¼
Current Students

Critical review

A guide to writing and structuring your critical review for academic success.
Structuring your work
General criteria
Personalise
Students using their phones and laptops at the outdoor desks in the Quadrangle Building

Purpose of a critical review

A critical review is a writing task that requires you to summarise and evaluate a text. This could be a book, chapter, or journal article. To write an effective critical review, you must:

  • Read the selected text thoroughly
  • Refer to related texts to provide a fair and balanced evaluation.

Your goal is to present a reasoned judgement of the selected text's arguments, evidence, and structure.
❗IǰٲԳ

The information provided here is a general guide only. Always follow your assignment instructions and seek clarification from your lecturer or tutor if required.

Understanding ‘critical’ in academic writing

At university, being critical does not mean criticising negatively. Instead, it involves:

  • Questioning the information and opinions in the text
  • Evaluating these within the context of relevant theories, approaches, or frameworks from your course
  • Considering the topic from multiple perspectives by engaging with related texts.

Evaluating a text involves assessing its strengths and weaknesses based on specific criteria. This requires understanding:

  • The text’s content and arguments
  • Its purpose and intended audience
  • How and why it is structured in a particular way.

Your evaluation should reflect a balanced judgement, supported by evidence.

Analysis involves breaking the content and concepts of a text into key components and examining:

  • How these components interrelate or connect

  • The influence of these connections on the text's overall arguments and purpose.

Through analysis, you gain deeper insights into the text’s meaning and implications.

Structure of a critical review

Critical reviews, whether short (one page) or long (4+ pages), typically follow a similar structure. Always check your assessment instructions for specific formatting and structural requirements.

Critical review often feature section headings. These are optional for longer reviews, but can enhance readability.

  • The introduction should include:

    • The author(s) and title of the text
    • A brief explanation of the topic
    • The aim of the text and a summary of its main findings or key arguments
    • An indication of your overall evaluation (positive, negative, or mixed).

    The introduction’s length depends on the type of text being reviewed:

    • Journal article review: Usually one paragraph
    • Book review: Two or three paragraphs.

  • The summary provides an overview of the text’s main points and should occupy about one-third of the review. Include:

    • Key points and limited examples
    • The author’s purpose and intentions
    • A brief description of how the text is structured (optional).

  • The critique evaluates the strengths, weaknesses, and notable features of the text. Use specific criteria and reference other sources to support your evaluation where relevant.

    • You can organise your critique using one of the following methods, depending on the nature and scope of the review:

      • By importance:
        Begin with the most significant conclusions and work towards the less critical points.

      • By balance:
        • For predominantly positive critiques, address the negative aspects first, followed by the positive.
        • For predominantly negative critiques, start with the positive points before highlighting the negative.
      • By criterion:
        For longer critiques, dedicate separate paragraphs to each evaluation criterion, discussing both strengths and weaknesses within each section.

    • In addition to evaluating the text, consider offering constructive recommendations to enhance its quality. These suggestions may focus on:

      • Refining the ideas or arguments presented
      • Improving the research approaches employed
      • Adjusting the theories or frameworks applied.

    • For concise critiques, such as those limited to one page, provide:

      • One paragraph highlighting the positive aspects of the text
      • One paragraph addressing its limitations or areas for improvement.

  • The conclusion is typically brief and should:

    • Restate your overall opinion of the text
    • Summarise any recommendations
    • Offer further qualifications or explanations of your judgement if necessary, to maintain a balanced and fair tone.

    If you’ve referenced other sources in your critique, include a properly formatted reference list at the end of your review.

  • Effective summarising and paraphrasing are crucial for writing a strong critical review:

    • Summarising: Reduces the text to its main points and key ideas. For critical reviews, your summary should comprise about one-quarter to one-third of the entire review
    • Paraphrasing: Rephrases the text in your own words while retaining its original meaning, ensuring your writing is academically sound.

General criteria for evaluating texts

The following list of criteria and focus questions may be useful for reading the text and for preparing the critical review.

Remember to check your assignment instructions for more specific criteria and focus questions that should form the basis of your review. The length of the review/assignment will determine how many criteria you will address in your critique.
  • Criteria Possible focus questions
    Significance and contribution to the field
    • What is the author's aim?
    • To what extent has this aim been achieved?
    • What does this text add to the body of knowledge? This could be in terms of theory, data and/or practical application
    • What relationship does it bear to other works in the field?
    • What is missing/not stated?
    • Is this a problem?
    Methodology or approach (this usually applies to more formal, research-based texts)
    • What approach was used for the research? For example, quantitative or qualitative, analysis/review of theory or current practice, comparative, case study, personal reflection, etc..
    • How objective/biased is the approach?
    • Are the results valid and reliable?
    • What analytical framework is used to discuss the results?
    Argument and use of evidence
    • Is there a clear problem, statement or hypothesis?
    • What claims are made?
    • Is the argument consistent?
    • What kinds of evidence does the text rely on?
    • How valid and reliable is the evidence?
    • How effective is the evidence in supporting the argument?
    • What conclusions are drawn?
    • Are these conclusions justified?
    Writing style and text structure
    • Does the writing style suit the intended audience? For example, expert/non-expert, academic/non-academic, etc.
    • What is the organising principle of the text? Could it be better organised?

Sample extracts

Sample extract from a critical review of an article (introduction and conclusion only).
Acknowledgment: We thank Suwandi Tijia for kindly granting permission to share his work as part of this resource.

[1]A Critical Review of Goodwin et al, 2000, 'Decision making in Singapore and Australia: the influence of culture on accountants’ ethical decisions', Accounting Research Journal, vol.13, no. 2, pp 22-36.

[2]Using Hofstede’s (1980, 1983 and 1991) and Hofstede and Bond’s (1988) five cultural dimensions, Goodwin et al (2000) conducted[3]a study on the influence of culture on ethical decision making between two groups of accountants from Australia and Singapore.[4]This research aimed to provide further evidence on the effect of cultural differences since results from previous research have been equivocal.[5]The study reveals that accountants from the two countries responded differently to ethical dilemmas in particular when the responses were measured using two of the five cultural dimensions. The result agreed with the prediction since considerable differences existed between these two dimensions in Australians and Singaporeans (Hofstede 1980, 1991).[6]However the results of the other dimensions provided less clear relationships as the two cultural groups differed only slightly on the dimensions.[7]To the extent that this research is exploratory, results of this study provide insights into the importance of recognising cultural differences for firms and companies that operate in international settings. However, several limitations must be considered in interpreting the study findings.

….

[8]In summary, it has to be admitted that the current study is[9]still far from being conclusive.[10]Further studies must be undertaken, better measures must be developed, and larger samples must be used to improve our understanding concerning the exact relationship between culture and decision making.[11]Despite some deficiencies in methodology,[12]to the extent that this research is exploratory i.e. trying to investigate an emerging issue, the study has provided some insights to account for culture in developing ethical standards across national borders.

Key

[1]Title and bibliographic details of the text

[2]Introduction

[3]Reporting verbs

[4]Presents the aim/purpose of the article and Key findings

[5]Sentence themes focus on the text

[6]Transition signals provide structure and coherence

[7]Reviewer ’s judgement

[8]Conclusion summarises reviewer’s judgement

[9]Modality used to express certainty and limit overgeneralising

[10]Offers recommendations

[11]Concessive clauses assist in expressing a mixed response

[12]Qualifies reviewer’s judgement

Language features of the critical review

  • These are used to tell the reader what the author thinks or does in their text.

    Komisar begins his article claiming that the new teaching machines represent a new kind of encounter.1

  • Modal verbs and other expressions are used to express degrees of certainty and probability (from high to low). Writers use modality to present ideas as opinions rather than facts.

    The word ‘theory’ has an honorific status. … The same could probably be said for ‘practice’. 1

  • Here an adverbial clause can be used to describe a circumstance that is in contrast or unfavourable to another circumstance. In academic writing, concessive clauses are one way (there are others!) to acknowledge the strength/ validity of an idea before presenting an alternate view. This does not weaken your critique; rather it can show balance and fairness in your analysis.

    Though by no means the first empiricist among the Greek philosophers, Aristotle stood out among his contemporaries for the meticulous care with which he worked. 2

Adapted from:

1 Hyman R (Ed) 1971, Contemporary thought on teaching, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

2 Dunbar R 1995, The trouble with science, Faber & Faber, London.

Looking for personalised study support?

Meet an Academic Learning Facilitator to get constructive feedback on academic skills.