Criticase

Criticase is a structured framework for evaluating case-based arguments and debates, used primarily in critical studies, law, and policy analysis. The framework defines a set of criteria for judging the quality of a case, including relevance of the issues, adequacy of evidentiary support, methodological transparency, logical coherence of inferences, and consideration of ethical implications. It emphasizes distinguishing between the descriptive content of a case and the normative conclusions drawn from it, and it provides a rubric to rate the strength of conclusions.

Origin and development: The term arose in scholarly discussions about improving critical appraisal of case studies in the 2020s and was subsequently formalized into a tool by a consortium of universities and research centers. The aim was to provide a replicable method for critiquing case-based reasoning across disciplines.

Structure and features: Criticase typically includes a modular rubric, workflow for peer review, and an open repository of annotated cases. Submissions are evaluated against standardized prompts, and critiques are produced as both quantitative scores and narrative analyses. The framework also encourages transparency about assumptions, potential biases, and limits of the case data.

Applications: It is used in higher education to train students in critical thinking, in professional ethics training, and in policy analysis to assess the strength of policy arguments and case studies presented by various stakeholders.

Reception and limitations: Proponents highlight improved clarity and comparability of critiques, while critics warn that rigid criteria may overlook context and nuance. Adoption depends on user training and the availability of representative case material.

See also: Critical appraisal, Case study research, Debate analysis.