One of the most common supervisor feedback I help “translate” for Postgraduate Researcher (PGRs) is: You need to be more critical! This often all the information the supervisor provides, no hint towards how this can be achieved. If this is feedback you receive from your supervisor, don’t worry below is a summary on how to write more critically.

What is critical writing? 

Academic writing requires criticality; it’s not enough to just describe or summarise evidence, you also need to analyse and evaluate information and use it to build your own arguments. This is where you show your own thoughts based on the evidence available, so critical writing is important for higher grades.

Descriptive writing

  • shows what you know: information in, information out
  • illustrative processes: remembering, understanding and applying
  • summarises previous research
  • gives background for your argument
  • is necessary, but not sufficient

Critical writing

  • shows your own reasoning and ideas: instead of what, so what?
  • questioning processes: analysing, evaluating and creating
  • considers reasons for, implications and limitations of research
  • builds an evidence-based argument
  • is required to access higher grades

Example: Introduction (largely descriptive writing to provide background information)

A primary source of diversity within species is mutation: an ongoing alternation in the genetic makeup that can arise from mistakes in the organism’s body, such as a faulty replication of DNA or from external sources like UV radiation (reviewed by Bertram, 2000). Although cells can remove mutations, some persist and become part of the genotype, which is the DNA in an organism’s cells (reviewed by Bertram, 2000; Campbell et al., 2014). 

Example: Body paragraph (combining descriptive & critical writing to create an argument)

Species in the same environment and with the same ecological niche compete with each other for resources. Diversity allows specialisation of species to occur (Turner, 2004) in order to prevent extinction due to competition for resources. The genus Manta exemplifies this: taking up different habitats inhibited gene flow and so increased diversity between groups, resulting in the emergence of two separate species (Kashiwahi et al., 2011). This speciation prevents strong competition for resources and therefore provides increased inter-species resilience. 

Critical writing needs critical reading

Don’t just read everything you find! Think about:

  • What is your purpose for reading this text?
  • Is the source appropriate for your work?
  • Is the content relevant to your work?
  • What evidence can you use from this source?

Critical writing is evidence-based

We use evidence from published sources or our own research findings to:

  • show how your argument fits into the wider context.
  • strengthen your argument by showing it’s not just your subjective opinion.
  • help the reader evaluate the strength of your points.

Critical writing builds an argument

We integrate evidence from sources or our own research to create a cohesive critical argument. Instead of what?, we’re interested in so what?:

  • What does the evidence mean altogether?
  • What are the implications?
  • How does this integrate with your thinking?

This is your own thinking and reasoning, so it’s an important part of your writing and academic voice.

Being the right amount of critical

We need to find the right balance of criticality:

  • not being critical enough leads to largely descriptive work and weak arguments
  • being too critical might take apart too many ideas, instead of building a coherent argument.

Analysing: explore reasons, relationships and possible alternatives

  • Why did these findings occur?
  • How does this build on previous findings?
  • Why was this methodology, approach or framework chosen?
  • Is the method appropriate to address the research question?
  • Are the findings particularly strong or weak? If so, why?
  • Could there be other explanations or conclusions?
  • What can be learnt from this?

Evaluating: consider implications, conclusions and recommendations

  • How far do the results address the research question or aims?
  • What are the limitations of the research and their implications for findings or conclusions?
  • Could this be applied to other situations?
  • Which method, solution or framework (etc.) is most effective?
  • What are the implications of this?
  • What recommendations can be made based on this?

Creating: synthesise evidence from multiple sources to create your argument

  • How does this fit into the wider context?
  • What patterns can you see across sources and your own findings?
  • Are there similarities and differences in results, methodology or conclusions?
  • What does all the evidence mean together as a whole?
  • How can you integrate this evidence into your argument?

Evidence & Argument: Select appropriate evidence

  • Do: evaluate the reliability of sources and evidence and only include information that is relevant to your argument.
  • Don’t: accept sources or evidence without questioning or include everything you find.

Evidence-based argument

  • Do: collect evidence from reading and your own research and use this to develop your argument.
  • Don’t: decide what you think first and then choose only evidence to fit your argument.

Reliable argument

  • Do: start from a reliable premise and arrive at a logical conclusion.
    Eg: There is a lot of evidence that smoking causes heart disease and lung cancer, therefore smoking is a health hazard.
  • Don’t: create faulty arguments based on a weak premise.
    Eg: There is strong positive correlation between vocabulary and shoe size, therefore having a larger vocabulary causes increased foot growth.

Acknowledge limitations

  • Do: account for the weaknesses in your evidence, argument or research; this shows thoroughness and helps fill in gaps
  • Don’t: ignore limitations; this undermines your argument

Structure & cohesion

  • Do: organise points logically and use signposting and connective phrases to guide readers through your argument.
  • Don’t: start writing without planning the general structure.

Recommendations

  • Do: make recommendations based on the evidence and your conclusions.
  • Don’t: base recommendations on your subjective opinion, or tell people what you think they should do.

Cautious language

  • Do: use hedging phrases like “this may mean that…” or “it is likely that” to reflect uncertainty appropriately.
  • Don’t: use absolute statements like “this proves that” that may not apply to all situations.

Further resources

Read more about Critical Analysis

Read more about Writing critically about theories or models

Read more about How to write critically

Watch: Writing from descriptive to critical