For those sources that you want to analyze more closely, reading with a critical eye can make your research process more efficient. Use the following tips to guide your critical reading.
Keeping your research question in mind
As you read, ask yourself the following questions:
How does this material address your research question and support your hypothesis?
What quotations from this source might help support your thesis?
Does the source include counterarguments to your hypothesis that you will need to answer? If so, what answers can you provide?
Noting the author’s stance and tone
Even a seemingly factual report, such as an encyclopedia article, is filled with judgments, often unstated. Read with an eye for the author’s overall rhetorical stance, or perspective, as well as for facts or explicit opinions. Also pay attention to the author’s tone, the way his or her attitude toward the topic and audience is conveyed. The following questions can help:
Is the author a strong advocate or opponent of something? a skeptical critic? a specialist in the field?
Are there any clues to why the author takes this stance (2d)? Is professional affiliation a factor?
How does this stance affect the author’s presentation and your reaction to it?
What facts does the author include? Can you think of any important fact that is omitted?
What is the author’s tone? Is it cautious, angry, flippant, serious, impassioned? What words indicate this tone?
Considering the argument and evidence
Every piece of writing takes a position. Even a scientific report implicitly “argues” that we should accept it and its data as reliable. As you read, look for the main point or the main argument the author is making. Try to identify the reasons the author gives to support his or her position. Then try to determine why the author takes this position.
What is the author’s main point, and what evidence supports it?
How persuasive is the evidence? Can you think of a way to refute it?
Can you detect any questionable logic or fallacious thinking (8f)?
Does this author disagree with arguments you have read elsewhere? If so, what causes the disagreements—differences about facts or about how to interpret facts?