What is the difference between a critical review and other literature reviews?

A critical review differs from other literature reviews, such as a systematic literature review, in its depth of analysis and approach. While traditional literature reviews summarize existing knowledge, a critical review goes further by providing a detailed evaluation of each source. In a critical literature review, you assess the underlying assumptions of the research methods, the quality of the findings, and the relevance of the theories presented in each research paper. In a critical review, you synthesize the information to identify patterns and gaps. This synthesis is more than a simple summary; it involves combining findings from different studies to create a new understanding of the topic. This process requires critical thinking and a comprehensive analysis of the literature. The focus on identifying research gaps is a key aspect of critical reviews, which can be facilitated by identifying underlying assumptions and putting forth a novel interpretation. Clearly explaining the limitations of current research helps open new avenues for further research. A systematic review, on the other hand, follows a structured methodology to collect and analyze data from multiple studies. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing literature on a specific research question. While systematic reviews are thorough and methodical, they may not always provide the in-depth critical evaluation found in critical literature reviews. Critical reviews, by contrast, emphasize the critical analysis and synthesis of findings to advance knowledge in the field. By focusing on the detailed evaluation of existing literature, critical reviews highlight areas where research is lacking and suggest potential research gaps. The main difference lies in the critical approach and depth of analysis that challenges dominant understanding in critical literature reviews compared to the structured and methodical approach of systematic reviews.