Inquiry and Critical Thinking
1. Analyze problems, articulate questions or
hypotheses, and determine the need for
information
2. Access and collect the needed information from
appropriate primary and secondary sources
3. Use quantitative and qualitative methods,
including the ability to recognize assumptions,
draw inferences, make deductions, and interpret
information to analyze problems in context and
draw conclusions
Inquiry and Critical Thinking
4. Recognize complexity of problems and identify
different perspectives from which problems and
questions can be viewed
5. Evaluate and report on conclusions, use results
to make judgments and guide actions, and identify
areas where further inquiry is needed
6. Identify, analyze, and evaluate reasoning and
construct and defend reasonable arguments and
explanations
NON-SCIENTIFIC WAYS OF OBTAINING
KNOWLEDGE
1. COMMON SENSE: that which is self-evident
2. TENACITY: what we have known to be true in
the past — holds firmly to beliefs because "it has
always been so"
3. AUTHORITY: established belief based on
prominence or importance of source
4. INTUITION: something that just "stands to
reason" — use of rational processes with benefit
of experience
5. METAPHYSICS: investigates principles of reality
(visible and invisible), the essence of things.
Construct theories on the basis of a priori
knowledge, that is, knowledge derived from
reason alone.
6. RATIONALISM: criterion of truth is not sensory
but intellectual and deductive.
COMMON ERRORS IN HUMAN INQUIRY
1. INACCURATE OBSERVATION
2. OVERGENERALIZATION
3. SELECTIVE OBSERVATION
4. MADE-UP INFORMATION
5. ILLOGICAL REASONING
6. EGO-INVOLVEMENT IN UNDERSTANDING
7. PREMATURE CLOSURE OF INQUIRY
8. MYSTIFICATION OF RESIDUALS
Stone’s Policy Paradox
• Our understanding of policy problems and
solutions are often based on narrative
stories or symbols, not systematic,
empirical analysis
• What type of policy stories are often told?
• Story of decline
– Stymied progress
– Change is only an illusion
– Helplessness and control
• Conspiracy
• Blame the victim
• Synecdoche
– The whole is represented by a part
– Anecdotes
• Metaphor
– War on terror, epidemic, “Nazi”
The Scientific Method
• The social sciences have adopted the
scientific method as a way of “knowing”
– Empirical (rather than normative)
– Objective (rather than subjective)
– Systematic (rather than haphazard)
– Rigorous (rather than hasty)
This method has evolved from a very long
debate about truth and knowledge.
• Socrates (469-399 BCE): “I know that I know
nothing”
• Aresilaus (314-241 BCE) said he was not even
certain that he was uncertain.
• Carneades (213-128 BCE) knowledge and truth
is impossible.
• Sextus Empiricus (CE 200) science based on
reason or logic is not to be trusted. Experiences
is our best guide.
• Pyrrho (365-275 BCE): one must neither trust
nor reject your senses.
Science and the Scientific Method
• This class, and much of our field, assumes
that the scientific method is the best
method for answering questions in the
physical, social, and political world.
• Not everyone is convinced that the
scientific method is obtainable or
appropriate, but before you reject the
approach you must first master it.
Critics of the Scientific Method in
the Social Sciences
Post-positivists
• Objectivity is impossible
• Observations are skewed by your perceptions
• Knowledge is still often based on authority
• Subjectivity and values are not necessarily a bad
thing
• Pluralism, Democracy, Marketplace of ideas
Applying the Scientific Method
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Defining the problem/research question
Develop theories, hypotheses, predictions
Develop models
Determining the information/data needed
Choose method of analysis
Interpret results/findings
Summary/Conclusion: i.e., reject or accept
hypothesis
Policy Analysis
•
•
•
•
•
Goals of the Analysis
Identify the alternative courses of action
Forecast the consequences of alternatives
Compare and evaluate possible outcomes
Choose the most preferred alternative
Goals of Analysis
• Stadium Example:
– Is it a “good idea”?
– Will it improve the social welfare?
– Will it produce a social surplus?
– Will the benefits outweigh the costs?
– Specific hypotheses: it will increase sales tax
revenue; housing values; economic
development in downtown.
Identify Alternatives
• Stadium Example:
– Build, not to build?
– Where to build?
– Type of facility
• Domed, multi-purpose facility, football, baseball
Forecast Consequences
• Stadium Example:
– What will be the costs?
– What will be the benefits
– What will be the unintended consequences
– Who will be the winners, losers
Systematically Compare/Evaluate
Alternatives
•
•
•
•
Aggregate information for each alternative
Summarize costs and benefits
requires analysis and interpretation
Quality of evaluations depends on
reliability and validity of data, as well as
the model and analytic technique.
Final Recommendation
• Decision Criteria:
– Utilitarian
– Pareto Principle
– Kaldor-Hicks
– Rawlsian Challenge