Having big brain fart over critical analysis as part of dissertation talk me down

[nearlythere321]

I just can't understand what I'm supposed to do, even though logically I know what critical analysis is. I have done well in all my assignments so must have done it adequately there too.

My dissertation is an extended literature review and supervisor has basically said beware of doing an "investigation" of all the existing material, rather than critically analysing. But in the same breath also said that I had to be careful of my language in my initial argument because it was too black and white and I can't make a definite statement like that...

Having a mental block can anyone help? Surely to make and develop my argument I have to say something and then back it up with reasons from my findings? Or is she saying I have to critically analyse by arguing for an against my title and conclude...what?

Am so confused and suspect I'm getting bogged down in the language and managing to miss the point.

hopeful bump

Ok, I think that the supervisor wants you to avoid basically listing every last piece of literature you can find, and rather you should comprehensively research what exists, and instead highlight and discuss key themes emerging, and analyse these strands commentating on positive and underdevelopment elements of them. Discuss where other literature and empirical studies have developed themes better and raised valid questions and any literature then that starts to explore underdeveloped hypothesis on the subject. Hard to know how to advise without knowing the subject though, but that’s what I did i a recent literature review I did for my MSc.

Ok what I would say to my students is that critical analysis is where I hear their voice so their views on what they have read - but it can't just be statements it needs to be a reasoned argument. Don't know if that helps!

A couple of things to try:

Person A or group A argues/found/suggests etc. Person or group B found/thinks/suggests/supports...(where A thinks differently to B) , I think....(but without saying I - saying things like evidence suggests that B is a valid theory to explain but x,y,z but fails to address n ...try and explain your own novel theory which probably contains elements of a and b but expands on then and attempts to address their shortcomings.

I would also say critical analysis reflects on the quality of the information e.g. Prof Winston found A and B and influenced the dominant paradigm but the sample size used was small, reviewing only 10 studies and some researchers such as xxx have questioned whether the technique employed contained bias because ....

Hope that's helpful but sorry if it's irrelevant rubbish in your area of study!

Maybe the "too black and white" comment could apply if you said along the lines of "literature suggests that professer As theory/paradigm A is the future of treating kidney disease/charity fundraising whatever when lots of academics believe in other theories or paradigms so it is more nuanced than that and you are not justified in such a bold statement?

I think the "investigation" is here is all the information I can find on a topic and the "critical analysis" is what is good/persuasive, what is poor/flawed/ leaves unexplained problems and finally what do you think yourself? but not "I think" like "on balance the evidence ..."
I'll stop now !

Also keep asking the so what question to ensure you are overlaying your judgements rather that paraphrasing as if received wisdom. Good luck!

Thank you this is all really helpful, am carefully reading all the advice and attempting to digest over a cup of tea on my break.

Thanks all I was going round in circles!

I am an academic in an arts subject. Usually a literature review in a dissertation is intended to do a few things:

1. It defines the field you are working in. (The same topic could be discussed in different fields. EG, you could look at CV19 from the perspective of public health, legal regulation, social behaviour).
2. It shows your examiner that you understand the field and that you have done enough reading and work.
3. It justifies your thesis. So it may be that the literature raises interesting questions and the purpose of your thesis is to answer them. It may be that there is an unresolved debate in the literature and the purpose of your thesis is to resolve it. It may be that the literature shows an interesting way of analysing problems/issues and the purpose of your thesis is to apply this method to your topic. Writing a critical literature review means presenting the literature in a way like this, that justifies your thesis.

If your dissertation is just an extended literature review, that sounds rather boring. But there must be a reason why you are just writing an extended literature review for a dissertation - or you need to find a reason to make it interesting and be critical. Is the literature problematic in some way? Are there assumptions in the literature that no one is acknowledging? Is it based on a particular theory or methodology that you can explore or problematise? Any of these approaches would be critical.

This is how I explain it to students;
Investigation/Discussion is what a child could copy and paste.
Critical analysis is looking at what others say and coming to conclusions as to what they agree/disagree on and why that might be.

You might want to look at the “dancing nurses” thread. The non critical thinkers simply say “ it’s a bit of fun / my mum would have liked it / it’s not doing any harm.

The critical analysis might look like ;

• who is saying what and what are their qualifications
• have they explained why they think what they do and backed it up with bona fide research as opposed to their neighbours’ opinion;
• can you come to reasonable conclusions based on what you have read? Eg - have you read outside Mumsnet, both for and against opinions, the credential if the people with those opinions, your own biases.

So it’s about reading around a topic, coming to conclusions and being able to justify those conclusions.