Skip to main

Critical reviews

A critical review asks you to respond to a source, like a journal article or book/chapter. You’ll break it down, reflect on it, and share your take. It’s all about what you think of it.

A critical review (sometimes called a 'summary and critique') is your chance to respond thoughtfully to a single source, like a journal article, book chapter, or whole book. It’s like an annotated bibliography, but longer, usually around 800–1000 words or more. 

You’ll start with a short introduction, then summarise the key ideas from the source text. Your summary should be clear enough that someone could understand the review without reading the source.

After that, you’ll dive into your appraisal or critique of those ideas (what you think, how they hold up, and how they connect to your field), ending with a short conclusion. The summary and critique sections should be of roughly equal length.

Use your own words to paraphrase the key ideas in the summary section and your own critical evaluation in response to the article in the critique section. Also, no headings or subheadings, and no quotes. Just a clean, flowing piece of writing.

What is a critique?

It is an assessment of both the positive and negative elements of an article. You must make clear judgments – don’t ‘sit on the fence’.

When you read an article prior to writing a critical review, think about the following:

  • Objectives: what does the article set out to do? What is the writer/research intention or purpose?
  • Question: what is the research question(s)? Are you convinced by the answers to these questions?
  • Hypotheses: Are there specific hypotheses? Are the hypotheses testable?
  • Theory: is there an explicit theoretical framework? If not, are there important theoretical assumptions or beliefs?
  • Concepts: what are the central concepts in the article? Are they clearly defined? Has the author overlooked key concepts?
  • Argument: what is the central argument? Is it valid and are the premises sound? Do you agree with it?
  • Method: what methods are employed to test the hypothesis(es)? Are they reasonable (see below)
  • Evidence: is evidence provided in the article? How adequate is it?
  • Values: what value judgments does the author express? Are they clear or are they tacit/hidden? Should they be made clearer?
  • Literature: how does the work fit into the wider literature in the area? Is important literature in the field missing?
  • Contribution: how well does the work advance our knowledge of the subject?
  • Style: how clear is the author’s language/style/expression?      
    (adapted from ANU, 2022)

In relation to methodological considerations, ask yourself:

  • Is the method sound and validated, considering other research in the field?
  • Is there a sufficient sample size of participants tested (if a quantitative study)?
  • If questionnaires are used, are the questions clear and unambiguous? Fair/unfair?
  • Are common flaws identified in the research design, such as confirmation or observer bias, or unexplained or overstated results?
  • Does the evidence support the conclusions?

 

Structure of a critical review

References

Australian National University. (2022). Critical review. https://www.anu.edu.au/students/academic-skills/writing-assessment/other-assessments/critical-review

Davies, M. (2022). 'Writing a critical review: A step by step guide'. In Study skills for international postgraduates. Bloomsbury. https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/study-skills-for-international-postgraduates-9781352012569/

University of new South Wales. (2022). Structure of a critical review. https://www.student.unsw.edu.au/structure-critical-review

More resources