Critical Reading for
Self-Critical Writing:
introduction to a structured
approach for reviewing literature
Mike Wallace and Alison Wray
Aims
1. to introduce a structured approach for
reviewing literature based on analysing
texts at two levels of depth
2. to highlight the parallel between
constructively critical reading of others’
writing in the literature and self-critical
writing as creators of academic literature
for other critical readers
3. to support participants in developing
their ability to engage critically with the
literature
Programme
1. linking constructively critical reading
with self-critical academic writing
2. engaging critically with ‘front-line’
texts – a critical synopsis
3. using a mental map and structuring
an in-depth critical analysis of a text
4. trying out the critical analysis of a text
reporting research
5. building up a comparative critical
review and developing an argument
Three-Part Book Structure (p viii-x)
1. Getting started on critical reading and
self-critical writing, summary analysis of
texts (Ch 1-5)
2. Developing a mental map for navigating
the literature, analysing texts in depth,
writing critical reviews of them (Ch 6-10)
3. Structuring critical reviews of the
literature, incorporating them into a
dissertation, taking forward critical
reading and self-critical writing skills in
an academic career (Ch 11-14)
1. Linking constructively
critical reading with selfcritical academic writing
The Logic of Enquiry
(p vii-viii)
Two-way critical academic discourse:
• as a reader, one evaluates others’
attempts to communicate and convince
through developing their argument
• as a researcher and writer, one develops
one’s own argument that will
communicate with and convince the
projected audience
(Everyone is both a reader and a writer)
Components of an Argument
• the conclusion rests on claims to
knowledge, assertions that something is,
or should be, true
• warranting provides backing for these
claims by drawing on evidence,
• evidence varies, e.g. from literature / own
work:
- research findings
- professional experience
- a definition of a theoretical idea
Being Constructively Critical
• adopting an attitude of scepticism
towards knowledge and its production
• scrutinising arguments to see how far
claims are warranted, and so convincing
• being open-minded, willing to be
convinced if scrutiny removes doubts
• being constructive by attempting to
achieve a worthwhile goal in developing
one’s own argument
Complete the exercise on page B
of the handout (Ch 1 p12-13)
2. Engaging critically
with ‘front-line’ texts
– a critical synopsis
Support and ‘Front-Line’ Literature
(Ch 2 p17-21)
• Support texts, eg textbooks, readers,
handbooks, encyclopaedias
- good for an overview, but light on
evidence supporting claims
• ‘Front-line’ texts, eg accounts of theory, research
reports, accounts of practice, policy statements
- direct reporting of theory, research,
practice, and statements of policy
- most appropriate for advanced students,
and for the approach to be introduced
Critical Reading (Ch 3): Five Critical
Synopsis Questions (p31-4)
A Why am I reading this?
B What are the authors trying to do
in writing this?
C What are the authors saying that’s
relevant to what I want to find out?
D How convincing is what the
authors are saying?
E In conclusion, what use can I
make of this?
Complete the Critical
Synopsis form on page C of
the handout for the research
report article or chapter you
brought (Ch 3 p35)
Self-Critical Writing (Ch 4): Structure
for a Critical Summary (p44)
•
•
•
•
warranting
•
Title
Introducing the text, informed by the answer to Critical
Synopsis Question:
A Why am I reading this?
Reporting the content, informed by the answers to
Critical Synopsis Questions:
B What are the authors trying to do in writing this? and
C What are the authors saying that’s relevant to what I
want to find out?
Evaluating the content, informed by the answer to
Critical Synopsis Question:
D How convincing is what the authors are saying?
Drawing your conclusion, informed by the answer to
Critical Synopsis Question:
E In conclusion, what use can I make of this?
Comparative Critical Summary (Ch 5):
Structure (p49)
•
•
•
•
warranting
•
Title
Introducing the text, informed by answers to
Critical Synopsis Question A for all texts
Reporting the content, informed by answers to
Critical Synopsis Questions B and C for all
texts
Evaluating the content, informed by answers to
Critical Synopsis Question D for all texts
Drawing your conclusion, informed by answers
to Critical Synopsis Question E for all texts
3. Using a mental map
and structuring an indepth critical analysis
of a text
Mental Map for Navigating the
Literature (Ch 6-7)
One
set of tools for thinking
Twodimensions of variation
amongst knowledge claims
Three kinds of knowledge
Four
types of literature
Five
intellectual projects
One set of Tools for Thinking:
the Key to the Mental Map
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Concepts (p64)
Perspectives (p65)
Metaphors (p66)
Theories
Models (p68)
Assumptions (p69)
Ideologies
Two Dimensions of Variation of Claims (p74)
Degree of certainty
Low
High
Degree of generalization
Low
Low vulnerability weak claim,
minimal
generalization
Moderate
vulnerability weak claim,
extensive
generalization
High
Moderate
vulnerability strong claim,
minimal
generalization
High vulnerability -
strong claim,
extensive
generalization
Three Kinds of Knowledge (+ Key)
Theoretical knowledge
developed through
systematic reflection
Tools for
thinking
• concepts
Research
knowledge
developed through
systematic
investigation
• perspectives
• metaphors
• theories
• models
• assumptions
• ideologies
Practice
knowledge
developed through
taking action
Four Types of Literature (p81-2)
1. research - systematic enquiries into
policy and practice by professional
researchers or practitioners, results are
made public
2. practice - by informed professionals who
evaluate others’ practice and by
practitioners who evaluate their practice
3. policy - policy-makers’ desired changes
in practice (negative evaluation of
present)
4. theoretical - ideas and models for
interpreting and explaining practice
Five Intellectual Projects (p86-7)
Project
Rationale
Value stance
Typical question
UnderstandIng
Understand through
theory and research
Disinterested
What happens
and why?
Critical
Evaluate through
evaluation theory and research
Critical
What is wrong
with what
happens?
Action
Inform policy-makers
and practitioners
through research and
evaluation
Positive towards
How effective are
policy and
actions to improve
improving practice practice?
Instrumentalism
Improve practice
through training and
consultancy
Positive towards
How may this
policy and
programme
improving practice improve practice?
Reflexive
action
Improve own practice Critical of practice, How effective is
through evaluation
positive about
my practice? How
and action
improving
may I improve?
Critical Synopsis and Critical
Analysis Questions (Ch 8) (p92)
A
1.
B
2.
3.
C
4.
Why am I reading this?
What review question am I asking of this
literature?
What are the authors trying to do in
writing this?
What type of literature is this?
What kind of intellectual project is being
undertaken?
What are the authors saying that’s
relevant to what I want to find out?
What is being claimed that is relevant
to answering my review question?
D
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
E
10.
How convincing is what the authors are
saying?
How far is there backing for claims?
How adequate is any conceptual or
theoretical orientation to back claims?
How far does any value stance adopted
affect claims?
How far are claims supported or
challenged by others' work?
How far are claims consistent with my
experience?
In conclusion, what use can I make of this?
What is my overall evaluation of this
literature in the light of my review question?
4. Trying out the critical
analysis of a text
reporting research
Decide on your review question(s)
and complete the Critical
Analysis form for the research
report article or chapter you
brought (book Appendix 3)
Useful Sources of Assistance
• Mental map Ch 6-7
• Types of literature and
potential limitations Table 7.1
(p81-2)
• Guidance on using Critical
Analysis form (p93-99)
Critical Text Review Structure
(Ch 10 p117-8)
•
•
•
•
•
•
warranting
•
Title - keywords
Introduction – state purpose (review questions –
critical analysis Q1)
Summary of research design – purposes (Q2, 3),
relevance to review questions (Q1), procedure
Main findings and claims – up to 5 claims relating to
review question (Q4), range of contexts to which
applied
Evaluation of claims – for context from which
derived, applicability to other contexts (Q5-9)
Conclusion – overall evaluation, summary answer to
review question (Q10)
References
5. Building up a
comparative critical
review and developing
an argument
Developing a Critical Literature
Review (Ch11): Definition (p130)
• a reviewer’s constructively critical
account
• developing an argument designed to
convince a particular audience
• about what published (and possibly
also unpublished)
• theory, research, practice or policy
texts indicate is and is not known
• about one or more questions that the
reviewer has framed
Literature Review Structure Based on Critical
Analyses and Critical Synopses (p134-5)
•
Introduction – purpose, justification, scope, limitations, signposting
Sections building up the
warranting of your
argument
Introduction to texts being
reviewed
Authors’ main claims
relevant to review question
Evaluation of authors’ main
claims
Based on answers to
Critical Analysis
Questions for central
texts
Based on answers
to Critical Synopsis
Questions for more
peripheral texts
2, 3
B
4
C
5-9
D
10
E
Final section setting out
conclusion of argument
Summary of evaluation
answering review question
•
References
Extended Structure for Multiple Review
Questions (p139-40)
•
•
Introduction – purpose, justification, scope, limitations, signposting
Section addressing the first review question
Subsections building up the
warrant of your argument for
this section
Based on answers
to Critical Analysis
Questions for
central texts
Based on answers
to Critical Synopsis
Questions for more
peripheral texts
Introduction to texts being
reviewed
Authors’ main claims relevant
to first review question
Evaluation of authors’ main
claims
2, 3
B
4
C
5-9
D
10
E
Final subsection setting out
conclusion of argument
Summary of evaluation
answering first review
question
•
Section addressing second
Subsections leading to
conclusion of argument
answering second review
question
•
Section addressing
Subsections leading to
conclusion of argument
answering third review
question
•
•
review question
Based on answers
to Critical Analysis
Questions for
central texts
Based on answers
to Critical Synopsis
Questions for more
peripheral texts
third review question
Based on answers
to Critical Analysis
Questions for
central texts
Conclusion for whole literature review
References
Based on answers
to Critical Synopsis
Questions for more
peripheral texts
Thematic Review Structure (not in book)
•
Introduction – purpose, justification, scope, limitations, signposting
Sections building up the
warranting of your
argument
Based on answers to
Critical Analysis
Questions for central
texts
Based on answers to
Critical Synopsis
Questions for more
peripheral texts
Introduction to texts being
reviewed
2, 3
B
Authors’ main claims and
evaluation, Theme 1
Authors’ main claims and
evaluation, Theme 2
4, 5-9
4, 5-9
C, D
C, D
10
E
Final section setting out
conclusion of argument
Summary of thematic
evaluation answering
review question
•
References
Electronic Resources
Blank forms (which can be used
as masters) can be downloaded
from the website:
www.sagepub.co.uk/wallace
• Critical Synopsis form
• Critical Analysis form
Good luck!