Close
The purpose of reviewing is to see through the surface text of a book or article to its inner workings. As with any document, a text must be read critically. The notes below give some hints on how this task might be approached. It offers suggestions for thinking about a text, not a step-by-step guideline that can be applied mechanically.
Authors may have had several hundred pages to make their points, while you are restricted to a few pages. A simple summary of the work is usually not enough to analyse the author鈥檚 main points, the way they are set out, and the assumptions that underline them. You must reorganise the author鈥檚 argument and exposition for your own purposes. This requires you to think carefully about some of the following questions or topics.
Comparing the Author鈥檚 Goals and Achievements
What are the chief goals of the work (usually announced in the introduction, preface or first few paragraphs)? What do you think are the actual major themes? Are the arguments proven, and by what means? Are there conspicuous omissions that you think should have been covered? Why were they left out?
Morals, Uses, Politics
What are the author鈥檚 moral and political judgments, and how do they affect the text? For what purpose has the author shaped the material? Are the author鈥檚 interests implicit or explicit?
Models of Society, Economy and Polity
What does the author presume or state about the nature of social, economic or political organisation in the society being examined? What does the author assume about the structures of power and the means of social control or domination? Does the author presume that consensus or conflict is natural in the workings of a society or see a small group dominating the society? Does the author present evidence or only theory in support of these views?
Plots and Stories
From whose viewpoint does the author present the story or argument? Why do you think that particular viewpoint was chosen? Is this text presented as part of a larger story or history? Why does it begin and end when it does? Does the choice of end and beginning build in any bias in the argument? How does the author divide time? Why?
Models of Human Nature and Causation
Does the author presume that humans change easily or are hostile to change? Does change come from individual or collective human choice and action? Or is it the result of unanticipated consequences of actions? Or the result of the workings or larger forces or structures? Does society create human beings and their actions or vice-versa in the author鈥檚 opinion? To what extent are humans constrained by their culture, society or times, and how far are they free to create what they will? Is human nature universal, or a cultural and temporal creation, according to the author?
Uses of Evidence and Proof
How does the author use evidence, and is the right kind of evidence used to prove the argument? Are the basic facts presented determined more by the evidence used or by the author鈥檚 premises or presuppositions?