Critically analyzing, reflecting on and synthesizing scientific research, including literature

pertaining to recent developments in a science discipline

A critical analysis is the art of critical evaluation of a text, carried out as a separate exercise, or as
a part of some research. It is not always in negative manner. It requires developing once own
conclusions based on some provided evidence. It is a process of gathering relevant information,
and then thinking about it and coming up with once own views in its context. It is a skill that
requires time and practice to develop well. Critical evaluation of a text document means one
questions the information and opinions in the text to weigh or judge its overall worth.
Some examples from theories which describe critical thinking are as following:
Critical thinking is reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to do or
believe.(Ennis, 1990)
Critical thinking is a capacity to work with complex ideas whereby a person can make effective
provision of evidence to justify a reasonable judgement. The evidence, and therefore the
judgement, will pay appropriate attention to context.(Moon, 2007)
Critical evaluation helps in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the available text.
Specially, in the case of a research article this relates to a specific criterion. One needs to
understand the purpose of each structured section. So, before judging the overall value of the
research article, the evaluator should be aware of the type of information needed and what all
evidences can make it more convincing.
Each section of a research article has to satisfy a purpose. The following questions can be raised
in each of the specific sections to extract meaningful information out of it and finding the lacuna
in the text or the gaps which still need to be filled.
Section of the research article
Abstract

Possible questions
Is it concise overview of the research work?
Does it outline the research problem, methods, findings

Introduction and literature review

and recommendations well?

Does it explain the problem clearly?

Is the rationale behind this research given?

Is the literature relevant to the research and presents a
balanced up to date view?
Methodology

Can gaps be seen in the topics of the reviewed literature?

Is the approach clearly stated, explained and justified?
Is

the

methodology

consistent

with

qualitative/quantitative research?
Can the research be replicated using the provided details?
Is the source of data used clearly mentioned?
Are there any ethical issues related to the work carried
Results/findings

out?
Are the results clear and consistent?

Analysis/discussion

Are any gaps in the data-gathering accounted for?

Is there a proper balance between the discussion and the
analysis?
Does

Conclusion
Recommendations

it

clearly

acknowledge

the

strengths

and

weaknesses of the work?

Are the conclusions in accordance with the results?
Do the recommendations point to the possible areas of
future research?
Are the ways to improve the current work mentioned?

Here are a few examples which give insights into this art of questioning for better understanding:

Generalizations- "Many authors do not support this hypothesis"

Who are these authors?
Assumptions- "Intuitively, the results ..."
Where is the evidence?
Expert statements- "Mr. Kunal, the president of student council believes boys and girls
should get equal chances..."
Great sentiment but it is still his personal opinion.
Relying on the past- "Educated people have always initiated social change..."
Again, where is the evidence or examples?

References

Ennis, R. H. (1990). The extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific: Further

clarification. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 13-16.
Moon, J. (2007). Critical thinking: An exploration of theory and practice: Routledge.