How do you write a critical analysis of an article? HELP

[OhBloodyElle]

I'm working on my essay for uni, and it involves critically analysing 2 papers. Plugging away and writing away but suddenly worried I'm not being either critical enough or analytical enough?

Now it's going round in my head and I'm wondering what it even means

I'm worried I'm just writing a bit of a summary of each article and then making a few suggestions of my own. Now wondering if I've gone about it all wrong.

What do I do? I'm halfway there, and don't have time to start fresh from scratch again.

Not much advice, but I’m doing something similar. What are the texts? An essay on a poem would be different from an analysis of a scholarly article.

Critical analysis isn’t supposed to be just your opinion. Usually you’d back it up with references to support your statements.

Look at the way they carried out the research. Were there any opportunities for bias? Were the experimental groups matched? Could there be any other reasons that explain the findings? Are the results as generalisable as they say they are?

Or if thematic - do the data really support the themes? Have they included some reflexivity? Have they let their own stance unduly influence the themes they've identified?

Have the papers adequately addressed gaps in the literature?

Yes, it depends on the discipline.

But a summary is a start, so don't panic.

You want to think about why and how the writers come to their conclusions - what's missing, what doesn't quite work?

It might help to look at some book reviews, if those exist in your discipline? You'll find them in journals, usually towards the back. They'll help give you a sense of how people engage with each other's work in your field.

Z O’Leary has some good YouTube videos, but that’s maybe more concerning healthcare/medical/scientific papers.

One is on maternal mortality rates in different countries, the other in mortality rates of children under 5. Both looking at ways to address these on a policy level.

I'm not sure how to identify any gaps in the literature.

Yes sorry I don't mean just giving my own rather unimportant opinion, when I write my own opinion I have a reference to someone else! I just mean going outside the scopes of the articles I'm analysing.

What subject are the papers about? What conclusions have the authors come to in the papers? Look at the evidence they have used, and decide is if you think that they are right to draw those conclusions from the evidence.

Have they looked at a wide range of evidence? Have they taken evidence from reputable sources? Or have they used very old, out of date evidence? Have they missed out some important area or relevant research?

I am astonished that you don't know how to do this if you are at uni. I'm not blaming you for this, but the uni should have some sort of classes for people who are not up to speed in these essay writing techniques, otherwise it's surely a waste of everyone's time.

Getting really muddled now after reading some student guide about what critical analysis is

I think the articles I'm dealing with are well written for the most part so I've been working on a sort of them of "this is why article X is good - points a, b, c" etc. Then when I feel there's a few things they don't dealwith, I've mentioned them with reference to other articles.

But this student guide says I have to counter argue against myself to provide balanced analysis? What???

I'm so muddled and confused now, surely that will only contradict myself if I do that? Feel a bit upset. Surely I'm going to fail now.

I normally build an argument that supports the piece, back with quotes/evidence then go in with "however..." and completely rip my initial argument to shreds, again with quotes/evidence.

Further to what tonton said most uni's provide support with academic writing skills. I work in a university library and we provide support for students so try your one.

So you argue both for and against? I feel really thick but I just cannot understand this.

For example, if I say "X article does a good job at identifying the major issues with maternal mortality, detailing the problems with A, B and C" and proceed to back that up....do I just turn around then and say, "however, X article is actually unsatisfactory because/??"

Do I have to say points A, B and C are actually complete shit after all, basically?

Or can I just look for other points to disagree with or spot stuff the writer hasn't addressed?

Can't get my head round this way of writing or even thinkiing. Feel as thick as two short planks.

I don't have time Crinkle it's due on Monday. I've googled and found some universities have tips on it, but I just don't get it. Having a real mental block with the whole concept.

For a critical analysis of the articles you need to focus on their reliability.
Consider:

Where they get the data from. A respected/recognised/verifiable source? A biased (eg pharma company with interest in a given outcome etc) or unbiased source?

How do they interpret the data? E.g. You can get articles that say, "A shocking 20% of all people never go to the dentist" and then continue as if that sector were the majority, instead of balancing out the data against the 80% who do.

Also look at the language they use. Is it informative? Persuasive? Emotive? Factual? Sensational? Subjective or Objective?

If experts are quoted, check their status. Are they up to date? Genuine scholars or media darlings? (Can be both of course.)

And so on. You just need to have a critical and inquiring approach to reading.

I don’t know for your subject exactly what to cross reference but the analysis should be demonstrating your broad understanding of the subjects and influential authors (ones who are repeatedly referenced). So summarise the key aspects into your own words then contrast with other opposing views and consider which is more reliable, old data, small studies, cited less etc

Debating opposing models or theories against the key document is useful too; “Academic consensus regarding infant mortality is conflicted, Smith (2009) considers Y model to be the most reliable whilst Wright (1989), Blank (2018) and Blah (2014) suggest X model supports Z’s theory” ...

And as @northerass69 said , get the information together that supports your point then oppose it. You might find it useful to effectively list the different theory’s / models / authors and group them loosely into your essay structure then decide on how to group it all together. Contrasting views etc I used to make the point then weave in the critical analysis - so it was more of a meandering point than black and white opposite.
Top tip - over plan the essay outlines! I used to waste too much time rewriting!
Good luck!

It's a bit hard to say without knowing what type of article/research it is. You're not thick! I think everyone struggles with critical analysis at first. Here are few suggestions:

Look at basic things first - have they used appropriate statistical analysis? How is the data collected? Is it reliable/accurate? For example, if you look at data on deaths in the UK, the cause of death will be accurate because it has to be certified by a medical professional and deaths must be registered. If you are looking at data for maternal deaths in a developing nation, many women will give birth with no medical assistance so may not be included in the data. Does the data include women who die from birth injuries after giving birth or only during birth? What about sample size? Is it all children (as it would be in the UK as all deaths are recorded or does the data come from a limited programme) What is the source of the data? Is it reliable. Eg, in the UK, you can be sure government statistics are reliable, not so much in Zimbabwe.

Then look at the policies they have suggested and compare them with articles on similar programmes elsewhere to see the outcome. Eg if measles is a major cause of child mortality and a vaccination programme has been suggested, look at measles vaccination programmes in other nations to see how successful they have been. I'm making this up but as measles requires a very high percentage of the population to be immune to prevent outbreaks, vaccination might work well in developed nations but you might find in rural areas of a developing nation where there are no records of births, little medical care and many children are not in education (so "invisible"), it might fail.

You can also look for bias on the part of the authors. Was the study paid for by a drug company? Or an NGO that already has similar programmes elsewhere?

What assumptions have the authors made? Eg that it is possible to access all children for a vaccination programme.

How do the findings of the report compare to other similar studies?

Yes. Imagine you're in a court and the defence comes in and lays out their argument, then the prosecution rips it apart. You're playing both sides. You can write supporting everything the article is saying and then expose all the holes in it.

I’ve just completed a MSc and used this framework for any critical appraisal. It makes it very straightforward

casp-uk.net

Focus on unpicking whether the authors' conclusions are strongly supported by the evidence.
Are there any weaknesses/limitations in the design/analysis that might cause us to doubt their conclusions. (Hint: there always are :) )
What new data would potentially be relevant?

*For example, if I say "X article does a good job at identifying the major issues with maternal mortality, detailing the problems with A, B and C" and proceed to back that up....do I just turn around then and say, "however, X article is actually unsatisfactory because/??"

Do I have to say points A, B and C are actually complete shit after all, basically?*

First para is correct yes. But you've already said A, B and C are good examples AND WHY, so you have to now add points D, E and F which day the opposite. Then summarise and conclude.

So article is good cos it uses geographical data from a a number of independent surveyors to prove Cartland is flat. However it then extrapolates that data to prove that the Earth is flat when in fact the data doesn't support this at all etc etc.

?why are you leaving this so late? basic - how reliable are sources? what is the reason for each of these? nb note specific nature of age groups? it isn't necessarily about finding fault but understanding the reason for each of these & why & what are the results of each? compare & contrast. How many words do you have to do? are you a full time student?

"CritIcal" in lay terms means "what's wrong with it".
Critical in academic terms means "how does it fit in with existing theory and data, what's wrong AND right with it".

I thinks it’s a bit of..

Dr 1 says x and Dr 2 says y, but I think z!

So for example, article 1 is good because it is peer reviewed, but shit because it identifies such and such as a conflict. Article 2 is good because it provides an accurate summary of the study, as well as providing the reader with clear data to support their analysis.

I suggest , if you haven't already, plugging the article titles into Google Scholar and seeing who has cited them, if anyone. That will give you a feel for if they are significant artciles and - if you can access the ciring documents you can have a quick looks through to see it what context they have been cited.

If you get an "article a argues, however" that may signpost some weaknesses to you. "If it's "we build upon work undertaken in article a" then that may suggest areas which could need further work.

Of course it might not have any citations, but it's worth a look.