critical review assignment

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

How to write a critical review

Our guide on what it means to think critically when assessing a piece of writing for a student assignment or a workplace project.

When an academic assignment asks you to “critically review” or include a “critical analysis” of the work of other people, it generally means that you’ll need to “think critically”. This means analysing and assessing the work in terms of what the author was trying to achieve, the approach they took, how they conducted the research, and whether the outcomes were valid and acceptable. 

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. 

Thousands of publications relevant to HR appear every year, via established journals, websites, management consultancy reports and universities all over the world. With so much information becoming available, many of which offer new ideas, new HR theories and approaches, it’s important that HR practitioners can evaluate whether what they read is valid, sound and unbiased. We can’t take everything we read at face value, and it’s an important skill, and a very important activity to conduct, if you’re going to base corporate change and your proposals to management on information from published sources. 

On this page

Selecting an item to review, the critical review process, writing the critical review, useful contacts and books, view our other study guides.

For study purposes, it's likely that you'll be asked to carry out a critical review of one or more journal articles. You may be directed to a specific journal article, or asked to select one based on your own research on a particular topic, or on a topic of your choice.  

If you're given options to make a choice, you're more likely to achieve the required outcome if you use well-known academic journals. These might be found in a library, on HR websites such as HR Focus, or via any online journal hosting service, such as EBSCO which is provided free to CIPD members.  

An article will only be useful for a critical review assignment if the author has stated what the question was, how the research was done and the outcomes or conclusions based on the facts and evidence listed.  

What is a journal?  

A journal (sometimes also called a “ periodical ” ) is a publication produced on a regular continuing basis – it may be weekly, monthly, quarterly (every three months) or annually.  

The titles of journals (for example The Journal of Occupational Psychology ) indicate the main topic focus of the articles contained in it.  

As they are published regularly, journals usually have volume and issue numbers, and sometimes months, to identify them.  

A volume usually covers a specific year – so, for example, volume 45 may be all the issues published in 2013.  

A n issue number refers to a specific instalment of the journal within that volume – they are often numbered issue or number 1, 2, 3, etc.  

A s well as, or instead of, a volume and issue number, some journals use the month of publication. This information is often crucial in finding specific articles.  

There are two main types of journal :  

Academic journal (also called scholarly journals) – T hese often contain research articles written by subject experts; they contain academic commentary and critical evaluation of issues by experts. The articles will be written in an academic style and they may be “ refereed ” or “ peer-reviewed ” – that is they articles are assessed, often by members of an editorial board who are experts in the field, before they are accepted for publication. Articles from this type of journal are usually suitable for a critical review exercise. The International Journal of Human Resource Management and Harvard Business Review are examples.  

Trade or professional journals – T hese usually contain news articles and comment on current issues. The articles often contain practical information and are written in everyday language. They also often have a “ jobs ” section and news of people in that profession. They are likely to be written by journalists rather than academics and don't usually have such rigorous publishing criteria. These articles may not be so suitable for a critical review exercise. People Management is an example.  

Take time to:  

Think about what content are you expecting, based on the title?  

Read the abstract for a summary of the author's arguments.  

Study the list of references to determine what research contributed to the author's arguments. Are the references recent? Do they represent important work in the field by accredited authors?  

Find out more about the author to learn what authority they have to write about the subject. Have they published other works which have been peer-assessed by other experts?  

Read the article carefully, but straight-through the first time to form an impression. You may find it useful to note down your initial reactions and questions. Then re-read it, either right-through or in sections, taking notes of the key ideas. Use these questions as a framework.  

Who was the article written for?  

Why has the author written the article? To survey and summarise research on a topic? Or to present an argument that builds on past research? Or to disagree with another writer’s stated argument?  

Does the author define important terms?  

Is the information in the article fact or opinion? Facts can be verified, while opinions arise from perceptions and interpretation.  

Is the article well-structured? Is it organised logically and easy to follow?  

Is the information well-researched, or is it largely unsupported?  

What are the author’s central arguments or conclusions? Are they supported by evidence and analysis?  

If the article reports on an experiment or study, does the author clearly outline methodology and the expected result?  

Is the article lacking any information or arguments that you expected to find?  

For more on effective reading and note-taking, see our guide on studying effectively.  

A key part of a critical review is assessing the author's “argument”. In this context, the argument is the line of reasoning or the approach or point of view of the author. It may be the author is defending a particular idea. They may be trying to make a case for something, perhaps a new idea, in which case there would then need to be evidence, examples and a clear set of conclusions coming from the research, or investigation done. To be academically acceptable, any outcomes stated should not be just the author's ideas alone, they must be backed up with valid, appropriate evidence.  

Questions to ask yourself about the item you're reviewing are:  

Is there a logical progression through the argument?  

Do you feel the argument is strong enough?  

Is there enough valid evidence?  

Does the author make any assumptions and, if so, are they reasonable?  

Are any surveys valid – for example, is the sample size representative and large enough for any conclusions to be valid?  

Would the findings and conclusions apply to other organisations, or are they too specific? Why?  

Do you think the author was biased? Why? For example, it can be useful to think about who funded the research and whether could that have influenced the findings.  

It's important to remember that you don't need to agree with the author's views – this would form part of your critical thinking.  

A key skill when thinking critically is to be objective in what you are reading or thinking through. Look at both sides of the argument, think of some tests you could do to establish if the ideas are sound. You might apply them to your own organisation for instance.  

The output from critical thinking in a professional context is usually a report – a critical review of the item(s) chosen for a given purpose (for example, as student assignment or, in a work setting, to a project team).  

The steps are to:  

Select your area for review, and the reason for choosing it.  

Identify the different information sources reviewed, naming type, when accessed, and through which online database or source.  

Explain why you chose these source(s) to review (unless they were given to you).  

Highlight and comment on the different research approaches and methods used by the author(s).  

Comment on the argument and conclusions, drawing where necessary on your wider research.  

If required, make recommendations to named stakeholders for sustaining or improving practice, based on the findings in your sources.

Open University – critical reading techniques  

Open University – critically processing what you read  

Palgrave Study Skills – critical thinking  

CAMERON, S. (2009) The business student's handbook: skills for study and employment . 5th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.  

COTTRELL, S. (2013) The study skills handbook . 4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  

COTTRELL, S. (2011) Critical thinking skills . 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  

HORN. R. (2009) The business skills handbook . London: CIPD.  

NORTHEDGE, A. (2005) The good study guide . 2nd ed. Milton Keynes: Open University.  

OPEN UNIVERSITY. (2007) Develop effective study strategies . Milton Keynes: Open University

Our guide to helping you compile bibliographies based on the Harvard system.

There are a number of key considerations when developing an approach to studying to suit you. These study tips will help ensure you study effectively.

Practical advice on the report-writing process, with key steps to improve the quality of business reports

An academic essay is a formal piece of writing which presents an argument to the reader. Learn how to write persuasive and robust academic essays.

Our online Community

A place to learn, debate and connect with other HR and L&D professionals

More on this topic

Interactive career tools, including career assessments, personal development planner, elevator pitch builder, and interview simulator.

Supporting CIPD members in successful job search

Listen to our webinar to hear how our new qualifications could give you the skills and knowledge you need to excel in the people profession.

Latest guides

Practical advice on how people professionals can tackle workplace bullying and conflict

Our guide will help you proactively tackle bullying and workplace disputes

Advice on how to manage your wellbeing when working in HR

Clear and practical advice on the proper use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) or confidentiality clauses and how to avoid inappropriate use

• Jump to menu
• Student Home
• Accept your offer
• How to enrol
• Student ID card
• Set up your IT
• Orientation Week
• Fees & payment
• Academic calendar
• Special consideration
• Transcripts
• The Nucleus: Student Hub
• Referencing
• Essay writing
• Learning abroad & exchange
• Professional development & UNSW Advantage
• Employability
• Financial assistance
• International students
• Equitable learning
• Postgraduate research
• Health Service
• Events & activities
• Emergencies
• Volunteering
• Clubs and societies
• Accommodation
• Health services
• Sport and gym
• Arc student organisation
• Security on campus
• Maps of campus
• Careers portal
• Change password

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.

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.

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 criterion 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 & References

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.

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

The best way to summarise

• Scan the text. Look for information that can be deduced from the introduction, conclusion, title, and headings. What do these tell you about the main points of the article?
• Locate the topic sentences and highlight the main points as you read.
• 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

• Review your summary notes
• Rewrite them in your own words and in complete sentences
• Use reporting verbs and phrases, e.g. 'The author describes…', 'Smith argues that …'.
• Use quotation marks if If you include unique or specialist phrases from the text.

  Next: Some general criteria for evaluating texts

Essay and assignment writing guide.

• Essay writing basics
• Essay and assignment planning
• Answering assignment questions
• Editing checklist
• Structure of a critical review
• General criteria for evaluating
• Sample extracts
• Annotated bibliography
• Reflective writing
• ^ More support

News and notices

Guide to Using Microsoft Copilot with Commercial Data Protection for UNSW Students Published:  20 May 2024

Critical Review

Pdf download, what is a critical review.

A critical review is your opportunity to analyze the content and presentation of a book or an article objectively. You determine the strengths and weaknesses of the text and provide an evaluation of the author’s discussion of the subject matter. A critical review is an assessment of the author’s thesis and evidence to support it. However, it is not your platform to write a summary or present your opinions about the subject matter. 

To write an effective critical review, you’ll need to do more than understand the key ideas of the text. Remember, your end goal is to analyze and evaluate the text’s arguments.

Four Steps to Write a Critical Review 

As with most assignments, there can be many steps that you need to address before you can start the formal writing process. A critical review involves reading, analyzing, and writing. Follow these four steps to get started:

1. Skim over the text 

Examine the organization of the text. How is it divided and what sections are there? Can you identify the thesis and the evidence that supports it? 

Answering these questions will help you understand how the supporting points relate to the thesis or argument. 

Analyze 

2. read critically and take notes .

Identify the thesis. As you read the text, summarize the key ideas of each section or chapter and question how they connect back to the thesis. 

Try to answer these nine questions to start your critical review. If you develop more questions as your read, note them down and see if you can answer them. 

Nine Questions to Start Your Critical Review 

• What is the thesis of the work? Was it clear? Why or why not? 
• Does the author make an argument? Is it valid? Why or why not? 
• What kinds of evidence does the author use to back up his or her argument? Is the evidence used effectively? Why or why not? 
• If appropriate, does the author use both primary and secondary sources? Are these sources used effectively? Why or why not? 
• What is the overall organization of the piece? Is the structure effective? Why or why not? 
• Does the article or book contribute to the scholarly discussion or to topics in your course? 
• Does the author set out plans for future discussion? What are these plans? 
• Does the author have a bias? Is it problematic or explicable? Why or why not? 
• What are the credentials of the author? 

Support your responses to each of your questions by addressing the reasons behind your observations. 

Write 

Now you can begin writing your critical review. Your goal is to argue if the text was effective in its intentions. Justify your arguments with evidence from the text. 

3. Create a thesis based on your evaluation of the text 

Was the text effective in its intentions? Comment on both the strengths and weaknesses of the text in your thesis. 

4. Select a structure to organize your work 

Make sure that your critical review meets your professor’s expectations. Check your assignment instructions to determine if what you’ve included is acceptable. 

Here is a general format that can be used for a critical review: 

Introduction 

Introduce the text you reviewed and comment briefly upon its subject matter. Refer to the text’s thesis. Establish your thesis. 

Summary 

This section is often one third of the total length of the critical review. Include only the need-to-know information about the text: its thesis, main claims, and structure. 

Analysis 

Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the text. You may want to comment upon its sources and its organization. Regardless of what you write, remember that you are analyzing the text’s claims and NOT its subject matter. You may not agree with the thesis, but you need to comment upon how well the author argued the thesis and supported it with logic and argumentation. Support your arguments with evidence from the text. 

Conclusion 

Sum up the most important points and restate your evaluation of the text. 

Back to top

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

Video: Note-taking and Writing Tips to Avoid 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 5, 2024 10:47 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.

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

Mindful Technical Writing Copyright © 2020 by Dawn Atkinson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

PSY290 - Research Methods

• Identifying & Locating Empirical Research Articles
• Survey & Test Instruments

Writing a Critical Review

Sample summaries, verbs to help you write the summary, how to read a scholarly article.

• APA Citation Style Help

A critical review is an academic appraisal of an article that offers both a summary and critical comment. They are useful in evaluating the relevance of a source to your academic needs. They demonstrate that you have understood the text and that you can analyze the main arguments or findings. It is not just a summary; it is an evaluation of what the author has said on a topic. It’s critical in that you thoughtfully consider the validity and accuracy of the author’s claims and that you identify other valid points of view.

An effective critical review has three parts:

• APA citation of article
• Clearly summarizes the purpose for the article and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the research. (In your own words – no quotations.)
• Evaluates the contribution of the article to the discipline or broad subject area and how it relates to your own research.

Steps to Write a Critical Review:

• Create and APA style citation for the article you are reviewing.
• Skim the text: Read the title, abstract, introduction, and conclusion.
• Read the entire article in order to identify its main ideas and purpose.

Q. What were the authors investigating? What is their thesis? Q. What did the authors hope to discover?

        D. Pay close attention to the methods used by the authors to collection information.

Q. What are the characteristics of the participants? (e.g.) Age/gender/ethnicity

Q. What was the procedure or experimental method/surveys used?

Q. Are their any flaws in the design of their study?

  E. Review the main findings in the “Discussion” or “Conclusion” section. This will help you to evaluate the validity of their evidence, and the credibility of the authors.             Q.   Are their conclusions convincing?            Q.   Were their results significant? If so, describe how they were significant.  F. Evaluate the usefulness of the text to YOU in the context of your own research.

Q. How does this article assist you in your research?

Q. How does it enhance your understanding of this issue?

Q. What gaps in your research does it fill?

Good Summary:

Hock, S., & Rochford, R. A. (2010). A letter-writing campaign: linking academic success and civic engagement. Journal  of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 3 (2), 76-82.

Hock & Rochford (2010) describe how two classes of developmental writing students were engaged in a service-learning project to support the preservation of an on-campus historical site. The goal of the assignment was to help students to see how they have influence in their community by acting as engaged citizens, and to improve their scores on the ACT Writing Sample Assessment (WSA) exam. The authors report that students in developmental classes often feel disempowered, especially when English is not their first language. This assignment not only assisted them in elevating their written communication skills, but it also gave real-life significance to the assignment, and by extension made them feel like empowered members of the community. The advancement in student scores serves as evidence to support my research that when students are given assignments which permit local advocacy and active participation, their academic performance also improves.

Bad Summary:

Two ELL classes complete a service-learning project and improve their writing scores. This article was good because it provided me with lots of information I can use. The students learned a lot in their service-learning project and they passed the ACT exam.  

Remember you're describing what someone else has said. Use verbal cues to make this clear to your reader.  Here are some suggested verbs to use: 

* Adapted from: http://www.laspositascollege.edu/raw/summaries.php

• << Previous: Survey & Test Instruments
• Next: APA Citation Style Help >>
• Last Updated: Aug 9, 2024 6:52 PM
• URL: https://paradisevalley.libguides.com/PSY290

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

Book Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will help you write a book review, a report or essay that offers a critical perspective on a text. It offers a process and suggests some strategies for writing book reviews.

What is a review?

A review is a critical evaluation of a text, event, object, or phenomenon. Reviews can consider books, articles, entire genres or fields of literature, architecture, art, fashion, restaurants, policies, exhibitions, performances, and many other forms. This handout will focus on book reviews. For a similar assignment, see our handout on literature reviews .

Above all, a review makes an argument. The most important element of a review is that it is a commentary, not merely a summary. It allows you to enter into dialogue and discussion with the work’s creator and with other audiences. You can offer agreement or disagreement and identify where you find the work exemplary or deficient in its knowledge, judgments, or organization. You should clearly state your opinion of the work in question, and that statement will probably resemble other types of academic writing, with a thesis statement, supporting body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

Typically, reviews are brief. In newspapers and academic journals, they rarely exceed 1000 words, although you may encounter lengthier assignments and extended commentaries. In either case, reviews need to be succinct. While they vary in tone, subject, and style, they share some common features:

• First, a review gives the reader a concise summary of the content. This includes a relevant description of the topic as well as its overall perspective, argument, or purpose.
• Second, and more importantly, a review offers a critical assessment of the content. This involves your reactions to the work under review: what strikes you as noteworthy, whether or not it was effective or persuasive, and how it enhanced your understanding of the issues at hand.
• Finally, in addition to analyzing the work, a review often suggests whether or not the audience would appreciate it.

Becoming an expert reviewer: three short examples

Reviewing can be a daunting task. Someone has asked for your opinion about something that you may feel unqualified to evaluate. Who are you to criticize Toni Morrison’s new book if you’ve never written a novel yourself, much less won a Nobel Prize? The point is that someone—a professor, a journal editor, peers in a study group—wants to know what you think about a particular work. You may not be (or feel like) an expert, but you need to pretend to be one for your particular audience. Nobody expects you to be the intellectual equal of the work’s creator, but your careful observations can provide you with the raw material to make reasoned judgments. Tactfully voicing agreement and disagreement, praise and criticism, is a valuable, challenging skill, and like many forms of writing, reviews require you to provide concrete evidence for your assertions.

Consider the following brief book review written for a history course on medieval Europe by a student who is fascinated with beer:

Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600, investigates how women used to brew and sell the majority of ale drunk in England. Historically, ale and beer (not milk, wine, or water) were important elements of the English diet. Ale brewing was low-skill and low status labor that was complimentary to women’s domestic responsibilities. In the early fifteenth century, brewers began to make ale with hops, and they called this new drink “beer.” This technique allowed brewers to produce their beverages at a lower cost and to sell it more easily, although women generally stopped brewing once the business became more profitable.

The student describes the subject of the book and provides an accurate summary of its contents. But the reader does not learn some key information expected from a review: the author’s argument, the student’s appraisal of the book and its argument, and whether or not the student would recommend the book. As a critical assessment, a book review should focus on opinions, not facts and details. Summary should be kept to a minimum, and specific details should serve to illustrate arguments.

Now consider a review of the same book written by a slightly more opinionated student:

Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 was a colossal disappointment. I wanted to know about the rituals surrounding drinking in medieval England: the songs, the games, the parties. Bennett provided none of that information. I liked how the book showed ale and beer brewing as an economic activity, but the reader gets lost in the details of prices and wages. I was more interested in the private lives of the women brewsters. The book was divided into eight long chapters, and I can’t imagine why anyone would ever want to read it.

There’s no shortage of judgments in this review! But the student does not display a working knowledge of the book’s argument. The reader has a sense of what the student expected of the book, but no sense of what the author herself set out to prove. Although the student gives several reasons for the negative review, those examples do not clearly relate to each other as part of an overall evaluation—in other words, in support of a specific thesis. This review is indeed an assessment, but not a critical one.

Here is one final review of the same book:

One of feminism’s paradoxes—one that challenges many of its optimistic histories—is how patriarchy remains persistent over time. While Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 recognizes medieval women as historical actors through their ale brewing, it also shows that female agency had its limits with the advent of beer. I had assumed that those limits were religious and political, but Bennett shows how a “patriarchal equilibrium” shut women out of economic life as well. Her analysis of women’s wages in ale and beer production proves that a change in women’s work does not equate to a change in working women’s status. Contemporary feminists and historians alike should read Bennett’s book and think twice when they crack open their next brewsky.

This student’s review avoids the problems of the previous two examples. It combines balanced opinion and concrete example, a critical assessment based on an explicitly stated rationale, and a recommendation to a potential audience. The reader gets a sense of what the book’s author intended to demonstrate. Moreover, the student refers to an argument about feminist history in general that places the book in a specific genre and that reaches out to a general audience. The example of analyzing wages illustrates an argument, the analysis engages significant intellectual debates, and the reasons for the overall positive review are plainly visible. The review offers criteria, opinions, and support with which the reader can agree or disagree.

Developing an assessment: before you write

There is no definitive method to writing a review, although some critical thinking about the work at hand is necessary before you actually begin writing. Thus, writing a review is a two-step process: developing an argument about the work under consideration, and making that argument as you write an organized and well-supported draft. See our handout on argument .

What follows is a series of questions to focus your thinking as you dig into the work at hand. While the questions specifically consider book reviews, you can easily transpose them to an analysis of performances, exhibitions, and other review subjects. Don’t feel obligated to address each of the questions; some will be more relevant than others to the book in question.

• What is the thesis—or main argument—of the book? If the author wanted you to get one idea from the book, what would it be? How does it compare or contrast to the world you know? What has the book accomplished?
• What exactly is the subject or topic of the book? Does the author cover the subject adequately? Does the author cover all aspects of the subject in a balanced fashion? What is the approach to the subject (topical, analytical, chronological, descriptive)?
• How does the author support their argument? What evidence do they use to prove their point? Do you find that evidence convincing? Why or why not? Does any of the author’s information (or conclusions) conflict with other books you’ve read, courses you’ve taken or just previous assumptions you had of the subject?
• How does the author structure their argument? What are the parts that make up the whole? Does the argument make sense? Does it persuade you? Why or why not?
• How has this book helped you understand the subject? Would you recommend the book to your reader?

Beyond the internal workings of the book, you may also consider some information about the author and the circumstances of the text’s production:

• Who is the author? Nationality, political persuasion, training, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details about how a work takes shape. Does it matter, for example, that the biographer was the subject’s best friend? What difference would it make if the author participated in the events they write about?
• What is the book’s genre? Out of what field does it emerge? Does it conform to or depart from the conventions of its genre? These questions can provide a historical or literary standard on which to base your evaluations. If you are reviewing the first book ever written on the subject, it will be important for your readers to know. Keep in mind, though, that naming “firsts”—alongside naming “bests” and “onlys”—can be a risky business unless you’re absolutely certain.

Writing the review

Once you have made your observations and assessments of the work under review, carefully survey your notes and attempt to unify your impressions into a statement that will describe the purpose or thesis of your review. Check out our handout on thesis statements . Then, outline the arguments that support your thesis.

Your arguments should develop the thesis in a logical manner. That logic, unlike more standard academic writing, may initially emphasize the author’s argument while you develop your own in the course of the review. The relative emphasis depends on the nature of the review: if readers may be more interested in the work itself, you may want to make the work and the author more prominent; if you want the review to be about your perspective and opinions, then you may structure the review to privilege your observations over (but never separate from) those of the work under review. What follows is just one of many ways to organize a review.

Introduction

Since most reviews are brief, many writers begin with a catchy quip or anecdote that succinctly delivers their argument. But you can introduce your review differently depending on the argument and audience. The Writing Center’s handout on introductions can help you find an approach that works. In general, you should include:

• The name of the author and the book title and the main theme.
• Relevant details about who the author is and where they stand in the genre or field of inquiry. You could also link the title to the subject to show how the title explains the subject matter.
• The context of the book and/or your review. Placing your review in a framework that makes sense to your audience alerts readers to your “take” on the book. Perhaps you want to situate a book about the Cuban revolution in the context of Cold War rivalries between the United States and the Soviet Union. Another reviewer might want to consider the book in the framework of Latin American social movements. Your choice of context informs your argument.
• The thesis of the book. If you are reviewing fiction, this may be difficult since novels, plays, and short stories rarely have explicit arguments. But identifying the book’s particular novelty, angle, or originality allows you to show what specific contribution the piece is trying to make.
• Your thesis about the book.

Summary of content

This should be brief, as analysis takes priority. In the course of making your assessment, you’ll hopefully be backing up your assertions with concrete evidence from the book, so some summary will be dispersed throughout other parts of the review.

The necessary amount of summary also depends on your audience. Graduate students, beware! If you are writing book reviews for colleagues—to prepare for comprehensive exams, for example—you may want to devote more attention to summarizing the book’s contents. If, on the other hand, your audience has already read the book—such as a class assignment on the same work—you may have more liberty to explore more subtle points and to emphasize your own argument. See our handout on summary for more tips.

Analysis and evaluation of the book

Your analysis and evaluation should be organized into paragraphs that deal with single aspects of your argument. This arrangement can be challenging when your purpose is to consider the book as a whole, but it can help you differentiate elements of your criticism and pair assertions with evidence more clearly. You do not necessarily need to work chronologically through the book as you discuss it. Given the argument you want to make, you can organize your paragraphs more usefully by themes, methods, or other elements of the book. If you find it useful to include comparisons to other books, keep them brief so that the book under review remains in the spotlight. Avoid excessive quotation and give a specific page reference in parentheses when you do quote. Remember that you can state many of the author’s points in your own words.

Sum up or restate your thesis or make the final judgment regarding the book. You should not introduce new evidence for your argument in the conclusion. You can, however, introduce new ideas that go beyond the book if they extend the logic of your own thesis. This paragraph needs to balance the book’s strengths and weaknesses in order to unify your evaluation. Did the body of your review have three negative paragraphs and one favorable one? What do they all add up to? The Writing Center’s handout on conclusions can help you make a final assessment.

Finally, a few general considerations:

• Review the book in front of you, not the book you wish the author had written. You can and should point out shortcomings or failures, but don’t criticize the book for not being something it was never intended to be.
• With any luck, the author of the book worked hard to find the right words to express her ideas. You should attempt to do the same. Precise language allows you to control the tone of your review.
• Never hesitate to challenge an assumption, approach, or argument. Be sure, however, to cite specific examples to back up your assertions carefully.
• Try to present a balanced argument about the value of the book for its audience. You’re entitled—and sometimes obligated—to voice strong agreement or disagreement. But keep in mind that a bad book takes as long to write as a good one, and every author deserves fair treatment. Harsh judgments are difficult to prove and can give readers the sense that you were unfair in your assessment.
• A great place to learn about book reviews is to look at examples. The New York Times Sunday Book Review and The New York Review of Books can show you how professional writers review books.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Drewry, John. 1974. Writing Book Reviews. Boston: Greenwood Press.

Hoge, James. 1987. Literary Reviewing. Charlottesville: University Virginia of Press.

Sova, Dawn, and Harry Teitelbaum. 2002. How to Write Book Reports , 4th ed. Lawrenceville, NY: Thomson/Arco.

Walford, A.J. 1986. Reviews and Reviewing: A Guide. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift