Writing A Critical Review

Writing A Critical Review
Foundations of Sociology
Dr Neil Curry

The Task
Critical review of original text (1,500 words)(50%) Due date: Thursday 26th March 2015.
Choose any one of the key classical readings listed for the first four weeks of this module, and contained in the module reader
(by Simmel, Marx, Durkheim or Weber).
Your task is to: Write a critical review of the reading!

Choosing a Reading to Review
Simmel, G. (1950) ‘Metropolis and Mental Life’ in Simmel, G. The
Sociology of Georg Simmel, edited by Wolff, K.H., Glencoe, Illinois: The
Free Press, pp.409-24.

Marx, K. (1844) ‘Alienated Labour’ [taken from Economico-Philosophical
Manuscripts of 1844], in Kamenka, E. (ed.) (1983) The Portable Karl
Marx, New York: Penguin, p131-45.

Durkheim, E. (1897) ‘Suicide’, in Thompson, K. (ed.) (1985) Readings from Emile Durkheim, London: Routledge, p. 91-116.

Weber, M. (1991 [orig. 1920] ‘The Protestant Sects and the Spirit of
Capitalism’ in Gerth, H.H. & Wright Mills, C. From Max Weber: Essays in
Sociology, London: Routledge: pp. 302-22.

Choose a text about which you have something to say, rather than the ‘easiest’

Assessment Criteria
The specific Assessment Criteria against which you will be awarded marks are:
1. Identifies and clearly communicates key ideas contained in an original piece of classical sociological theory
2. Situates the reviewed reading within the context of the author’s general theoretical project
3. Compares the ideas expressed in the reading to those of other classical sociological theories
4. Critically evaluates the author’s arguments, and in doing so takes a position on the text (based on clear argument and references to supporting sources).

What it means to be
‘critical’
‘In academic contexts, “criticism” refers to an analysis of positive features as well as negative ones. It is important to identify strengths and satisfactory aspects rather than just weaknesses, to evaluate what works as well as what does not. Good critical analysis accounts for why something is good or poor, why it works or fails. It is not enough merely to list good and bad points.’
(Cottrell 2005: 8)

How to assess an author’s argument 1. By evidence
2. By reasoning

Supporting
Disproving
Makes new logical connections Makes errors in reasoning And if these prove inconclusive (as is nearly always the case), you will need to assess the alternatives

Using the work of others
We do not expect you, at Level 4 at least, to conduct your own empirical investigations, identify original flaws in the arguments of the classics, or to improve on the classics with your own theories or explanations (though we do not rule this out).
Instead, most of your critique will rely on the work of other academics!

A NOTE OF CAUTION
The review is NOT asking you to assess the continuing relevance of the classics (hold fire on this!). Be careful how you use recent studies in your review. Use them only to critically assess the arguments made by the classics, and don’t use them to discuss whether or not they still apply.

Taking a Position
Be brave. It is crucial that you make clear what position you take on the text:
What do you agree/disagree with?
What is good/bad, right/wrong?
What is your overall judgement of the text?
How does it compare to alternatives? Better or worse? Top Tip: Decide upon your position before you write (or stop writing until you are clear what your position is). Formulate it as clearly and simply as you can
Remember that you can always run your position past your tutor!

HOWEVER!
Your position MUST be supported by argument. This is the reason(s) WHY you take this position. ‘Using reasons to support a point of view so that known or unknown audiences may be persuaded to agree’ (Cottrell 2005:
52)’
In your introduction and conclusion, you should state your position. But the conclusion should also make clear how it is that you arrived at this position based on the arguments you have made in the ‘body’ of your essay.

An example…
An argument put forward by Jade Goody:
“Sherlock Holmes invented toilets”
My position:
I think Goody is wrong…
Argument:
…because (a) Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character (reasoning), and (b) toilets are documented as having been in existence since ancient times, with a modern waste disposal system described in writing in 16th Century, whilst Holmes was supposedly born in 1854
(evidence)

Common issues arising last year
1. Avoid plagiarism – Draft Checking on TII.
2. Structure sentences clearly
3. Address assessment criteria
4. Make the most of the reading available
5. Use quotes appropriately
6. Reference correctly
7. Be original whilst also supporting your ideas
8. Attack theories, not theorists!
9. Introduce the content of your essay
10.Present and submit your essay correctly