how to write an academic critical book review

How to Write Critical Reviews

When you are asked to write a critical review of a book or article, you will need to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. In other words, you will be examining another person’s thoughts on a topic from your point of view.

Your stand must go beyond your “gut reaction” to the work and be based on your knowledge (readings, lecture, experience) of the topic as well as on factors such as criteria stated in your assignment or discussed by you and your instructor.

Make your stand clear at the beginning of your review, in your evaluations of specific parts, and in your concluding commentary.

Remember that your goal should be to make a few key points about the book or article, not to discuss everything the author writes.

Understanding the Assignment

To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work–deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole.

Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain points and prevent you from merely summarizing what the author says. Assuming the role of an analytical reader will also help you to determine whether or not the author fulfills the stated purpose of the book or article and enhances your understanding or knowledge of a particular topic.

Be sure to read your assignment thoroughly before you read the article or book. Your instructor may have included specific guidelines for you to follow. Keeping these guidelines in mind as you read the article or book can really help you write your paper!

Also, note where the work connects with what you’ve studied in the course. You can make the most efficient use of your reading and notetaking time if you are an active reader; that is, keep relevant questions in mind and jot down page numbers as well as your responses to ideas that appear to be significant as you read.

Please note: The length of your introduction and overview, the number of points you choose to review, and the length of your conclusion should be proportionate to the page limit stated in your assignment and should reflect the complexity of the material being reviewed as well as the expectations of your reader.

Write the introduction

Below are a few guidelines to help you write the introduction to your critical review.

Introduce your review appropriately

Begin your review with an introduction appropriate to your assignment.

If your assignment asks you to review only one book and not to use outside sources, your introduction will focus on identifying the author, the title, the main topic or issue presented in the book, and the author’s purpose in writing the book.

If your assignment asks you to review the book as it relates to issues or themes discussed in the course, or to review two or more books on the same topic, your introduction must also encompass those expectations.

Explain relationships

For example, before you can review two books on a topic, you must explain to your reader in your introduction how they are related to one another.

Within this shared context (or under this “umbrella”) you can then review comparable aspects of both books, pointing out where the authors agree and differ.

In other words, the more complicated your assignment is, the more your introduction must accomplish.

Finally, the introduction to a book review is always the place for you to establish your position as the reviewer (your thesis about the author’s thesis).

As you write, consider the following questions:

• Is the book a memoir, a treatise, a collection of facts, an extended argument, etc.? Is the article a documentary, a write-up of primary research, a position paper, etc.?
• Who is the author? What does the preface or foreword tell you about the author’s purpose, background, and credentials? What is the author’s approach to the topic (as a journalist? a historian? a researcher?)?
• What is the main topic or problem addressed? How does the work relate to a discipline, to a profession, to a particular audience, or to other works on the topic?
• What is your critical evaluation of the work (your thesis)? Why have you taken that position? What criteria are you basing your position on?

Provide an overview

In your introduction, you will also want to provide an overview. An overview supplies your reader with certain general information not appropriate for including in the introduction but necessary to understanding the body of the review.

Generally, an overview describes your book’s division into chapters, sections, or points of discussion. An overview may also include background information about the topic, about your stand, or about the criteria you will use for evaluation.

The overview and the introduction work together to provide a comprehensive beginning for (a “springboard” into) your review.

• What are the author’s basic premises? What issues are raised, or what themes emerge? What situation (i.e., racism on college campuses) provides a basis for the author’s assertions?
• How informed is my reader? What background information is relevant to the entire book and should be placed here rather than in a body paragraph?

Write the body

The body is the center of your paper, where you draw out your main arguments. Below are some guidelines to help you write it.

Organize using a logical plan

Organize the body of your review according to a logical plan. Here are two options:

• First, summarize, in a series of paragraphs, those major points from the book that you plan to discuss; incorporating each major point into a topic sentence for a paragraph is an effective organizational strategy. Second, discuss and evaluate these points in a following group of paragraphs. (There are two dangers lurking in this pattern–you may allot too many paragraphs to summary and too few to evaluation, or you may re-summarize too many points from the book in your evaluation section.)
• Alternatively, you can summarize and evaluate the major points you have chosen from the book in a point-by-point schema. That means you will discuss and evaluate point one within the same paragraph (or in several if the point is significant and warrants extended discussion) before you summarize and evaluate point two, point three, etc., moving in a logical sequence from point to point to point. Here again, it is effective to use the topic sentence of each paragraph to identify the point from the book that you plan to summarize or evaluate.

Questions to keep in mind as you write

With either organizational pattern, consider the following questions:

• What are the author’s most important points? How do these relate to one another? (Make relationships clear by using transitions: “In contrast,” an equally strong argument,” “moreover,” “a final conclusion,” etc.).
• What types of evidence or information does the author present to support his or her points? Is this evidence convincing, controversial, factual, one-sided, etc.? (Consider the use of primary historical material, case studies, narratives, recent scientific findings, statistics.)
• Where does the author do a good job of conveying factual material as well as personal perspective? Where does the author fail to do so? If solutions to a problem are offered, are they believable, misguided, or promising?
• Which parts of the work (particular arguments, descriptions, chapters, etc.) are most effective and which parts are least effective? Why?
• Where (if at all) does the author convey personal prejudice, support illogical relationships, or present evidence out of its appropriate context?

Keep your opinions distinct and cite your sources

Remember, as you discuss the author’s major points, be sure to distinguish consistently between the author’s opinions and your own.

Keep the summary portions of your discussion concise, remembering that your task as a reviewer is to re-see the author’s work, not to re-tell it.

And, importantly, if you refer to ideas from other books and articles or from lecture and course materials, always document your sources, or else you might wander into the realm of plagiarism.

Include only that material which has relevance for your review and use direct quotations sparingly. The Writing Center has other handouts to help you paraphrase text and introduce quotations.

Write the conclusion

You will want to use the conclusion to state your overall critical evaluation.

You have already discussed the major points the author makes, examined how the author supports arguments, and evaluated the quality or effectiveness of specific aspects of the book or article.

Now you must make an evaluation of the work as a whole, determining such things as whether or not the author achieves the stated or implied purpose and if the work makes a significant contribution to an existing body of knowledge.

Consider the following questions:

• Is the work appropriately subjective or objective according to the author’s purpose?
• How well does the work maintain its stated or implied focus? Does the author present extraneous material? Does the author exclude or ignore relevant information?
• How well has the author achieved the overall purpose of the book or article? What contribution does the work make to an existing body of knowledge or to a specific group of readers? Can you justify the use of this work in a particular course?
• What is the most important final comment you wish to make about the book or article? Do you have any suggestions for the direction of future research in the area? What has reading this work done for you or demonstrated to you?

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

How to Write a Critical Book Review

Your review should have two goals: first, to inform the reader about the content of the book, and second, to provide an evaluation that gives your judgment of the book’s quality.

Your introduction should include an overview of the book that both incorporates an encapsulated summary and a sense of your general judgment. This is the equivalent to a thesis statement.

Do NOT spend more than one-third or so of the paper summarizing the book. The summary should consist of a discussion and highlights of the major arguments, features, trends, concepts, themes, ideas, and characteristics of the book. While you may use direct quotes from the book (make sure you always give the page number), such quotes should never be the bulk of the summary. Much of your grade will depend on how well you describe and explain the material IN YOUR OWN WORDS. You might want to take the major organizing themes of the book and use them to organize your own discussion. This does NOT mean, however, that I want a chapter-by-chapter summary. Your goal is a unified essay.

So what do I want, if not just a summary? Throughout your summary, I want you to provide a critique of the book. (Hence the title: “A Critical Book Review.”) A critique consists of thoughts, responses, and reactions. It is not necessarily negative. Nor do you need to know as much about the subject as the author (because you hardly ever will). The skills you need are an ability to follow an argument and test a hypothesis. Regardless of how negative or positive your critique is, you need to be able to justify and support your position.

Here are a number of questions that you can address as part of your critique. You need not answer them all, but questions one and two are essential to any book review, so those must be included. And these are ABSOLUTELY NOT to be answered one after another ( seriatim ). Don’t have one paragraph that answers one, and then the next paragraph that answers the next, etc. The answers should be part of a carefully constructed essay, complete with topic sentences and transitions.

• What is your overall opinion of the book? On what basis has this opinion been formulated? That is, tell the reader what you think and how you arrived at this judgment. What did you expect to learn when you picked up the book? To what extent – and how effectively – were your expectations met? Did you nod in agreement (or off to sleep)? Did you wish you could talk back to the author? Amplify upon and explain your reactions.
• Identify the author’s thesis and explain it in your own words. How clearly and in what context is it stated and, subsequently, developed? To what extent and how effectively (i.e., with what kind of evidence) is this thesis proven? Use examples to amplify your responses. If arguments or perspectives were missing, why do you think this might be?
• What are the author’s aims? How well have they been achieved, especially with regard to the way the book is organized? Are these aims supported or justified? (You might look back at the introduction to the book for help). How closely does the organization follow the author’s aims?
• How are the author’s main points presented, explained, and supported? What assumptions lie behind these points? What would be the most effective way for you to compress and/or reorder the author’s scheme of presentation and argument?
• How effectively does the author draw claims from the material being presented? Are connections between the claims and evidence made clearly and logically? Here you should definitely use examples to support your evaluation.
• What conclusions does the author reach and how clearly are they stated? Do these conclusions follow from the thesis and aims and from the ways in which they were developed? In other words, how effectively does the book come together?
• Identify the assumptions made by the author in both the approach to and the writing of the book. For example, what prior knowledge does the author expect readers to possess? How effectively are those assumptions worked into the overall presentation? What assumptions do you think should not have been made? Why?
• Are you able to detect any underlying philosophy of history held by the author (e.g., progress, decline, cyclical, linear, and random)? If so, how does this philosophy affect the presentation of the argument?
• How does the author see history as being motivated: primarily by the forces of individuals, economics, politics, social factors, nationalism, class, race, gender, something else? What kind of impact does this view of historical motivation have upon the way in which the author develops the book?
• Does the author’s presentation seem fair and accurate? Is the interpretation biased? Can you detect any distortion, exaggeration, or diminishing of material? If so, for what purpose might this have been done, and what effect does hit have on the overall presentation?

These questions are derived from Robert Blackey, “Words to the Whys: Crafting Critical Book Reviews,” The History Teacher, 27.2 (Feb. 1994): 159-66.

– Serena Zabin, Feb. 2003

• Case Studies
• Free Coaching Session

A Critical Review: How to Do it Step by Step

Last Updated:  

April 24, 2023

You have been asked to write a critical review of a novel, a painting, a movie, a play, a piece of music... and you don't know where to start? It's not the same as asking "how to write my papers or an academic essay" because a review has a different structure and emphases to pay attention to. But don't panic! Read this post carefully, and you'll learn how to organise and write it step by step. You can also read various sample critiques by other writers to prepare for them better.

Key Takeaways section on how to write a Critical Review

• Understand the purpose : A critical review should summarise and evaluate the work, providing well-argued and justified opinions.
• No standard length : Critical reviews can range from 500 to 800 words depending on the complexity of the work being analysed.
• Five-part structure : Include a title, introduction, summary, critical commentary, and conclusion in your review.
• Create a compelling title : A title should summarise your general opinion; consider writing it after completing the review to capture the essence of your conclusions.
• Offer well-supported evaluations : Your critical commentary should be extensive and supported by arguments, not just simple statements of liking or disliking the work.
• Brief conclusions : Summarise your critical commentary and overall thoughts on the work in a concise manner.
• Prepare before writing : Approach the work without prejudice, take notes, make summaries, and gather relevant information to ensure a successful critical review.

What to take into account when writing a critical review?

The first thing to remember is that it is an expository-argumentative text. Therefore, your critical review must fulfil two objectives:

Summarise the work , i.e., provide an overall view by synthesising its most important aspects.

Evaluate the work , that is, give a personal value judgement about it. Your opinion must be well-argued and justified.

And how long should this text be, you may be wondering. The truth is that there is no standard length. That is, it depends on how long and complex the object of your analysis is (reviewing a short film is not the same as reviewing a three-hour movie). A reasonable measure would be between 500 words minimum and 800 words maximum. But remember - a text must say something, give information, so if your text is short, but you don't think it is necessary to add anything more, don't continue writing! Go to the point and remember: empty text only serves to confuse and divert attention from the main topic.

The structure of a critical review

As we have seen, your review should summarise the work you are analysing and give your opinion about it. To fulfil both objectives, you will have to follow this five-part structure:

• ‍ Title of the review: it should be a title that synthesises your general opinion. For example, if you are reviewing the novel Love in the Time of Cholera, you liked it and what moved you most is how the author narrates a love that resists decades and decades - your title could be something like this: 'Love in the Time of Cholera: the moving tale of a patient love that can do anything. A trick to write the perfect title is to wait until the end of the review since the essence of the title is usually in the conclusions. ‍
• Introduction: this section should be very brief, and in it you will have to introduce the author and the work. In the case of Love in the Time of Cholera, we would briefly talk about Gabriel García Márquez's career and tell that the book is about the love between Florentino, Fermina and Juvenal throughout the years. ‍
• Summary : This third part is broader than the presentation, and it is here where you should go deeper into the theme of the work. It is about choosing those key moments or features that shape the play. Returning to the example of Love in the Time of Cholera, some moments that should be in the expository summary would be the love affair between Florentino and Fermina, her marriage to Juvenal, the death of the doctor, and the reunion with Florentino, since they mark turning points in the story. ‍
• Critical commentary: this point should be the most extensive of all the critical reviews since you must give your opinion about the work, but be careful! it is not enough to say 'I liked it' or 'I didn't like it', but your evaluation must have a basis and be supported by arguments. To do this, you will have to choose the points of the work that most caught your attention and comment on them, saying if you agree with the way it has been presented. And if the work has seemed novel or not, if you think it has maintained coherence from beginning to end, if the characters seem relevant to you, if you think another approach would have been more effective… and why. ‍
• Conclusions: this part should be very brief, and in it you have to summarise your critical commentary and say what you thought of the work in general and how it made you feel.

How to prepare a critical review

To make sure that the writing of your review is perfect, you will have to start preparing it before you start writing while you are enjoying the book.

Approach the works without prejudice! If, for example, you go to a concert thinking you won't like it, you will probably be unfairly negative in your review.

Take notes as you read, watch, listen and observe the work to recover them in your review.

In the case of long works, make summaries of their parts: it will be easier and faster to synthesise the whole.

Make sure you have a good understanding of the work to be able to judge it correctly. To do this, consult information and bibliography about it.

Now that you know how to write it, your next critical review will be a success!

Related Articles:

Client Success!! Watch THIS >>>

Client Success - Case Study

© 2016 - 2024 Robin Waite. All rights reserved.

• Undergraduate courses
• Postgraduate courses
• Foundation courses
• Apprenticeships
• Part-time and short courses
• Apply undergraduate
• Apply postgraduate

Search for a course

Search by course name, subject, and more

• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• (suspended) - Available in Clearing Not available in Clearing location-sign UCAS

Fees and funding

• Tuition fees
• Scholarships
• Funding your studies
• Student finance
• Cost of living support

Why study at Kent

Student life.

• Careers and employability
• Student support and wellbeing
• Our locations
• Placements and internships
• Year abroad
• Student stories
• Schools and colleges
• International
• International students
• Your country
• Applicant FAQs
• International scholarships
• University of Kent International College
• Campus Tours
• Applicant Events
• Postgraduate events
• Maps and directions
• Research strengths
• Research centres
• Research impact

Research institutes

• Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology
• Institute of Cyber Security for Society
• Institute of Cultural and Creative Industries
• Institute of Health, Social Care and Wellbeing

Research students

• Graduate and Researcher College
• Research degrees
• Find a supervisor
• How to apply

Popular searches

• Visits and Open Days
• Jobs and vacancies
• Accommodation
• Student guide
• Library and IT
• Partner with us
• Student Guide
• Student Help
• Health & wellbeing
• Student voice
• Living at Kent
• Careers & volunteering
• Diversity at Kent
• Finance & funding
• Life after graduation

Literature reviews

Critically reviewing books and articles.

The following guide has been created for you by the  Student Learning Advisory Service . For more detailed guidance and to speak to one of our advisers, please book an  appointment  or join one of our  workshops . Alternatively, have a look at our  SkillBuilder  skills videos.   

The purpose of a review

Descriptive : to inform the reader about the contents of the text, including the scope and nature of the topics covered, its main conclusions, and the evidence, examples, theories and methodologies it used to support of them.

Critical : to pass judgement on the quality, meaning and significance of the book or article, including how well it has achieved its aims, and what it adds to our understanding of the topic.

A quality review will recognise both the strengths and weaknesses of a piece of writing, presenting your objective opinion of it in a confident, informative and balanced way. Finally, it will be written using phraseology and style appropriate to this particular form of writing (examples from published academic book reviews are presented throughout this guide for reference).    

Choosing material to review

Normally, it is easier to write a critical review of a book or article that puts forward an argument, thereby offering a good opportunity to critically evaluate the reasoning and evidence used to support it. Edited volumes ((consisting of chapters or articles written by different authors) can present many different, even contradictory, evaluations of the same topic – presenting a more complicated challenge for the reviewer. Therefore, choose material that lends itself to your task.

The following checklist will help you ask the right questions as you read the text. It also provides an example of the kind of academic language you might use to introduce each aspect of your review.

Questions a critical book or article review should address

What is the main topic.

This should be obvious from the title and the introduction.

Who is the author?

What qualifications and experience does the author possess that allows them to write meaningfully about the topic?

‘Due to her role in… the author is in a unique position to describe…’

How is the text structured in relation to the topics, themes, issues and examples discussed?

For a book refer to the table of contents, chapter titles and chapter introductions. If analysing a chapter from an edited text, check the editor’s introduction. Think about how the separate sections build into the text as a whole.

‘The book consists of nine chapters each of which addresses…

‘This article deals with two key themes relating to…’

What is the stated purpose of the book or article?

Usually, this is stated on the back cover of a book (but beware of publisher hyperbole), or in the abstract/summary at the beginning of a journal article.

‘ The author’s aim is to examine…’

‘This is an original and accessible guide to…'

What is the main argument? 

Sometimes this is clearly stated, and sometimes more difficult to identify; remember that not all texts are argumentative.

‘The author’s main argument is that…’

‘The author calls into question many of the basic assumptions about…’

What evidence is used to support the author’s claims and analysis?

Do they use statistical data, examples and case studies, expert opinion and official documentation, all academically sourced and cited? How valid and reliable is this evidence in supporting the author’s analysis?

‘Throughout the article, case studies are used to…’

‘Drawing on North American and British archives, this book…’

What theoretical approach has the author used?

This is not always obvious from the text itself. Often, it will be necessary to conduct some additional research into the author to identify their background, or particular methodological, political or philosophical approach to the topic.

‘The author examines the nature of… from the perspective of…’

What are the strengths of the book or article?

Having taken the time to understand the text, where do you think its strengths lie? For example, what key questions does it answer? Does it offer insights into complex problems, if so what? Does it open up new ways of understanding the topic, if so how? Does it present new evidence, or clarify concepts that were previously obscure? Is the written style particularly engaging?

‘Throughout the text, the author translates technical information into…’

‘The book is clearly written in a compelling, engaging style that…’

What are its limitations?

You should critique a piece of writing within its own terms of reference – that is, against what it claims to do. But, if you are sufficiently familiar with the topic, you can also assess its limitations against existing knowledge.

‘The narrow focus unfortunately leads the author to overlook…’

‘The author is very quick to dismiss opposing opinions, and assumes that…’

What do you judge the overall value of the text to be? 

Having undertaken a balanced assessment of its strengths and weaknesses, what is your overall judgement of its usefulness to those interested in the topic, and in comparison to other scholarly publications in the same area of study?

‘The authors have made a significant contribution to our understanding of how…’

‘Overall, the article is an interesting… It offers an excellent… and is relevant to…’

‘The book is generally disappointing… it offers very little new …’

Structure of a critical review

A simple structure for a short review of a book or journal article (c. 500-1000 words) would be as follows: 

• An introduction
• A short summary of the text
• The strengths of the text
• The weaknesses of the text
• A conclusion summarising your overall assessment of the text

In longer critical reviews – comprising over 1000 words – each section, or aspect of the topic discussed in the text, would be described sequentially, incorporating a discussion of its strengths and weakness.

In longer critical reviews – comprising over 1000 words – each section, or aspect of the topic discussed in the text, would be described sequentially, incorporating a discussion of its strengths and weakness. 

How to Write Academic Book Review – a Complete Guide

Introduction

Welcome to The Knowledge Nest, your go-to resource for comprehensive guides on various academic subjects. In this guide, we will provide you with all the necessary information and steps to write an outstanding academic book review.

Why Write an Academic Book Review?

Before diving into the details, let's first understand why writing an academic book review is important. A book review allows you to critically analyze and assess the merit of a particular book. It not only helps you sharpen your analytical skills but also provides an opportunity to contribute to the academic community by sharing your insights and recommendations.

Step 1: Choose the Right Book

The first step in writing a high-quality academic book review is to select the right book. Identify a book that aligns with your area of interest or the subject you are studying. Ensure that the book is relevant, reputable, and has a substantial impact on the field you wish to explore.

Step 2: Read the Book Thoroughly

Once you have chosen the book, it's time to engage in a comprehensive reading. Read the book attentively, making notes of key arguments, main themes, and any significant evidence presented by the author. Pay close attention to the author's writing style, methodology, and the overall structure of the book.

Step 3: Analyze and Evaluate

After reading the book, critically analyze and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. Consider the author's arguments, their supporting evidence, and how effectively they present their ideas. Assess the book's contribution to the field, its relevance, and its potential impact on future scholarship.

Step 4: Organize Your Thoughts

Before starting to write the actual review, it's essential to organize your thoughts and create an outline. Identify the main points and arguments you wish to address in your review. This will help you maintain a logical flow and structure in your writing.

Step 5: Start Writing

Now that you have a clear outline, it's time to put pen to paper and start writing your academic book review. Begin with a concise introduction that provides an overview of the book and its context. Clearly state your thesis or main argument regarding the book's strengths and weaknesses.

Step 6: Support Your Claims

As you progress with your review, make sure to back up your claims and arguments with supporting evidence from the book. Quote relevant passages, cite significant examples, and provide specific details to substantiate your viewpoints. Remember to analyze and critique the book's content objectively and fairly.

Step 7: Summarize and Conclude

In the final section of your review, summarize your main points and offer a concise conclusion. Highlight the book's significance and evaluate its contribution to the field. You can also provide recommendations for further research or suggest potential audiences who would benefit from reading the book.

Step 8: Revise and Refine

After completing your initial draft, take the time to revise and refine your review. Check for grammatical errors, ensure clarity in your arguments, and strengthen the overall structure of your writing. Edit ruthlessly to make your review concise, coherent, and compelling.

Step 9: Finalize and Submit

Once you are satisfied with the quality of your review, make any final adjustments and proofread carefully. Ensure that your content adheres to any specific submission guidelines provided by your academic institution or the platform where you plan to publish your review. Submit your review with confidence!

Writing an academic book review is a challenging task that requires careful analysis, critical thinking, and effective communication skills. By following the steps outlined in this guide, you will be well-equipped to craft a comprehensive and insightful book review that contributes to the scholarly discourse in your field.

About The Knowledge Nest

The Knowledge Nest is a community-driven platform dedicated to providing valuable educational resources and comprehensive guides across various academic disciplines. Our mission is to empower learners by sharing knowledge and enabling them to excel in their educational endeavors.

Tags: Academic Book Review, How to Write Academic Book Review, Writing Book Reviews, Writing Tips, The Knowledge Nest

Ph.D. Dissertation Help on Management

How to Start a Book Report - Studybay

An Overview of the Major Ethical Issues in Information Systems

All About Nike Shoes Manufacturing Process

Architecture Thesis Examples

Tips for Writing a Biography Book Report - Studybay

Economics Research Paper Examples & Study Documents

Dissertation Data Analysis Help - Studybay

Geography Homework Help for Stress-Free Studying - The Knowledge Nest

College Homework Help for Students - Studybay

IOE Writing Centre

• Writing a Critical Review

Writing a Critique

A critique (or critical review) is not to be mistaken for a literature review. A 'critical review', or 'critique', is a complete type of text (or genre), discussing one particular article or book in detail.  In some instances, you may be asked to write a critique of two or three articles (e.g. a comparative critical review). In contrast, a 'literature review', which also needs to be 'critical', is a part of a larger type of text, such as a chapter of your dissertation.

Most importantly: Read your article / book as many times as possible, as this will make the critical review much easier.

1. Read and take notes 2. Organising your writing 3. Summary 4. Evaluation 5. Linguistic features of a critical review 6. Summary language 7. Evaluation language 8. Conclusion language 9. Example extracts from a critical review 10. Further resources

Read and Take Notes

To improve your reading confidence and efficiency, visit our pages on reading.

Further reading: Read Confidently

After you are familiar with the text, make notes on some of the following questions. Choose the questions which seem suitable:

• What kind of article is it (for example does it present data or does it present purely theoretical arguments)?
• What is the main area under discussion?
• What are the main findings?
• What are the stated limitations?
• Where does the author's data and evidence come from? Are they appropriate / sufficient?
• What are the main issues raised by the author?
• What questions are raised?
• How well are these questions addressed?
• What are the major points/interpretations made by the author in terms of the issues raised?
• Is the text balanced? Is it fair / biased?
• Does the author contradict herself?
• How does all this relate to other literature on this topic?
• How does all this relate to your own experience, ideas and views?
• What else has this author written? Do these build / complement this text?
• (Optional) Has anyone else reviewed this article? What did they say? Do I agree with them?

^ Back to top

Organising your writing

You first need to summarise the text that you have read. One reason to summarise the text is that the reader may not have read the text. In your summary, you will

• focus on points within the article that you think are interesting
• summarise the author(s) main ideas or argument
• explain how these ideas / argument have been constructed. (For example, is the author basing her arguments on data that they have collected? Are the main ideas / argument purely theoretical?)

In your summary you might answer the following questions:     Why is this topic important?     Where can this text be located? For example, does it address policy studies?     What other prominent authors also write about this?

Evaluation is the most important part in a critical review.

Use the literature to support your views. You may also use your knowledge of conducting research, and your own experience. Evaluation can be explicit or implicit.

Explicit evaluation

Explicit evaluation involves stating directly (explicitly) how you intend to evaluate the text. e.g. "I will review this article by focusing on the following questions. First, I will examine the extent to which the authors contribute to current thought on Second Language Acquisition (SLA) pedagogy. After that, I will analyse whether the authors' propositions are feasible within overseas SLA classrooms."

Implicit evaluation

Implicit evaluation is less direct. The following section on Linguistic Features of Writing a Critical Review contains language that evaluates the text. A difficult part of evaluation of a published text (and a professional author) is how to do this as a student. There is nothing wrong with making your position as a student explicit and incorporating it into your evaluation. Examples of how you might do this can be found in the section on Linguistic Features of Writing a Critical Review. You need to remember to locate and analyse the author's argument when you are writing your critical review. For example, you need to locate the authors' view of classroom pedagogy as presented in the book / article and not present a critique of views of classroom pedagogy in general.

Linguistic features of a critical review

The following examples come from published critical reviews. Some of them have been adapted for student use.

Summary language

•     This article / book is divided into two / three parts. First...
•     While the title might suggest...
•     The tone appears to be...
•     Title is the first / second volume in the series Title, edited by...The books / articles in this series address...
•     The second / third claim is based on...
•     The author challenges the notion that...
•     The author tries to find a more middle ground / make more modest claims...
•     The article / book begins with a short historical overview of...
•     Numerous authors have recently suggested that...(see Author, Year; Author, Year). Author would also be once such author. With his / her argument that...
•     To refer to title as a...is not to say that it is...
•     This book / article is aimed at... This intended readership...
•     The author's book / article examines the...To do this, the author first...
•     The author develops / suggests a theoretical / pedagogical model to…
•     This book / article positions itself firmly within the field of...
•     The author in a series of subtle arguments, indicates that he / she...
•     The argument is therefore...
•     The author asks "..."
•     With a purely critical / postmodern take on...
•     Topic, as the author points out, can be viewed as...
•     In this recent contribution to the field of...this British author...
•     As a leading author in the field of...
•     This book / article nicely contributes to the field of...and complements other work by this author...
•     The second / third part of...provides / questions / asks the reader...
•     Title is intended to encourage students / researchers to...
•     The approach taken by the author provides the opportunity to examine...in a qualitative / quantitative research framework that nicely complements...
•     The author notes / claims that state support / a focus on pedagogy / the adoption of...remains vital if...
•     According to Author (Year) teaching towards examinations is not as effective as it is in other areas of the curriculum. This is because, as Author (Year) claims that examinations have undue status within the curriculum.
•     According to Author (Year)…is not as effective in some areas of the curriculum / syllabus as others. Therefore the author believes that this is a reason for some school's…

Evaluation language

•     This argument is not entirely convincing, as...furthermore it commodifies / rationalises the...
•     Over the last five / ten years the view of...has increasingly been viewed as 'complicated' (see Author, Year; Author, Year).
•     However, through trying to integrate...with...the author...
•     There are difficulties with such a position.
•     Inevitably, several crucial questions are left unanswered / glossed over by this insightful / timely / interesting / stimulating book / article. Why should...
•     It might have been more relevant for the author to have written this book / article as...
•     This article / book is not without disappointment from those who would view...as...
•     This chosen framework enlightens / clouds...
•     This analysis intends to be...but falls a little short as...
•     The authors rightly conclude that if...
•     A detailed, well-written and rigorous account of...
•     As a Korean student I feel that this article / book very clearly illustrates...
•     The beginning of...provides an informative overview into...
•     The tables / figures do little to help / greatly help the reader...
•     The reaction by scholars who take a...approach might not be so favourable (e.g. Author, Year).
•     This explanation has a few weaknesses that other researchers have pointed out (see Author, Year; Author, Year). The first is...
•     On the other hand, the author wisely suggests / proposes that...By combining these two dimensions...
•     The author's brief introduction to...may leave the intended reader confused as it fails to properly...
•     Despite my inability to...I was greatly interested in...
•     Even where this reader / I disagree(s), the author's effort to...
•     The author thus combines...with...to argue...which seems quite improbable for a number of reasons. First...
•     Perhaps this aversion to...would explain the author's reluctance to...
•     As a second language student from ...I find it slightly ironic that such an anglo-centric view is...
•     The reader is rewarded with...
•     Less convincing is the broad-sweeping generalisation that...
•     There is no denying the author's subject knowledge nor his / her...
•     The author's prose is dense and littered with unnecessary jargon...
•     The author's critique of...might seem harsh but is well supported within the literature (see Author, Year; Author, Year; Author, Year). Aligning herself with the author, Author (Year) states that...
•     As it stands, the central focus of Title is well / poorly supported by its empirical findings...
•     Given the hesitation to generalise to...the limitation of...does not seem problematic...
•     For instance, the term...is never properly defined and the reader left to guess as to whether...
•     Furthermore, to label...as...inadvertently misguides...
•     In addition, this research proves to be timely / especially significant to... as recent government policy / proposals has / have been enacted to...
•     On this well researched / documented basis the author emphasises / proposes that...
•     Nonetheless, other research / scholarship / data tend to counter / contradict this possible trend / assumption...(see Author, Year; Author, Year).
•     Without entering into detail of the..., it should be stated that Title should be read by...others will see little value in...
•     As experimental conditions were not used in the study the word 'significant' misleads the reader.
•     The article / book becomes repetitious in its assertion that...
•     The thread of the author's argument becomes lost in an overuse of empirical data...
•     Almost every argument presented in the final section is largely derivative, providing little to say about...
•     She / he does not seem to take into consideration; however, that there are fundamental differences in the conditions of…
•     As Author (Year) points out, however, it seems to be necessary to look at…
•     This suggest that having low…does not necessarily indicate that…is ineffective.
•     Therefore, the suggestion made by Author (Year)…is difficult to support.
•     When considering all the data presented…it is not clear that the low scores of some students, indeed, reflects…

Conclusion language

•     Overall this article / book is an analytical look at...which within the field of...is often overlooked.
•     Despite its problems, Title offers valuable theoretical insights / interesting examples / a contribution to pedagogy and a starting point for students / researchers of...with an interest in...
•     This detailed and rigorously argued...
•     This first / second volume / book / article by...with an interest in...is highly informative...

Example extracts from a critical review

Writing critically.

If you have been told your writing is not critical enough, it probably means that your writing treats the knowledge claims as if they are true, well supported, and applicable in the context you are writing about. This may not always be the case.

In these two examples, the extracts refer to the same section of text. In each example, the section that refers to a source has been highlighted in bold. The note below the example then explains how the writer has used the source material.    

There is a strong positive effect on students, both educationally and emotionally, when the instructors try to learn to say students' names without making pronunciation errors (Kiang, 2004).

Use of source material in example a: 

This is a simple paraphrase with no critical comment. It looks like the writer agrees with Kiang. (This is not a good example for critical writing, as the writer has not made any critical comment).        

Kiang (2004) gives various examples to support his claim that "the positive emotional and educational impact on students is clear" (p.210) when instructors try to pronounce students' names in the correct way. He quotes one student, Nguyet, as saying that he "felt surprised and happy" (p.211) when the tutor said his name clearly . The emotional effect claimed by Kiang is illustrated in quotes such as these, although the educational impact is supported more indirectly through the chapter. Overall, he provides more examples of students being negatively affected by incorrect pronunciation, and it is difficult to find examples within the text of a positive educational impact as such.

Use of source material in example b: 

The writer describes Kiang's (2004) claim and the examples which he uses to try to support it. The writer then comments that the examples do not seem balanced and may not be enough to support the claims fully. This is a better example of writing which expresses criticality.

^Back to top

Further resources

You may also be interested in our page on criticality, which covers criticality in general, and includes more critical reading questions.

Further reading: Read and Write Critically

We recommend that you do not search for other university guidelines on critical reviews. This is because the expectations may be different at other institutions. Ask your tutor for more guidance or examples if you have further questions.

IOE Writing Centre Online

Self-access resources from the Academic Writing Centre at the UCL Institute of Education.

Anonymous Suggestions Box

Information for Staff

Academic Writing Centre

Academic Writing Centre, UCL Institute of Education [email protected] Twitter:   @AWC_IOE Skype:   awc.ioe

Libraries & Cultural Resources

Research guides, writing help.

• Academic Writing
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Grammar and Editing
• Literature and Book Reviews
• Reference Tools

How to Write Literature Reviews

Book/literature reviews:.

How to write a book review by Dalhousie University – An excellent step-by-step approach to writing effective critical book reviews, including considerations for specific literature types.

The Book Review or Article Critique – University of Toronto – This resource provides general guidelines and questions to keep in mind when reading and writing a critical book review.

The Literature Review: A Few Tips by the University of Toronto – A detailed guide including questions to ask yourself about each item you include in the review as well as questions to ask yourself about the review itself.

How to Write a Literature Review – University of California Santa Cruz – This guide discusses the major components of a literature review and criteria to consider when assessing each source.

Literature Review Process

Machi, L.A. and McEvoy, B.T. (2008). The literature review: Six steps to Success . Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

From the Student Success Centre

• Critique/review of a research article
• Writing about Art
• Writing about Literature
• << Previous: Grammar and Editing
• Next: Plagiarism >>
• Last Updated: Oct 30, 2023 1:33 PM
• URL: https://libguides.ucalgary.ca/guides/writinghelp

Libraries & Cultural Resources

• 403.220.8895

CPS Online Library Research Guide (UNH Manchester Library): How to Write a Book Review

• Home & Table of Contents
• Different Types of Information
• The Savvy Information Consumer
• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Periodical Literature
• Peer Review
• Research Glossary
• Business Research Databases
• Understanding the Assignment
• Preliminary Considerations
• 7 Steps to Completing a Research Assignment
• Define the Topic
• Find & Evaluate Your Sources
• Research Integrity & Citing Your Sources
• Searching for Information
• Evaluating Information
• How to Read an Academic Journal Article This link opens in a new window
• Evaluating Social Media Sources
• Writing Your Research Paper
• Create a Literature Review
• Summarize an Article
• How to Write an Abstract

How to Write a Book Review

• How to Do an Annotated Bibliography
• Finding Professional Organizations
• Find Key Journals in Your Field of Study
• Find Peer-Reviewed Articles
• Write a Research Paper Proposal
• Research a Company This link opens in a new window
• Citing Your Sources
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• NHCUC Libraries
• Other Types of Research
• Academic Libraries in NH
• Government Documents
• Using Google for Academic Research
• Information Literacy
• Developing Effective Library Research Assignments
• Using Permalinks
• Primary Source Websites

Write a Book Review

From the university of north carolina writing lab.

A review is a critical evaluation of a text, event, object, or phenomenon. Reviews can consider books, articles, entire genres or fields of literature, architecture, art, fashion, restaurants, policies, exhibitions, performances, and many other forms. This handout will focus on book reviews.

Above all, a review makes an argument. The most important element of a review is that it is a commentary, not merely a summary. It allows you to enter into a discussion with the work’s creator and with other audiences. You can offer agreement or disagreement and identify where you find the work exemplary or deficient in its knowledge, judgments, or organization. You should clearly state your opinion of the work in question, and that statement will probably resemble other types of academic writing, with a thesis statement, supporting body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

Typically, reviews are brief. In newspapers and academic journals, they rarely exceed 1000 words, although you may encounter lengthier assignments and extended commentaries. In either case, reviews need to be succinct. While they vary in tone, subject, and style, they share some common features:

• First, a review gives the reader a concise summary of the content. This includes a relevant description of the topic as well as its overall perspective, argument, or purpose.
• Second, and more importantly, a review offers a critical assessment of the content. This involves your reactions to the work under review: what strikes you as noteworthy, whether or not it was effective or persuasive, and how it enhanced your understanding of the issues at hand.
• Finally, in addition to analyzing the work, a review often suggests whether or not the audience would appreciate it.

Becoming an Expert Reviewer

Reviewing can be a daunting task. Someone has asked for your opinion about something that you may feel unqualified to evaluate. Who are you to criticize Toni Morrison’s new book if you’ve never written a novel yourself, much less won a Nobel Prize? The point is that someone—a professor, a journal editor, peers in a study group—wants to know what you think about a particular work. You may not be (or feel like) an expert, but you need to pretend to be one for your particular audience. Nobody expects you to be the intellectual equal of the work’s creator, but your careful observations can provide you with the raw material to make reasoned judgments. Tactfully voicing agreement and disagreement, praise and criticism, is a valuable, challenging skill, and like many forms of writing, reviews require you to provide concrete evidence for your assertions.

Developing an assessment: before you write

There is no definitive method to writing a review, although some critical thinking about the work at hand is necessary before you actually begin writing. Thus, writing a review is a two-step process: developing an argument about the work under consideration, and making that argument as you write an organized and well-supported draft.

What follows is a series of questions to focus your thinking as you dig into the work at hand. While the questions specifically consider book reviews, you can easily transpose them to an analysis of performances, exhibitions, and other review subjects. Don’t feel obligated to address each of the questions; some will be more relevant than others to the book in question.

• What is the thesis—or main argument—of the book? If the author wanted you to get one idea from the book, what would it be? How does it compare or contrast to the world you know? What has the book accomplished?
• What exactly is the subject or topic of the book? Does the author cover the subject adequately? Does the author cover all aspects of the subject in a balanced fashion? What is the approach to the subject (topical, analytical, chronological, descriptive)?
• How does the author support her argument? What evidence does she use to prove her point? Do you find that evidence convincing? Why or why not? Does any of the author’s information (or conclusions) conflict with other books you’ve read, courses you’ve taken or just previous assumptions you had of the subject?
• How does the author structure her argument? What are the parts that make up the whole? Does the argument make sense? Does it persuade you? Why or why not?
• How has this book helped you understand the subject? Would you recommend the book to your reader?

Beyond the internal workings of the book, you may also consider some information about the author and the circumstances of the text’s production:

• Who is the author? Nationality, political persuasion, training, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details about how a work takes shape. Does it matter, for example, that the biographer was the subject’s best friend? What difference would it make if the author participated in the events she writes about?
• What is the book’s genre? Out of what field does it emerge? Does it conform to or depart from the conventions of its genre? These questions can provide a historical or literary standard on which to base your evaluations. If you are reviewing the first book ever written on the subject, it will be important for your readers to know. Keep in mind, though, that naming “firsts”—alongside naming “bests” and “onlys”—can be a risky business unless you’re absolutely certain.

Writing the Review

Once you have made your observations and assessments of the work under review, carefully survey your notes and attempt to unify your impressions into a statement that will describe the purpose or thesis of your review. Then, outline the arguments that support your thesis.

Your arguments should develop the thesis in a logical manner. That logic, unlike more standard academic writing, may initially emphasize the author’s argument while you develop your own in the course of the review. The relative emphasis depends on the nature of the review: if readers may be more interested in the work itself, you may want to make the work and the author more prominent; if you want the review to be about your perspective and opinions, then you may structure the review to privilege your observations over (but never separate from) those of the work under review. What follows is just one of many ways to organize a review.

Introduction

Since most reviews are brief, many writers begin with a catchy quip or anecdote that succinctly delivers their argument. But you can introduce your review differently depending on the argument and audience.  In general, you should include:

• The name of the author and the book title and the main theme.
• Relevant details about who the author is and where he/she stands in the genre or field of inquiry. You could also link the title to the subject to show how the title explains the subject matter.
• The context of the book and/or your review. Placing your review in a framework that makes sense to your audience alerts readers to your “take” on the book. Perhaps you want to situate a book about the Cuban revolution in the context of Cold War rivalries between the United States and the Soviet Union. Another reviewer might want to consider the book in the framework of Latin American social movements. Your choice of context informs your argument.
• The thesis of the book. If you are reviewing fiction, this may be difficult since novels, plays, and short stories rarely have explicit arguments. But identifying the book’s particular novelty, angle, or originality allows you to show what specific contribution the piece is trying to make.
• Your thesis about the book.

Summary of content

• This should be brief, as analysis takes priority. In the course of making your assessment, you’ll hopefully be backing up your assertions with concrete evidence from the book, so some summary will be dispersed throughout other parts of the review.
• The necessary amount of summary also depends on your audience. Graduate students, beware! If you are writing book reviews for colleagues—to prepare for comprehensive exams, for example—you may want to devote more attention to summarizing the book’s contents. If, on the other hand, your audience has already read the book—such as an class assignment on the same work—you may have more liberty to explore more subtle points and to emphasize your own argument.

Analysis and evaluation of the book

• Your analysis and evaluation should be organized into paragraphs that deal with single aspects of your argument. This arrangement can be challenging when your purpose is to consider the book as a whole, but it can help you differentiate elements of your criticism and pair assertions with evidence more clearly.
• You do not necessarily need to work chronologically through the book as you discuss it. Given the argument you want to make, you can organize your paragraphs more usefully by themes, methods, or other elements of the book.
• If you find it useful to include comparisons to other books, keep them brief so that the book under review remains in the spotlight.
• Avoid excessive quotation and give a specific page reference in parentheses when you do quote. Remember that you can state many of the author’s points in your own words.
• Sum up or restate your thesis or make the final judgment regarding the book. You should not introduce new evidence for your argument in the conclusion. You can, however, introduce new ideas that go beyond the book if they extend the logic of your own thesis.
• This paragraph needs to balance the book’s strengths and weaknesses in order to unify your evaluation. Did the body of your review have three negative paragraphs and one favorable one? What do they all add up to?

Finally, a few general considerations:

• Review the book in front of you, not the book you wish the author had written. You can and should point out shortcomings or failures, but don’t criticize the book for not being something it was never intended to be.
• With any luck, the author of the book worked hard to find the right words to express her ideas. You should attempt to do the same. Precise language allows you to control the tone of your review.
• Never hesitate to challenge an assumption, approach, or argument. Be sure, however, to cite specific examples to back up your assertions carefully.
• Try to present a balanced argument about the value of the book for its audience. You’re entitled—and sometimes obligated—to voice strong agreement or disagreement. But keep in mind that a bad book takes as long to write as a good one, and every author deserves fair treatment. Harsh judgments are difficult to prove and can give readers the sense that you were unfair in your assessment.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License . You may reproduce it for non-commercial use and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Contact the Library

Library Login Information ​Email: [email protected]

Phone: (603)822-LIBR (5427)

Chat:  get assistance after-hours.

Library Chat Hours: Monday-Friday from midnight-9am & 5pm-midnight. All day Saturdays and Sundays.

• << Previous: How to Write an Abstract
• Next: How to Do an Annotated Bibliography >>
• Last Updated: Apr 9, 2024 2:30 PM
• URL: https://libraryguides.unh.edu/CPSonlineLibraryResearch

Book Reviews: What Should An Academic Book Review Look Like?

• Book Reviews
• Finding Existing Book Reviews
• What Should An Academic Book Review Look Like?

Academic Book Reviews Follow a General Format

Academic Book Reviews are written for two main readers, the academic scholars and specialized readers.  Every book review will be different depending on assignment or the audience of review.  Generally speaking a review should have the following four sections.

Introduction

• Middle or Body
• Critical Book Review Tip Sheet from University of Alberta Libraries This PDF Tip Sheet has several elements to keep in mind when writing a Academic Book Review.
• Brienza, Casey. “Writing Academic Book Reviews.” Inside Higher Ed, 27 Mar. 2015, https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2015/03/27/essay-writing-academic-book-reviews.

Standardized citation (MLA, APA, Chicago etc.) also include ISBN, number of pages in book, format (hard cover, online, etc.), and price (check cover or publishers web site for cost)  

Should generally cover three basic areas

• how this material fits into existing writings
• authors qualifications and standing in field
• history of topic
• state what the authors thesis is
• evaluate how this thesis compares with the field
• DO NOT just summarize, make sure to add your opinion as reader and expert (even if you don’t feel like one)
• give an overall value added commentary

Middle or Body – Method of Critique

• Author’s main argument
• Individual chapters and arguments
• Author’s methodology
• Accessibility / Readability
• Factual errors
• Appropriateness for intended audience
• Relationship to other research in field
• Originality
• Implications for future study
• Back up opinion with quotes from text
• Follow the Chapters : evaluate and group chapters together following the order of the book.
• Topic / Ideas : organize by the general topics covered in the book and evaluate each grouping as appropriate
• Criticism based : Each paragraph will address your critical points about the book. This can lead to a choppy review offering examples that jump around the text.
• End on a positive note but don’t lie or embellish
• Who should read and why
• Be Detailed but succinct
• Back up criticism with examples from the text. 
• Stay away from minor points such as spelling/grammar mistakes, cover art, visual appeal and gossip.
• << Previous: Finding Existing Book Reviews
• Last Updated: Nov 20, 2023 11:38 AM
• URL: https://uscupstate.libguides.com/BookReviews

Michael Milton

Michael Milton and Faith for Living, Inc.

June 6, 2018

How to Write a Critical Book Review

The theological student is required to write book reviews. This paper is designed to give structure and guidance to the student in this vital pursuit. The goal is not merely technical, however. Instead, the author lays out a plan of reading and responding that takes the student into a more in-depth discovery of the given book for pastoral application and ministry.

Introduction

What is a critical book review?

There is an art, if not science, to the academic pursuits of reading. No one has summarized this activity better than the late Dr. Mortimer Adler in his essential work, How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading. In the course of your theological-higher-education-learning-experience, you will be asked, repeatedly, to conduct a review of a selected book and to write a report. This white paper is prepared to help you to write that paper.

The critical divisions of a Critical Book Review are observation, response, conclusion.

Observation

Using the tools of Adler’s How to Read a Book will guide you in this necessary first-stage of a Critical Book Review. The essential variables of a critical book review include at least the following:

• Locating the proposition or thesis of the book.
• Ascertaining the author’s intent.
• Learning about the author and his or her relationship to the subject of the book.
• Considering the chapter flow of the book.
• Identifying the genre of the book.

The gathering of all of these facts about the book is only the first step in conducting a critical book review. The second step involves you, your experiences, and your response to the book. The essential elements of this response include:

• Critical thinking about all or part of the facts of the book.
• These steps should help you to provide your conclusion or a p ractical or pastoral application of the book.

Let’s think through each of these three elements of response in a critical book review.

Critical thinking involves questioning.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking involves what it says: careful consideration of the factual elements that you located; and your response, supported by examples or references. You are making a case as to whether the author achieved some measure of effectiveness in the book (according to your perception of his or her own goals of writing the book). Critical thinking involves questioning. Thus, questions related to the factual elements of the book would include:

“Is the thesis clear in this book? Why or why not? Provide an example.”

“Can we appropriately ascertain the author’s intent in the book? Did she clearly state that intent? Did he state the intent but failed to achieve his mission?” You are evaluating the factual elements, in this case, as it relates to the author’s intent for the book.

“Is the subject matter familiar to the author?” Or, to put it another way, “Is the author a subject matter expert on the topic of the book? How so? How did this interplay with the other factual elements that you located?”

“Did the chapter flow of the book unfold the author’s ideas?” “Get the chapter flow of the book support or detract from the premise of the book? How so? Provide support for your answer.”

Critical thinking leads to theological reflection on this book you are reviewing.

Theological reflection is a high cognitive-level activity that seeks to connect the relationship(s) between your observation of the factual elements of the book with the more abstract notions about God, humanity, life, work, and so forth.

Theological Reflection

Theological reflection is one of the most important disciplines to cultivate during your time at university or in seminary. Theology and religious studies students who become either members of the clergy or a faculty will use theological reflection daily. Indeed, theological reflection is an expected area of the Christian life. Theological reflection is a high cognitive-level activity that seeks to connect the relationship(s) between your observation of the factual elements of the book with the more abstract notions about God, humanity, life, work, and so forth. Or this exercise might lead to appropriating the thesis and flow of the selected volume with some point in Biblical history or human existence. All theological reflection necessarily begins with formulating diagnostic questions:

“Did you locate a common theological theme that tied the chapters of the book together into one larger theological narrative?   What is that theological theme and give an example of your reflection.”

“Did you discover numerous theological themes and were they connected? Was there a sense of disunity? Where the theological themes concealed within the text, or were they apparent? Provide examples for your response. Was this effective? Why or why not?”

“Relate the story of the book to the meta-narrative of Scripture. Where does the thesis of this book lie in the covenant of God and the mission of God in the world?”

You have read and researched the book before you so that you have located the factual elements of the book and given a response. Your response has involved critical thinking, theological reflection. Now, it is time to move to the final step in a Critical Book Review.

Your Conclusion (s)

The third and final division of a critical book review is the conclusion. This conclusion is not a rehashing of the author’s findings. This conclusion is your own. As a result of observation and response, you prepare yourself to apply critical thinking and theological reflection to bring about final comments on the book. A proper conclusion seeks to connect the book to some area of life, work, or ministry.

You have made a critical assessment of the factual elements of the book. You have located and interacted with theological concepts in the book. Your questions about the book in both accurate observation and theological reflection have led you to your conclusion or conclusions. Your Critical Book Review started with observations. It moved to a place of questions. Your review now ends with propositions. For example, your findings may include statements such as these:

“In summary, the author not only achieved her stated goals in writing the book but introduced the reader to questions about God’s grace in the midst of suffering. Indeed, this book will be of practical help to Christians going through times of affliction. This work will also be a solid pastoral resource for the practitioner.”

“By the end of my consideration of both the factual elements of the book and my theological reflection on the book I must conclude with these observations:

I did not find the book ‘practical for the Christian life’ for the pastoral ministry, in the way that we usually mean. However, the book is more about an examination of theological concepts and abstract ideas. To the degree that the author intended to cultivate thinking and discussion, perhaps there is some robust application after all: the use that I bring from the book is   to take the time to meditate upon Biblical truths without any pressure to immediately apply them.   Is there not virtue is merely thinking? Beyond the utilitarian approach to that requires implementing some lessons of a book, I believe there is an opportunity, here, for reflection. In this, the author has succeeded.  There is, after all, spiritual benefit from meditation”.”

The conclusion fuses observation and response with the bonding agent of reason.

A Critical Book Review is a research paper that demonstrates the student’s experience of learning during interaction with a selected book. This exercise in research includes observation of factual elements of the book, a response to the book with critical thinking and theological reflection. Both of these steps lead to a conclusion where the student can make application to some area of human existence or even provide thoughts on something altogether different from that which we might call “practical.” The conclusion is always “the student’s conclusion.” From the professor’s standpoint, the conclusion fuses observation and response with the bonding agent of reason.

A critical book review aims to actuate “deeper learning” in the course by interacting with the ideas of others. The critical book review goes beyond Mayor reading — an exercise wholly worthy in its own right — and moves to a place of connecting a person with an idea and allowing that person to respond. In this, we trust there is a genuine experience of learning.

Select Bibliography

Adler, Mortimer J., and Charles Van Doren. How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading. Revised edition. New York: Touchstone, 1972.

Johnson, Marshall D. “A Short Guide to Writing Research Papers in Biblical Studies and Theology” (n.d.): 16.

Trupiano, Rose. “Research Guides: Theology & Religious Studies: Article Search.” Accessed May 24, 2018. https://libguides.marquette.edu/c.php?g=36663&p=232883 .

“A Brief Guide for Writing Theological Reflection Papers.” Michael Milton , August 13, 2014. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://michaelmilton.org/2014/08/13/a-brief-guide-for-writing-theological-reflection-papers/ .

“Books on Writing.Pdf,” n.d. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://divinity.duke.edu/sites/divinity.duke.edu/files/documents/writing-center/Books%20on%20Writing.pdf .

“Find Information.” Accessed May 24, 2018. http://www.erskine.edu/library/find-information/ .

“Google Scholar.” Accessed May 24, 2018. https://scholar.google.com/ .

“How to Recognize Peer-Reviewed Journals.” Accessed May 24, 2018. http://www.angelo.edu/services/library/handouts/peerrev.php .

“How to Write a Theological Paper (John M. Frame).” Accessed May 24, 2018. http://www.proginosko.com/docs/frame_theol_paper.html .

“Michael A Milton, PhD | Erskine College and Theological Seminary – Academia.Edu.” Accessed May 24, 2018. http://erskineseminary.academia.edu/MichaelMilton .

“Resource Links for Theology and Religious Studies.” Michael Milton , March 10, 2007. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://michaelmilton.org/reformed-and-evangelical-links-2/ .

“Seven Questions about Books, Life, and Ministry with Michael Milton.” Servants of Grace . Last modified September 27, 2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. http://servantsofgrace.org/seven-questions-books-life-ministry-michael-milton/ .

“What Is A Peer-Reviewed Article? – Evaluating Information Sources – LibGuides at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY.” Accessed May 24, 2018. http://guides.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/c.php?g=288333&p=1922599 .

“What Is Theological Reflection and Critical Thinking and How Do I Use It in a Graduate-Level Research Paper?” Michael Milton , October 30, 2017. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://michaelmilton.org/2017/10/30/what-is-theological-reflection-and-critical-thinking-and-how-do-i-use-it-in-a-graduate-level-research-paper/ .

“Writing the Weekly Research Paper.” Michael Milton , July 24, 2016. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://michaelmilton.org/2016/07/24/writing-the-weekly-research-paper/ .

RESOURCES FOR THE JOURNEY

Amazon Associates supports the ministry, Faith for Living, Inc., a North Carolina Faith-based nonprofit corporation. Please consider your textbook and supply needs here.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Applying Critical Thinking
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

Critical thinking refers to deliberately scrutinizing and evaluating theories, concepts, or ideas using reasoned reflection and analysis. The act of thinking critically implies moving beyond simply understanding information, but questioning its source, its production, and its presentation in order to expose potential bias or researcher subjectivity [i.e., being influenced by personal opinions and feelings rather than by external determinants ] . Applying critical thinking to investigating a research problem involves actively challenging assumptions and questioning the choices and potential motives underpinning how the author designed the study, conducted the research, and arrived at particular conclusions or recommended courses of action.

Mintz, Steven. "How the Word "Critical" Came to Signify the Leading Edge of Cultural Analysis." Higher Ed Gamma Blog , Inside Higher Ed, February 13, 2024; Van Merriënboer, Jeroen JG and Paul A. Kirschner. Ten Steps to Complex Learning: A Systematic Approach to Four-component Instructional Design . New York: Routledge, 2017.

Thinking Critically

Applying Critical Thinking to Research and Writing

Professors like to use the term critical thinking; in fact, the idea of being critical permeates much of higher education writ large. In the classroom, the idea of thinking critically is often mentioned by professors when students ask how they should approach a research and writing assignment [other approaches your professor might mention include interdisciplinarity, comparative, gendered, global, etc.]. However, critical thinking is more than just an approach to research and writing. It is an acquired skill used in becoming a complex learner capable of discerning important relationships among the elements of, as well as integrating multiple ways of understanding applied to, the research problem. Critical thinking is a lens through which you holistically interrogate a topic.

Given this, thinking critically encompasses a variety of inter-related connotations applied to college-level research and writing * :

• Integrated and Multi-Dimensional . Critical thinking is not focused on any one element of research, but rather, is applied holistically throughout the process of identifying the research problem, reviewing of literature, applying methods of analysis, describing the results, discussing their implications, and, if appropriate, offering recommendations for further research. The act of thinking critically is also non-linear [i.e., applies to going back and changing prior thoughts when new evidence emerges]; it permeates the entire research endeavor from contemplating what to write to proofreading the final product.
• Humanize Research . Thinking critically can help humanize the research problem by extending the scope of your analysis beyond the boundaries of traditional approaches to studying the topic. Traditional approaches can include, for example, sampling homogeneous populations, considering only certain factors related to investigating a phenomenon, or limiting the way you frame or represent the context of your study. Critical thinking can help reveal opportunities to incorporate the experiences of others into the research, creating a more representative examination of the research problem.
• Normative . This refers to the idea that critical thinking can be used to challenge prior assumptions in ways that advocate for social justice, equity, and inclusion and which can lead to research having a more transformative and expansive impact. In this respect, critical thinking can be a method for breaking away from dominant culture norms so as to produce research outcomes that illuminate previously hidden aspects of exploitation and injustice.
• Power Dynamics . Research in the social and behavioral sciences often includes examining aspects of power and influence that shape social relations, organizations, institutions, and the production and maintenance of knowledge. This approach encompasses studying how power operates, how it can be acquired, and how power and influence can be maintained. Critical thinking can reveal how societal structures perpetuate power and influence in ways that marginalizes and oppresses certain groups or communities within the contexts of history , politics, economics, culture, and other factors.
• Reflection . A key aspect of critical thinking is practicing reflexivity; the act of turning ideas and concepts back onto yourself in order to reveal and clarify your own beliefs, assumptions, and perspectives. Being critically reflexive is important because it can reveal hidden biases you may have that could unintentionally influence how you interpret and validate information. The more reflexive you are, the better able and more comfortable you are about opening yourself up to new modes of understanding.
• Rigorous Questioning . Thinking critically is guided by asking questions that lead to addressing complex concepts, principles, theories, or problems more effectively and to help distinguish what is known from from what is not known [or that may be hidden]. In this way, critical thinking involves deliberately framing inquiries not just as research questions, but as a way to focus on systematic, disciplined,  in-depth questioning concerning the research problem and your positionality as a researcher.
• Social Change . An overarching goal of critical thinking applied to research and writing is to seek to identify and challenge sources of inequality, exploitation, oppression, and marinalization that contributes to maintaining the status quo within institutions of society. This can include entities, such as, schools, courts, businesses, government agencies, religious centers, that have been created and maintained through certain ways of thinking within the dominant culture.

In writing a research paper, the act of critical thinking applies most directly to the literature review and discussion sections of your paper . In reviewing the literature, it is important to reflect upon specific aspects of a study, such as, determining if the research design effectively establishes cause and effect relationships or provides insight into explaining why certain phenomena do or do not occur, assessing whether the method of gathering data or information supports the objectives of the study, and evaluating if the assumptions used t o arrive at a specific conclusion are evidence-based and relevant to addressing the research problem. An assessment of whether a source is helpful to investigating the research problem also involves critically analyzing how the research challenges conventional approaches to investigations that perpetuate inequalities or hides the voices of others.

Critical thinking also applies to the discussion section of your paper because this is where you interpret the findings of your study and explain its significance. This involves more than summarizing findings and describing outcomes. It includes reflecting on their importance and providing reasoned explanations why the research study is important in filling a gap in the literature or expanding knowledge and understanding about the topic in ways that inform practice. Critical reflection helps you think introspectively about your own beliefs concerning the significance of the findings but in ways that avoid biased judgment and decision making.

* Mintz, Steven. "How the Word "Critical" Came to Signify the Leading Edge of Cultural Analysis." Higher Ed Gamma Blog , Inside Higher Ed, February 13, 2024; Suter, W. Newton. Introduction to Educational Research: A Critical Thinking Approach. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2012

Behar-Horenstein, Linda S., and Lian Niu. “Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature.” Journal of College Teaching and Learning 8 (February 2011): 25-41; Bayou, Yemeserach and Tamene Kitila. "Exploring Instructors’ Beliefs about and Practices in Promoting Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Writing Classes." GIST–Education and Learning Research Journal 26 (2023): 123-154; Butcher, Charity. "Using In-class Writing to Promote Critical Thinking and Application of Course Concepts." Journal of Political Science Education 18 (2022): 3-21; Loseke, Donileen R. Methodological Thinking: Basic Principles of Social Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012; Hart, Claire et al. “Exploring Higher Education Students’ Critical Thinking Skills through Content Analysis.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 41 (September 2021): 100877; Sabrina, R., Emilda Sulasmi, and Mandra Saragih. "Student Critical Thinking Skills and Student Writing Ability: The Role of Teachers' Intellectual Skills and Student Learning." Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences 17 (2022): 2493-2510.Van Merriënboer, Jeroen JG and Paul A. Kirschner. Ten Steps to Complex Learning: A Systematic Approach to Four-component Instructional Design. New York: Routledge, 2017; Yeh, Hui-Chin, Shih-hsien Yang, Jo Shan Fu, and Yen-Chen Shih. "Developing College Students’ Critical Thinking through Reflective Writing." Higher Education Research & Development 42 (2023): 244-259.

• << Previous: Academic Writing Style
• Next: Choosing a Title >>
• Last Updated: Apr 11, 2024 1:27 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide