Study Advice Service

Critical Thinking
Author: Stephen Campbell

While at university you are required to base much of your assessed work on your ability to express a well formulated point of view or argument. Naturally, this requires certain skills which you may not have as you make the transition into higher education. The aim of this booklet is to introduce you to some of the necessary skills that will equip you to become a successful critical and analytical thinker. Critical and analytical thinking at university First, remember that being critical is a highly valued skill in academic life. You are expected to challenge the information presented to you in a constructive manner and within the limits of the knowledge that tutors can expect of you. It involves: Considering an issue carefully and more than once. Evaluating the evidence put forward in support of the belief or viewpoint. Considering where the belief or viewpoint leads what conclusions would follow; are these suitable and rational; and if not, should the belief or viewpoint be reconsidered? Critical thinking goes hand in hand with analytical thinking. For Cottrell (2008: 275) analytical thinking involves the following additional processes: Standing back from the information given. Examining it in detail from many angles. Checking closely whether it is completely accurate. Checking whether a statement follows logically from what went before. Looking for possible flaws in the reasoning, the evidence, or the way that conclusions are drawn. Comparing the same issue from the point of view of other theorists or writers. Being able to see and explain why different people arrive at different conclusions. Being able to argue why one set of opinions, results or conclusions is preferable to another. Being on guard for literary or statistical devices that encourage the reader to take questionable statements at face value. Checking for hidden assumptions. Checking for attempts to lure the reader into agreement. ___________________________________________________________________ Tel: 01482 466199 Web: www.hull.ac.uk/studyadvice Email: studyadvice@hull.ac.uk

What is critical thinking? When you research any aspect of your subject in the relevant journals, articles, books etc you will be expected not only to learn from them but to assess the validity and reliability of their arguments and conclusions. If you are a passive reader and you unquestioningly accept what is presented to you, you will find yourself becoming increasingly confused as the conflicting texts contradict and undermine each other. Therefore, you should adopt a reasonably sceptical position when reading at university. Critical analysis is the careful, deliberation of whether you should accept or reject judgement about a claim and the degree of confidence with which you do so (Moore & Parker, 2008). Like a jury member, you have a responsibility to weigh up the evidence when critically reading a text. You must give due consideration to the evidence and the context of the judgement. When reading critically you should consider the claims of the piece and question the basis of those claims. Furthermore, there are a number of questions you need to ask to determine the validity of the text you are reading or the argument being advanced. 1. What is the piece about? 2. What are the conclusions? 3. Does the evidence logically match the conclusions? 4. Is there an alternative position? 5. Do I accept or reject the piece? These are five basic questions you may wish to ask when approaching any text. What is the piece about? This is relatively straightforward. After you have read a piece of academic writing summarise it in your own words. This will help you identify the main points or arguments. It will also provide you with some insights into how to compare it against other pieces of writing.

What are the conclusions? Conclusions are found at the end of a piece. Their purpose is to summarise the main points in the preceding paragraphs and make authoritative declarations based on how the material has been interpreted. Pay attention to the final stages of a piece of academic writing and pick out the end summary.

Does the evidence logically match the conclusions? The conclusion should not introduce new material or ideas, but draw upon what has been discussed throughout the text. Therefore, there should be a logical match between how the ideas are presented and how those ideas have been interpreted to make the conclusion.

Is there an alternative position? There is a reason why you need to read so much at university. It is not just because there is so much more to the subject, but because there will be multiple points of view on the subject. If you do not critically evaluate your extensive reading you will become confused when your materials contradict each other and even give contrary information.

Do I accept or reject the piece? There are many reasons why you may accept or reject a piece of writing, but if you were critically evaluating it you may disagree with the conclusions on principle, or you might not be convinced that the evidence is conclusive enough for you not to be convinced by an alternative perspective. Read the following the extract by Jeremy Paxman. After you have read the piece, ask the above questions. The English fixation with the weather is nothing to do with histrionics like the English countryside, it is, for the most part, dramatically undramatic. The interest is less in the phenomena themselves, but in uncertainty... One of the few things you can say about England with any absolute certainty is that it has a lot of weather. It may not include tropical cyclones but life at the edge of an ocean and the edge of a continent means you can never be entirely sure what youre going to get (Paxman, 1999: 126). 1. The piece is about English weather, specifically the English attitude to the weather. 2. It concludes with the idea that the English have an unusual fixation with the weather because of its unpredictable nature. He observes that there is a lot of weather, it is not easily predicted, and this is the cause of the English fascination with it. 3. Paxman does not use evidence in the sense that there is nothing to back up his observations. Therefore, it would be reasonable to suggest that the conclusions do not match evidence, as the evidence itself is based wholly on his personal opinions and observations. 4. Yes. Read the following extract by Kate Fox: ...Our conversations about the weather are not really about the weather at all: English weather-speak is a form of code, evolved to help us overcome our natural reserve and actually talk to each other. Everyone knows, for example, that Nice day, isnt it?, Ooh, isnt it cold?, Still raining, eh? and other variations on the theme are not requests for meteorological data: they are ritual greetings, conversation starters or default fillers. In other words, English weather-speak is a form of grooming talk the human equivalent of what is known as social grooming among our primate cousins, where they spend hours grooming each others fur, even when they are perfectly clean, as a means of social bonding (Fox, 2004: 26).

Clearly there is an alternative position to Paxman. As you can see there is a definite contradiction between the two authors. However, while Paxman draws his conclusions from his own insights and observations, Fox mentions her own evidence and additional research undertaken amongst primates. 5. Accept or reject? Certainly Paxman can be accepted as an observation piece, but it is important that even if you agree with his opinions it would be unwise to accept them, especially in the light of Foxs alternative ideas. Evaluating the text You will not be expected to read your subject material and accept it at face value as, at university, the depth and level of your reading will be greater than you ever undertook at college or school. You will be expected to critically engage with your text books, journals, articles etc in a way which will at first seem alien to you. Most students who are unsure of critical analysis and evaluation simply do not feel confident in their own subject knowledge to take on, as it were, established academics in their own specialisms. This is why there are certain steps you can take to make a start at critical analysis. First, identify the focus of your assignment. Look carefully at the wording of the instruction or title. Are you being asked to discuss, compare/contrast, evaluate etc. Often you will be given specific instructions in your assignment brief which you can use to focus on what relevant material you should research.

Next, identify your own position. Assignments which require a large degree of critical analysis will often want you to reflect on your own position. Even if you are unsure at the beginning whether you even have an opinion always bear in mind that as your reading/research progresses, and as you become more informed, you should be thinking about where you stand on certain issues.

Consider how you will persuade other people of your point of view. During the course of your research it is best advised that you take time to reflect on what you know, and why. If you wish to convince other people of your position, what evidence do you have to justify your points? Is the evidence reliable and can it be used effectively to draw your conclusions? Reading When researching any academic book, journal, article etc begin by reading through it and identify the line of reasoning. Essentially, what is the text about?

Critically evaluate the line of reasoning: summarise in your own words what the conclusions are. Then look at the evidence used to make these conclusions. The accepted format of most academic journals, articles etc will expect the author to use evidence in such a way as to make his/her arguments and conclusions appear rational and authoritative. This will not stop you asking specific questions: Are there hidden or unquestioned assumptions within the text?

Is the language used designed to persuade logically or emotionally?

Does the evidence support the conclusions?

Is there a logical connection with how the evidence is used and how the conclusions are drawn? Are personal beliefs driving the writer?

As you can see, the expectation here is very much on evaluating evidence and conclusions. When you read any academic piece you are not being asked to accept it without question. Most academic writing does not exist outside of certain contexts, therefore you will be required to give due consideration to the external influences that may have contributed to an authors position. What is the context of the judgement? Is the author coming at the reader from any political or ideological position? This is quite important as it allows you to evaluate the credibility of those positions and any conclusions that could have been drawn from them. This will help you read between the lines and weigh up any false logic you may feel is present in the text. Even if you read a piece of academic writing you disagree with, but the argument is well presented and the evidence is sound, you will of course have to think why you disagree and on what grounds you reject the conclusions. Just because you identify the underlying influences of a theoretical or political ideology within a text does not mean that the logic and arguments are unsound. But nor does it necessarily mean that you cannot argue against logic from a similarly principled position. Here is an example from the historian Niall Fergusons book Empire. Read through the following extract and identify the position of the author: Once there was an Empire that governed roughly a quarter of the worlds population, covered about the same proportion of the earths land surface and dominated nearly all its oceans. The British Empire was the biggest Empire ever, bar none. How an archipelago of rainy islands off the north-west coast of Europe

came to rule the world is one of the fundamental questions this book seeks to answer. The second and perhaps more difficult question it addresses is simply whether the Empire was a good or bad thing... In 1700 the population of India was twenty times that of the United Kingdom. Indias share of total world output at that time has been estimated at 24 per cent nearly a quarter; Britains share was just 3 per cent. The idea that Britain might one day rule India would have struck a visitor to Delhi in the late seventeenth century as simply preposterous... It is a point worth emphasizing that to a significant extent British rule did have [that] benign effect. According to the work of political scientists like Seymour Martin Lipset, countries that were former British colonies had a significantly better chance of achieving enduring democratization after independence than those ruled by other countries. Indeed, nearly every country with a population of at least a million that has emerged from the colonial era without succumbing to dictatorship is a former British colony. True, there have been many former colonies which have not managed to sustain free institutions: Bangladesh, Burma, Kenya, Pakistan, Tanzania and Zimbabwe spring to mind. But in a sample of fifty-three countries that were former British colonies, just under half (twenty-six) were still democracies in 1993. This can be attributed to the way that British rule, particularly where it was indirect, encouraged the formation of collaborating elites; it may also be related to the role of the protestant missionaries, who clearly played a part in encouraging western-style aspirations for political freedom in parts of Africa and the Caribbean (Ferguson, 2003: xii, 29, 362). Ask yourself: What is the authors position? Pick out examples of evidence he uses to justify his position. Is there a match between evidence and conclusions?

Ferguson is writing from a position which is favourable towards the British Empire and its positive legacy within its former colonies. As evidence he suggests that in 1700 the British had no plans to expand into the empire it subsequently became; it was essentially a practical trading enterprise. Ferguson also mentions political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset to justify the position that on the whole the long-term effects on former British colonies have been positive, especially in terms of political stability. He also sees the role of protestant missionaries as playing a vital part in the spreading of western-style aspirations for political freedom. The use of indirect rule, by which native elites were co-opted into the British system of government, is presented positively. There is a match between evidence and conclusion. However, although Ferguson is writing positively of empire, this is not to suggest a principled alternative position cannot be adopted. His conclusions, based on his use of evidence, are practical rather than ideological. Successful former colonies from his point of view are typically those which have adopted western values and by doing so have stable democratic governments.

Compare now with the following extract written by Jean-Paul Sartre: Not so long ago, the earth numbered two thousand million inhabitants: five hundred million men, and one thousand five hundred million natives. Between the two there was hired kinglets, overlords and a bourgeoise, sham from beginning to end, which served as go-betweens. The European elite undertook to manufacture native elite. They picked out promising adolescents; they branded them, as with a red hot iron, with the principles of western culture; they stuffed their mouths full with high sounding phrases, grand glutinous words that stuck to the teeth. After a short stay in the mother country they were sent home, white-brothers... (Sartre, 1961).

What is the authors position? What are the similarities between Sartres main points and Fergusons? Compare the language; is one more emotive than the other? In your opinion which position would you find most convincing? Why?

Sartre is taking completely the opposite opinion to Ferguson. His position is antiimperial and he does not see the effects of colonialism as positive in any way. Fergusons language is less emotive, relying instead on a neutral tone. His main points are presented logically in a manner designed to appeal to the readers rationality. Sartres language is highly emotive. He uses the simile of branding with hot irons to highlight his objection to the use of native elites, seeing them as a sham. He refers to the native hired kinglets etc by suggesting that rather than encouraging a system of democratic stability, the use of native elites is a violent means of imperial oppression. He sees them as alien to their own culture by adopting the values of western society. It may be difficult to decide which one you agree with, as on the one hand Ferguson is putting forward a logical argument backed up with evidence. On the other hand Sartre is taking a highly principled objection based on his disagreement to collusion, as he sees it, and the loss of native identity. To choose between the two rather depends on how strongly you feel about the principle of anti-colonialism and your willingness to accept/reject the practical realties of imperial rule.

Critical thinking does not have to mean being critical. As you may have already worked out it is the ability to look in depth at something, weigh up the main arguments or themes, and pick out the strengths and weaknesses of a text. To that end it is key that you know what questions to ask when analysing an academic text. For example:

What else could we assume? Essentially this entails asking how the author has come to know something and for you to remain suitably sceptical until you have researched alternative perspectives. How reliable is the author? Often in the course of your reading you may come across authors whose work has possibly been wholly discredited or has fallen out of favour, or maybe even been shown to be inaccurate. For this reason the critical thinker will certainly need to know the relations between validity and truth, or putting it another way, the premises and conclusions. Consider the following: Cats are animals, and all animals need food; therefore cats need food. First Premise True Second Premise True Conclusion Valid and True

Fish are vegetarians, and vegetarians eat nothing but bread; therefore fish eat nothing but bread. First Premise False At Length: Consider now the following article written by Jeanette Winterson. As you read the piece ask the following questions in relation to the article: 1. What is the piece about? 2. What are the conclusions? 3. What evidence is used to justify the conclusions? 4. What is the context of the judgement? 5. How is the language used? 6. Are personal beliefs driving the argument? 7. What else can we assume? E.g. further reading, additional research. I have a temperature of 102, spots on my throat. I call Hilary Fairclough, a homeopath. She sends round a remedy called Lachesis, made from snake venom. Four hours later I have no symptoms whatsoever. Dramatic stuff, and enough to convince me that while it might use snake venom, homeopathy is no snake oil designed for gullible hypochrondriacs. Right now, though, a fierce debate is raging between those, like me, who trust homeopathy because it works for them, and those who call it shamanistic claptrap, without clinical proof or any scientific base. Good homeopaths know the value of conventional medicine and do not seek to undermine that value. There will soon be an article in the Lancet calling on doctors to tell their patients that homeopathic medicines offer no benefit. Until now the caveat has been no "proven" Second Premise False Conclusion Invalid and False

benefit. But where is the scientific sense in saying that because we don't understand something, even though we can discern its effects, we have to ignore it, scorn it, or suppress it? This homeophobia is, I think, a genuine terror of what homeopathy is suggesting; which is that we think differently about the relationship between the cure and the disease. It is not enough to say Disease A is caused by B and can be cured by C. Homeopathy, in common with other holistic approaches, asks that we look at the whole picture - the person, and not just his illness. Specifically, in the case of homeopathy, the remedy picture, which is carefully drawn up after full consultation with the patient, follows the "like by like" premise - that tiny dilutions of the "problem" can prompt the body to effect its own cure. This is why the homeopathic code of practice does not talk about the medicines themselves having a simple causal effect - C cures A. Homeopathy seeks to understand everything we are, everything we do, as a web of relatedness. This seems to be partly why tests used for conventional medicines fail when used to test homeopathy. Sceptics will say it is the medicines that fail, and not the trials, but if the medicines really are ineffective, why is it that so many people who have tried homeopathy have found that it makes a difference to their wellbeing? As I understand it, homeopathy is not a linear medicine - a drug aiming for a target nor does it seek to remove the human factor. The patient and the practitioner are both important and relevant when it comes to understanding how humans respond to treatment. That a good doctor is part of the therapeutic process is commonsense to anyone who has ever visited their GP or been for surgery. We know too that patients heal differently, develop complications or not, secondary infections or not, and so on. Objections to homeopathy begin with what are viewed as the impossible dilutions of the remedies, so that only nano amounts of the original active substance remain, and in some cases are only an imprint, or memory. Yet our recent discoveries in the world of the very small point to a whole new set of rules for the behaviour of nanoquantities. Thundering around in our Gulliver world, we were first shocked to find that splitting the atom allowed inconceivable amounts of energy to be released. Now, we are discovering that the properties of materials change as their size reaches the nano-scale. Bulk material should have constant physical properties, regardless of its size, but at the nano-scale this is not the case. In a solvent, such as water, nano particles can remain suspended, neither floating nor sinking, but permeating the solution. Such particles are also able to pass through cell walls, and they can cause biochemical change. We do not know whether this has a bearing on homeopathic dilutions, but it may well be that nanoparticles offer a clue. Fisher says that water as a solvent has properties that are not yet understood, and there was great excitement recently when a team of Korean scientists seemed to show that water has "memory". I would like to see homeopathy better regulated. I would like to see the Society of Homeopaths engaging with its critics, as well as initiating more research. There will always be rogue homeopaths and bad homeopaths, but that is true of any profession. Above all we should be careful of dismissing the testimony of millions who say the remedies have worked for them (Winterson, 2007).

Here is a summary based upon the above seven questions The article is about homeopathy, its effectiveness and the effects it seemingly has on patients. It concludes that although homeopathy has its benefits, it needs to be properly regulated and defended through systematic research into its properties. The evidence is mostly based on personal experience, specifically the anecdote. She presents a refutation of homeopathys critics also as evidence. In the article Winterson asserts that conventional medicine tests are inappropriate to test the validity of homeopathy. She offers no alternative testing technique. She also uses the differences in treatments between conventional medicine and homeopathy as evidence for its credibility, as well as mentioning the nano science of water memory. The context is that Winterson seems to have made her conclusion based on personal belief, reinforced through individual experience. Therefore, her experiences are reinforcing a bias in favour of homeopathy. The language, quite apart from being defensive, is critical of conventional medicine as homeopathy is ...without clinical proof. The entire article is driven by her personal beliefs! We can also subject the article to the same premise/conclusion framework we looked at earlier: First Premise Homeopathy worked for me Second Premise Conventional medicine is incompatible with homeopathy Third Premise Conclusion

More research is needed Homeopathy into homeopathic qualities works

Not necessarily. It is quite possible her cold was just running its course and would have gotten better anyway. Perhaps she got better because of the medicine she took earlier (she doesnt say she did, but she doesnt say she didnt either). Perhaps her homeopathic remedy was spiked with a real drug.

This is an assumption based on the belief that conventional medicine only treats diseases. While both homeopathy and conventional medicine do take into account the whole person, homeopathy ignores the mechanisms of disease and infection, as well as the biological response to it. Homeopathy asserts the belief that putting trust in the person of the homeopath is as equally effective as the remedy being prescribed.

This is inconsistent. On the one hand she concedes that so far the established and accepted scientific means of testing have yielded negative results; on the other hand she is calling for further tests to be conducted which will necessarily have to be different. She justified this by claiming that homeopathy is materially different from real medicine, but as this cannot be proven using the established means of testing it therefore cannot be proven to be true.

There is no evidence to suggest homeopathy works.

Conclusion As we have seen, critical thinking is a complex process of evaluation, reflection and research. Although this booklet cannot provide all the necessary techniques and skills to enable you to become an effective critical thinker, it can suggest a number of ways to approach academic texts and engage with them on an appropriate level. Critical thinking is not a means of finding answers, but it is something you do to assess a piece of work. Therefore, you should always bear in mind that being critical is a skill, and like all skills should be practised until you feel confident of the improvements in your abilities. Although practice is always recommended as the best method of improvement, there is also a variety of excellent additional resources that offer advice and guidance to the novice critic. For further information on critical thinking try the following websites as well as the bibliography at the end of this booklet. BAD SCIENCE www.badscience.net Exposes dodgy scientific claims in magazines and newspapers. LEARNHIGHER. Critical thinking and reflection resource page. www.learnhigher.ac.uk/learningareas/criticalthinkingandreflection/resourcepage.htm Tried and tested resources collected by a partnership of 16 UK universities. SUSSEX LANGUAGE INSTITUTE. Critical analysis, argument and opinion. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/languages/1-6-8-2-3.html Includes a worked critical analysis example. FOUNDATION FOR CRITICAL THINKING. The role of Socratic questioning in thinking, teaching and learning. http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/the-role-socratic-questioning-ttl.cfm Advances the concept that excellent thinking is driven by questions not answers. STARTING POINT: teaching entry level geosciences. What is Socratic questioning. http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/socratic/second.html Explains, with examples, Socrates theory that disciplined practice of thoughtful questioning enables the student to examine ideas logically and to be able to determine the validity of those ideas. RESEARCH METHODS KNOWLEDGE BASE. Deduction and induction. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php Compares the top-down and bottom-up approaches to reasoning.

Bibliography Black, M. (1962). Critical Thinking. New Jersey. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Bowell, T. & Kemp, S. (2006). Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. Padstow. Routledge. Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective Analysis and Argument. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan. Cottrell, S. (2008). The Study Skills Handbook. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan. Ferguson, N. (2003). Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World. London. Penguin. Fox, K. (2004). Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour. London. Hodder & Stoughton. McMillan, K. & Weyers, J. (2006). The Smarter Student: Study Skills & Strategies for Success at University. Harlow. Pearson Education Ltd. Moore, N.B. & Parker, R. (2008). Critical Thinking. USA. McGraw-Hill. Paxman, J. (1999). The English: A Portrait of a People. London. Penguin. Sartre, J.P. (1961). Preface to Frantz Fanons Wretched of the Earth. Available at http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/1961/preface.htm [Accessed 11 March 2010]. Winterson, J. (2007). In Defence of Homeopathy. The Guardian. 13 November 2007. Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/nov/13/healthandwellbeing.health [Accessed 11 March 2010].

All web addresses in this leaflet were correct at the time of publication

The information in this leaflet can be made available in an alternative format on request. Telephone 01482 466199
03/2010