Critical Analysis for social science students - 3 steps
Whether you’re studying sociology, criminology, social policy, politics or another social science discipline, you’ve probably received this feedback: “You need to be more critical”.
So, what do you do? You’ve got your piece of literature in front of you. It might be a book, a journal article, a book chapter, whatever. What do you do with it? How do you ensure your engagement with that piece of literature is critical? You need to do three main things.
Describe
Interpret
Evaluate.
Let’s break that down.
Describe
Firstly, describe. This stage focuses on identifying the points or the arguments that are being made in the text, and getting to grips with how they’re being presented. The process is a descriptive one, because, before you can critically engage with something, you need to know what’s going on within it.
Ask yourself the following questions:
What points or arguments are being made?
What is the text arguing for?
What is it arguing against?
What kind of supporting evidence is being provided to back up the points? Statistics? Other academic research? Qualitative? Quantitative?
Is the text just using one type of evidence, or multiple types of evidence? Is it using official statistics, alongside grey literature produced by voluntary sector / non-profits? Is it using largely quantitative academic studies and a few research monographs?
So you’ve now got a really good feel for this piece of literature, you know it inside out. But it’s not enough to describe. It’s time for the other two things we need to do to up your critical game.
Interpret
Second is interpret. When we get into the interpretation zone, we’re diving a bit deeper. You’re going to think about the meanings and the implications of that piece of literature. You need to contextualise it, look at where it sits in the grand scheme of things, and consider its relevance and practical application.
Ask yourself these questions:
Where does this text sit in relation to the other academic literature in this area?
In terms of debates, controversies, perspectives, where is it positioned?
What perspectives does it support?
What does it challenge?
Where does it go with flow? Where does it go against the grain?
What body of theory does it sit within? For example in social sciences, is this coming at the topic from a feminist perspective? A critical race theory perspective? A Marxist perspective? Where does it hang out? Who does it hang out with?
Does it explicitly acknowledge it’s theoretical stance, does it say for instance that “This article adopts a critical race theory perspective on the US education system” or can you deduce that from what is argues?
To whom or what can these arguments be applied? To whom or what can the arguments not be applied? Who has it considered? Who has it ignored? Is it super relevant for one particular group, organisation or region, but you’re left scratching your head about what it means for other groups, organizations and regions?
How might your reading of the text be biased? What’s your own positionality? What’s your theoretical take on this, is that having an impact on how you’re reading it?
So that’s interpretation you are in your critical flow right now, you’re getting closer to that fabulous grade! One more thing to do….
Evaluate
Evaluate. At this point, you need to form a judgement about the value of this text. How convincing is it? Is it big fish or a little one? A leading actor, or a supporting actor? Or, a walk-on part? And here are some questions you should be asking during the evaluation phase:
How convincing is the text?
Does it do what it is claiming to do? Look at the title and the abstract. Does it follow through on any of that stuff? Or have you got to the end of it, and it hasn’t really provided any answers, it’s just raised more questions?
What does it contribute towards knowledge and understanding in this area?
Does the evidence it’s provided stand up to scrutiny?
Are the sources it has drawn upon valid and reliable? Are they a bit one-sided? Has it considered all of the potential angles? Should it have done? No one piece of literature can do everything after all!
What are its strengths and weaknesses? What’s missing?
Think about the different theoretical standpoints on this topic – what would they have to say about this text?
Is it better or worse than other texts you’ve read? Explain why.
Where would you rank it overall in terms of its usefulness for and relevance to your topic?
And there you have it, the three stages of critical analysis that will move your academic work from “a bit too descriptive” to “this was an excellent, well evidenced example of critical analysis”. That’s we want to read in our feedback, isn’t it?
Struggling with critical analysis in your dissertation literature review?
Check out my YouTube video below to smash critical analysis in your dissertation literature review.
What next?
If you’ve found this blogpost helpful, why not sign up for my weekly emails? It’s completely free and every Wednesday, I will send you a message with a helpful, easy-to-implement tip to supercharge your PhD!
Step-by-step guide to critical analysis with literature review log sheet
My step-by-step 15-page PDF guide on how to critically analyse a piece of academic literature is now available to buy in my shop. Click on the image below to go straight there!
