A critical review is not a summary, but an argument, commentary, and discussion about the text and author. You may offer agreement or disagreement with the book to identify how you feel the work is exemplary or lacking in knowledge, judgement, or organization. Build this critical evaluation as an opportunity to address your reaction to the text. Elevate and challenge assumptions, approaches, or arguments presented by the author, although critique is most effective when discussed in light of specific examples from the book. Precise language also allows you to control the tone of your review and present a balanced argument. Again, it is possible to express strong agreement or disagreement without being too one-sided or conversely harsh. Lastly, be sure to review the book as published. It is perfectly acceptable to highlight shortcomings or failures, but it is not useful to critically review a text for being something it is not.
Focus on the transition from medical student to medical doctor, the stage of embodiment, outlook on the hierarchical violence within the hospital, and other critical emphasis persistent to the text.
Questions to consider:
What is the subject of the book? How does Dr. Smith-Oka treat it? Does she cover it in a balanced fashion? Was her approach analytical, chronological, descriptive, etc.?
Who is the author? What are Dr. Smith-Oka’s main goals in writing the book and how is it relevant to biomedicine?
What is the thesis or main argument? How does Dr. Smith-Oka structure her argument and what evidence does she use to support her claims? Is her argument effective and persuasive?
What are the book’s strengths and weaknesses? Is Dr. Smith-Oka’s book an easy read? Confusing? Interesting? Entertaining? Instructive? What works and what does not work?
For whom is the book written? What audiences would appreciate Dr. Smith-Oka’s text? Who would find it useful?
What does the book accomplish? How has or has not Dr. Smith-Oka’s book helped you to understand the subjecluvt? Would you recommend it?