“Criticism is easy, building is hard.” We repeat this often in our civic space. But there is a missing link between the two, and it explains why so much of our national conversation goes in circles.
That link is Critical Appraisal.
In discussing development, it is important to distinguish between criticism and critical appraisal. Often, we confuse these two human actions. The two are related, but they are not the same thing.
The key difference is this: Criticism focuses on what is wrong, whereas critical appraisal systematically evaluates the whole — strengths, weaknesses, evidence, assumptions, significance, and possible improvements.
This distinction is significant because criticism condemns and buries while critical appraisal evaluates for contribution, engagement and growth. It therefore seems plausible to hypothesize that *to build, critical appraisal is mandatory.
Two Methods, Two Outcomes
Criticism identifies deficiencies; while critical appraisal evaluates evidence and possibilities.
Constructive critical appraisal is aimed at using evaluation to improve what is being examined. It often leads to building and building better, thereby constituting an engine of progress and development.
Given this distinction we can argue that critical appraisal could serve as an important bridge between criticism and building: societies need criticism, but criticism becomes developmentally productive when it progresses into appraisal, alternatives, experimentation and construction.
An Illustrative Example:
Let us imagine that somebody has proposed a locally manufactured digitalized electronic device for use in the rural areas of the country.
Criticism might say: _”The device is too expensive, the battery life is inadequate, and GSM coverage in rural areas will make the system unreliable.” Those observations might be entirely correct, but they concentrate on deficiencies.
Critical appraisal would ask a wider set of questions:
Is there a genuine problem requiring technology? How does the proposed device compare with conventional traditional approaches? Is the proposed operational methodology technically valid? What are its limitations under rural conditions? What evidence supports the expected benefits? Are the proposed costs realistic? What are the risks associated with GSM coverage, battery life and human behaviour? What aspects are genuinely innovative? And, importantly, how could any weaknesses be addressed?
Thus, critical in critical appraisal does not mean “negative.” It comes closer to careful, analytical judgment.
This distinction is particularly relevant to the theme of “criticism versus building.” Criticism can identify why something does not work; critical appraisal can identify what works, what does not, why, and what should be changed to make it work better. In research, engineering (including social engineering), innovation, development and creativity, that last step is particularly important.
The Comparison
Aspect Criticism Critical Appraisal
Main purpose Identify faults, shortcomings Determine quality, validity, value and limitations
Typical question “What is wrong with this?” “How sound is this, and why?”
Strengths May be secondary or absent Explicitly considers strengths
Weaknesses Usually central Examined alongside strengths
Evidence Can be opinion-based Ideally evidence- and criteria-based
Alternatives Not necessarily required Often considers alternatives or improvements
Context- May judge against expectations Examines assumptions, circumstances and constraints
Outcome- A negative or corrective judgment may result A balanced, reasoned assessment adding to further development
The 3Cs — From CIVICS ARCHIVES
This is where conscience, competence and character enter.
Conscience — Are you condemning or contributing? Conscience asks: Am I merely identifying what is wrong to appear smart, or am I evaluating the whole to help build? Criticism without appraisal is sand — it irritates but does not build.
Competence — The engine of progress: Competence says critical appraisal is evidence-based, criteria-based, considers alternatives, examines assumptions. That is competence. Criticism can be opinion-based. To build a nation, we need appraisal.
Character — The builder’s character: Character knows: the critic condemns, the appraiser builds. Burying truth with only faults does not change truth. Character asks “how can we make this work better?” — not just “what is wrong?
Conclusion: Crossing the Bridge
Nigeria does not suffer from lack of critics. Every timeline is full of what is wrong. We suffer from lack of critical appraisers — people willing to ask what works, what does not, why, and how to make it better.
You may criticize and bury, but you cannot bury the need to build. Only appraisal builds.
The archivist’s resolve therefore is simple: I choose critical appraisal over mere criticism. I will not just point at what is wrong — I will examine what works, what doesn’t, why, and how to make it better. My ink will not just condemn. It will contribute.
That is how fragments survive 1,000 years.
Prof Adekunle Oloyede is a Researcher, scholar of development and innovation. Citizen Richard Odusanya is Convener, CIVICS ARCHIVES — WITNESS 2026, anchored on CONSCIENCE, COMPETENCE and CHARACTER.
