Scholarlink

<p>Many published literature reviews use the term <i>critical review</i> in their title, abstract, and introduction. Yet, on closer examination, a fundamental disconnect often exists between claimed criticality and actual engagement with critical theory. Most do not interrogate power relations, ideological assumptions, or knowledge hierarchies, instead offering descriptive summaries that reinforce rather than challenge dominant paradigms. Reported methods are frequently ambiguous, lacking transparency, rigour, and reflexivity. In this systematic review, we apply the PRISMA framework to identify, and a thematic analysis to evaluate higher education critical review papers published over a 20-year snapshot. The interdisciplinary scope of higher education research offers a useful cross-section of scholars and methodological traditions. This paper identifies gaps in current approaches and, through an iterative presentation of results, illustrates good practice across five key steps in conducting a robust critical review: define the problem, develop boundaries, assure quality of inclusion, analyse published papers and generate meaning. We propose a scholarly framework for conducting a critical review and provide a practical checklist to ensure a critical review is contextualised and justified for quality and rigour, fulfilling the aims of advancing and generating knowledge, and offering guidance for future research directions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Reclaiming the critical review method: a reconceptualization

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月18日

查看全文
  • Ishaq Al Naabi,
  • Joseph Crawford,
  • Loeurt To,
  • Jo-Anne Kelder

摘要

Many published literature reviews use the term critical review in their title, abstract, and introduction. Yet, on closer examination, a fundamental disconnect often exists between claimed criticality and actual engagement with critical theory. Most do not interrogate power relations, ideological assumptions, or knowledge hierarchies, instead offering descriptive summaries that reinforce rather than challenge dominant paradigms. Reported methods are frequently ambiguous, lacking transparency, rigour, and reflexivity. In this systematic review, we apply the PRISMA framework to identify, and a thematic analysis to evaluate higher education critical review papers published over a 20-year snapshot. The interdisciplinary scope of higher education research offers a useful cross-section of scholars and methodological traditions. This paper identifies gaps in current approaches and, through an iterative presentation of results, illustrates good practice across five key steps in conducting a robust critical review: define the problem, develop boundaries, assure quality of inclusion, analyse published papers and generate meaning. We propose a scholarly framework for conducting a critical review and provide a practical checklist to ensure a critical review is contextualised and justified for quality and rigour, fulfilling the aims of advancing and generating knowledge, and offering guidance for future research directions.