Developing your critical reading skills

In university study you will frequently hear your lecturer or tutor encouraging you to take a
critical approach to reading and researching. A critical approach to reading does not mean
criticising or 'finding fault'. It means asking yourself why this particular author has written this
particular text, and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses.

You can ask yourself many questions about the text - the more the better. These are shaped by
what you already understand about the text, and what you need to get from it.

Consider the following

There are several questions to consider when approaching your reading. The following examples
will give you a few ideas on the types of questions you should be asking when reading:

The author
o What is the author's main theme or point?

o Is the author making any particular assumptions? On what authority?

o Which aspects does the author focus on and why? Does he/she omit any important points?

o Are there additional clues about the author's attitude or stance (e.g. from his/her
position/qualifications, country of origin, the text's date of publication or publisher, the type of
text)?

o What theoretical perspective has the author taken (e.g. which writers does she/he cite most often
or most approvingly)?

o What basis or criteria is the author using to make judgements?

The content
o What is the main point, thesis or argument?

o What is the text really about (i.e. special agenda, underlying themes)?

o What explanations or supporting evidence are drawn on? Do they seem adequate, completely
relevant?

o Is all the factual information correct as far as you know?

o What aspect of the topic has the author chosen to focus on? What has s/he omitted?

o What are the author’s assumptions? Are they explicitly or implicitly stated?

o Is there any evidence of deliberate bias?

o Is there any particular philosophy that influence the author’s view?

The structure
o What is the structure of the text? What does the structure of the text reveal?

o Is the framework clear (e.g. different theories compared with a preferred theory)?

o How is the content developed? Is the material developed historically, in order of importance, in
terms of a debate?

o How does the conclusion relate to the rest of the material? Does the conclusion work logically,
and is it representative of the findings?

The style
o In what style has the material been written? Eg. Is it formal, informal, analytical, narrative,
persuasive, argumentative, or didactic?

o How do the style and format influence your reaction to the material?