Critical thinking
and
justifying your research
Ivan Horrocks
Technology Management Teaching and Research
Group
Session Aims
• To explore the nature and purpose of critical thinking
• To consider how to justify your research and why this is
important
Topics
•
•
•
•
Definitions of critical thinking
Employing critical thinking and its outcomes
Why justifying your research is essential
“State of the Art” review
Critical thinking: definitions
• ‘When you think critically, you weigh up all sides of an argument
and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.’ (OU, 2008:7)
• ‘Wikipedia: nine definitions – all of which centre on the process of
thinking, one example:
‘Disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and
informed by evidence.’
• ‘Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our
thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or
down-right prejudiced…Critical thinking is the art of analysing and
evaluating thinking with a view to improving it.’
(Paul and Elder, 2007:4, emphasis added)
Critical thinking: the result
‘A well cultivated critical thinker:
• Raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and
precisely;
• Gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas
to interpret it effectively;
• Comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them
against relevant criteria and standards;
• Thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought,
recognising and assessing, as need be, their assumptions,
implications, and practical consequences; and
• Communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to
complex problems
• Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, selfmonitored, and self-corrective thinking.’
• (Paul and Elder, 2007:4, emphasis added)
“Universal intellectual standards” (1)
It is proposed that these are standards ‘…which must be applied
to thinking whenever one is interested in checking the quality of
reasoning about a problem, issue, or situation. To think critically
entails having command of these standards.’ (Paul and Elder,
2007:10).
• Clarity: Could you elaborate, give an example, or illustrate what
you mean?
• Accuracy: How can we check, find out if it is true, or verify or test
that?
• Precision: Could you be more specific, give more details, or be
more exact?
• Relevance: How does that relate to the problem, bear on the
question, or help us with the issue?
“Universal intellectual standards” (2)
• Depth: What factors make this a difficult problem?
What are some of the complexities of this question?
What are some of the difficulties we need to deal with?
• Breadth: Do we need to look at this from another perspective?
Do we need to consider another point of view?
Do we need to look at this another way?
• Logic: Does all this make sense together?
Does your first paragraph fit in with your last?
Does what you say follow from the evidence
• Significance: Is this the most important problem to consider?
Is this the central idea to focus on?
Which of these factors are most important?
• Fairness: Do I have a vested interest in this issue?
Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others?
Discussion
• Thinking about the work you’ve done so far on your research, can
you answer the following questions:
Purpose:
• What am I trying to accomplish?
• What is my central aim? My purpose?
Questions
• What question am I raising?
• What question am I addressing?
• Am I considering the complexities in my question(s)?
Justifying your research
More frequently than you might imagine the case/argument
constructed to justify research (design, findings, conclusions, etc) is
defined to a greater degree by one or other form of “egocentric
thinking” than it is by objective review and analysis:
•
•
•
•
•
“It’s true because I believe it” (innate egocentrism)
“It’s true because we believe it” (innate socio-centrism)
“It’s true because I want to believe it” (innate wish fulfillment)
“It’s true because I have always believed it” (innate self-validation)
“It’s true because it’s in my selfish interest to believe it” (innate
selfishness)
Justifying your research:
“state of the art review”
• “State of the art review” is a term that's used to indicate something
wider than a literature review - drawing on interviews and
conversations with experts in a field, policy papers and other grey
literature, conference presentations and so on.
• It's used partly because in many fields the cutting edge research
students could engage with is 1-3 years ahead of what's
published,…
• …and partly to wean them off the idea that being a researcher
and scoping the field is just about reading.
(with thanks to Chis High)
The purpose of a state of the art review?
A state of the art review is important for your probation report
because it demonstrates that:
•
•
•
•
•
You know about subject
You can review your area critically
You can use existing knowledge to focus your research question
Your research method/approach is sound
You have a context for your results
Activity
• In your groups:
• Choose a research project (this can be the research of one of
your group)
• Brainstorm (i.e. identify) the sources that could be used to make
up a “state of the art” review for this research
• Use the description of a “state of the art” review that we’ve just
discussed as guidance when identifying sources
• Note down all of the sources you identify
• Timing = 15 minutes
The basics of a “state of the art review”
Summary
• Journals
• Conference Papers and
Proceedings
• Books
• Practitioner documents &
reports
• Dissertations and theses
• Government documents
• Policy research
• Dictionaries
• Statistics and market data
• Newspapers, TV and Radio
• Websites
• Visual materials
– Plans
– Designs
• Grey literature:
– Company reports
Trade literature
Unpublished research
• Exhibitions and
performances
Beyond the basics: people and networks
•
•
•
•
•
Authors
Practitioners
Journalists
Media Researchers
‘Stakeholders’
• Contacting People
– Conferences
– Interviewing
– Run a Workshop
– Give a Seminar
– Start a blog/tweets or join a
discussion list
Reviewing: keep records
• Vital – or you will waste a lot of time
• Fully record sources – when you discover them
• Be efficient – use the same source for different purposes
whenever you can
• Use a bibliographic package from the outset (e.g. Endnote, etc)
• Keep a research journal. This is a key resource in writing up to
explain the rationale for research and your learning processes
• Finally, the “Production Process”: Notes -> Reviews -> Working
papers -> Publication
References
• Open University (2008) Thinking Critically study guide,
www.open.ac.uk/skillsforstudy
• Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2007) The Miniature Guide to Critical
Thinking: concepts and tools. Dillon Beach, CA:The Foundation
for Critical Thinking.