Abstract Many published literature reviews use the term critical review in their title, abstract, and introduction. Yet, on closer examination, a fundamental disconnect often exists between claimed criticality and actual engagement with critical theory. Most do not interrogate power relations, ideological assumptions, or knowledge hierarchies, instead offering descriptive summaries that reinforce rather than challenge dominant paradigms. Reported methods are frequently ambiguous, lacking transparency, rigour, and reflexivity. In this systematic review, we apply the PRISMA framework to identify, and a thematic analysis to evaluate higher education critical review papers published over a 20-year snapshot. The interdisciplinary scope of higher education research offers a useful cross-section of scholars and methodological traditions. This paper identifies gaps in current approaches and, through an iterative presentation of results, illustrates good practice across five key steps in conducting a robust critical review: define the problem, develop boundaries, assure quality of inclusion, analyse published papers and generate meaning. We propose a scholarly framework for conducting a critical review and provide a practical checklist to ensure a critical review is contextualised and justified for quality and rigour, fulfilling the aims of advancing and generating knowledge, and offering guidance for future research directions.
Naabi et al. (2026) studied this question.