Skip to Main Content

Success at Master's Level

Improve your postgraduate academic skills, with tips on critical reading, clearer arguments, addressing complexity, and writing with authority.

Critical Reading

Use many media sources and a questioning stance to arrive at a wider critical interpretation
Building an Evidence Base

Your evidence base should be built from authoritative sources.  Start with the databases listed in your subject guide to look for peer-reviewed articles that are recent (ideally 3-5 years old) on topics you wish to explore, or guidance from trustworthy organisations in your disciplines. Make a note of where your references come from.

See SearchStart for more on finding and evaluating information.
Also see our reading guide for example of tables for evaluating evidence you are reading.

At master’s level it helps if you show a critical disposition; you can orientate yourself around your subject by more focus and interest in your subject by reading in its widest sense. Think of all the different channels information can be gleaned from about your subject area: TV news, podcasts, radio, documentaries, professional body websites, online news media.

Keep alert to news stories and try to engage with the debates:

  • What would the impact of ideas and decisions be?
  • What might wider consequences be?
  • Do you foresee any problems implementing ideas on the ground?
  • How practical are they?

This type of questioning is critical thinking in action. You could then look for academic articles to strengthen any arguments. This applied thinking should be viewed as a supplement to your academic reading.


Synthesising the literature

A good tip when you are trying to summarise complexity is to use a PEP table (Perspective; Evidence; Position) to organise your ideas and synthesise the findings according to themes in the debates. Using a PEP table to take notes, explore each perspective in turn.

For example, imagine you are writing about the debates about the use of Covid 19 vaccines:
Element Example

Perspective

  • What characterises this perspective?
  • Add definitions and keywords.

Perspective 1: ‘'Covid-19 vaccines should not be given to children’

  • Vaccine - definition
  • Informed consent - definition
  • Developmental risk - definition

Evidence

  • What is the evidence like?
  • Identify themes in the articles supporting this perspective (note citations down).
  • Evaluate the evidence, according to credibility, relevance, and significance.

There are several themes in relation to this perspective:

  • Consent -  (Baho and Immal, 2021) - A wide lens philosophical summary - subjective but convincing.
  • Developmental risk - (Orsten, Chan & Esfrangi, 2020; Brash & White, 2018) - These reviews of experimental studies indicate uncertainty.

Position

  • What is your stance in relation to this perspective?
  • To what extent does the evidence support the perspective identified?
  • How much do you agree with this perspective, in relation to your context or the overall essay question?

It is useful to compare the weakness of the evidence in relation to this perspective, and the strength of evidence in Perspective 2 (Vaccines should be given to everyone'.).

  1. The evidence is mixed – whilst the philosophical arguments are convincing, scientific evidence seems uncertain.
  2. Given the known risks to older adults of encountering unvaccinated children, and the unknown but probably minor risks of vaccinating children, it is acceptable to go ahead with vaccinating children.

For more help on analysing articles and synthesising your reading check out our Effective Reading Guide.

Comparing findings to literature

Comparing your findings to wider literature

One task that can be tricky is using the wider literature to arrive at your conclusions.

For example, in discussing a research project, you need to compare and contrast your findings against those of others and use key literature to support the interpretation of your results. Often, this will involve revisiting key studies from your literature review and discussing where your findings fit in the pre-existing literature. This process can help to highlight the importance of your research, by demonstrating what is novel about your findings and how this contributes to the wider understanding of your research area.

See how this is achieved in the following sentences:

Whilst Agwanobi and O’Farrell (2022) found that for most people, the impact of Covid 19 had negative impacts on wealth and mental wellbeing, my study identified psychological protective factors that contributed to some being able to buffer and weather these negative influences such as pre-existing self-reliance beliefs, long-term hopeful conceptions of self-efficacy and enduring optimism as measured by...

In the longer term these findings may contribute to psychological support mechanisms for those undergoing significant social stressors. The findings also identified pre-planning executive functioning as a contributory factor to self-reliance beliefs which would signify recommendations concerning...


Adsetts Library
Collegiate Library


Sheffield Hallam University
City Campus, Howard Street
Sheffield S1 1WB


Sheffield Hallam Signifier