CRITICAL THINKING
Understanding
The Principles And Processes
Of Thinking Well
Chapter 6
Thinking Critically About Research
By
Glenn Rogers, Ph.D.
Copyright
©
2013
Glenn Rogers
Thinking Critically About Research
What has critical thinking got to do with research? Research is what
generates the data to be analyzed in the critical thinking process. Without
data to analyze, what are we going to think critically about? The link
between doing research and thinking critically is a vital one.
The Need for Research
If someone claimed that most people in America believe that capital
punishment is a deterrent to capital crime, how would you know whether or
not that is the case?
If someone argued that capital punishment is, in fact, a deterrent to capital
crime, how would you know whether or not that was the case? The only way
you can know whether or not either of those claims is true, is to do research
and see if the data supports the claim being made.
Thinking Critically About Research
The Need for Research
What if you believe that the shift in higher education to a customer service
orientation, with the students being customers who must be served and given
what they want, has led to the devaluing, the dumbing down, of American
higher education? You suspect that this is true, but you cannot make a case
for it without facts. How do you get the facts you need to make your case?
You do research.
Research is a necessary part of the critical thinking process because you
can’t do critical analysis if you have nothing to analyze. Anyone can make
any kind of a claim. But you cannot know whether or not the claim is true
unless you research it. Truth doesn’t just fall out of the sky into your lap. You
have to go find it. Good critical thinkers will learn how to do thorough
research.
Thinking Critically About Research
Facts vs. Fantasy
Popular culture is full of myths, legends, and fantasy, that people accept as
true, often referring to what “they say” (whoever they are) as if it was fact.
One is that Mr. Rogers was a Navy Seal.
Another is that there are giant alligators in the sewers under New York City.
Yet another is that if you leave a tooth overnight in a glass of Coke a Cola, by
morning it will have been dissolved.
None of these myths is true. Yet they are often repeated as if they were facts.
Thinking Critically About Research
Facts vs. Fantasy
What is a fact? A fact is something that is actually the case. That there is an
apple on my desk is a fact because it is actually the case that, at this
moment, as I write this sentence, there is an apple on my desk. There is also a
stack of books and a computer, and a cup of tea on my desk. These things
are facts. They are the case.
In his book, Metaphysics, Aristotle observed, “To say that what is, is not, or to
say that what is not, is, is false and to say that is, is, or that what is not, is not, is
true.” This was Aristotle’s way of saying that if you say something is a fact
when it isn’t, you are wrong. If you say something is not a fact when it is, you
are also wrong. A fact is a fact. What the critical thinker must do is research in
order to discover what is, in fact, the case. Aristotle, Metaphysics, 4.7.
Thinking Critically About Research
Objective vs. Subjective
The objective vs. subjective nature of reality can be a tricky topic because it
works at two levels. At one level we have objective truth. There is an
objective reality and objective truth is a part of it.
But how do we know objective truth exists? By a combination of two things:
reason and experience. For instance, as discussed earlier, I know I exist. I am
sitting at my computer thinking about myself thinking. I can’t be thinking
without the ability to think. And if I have the ability to think, then whatever
else I might be (or might not be) I am at least a thinking being—which means I
exist. I cannot simply be a character in some other being’s imagined reality.
The only being who could pull off something of that magnitude (creating an
imaginary reality where I thought I existed but did not) would be God. And
God, given what is required for God to be God, that he must be good and
kind and benevolent, would not (nor have reason to) perpetrate such a ruse.
Thinking Critically About Research
Objective vs. Subjective
I am not an imaginary character in a nonexistent reality. I am thinking about
myself thinking because I am a thinking being. Therefore, I exist. I am an
objective reality. And as such I can think about other objective realities, such
as mathematical realities. 2+2=4 is an objective reality. 2+2 is not 4 if I want it
to be or think it is, or if you want it to be or think it is. 2+2 is 4 because it is 4. It is
an objective reality, an objective truth. And it is an objective truth that can be
comprehended (known) by the human mind.
We can experience other sorts of objective truth—the physical laws of the
cosmos, for instance, that function with absolute regularity. For example, if
you add vinegar to baking soda you get the same result every time. Not
some of the time, not most of the time. Every time. Why? Because objective
reality exists.
Thinking Critically About Research
Objective vs. Subjective
An objective reality exists; an objective truth exists. There are real things and real
facts about those things. The critical thinker understands that this is the case.
But subjective opinion also exists. During the 2013 spring break I led a group of
students on a tour of several major European cities. Paris was one of them. While in
Paris, we visited the Louver Museum.
One of the paintings we saw was the Mona Lisa, perhaps the most famous painting in
the world. Seeing it was interesting. Personally, however, I did not think it was a
beautiful painting. The color scheme is rather bland and the woman in the painting
(is her name Lisa or Mona?) is rather ordinary looking. I don’t think the Mona Lisa is a
beautiful painting. That, however, is my subjective opinion. I think Scarlett Johansson
is a beautiful woman. That, too, is my subjective opinion. There are facts and then
there are opinions. The good critical thinker will know the difference between the
two.
Thinking Critically About Research
Informed vs. Uninformed Opinions
Once we enter the realm of opinions we must differentiate between informed
and uninformed opinions. Informed opinions are worth considering;
uninformed opinions are not worth the breath it takes to articulate them.
An opinion is a judgment one forms about a matter that is not factual in
nature. An opinion is linked to that which is subjective in nature because it is
not factual. For instance, what is beautiful? I can have an opinion about
what I think is beautiful, but what is beautiful or not beautiful is not a factual
kind of a thing. I cannot say that it is a fact that Scarlett Johansson is beautiful
because, as the saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The nature
of beauty is that it involves a subjective judgment.
Thinking Critically About Research
Informed vs. Uninformed Opinions
There are some subjective judgments that are based simply on personal
preference. I, for instance, think pepperoni pizza is the best pizza. My wife,
however, believes that mushroom pizza is the best. These are completely
subjective judgments, preferences, if you prefer.
However, there are some subjective judgments that must be based on the
thoughtful analysis of the available information.
An opinion based on the thoughtful analysis of the available information is an
informed opinion. An opinion that one has formed without thoughtful analysis
of the available information is an uninformed opinion.
Thinking Critically About Research
Informed vs. Uninformed Opinions
For example, a few semesters ago, I had a gentleman in my Ethics class who
had an opinion on whether or not a developing fetus is a person. We had
discussed the arguments for and against the personhood of the developing
human fetus. This gentleman stated emphatically that the fetus was not a
person, and therefore had no rights.
I acknowledged his opinion and then asked for his reasons for holding that
opinion. “Why,” I asked, “do you think that the developing fetus is not a
person?”
He replied, “Because it isn’t.”
Thinking Critically About Research
Informed vs. Uninformed Opinions
“Yes,” I said, “I understand that it is your opinion that the developing fetus is
not a person. I get that. But I would like to know why you think that? Why
isn’t the fetus a person?”
“Because it isn’t,” he replied.
“Yeah, but why isn’t it?” I asked.
“Because it isn’t.”
“But why isn’t it?”
“Because it isn’t.”
“Okay,” I said, “so it appears that you have an opinion, but apparently you
have no reasons for holding that opinion. You don’t seem to have any
reasons for why you believe what you believe. Is that the case?”
He would not respond.
Thinking Critically About Research
Informed vs. Uninformed Opinions
This is an example of an uninformed opinion. He had an opinion and felt very
strongly about it. But he had no reasons (at least none that he could
articulate) for why he held that opinion.
It was simply an opinion, which made it an uninformed opinion, because
concerning the status of fetuses, there are a great many factors to be
considered. It did not appear, however, that he had considered any of
them. Thus, his opinion was uninformed. Thus, his opinion was worthless. And
that is the point: from a critical thinking perspective, an uninformed opinion is
a worthless opinion.
If there is information to be analyzed and considered, and it is not analyzed
and considered, no critical thinking has occurred. And if no critical thinking
has occurred, whatever minimal kind of thinking has occurred is not worth
much.
Thinking Critically About Research
Informed vs. Uninformed Opinions
Even in matters of opinion, critical thinking is crucial. Good critical thinkers will
look for whatever information there is about whatever subject is being
considered and factor that information into their opinion about that subject.
When that occurs you have an informed opinion.
Evaluating Sources
How reliable is the data you’ve gathered? The answer to that question has a
lot to do with where you got the data. Some sources are reliable; some are
not.
Thinking Critically About Research
Evaluating Sources
A lot of research is done on the internet. There is nothing wrong with that per
se. But the internet is a big place. It is unregulated and people can post,
pretty much, whatever they want on their website. That means that when you
go online to do research, you need to do some research on the reliability of
the sites you visit. How reliable is the information they give you?
Websites that end in .gov, .edu, and some that end in .org, are more likely to
provide reliable data. Though some organization websits, those that end in
.org publish material that is extremely biased.
Thinking Critically About Research
Evaluating Sources
Another concern you should pay attention to, is the credentials of the person
providing the data.
Who is this person?
What is her education?
With whom is she affiliated?
Where did she get the information that is being passed on to you?
Does she have a vested interest in the issue under consideration?
Is this person a professor? A journalist?
Is she affiliated with a legitimate organization?
Does she work for the government? If she does work for the government, in
what capacity?
Is she representing a candidate’s platform? If so, her legitimacy is less certain
than if she works in a sector of the government concerned in an impartial
manner with the data she is presenting.
Thinking Critically About Research
Evaluating Sources
Some information you may need may not be available online. You may
occasional have to go to a library and look something up in a book.
The questions you must ask for print media are the same basic questions you
must ask regarding electronic media. Who wrote this book? Who published it?
Does the person who wrote it have a vested interest in how this information is
used? What is the author’s education? These kinds of questions are essential.
Wikipedia
Good critical thinkers pay attention to the reliability of the data they gather,
going to sources that are more rather than less reliable.
Thinking Critically About Research
Academic vs. Popular Sources
One of the most basic concerns regarding reliability is whether or not the
source of the information is popular or academic.
An academic source has some association with higher education. It may be
a book written by a professor, a journal article written by an academic, a
report produced by a committee associated a college or university, an
administrator of a college or university, and so forth.
Academic sources can also be material posted by professors online: course
syllabi, power point presentations, papers, or You Tube videos recorded for
viewers.
If the person is an academic, which means having an M.A. or a Ph.D., the
information they provide may usually be considered reliable.
Thinking Critically About Research
Academic vs. Popular Sources
However, this is not always the case. Sometimes even academics make
crucial mistakes.
Take, for example, the idea that many physicists are discussing that something
can, in fact, come from nothing. This is simply not the case. Either, they are
being intentionally dishonest, or they completely misunderstand the idea of
nothing as philosophers use the term.
Or consider another idea often advocated by physicists: the theory of
multiverses is actually based on some kind of evidence. Just because a theory
has an internal mathematical consistency does is not evidence that that
which is postulated in the theory exists. The multiverse theory is a theory. Is
there any evidence that it is true? No. None whatsoever. There is only a
theory.
Thinking Critically About Research
Academic vs. Popular Sources
So even when a source is an academic source, the information is not
automatically reliable.
A physicist saying he can make a coherent argument is favor of the
multiverse argument, is not that same as saying I have evidence that the
theory is true.
Sometimes people espouse positions they desperately need to believe.
Sometimes they claim they have support for their position when they do not.
Good critical thinkers will critique the reliability of the evidence with which
they are presented to see if, in fact, it is reliable.
Thinking Critically About Research
Depth and Breadth in Research
One of the biggest problems undergraduates have when doing research is
not digging deep enough. They assume that upon reading one or two articles
they have the data they need.
Reading one article on a topic is not doing research. Reading two or three
articles is not doing adequate research.
The general rule for research is, when you think you understand the issue and
know the basic data, you’ve done the introductory work.
You know the basics. Now you need to understand the challenges, the
problems, the caveats, the exceptions, the different perspectives or positions
held on the subject by those who are specialists in field. So basically, when
you first think you are done researching, you are not done. You have to keep
digging.
Thinking Critically About Research
Depth—How Deep Does this Go
How deep should you dig? As long as you continue to find new ideas, new
insights, new problems, new challenges, and new perspectives you need to
keep digging. As long as there is stuff down there to find, you are not done.
Keep digging.
One thing students have difficulty with is in knowing where to go next. They
found a couple of articles on the subject they are researching, but they don’t
know where else to go.
Assuming that you are utilizing academic resources (and that is what you
should be using), you should always check the works cited section at the end
of the article. What sources did the person who wrote the article use in doing
her research?
Thinking Critically About Research
Breadth—What Other Issues or Concerns are Related to This
Once you understand how deep a subject is, you need to figure out how wide
it is. That is to say, you need to discover how many issues and concerns are
associated with this particular topic.
For instance, suppose you somewhere encounter the idea of social justice that
includes the idea that wealth has been distributed in an unfair (unequal)
manner and needs to be redistributed. Suppose these ideas intrigue you
because you have never understood wealth as having been distributed by
someone, that is, distributed by some agency or entity.
Suppose also that you decide to research the subject. Let’s say that you go to
the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and do a search for social justice.
You discover an article on Western Theories of Justice, by Pomerleau.
Thinking Critically About Research
Breadth—What Other Issues or Concerns are Related to This
The article will refer to fifteen philosophers, from ancient times to modern, who have
had something to say about social justice. You will also notice that the references
section, between the primary and secondary resources, includes seventy-six
references.
As you read the article and think about the subject, you will discover that one cannot
discuss social justice in any thorough manner without also discussing:
1) economic systems (specifically the differences between capitalism and socialism),
2) assumptions regarding the right to private property, 3) the meaning or meanings of
equality, 4) the meaning of liberty, 5) the limits of social responsibility, 6) the
differences between a distributive system and an acquisition system, 7) whether or
not, in the United States (or other capitalistic economies) there exists an agency or
entity that distributes wealth, and 8) the morality of forcing people to give up their
legally acquired and therefore rightfully owned property in order to “redistribute” it to
people who did not earn it.
Thinking Critically About Research
Breadth—What Other Issues or Concerns are Related to This
Obviously, the topic of social justice is a broad subject, touching on many
other issues and concerns. Even if you dig deep into one of the eight
concerns noted above, you will not be finished with your inquiry until you have
researched all eight of the related issues.
Good critical thinkers will understand that concerns about breadth go handin-hand with concerns about depth. The critical thinker will research not only
deeply, but broadly as well.
Thinking Critically About Research
Do You Know What There is to Know About This Subject
How do you know when you’ve done enough research? You’ve done
enough research when you know what there is to know about the topic
under consideration.
When you get to the point that you can anticipate what an author is going to
say about the subject, you are getting close to the end of your research
project. When you read an article and you know enough about the subject
to know what the author left out or got wrong, you have probably done
sufficient research into the subject.
Thinking Critically About Research
Do You Know What There is to Know About This Subject
Perhaps your assignment is to write a ten-page research paper, on a topic
you were assigned or on one of your own choosing. Suppose it is a broad
topic like social justice. How much research is required for you to write a tenpage paper? That will depend on the exact wording of your research
question.
Basically, when you have a thorough grasp of the subject under consideration
and when you can answer your research question, you are ready to write your
paper. But at that point you will also realize that there is much more to the
subject than what you have thus far examined. You will realize that you have
only begun the process and have only skimmed the surface.
Thinking Critically About Research
Citing Sources
A survey of over 63,700 US undergraduate and 9,250 graduate students over
the course of three years (2002-2005)--conducted by Donald McCabe,
Rutgers University--revealed the following:
36% of undergraduates admit to “paraphrasing/copying few sentences from Internet
source without footnoting it.”
24% of graduate students self report doing the same
38% admit to “paraphrasing/copying few sentences from written source without
footnoting it.”
25% of graduate students self report doing the same
14% of students admit to “fabricating/falsifying a bibliography”
7% of graduate students self report doing the same
doing so
Thinking Critically About Research
Citing Sources
7% self report copying materials “almost word for word from a written source without
citation.”
4% of graduate students self report doing the same
7% self report “turning in work done by another.”
3% of graduate students self report doing the same
3% report “obtaining paper from term paper mill.”
2% of graduate students report
Plagiarism refers to taking someone else’s words or ideas and passing them off
as one’s own. When you get an idea from anywhere other than your own
mind, it is someone else’s idea. You cannot pass it off as your own. If you do,
you are lying and you are committing plagiarism.
Thinking Critically About Research
Citing Sources
Suppose, for instance, that I do a great deal of research into critical thinking
and write a book on the subject. The words I use to communicate the ideas I
have about the subject are mine. The words I used and the order I used
them in are the product of my intellect. They are my intellectual property.
Stealing someone’s intellectual property is the same as stealing her car or
wallet. Stealing is stealing, regardless of what is being stolen.
Many students are under the impression that if something is posted on the
internet, it is free for the taking. That is not a valid assumption and it is not
true. Material created by another person, regardless of where it is posted or
in what format is it made accessible, is still the intellectual property of the
person who created it. You cannot take it and pass it off as your own.
Thinking Critically About Research
Citing Sources
I am also the faculty advisor for the Philosophy Club. In our club meetings, we
occasionally have students make presentations on different topics of interest.
On one such occasion, one student was delivering a presentation on, let’s say,
The Theory of Multiverses. He had prepared a handout for everyone. It looked
something like this:
The Theory of Mulitverses
Joe Student
The multiverse is a theory in which our universe is not the only one, but states that
many universes exist parallel to each other. These distinct universes within the
multiverse theory are called parallel universes. A variety of different theories lend
themselves to a multiverse viewpoint.
Not all physicists really believe that these universes exist. Even fewer believe that it
would ever be possible to contact these parallel universes.
Thinking Critically About Research
Citing Sources
The student talked about the subject, presenting a good overview. Everyone
was impressed. Then one of the students, impressed with the quality of
writing, asked him, “Did you write this Joe?” To which he replied, “Oh, no. I
got it off the internet.”
Several people reacted, some commenting that he had presented it as if it
was his own material. Joe’s reply was, “Yeah, but this is not a for-credit
assignment. So it doesn’t matter.” I explained to him that it always matters.
What Joe had done, whether he meant to or not, was to present someone
else’s words (and ideas) as if they were his own.
What he should have done is cited the material as having been written by
Andrew Zimmerman Jones and Daniel Robbins in, String Theory For Dummies.
Thinking Critically About Research
Citing Sources
Your college will have specific guidelines for citing references. Whatever the
specifics are for your college, learn them and follow them. The only thing you
don’t have to cite is your own ideas and your own words. If you use a
paragraph or a sentence or even a phrase that someone else wrote, you
must give that person credit.
What has this got to do with critical thinking? Critical thinkers are intellectually
honest. If you are intellectually honest you will not steal the intellectual
property of others. If you use it, give them credit for it.
Thinking Critically About Research
Summary
You can’t think critically unless you have something to think critically about.
You get data (information) to think about by doing research. Doing research
is a crucial part of the critical thinking process. Good critical thinkers
understand this.
Doing research is about discovering facts. A fact is something that is actually
the case. Doing research is an attempt to discover what is actually the case.
It is about differentiating between objective reality and subjective opinion. It
is also about distinguishing between informed and uninformed opinions.
Good research is based on reliable sources, and will, whenever possible,
utilize academic sources rather than popular sources. Good research is both
deep and broad, and the good critical thinker will always give credit where
credit is due, never using someone else’s ideas or words without citing the
source.