What is reading critically?

Reading critically means that you do not take the text at face value, but that you include the presented arguments and proof to inform your assessment of (the information in) the source. It does not mean that you automatically have to reject a text. Your critical reading process starts with the idea that texts are not neutral and that they try to influence the reader and/or are influenced themselves by the ideology of the author. You try to identify those ideologies and try to understand how they influence the message. You also try to identify which part(s) of a text are most important to your purpose, and which part(s) are most controversial. Then you can investigate how it does or does not connect to your knowledge and ideology.

In short, reading critically involves an extra step that enables you to combine your own knowledge and point of view with what is presented in the text, to then come to a balanced conclusion.

How do you read critically?

The central concept of critical reading is the formulation of some type of judgment, not the reproduction of the content of the text. You need to determine if, according to you, this is a convincing and valuable contribution to a scientific or societal debate. You cannot form such a judgment without preparation and prior knowledge--reading critically is about arguments, not opinions.

There are two types of arguments:

1. Internal: When the texts shows inconsistencies or incomplete arguments. The reasoning is not sound, causation and correlation are confused, the text contains contradictions. There can be a lack of concrete examples or proper proof, or the author miscontextualises citations. Sometimes the text contains downright factual inaccuracies. Mistakes, however, can also be placed under the second type of arguments.
2. External: To find these types of arguments, you as the reader need to possess prior knowledge. You need to determine whether the text presents its subject properly. For this type of argument, it is important to continue to question the gaps in your knowledge, to continue asking "is that really true?", even when something sounds like it adds up.

There are three angles from which you can interrogate the text:

• The position of the text
  Who is the author? Are they an (inter)national expert? Have they published on this topic before? Who published their previous work (publisher, journal, ....)?
  Who is the audience of this text? Does that strengthen or weaken its reliability?
  When was this text written and published? Does that inform how certain things are framed? How does that translate to the current state of affairs?
  Does the text discuss facts or does it address a controversial debate? What makes up the controversy?
  What do reviews say about the text?
• Persuasion
  Which sources does the author base themself on? Is it recent, are there multiple sources, what type of sources does the author quote?
  What is the methodology used? Is it explained clearly? Is the dataset representative and large enough to draw conclusions from?
  What is the ideology of the author and is it formulated explicitly in the text? Is there a hidden agenda?
  Are the factual arguments based on actual facts? Are the normative arguments properly supported? Does the author discuss counterarguments?
  Does the author's conclusion follow naturally from the arguments?
• Prior knowledge?
  What does the text add to other publications you have already consulted about the topic?
  Does the text represent (the research of) the topic accurately? Does the text accurately convey its position in the existing field?

Based on these questions, you can form your own critical judgment.