Being "critical" in academic writing:
building towards the literature
review
Jackie Tuck
10th March 2016
jackie.tuck@open.ac.uk
Focus of the session
• Taking a critical stance in postgraduate
writing – what does it look like?
• Building effective critical conversations in
writing.
There is a widely held belief that academic writing is
purely objective, impersonal and informational, designed
to disguise the author and deal directly with facts… But
because academic writers are contributing to an ongoing
scholarly debate, they are simultaneously seeking to
present propositional information while persuading
readers of their claims. Arguments are rarely made
without interpretive statements and assessments of their
likely probability, and these assessments necessarily
involve subjective judgements (Hyland, 2000; Swales,
1990).
K. Hyland, P. Tse (2005) English for Specific Purposes 24
123-4
Activity 1
Look at the extracts on the handout. In each case,
consider:
• What is the writer’s stance towards the literature
being discussed?
• How has that stance been communicated in writing?
• How does it convince?
• How might it differ from what is acceptable in a
thesis/probationary report?
• How does the expression of criticality here differ, if it
does, from practices in your discipline?
Activity 2
In a small group, briefly discuss the following
and jot down your responses:
What are your readers (supervisors, examiners,
academic community) looking for when
deciding whether your work is sufficiently
critical?
Being critical in academic writing (1)
Able to:
• Evaluate – both negatively and positively
• See a study/article/book/body of work in the
context of other work
• Connect relevantly with your own work
• Identify affordances and limitations
• Identify blank spots and blind spots and what
is clearly viewed.
Being critical in academic writing (2)
Making judgments about:
• which literatures to engage with, which to
signal briefly, which to ignore
• which aspects of texts to stress, which to
downplay
• what the key aspects are for your argument
Being critical in academic writing (3)
• Applying theoretical frameworks to the
analysis of data in an appropriate way.
• Making decisions about what can and can’t be
claimed on the basis of particular data or
particular forms of analysis.
• Attending to crucial details which others may
have missed.
Being critical in academic writing (4)
Paying attention to:
• Definitions
• Underlying assumptions
• Theoretical resources mobilised
• Epistemology
• Methodology
• Method (who, what, when, where, how, why)
• Findings
Being critical in academic writing (5)
•
•
•
•
•
writing with authority
presenting one’s own view as reasonable
presenting one’s view as evidence-based
convincing rather than pleading
taking your place in the discussion
Activity 3
Quick individual reflection, followed by a minute
or two of sharing with your neighbour.
When you think of writing a literature review,
what is this process like for you? What
metaphors come to mind?
Metaphors for the experience of
creating a literature review…
• Whirlpools, oceans full of sharks and rocks,
tossed by the waves and winds.
• Swamps,
quicksands
• Tunnels, mazes, searching the night sky
• Gold-mining, searching for sea
shells
• Pulling teeth, sweating blood
• Getting tied in knots, tangled up
• Laying a brick wall, making a table
An Elegant Dinner Party (pencil & w/c heightened with white on paper) , Beraud, Jean (1849-1935), French
Credit
Christie's Images / Bridgeman Art Library / Universal Images Group
Rights Managed / For Education Use
Activity 4: Your literature review as
dinner party
• Who would you invite? Individuals and whole
groups of scholars?
• Who would you introduce to whom, what would
you like them to discuss?
• Who would be important guests, who less
prominent?
• Who would hold the floor, who probably just
make a quick appearance?
• Where would they “sit” in relation to one
another? Where would you sit in relation to
them?
Ivanič et al (2000)
Me
Ivanič et al (2000)
Me
Ivanič et al (2000)
Me
Activity 5: writing exercise
Choose one writer/body of work/article or
book/piece of research or group of research
studies which you know well or have recently
read. What would their main contribution to the
dinner party conversation be? What would
others/you like to say in response?
Activity 5: writing exercise contd
Write a paragraph which conveys your stance towards
that work, acknowledging its contribution and its
limitations. You can cite the work and point of view of
others or not.
Share it with your neighbours.
What stance do they pick up from it? How
critical/appreciative[or is it hard to tell]? What reasons
for this stance come across? What does it suggest about
the direction of the research you will be doing?