Critiquing the Literature basic & advanced

Basic Approach

Step 1: Initial Analysis

Create comprehensive summary tables for each article

Step 2: Systematic Critique

Apply a critical framework e.g CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) framework to each article

Step 3: Individual Article Appraisal

Conduct sequential analysis of each article
Include mini-conclusion for each article
Maintain isolated focus on individual papers

Step 4: Summative Conclusion

Synthesize key findings across articles
Address original research question
Identify gaps in current literature
Suggest future research directions
Present implications for practice

More advanced Approach to critical analysis

Step 1: Enhanced Initial Analysis

Create comprehensive summary tables for each article
Develop research matrix identifying, interconnections, emerging patterns, between studies

Step 2: Systematic Critique

Apply a framework e.g CASP
Evaluate how articles collectively contribute to field

Step 3: Thematic Critical Discussion

Structure analysis around identified themes

Provide theme-specific conclusions

Step 4: Comprehensive Conclusion

Present sophisticated synthesis of themes

Address original research question

Evaluate collective strength of evidence

Identify patterns across themes

Discuss theoretical and practical implications

Propose future research directions

Consider broader impact on field

Critical Appraisal: Where to start

If we look at building a critical discussion this starts with finding the right articles. Once found these need analysing, evaluating and writing up. The steps below will guide you through this.

Step 1 Initial Appraisal of the Literature

The first step is to use an appraisal tool to assess their quality. One way of doing this is to use the CASP checklist, their are others out there, the key is to find one that suits you and your ability. First read the article and use the checklist (making sure this matches the research method). Once complete move onto the next article. When all the articles are complete the next stage is writing the up! The rigor behind this step depends on your research methods. A Systematic Review requires a higher level of transparancy and reliability.

Step 2 Organise your sources, summarising the chosen articles

Before writing, you need to organise your notes in a way that allows you to see the relationships the sources. In order to do this using the CASP checklists can help to organise your thoughts. Once complete combine these placing the articles into a summary table (below). Depending on your topic and the type of literature you’re dealing with, there are a couple of different ways you can organise this.

One way is a Summary table

The summary table gives you a quick overview of the key points of each source. This allows you to group sources by relevant similarities, as well as noticing important differences or contradictions in their findings. Theres not set way of doing these, the idea is you summarise points important to your topic. Here are a few examples:

Example

Step 3 Writing up the Appraisal

After summarising your articles, the next step is to decide how to write them up. Below are two approaches: a basic method and a more complex one, depending on your ability. These are just two options; there are other ways to write a critical discussion.

BASIC The first and most simple is to write them in series. E.g write about one article (this could be based on your CASP checklist) then the next until all are written up finishing with a conclusion.

HARDER More academic The second is to synthesis the write up combining the articles by using Summary Tables or Synthesis matrix. This link will help you to understand why sythesis is useful in research. It will look more closely on how you can achieve this.

Critical Appraisal - basic

INDIVIDUAL ARTICLE APPRAISAL EXAMPLE (NON SYNTHESISED):

Mickel et al. (2006) Prophylactic Bracing Versus Taping for the Prevention of Ankle Sprains in High School Athletes

This randomised controlled trial by Mickel et al. (2006) investigated the effectiveness of ankle bracing compared to taping in preventing sprains among high school football players. While the study design addressed a relevant question, limitations hinder its generalisability and definitive conclusions. 

A key strength lies in the randomisation process, minimising selection bias. However, the absence of a control group receiving no intervention (neither brace nor tape) weakens the ability to determine if bracing or taping truly reduces sprain incidence. Both groups received an ankle intervention, making it impossible to isolate the specific effect of bracing or taping compared to no intervention at all. 

Furthermore, the study included only healthy athletes with no history of ankle sprains. The generalisability of the findings to athletes with a history of sprains, who might benefit more from preventive measures, is therefore limited. Additionally, participants were not blinded to the intervention, potentially introducing bias. Those wearing braces might feel more secure and alter their behaviour, influencing sprain rates. 

The study effectively measured objective outcomes (ankle sprain incidence) but lacked qualitative data. Including information on participant experiences, such as comfort and ease of use of braces or tape, would provide valuable insights for practical application. 

Despite no statistically significant difference in sprain rates between groups, the study suggests potential cost benefits of bracing. However, a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing both interventions to no intervention would provide a more comprehensive picture. 

In conclusion, this study provides limited evidence for the effectiveness of bracing or taping in preventing ankle sprains in high school football players. The lack of a control group and the use of healthy subjects restrict the generalisability of the findings. Future research should incorporate a control group and consider participant experiences alongside objective outcomes to provide a more holistic understanding of preventive measures for ankle sprains. 

Critical Appraisal - Advanced (more synthesis)

In addition to the summary table advanced critical appraisal uses a Synthesis Matrix (table) organising the articles around themes important in your discussion. An example is given below. Once complete the write up includes paragraphs around each particular theme.

Why being critical is important

Imagine building a house – you wouldn't just stack any old bricks, right? You'd check their quality and how they fit. A strong literature review is the same. Being critical is key because:

Not all research is perfect: Like wonky bricks, studies can have flaws. Critical thinking helps you choose reliable sources to build your argument.
Different perspectives matter: Studies often disagree, offering a richer picture. Critically comparing them shows you understand the topic's complexity.
Avoid the echo chamber: Accepting everything uncritically creates an echo chamber of similar ideas. Critical thinking helps you identify gaps and unanswered questions, leading to new research avenues.
Become your own authority: Evaluating past research shows you can think independently and form your own informed opinions, strengthening your research.
Open doors to discoveries: Critical thinking can uncover blind spots missed before, potentially sparking new ideas and discoveries.

Remember, a literature review isn't just about summarising sources, it's about critical analysis and building upon them. So, think critically and build a strong foundation for your research!

Criticality: So what actually is it - Lets keep it simple

Criticality goes beyond just summarising sources. It's about actively engaging with the existing research in your field. Here's a breakdown of the two steps of critical writing:

1. Analysis: Become a Scholarly Detective

Methodological Scrutiny: Don't just accept the findings at face value. Examine the research methods used (surveys, experiments, etc.). Were they appropriate for the research question? Are there potential limitations that could affect the results?
Dissecting Findings and Interpretations: Evaluate the data and how the authors interpret it. Are the conclusions well-supported? Are there alternative explanations for the findings?
Identifying Biases: Everyone has biases, including researchers. Consider the researcher's background and potential biases that might influence their interpretation.
Connecting to Your Argument: Analyze how each source relates to your own research question and thesis. Does it support your argument? Does it offer a contrasting viewpoint?

2. Evaluation: Building a Strong Foundation

Comparison and Contrast: Compare and contrast different studies on the same topic. Are there consistent findings across studies, or are there contradictions? How do they explain these inconsistencies?
Relevance to Your Research: Evaluate how each source contributes to your research question. Is it directly relevant? Does it offer a broader context for your work?
Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: As you analyze the literature, you may identify areas where research is lacking. This can help you refine your own research question and identify your unique contribution to the field.

Remember, criticality is a conversation. You are not just reporting on what others have said; you are entering a dialogue with existing scholarship. You can use your analysis to:

Highlight strengths and weaknesses of previous research.
Build on existing knowledge by offering new interpretations or taking research in a new direction.
Identify unanswered questions that can guide your own research.

By employing a critical approach, you demonstrate a deep understanding of your field and build a strong, informed foundation for your research. This will ultimately lead to a more insightful and impactful piece of academic writing.

Examples:

Follow this link to our Post Reg Academic Writing site for more examples.

Why Synthesise Research?

Imagine you are building a puzzle with hundreds of pieces. Each piece is like a research study, with interesting information on your topic. Just looking at individual pieces is useful, but it doesn't give you the whole picture. Adding synthesis into your writing means you can add more pieces, showing less bias, whilst conveying a broader picture of the topic.

In order to do this there are a few key steps:

Gathering your sources
Organising your sources (you have some options here)
- The Synthesis Matrix
- Summary Table
Outline your structure
Writing up

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse