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 self- critical 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) AWhy am I reading this? BWhat are the authors trying to do in writing this? CWhat are the authors saying that’s relevant to what I want to find out? DHow convincing is what the authors are saying? EIn 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) 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? warranting

Comparative Critical Summary (Ch 5): Structure (p49) 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 warranting

3.Using a mental map and structuring an in- depth 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 Threekinds of knowledge Fourtypes of literature Fiveintellectual 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 HighLow Low vulnerability - weak claim, minimal generalization Moderate vulnerability - strong claim, minimal generalization Moderate vulnerability - weak claim, extensive generalization High vulnerability - strong claim, extensive generalization

Three Kinds of Knowledge (+ Key) Tools for thinking concepts perspectives metaphors theories models assumptions ideologies Practice knowledge developed through taking action Research knowledge developed through systematic investigation Theoretical knowledge developed through systematic reflection

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) ProjectRationaleValue stanceTypical question Under- standIng Understand through theory and research DisinterestedWhat happens and why? Critical evaluation Evaluate through theory and research CriticalWhat is wrong with what happens? ActionInform policy-makers and practitioners through research and evaluation Positive towards policy and improving practice How effective are actions to improve practice? Instrum- entalism Improve practice through training and consultancy Positive towards policy and improving practice How may this programme improve practice? Reflexive action Improve own practice through evaluation and action Critical of practice, positive about improving How effective is my practice? How may I improve?

AWhy am I reading this? 1.What review question am I asking of this literature? BWhat are the authors trying to do in writing this? 2.What type of literature is this? 3.What kind of intellectual project is being undertaken? CWhat are the authors saying that’s relevant to what I want to find out? 4.What is being claimed that is relevant to answering my review question? Critical Synopsis and Critical Analysis Questions (Ch 8) (p92)

DHow convincing is what the authors are saying? 5.How far is there backing for claims? 6.How adequate is any conceptual or theoretical orientation to back claims? 7.How far does any value stance adopted affect claims? 8.How far are claims supported or challenged by others' work? 9.How far are claims consistent with my experience? EIn conclusion, what use can I make of this? 10.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) 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 warranting

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 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 review question Evaluation of authors’ main claims 2, BCDBCD Final section setting out conclusion of argument Summary of evaluation answering review question 10E 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, BCDBCD Final subsection setting out conclusion of argument Summary of evaluation answering first review question 10E

Conclusion for whole literature review References Section addressing secondreview question Subsections leading to conclusion of argument answering second review question Based on answers to Critical Analysis Questions for central texts Based on answers to Critical Synopsis Questions for more peripheral texts Section addressing thirdreview question Subsections leading to conclusion of argument answering third review question Based on answers to Critical Analysis Questions for central texts 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, 3B Authors’ main claims and evaluation, Theme 1 Authors’ main claims and evaluation, Theme 2 4, 5-9 C, D Final section setting out conclusion of argument Summary of thematic evaluation answering review question 10E References

Electronic Resources Blank forms (which can be used as masters) can be downloaded from the website: Critical Synopsis form Critical Analysis form

Good luck!