CETM11

Writing a comparative literature

review

What makes a review critical?

Wallace and Wray (2009) consider that critical literature

reviews are personal and they define a critical literature
review as
a reviewers constructively critical account,
developing an argument designed to convince a
particular audience about what the published and
possibly unpublished- literature (theory, research,
practice or policy) indicates is and is not known about
one or more questions that the reviewer has framed

We need to consider carefully some very important

points made in the above quotation.

Developing an argument
You decide on the focus of your review of the
selected texts and you engage critically with
them and interpret and synthesise your findings.
Most importantly of all, you must communicate
your findings clearly and logically. This is best
done if you have an argument that a reader can
follow.
Looking for gaps in the literature
How novel is the work that you are reviewing?
what is known and unknown you need to know the
range of research and issues in your chosen topic area.

How to write critically

The review is NOT just a description of the text,
this just restates what is in the text (including
the abstract).
You will gain a poor marks for the assignments
if you write descriptive text.
One sign is that you have too much text taken
from the original sources

You will need:

a criterion for selecting some texts for inclusion,
rejecting others and homing in on a few of the most
relevant texts for in-depth analysis
a plan for reading selectively so you save time by not
reading the whole text in detail
answers to the Q 5 questions for the selected texts
to synthesise your findings into a logically structured
account that is framed around a convincing, objective
argument (with support for your arguments where
possible)
to NOT write unsupported opinions such as I agree
with the authors that..... you are not an authority
(published author) in the topic area.

ASSIGNMENT 1
You have been provided with the 2 papers you
want to critique (NB this is a change to previous
years assignments).

analyse each of the papers separately

Perhaps do a mind map of the structure of each
one with issues identified or answers to the Q5
questions
then compare each paper for the hierarchy of
issues each papers presents

draw out the similarities and differences in:

approaches, methods and results and findings.

Q5 Technique:
Coherence as a theory of truth
The Q 5 technique asks 5 questions-it helps formulating
ideas that you can map onto a V diagram when planning
research and also when analysing someone elses work.
Using the Q5 according to Gowan and Alvarez gives the
research a sense of the extent of the coherence of the
research investigation.

1. What is the question?

2. What are the key concepts?
3. What are the methods used?
4. What answers are presented?
5. So what?

ttp://www.mind-mapping.co.uk/makemind-map.htm
The 'Laws of Mind Mapping' were originally
devised by Tony Buzan when he codified the
use of imagery, colour and association and
coined the phrase 'Mind Mapping'.
In the intervening 30 plus years, there have
been many variations on the original 'Mind Map
' and the widespread usage of mapping
software of various sorts, has dramatically
changed what is possible.

How to construct a mind map

How to create a mind map (after Tony

Buzan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UCXalYc
oko

Criticality: critical thinking,

reading & writing.
Criticality is vital to producing high quality work at
university, combining critical thinking, reading and writing.
Many final year assessments explicitly specify criticality.
You should assume all such work implicitly requires it,
even where it is not directly requested.
Criticality is:
Active, persistent and careful consideration of a belief or
supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds
which support it and the further conclusions to which it
tends. Dewey, 1909.
This requires both the
(1) understanding of what is required and skills to
do this. These can be taught
(2) personal attitude, disposition, willingness
which may be hard to teach.

Core characteristics of criticality

Identify elements in a reasoned case.
Identify and evaluate assumptions, bias, point of
view.
Clarify and interpret ideas, paradigms, concepts,
observations, information.
Judge the credibility of claims and evidence.
Analyse, evaluate and create explanations.
Draw inferences and consequences, implications,
options, risks.
Evaluate the arguments and reach a judgement.

Core characteristics of criticality

Identify elements in a reasoned case.
Identify and evaluate assumptions, bias, point of
view.
Clarify and interpret ideas, paradigms, concepts,
observations, information.
Judge the credibility of claims and evidence.
Analyse, evaluate and create explanations.
Draw inferences and consequences, implications,
options, risks.
Evaluate the arguments and reach a judgement.

Advice on writing critically.

Intro: Scope and stakes. How big an issue is it and why does it
matter?
Bullet proof evidence for main claims, in logical sequence.
Build arguments, with a visible structure, rock solid links (rather
than separate literature leaving the reader to join the dots).
Diverse, contested, nuanced argument, understanding
contradictory points of view.
Distinguish fact and opinion.
Contemporary literature. Likely to include early view type
journal publication.,(dont forget classic papers and history of ideas
too).
Critique knowledge, unveil new approaches, follow up with
suggestions of new developments.
Be reflexive, aware of your opinions and assumptions. Include
them, rooted firmly in wider evidence.
Reach a conclusion, based on the evidence.