Critical analysis in a qualitative PhD: how to develop doctoral-level critique across your thesis
If you’re doing a PhD, you’ve probably seen this feedback at least once:
“This needs to be more critical.”
“This is still quite descriptive.”
And if your reaction was, What does that actually mean? - that’s completely normal.
Critical analysis is one of the most common forms of doctoral feedback, and one of the least clearly explained.
Many researchers assume that “being critical” means being negative or aggressively pointing out flaws. At doctoral level, that’s not what’s required at all.
Critical analysis is about judgement, positioning, and intellectual confidence.
Let’s make that concrete.
What critical analysis actually means
Being critical does not mean being dismissive of other researchers, listing weaknesses for the sake of it, sounding confident without clear reasoning.
In a qualitative PhD, critical analysis means:
Making reasoned judgements
Explaining how ideas connect
Evaluating usefulness and limits
Positioning your own research clearly
It’s the difference between saying:
“Smith (2020) argues X.”
And saying:
“Smith’s (2020) account of X is useful for understanding A, but less able to explain B - which becomes particularly visible in this study.”
That second move is critical analysis.
You are thinking with the literature, not hiding behind it.
Criticality is not a switch - it’s a ladder
One of the most helpful ways to understand doctoral-level critique is this:
Critical thinking is not something you “have” or “don’t have.” It is a progression.
The PhD Criticality Ladder - 5 key rungs
At its simplest, the criticality ladder looks like this:
Describe – What does this say?
Interpret – What does it mean in this context?
Evaluate – How strong or limited is it, and why?
Synthesise – How does it connect to other work?
Position – Where does my research stand?
Description is necessary.
But description alone is never sufficient at PhD level.
The higher rungs - synthesis and positioning - are where doctoral work becomes visible.
Critical analysis runs through your entire thesis
One of the biggest misconceptions is that criticality only belongs in the literature review. In reality, it should shape every chapter.
Introduction
Here, you are already making evaluative judgements:
Why does this topic matter?
What has the field overlooked?
Why is this problem worth examining now?
You are assessing the shape of the field, not just summarising it.
Literature review
This is where many qualitative PhD researchers remain stuck on the lower rungs. If your review feels long but flat, it’s often because it lists studies rather than:
Comparing them
Identifying debates
Evaluating usefulness
Highlighting tensions
A thematic or narrative literature review should show patterns and fault lines, not a reading list.
Methodology
Criticality here is not about apologising. It is about justification. You are explaining:
Why this qualitative approach fits your research questions
What it enables you to see
What it cannot capture
Why those trade-offs are acceptable
You are demonstrating reasoning, not defensiveness.
Findings and discussion
In findings, criticality often appears as interpretation:
What is significant here?
What is unexpected?
What patterns matter?
The discussion chapter is where the higher rungs of the ladder operate simultaneously. You:
Interpret findings
Evaluate existing theory
Synthesise across debates
Position your contribution
This is why the discussion chapter feels demanding, you are climbing multiple rungs at once.
You are not “bad at being critical”
Struggling with critical analysis does not mean you lack ability.
It usually means:
No one has broken the process down clearly
You’ve been rewarded for description before
You are learning to think at a new level
Doctoral writing is not about sounding harsh. It is about showing your reasoning.
Once you understand criticality as a process - not a personality trait - it becomes something you can practice deliberately. And improve.
If you want structured guidance
If you’ve recognised that critical analysis is really about positioning your work confidently, that is exactly the shift required in the discussion and writing-up phase. This is the stage where you:
Turn findings into arguments
Connect back to theory without repetition
Articulate contribution clearly
Write with judgement rather than apology
My Discussion & Writing Up PhD Survival Guide walks you step-by-step through that process, with structure rather than vague encouragement.
Because doctoral-level critique is not about being louder.
It is about being clearer.
