ENGL 102
Writing and Research
Home Page >> Overheads >> Critique/Critical Analysis

What is a Critique?

• Goes beyond simple summary
• Analysis of a source in terms of a specific purpose
  • as regular information source
  • as a research source
  • as entertainment
• intended to go beyond objective description
  • MUST include assessment of value
  • opinion of writer is the POINT

• Breaks subject into its individual parts or elements
• Studies those elements in terms of how they work together to create the whole
• Assumes that to understand something, we first have to understand its parts.
• Once we understand the parts, we can see how the parts have value themselves
• you can use parts for YOUR purposes, not just how original source used them
• Standards of a Good Critique
  • Most people see criticism as destruction
  • As picking the subject apart unnecessarily
  • Critique is NOT just negative
  • A proper critique also indicates what was done well
  • Critique is a fair assessment of a source's content and value
  • Different needs or contexts lead to different critical evaluations

---

First Key Element of a Critique

• Always begins with a summary
• Usually written like a standard summary
  • Objective and general ideas only
  • Description of contents, few details
  • No opinion or evaluation yet
• This explains how you understood the source's thesis and argument
• In a standalone critique, this section can be multiple paragraphs (but doesn't have to be)

---

Second Key Element of a Critique

• Always begins with a summary
• Follows with NUTS & BOLTS section
  • multi-paragraph
  • dissects/explains the key points in detail
  • deals with what affected your opinion good/bad
  • explained at great detail - with examples
  • the more you know, the more detailed this section will be
  • your context for the source will affect what you analyze here

---

Third Key Element of a Critique

• Always begins with a summary
• Follows with NUTS & BOLTS section
• Ends with your final analysis/judgment of source
  • Acts as a conclusion
  • Builds on nuts & bolts as well as summary
  • Honest evaluation, not absolute good or bad
  • If inappropriate for YOUR needs, but appropriate for others, explain the difference

---

Writing a Critique

• Read the original source carefully
• You HAVE to understand the source to properly critique it
• Every reader/user has the right to analyze the source, whether an expert or not
• The more you know, the more you can say, the more specific your criticism can be
• The critique that you write at the beginning of your research is different than the one you COULD write at the end

---

Ask yourself these questions (critical analysis worksheet helps you do this)

What are the author's credentials?

• Why are they an authority?
• Why should they be used for an academic/professional research paper?
• Credentials can also come from the context – publisher, website sponsor, etc

What level of audience is the source written for?

• Items written for a general audience are easy to read, but not usually as strong of sources as academic/professional sources
• You may want to use a source as your own background, but not for the actual paper
• Difficult to read and/or understand is not necessarily a bad thing in research

What is the author's main thesis?

• What are they trying to prove/explain?
• This needs to be put in your own words, not the author's
• That way, you know that YOU have understood the source

What are the author's main arguments or supporting points for their thesis?

• Which are most important (to you at least)?
• Which are most convincing?
• Which parts are weaker, less developed?
• Every argument has its weaker points
• The more you know, the easier it is to spot the weaknesses

Does the author use statistics?

• Are they believable?
• Where do they come from?
• Are they just presented, or are they analyzed and put into context of the thesis?
• Does the author use just statistics to back the claim, or do they synthesize other evidence to support the statistics?

Does the author use specific examples to back up their claims?

• How believable are they?
• Are the examples from their own observation or are they second-hand?
• Are the examples the only support for their claims, or are the examples used to support other evidence?

Does the author present original evidence?

• Original evidence is evidence generated by the author themselves – experiments, surveys, interviews, etc.
• Does the author explain the creation?
• Do they identify time and place of interview?
• Do they indicate questions asked and of how many people ?
• Do they indicate the experiment's setup?

---

Now – you need to ask yourself these questions about the source:

• Which parts do I agree with, and why?
• Which parts do I disagree with, and why?
• What parts are usable for MY thesis, MY argument?
• How does this source (and its arguments) fit into my overall research/thesis/paper?