writing a critical review 2010-10.doc

Writing a Critical Review What is a Critical Review?A critical review as discussed in this chapter is a formal academic or professional critical review.It is a formal discussion of the contents, implications, and quality of an academic or professional text: a nonfiction book, essay, or article.Sometimes non-text materials, such as educational videos, also are discussed using this formal model of reviewing. A critical review is not a book report, nor is it a literary analysis, literary review , movie review, or other arts review that works with the elements of literature or art. Rather, a critical review is a thorough, usually formal discussion that uses a variety of critical-thinking tools, especially:(a) logical, accurate summary; (b) discussion or analysis of arguments, implications, and responses; and (c) evaluative weighing of the quality of the writing, organization, and contents.Critical Reviews in daily lifeExamples of critical reviews are most common in simple, less formal versions appearing in newspapers and magazines. These reviews are of educational nonfiction books with contents organized by subject matter (not in story form).Such reviews summarize the content of the text being reviewed, discuss various opinions or possible responses from the public, and evaluate how well the text has been developed.Examples of formalacademic or professionalreviews often can be found in the latter half of academic and professional journals and magazines. A formal review often discusses two, three, or more texts on a single subject at the same time, thus enabling the reviewer to compare and contrast several works. Like a newspaper review, a professional or academic review summarizes the contents of the works reviewed.However, in discussing opinions, it often does not worry as much about public opinions and responses but rather those of experts in the field. And in evaluating the quality of the works reviewed, the value and method of research often is considered much more important than the quality of the writing.Critical Reviews in college workIn your college work, you read to gain and use new information, but as sources are not equally valid or equally useful, you must learn to distinguish critically among them by evaluating them, thus you are often called on to respond critically to source materials by writing critical reviews.The critical review here is a writing task that asks you to summarize and evaluate a text. The critical review can be of a book, a chapter, or a journal article, or at a more advanced level, of several articles or books. The purpose of writing a critical review is to deepen your readers, and also your own, understanding of that text. It is subjective writing because it expresses your opinion or evaluation of a text. But the writing itself must be objective as you must base your opinion and evaluation on evidences, and you must hold an objective tone throughout your writing.Here to be critical does not mean to criticize in a negative manner. Rather it requires you to question the information and opinions in a text and present your evaluation or judgment of the text, including both its strengths and weaknesses. To do this well, you should attempt to do critical reading of the selected text. You need to understand the topic from different perspectives, that is, you need to read not only the selected text, but also related texts as well. Moreover, evaluating requires an understanding of not just the content of the text, but also an understanding of a texts purpose, intended audience and why it is structured the way it is. Critical Reading for a Critical ReviewWriting a critical review naturally requires, first of all, critical reading of the source material. At the basic level, you may start your reading by posing two broad categories of questions about your selected passages, articles, and books. 1. What is the authors purpose in writing? Does the author succeed in this purpose?2. To what extent do you agree with the author?With these two categories of questions in mind, read the selected text and do the following:1. Identify the authors thesis and purpose. 2. Identify the intended audience, and the writers assumptions about the audience.3. Analyze the structure of the passage by identifying all main ideas. 4. Make an outline of the work or write a description of it. 5. Write a summary of the work. 6. Determine the purpose which could bel To inform with factual material. l To persuade with appeal to reason or emotions. l To entertain (to affect peoples emotions). 7. Evaluate the means by which the author has accomplished his purpose. l If the purpose is to persuade, look for evidence, logical reasoning, persuasive strategies, contrary evidence. l If the purpose is to inform, see if the material has been presented clearly, accurately, with order and coherence, and if the material is up-to-date, if the material makes a difference to the intended audience, and if the material is interpreted fairly.l If the purpose was to entertain, determine how emotions are affected, check to see: if it makes you laugh, cry, or angry, and how it affects you, if the characters seem overly sentimental, for example, if the adversaries seem too villainous or stupid, if the situations are believable, if the action is interesting, or merely formulaic, if the theme developed powerfully, or if it is just preachy or shrill.8. Check the overall style of the text: whether the tone is appropriate, whether the language is fresh and incisive.9. Identify points of agreement and disagreement with the author: whether you agree enthusiastically, disagree, or agree with reservations, you can organize your reactions in two parts:l summarize the authors positionl state your own position and elaborate on your reactions for holding it 10. Explore the reasons for agreement and disagreementl think about the assumptions you holdl determine the validity of the writers assumptions by comparing the authors assumptions with yoursyour own experience, observations, reading, and value so as to To more formal, research-based text, the following list of criteria and focus questions may be useful for reading the text and for preparing the critical review. You dont have to explore all of them, but try to consider some of the most important. The length of the review will determine how many criteria you will address in your critique.1. Significance and contribution to the fieldl What is the authors aim? l To what extent has this aim been achieved? l What does this text add to the body of knowledge? (This could be in terms of theory, data and/or practical application) l What relationship does it bear to other works in the field? l What is missing/not stated? l Is this a problem?2. Methodology or approachl What approach was used for the research? (eg; quantitative or qualitative, analysis/review of theory or current practice, comparative, case study, personal reflection etc) l How objective/biased is the approach? l Are the results valid and reliable? l What analytical framework is used to discuss the results?3. Argument and use of evidencel Is there a clear problem, statement or hypothesis? l What claims are made? l Is the argument consistent? l What kinds of evidence does the text rely on? l How valid and reliable is the evidence? l How effective is the evidence in supporting the argument? l What conclusions are drawn?l Are these conclusions justified?4. Writing style and text structurel Does the writing style suit the intended audience? (e.g: expert/non-expert, academic/non- academic) l What is the organizing principle of the text? Could it be better organized?Development Approaches for a Critical Review1. Analyze the effectiveness of the text. Here the response focuses on the most important elements of the text and evaluates their effectiveness: the clarity of the main idea the organization of the argument the quality of the evidence the overall effect of the text, conveyed through tone and apparent attitude of the texts author2. Agree or disagree with the ideas in the text. Here the review focuses on a respondents reaction to the ideas or effect of the text. It is important to note here that often it is not necessary (or even desirable) to completely agree or complete disagree. In fact, a quite reasonable and credible review will agree with some points and disagree with others. 3. Interpret and reflect on the text. Here the respondent explains, examines, and/or theorizes on the meaning of the whole and the parts of the text, its implications and its contributions to understanding of the topic.Kinds of Evidence to UseDifferent kinds of evidence can be chosen to support your review. You might well use:l evidence from the text itselfl personal experiencel outside sourcesl or some combination of these.It is rarely necessary to use all three of these kinds of evidence, but the important thing is to have sufficient evidence to support the ideas youre proposing, the point youre making, and to ensure that you are indeed providing a main, overall pointthe inferential thesisthat is coherent. A simple laundry list will not do. Structure of a Critical ReviewCritical reviews, both short ones like a one-page review and long ones like a four-page review, usually have a four part structure: introduction, summary, critique, and conclusion. Headings are usually optional for longer reviews and can be helpful for the reader.1. Introductionl Introduce both the text under analysis and the author. State the authors main argument and the point(s) you intend to make about it.l Provide background material to help your readers understand the relevance or appeal of the passage. This background material might include one of the following points: An explanation of why the subject is of current interest A reference to a possible controversy surrounding the subject of the passage or the passage itself Biographical information about the author, An account of the circumstances under which the passage was written A reference to the intended audience of the passagel Conclude the introduction with a brief statement of your evaluation of the text. This can be a positive or negative evaluation or, as is usually the case, a mixed response.The length of an introduction is usually one paragraph for a journal article review and two or three paragraphs for a longer book review. 2. SummaryPresent a summary of the key points along with a limited number of examples. You can also briefly explain the authors purpose/intentions throughout the text and you may briefly describe how the text is organized. The summary should only make up about a third of the critical review. 3. Critique: arguments and evaluationsThe critique should be a balanced discussion and evaluation of the strengths, weakness and notable features of the text. It is a fair assessment of the presentation 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 judgment 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. 4. ConclusionThis 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 judgment can be included. This can help your critique sound fair and reasonable. Organization Patterns Typically a review will take one of the forms suggested below: Pattern #1:I. Introduction to textII. Summary of textIII. Arguments and evaluationsA. Point 1B. Point 2C. Point 3, etc.IV. ConclusionPattern #2: Notice the initial focus upon key issues. I. Introduction to key issues II. Summary of relevant text III. Arguments and evaluations A. Point 1 B. Point 2 C. Point 2, etc. IV. ConclusionPattern #3: integrating summary and response. I. Introduction to issues and/or text II. Summary of texts point 1/response to point 1 III. Summary of texts point 2/response to point 2 IV. Summary of texts point 3/response to point 3, etc. V. Conclusion Critical review of More Than One TextIf you are reviewing several texts, you will need to work more thoroughly in your earlier drafts to fully and effectively combine them.If you are starting by looking for appropriate articles or books to review, first choose a subject which is recent or important in your academic or professional field; then make a quick survey of recent texts that are available on that subject and choose two or three (or more) that you understand well and would like to review.You may start a first draft after reading all of your texts; however, it also is possible to start your first draft after reading only one or two and then adding other texts to your review as you read them.Whichever way you start, be aware of how much extra time you will need to find the number of texts you want to review and additional sources, if any, that you will need to find in support of what you are saying. The library and/or Internet portion of starting a longer review like this can take quite a bit of time. It is important to intermix and analyze multiple reviews in a rich and sophisticated manner, comparing and contrasting their ideas to each other. The way to do this is, in the third (arguments/implications) and fourth (evaluations) sections, to organize your paragraphs by ideas, not by texts, so that you can discuss multiple texts at any given place.Organizational Plan #1:I. IntroductionII. Summary: summary of essay A, Summary of essay B, Summary of essay C, and Summary of essay DIII. Arguments and ImplicationsA. First major idea, as found in essays A, B, and C, professional/public responses/implicationsB. Second major idea, as found in essays B and C, professional/public responses/implicationsC. Third major idea, as found in essays A and D: professional/public responses/implicationsD. Fourth major idea, as found in essays B, C, and D: professional/public responses/implicationsIV. EvaluationsA. 1st Evaluative criterion or set of criteria: evaluation of all four essaysB. 2nd Evaluative criterion or set of criteria: evaluation of the three applicable essays C. 3rd Evaluative criterion or set of criteria: evaluation of the three applicable essays D. 4th Evaluative criterion or set of criteria: evaluation of all four essaysV. ConclusionNotice that in body sections III and IV above, there is always discussion of at least two of the reviewed texts in any given subsection. In this way, you offer your audience an automatic process of comparison and contrast of the texts. As you choose the ideas or subcategories for your third and fourth body sections, you may find it best to select those that will apply to as many of your texts as possible. Doing so not only provides a richer interplay of comparison among the texts but also provides wider coverage of the texts ideas, strengths, and weaknesses.Organization Plan #2:In this alternative method, you simply move from major idea to major idea in the texts. Within each idea section, you first summarize how the idea exists in the text; then you discuss/analyze arguments/implications; and, finally, you evaluate the use or development of that particular idea. If you are in an intermediate or advanced undergraduate course, this type of critical review might be preferred.I. IntroductionII. First Major Idea in Reviewed Texts: Summary, Arguments/Implications, & EvaluationsIII. Second Major Idea in Reviewed Texts: Summary, Arguments/Implications, & EvaluationsIV. Third Major Idea in Reviewed Texts: Summary, Arguments/Implications, & EvaluationsV. Fourth, Fifth, etc. Major Idea in Reviewed Texts: Summary, Arguments/Implications, & EvaluationsVI. ConclusionOrganizational Plan #3I. IntroductionII. Section #1: Summary of Essays or BooksIII. Section #2: First Major Idea in Reviewed Texts:Summary, Arguments/Implications, & EvaluationsIV. Section #3: Second Major Idea in Reviewed Texts:Summary, Arguments/Implications, & EvaluationsV. Section #4: Third Major Idea in Reviewed Text:Summary, Arguments/Implications, & EvaluationsVI. Section #5: Fourth Major Idea in Reviewed Text:Summary, Arguments/Implications, & Evaluations VII. ConclusionSample Critical ReviewsSample #1: Review of Condom use will increase the spread of AIDSby Petter WollIntroduction