of the argument. The thesis may also outline the critique’s organization; alternatively, you might decide to place the forecasting statement (route map) in a separate sentence at the end of the introduction. The following introduction, adapted from Grosz (2019, paras. 1, 2, 3), demonstrates these elements at work in a sample critique introduction.

In his 2019 Harvard Data Science Review article entitled “Artificial Intelligence—The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet,” Michael I. Jordan makes evident that many have lost sight of the full richness of human intelligence and have neglected to separate foundational understanding from engineering. Most importantly, he points out the need to develop an “engineering discipline . . . for the data-focused and learning-focused fields” and that the systems based on their methods “should be built to work as claimed” (para. 29). A distinguished machine learning insider, Jordan speaks with authority, bringing insight to current discussions of the promise of artificial intelligence (AI) and the potential threats it raises for societal wellbeing. The article, nonetheless, misses two important pieces of the story: the point that when established, the AI and human-computer interaction fields initially competed to their detriment and the reality that humanities values and social science principles are central to the foundation of the engineering discipline he describes. I discuss these matters in turn and then indicate ways they should inform the engineering discipline Jordan envisions.

Jordan, M.I. (2019). Artificial intelligence—The revolution hasn’t happened yet. Harvard Data Science Review, 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.f06c6e61

Although the jargon used in this paragraph may be unfamiliar to you, the text’s organizational structure is nevertheless clear.

Organize your body paragraphs around the themes that resulted from your evaluation of the text. In other words, rather than discussing each paragraph of the text in a chronological fashion—an approach that can be wordy and repetitious—think about the main points that emerged during your examination of the text’s argument, and center your discussion on those areas. Your aim when writing a critical review is to construct an argument about the effectiveness of the text’s argument, so begin each body paragraph with a topic sentence that makes a claim in reference to an evaluation theme. Then develop the body paragraphs by discussing examples and evidence from the text to support your points; remember to indicate the relevance of this information to your argument and incorporate it cohesively into your text. The following student example, adapted from Jensen (2014) as cited in Excelsior Online Writing Lab (2020f, “Sample Essay”), demonstrates these guidelines at work in a body paragraph.

In the article “Why I Won’t Buy and iPad (and Think You Shouldn’t, Either),” Cory Doctorow (2014) expresses bias against the digital rights management (DRM) control built into the Apple iPad’s design by constructing a one-sided argument. He makes the point that Apple “uses DRM to control what can run on your devices, which means that Apple’s customers can’t take their ‘iContent’ with them to competing devices, and Apple developers can’t sell on their own terms” (para. 13). Doctorow is a software creator, so he has something personal to gain from unconstrained digital media sharing; however, not everyone can develop software. The author overlooks the iPad’s beneficial applications, which can be used by a diverse range of people, by focusing only on those who are looking to develop and sell their own software. Just because the iPad does not work for Doctorow does not mean it will not work for others.

Doctorow, C. (2010, April 2). Why I won’t buy an iPad (and think you shouldn’t, either) . BoingBoing. https://boingboing.net/2010/04/02/why-i-wont-buy-an-ipad-and-thi.html

Be sure to cite and reference pieces of evidence, including those taken from the text under review, as the sample does.

The Conclusion

When writing the conclusion section of a critical review, reiterate your thesis (without repeating it word for word) and emphasize what your analysis and evaluation reveals about the text under review.

Plan Your Critical Review

A well-organized critical review requires careful planning: although close work with a text can reveal many points about its argument, you will likely only be able to discuss a selection of these in your paper given length restrictions. An outline may help you to narrow the focus of your paper and devise a logical plan for its construction. Figure 5, adapted from Excelsior Online Writing Lab (2020e), provides tips for outlining.

Figure 5. Guidance for constructing an outline

A concept map, also known as a mind map, can also be used to plan a critical review. Figure 6, adapted from Excelsior Online Writing Lab (2020b), supplies directions for constructing a concept map.

Figure 6. Instructions for creating a concept map

Whatever planning method you select, concentrate only on prominent evaluation themes in order to address those themes adequately in your paper.

Use an Appropriate Tone and Language When Writing a Critical Review

A critical review aims to reveal the positive and negative aspects of a text’s argument in order to comment upon its effectiveness; in so doing, a critical review makes its own argument. As with other types of academic and technical writing, maintain a respectful, reasonable tone when writing a critique so that you work is taken seriously. Tone is the attitude a writer conveys toward a paper’s audience and subject matter. Strive to build your argument on clear claims, rational reasons, and quality evidence—as well as coverage of counter-claims, reasons, and evidence—rather than on emotive language, exclamatory sentences, personal attacks, or indefensible assertions. The latter weaken an argument’s persuasiveness and are inappropriate in academic and technical writing.

When writing a critical review, use words that are precise, concise, and appropriately formal. The following guidelines elaborate on these points.

Negative Sentence Construction

Avoid negative sentence constructions because they can be awkward and difficult to follow. Here is an example.

Instead of: He did not remember to complete the homework assignment.
Write: He forgot to complete the homework assignment.

The affirmative sentence construction provides a clear and concise alternative to the awkward first version.

Word Choice (adapted from McNamee, 2019, p. 1)

When writing for a technical or academic audience, avoid unquantifiable descriptive words, such as good , bad , great , huge , big , very , extremely , incredibly , and enormously . These words are problematic because they do not define a specific degree or amount.

Sentence Structure (adapted from McNamee, 2019, p. 2)

Aim to convey the meaning of a sentence, the key information, at the beginning of the sentence. To demonstrate, look at these two examples.

Instead of: Despite the margins of error due to human error that occurred due to improper pipette cleaning, the results showed that the pH still remained acidic.
Write: The results showed the pH remained acidic, despite the margins of error due to improper pipette cleaning.

The first version is unclear because the beginning clause does not communicate the main purpose of the sentence. The second version communicates the focus of the sentence early on and is also more concise.

Language (adapted from Excelsior Online Writing Lab, 2020g)

Make every effort to use language that is clear and appropriately formal when writing a critical review. Here are some specific guidelines to keep in mind.

o Instead of: I think anyone who becomes a parent should have to take parenting classes.
o Write: Parenting classes should be mandatory for biological and adoptive parents.
o Instead of: When you read this textbook, you will notice the content is focused on technical writing.
o Write: Textbook readers will notice this book’s content focuses on technical writing.
o Instead of: The study didn’t examine how age affected participants’ notetaking practices.
o Write: The study did not examine how age affected participants’ notetaking practices.
o Instead of: A lot of employees showed up at the staff meeting.
o Write: Twenty-five employees attended the staff meeting.
Avoid redundant words and phrases.
o Instead of: The conference presentation was brief in length.
o Write: The conference presentation was brief.

Consider the audience, purpose, context, and genre for a critique to gauge the level of formality expected in the document.

Can you think of any other tone or language tips you would add to this textbook section?

Activity A: Read and Work with a Text that Addresses Top Writing Errors

Read the handout “Top Twenty Errors in Undergraduate Writing” (Hume Center for Writing and Speaking, Stanford University, n.d.), which can be found at the following address.

https://undergrad.stanford.edu/tutoring-support/hume-center/resources/student-resources/grammar-resources-writers/top-twenty-errors-undergraduate-writing

Now review the feedback on three of your previous writing assignments. Do you detect any of the errors listed on the handout in your work? Identify three issues that recur in your assignments and handout sections/explanations that will help you address these issues.

Issue one + handout section/explanation:

Issue two + handout section/explanation:

Issue three + handout section/explanation:

Activity B: Read and Engage with a Formal Report

Watch a video entitled “Meet Emma – Your Work Colleague of the Future” (Fellowes Brands, 2019), which can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL5SuzGkUPw , for an introduction to the topic of a particular formal report.

Now open William Higham’s (2019) formal report entitled “The Work Colleague of the Future: A Report on the Long-Term Health of Office Workers” at https://assets.fellowes.com/skins/fellowes/responsive/gb/en/resources/work-colleague-of-the-future/download/WCOF_Report_EU.pdf . You will be asked to write a critical review of Higham’s report for homework. To help you comprehend and connect with the ideas discussed in the report, practice preview, close, and critical reading techniques by following the steps listed. Actively engage with the text by making notes on the steps as you proceed.

Look at the title of the text. Based on the title, what do you think the report is about?
Look at the text’s headings and subheadings. What do these tell you about the topic of the report?
Skim through the introduction. What do you expect the report will discuss?
Skim though the final section of the report. What did you learn?
What is your initial impression regarding the soundness of the report? What made you form that impression?
What do you know about Higham or Fellowes, the organization that commissioned the report? Google them now on your computer.
Does what you discovered about them change your impression regarding the soundness of the report? Why or why not?
On first glance, does the document follow the conventions for formal reports outlined in the “Reading Actively” chapter of this textbook?
If so, how? If not, how does it deviate from the conventions, what effect does the deviation have on you as a reader, and what might be the reason for the deviation?
After reading, try to define the unknown terms you identified.
After reading, try to answer your questions. You may need to review the essential details of the text again to do this.
Determine the report’s purpose or thesis.
Determine the report’s target audience.
Identify the main idea of the section entitled “Findings.”
Identify the main idea of the section entitled “Danger Zones.”
Identify the main idea of the section entitled “Our Offices.”
Identify the main idea of the section entitled “Physical Impact.”
Concentrate on the report’s purpose/thesis and main ideas or themes when summarizing, and omit detail
Put the report away when summarizing it to avoid copying its language and sentence structures
Identify how the author contextualizes the report for readers by looking for associations between its content and readers’ experiences.
Are the author’s points logical? Do they make sense?
Is each of the author’s viewpoints (claims) supported with evidence?
Is the evidence comprehensible?
Does the evidence sufficiently support the claim?
Is the evidence relevant to the claim?
Is the evidence logically tied to the claim?
Given the purpose of the piece and its audience, is the evidence from suitable sources?
Is the evidence research-based ( empirical ), factual, or grounded in hearsay or casual observation ( anecdotal ), or does the author rely heavily on a reader’s emotional reactions to communicate the force of his viewpoints?
Is the evidence credible?
Can you easily associate citations with their references and sources?
Identify the connection of reasons to viewpoints. The report author may state reasons outright—look for uses of seeing as , because , since , given that , and the like—or imply them.
Does the author address counter-claims?
Does the author address counter-reasons?
Does the author address counter-evidence?
Does the author respond reasonably to other viewpoints or simply dismiss them?
What impression does the design give you?
How does the design contribute (or not) to your understanding of the report?
Does your thesis articulate the theme of your paper and express your viewpoint?
Is your thesis an arguable statement rather than a statement of fact?
Can the argument conveyed in your thesis be supported with claims, reasons, and evidence?

Homework: Compose a Critical Review Essay

Draw upon what you did in Activity B to write an essay that critiques “The Work Colleague of the Future: A Report on the Long-Term Health of Office Workers” (Higham, 2019). This assignment asks you to closely examine the argument presented in the formal report (analyze it) and explain to readers how effective the argument is (evaluate it). Remember that a critical review makes an argument: you will need to support your claims about the report with reasons and evidence and cite and reference all outside sources of information used. Follow the guidelines presented in this chapter when writing your paper; in addition, consult the “Writing Essays” chapter of this textbook for essay formatting guidance and the “Writing to Persuade” chapter for argumentation information. Lastly, use the points you identified in activity A to revise your work.

Excelsior Online Writing Lab. (2020a). Evaluating an author’s intent . License: CC-BY 4.0 . https://owl.excelsior.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/EvaluatingAuthorsIntent2019.pdf

Excelsior Online Writing Lab. (2020b). How to make a concept map . License: CC-BY 4.0 https://owl.excelsior.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/HowToMakeConceptMap2019.pdf

Excelsior Online Writing Lab. (2020c). How to preview a text . License: CC-BY 4.0 https://owl.excelsior.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/Previewing2019.pdf

Excelsior Online Writing Lab. (2020d). How to use questioning to improve reading comprehension . License: CC-BY 4.0 https://owl.excelsior.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/Questioning2019.pdf

Excelsior Online Writing Lab. (2020e). Outlining . License: CC-BY 4.0 https://owl.excelsior.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/HowToMakeAnOutline2019.pdf

Excelsior Online Writing Lab. (2020f). Sample rhetorical analysis . License: CC-BY 4.0 https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/argument-analysis/argument-analysis-sample-rhetorical-analysis/

Excelsior Online Writing Lab. (2020g). Tips on academic voice . License: CC-BY 4.0 . https://owl.excelsior.edu/writing-process/finding-your-voice/finding-your-voice-tips-on-academic-voice/

Fellowes Brands. (2019, October 23). Meet Emma – your work colleague of the future [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL5SuzGkUPw

Grosz, B.J. (2019). The AI revolution needs expertise in people, publics and societies. Harvard Data Science Review, 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.97b95546

Higham, W. (2019). The work colleague of the future: A report on the long-term health of office workers. Fellowes . https://assets.fellowes.com/skins/fellowes/responsive/gb/en/resources/work-colleague-of-the-future/download/WCOF_Report_EU.pdf

Hume Center for Writing and Speaking, Stanford University. (n.d.). Top twenty errors in undergraduate writing . https://undergrad.stanford.edu/tutoring-support/hume-center/resources/student-resources/grammar-resources-writers/top-twenty-errors-undergraduate-writing

McLaughlin Library, University of Guelph. (n.d.). We need to talk: Tips for participating in class discussions . License: CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 . https://learningcommons.lib.uoguelph.ca/item/we-need-talk-tips-participating-class-discussions

McNamee, K. (2019). Tone. Colorado School of Mines Writing Center . License: CC-BY-NC 4.0 . https://www.mines.edu/otcc/wp-content/uploads/sites/303/2019/12/otcctonelesson.pdf

Roux, S., Ravaei, K., & Harper, T. (2020). Quick tips for contacting instructors over email, quick tips for meeting instructors in-person . WI+RE: Writing Instruction + Research Education. License: CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 . https://uclalibrary.github.io/research-tips/assets/handouts/contacting-faculty-combined.pdf

Student Academic Success Services, Queen’s University. (2018). Writing a critical review . License: CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 . https://sass.queensu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Critical-Review.pdf

Writing and Communication Centre, University of Waterloo. (n.d.). Citing a source more than once . https://uwaterloo.ca/writing-and-communication-centre/citing-source-more-once

Share This Book

Write a Critical Review

Introduction, how can i improve my critical review, ask us: chat, email, visit or call.

Video: How to Integrate Critical Voice into Your Literature Review

How to Integrate Critical Voice in Your Lit Review

Video: Note-taking and Writing Tips to Avoid Plagiarism

Note-taking and Writing Tips to Avoid Accidental Plagiarism

More help: Writing

Book Writing Appointments Get help on your writing assignments.
To introduce the source, its main ideas, key details, and its place within the field
To present your assessment of the quality of the source

In general, the introduction of your critical review should include

Author(s) name
Title of the source
What is the author's central purpose?
What methods or theoretical frameworks were used to accomplish this purpose?
What topic areas, chapters, sections, or key points did the author use to structure the source?
What were the results or findings of the study?
How were the results or findings interpreted? How were they related to the original problem (author's view of evidence rather than objective ﬁndings)?
Who conducted the research? What were/are their interests?
Why did they do this research?
Was this research pertinent only within the author’s field, or did it have broader (even global) relevance?
On what prior research was this source-based? What gap is the author attempting to address?
How important was the research question posed by the researcher?
Your overall opinion of the quality of the source. Think of this like a thesis or main argument.
Present your evaluation of the source, providing evidence from the text (or other sources) to support your assessment.

In general, the body of your critical review should include

Is the material organized logically and with appropriate headings?
Are there stylistic problems in logical, clarity or language?
Were the author(s) able to answer the question (test the hypothesis) raised
What was the objective of the study?
Does all the information lead coherently to the purpose of the study?
Are the methods valid for studying the problem or gap?
Could the study be duplicated from the information provided?
Is the experimental design logical and reliable?
How are the data organized? Is it logical and interpretable?
Do the results reveal what the researcher intended?
Do the authors present a logical interpretation of the results?
Have the limitations of the research been addressed?
Does the study consider other key studies in the field or other research possibilities or directions?
How was the signiﬁcance of the work described?
Follow the structure of the journal article (e.g. Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) - highlighting the strengths and weaknesses in each section
Present the weaknesses of the article, and then the strengths of the article (or vice versa).
Group your ideas according to different research themes presented in the source
Group the strengths and weaknesses of the article into the following areas: originality, reliability, validity, relevance, and presentation

Purpose:

To summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the article as a whole
To assert the article’s practical and theoretical significance

In general, the conclusion of your critical review should include

A restatement of your overall opinion
A summary of the key strengths and weaknesses of the research that support your overall opinion of the source
Did the research reported in this source result in the formation of new questions, theories or hypotheses by the authors or other researchers?
Have other researchers subsequently supported or refuted the observations or interpretations of these authors?
Did the research provide new factual information, a new understanding of a phenomenon in the ﬁeld, a new research technique?
Did the research produce any practical applications?
What are the social, political, technological, or medical implications of this research?
How do you evaluate the significance of the research?
Find out what style guide you are required to follow (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago) and follow the guidelines to create a reference list (may be called a bibliography or works cited).
Be sure to include citations in the text when you refer to the source itself or external sources.
Check out our Cite Your Sources Guide for more information.
Read assignment instructions carefully and refer to them throughout the writing process.
Make an outline of your main sections before you write.
If your professor does not assign a topic or source, you must choose one yourself. Select a source that interests you and is written clearly so you can understand it.
<< Previous: Start Here
Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 10:58 AM
URL: https://guides.lib.uoguelph.ca/CriticalReview

Suggest an edit to this guide

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Write a Critical Review of an Article

Need to write a critical review but unsure of where to start? Don’t worry, it’s normal to feel stuck when writing a critical review.

So, how should you approach a critical review? Well, you need to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the article. But, more than this, you need to draw links between this article and other relevant papers. This is important if you want a first-class grade!

Critical reviews are difficult, but they can help you improve your research and selection skills. That said, let’s explore how to write a critical review of an article.

How to be ‘critical’

First and foremost, be clear on what it means to be ‘critical’. If you’ve read our guide on how to critically discuss , you’ll know that being critical isn’t just about being negative.

Being critical means weighing up the strengths and weaknesses of a particular piece of work and considering its implications and applications from various perspectives.

That said, in order to ‘be critical’ you must:

Fully immerse yourself in the work(s) you are critiquing.
Keep an open, balanced mind.

Why critically review an article?

Understanding why your tutor has set this piece of work can help you to feel more motivated to finish it. So, why would your tutor ask you to critically review an article?

Well, being able to critically appraise others’ work is considered essential to thrive as a student. This is especially true if you want to progress to master’s or PhD level study.

Writing a critical review can help you to become a more discerning researcher, because it teaches you how to appraise other people’s work.

If you can become good at critically appraising one paper, you can become good at appraising a bunch of papers. So, this means that when writing subsequent essays, you can accurately discern which research papers are worth including in your essays, and which are not.

Not to mention, an assignment like this also introduces you to the practice of peer-review; another practice that is central to UK academia.

What should I include?

The expectation of what a critical review should include will vary between subjects. As a rough guide, it should include the following:

A brief overview of the content

Generally, you should assume that your reader has not read the article, so you will need to include a brief description of its content. Remember to be brief in order to leave enough space for critique.

It’s up to you whether you write a short paragraph at the beginning of your review summarising the article, or whether you describe and critique the paper as you go along. The latter strategy can be more impressive, but it is more difficult to do.

Acknowledge (and critique) the author’s rationale

Ask yourself, why did the author(s) write this article? What problem or issue were they trying to solve? Ultimately, your review should say whether you agree that there was a problem to be solved, and whether you think this article has addressed this problem effectively.

So, for example, let’s say you need to review an article that tested whether putting stricter quotas on fishing can tackle the overfishing crisis.

First, ask yourself, is there enough evidence to confirm that we are facing an overfishing crisis? Use your response to this question to determine how ‘important’ you see this article to be. Moreover, ask yourself, were the authors right to focus on stricter quotas as a potential solution, or could/should they have focused on something else?

Remember, you are not just critiquing the paper itself but the decisions (or rationale) that led the authors to formulate this type of paper in the first place.

Strengths and weaknesses of the methodology

Most critical reviews should discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the methodology, since the choice of methodology relates to issues like reliability and validity.

When critiquing the methodology, ask yourself why you think the author(s) chose this approach. For example, if they chose to conduct qualitative interviews rather than administer a quantitative questionnaire, why do you think they did this?

Tip: Most journal articles have a section at the end where the authors discuss the limitations of their paper (including the methodology), so this can give you some hints if you’re struggling to find any weaknesses with the methodology.

Research methods is a broad area of study, so we strongly recommend you take out a research methods textbook from your university library; this will introduce you to the basics of different research methods which will help you to critique the article confidently.

Applications and future directions

Remember we said that a critical review shouldn’t only be negative? Indeed, you should generally say positive things about the article, too.

One way to do this is to consider alternative applications of the author’s theory or argument. So, let’s say that the paper found that caffeine helps improve people’s memory. You might wonder whether caffeine could be an effective treatment for memory disorders and recommend this as a potential avenue for future research.

Remember, one of the aims of a critical review is to ‘fit it in’ to the wider literature. This will show off your ability to draw links between theories, concepts, and disciplines.

Language and tone

Depending on the type of article you are reviewing, you might also want to comment on the language skills of the authors.

Have they presented their ideas coherently? Is the argument easy to follow? If you had written the article, would you have approached it differently? Under this remit, you might also consider the quality of presentation.

Questions to ask yourself when critiquing an article

As mentioned, your tutor might have some quite unique requirements for what to include in your review. But, generally speaking, these are some good questions to get you started:

Is this article convincing?
What part of this article is most/least convincing to me?
Does this article solve a problem?
Does this article oversimplify (or exaggerate) a problem?
How would I summarise this article in one sentence? (write it down)
Does this article support or refute previous research?
Did the author(s) formulate a specific hypothesis? If so, what was it?
Were the findings largely in-line with the author(s) predictions or were they surprising?
If another researcher replicated this study, are they likely to find similar results? (e.g., if this study was done in a different country, or using a different medium, what influence might this have on the results?)
When was this article written? Is it still relevant?
What have other commentators said about this article?
Does this article feel biased or balanced?

Should I reference other papers?

Your tutor will be able to tell you whether your critical review should include other references.

However it is a good idea to include additional references because this shows you can ‘fit’ this article into the ‘bigger picture’ and draw links between different theorists’ ideas.

Moreover, when making an evaluative statement about a particular weakness within the paper, including a citation can help you to appear more authoritative.

For example, let’s say you write ‘The authors only included 12 participants so the sample size was very small; this means the findings cannot be generalised’ (Smith, 2010).

By including a reference to Smith (2010), you are showing that you have read up about sampling and the effects of using a small sample size. This demonstrates that you have thought carefully about various aspects of the article and done your own research to critique it confidently.

Tips for getting started

As with all academic papers, getting started is often the hardest part. That said, here are some tips to help you kickstart your critical review:

Fully immerse yourself in the article – try to read the paper through at least three times so you fully understand it. If you’re finding it hard to focus, see if you can find an audio version of the article. If you can’t find an official audio version, copy-and-paste the content into Word, click the ‘Review’ tab and then click ‘Read Aloud’.
Tell someone else about the article – This is a great way of testing your comprehension of the article and can help to increase your motivation for finishing the assignment.
Check out the reference list – The reference list of the article can be useful for finding relevant sources for contextualising the article, e.g., some of these references will likely refer to the opposing side of the debate (you need to engage with these too).
Make notes – Make notes as you go, and you will find it much easier to write up your critical review later.

Browse Course Material

Course info.

Dr. Janis Melvold

Departments

Comparative Media Studies/Writing

As Taught In

Academic Writing
Technical Writing

Learning Resource Types

Science writing and new media: explorations in communicating about science & technology, assignment 1: a critical review.

Due: Session 5

Length: ~1250 words

For this assignment you will write a critical review of an exhibit at the Boston Museum of Science .

The purpose and target audience of your review: Who are you writing for and why?

Here’s the scenario:

Imagine there’s a journal devoted to the topic of communicating science—let’s even imagine that the journal has that very title, Communicating Science . The journal caters to a broad audience of scientists, science teachers, students interested in STEM fields, and science writers. The editors of this journal are planning a special issue on the topic of communicating science through museum exhibits. You have been invited, as an MIT student, to contribute to this issue by submitting a review of a Boston Museum of Science exhibit. You may choose to write about any exhibit you want.

The purpose of the review is to provide an analysis and assessment of this exhibit, showing how it succeeds or falls short in engaging and conveying scientific ideas and information to its target audience.

Format and Content of the Review

The review should be written in the form of an essay.

It should include:

A brief overview of the Boston Museum of Science and your views about the role of science museums
A more detailed description of the exhibit you’re focusing on (e.g., its topic, content, design, aims, target audience(s))
An analysis of the exhibit’s strengths and weaknesses
An assessment of the overall success of the exhibit in achieving what you see as the designers’ intent

Organizing the Review

The review should have a discernible introduction (providing context and a framework for critique); body (consisting of your description and analysis of the exhibit); and a summary/conclusion (underscoring the main idea of your review).

You may use section headings to highlight key points. The paper should be either 1.5 or double-spaced, using a standard 12 pt. font and standard margins. It should also include a descriptive title.

Evaluating an Exhibit: What Should You Consider?

Consider the exhibit in light of the ideas discussed in the Semper article, “ Science Museums as Environments for Learning ,” as well as your own ideas about science museums.

Here are some questions to consider:

What is the topic of the exhibit and what is its basic purpose?
Is this an appropriate topic for a science museum?
Who is its target audience (or audiences)? How can you tell?
Are the scope and depth of the exhibit’s content appropriate for the target audience(s)?
What forms of media are used to present information? Are they effective? Why or why not?
How is the exhibit organized (e.g., historically, topically, thematically)? Does the method of organization seem logical and clear?
What do you notice about people visiting the exhibit and their responses to it?
Does the exhibit actively engage the audience? If so, in what ways? If not, why?
Is the exhibit aesthetically appealing?
Are there gaps in the coverage of the topic?
Is the content accurate and up to date?
Are aspects of the exhibit confusing?
Do you have ideas about how the exhibit could be improved?

Take notes! You can even take pictures!

Using and Citing Source Material

If you draw on any idea, concepts, or facts from the Semper article, be sure to cite them and include a complete bibliographic reference to the article at the end. You are not expected to do additional research or consult other sources of information for this paper.

Suggestions for the Process of Writing

Thinking and planning are important (and often underappreciated) aspects of the writing process. You’re likely to find that the actual writing will be easier if you devote plenty of time to thinking about and sketching out your ideas and key points.

Using your recollections and notes, list the key points that you want to include in your analysis. Identify a central unifying theme for your review . Then you’ll be ready to sketch out the organization of each section and to see how the sections fit together into a coherent critical review. (The structure might change as you’re drafting the piece.)

And remember that you will have the opportunity to revise the essay after receiving feedback on the first version.

You are leaving MIT OpenCourseWare

Log in using your username and password

Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
Latest content
Current issue
Write for Us
BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-5319 Ahtisham Younas 1 , 2 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-8130 Parveen Ali 3 , 4
1 Memorial University of Newfoundland , St John's , Newfoundland , Canada
2 Swat College of Nursing , Pakistan
3 School of Nursing and Midwifery , University of Sheffield , Sheffield , South Yorkshire , UK
4 Sheffield University Interpersonal Violence Research Group , Sheffield University , Sheffield , UK
Correspondence to Ahtisham Younas, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, NL A1C 5C4, Canada; ay6133{at}mun.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2021-103417

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

Literature reviews offer a critical synthesis of empirical and theoretical literature to assess the strength of evidence, develop guidelines for practice and policymaking, and identify areas for future research. 1 It is often essential and usually the first task in any research endeavour, particularly in masters or doctoral level education. For effective data extraction and rigorous synthesis in reviews, the use of literature summary tables is of utmost importance. A literature summary table provides a synopsis of an included article. It succinctly presents its purpose, methods, findings and other relevant information pertinent to the review. The aim of developing these literature summary tables is to provide the reader with the information at one glance. Since there are multiple types of reviews (eg, systematic, integrative, scoping, critical and mixed methods) with distinct purposes and techniques, 2 there could be various approaches for developing literature summary tables making it a complex task specialty for the novice researchers or reviewers. Here, we offer five tips for authors of the review articles, relevant to all types of reviews, for creating useful and relevant literature summary tables. We also provide examples from our published reviews to illustrate how useful literature summary tables can be developed and what sort of information should be provided.

Tip 1: provide detailed information about frameworks and methods

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint

Tabular literature summaries from a scoping review. Source: Rasheed et al . 3

The provision of information about conceptual and theoretical frameworks and methods is useful for several reasons. First, in quantitative (reviews synthesising the results of quantitative studies) and mixed reviews (reviews synthesising the results of both qualitative and quantitative studies to address a mixed review question), it allows the readers to assess the congruence of the core findings and methods with the adapted framework and tested assumptions. In qualitative reviews (reviews synthesising results of qualitative studies), this information is beneficial for readers to recognise the underlying philosophical and paradigmatic stance of the authors of the included articles. For example, imagine the authors of an article, included in a review, used phenomenological inquiry for their research. In that case, the review authors and the readers of the review need to know what kind of (transcendental or hermeneutic) philosophical stance guided the inquiry. Review authors should, therefore, include the philosophical stance in their literature summary for the particular article. Second, information about frameworks and methods enables review authors and readers to judge the quality of the research, which allows for discerning the strengths and limitations of the article. For example, if authors of an included article intended to develop a new scale and test its psychometric properties. To achieve this aim, they used a convenience sample of 150 participants and performed exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the same sample. Such an approach would indicate a flawed methodology because EFA and CFA should not be conducted on the same sample. The review authors must include this information in their summary table. Omitting this information from a summary could lead to the inclusion of a flawed article in the review, thereby jeopardising the review’s rigour.

Tip 2: include strengths and limitations for each article

Critical appraisal of individual articles included in a review is crucial for increasing the rigour of the review. Despite using various templates for critical appraisal, authors often do not provide detailed information about each reviewed article’s strengths and limitations. Merely noting the quality score based on standardised critical appraisal templates is not adequate because the readers should be able to identify the reasons for assigning a weak or moderate rating. Many recent critical appraisal checklists (eg, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) discourage review authors from assigning a quality score and recommend noting the main strengths and limitations of included studies. It is also vital that methodological and conceptual limitations and strengths of the articles included in the review are provided because not all review articles include empirical research papers. Rather some review synthesises the theoretical aspects of articles. Providing information about conceptual limitations is also important for readers to judge the quality of foundations of the research. For example, if you included a mixed-methods study in the review, reporting the methodological and conceptual limitations about ‘integration’ is critical for evaluating the study’s strength. Suppose the authors only collected qualitative and quantitative data and did not state the intent and timing of integration. In that case, the strength of the study is weak. Integration only occurred at the levels of data collection. However, integration may not have occurred at the analysis, interpretation and reporting levels.

Tip 3: write conceptual contribution of each reviewed article

While reading and evaluating review papers, we have observed that many review authors only provide core results of the article included in a review and do not explain the conceptual contribution offered by the included article. We refer to conceptual contribution as a description of how the article’s key results contribute towards the development of potential codes, themes or subthemes, or emerging patterns that are reported as the review findings. For example, the authors of a review article noted that one of the research articles included in their review demonstrated the usefulness of case studies and reflective logs as strategies for fostering compassion in nursing students. The conceptual contribution of this research article could be that experiential learning is one way to teach compassion to nursing students, as supported by case studies and reflective logs. This conceptual contribution of the article should be mentioned in the literature summary table. Delineating each reviewed article’s conceptual contribution is particularly beneficial in qualitative reviews, mixed-methods reviews, and critical reviews that often focus on developing models and describing or explaining various phenomena. Figure 2 offers an example of a literature summary table. 4

Tabular literature summaries from a critical review. Source: Younas and Maddigan. 4

Tip 4: compose potential themes from each article during summary writing

While developing literature summary tables, many authors use themes or subthemes reported in the given articles as the key results of their own review. Such an approach prevents the review authors from understanding the article’s conceptual contribution, developing rigorous synthesis and drawing reasonable interpretations of results from an individual article. Ultimately, it affects the generation of novel review findings. For example, one of the articles about women’s healthcare-seeking behaviours in developing countries reported a theme ‘social-cultural determinants of health as precursors of delays’. Instead of using this theme as one of the review findings, the reviewers should read and interpret beyond the given description in an article, compare and contrast themes, findings from one article with findings and themes from another article to find similarities and differences and to understand and explain bigger picture for their readers. Therefore, while developing literature summary tables, think twice before using the predeveloped themes. Including your themes in the summary tables (see figure 1 ) demonstrates to the readers that a robust method of data extraction and synthesis has been followed.

Tip 5: create your personalised template for literature summaries

Often templates are available for data extraction and development of literature summary tables. The available templates may be in the form of a table, chart or a structured framework that extracts some essential information about every article. The commonly used information may include authors, purpose, methods, key results and quality scores. While extracting all relevant information is important, such templates should be tailored to meet the needs of the individuals’ review. For example, for a review about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, a literature summary table must include information about the intervention, its type, content timing, duration, setting, effectiveness, negative consequences, and receivers and implementers’ experiences of its usage. Similarly, literature summary tables for articles included in a meta-synthesis must include information about the participants’ characteristics, research context and conceptual contribution of each reviewed article so as to help the reader make an informed decision about the usefulness or lack of usefulness of the individual article in the review and the whole review.

In conclusion, narrative or systematic reviews are almost always conducted as a part of any educational project (thesis or dissertation) or academic or clinical research. Literature reviews are the foundation of research on a given topic. Robust and high-quality reviews play an instrumental role in guiding research, practice and policymaking. However, the quality of reviews is also contingent on rigorous data extraction and synthesis, which require developing literature summaries. We have outlined five tips that could enhance the quality of the data extraction and synthesis process by developing useful literature summaries.

Aromataris E ,
Rasheed SP ,

Twitter @Ahtisham04, @parveenazamali

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

This Just In
Grateful Dead
Old Time Radio
78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
Audio Books & Poetry
Computers, Technology and Science
Music, Arts & Culture
News & Public Affairs
Spirituality & Religion
Radio News Archive

Flickr Commons
Occupy Wall Street Flickr
NASA Images
Solar System Collection
Ames Research Center

All Software
Old School Emulation
MS-DOS Games
Historical Software
Classic PC Games
Software Library
Kodi Archive and Support File
Vintage Software
CD-ROM Software
CD-ROM Software Library
Software Sites
Tucows Software Library
Shareware CD-ROMs
Software Capsules Compilation
CD-ROM Images
ZX Spectrum
DOOM Level CD

Smithsonian Libraries
FEDLINK (US)
Lincoln Collection
American Libraries
Canadian Libraries
Universal Library
Project Gutenberg
Children's Library
Biodiversity Heritage Library
Books by Language
Additional Collections

Prelinger Archives
Democracy Now!
Occupy Wall Street
TV NSA Clip Library
Animation & Cartoons
Arts & Music
Computers & Technology
Cultural & Academic Films
Ephemeral Films
Sports Videos
Videogame Videos
Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

Wayback Machine (iOS)
Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

Explore the Collections
Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Charles Williams: A Critical Essay

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

Graphic Violence
Explicit Sexual Content
Hate Speech
Misinformation/Disinformation
Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

Download options.

No suitable files to display here.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by station43.cebu on April 3, 2024

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

COMMENTS

How to Write Critical Reviews
To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work-deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole. Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain ...
PDF Planning and writing a critical review
A short critical review should have a brief introduction, simply providing the subject of the research and the author, and outlining the structure you will be using. The simplest way to structure a critical review is to write a paragraph or two about each section of the study in turn. Within your discussion of
Writing Critical Reviews: A Step-by-Step Guide
Ev en better you might. consider doing an argument map (see Chapter 9, Critical thinking). Step 5: Put the article aside and think about what you have read. Good critical review. writing requires ...
PDF How to Undertake Critical Analysis
How to Undertake Critical Analysis _____ 1 This is a guide to assist students when undertaking a 'critical review' or 'critical analysis' activity based on course readings and materials. However, this may also be a useful resource for students who are looking to improve their critical essay writing skills more generally.
Structure of a 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.
Writing 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 read other related texts so you can present a fair and reasonable evaluation of the selected text.
Writing a Critique
Writing a Critique. A critique (or critical review) is not to be mistaken for a literature review. A 'critical review', or 'critique', is a complete type of text (or genre), discussing one particular article or book in detail. In some instances, you may be asked to write a critique of two or three articles (e.g. a comparative critical review).
PDF Critical reviews
A critical review is usually written in an essay structure. The key elements of an essay are the argument and the reasoning. The argument is what you're trying to convince the reader about. In a critical review, you are making an argument about the text you are reviewing, e.g. its main contribution, its value for understanding a topic.
PDF Writing a Critical Review
Writing a Critical Review You are probably familiar with the review genre such as film reviews or book reviews. A critical review is similar, as it is based on a close and detailed reading and evaluation of a text or comparison of multiple texts on the same topic. The type of texts you may be asked to review could include books, articles, reports,
How to Write a Critical Review
A critical review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of an item's ideas and content. It provides description, analysis and interpretation that assess the item's value. It's an exercise that can be carried out on many different types of writing, but is most often carried out on a report, a book or a journal article.
PDF Writing a Critical Review
Writing a Critical Review The advice in this brochure is a general guide only. We strongly recommend that you also follow your assignment instructions and seek clarification from your lecturer/tutor if needed. 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
Start Here
A critical review is a description and evaluation of a source, usually a journal article or book. It moves beyond a summary to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the source and to comment on the quality of the source as a whole. Do not be confused by the term "critical": it does not mean that you only look at the negative aspects of ...
A Critical Review: How to Do it Step by Step
Five-part structure: Include a title, introduction, summary, critical commentary, and conclusion in your review. Create a compelling title: A title should summarise your general opinion; consider writing it after completing the review to capture the essence of your conclusions. Offer well-supported evaluations: Your critical commentary should ...
How to Write a Critical Analysis Essay
Below are nine organizational and writing tips to help you craft the best possible critical analysis essay. 1. Read Thoroughly and Carefully. You will need to accurately represent an author's point of view and techniques. Be sure you truly understand them before you begin the writing process.
Writing Critical Reviews
Homework: Compose a Critical Review Essay. Draw upon what you did in Activity B to write an essay that critiques "The Work Colleague of the Future: A Report on the Long-Term Health of Office Workers" (Higham, 2019). This assignment asks you to closely examine the argument presented in the formal report (analyze it) and explain to readers ...
PDF What is a Critical Review?
Critical evaluation necessitates understanding and analysing the text and then evaluating according to various criteria. The following is a list of criteria that can be referred to when reviewing academic texts and included in your critical commentary. • Writing and structure of the article or book. (e.g the style and expression)
Guides: Write a Critical Review: Parts of a Critical Review
To assert the article's practical and theoretical significance. In general, the conclusion of your critical review should include. A restatement of your overall opinion. A summary of the key strengths and weaknesses of the research that support your overall opinion of the source. An evaluation of the significance or success of the research.
How to Write a Critical Review of an Article
Generally, you should assume that your reader has not read the article, so you will need to include a brief description of its content. Remember to be brief in order to leave enough space for critique. It's up to you whether you write a short paragraph at the beginning of your review summarising the article, or whether you describe and ...
Critical review
Most critical reviews will involve some summarising of the main argument of the text and some judgement about the quality and usefulness of the argument. The evaluation and judgement parts normally count for more marks. This guide gives you questions to help prompt both your summary and evaluation, plus an annotated example of a critical review:
PDF Writing a critical review
A critical review is a critical evaluation of a document (or book or chapter or article). It is not just a summary of the contents. You are expected to read, make judgments about the document and justify these judgments by using the criteria given to you by your lecturer or indicated in the theory.
PDF WRITING A CRITICAL REVIEW
to understand the critical commentary that follows. The summary should be . objective and should not include any personal interpretation or discussion. In a research based article, summarise each section of the article. The purpose of the critique is to express your judgments and comments about the writing you are reviewing.
PDF Writing a Critical Review
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
Assignment 1: A Critical Review
The purpose of the review is to provide an analysis and assessment of this exhibit, showing how it succeeds or falls short in engaging and conveying scientific ideas and information to its target audience. Format and Content of the Review. The review should be written in the form of an essay. It should include:
Five tips for developing useful literature summary tables for writing
Literature reviews offer a critical synthesis of empirical and theoretical literature to assess the strength of evidence, develop guidelines for practice and policymaking, and identify areas for future research.1 It is often essential and usually the first task in any research endeavour, particularly in masters or doctoral level education. For effective data extraction and rigorous synthesis ...
Charles Williams: A Critical Essay : Mary McDermott Shideler : Free
Charles Williams: A Critical Essay by Mary McDermott Shideler. Publication date 1966-01-01 Publisher William B. Eerdmans Collection printdisabled; internetarchivebooks Contributor Internet Archive ... plus-circle Add Review. comment. Reviews There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to write a review. 0 Views . DOWNLOAD OPTIONS ...