Critical Thinking and Analysis for Intermediate level and above (Intuition
session)
This commentary supports the LQSU’s critical thinking and analysis Intuition session for
students at the intermediate level and above. It will cover key aspects intended to assist you
in presenting a critical argument effectively in assessments. If you are unfamiliar with the
process of critical thinking, or would just like a recap on the basics, you might find it useful to
read the LQSU’s guide ‘Critical thinking and analysis for first year students’; as the
material included underpins the intermediate and above level of critical thinking and
analytical skills.
Moving towards critical thinking
This component explores how you can move towards being critical in your thinking; as this is
a key requirement for developing a critical argument. Figure 1 highlights the process of
critical thinking, and each component is then explained.
Inquisitive
Judicious
Systematic
Truth seeking
Analytical
Open-minded
Confidence
in reasoning
Figure 1: Moving towards critical thinking
(Adapted from the work of Facione et al. (1995))
Inquisitive
Literally, this is being ‘nosy’; asking questions about everything and keeping on asking them!
However, this needs to be in a manner that is appropriate for an academic arena. Initially,
this will mean reading widely around the area you are researching to ensure that you are
covering all viewpoints and arguments and asking what’s missing. This will then be followed
by considering these findings in relation to the particular point or argument that you are
investigating. For example, if there something that is not being covered – why is this the
case and how does this impact on the argument? This means that your inquisitiveness is
deliberately focussed in relation to a particular question or an area of interest.
1
Judicious
When you are sure that you have found the appropriate research for the question, the next
step is to find out to what extent you consider the argument presented to be sensible. At an
advanced level of study, such conclusions are based on your knowledge of the pre-existing
research base for the area you are studying (from wider reading). Following this, it is
important to ask yourself if the research is weighted more towards a particular view at the
expense of others.
Truth seeking
The ‘truth’ is sometimes problematic in academia – todays ‘truths’ could be disputed
tomorrow! In order reduce the chance of you reporting yesterdays ‘truths’; it is important that
you ensure that the research you are using to support your work is the most up-to-date. You
also need to question whether research claims reflect the issue truthfully. For example, if the
research is representing other sensible arguments in an unbalanced manner – what does
that say about the claims that are being made in relation to the findings? Therefore,
considering if the ‘truth’ is being reflected is essential; if it isn’t ensure that your work
explores the possible impact/s resulting from presenting findings in such a manner.
Confidence in reasoning
Confidence in reasoning is developed from trusting that you have been both judicious and
truth seeking. Therefore, the claims that you make are based on reasoning that evidences a
clear line of rational thinking. Consequently, you are able to confidently make claims within
your work that are based on rational and considered thought. It will be evident to your
marker where this is the case and as long as the content addresses the learning
outcomes/question, this will generally have a positive impact on your marks.
Open-minded
Essentially, this means equally considering opposing viewpoints and new ideas about the
topic you are researching in an unbiased manner, and only discounting or including those
viewpoints based on clear evidence from the research base. If you find that you strongly
disagree with a viewpoint, even though the evidence from the research base clearly supports
it, then you may find it useful to consider if this is more to do with your own beliefs. In order
to establish if this is the case, it is important that you are aware of and are able to personally
reflect on (provide reasons for) your own beliefs about the subject topic. If you find that your
reasons are based on your own opinions, then you may need to establish why this is the
case. On most occasions, you will not be expected to show this development in your work –
this is something that you do prior to writing up your work. However, it will be clear to your
marker if your line of argument is biased and this could impact negatively on your marks.
2
Analytical
In relation to critical thinking, being analytical means not considering the topic as
unproblematic; having an awareness that there could be potential/or real problems.
Generally, you will not be required to solve problems but to use evidence to identify where
problems exist and how these may impact on the research area. This relates to all the
sources that you are evaluating including research, theory, policy, law and guidelines.
Systematic
Being systematic means methodically carrying out an action based on a clear and sensible
plan. Consequently, although this process is not linear (you can actually go around the cycle
in figure 1 again if necessary), if you have fully considered all the preceding components of
critical thinking in an organised manner, then you can mostly be assured that you’re thinking
systematically. For example, in relation to the topic being considered you have evaluated
your own beliefs and those of others (research base) and established the extent to which
these are ‘true’ or whether new beliefs need to be established or developed. Further, being
systematic requires you to remain focussed on the learning outcomes of your assessment by
checking that you have not included arguments that may be interesting but are not required.
Critical analysis
As you advance through your degree or postgraduate level work, you will be expected to use
the critical thinking skills above to help you develop the analytical skills that are required to
sustain a critical argument in your work – this is often where students can accumulate
additional marks! Critical analysis involves taking key points in theory, research, policy or
guidelines (such as NHS guidelines) and asking questions to establish strengths and
limitations. Depending on the learning outcomes for a particular assessment this could
involve examining the underpinning theory and/or the method in which it has been carried
out in order to establish the extent to which the claims are reflecting the ‘truth’.
In relation to a theoretical critique, if you have not been explicitly asked to compare and
contrast, try to find out what the theorists/researchers who are actually using the theory are
saying the issues are. This is more difficult to do than finding opposing theorists/researcher
views but avoids falling into the trap of getting involved in a debate that is unlikely to be
resolved and is inappropriate for the assessments learning outcomes.
A key component of evaluating research is to assess the strengths and limitations of the
research base that is being used to support the justification for the research or guidelines
etc. that you are reviewing. Ask yourself how closely the supporting research reflects the
way in which it is being used in the research that you are reviewing. Is the work organised so
that the outcomes appear better than opposing research? Some researchers organise their
work in such a way that there outcomes appear to be better than the work of others. It is
important that you check to see if this is the case; this involves investigating the original
research to check if the current claims are appropriate and balanced.
3
It can often feel quite daunting to argue against the government and other authorities’
publications. However, for most disciplines there will be an expectation that you consider
both the positive and negative impact of laws, policy, and guidelines (to name just a few). It
is important to keep in mind that all the above do not suddenly appear – as with research,
they are generally formed on ideas from previous research or the opinions of those who may
have an interest in the area. In order to critique all sources including government and other
authorities, you will need to ‘pull back the layers’ – find the supporting evidence and critique
these in the same way you would do with any other research.
In relation to methodological critique, it is essential that you use the appropriate terminology.
For example, if the researcher has used a qualitative approach then consider points such as
‘transferability and credibility’ and for a quantitative approach ‘validity and reliability’. If you
are unsure of what to consider for an effective methodological critique, there are tools
available to help you. For example, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2010) has a tool
for most types of studies/research that you will be evaluating.
It is important when you are writing up the argument in your own work that you support all
your claims with evidence from the research base or an appropriate research methods text.
If you do not do this, the argument will be regarded as your own opinion – and unfortunately
this is not what your marker will be looking for. Also, it is essential that you sustain a ‘line’ of
argument. What this means is that the argument is structured so that it flows logically from
point to point in order to sufficiently address the learning outcomes and question/essay title.
Ensure that you summarise to identify key points as you progress through your assignment;
do this when you have finished on one point before you move to the next. These summaries
can also be used to indicate to your reader how the material that follows it is related to the
previous point (or not). As you move towards honours and postgraduate level, extend these
summaries to include implications or consequences (whichever is appropriate). This skill can
seem difficult at first; you might find it useful to ask yourself if your reader will be able to work
out why the argument is important or whether they will be left thinking ‘so what?’.
Understanding formal logic
It is extremely important to understand that just because an argument appears logical; it
doesn’t mean that it is necessarily true. Even if you have been systematic in relation to the
critical thinking process and established that the argument is mostly unbiased – it still does
not mean that it is true. Some researchers will use the fact that the argument seems logical
to convince their readers that it is logical, for your work this can be problematic. This can be
especially so if you are from a practical discipline and working with patients, clients or
service users. Consider this example of formal logic:
•
•
•
All women are brilliant.
I am a woman.
Therefore, I am brilliant.
4
In this example, the initial statement makes a claim, which could be supported by research
evidence (although this may be biased); this can then be used to support the last statement.
One of the issues with this is that the author is using assumptions to support their argument.
For example, it assumes that the reader knows what ‘brilliant’ means, this is a subjective
word and not everyone would be able to agree to what this means but for the author that is
not an issue as long as the argument seems logical. It also assumes, that once we know
what brilliance is, that it applies to all women – whilst this may be true, how can it be
established? Try to consider if this technique is being used in the research you are
analysing; if it is can you confidently use it to support your own line of argument?
The intention of this document is to help you to develop your critical thinking and analytical
skills. These are developed by ensuring that your attention is developed by reading widely
around the area you are researching. However, reading widely does not mean that you read
every single article or book in relation to the subject but that you focus on the key
research/theory/policy etc required to address the learning outcomes and the question.
When this is combined with the systematic critical thinking skills explained in this document,
this should allow your writing to be more confident in relation to explicitly stating the key
points in a critical argument.
References
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2010). Making sense of evidence. Retrieved from
http://www.casp-uk.net/
Facione, P. A. Sánchez, C. A. Facione N. C. & Gainen, J.(1995). The Disposition Toward
Critical Thinking The Journal of General Education, 44 (1) 1-25. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27797240?uid=25894&uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=3&ui
d=5910784&uid=67&uid=25892&uid=62&sid=21101770275121
Andrea Gaynor and the Learning Quality Support Unit (LQSU) 2013
5