what is critical mindedness in research

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is one of those things that most people are in favor of – especially in colleges and universities. But people in different fields and traditions have varying definitions, and it is not obvious that all are in favor of the same thing. How should we decide on a definition?

The American Association of Colleges and Universities came up with a definition of critical thinking that we will use as a starting place.

“Critical Thinking is a habit of mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas and artifacts before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion” (AAC&U, 2017).

Here are a few things to notice about this definition as we begin exploring this topic:

Critical thinking is characterized as a habit of mind. One college class is not enough to develop a habit, so one college class is not going to create “critical thinkers.” Instead, this class will introduce you to some component skills of the habit. Your routine and daily decisions will determine whether you develop (or deepen) the habit — or leave what you learn as you go on about your life.
We assume that the people reading this book will vary with respect to critical thinking habits. Some people will come in already practiced and quite skilled. For them, our discussion about critical thinking will offer ways to think about and double-check their current habits. Others will enter the read believing they are already critical thinkers — already skilled in the habits of thoughtfulness — but will be exposed to vocabulary and ideas that challenge that pre-existing belief.
The basic value judgment involved in critical thinking, as this field has grown out of the European philosophical tradition, is this: when issues are important, reflective opinions are more valuable than opinions of the moment. It follows from this that when an issue is important, it is worthwhile to have the skills available to think deeply and well. Those are the skills we will be focusing on in this book.
The definition of critical thinking doesn’t state it, but there is a value judgment implicit in the attention within colleges and universities to critical thinking. The assumption is that it is good to be reasonable and bad to be unreasonable. As a critical thinker, one issue you will be asked to confront over and over in this class: IS CRITICAL THINKING SO IMPORTANT AS TO WARRANT ALL THIS ATTENTION AND ENTHUSIASM? As you get increasingly clear about what critical thinking looks like (in academia), you will be able to think more clearly about the value assumption. Is it worth all the work?

Check Your Knowledge: What is Critical Thinking?

“Critical thinking is a habit of mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas and artifacts before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion”

Critical Thinking in Academic Research - Second Edition Copyright © 2022 by Cindy Gruwell and Robin Ewing is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

How it works

What is Critical Thinking in Academics – Guide With Examples

Published by Grace Graffin at October 17th, 2023 , Revised On October 17, 2023

In an era dominated by vast amounts of information, the ability to discern, evaluate, and form independent conclusions is more crucial than ever. Enter the realm of “critical thinking.” But what does this term truly mean?

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the disciplined art of analysing and evaluating information or situations by applying a range of intellectual skills. It goes beyond mere memorisation or blind acceptance of information, demanding a deeper understanding and assessment of evidence, context, and implications.

Moreover, paraphrasing in sources is an essential skill in critical thinking, as it allows for representing another’s ideas in one’s own words, ensuring comprehension.

Critical thinking is not just an academic buzzword but an essential tool. In academic settings, it serves as the backbone of genuine understanding and the springboard for innovation. When students embrace critical thinking, they move from being passive recipients of information to active participants in their own learning journey.

They question, evaluate, and synthesise information from various sources, fostering an intellectual curiosity that extends beyond the classroom. Part of this involves understanding how to integrate sources into their work, which means not only including information from various places, but also doing so in a cohesive and logical way.

The importance of critical thinking in academics cannot be overstated. It equips students with the skills to discern credible sources from unreliable ones, develop well-informed arguments, and approach problems with a solution-oriented mindset.

The Origins and Evolution of Critical Thinking

The idea of critical thinking isn’t a new-age concept. Its roots reach back into ancient civilisations, moulding the foundations of philosophy, science, and education. To appreciate its evolution, it’s vital to delve into its historical context and the influential thinkers who have championed it.

Historical Perspective on the Concept of Critical Thinking

The seeds of critical thinking can be traced back to Ancient Greece, particularly in the city-state of Athens. Here, the practice of debate, dialogue, and philosophical inquiry was valued and was seen as a route to knowledge and wisdom. This era prized the art of questioning, investigating, and exploring diverse viewpoints to reach enlightened conclusions.

In medieval Islamic civilisation, scholars in centres of learning, such as the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, played a pivotal role in advancing critical thought. Their works encompassed vast areas, including philosophy, mathematics, and medicine, often intertwining rigorous empirical observations with analytical reasoning.

The Renaissance period further nurtured critical thinking as it was a time of revival in art, culture, and intellect. This era championed humanistic values, focusing on human potential and achievements. It saw the rebirth of scientific inquiry, scepticism about religious dogma, and an emphasis on empirical evidence.

Philosophers and Educators Who Championed Critical Thinking

Several philosophers and educators stand out for their remarkable contributions to the sphere of critical thinking:

Known for the Socratic method, a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue, Socrates would ask probing questions, forcing his pupils to think deeply about their beliefs and assumptions. His methodology still influences modern education, emphasising the answer and the path of reasoning that leads to it.

A student of Socrates, Plato believed in the importance of reason and inquiry. His allegory of the cave highlights the difference between blindly accepting information and seeking true knowledge.

He placed great emphasis on empirical evidence and logic. His works on syllogism and deductive reasoning laid the foundation for systematic critical thought.

Al-Farabi And Ibn Rushd (Averroes)

Islamic philosophers, who harmonised Greek philosophy with Islamic thought, emphasised the importance of rationality and critical inquiry.

Sir Francis Bacon

An advocate for the scientific method, Bacon believed that knowledge should be based on empirical evidence, observation, and experimentation rather than mere reliance on accepted truths.

A modern proponent of critical thinking, Dewey viewed it as an active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge. He emphasised that students should be taught to think for themselves rather than just memorise facts.

Paulo Freire

Recognised for his ideas on “problem-posing education,” Freire believed that students should be encouraged to question, reflect upon, and respond to societal issues, fostering critical consciousness.

Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

Critical thinkers are not defined merely by the knowledge they possess, but by the manner in which they process, analyse, and use that knowledge. While the profile of a critical thinker can be multifaceted, certain core traits distinguish them. Let’s delve into these characteristics:

1. Open-mindedness

Open-mindedness refers to the willingness to consider different ideas, opinions, and perspectives, even if they challenge one’s existing beliefs. It allows critical thinkers to avoid being trapped in their own biases or preconceived notions. By being open to diverse viewpoints, they can make more informed and holistic decisions.

Listening to a debate without immediately taking sides.
Reading literature from different cultures to understand various world views.

2. Analytical Nature

An analytical nature entails the ability to break down complex problems or information into smaller, manageable parts to understand the whole better. Being analytical enables individuals to see patterns, relationships, and inconsistencies, allowing for deeper comprehension and better problem-solving.

Evaluating a research paper by examining its methodology, results, and conclusions separately.
Breaking down the components of a business strategy to assess its viability.

3. Scepticism

Scepticism is the tendency to question and doubt claims or assertions until sufficient evidence is presented. Skepticism ensures that critical thinkers do not accept information at face value. They seek evidence and are cautious about jumping to conclusions without verification.

Questioning the results of a study that lacks a control group.
Doubting a sensational news headline and researching further before believing or sharing it.

4. Intellectual Humility

Intellectual humility involves recognising and accepting the limitations of one’s knowledge and understanding. It is about being aware that one does not have all the answers. This trait prevents arrogance and overconfidence. Critical thinkers with intellectual humility are open to learning and receptive to constructive criticism.

Admitting when one is wrong in a discussion.
Actively seeking feedback on a project or idea to enhance it.

5. Logical Reasoning

Logical reasoning is the ability to think sequentially and make connections between concepts in a coherent manner. It involves drawing conclusions that logically follow from the available information. Logical reasoning ensures that decisions and conclusions are sound and based on valid premises. It helps avoid fallacies and cognitive biases.

Using deductive reasoning to derive a specific conclusion from a general statement.
Evaluating an argument for potential logical fallacies like “slippery slope” or “ad hominem.”

The Difference Between Critical Thinking and Memorisation

In today’s rapidly changing educational landscape, there is an ongoing debate about the importance of rote memorisation versus the significance of cultivating critical thinking skills. Both have their place in learning, but they serve very different purposes.

Nature Of Learning

Rote Learning: Involves memorising information exactly as it is, without necessarily understanding its context or underlying meaning. It’s akin to storing data as-is, without processing.
Analytical Processing (Critical Thinking): Involves understanding, questioning, and connecting new information with existing knowledge. It’s less about storage and more about comprehension and application.

Depth of Engagement

Rote Learning: Often remains at the surface level. Students might remember facts for a test, but might forget them shortly after.
Analytical Processing: Engages deeper cognitive skills. When students think critically, they’re more likely to retain information because they’ve processed it deeper.

Application in New Situations

Rote Learning: Information memorised through rote often does not easily apply to new or unfamiliar situations, since it is detached from understanding.
Analytical Processing: Promotes adaptability. Critical thinkers can transfer knowledge and skills to different contexts because they understand underlying concepts and principles.

Why Critical Thinking Produces Long-Term Academic Benefits

Here are the benefits of critical thinking in academics.

Enhanced Retention

Critical thinking often involves active learning—discussions, problem-solving, and debates—which promotes better retention than passive memorisation.

Skill Development

Beyond content knowledge, critical thinking develops skills like analysis, synthesis, source evaluation , and problem-solving. These are invaluable in higher education and professional settings.

Adaptability

In an ever-evolving world, the ability to adapt is crucial. Critical thinkers are better equipped to learn and adapt because they don’t just know facts; they understand concepts.

Lifelong Learning

Critical thinkers are naturally curious. They seek to understand, question, and explore, turning them into lifelong learners who continually seek knowledge and personal growth.

Improved Decision-Making

Analytical processing allows students to evaluate various perspectives, weigh evidence, and make well-informed decisions, a skill far beyond academics.

Preparation for Real-World Challenges

The real world does not come with a textbook. Critical thinkers can navigate unexpected challenges, connect disparate pieces of information, and innovate solutions.

Steps in the Critical Thinking Process

Critical thinking is more than just a skill—it is a structured process. By following a systematic approach, critical thinkers can navigate complex issues and ensure their conclusions are well-informed and reasoned. Here’s a breakdown of the steps involved:

Step 1. Identification and Clarification of the Problem or Question

Recognizing that a problem or question exists and understanding its nature. It’s about defining the issue clearly, without ambiguity. A well-defined problem serves as the foundation for the subsequent steps. The entire process may become misguided without a clear understanding of what’s being addressed.

Example: Instead of a vague problem like “improving the environment,” a more specific question could be “How can urban areas reduce air pollution?”

Step 2. Gathering Information and Evidence

Actively seeking relevant data, facts, and evidence. This might involve research, observations, experiments, or discussions. Reliable decisions are based on solid evidence. The quality and relevance of the information gathered can heavily influence the final conclusion.

Example: To address urban air pollution, one might gather data on current pollution levels, sources of pollutants, existing policies, and strategies employed by other cities.

Step 3. Analysing the Information

Breaking down the gathered information, scrutinising its validity, and identifying patterns, contradictions, and relationships. This step ensures that the information is not just accepted at face value. Critical thinkers can differentiate between relevant and irrelevant information and detect biases or inaccuracies by analysing data.

Example: When examining data on pollution, one might notice that certain industries are major contributors or that pollution levels rise significantly at specific times of the year.

Step 4. Drawing Conclusions and Making Decisions

After thorough analysis, formulating an informed perspective, solution, or decision-based on the evidence. This is the culmination of the previous steps. Here, the critical thinker synthesises the information and applies logic to arrive at a reasoned conclusion.

Example: Based on the analysis, one might conclude that regulating specific industries and promoting public transportation during peak pollution periods can help reduce urban air pollution.

Step 5. Reflecting on the Process And The Conclusions Reached

Take a step back to assess the entire process, considering any potential biases, errors, or alternative perspectives. It is also about evaluating the feasibility and implications of the conclusions. Reflection ensures continuous learning and improvement. Individuals can refine their approach to future problems by evaluating their thinking process.

Example: Reflecting on the proposed solution to reduce pollution, one might consider its economic implications, potential industry resistance, and the need for public awareness campaigns.

The research done by our experts have:

Precision and Clarity
Zero Plagiarism
Authentic Sources

The Role of Critical Thinking in Different Academic Subjects

Critical thinking is a universal skill applicable across disciplines. Its methodologies might differ based on the subject, but its core principles remain consistent. Let us explore how critical thinking manifests in various academic domains:

1. Sciences

Hypothesis Testing: Science often begins with a hypothesis—a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. Critical thinking is essential in formulating a testable hypothesis and determining its validity based on experimental results.
Experimental Design: Designing experiments requires careful planning to ensure valid and reliable results. Critical thinking aids in identifying variables, ensuring controls, and determining the best methodologies to obtain accurate data.
Example: In a biology experiment to test the effect of light on plant growth, critical thinking helps ensure variables like water and soil quality are consistent, allowing for a fair assessment of the light’s impact.

2. Humanities

Analysing Texts: Humanities often involve studying texts—literature, historical documents, or philosophical treatises. Critical thinking lets students decode themes, discern authorial intent, and recognise underlying assumptions or biases.
Understanding Contexts: Recognizing a text or artwork’s cultural, historical, or social contexts is pivotal. Critical thinking allows for a deeper appreciation of these contexts, providing a holistic understanding of the subject.
Example: When studying Shakespeare’s “Othello,” critical thinking aids in understanding the play’s exploration of jealousy, race, and betrayal, while also appreciating its historical context in Elizabethan England.

3. Social Sciences

Evaluating Arguments: Social sciences, such as sociology or political science, often present various theories or arguments about societal structures and behaviours. Critical thinking aids in assessing the merits of these arguments and recognising their implications.
Understanding Biases: Since social sciences study human societies, they’re susceptible to biases. Critical thinking helps identify potential biases in research or theories, ensuring a more objective understanding.
Example: In studying economic policies, critical thinking helps weigh the benefits and drawbacks of different economic models, considering both empirical data and theoretical arguments.

4. Mathematics

Problem-Solving: Mathematics is more than just numbers; it is about solving problems. Critical thinking enables students to identify the best strategies to tackle problems, ensuring efficient and accurate solutions.
Logical Deduction: Mathematical proofs and theorems rely on logical steps. Critical thinking ensures that each step is valid and the conclusions sound.
Example: In geometry, when proving that two triangles are congruent, critical thinking helps ensure that each criterion (like side lengths or angles) is met and the logic of the proof is coherent.

Examples of Critical Thinking in Academics

Some of the critical thinking examples in academics are discussed below.

Case Study 1: Evaluating A Scientific Research Paper

Scenario: A research paper claims that a new herbal supplement significantly improves memory in elderly individuals.

Critical Thinking Application:

Scrutinising Methodology:

Was the study double-blind and placebo-controlled?
How large was the sample size?
Were the groups randomised?
Were there any potential confounding variables?

Assessing Conclusions:

Do the results conclusively support the claim, or are there other potential explanations?
Are the statistical analyses robust, and do they show a significant difference?
Is the effect size clinically relevant or just statistically significant?

Considering Broader Context:

How does this study compare with existing literature on the subject?
Were there any conflicts of interest, such as funding from the supplement company?

Critical analysis determined that while the study showed statistical significance, the effect size was minimal. Additionally, the sample size was small, and there was potential bias as the supplement manufacturer funded the study.

Case Study 2: Analysing a Literary Text

Scenario: A reading of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby.”

Understanding Symbolism:

What does the green light represent for Gatsby and in the broader context of the American Dream?
How does the Valley of Ashes symbolise societal decay?

Recognising Authorial Intent:

Why might Fitzgerald depict the characters’ lavish lifestyles amid underlying dissatisfaction?
What critiques of American society is Fitzgerald potentially making?

Contextual Analysis:

How does the era in which the novel was written (Roaring Twenties) influence its themes and characters?

Through critical analysis, the reader recognises that while “The Great Gatsby” is a tale of love and ambition, it’s also a poignant critique of the hollowness of the American Dream and the societal excesses of the 1920s.

Case Study 3: Decoding Historical Events

Scenario: The events leading up to the American Revolution.

Considering Multiple Perspectives:

How did the British government view the colonies and their demands?
What were the diverse perspectives within the American colonies, considering loyalists and patriots?

Assessing Validity of Sources:

Which accounts are primary sources, and which are secondary?
Are there potential biases in these accounts, based on their origins?

Analysing Causation and Correlation:

Were taxes and representation the sole reasons for the revolution, or were there deeper economic and philosophical reasons?

Through critical analysis, the student understands that while taxation without representation was a significant catalyst, the American Revolution was also influenced by Enlightenment ideas, economic interests, and long-standing grievances against colonial policies.

Challenges to Developing Critical Thinking Skills

In our complex and rapidly changing world, the importance of critical thinking cannot be overstated. However, various challenges can impede the cultivation of these vital skills.

1. Common Misconceptions and Cognitive Biases

Human brains often take shortcuts in processing information, leading to cognitive biases. Additionally, certain misconceptions about what constitutes critical thinking can hinder its development.

Confirmation Bias: The tendency to search for, interpret, and recall information that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs.
Anchoring Bias: Relying too heavily on the first piece of information encountered when making decisions.
Misconception: Believing that critical thinking merely means being critical or negative about ideas, rather than evaluating them objectively.

These biases can skew perception and decision-making, making it challenging to objectively approach issues.

2. The Influence of Technology and Social Media

While providing unprecedented access to information, the digital age also presents unique challenges. The barrage of information, the immediacy of social media reactions, and algorithms that cater to user preferences can hinder critical thought.

Information Overload: The sheer volume of online data can make it difficult to discern credible sources from unreliable ones.
Clickbait and Misinformation: Articles with sensational titles designed to generate clicks might lack depth or accuracy.
Algorithmic Bias: Platforms showing users content based on past preferences can limit exposure to diverse viewpoints.

Relying too heavily on technology and social media can lead to superficial understanding, reduced attention spans, and a narrow worldview.

3. The Danger of Echo Chambers and Confirmation Bias

An echo chamber is a situation in which beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system, cutting off differing viewpoints.

Social Media Groups: Joining groups or following pages that only align with one’s beliefs can create a feedback loop, reinforcing existing opinions without challenge.
Selective Media Consumption: Only watching news channels or reading websites that align with one’s political or social views.

Echo chambers reinforce confirmation bias, limit exposure to diverse perspectives, and can polarise opinions, making objective, critical evaluation of issues challenging.

Benefits of Promoting Critical Thinking in Education

When cultivated and promoted in educational settings, critical thinking can have transformative effects on students, equipping them with vital skills to navigate their academic journey and beyond. Here’s an exploration of the manifold benefits of emphasising critical thinking in education:

Improved Problem-Solving Skills

Critical thinking enables students to approach problems methodically, breaking them down into manageable parts, analysing each aspect, and synthesising solutions.

Academic: Enhances students’ ability to tackle complex assignments, research projects, and unfamiliar topics.
Beyond School: Prepares students for real-world challenges where they might encounter problems without predefined solutions.

Enhanced Creativity and Innovation

Critical thinking is not just analytical but also involves lateral thinking, helping students see connections between disparate ideas and encouraging imaginative solutions.

Academic: Promotes richer discussions, more creative projects, and the ability to view topics from multiple angles.
Beyond School: Equips students for careers and situations where innovative solutions can lead to advancements in fields like technology, arts, or social entrepreneurship.

Better Decision-Making Abilities

Critical thinkers evaluate information thoroughly, weigh potential outcomes, and make decisions based on evidence and reason rather than impulse or peer pressure.

Academic: Helps students make informed choices about their studies, research directions, or group projects.
Beyond School: Prepares students to make sound decisions in personal and professional spheres, from financial choices to ethical dilemmas.

Greater Resilience in the Face of Complex Challenges

Critical thinking nurtures a growth mindset. When students think critically, they are more likely to view challenges as opportunities for learning rather than insurmountable obstacles.

Academic: Increases perseverance in difficult subjects, promoting a deeper understanding rather than superficial learning. Students become more resilient in handling academic pressures and setbacks.
Beyond School: Cultivates individuals who can navigate the complexities of modern life, from career challenges to societal changes, with resilience and adaptability.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is critical thinking.

Critical thinking is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue to form a judgment. It involves gathering relevant information, discerning potential biases, logically connecting ideas, and questioning assumptions. Essential for informed decision-making, it promotes scepticism and requires the ability to think independently and rationally.

What makes critical thinking?

Critical thinking arises from questioning assumptions, evaluating evidence, discerning fact from opinion, recognising biases, and logically connecting ideas. It demands curiosity, scepticism, and an open mind. By continuously challenging one’s beliefs and considering alternative viewpoints, one cultivates the ability to think clearly, rationally, and independently.

What is the purpose of critical thinking?

The purpose of critical thinking is to enable informed decisions by analysing and evaluating information objectively. It fosters understanding, problem-solving, and clarity, reducing the influence of biases and misconceptions. Through critical thinking, individuals discern truth, make reasoned judgments, and engage more effectively in discussions and debates.

How to improve critical thinking?

Cultivate curiosity by asking questions.
Practice active listening.
Read widely and diversely.
Engage in discussions and debates.
Reflect on your thought processes.
Identify biases and challenge assumptions.
Solve problems systematically.

What are some critical thinking skills?

Analysis: breaking concepts into parts.
Evaluation: judging information’s validity.
Inference: drawing logical conclusions.
Explanation: articulating reasons.
Interpretation: understanding meaning.
Problem-solving: devising effective solutions.
Decision-making: choosing the best options.

What is information literacy?

Information literacy is the ability to find, evaluate, and use information effectively. It encompasses understanding where to locate information, determining its credibility, distinguishing between facts and opinions, and using it responsibly. Essential in the digital age, it equips individuals to navigate the vast sea of data and make informed decisions.

What makes a credible source?

Authorship by experts or professionals.
Reliable publisher or institution backing.
Transparent sourcing and references.
Absence of bias or clear disclosure of it.
Recent publications or timely updates.
Peer review or editorial oversight.
Clear, logical arguments.
Reputability in its field or domain.

How do I analyse information critically?

Determine the source’s credibility.
Identify the main arguments or points.
Examine the evidence provided.
Spot inconsistencies or fallacies.
Detect biases or unspoken assumptions.
Cross-check facts with other sources.
Evaluate the relevance to your context.
Reflect on your own biases or beliefs.

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
–––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
–––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
–––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
–––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
–––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
–––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
–––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
–––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
–––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
–––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
–––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
–––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
–––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
–––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
–––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
–––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
–––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
–––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
–––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
–––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
–––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
–––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
–––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
–––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
–––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
–––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
–––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
–––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
–––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
–––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
–––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
–––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
–––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
–––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
–––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
–––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
–––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
–––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
–––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
–––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
–––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
–––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
–––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
–––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
–––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
–––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
–––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
–––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
–––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
–––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
–––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
–––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
–––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
–––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
–––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
Foundation for Critical Thinking
Insight Assessment
Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
The Critical Thinking Consortium
The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

The Importance of Critical Thinking Skills in Research

Why is Critical Thinking Important: A Disruptive Force

Research anxiety seems to be taking an increasingly dominant role in the world of academic research. The pressure to publish or perish can warp your focus into thinking that the only good research is publishable research!

Today, your role as the researcher appears to take a back seat to the perceived value of the topic and the extent to which the results of the study will be cited around the world. Due to financial pressures and a growing tendency of risk aversion, studies are increasingly going down the path of applied research rather than basic or pure research . The potential for breakthroughs is being deliberately limited to incremental contributions from researchers who are forced to worry more about job security and pleasing their paymasters than about making a significant contribution to their field.

A Slow Decline

So what lead the researchers to their love of science and scientific research in the first place? The answer is critical thinking skills. The more that academic research becomes governed by policies outside of the research process, the less opportunity there will be for researchers to exercise such skills.

True research demands new ideas , perspectives, and arguments based on willingness and confidence to revisit and directly challenge existing schools of thought and established positions on theories and accepted codes of practice. Success comes from a recursive approach to the research question with an iterative refinement based on constant reflection and revision.

The importance of critical thinking skills in research is therefore huge, without which researchers may even lack the confidence to challenge their own assumptions.

A Misunderstood Skill

Critical thinking is widely recognized as a core competency and as a precursor to research. Employers value it as a requirement for every position they post, and every survey of potential employers for graduates in local markets rate the skill as their number one concern.

Related: Do you have questions on research idea or manuscript drafting? Get personalized answers on the FREE Q&A Forum!

When asked to clarify what critical thinking means to them, employers will use such phrases as “the ability to think independently,” or “the ability to think on their feet,” or “to show some initiative and resolve a problem without direct supervision.” These are all valuable skills, but how do you teach them?

For higher education institutions in particular, when you are being assessed against dropout, graduation, and job placement rates, where does a course in critical thinking skills fit into the mix? Student Success courses as a precursor to your first undergraduate course will help students to navigate the campus and whatever online resources are available to them (including the tutoring center), but that doesn’t equate to raising critical thinking competencies.

The Dependent Generation

As education becomes increasingly commoditized and broken-down into components that can be delivered online for maximum productivity and profitability, we run the risk of devaluing academic discourse and independent thought. Larger class sizes preclude substantive debate, and the more that content is broken into sound bites that can be tested in multiple-choice questions, the less requirement there will be for original thought.

Academic journals value citation above all else, and so content is steered towards the type of articles that will achieve high citation volume. As such, students and researchers will perpetuate such misuse by ensuring that their papers include only highly cited works. And the objective of high citation volume is achieved.

We expand the body of knowledge in any field by challenging the status quo. Denying the veracity of commonly accepted “facts” or playing devil’s advocate with established rules supports a necessary insurgency that drives future research. If we do not continue to emphasize the need for critical thinking skills to preserve such rebellion, academic research may begin to slowly fade away.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Content Analysis vs Thematic Analysis: What's the difference?

Reporting Research

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for data interpretation

In research, choosing the right approach to understand data is crucial for deriving meaningful insights.…

Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Study Design

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right approach

The process of choosing the right research design can put ourselves at the crossroads of…

Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

Embarking on your first academic conference experience? Fear not, we got you covered! Academic conferences…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of…

AI in Academia

Disclosing the Use of Generative AI: Best practices for authors in manuscript preparation

The rapid proliferation of generative and other AI-based tools in research writing has ignited an…

Intersectionality in Academia: Dealing with diverse perspectives

Meritocracy and Diversity in Science: Increasing inclusivity in STEM education

Avoiding the AI Trap: Pitfalls of relying on ChatGPT for PhD applications

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

2000+ blog articles
50+ Webinars
10+ Expert podcasts
50+ Infographics
10+ Checklists
Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

Archives & Special Collections home
Art Library home
Ekstrom Library home
Kornhauser Health Sciences Library home
Law Library home
Music Library home
University of Louisville Hospital home
Interlibrary Loan
Off-Campus Login
Renew Books
Cardinal Card
My Print Center
Business Ops
Cards Career Connection

Search Site

Search catalog, critical thinking and academic research: intro.

Information
Point of View
Assumptions
Implications

Critical Thinking and Academic Research

Academic research focuses on the creation of new ideas, perspectives, and arguments. The researcher seeks relevant information in articles, books, and other sources, then develops an informed point of view within this ongoing "conversation" among researchers.

The research process is not simply collecting data, evidence, or "facts," then piecing together this preexisting information into a paper. Instead, the research process is about inquiry—asking questions and developing answers through serious critical thinking and thoughtful reflection.

As a result, the research process is recursive, meaning that the researcher regularly revisits ideas, seeks new information when necessary, and reconsiders and refines the research question, topic, or approach. In other words, research almost always involves constant reflection and revision.

This guide is designed to help you think through various aspects of the research process. The steps are not sequential, nor are they prescriptive about what steps you should take at particular points in the research process. Instead, the guide should help you consider the larger, interrelated elements of thinking involved in research.

Research Anxiety?

Research is not often easy or straightforward, so it's completely normal to feel anxious, frustrated, or confused. In fact, if you feel anxious, it can be a good sign that you're engaging in the type of critical thinking necessary to research and write a high-quality paper.

Think of the research process not as one giant, impossibly complicated task, but as a series of smaller, interconnected steps. These steps can be messy, and there is not one correct sequence of steps that will work for every researcher. However, thinking about research in small steps can help you be more productive and alleviate anxiety.

Paul-Elder Framework

This guide is based on the "Elements of Reasoning" from the Paul-Elder framework for critical thinking. For more information about the Paul-Elder framework, click the link below.

Some of the content in this guide has been adapted from The Aspiring Thinker's Guide to Critical Thinking (2009) by Linda Elder and Richard Paul.

Next: Purpose >>
Last Updated: Jul 10, 2023 11:50 AM
Librarian Login

Interesting
Scholarships
UGC-CARE Journals

The Art and Science of Critical Thinking in Research: A Guide to Academic Excellence

Critical thinking is a fundamental skill in research and academia that involves analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting information in a systematic and logical manner. It is the process of objectively evaluating evidence, arguments, and ideas to arrive at well-reasoned conclusions or make informed decisions.

The art and science of critical thinking in research is a multifaceted and dynamic process that requires intellectual rigor, creativity, and an open mind.

In research, critical thinking is essential for developing research questions, designing research studies, collecting and analyzing data, and interpreting research findings. It allows researchers to evaluate the quality and validity of research studies, identify gaps in the literature, and make evidence-based decisions.

Critical thinking in research also involves being open to alternative viewpoints and being willing to revise one’s own conclusions based on new evidence. It requires intellectual humility and a willingness to challenge one’s own assumptions and biases.

Why Critical Thinking is Important in Research?

Critical thinking is important in research for the following reasons:

Rigor and accuracy

It helps researchers to approach their work with rigor and accuracy, ensuring that the research methods and findings are reliable and valid.

Evaluation of evidence

Critical thinking helps researchers to evaluate the evidence they encounter and determine its relevance and reliability to the research question or hypothesis.

Identification of biases and assumptions

Critical thinking helps research ers to identify their own biases and assumptions and those of others, which can influence the research process and findings.

Problem-solving

It helps researchers to identify and solve problems that may arise during the research process, such as inconsistencies in data or unexpected results.

Development of new ideas

Critical thinking can help researchers develop new ideas and theories based on their analysis of the evidence.

Communication

Critical thinking helps researchers to communicate their findings and ideas in a clear and logical manner, making it easier for others to understand and build on their work.

Therefore, critical thinking is essential for conducting rigorous and impactful research that can advance our understanding of the world around us.

It helps researchers to approach their work with a critical and objective perspective, evaluating evidence and developing insights that can contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their field.

How to develop critical thinking skills in research?

Developing critical thinking skills in research requires a specific set of strategies. Here are some ways to develop critical thinking skills in research:

Evaluate the credibility of sources

In research, it is important to evaluate the credibility of sources to determine if the information is reliable and valid. To develop your critical thinking skills, practice evaluating the sources you encounter and assessing their credibility.

Assess the quality of evidence

Critical thinking in research involves assessing the quality of evidence and determining if it supports the research question or hypothesis. Practice evaluating the quality of evidence and understanding how it impacts the research findings.

Consider alternative explanations

To develop critical thinking skills in research, practice considering alternative explanations for the findings. Evaluate the evidence and consider if there are other explanations that could account for the results.

Challenge assumptions

Critical thinking in research involves challenging assumptions and exploring alternative perspectives. Practice questioning assumptions and considering different viewpoints to develop your critical thinking skills.

Seek out feedback

Seek out feedback from colleagues, advisors, or peers on your research methods and findings. This can help you identify areas where you need to improve your critical thinking skills and provide valuable insights for your research.

Practice analyzing data

Critical thinking in research involves analyzing and interpreting data. Practice analyzing different types of data to develop your critical thinking skills.

Attend conferences and seminars

Attend conferences and seminars in your field to learn about the latest research and to engage in critical discussions with other researchers. This can help you develop your critical thinking skills and keep up-to-date with the latest research in your field.

By consistently practicing these strategies, you can develop your critical thinking skills in research and become a more effective and insightful researcher.

The Art and Science of Critical Thinking in Research

The art and science of critical thinking in research is a vital skill for academic excellence. Here’s a guide to academic excellence through the art and science of critical thinking in research:

Define the research problem

The first step in critical thinking is to define the research problem or question. This involves identifying the key concepts, understanding the context, and formulating a clear and concise research question or hypothesis. Clearly define the research question or problem you are trying to address. This will help you focus your thinking and avoid unnecessary distractions.

Conduct a comprehensive literature review

A thorough review of relevant literature is essential in critical thinking. It helps you understand the existing knowledge and research in the field, identify research gaps, and evaluate the quality and reliability of the evidence. It also allows you to identify different perspectives and theories related to the research problem.

Evaluate evidence and sources

Critical thinking requires careful evaluation of evidence and sources. This includes assessing the credibility, reliability, and validity of research studies, data sources, and information. It also involves identifying potential biases, limitations, and assumptions in the evidence and sources. Use reputable, peer-reviewed sources and critically analyze the evidence and arguments presented in those sources.

Analyze and synthesize information

Critical thinking involves analyzing and synthesizing information from various sources. This includes identifying patterns, trends, and relationships among different pieces of information. It also requires organizing and integrating information to develop a coherent and logical argument.

Question assumptions

Challenge your assumptions and biases. Be aware of your own biases and preconceived notions, and critically examine them to avoid potential bias in your research.

Evaluate arguments and reasoning

Critical thinking involves evaluating the strength and validity of arguments and reasoning. This includes identifying logical fallacies, evaluating the coherence and consistency of arguments, and assessing the evidence and support for arguments. It also involves considering alternative viewpoints and perspectives.

Apply critical thinking tools

Use critical thinking tools such as SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats), mind maps, concept maps, and flowcharts to organize and analyze information in a structured and systematic manner.

Apply critical thinking skills in research design and methodology: Critical thinking is essential in research design and methodology. This includes making informed decisions about research approaches, sampling methods, data collection, and data analysis techniques. It also involves anticipating potential limitations and biases in the research design and methodology.

Consider multiple perspectives

Avoid tunnel vision by considering multiple perspectives and viewpoints on the issue at hand. This will help you gain a more comprehensive understanding of the topic and make informed decisions based on a broader range of information.

Ask critical questions

Critical questions in research.

Some of the sample critical questions in the research are listed below.

1. What is the research question, and is it clearly defined?

2. What are the assumptions underlying the research question?

3. What is the methodology being used, and is it appropriate for the research organized

4. What are the limitations of the study, and how might they affect the results?

5. How representative is the sample being studied, and are there any biases in the selection process?

6. What are the potential sources of error or bias in the data collection process?

7. Are the statistical analyses used appropriate, and do they support the conclusions drawn from the data?

8. What are the implications of the research findings, and do they have practical significance?

9. Are there any ethical considerations that arise from the research, and have they been adequately addressed?

10. Are there any alternative explanations for the results, and have they been considered and ruled out?

Communicate effectively

Critical thinking requires effective communication skills to articulate and present research findings and arguments clearly and convincingly.

This includes writing clearly and concisely, using appropriate evidence and examples, and presenting information in a logical and organized manner. It also involves listening and responding critically to feedback and engaging in constructive discussions and debates.

Practice self-reflection

Critical thinking involves self-reflection and self-awareness. Reflect on your own thinking and decision-making process throughout the research. It requires regularly evaluating your own biases, assumptions, and limitations in your thinking process. It also involves being mindful of your emotions and personal beliefs that may influence your critical thinking and decision-making.

Embrace creativity and open-mindedness

Critical thinking involves being open to new ideas, perspectives, and approaches. It requires creativity in generating and evaluating alternative solutions or interpretations.

It also involves being willing to revise your conclusions or change your research direction based on new information. Avoid confirmation bias and strive for objectivity in your research.

Seek feedback and engage in peer review

Critical thinking benefits from feedback and peer review. Seeking feedback from mentors, colleagues, or peer reviewers can help identify potential flaws or weaknesses in your research or arguments. Engaging in peer review also provides an opportunity to critically evaluate the work of others and learn from their perspectives.

By following these best practices and techniques, you can cultivate critical thinking skills that will enhance the quality and rigor of your research, leading to more successful outcomes.

Critical thinking is an essential component of research that enables researchers to evaluate information, identify biases, and draw valid conclusions.

It involves defining research problems, conducting literature reviews, evaluating evidence and sources, analyzing and synthesizing information, evaluating arguments and reasoning, applying critical thinking in research design and methodology, communicating effectively, embracing creativity and open-mindedness, practicing self-reflection, seeking feedback, and engaging in peer review.

By cultivating and applying critical thinking skills in research, you can enhance the quality and rigor of your work and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in your field.

Remember to continuously practice and refine your critical thinking skills as they are valuable not only in research but also in various aspects of life. Happy researching!

academic excellence
Academic Research
academic success
critical thinking
practical tips
research skills

Fulbright Specialist Program 2024-25

Six effective tips to identify research gap, 24 best free plagiarism checkers in 2024, most popular, how to check scopus indexed journals 2024, types of research variable in research with example, what is hypothesis in research types, examples, & importance, how to write a research paper a complete guide, 14 websites to download research paper for free – 2024, google phd $50000 fellowship program 2024, phd funding schemes in india 2024, best for you, what is phd, popular posts, 480 ugc-care list of journals – science – 2024, popular category.

POSTDOC 317
Interesting 259
Journals 234
Fellowship 127
Research Methodology 102
All Scopus Indexed Journals 92

iLovePhD is a research education website to know updated research-related information. It helps researchers to find top journals for publishing research articles and get an easy manual for research tools. The main aim of this website is to help Ph.D. scholars who are working in various domains to get more valuable ideas to carry out their research. Learn the current groundbreaking research activities around the world, love the process of getting a Ph.D.

Google News

Artificial intelligence

Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples

Homework Help
Private School
College Admissions
College Life
Graduate School
Business School
Distance Learning

Indiana University, Bloomington
State University of New York at Oneonta

Critical thinking refers to the ability to analyze information objectively and make a reasoned judgment. It involves the evaluation of sources, such as data, facts, observable phenomena, and research findings.

Good critical thinkers can draw reasonable conclusions from a set of information, and discriminate between useful and less useful details to solve problems or make decisions. Employers prioritize the ability to think critically—find out why, plus see how you can demonstrate that you have this ability throughout the job application process.

Why Do Employers Value Critical Thinking Skills?

Employers want job candidates who can evaluate a situation using logical thought and offer the best solution.

Someone with critical thinking skills can be trusted to make decisions independently, and will not need constant handholding.

Hiring a critical thinker means that micromanaging won't be required. Critical thinking abilities are among the most sought-after skills in almost every industry and workplace. You can demonstrate critical thinking by using related keywords in your resume and cover letter, and during your interview.

Examples of Critical Thinking

The circumstances that demand critical thinking vary from industry to industry. Some examples include:

A triage nurse analyzes the cases at hand and decides the order by which the patients should be treated.
A plumber evaluates the materials that would best suit a particular job.
An attorney reviews evidence and devises a strategy to win a case or to decide whether to settle out of court.
A manager analyzes customer feedback forms and uses this information to develop a customer service training session for employees.

Promote Your Skills in Your Job Search

If critical thinking is a key phrase in the job listings you are applying for, be sure to emphasize your critical thinking skills throughout your job search.

Add Keywords to Your Resume

You can use critical thinking keywords (analytical, problem solving, creativity, etc.) in your resume. When describing your work history , include top critical thinking skills that accurately describe you. You can also include them in your resume summary , if you have one.

For example, your summary might read, “Marketing Associate with five years of experience in project management. Skilled in conducting thorough market research and competitor analysis to assess market trends and client needs, and to develop appropriate acquisition tactics.”

Mention Skills in Your Cover Letter

Include these critical thinking skills in your cover letter. In the body of your letter, mention one or two of these skills, and give specific examples of times when you have demonstrated them at work. Think about times when you had to analyze or evaluate materials to solve a problem.

Show the Interviewer Your Skills

You can use these skill words in an interview. Discuss a time when you were faced with a particular problem or challenge at work and explain how you applied critical thinking to solve it.

Some interviewers will give you a hypothetical scenario or problem, and ask you to use critical thinking skills to solve it. In this case, explain your thought process thoroughly to the interviewer. He or she is typically more focused on how you arrive at your solution rather than the solution itself. The interviewer wants to see you analyze and evaluate (key parts of critical thinking) the given scenario or problem.

Of course, each job will require different skills and experiences, so make sure you read the job description carefully and focus on the skills listed by the employer.

Top Critical Thinking Skills

Keep these in-demand critical thinking skills in mind as you update your resume and write your cover letter. As you've seen, you can also emphasize them at other points throughout the application process, such as your interview.

Part of critical thinking is the ability to carefully examine something, whether it is a problem, a set of data, or a text. People with analytical skills can examine information, understand what it means, and properly explain to others the implications of that information.

Asking Thoughtful Questions
Data Analysis
Interpretation
Questioning Evidence
Recognizing Patterns

Communication

Often, you will need to share your conclusions with your employers or with a group of colleagues. You need to be able to communicate with others to share your ideas effectively. You might also need to engage in critical thinking in a group. In this case, you will need to work with others and communicate effectively to figure out solutions to complex problems.

Active Listening
Collaboration
Explanation
Interpersonal
Presentation
Verbal Communication
Written Communication

Critical thinking often involves creativity and innovation. You might need to spot patterns in the information you are looking at or come up with a solution that no one else has thought of before. All of this involves a creative eye that can take a different approach from all other approaches.

Flexibility
Conceptualization
Imagination
Drawing Connections
Synthesizing

Open-Mindedness

To think critically, you need to be able to put aside any assumptions or judgments and merely analyze the information you receive. You need to be objective, evaluating ideas without bias.

Objectivity
Observation

Problem Solving

Problem-solving is another critical thinking skill that involves analyzing a problem, generating and implementing a solution, and assessing the success of the plan. Employers don’t simply want employees who can think about information critically. They also need to be able to come up with practical solutions.

Attention to Detail
Clarification
Decision Making
Groundedness
Identifying Patterns

More Critical Thinking Skills

Inductive Reasoning
Deductive Reasoning
Noticing Outliers
Adaptability
Emotional Intelligence
Brainstorming
Optimization
Restructuring
Integration
Strategic Planning
Project Management
Ongoing Improvement
Causal Relationships
Case Analysis
Diagnostics
SWOT Analysis
Business Intelligence
Quantitative Data Management
Qualitative Data Management
Risk Management
Scientific Method
Consumer Behavior

Key Takeaways

Demonstrate that you have critical thinking skills by adding relevant keywords to your resume.
Mention pertinent critical thinking skills in your cover letter, too, and include an example of a time when you demonstrated them at work.
Finally, highlight critical thinking skills during your interview. For instance, you might discuss a time when you were faced with a challenge at work and explain how you applied critical thinking skills to solve it.

University of Louisville. " What is Critical Thinking ."

American Management Association. " AMA Critical Skills Survey: Workers Need Higher Level Skills to Succeed in the 21st Century ."

Questions for Each Level of Bloom's Taxonomy
Critical Thinking in Reading and Composition
Bloom's Taxonomy in the Classroom
Introduction to Critical Thinking
How To Become an Effective Problem Solver
Creativity & Creative Thinking
Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Education
2020-21 Common Application Essay Option 4—Solving a Problem
6 Skills Students Need to Succeed in Social Studies Classes
College Interview Tips: "Tell Me About a Challenge You Overcame"
Types of Medical School Interviews and What to Expect
The Horse Problem: A Math Challenge
What to Do When the Technology Fails in Class
What Are Your Strengths and Weaknesses? Interview Tips for Teachers
A Guide to Business Letters Types
How to Practice Critical Thinking in 4 Steps

Library Catalog
eBook Collections
Theses & Dissertations
Course Reserves
Research Guides
Government Documents
Trial Subscriptions
Clarkson Art Collection
Services for Students
Services for Faculty & Staff
Services for Distance Users
Services for Visitors & Alumni
Library Hours
Checkout & Return Policies
Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
Using the Library
Copyright Basics
Open Educational Resources
Local Libraries
Occupational Therapy (OT)
Physical Therapy (PT)
Physician Assistant (PA)
Human Anatomy
Drug Information
Medical Calculators
Literature Searching
Citation Help
Search Journals
All Databases
About the Libraries
Library History
Jobs at the Library
Libraries Policies
Mission, Vision & Values
Library Staff

University Libraries

Main Campus Front Desk (315) 268-2292
Ask a Librarian [email protected]
The Research Mindset
The Research Process

The Research Process: The Research Mindset

Understanding academic research.

Go into your research thinking critically about your topic, and about the sources of information you encounter while researching your topic. The following concepts and questions should help you get started on the path toward critically approaching your research!

The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Framework

For more detail, visit the ACRL Framework page .

As we already mentioned, research is a process through which we investigate various areas of a topic through an evolving series of questions. This process should be a strategic exploration of your topic. It often will involve a range of different types of sources and may take you in unexpected directions as you research and your understanding of the topic changes.

Different types of research and different topics will require different sources. Think about your particular topic or hypothesis and where you are most likely to find the information. Make sure you are using appropriate types of sources and a variety of sources, but also that you are looking for those sources in the right place. You may need to use different databases for different topics. Some topics might require you to use newspapers to reference current events. Others might require you to use government databases.

Your librarian can help you determine the best databases and websites to search for your topic.

Ask Yourself:

What types of sources are most likely to have the information that I need?
What types of sources am I required to use by my professor?
After your first search, was the information you found helpful? How might you change how and where you are searching to get better results?

Good research is a process of inquiry. It starts with a simple question and leads to more complex questions as you dig into the information you find on your topic. As you find information to answer one question on your topic, it may create follow up questions requiring more research.

In order to learn the most from your research – and produce the best paper or project from that research – you need to be prepared to follow the research where it takes you. You’ll need to allow your original – probably broad – question to evolve and change as you work. You may need to answer additional questions to create a complete answer to your original question. Or you may change your original question or hypothesis completely based on what you discover.

Ask Yourself:

What is my thesis?
What will I need to find out to prove my thesis?
Where can I find that information?
Have I answered all the sub-questions I need to answer in order to address my overall thesis?

Research is designed to convey a message. Your professor will likely want you to have a thesis – an argument – fo your project. The particular thesis you are using will determine the process you use for your research and the creation of your project.

Consider what you want to prove, and why you want to prove it. Is there a gap in the research? Is there a “hot topic” in your field you want to address? Is it related to current events? This will help you know where to start your background research and the outline you want to follow for your research and your paper.

How was the information source you are looking at created? What does this tell you about its authority?
Why was the information source created? What does this tell you about its authority?

All information has value, although that value may vary from context to context. Information may have value as a commodity, as education, as influence, and as a way to understand the world. This value may impact how information is packaged and shared.

This part of research goes hand-in-hand with the ability to evaluate sources and challenge authority. By understanding the value of the information in your source, you can better understand the quality of that source (both to you and to the creator of the source), why it was created, and how it informs your understanding of your topic.

Why was this source created?
Who created it? Did they have an agenda?
What is the intended audience of this information?
Whose “voices” are represented here? Whose voices/perspectives are not represented?

Research is part of the conversation of scholarship? What does this mean? Even the foremost expert on a topic cannot know and research every angle of a particular topic. This is why we have multiple experts in every field, and each department has multiple professors. In order to get a complete picture of a topic, you need to consult multiple experts and multiple sources. Your research and your project is your chance to contribute in this conversation by offering your own perspective to this ongoing conversation. Your thesis will add to the pre-existing parts of this conversation which you found through your research.

Researchers, even experts, are always building on the work of those who come before them. This is why citation is so important – it gives credit to all the researchers who came before you and who helped inform your work.

What do we already know about my topic?
What would I like to know?
What are the current debates in the literature on my topic?
What can I add to the debate?
Why do I have to cite my sources? What is the purpose of a citaiton?

As researchers, we have to learn to evaluate the author’s expertise and credibility. We also need to learn how to find the right source for the particular project we are working on.

When considering a source we must ask ourselves about the author, about the methodology of the author’s work, about where the author got their information, and about whether or not the particular source is appropriate for the particular project we are working on. This involves thinking critically about the source and the creator of that source.

Who created this source? What are their qualifications?
Can you tell how the resource was created? If it was based on a study, were the methods of that study sound?

It's All Connected!

As you may have noticed, the questions you suggested in each of these boxes are often related to one another and even overlap in some cases. This reminds us that research is a process, not a straight line. As we consider things like authority of a source or value of the information in the source, we may want to revisit what sources we are using and where we found them. As we engage in the process of inquiry that leads from larger questions to more specific questions, we may change how our topic fits within the overall conversation of scholarship.

The rest of this guide will help walk you through the various concrete steps you will need to follow to complete your research and your final project.

Open-Mindedness and Skepticism in Critical Thinking

How the two traits work together..

Posted April 26, 2019

In my most recent post, 12 Important Dispositions for Critical Thinking, I presented a list of dispositions that are likely to enhance the quality of one’s thinking—specifically, disposition toward critical thinking refers to an inclination, tendency, or willingness to perform a given thinking skill (Dwyer, 2017; Facione, Facione & Giancarlo, 1997; Ku, 2009; Norris, 1992; Siegel, 1999; Valenzuela, Nieto & Saiz, 2011). Though there is overlap among some of the dispositions (e.g., inquisitiveness, truth-seeking, and resourcefulness), there are, of course, important distinctions. However, in one particular case—open-mindedness and scepticism—it almost seems that the dispositions are at odds with one another.

I received feedback on the piece, and one reader recommended that, though they agree that it's good to have an open mind, some viewpoints are simply foolish, and it would be a waste of time to dwell on them. I responded with agreement, to some extent. However, even if an idea appears foolish, sometimes its consideration can lead to an intelligent, critically considered conclusion. In this way, open-mindedness follows the same mechanics as ‘brainstorming’ ideas, in that no idea is a bad one because the ‘bad ones’ sometimes provide a foundation for a ‘good one.’ I advised, furthermore, that there are important subtleties that require consideration with respect to understanding the relationship between scepticism and open-mindedness.

To better understand this relationship, it is important to first operationally define the two dispositions. Open-mindedness refers to an inclination to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; to tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other to one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative or ‘unusual’ ideas. On the other hand, seemingly, the disposition towards scepticism refers to an inclination to challenge ideas; to withhold judgment before engaging all the evidence or when the evidence and reasons are insufficient; to take a position and be able to change position when the evidence and reasons are sufficient; and to look at findings from various perspectives.

Though on a foundational level, the two dispositions may seem to reside on a kind of continuum (e.g., scepticism at one end and open-mindedness at the other end), they are distinct concepts, even if there is overlap. That is, an individual can be both sceptical and open-minded at the same time. Perhaps the key issue here is to recognise that open-mindedness doesn’t mean you have to accept divergent ideas, rather just consider them.

Even with that, isn’t consideration of a foolish idea still a ‘waste of time?' Well, the decision-making behind determining whether or not something is foolish is still consideration—some level of evaluation, no matter how easy, was required to make the decision. That’s where the scepticism comes in: rejection of the ‘foolish’ idea is the outcome of appropriate evaluation. However, knowing that the idea is foolish isn’t necessarily the end of the story. You may ask yourself whether anything can be salvaged from the bad idea or the thought process behind it, for the purpose of turning it into a good one; thus, being open-minded through idea generation, such as in the aforementioned example of the mechanics behind brainstorming. But with that, there’s more to open-mindedness than that.

Open-mindedness is about being open to changing your mind in light of new evidence. It’s about detaching from your beliefs and focusing on unbiased thinking void of self-interest. It’s about being open to constructive criticism and new ideas. People who are sceptical do all of this as well—they challenge ideas and they withhold judgment until sufficient evidence is provided—they are open to all possibilities until sufficient evidence is presented. Scepticism and open-mindedness go hand-in-hand, but they may not seem that way from the surface—not until they are adequately and comprehensively defined. Once described accordingly, it is hard not to equate both with critical thinking. Well, I’d be sceptical of it, anyway.

Dwyer, C.P. (2017). Critical thinking: Conceptual perspectives and practical guidelines. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. A. (1997). Setting expectations for student learning: New directions for higher education. Millbrae: California Academic Press.

Ku, K. Y. L. (2009). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 70–76.

Norris, S. P. (Ed.). (1992). The generalizability of critical thinking: Multiple perspectives on an educational ideal. New York: Teachers College Press.

Siegel, H. (1999). What (good) are thinking dispositions? Educational Theory, 49(2), 207–221.

Valenzuela, J., Nieto, A. M., & Saiz, C. (2011). Critical thinking motivational scale: A contribution to the study of relationship between critical thinking and motivation. Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(2), 823–848.

Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Technological University of the Shannon in Athlone, Ireland.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Therapy Center NEW
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

1 Shifting your Mindset: Thinking Like a Researcher

There is a stark difference between being a ‘consumer’ of research and an ‘author’ of research. That is, although a reader may look at a research article and glean insight for application to their own practice, the reader relies upon the integrity of both the author, or authors, as well as in the rigor of the journal such that the information presented is accurate enough to be made public and hopefully, adapted. The critical reader will begin to understand that the ‘process’ of research informs the practice of ‘doing’. The novice researcher will begin to apply those processes to investigation of focused inquiry.

So, as you’ve made it this far, it’s likely safe to say that you’re interested in evolving past a simple consumer of research and are interested in understanding the process further, maybe even design and implement your own research? First thing is first: You’ll need to shift your perspective from, ‘I want answers’ to ‘I have a question’.

Chapter 1: Learning Objectives

As you work to shift your perspective from research consumer to research contributor, you’ll be able to do the following things:

Identify the steps of the research process
Describe the difference between a statement of purpose and a problem statement
Discuss how to articulate a research question
Describe the basic considerations for selecting a research approach

Understanding the Research Process

What goes into pursuing inquiry? This will depend on YOU and the orientation of your interest. That is, there are several factors which will influence your ability to conduct an investigation. Below is a list of broad steps and goals to consider as you begin to ‘think like a researcher’:

Determine an area of interest

Chances are that you’re drawn to a specific subject area because of something that you’re currently doing or because of something that has impacted you personally. It may even be a topic that you’re genuinely interested in exploring further. Regardless of the subject matter, it is imperative that you take a systematic approach to your investigation so as not to get lost in the sheer volume of information available to you.

Identify your orientation of interest

We’ve established that your interest in a subject is rooted to a connection which drives your interest. Next, you’ll need to consider your perspective on the information and discern how your perspective may influence your approach to the research. That is, our biases, either implicit or explicit, have a definite impact on how we approach and utilize the evidence.

Start digging!

Although a strong and clear interest is important, you do not want to waste time doing work which has already been done. Your goal as an emerging researcher is to ADD to, or build upon, the evidentiary basis of a topic of interest. The best way to narrow the scope of your interest is to thoroughly review the existing literature on your topic of interest to see what has already been discovered and to identify the spot in which your interests align with a gap in the knowledge about the topic.

Gather information

As you sift through the literature available which pertains to your topic of interest, you will want to have several goals in mind. First, you will want to get a sense for what has already been discovered or is general knowledge about the topic. This foundational reading will serve as the framework for your general understanding about the topic. As you build both a breadth and depth of understanding, you’ll likely begin to notice patterns in the literature.

Goal: Determine a problem . What still needs to be answered in the area you’re interested in? What can you do to address this gap?

As you read through the literature, you’ll likely start to have more questions than answers. This is normal! However, keep in mind your scope of interest. For example, if you are interested in the rates of depression among post-partum mothers of very premature infants, spending time reading about the rates of depression in traveling salesmen isn’t going to be overly helpful and may actually distract you from finding the information you’re looking for. If you’re having a hard time finding information about what you’re looking for… You’ve already found the problem! That is, perhaps there hasn’t been enough work done to establish an understanding about post-partum depression in this particular subgroup of individuals.

The information you gather will help you develop a problem statement, a purpose statement, and articulate a research question.

A problem statement is a literature-based concern that is applicable to a wide audience (e.g. a profession). A problem statement is NOT a situation which comes from personal experience. Problem statements should include:

The problem itself
Who will use the information and why it is important?
How your study will address the problem?

How Should a Problem Statement Be Articulated?

Developing a purpose statement can be a difficult concept. In a nutshell, the purpose statement is your opportunity to tell the audience how your work will address the problem. Typically, the purpose statement follows the problem statement and should include:

Study design ( HOW ): In very few words, the reader should get a sense of how you are performing this work.
Intent ( WHY ): T he reader should clearly understand why this work is being done.
Variables or Phenomenon ( WHAT ): The reader should understand what, specifically, is being studied in relation to why. Here is where you have to separate constructs from variables. Constructs are ideas or concepts which are not always (but may be) directly measurable. Rather than measuring ‘constructs’, we search for proxies; or ways to represent a construct. One way we can do this is by identifying variables which measure the construct. A variable is a measurable representation of a construct. An important concept here is that a variable must vary . That is, there must be at least two levels measured for any one variable. An Independent Variable a variable that may explain another variable (AKA: Impact Variables). When you consider the ‘independence’ of a variable, you must consider how much control can be exerted over the variable. A Dependent Variable is a variable that is explained BY other variables (AKA: Outcome Variables). Other Variables: Mediating variables are variables that are explained by both independent and dependent variables. Moderating variables are variables which influence the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Control variables are variables which may have an impact on the dependent variable but does not help to explain the dependent variable.
Participants (WHO): The reader should have a grasp on who this work will pertain to. That is, a population describes the entirety of the group you want to draw conclusions about whereas a sample is the specific group that you will actually draw conclusions about. Therefore, a sample will always be smaller than the population and the goal is that the findings relating to your sample are generalizable to the population.
The environment in which the investigation will take place
The access you have to the sample you wish to investigate
The type of data you will collect
The institutional-specific requirements of the research process

Developing a Quantitative Purpose Statement (Creswell & Creswel, 2018, p. 119 as cited in Gliner et al. 2017)

The purpose of this _____ (design) study is to ______(test or describe) the theory of ________, which _________(describes, compares, or relates) the ______________(independent variable) with ____________(Dependent variable), Controlling for ___________(name the control variables if appropriate) for________________(Participants) at _________________(Site). The independent variables are generally defined as ____________(general definition). The dependent variables are generally defined as _____________(General definition). The control and intervening variables, ______________(identify if appropriate), will be statistically controlled in the study.

Developing a Qualitative Purpose Statement (Creswell & Creswel, 2018, p. 124 as cited in Gliner et al. 2017)

Now, it may seem as though you’ve spelled things out for your reader; however, you’ve still not actually stated the question you have; your research question . The type of question will help identify what information should be articulated in the question as well as help describe what approach you will take to answer the question.

A well-defined research question should:

Frame the focus of the study: Stating explicitly the ‘what’, ‘who’, ‘why’, ‘how’, and perhaps even ‘where’ the attention of the work will be focused.
Set the boundaries of the study to establish scope: Using definitive words will help your reader understand how they will be able to generalize your work to their specific interests.
Point you toward data needed to answer the question : Although not usually explicitly stated within the question, how you phrase your question should allude to the approach that you are taking and therefore, infer the type of data which will be discussed.

Quantitative Research Questions

Quantitative approaches are those which make comparisons or examine relationships between or among variables. These types of questions include words like ’cause’, ‘relate’, ‘relationship’, or ‘association’

Is there a relationship between depression scores on the XYZ scale and mothers who have premature infants born at 28 weeks gestation or fewer?

Quantitative approaches are deductive forms of inquiry where variables are measured using using objective statistical methods to either describe or generalize results.

Qualitative Research Questions

Qualitative approaches are those where the intention is to explore, discover, or describe an experience or phenomenon. These types of approaches include words like ‘how’ or ‘what’.

What is the experience of mothers of infants born at 28 weeks gestation or fewer with depression-like symptoms?

Qualitative approaches are inductive forms of inquiry where variables are measured using more subjective measures that often generate non-numeric data and rely upon educated interpretation for analysis.

Overall, your main goal in developing a problem statement, a purpose statement, and a well described question is to first, define the scope of your work and how it fills the gap in understanding you found while digging through the existing research. In working to fill this gap and defining the scope of your work in the context of your gap, clearly delineating your problem, purpose, and question will help guide your approach.

5. Establish the context

We’ve discussed the need to understand the orientation of your inquiry from your perspective. Another important step is to determine whether there is a theoretical or contextual framework which will guide your work. A theory is a method of explaining some ‘thing’; a behavior, event, or phenomenon. That is, it’s a system of interrelated constructs which explain a phenomenon in a bounded system. Theories provide the logic of an observation by explaining what the key drivers and outcomes of a phenomenon are. Theories also help us make sense of an observation by incorporating empirical evidence and comparing outliers to that evidence and provide the foundation for future research by examining the gaps among the relationships and guiding insight about how to address those gaps. Theory works in parallel with empirical work to reconcile the concept with the evidence

Delineation between the macro-level theory wherein constructs are related by prepositions and the micro-level empirical processes of hypothesizing the relationship between variables.

6. Establish the ‘HOW’

Are you planning no observing and describing something objectively? Or, are you planning to be involved with the subjects? Also, something to consider: What is your main goal? That is, are you testing a theory (Positivist)? Or hoping to build a theory (Interpretive)? Are you seeking to test a hypothesis about causal relationships (Experimental)? Or simply describing characteristics or relationships between things (Non-Experimental)? Understanding your end goal will help you to design the best way to answer your research question.

Your approach will become your blueprint for the research process. Identifying ‘WHAT’ you are studying will help to guide the ‘HOW’ of your research. Here is a description of several methods which will help inform ‘HOW’ you pursue an answer to your research question:

Laboratory experiments
Survey research
Action research
Ethnography

As you work to identify both your ‘what’ and your ‘how’, it is helpful to understand what types of studies are common throughout your field of inquiry. As you review the literature, take a look at the methods by which the authors have generated their results and take note. Can you utilize similar methods? Or, are you wanting to take a completely different approach? As Jhangiani et al, (n.d.) identify, there are three overarching approaches to research:

Experimental: Researchers who want to test hypotheses about causal relationships between variables (i.e., their goal is to explain) need to use an experimental method. This is because the experimental method is the only method that allows us to determine causal relationships. Using the experimental approach, researchers first manipulate one or more variables while attempting to control extraneous variables, and then they measure how the manipulated variables affect participants’ responses.
Quasi Experimental: This design is similar to the experimental design; however, participant assignment is not random.
Non-Experimental: Researchers who are simply interested in describing characteristics of people, describing relationships between variables, and using those relationships to make predictions can use non-experimental research. Using the non-experimental approach, the researcher simply measures variables as they naturally occur, but they do not manipulate them. For instance, if I just measured the number of traffic fatalities in America last year that involved the use of a cell phone but I did not actually manipulate cell phone use then this would be categorized as non-experimental research. Alternatively, if I stood at a busy intersection and recorded drivers’ genders and whether or not they were using a cell phone when they passed through the intersection to see whether men or women are more likely to use a cell phone when driving, then this would be non- experimental research. It is important to point out that non-experimental does not mean nonscientific. Non-experimental research is scientific in nature. It can be used to fulfill two of the three goals of science (to describe and to predict). However, unlike with experimental research, we cannot make causal conclusions using this method; we cannot say that one variable causes another variable using this method.

Understanding your approach will help identify what kind of data you will be collecting and what you will do what that data. As you consider your approach you will need to consider how sound your research approach is. That is, you’ll need to consider how well your study is designed to glean insight that truly represents the behavior, process, or phenomenon that you’re investigating. This is where validity comes into play. Although the concept of validity is quite extensive, the two primary types of validity you should be concerned with here are internal and external validity.

Internal Validity : Refers to the degree to which we can confidently infer a causal relationship between variables. When we conduct an experimental study in a laboratory environment we have very high internal validity because we manipulate one variable while controlling all other outside extraneous variables. When we manipulate an independent variable and observe an effect on a dependent variable and we control for everything else so that the only difference between our experimental groups or conditions is the one manipulated variable then we can be quite confident that it is the independent variable that is causing the change in the dependent variable. In contrast, because field studies are conducted in the real-world, the experimenter typically has less control over the environment and potential extraneous variables, and this decreases internal validity, making it less appropriate to arrive at causal conclusions.
External Validity : Refers to the degree to which we can generalize the findings to other circumstances or settings, like the real- world environment. When internal validity is high, external validity tends to be low; and when internal validity is low, external validity tends to be high. So laboratory studies are typically low in external validity, while field studies are typically high in external validity. Since field studies are conducted in the real-world environment it is far more appropriate to generalize the findings to that real-world environment than when the research is conducted in the more artificial sterile laboratory.

7. Gather and analyze your data

Once your study is complete and the observations have been made and recorded, researchers need to analyze the data and draw conclusions. Typically, data are analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics are used to summarize the data and inferential statistics are used to generalize the results from the sample to the population. In turn, inferential statistics are used to make conclusions about whether or not a theory has been supported, refuted, or requires modification.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics are used to organize or summarize a set of data. Examples include percentages, measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode), measures of dispersion (range, standard deviation, variance), and correlation coefficients.

Measures of central tendency are used to describe the typical, average and center of a distribution of scores. The mode is the most frequently occurring score in a distribution. The median is the midpoint of a distribution of scores. The mean is the average of a distribution of scores.

Measures of dispersion are also considered descriptive statistics. They are used to describe the degree of spread in a set of scores. So are all of the scores similar and clustered around the mean or is there a lot of variability in the scores? The range is a measure of dispersion that measures the distance between the highest and lowest scores in a distribution. The standard deviation is a more sophisticated measure of dispersion that measures the average distance of scores from the mean. The variance is just the standard deviation squared. So it also measures the distance of scores from the mean but in a different unit of measure.

Typically means and standard deviations are computed for experimental research studies in which an independent variable was manipulated to produce two or more groups and a dependent variable was measured quantitatively. The means from each experimental group or condition are calculated separately and are compared to see if they differ.

For non-experimental research, simple percentages may be computed to describe the percentage of people who engaged in some behavior or held some belief. But more commonly non-experimental research involves computing the correlation between two variables. A correlation coefficient describes the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables. The values of a correlation coefficient can range from −1.00 (the strongest possible negative relationship) to +1.00 (the strongest possible positive relationship). A value of 0 means there is no relationship between the two variables. Positive correlation coefficients indicate that as the values of one variable increase, so do the values of the other variable. A good example of a positive correlation is the correlation between height and weight, because as height increases weight also tends to increase. Negative correlation coefficients indicate that as the value of one variable increase, the values of the other variable decrease. An example of a negative correlation is the correlation between stressful life events and happiness; because as stress increases, happiness is likely to decrease.

Inferential Statistics

As you learned in the section of this chapter on sampling, typically researchers sample from a population but ultimately they want to be able to generalize their results from the sample to a broader population. Researchers typically want to infer what the population is like based on the sample they studied. Inferential statistics are used for that purpose. Inferential statistics allow researchers to draw conclusions about a population based on data from a sample. Inferential statistics are crucial because the effects (i.e., the differences in the means or the correlation coefficient) that researchers find in a study may be due simply to random chance variability or they may be due to a real effect (i.e., they may reflect a real relationship between variables or a real effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable).

Researchers use inferential statistics to determine whether their effects are statistically significant. A statistically significant effect is one that is unlikely due to random chance and therefore likely represents a real effect in the population. More specifically results that have less than a 5% chance of being due to random error are typically considered statistically significant. When an effect is statistically significant it is appropriate to generalize the results from the sample to the population. In contrast, if inferential statistics reveal that there is more than a 5% chance that an effect could be due to chance error alone then the researcher must conclude that their result is not statistically significant.

It is important to keep in mind that statistics are probabilistic in nature. They allow researchers to determine whether the chances are low that their results are due to random error, but they don’t provide any absolute certainty. Hopefully, when we conclude that an effect is statistically significant it is a real effect that we would find if we tested the entire population. And hopefully when we conclude that an effect is not statistically significant there really is no effect and if we tested the entire population we would find no effect. And that 5% threshold is set at 5% to ensure that there is a high probability that we make a correct decision and that our determination of statistical significance is an accurate reflection of reality.

But mistakes can always be made. Specifically, two kinds of mistakes can be made. First, researchers can make a Type I error , which is a false positive. This happens when a researcher concludes that their results are statistically significant (there IS an effect in the population) when in reality there is no effect in the population and the results are just due to chance (that is, they are a fluke). When the significance threshold is set to 5%, which is the convention, the boundaries for making a Type I error are 5% chance or less. You might wonder why researchers don’t set it even lower to reduce the chances of making a Type I error. The reason is because when the chances of making a Type I error are reduced, the chances of making a Type II error are increased. A Type II error can be considered a ‘missed opportunity’. This happens when a researcher concludes that their results are not statistically significant when in reality, there IS an effect in the population and they just missed detecting it. Once again, these Type II errors are more likely to occur when the threshold is set too low (e.g., set at 1% instead of 5%) and/or when the sample was too small.

8. Determine how your findings fit into the knowledge base

Since statistics are probabilistic in nature and findings can reflect both Type I or Type II errors, we cannot use the results of a single study to conclude with certainty that a theory is true. Rather theories are supported, refuted, or modified based on the results of research.

If the results are statistically significant and consistent with the hypothesis and the theory that was used to generate the hypothesis, then researchers can conclude that the theory is supported. Not only did the theory make an accurate prediction, but there is now a new phenomenon that the theory accounts for. If a hypothesis is disconfirmed in a systematic empirical study, then the theory has been weakened. It made an inaccurate prediction, and there is now a new phenomenon that it does not account for.

Although this seems straightforward, there are some complications. First, confirming a hypothesis can strengthen a theory but it can never prove a theory. In fact, scientists tend to avoid the word “prove” when talking and writing about theories. One reason for this avoidance is that the result may reflect a type I error. Another reason for this avoidance is that there may be other plausible theories that imply the same hypothesis, which means that confirming the hypothesis strengthens all those theories equally. A third reason is that it is always possible that another test of the hypothesis or a test of a new hypothesis derived from the theory will be disconfirmed. This difficulty is a version of the famous philosophical “problem of induction.” One cannot definitively prove a general principle (e.g., “All swans are white.”) just by observing confirming cases (e.g., white swans)—no matter how many. It is always possible that a disconfirming case (e.g., a black swan) will eventually come along. For these reasons, scientists tend to think of theories—even highly successful ones—as subject to revision based on new and unexpected observations.

A second complication has to do with what it means when a hypothesis is disconfirmed. According to the strictest version of the hypothetico-deductive method, disconfirming a hypothesis disproves the theory it was derived from. In formal logic, the premises “if A then B ” and “not B ” necessarily lead to the conclusion “not A .” If A is the theory and B is the hypothesis (“if A then B ”), then disconfirming the hypothesis (“not B ”) must mean that the theory is incorrect (“not A ”). In practice, however, scientists do not give up on their theories so easily. One reason is that one disconfirmed hypothesis could be a missed opportunity (the result of a type II error) or it could be the result of a faulty research design. Perhaps the researcher did not successfully manipulate the independent variable or measure the dependent variable.

A disconfirmed hypothesis could also mean that some unstated but relatively minor assumption of the theory was not met. For example, if Zanib had failed to find social facilitation in cockroaches, he could have concluded that drive theory is still correct but it applies only to animals with sufficiently complex nervous systems. That is, the evidence from a study can be used to modify a theory. This practice does not mean that researchers are free to ignore disconfirmations of their theories. If they cannot improve their research designs or modify their theories to account for repeated disconfirmations, then they eventually must abandon their theories and replace them with ones that are more successful.

The bottom line here is that because statistics are probabilistic in nature and because all research studies have flaws there is no such thing as scientific proof, there is only scientific evidence.

9. Prepare for dissemination

The final step in the research process involves reporting the results. As described earlier in this chapter, results are typically reported in peer-reviewed journal articles and at conferences.

As Jhangiani et al (n.d.) mention, the most prestigious way to report one’s findings is by writing a manuscript and having it published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Manuscripts may be published several different types of journals. Formatting standards of the publication will depend on the professional focus. It is likely that you’ll need to review the formatting guidelines of the journal carefully prior to submitting your manuscript to ensure that you’ve addressed each specification.

Typically, a well-developed manuscript will have the following components:

Introduction
Literature review or thematic constructs
Data analysis
Limitations

Another way to report findings is by writing a book chapter that is published in an edited book. Preferably the editor of the book puts the chapter through peer review but this is not always the case and some scientists are invited by editors to write book chapters.

A fun way to disseminate findings is to give a presentation at a conference. This can either be done as an oral presentation or a poster presentation. Oral presentations involve getting up in front of an audience of fellow scientists and giving a talk that might last anywhere from 10 minutes to 1 hour (depending on the conference) and then fielding questions from the audience. Alternatively, poster presentations involve summarizing the study on a large poster that provides a brief overview of the purpose, methods, results, and discussion. The presenter stands by their poster for an hour or two and discusses it with people who pass by. Presenting one’s work at a conference is a great way to get feedback from one’s peers before attempting to undergo the more rigorous peer-review process involved in publishing a journal article.

There’s a lot to consider when you enter the world of research. However, as with most things, practice makes perfect, or at least a 95% chance of success (see what I did there?). As you move forward in this book, or simply refer back to this chapter, here are some things to remember:

Moving from research consumer to research contributor requires a shift in mindset from ‘I want answers’ to ‘I have a question’.
The process of research is not always linear. Rather, depending on the breadth and depth of your investigation, you may find yourself back at the beginning several times. The process of identifying a research problem, purpose, and question is an iterative process.
Determining an area of interest
Determining your orientation to that interest
Digging through the existing base of literature related to your interest
A problem statement
A purpose statement
A research question
Establishing the context for your research
Establishing the ‘HOW’
Gathering and analyzing your data
Determining how your findings fit into the base of knowledge
Preparing to disseminate your work to add to the base of knowledge
The content in this section is attributed to: Research Methods in Psychology by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. ↵
Some of the content in this section is attributed to: Research Methods in Psychology by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted ↵

A literature-based concern that is applicable to a wide-audience (e.g. a profession)

A statement which summarizes how your work will address the problem you've identified

Ideas or concepts which are not directly measurable

A measurable representation of an abstract construct

A variable that can explain another variable. A variable which may be manipulated (active) or describes (attribute) to affect an outcome

The variable which is measured as an outcome and is affected by the independent variable(s)

Variables that are explained by both the independent and dependent variables

A variable which has an impact on the dependent variable, but does not explain the outcome (dependent variable)

The ENTIRE group you wish to study

A smaller subgroup of the population that you want to study. Ideally, the sample selected is representative of the population

The articulation of your inquiry. A focused representation of what you hope to find with your investigation.

An approach which seeks to make comparisons or search for relationships between variables.

An approach that seeks to explore or describe an experience, usually with subjective measurement tools.

An educated method of explaining or rationalizing something

How accurately a method measures what it is intended to measure

The degree to which we can confidently infer a causal relationship between variables

The degree to which the results can be generalized beyond the context of the specific study.

Statistical approaches which summarize or describe the data

Statistical approaches that draw inference from the sample to the population

Most frequently occurring score in a distribution

Midpoint of all scores within a data set

The average of a distribution

Measures the distance between the highest and lowest scores of a distribution

Distance of scores from the mean

Describes the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables

A set threshold at which a result of a statistical test is unlikely to be due to random chance

A false positive result. Identifying a significance when there is NOT significance

Not identifying significance where significance exists

Share This Book

Latest News
Good Sleep Recipe
Faculty Videos
Fellow Videos
September 2023
December 2022
September 2022
Research Keyword Directory
Research Resources
Clinical Trials
Genomics and Genetics
Translational Lung Biology
Outcomes and Biomarkers
Immunobiology of Lung Disease
Lung Fibrosis and Repair
Lung Injury and Inflammation
Host-Pathogen Interaction
Novel Therapeutics
COPD Research
Pulmonary Vascular Disease
Research Labs/Groups
Kaminski Lab Single Cell Data Portals
Publications
Opportunities
Clinical Training Program
Research Training
Faculty and Staff
Current Fellows
Conferences
Application
For Medical Students and Residents
Affiliated Yale Program

INFORMATION FOR

Residents & Fellows
Researchers

Finding the Right Approach to Treating Asthma

A q&a with sandra zaeh, sandra zaeh, md.

Sandra Zaeh, MD , is interested in improving clinical outcomes for patients with asthma. In recent research, she found that current guideline-based asthma treatment is implemented less than 15 percent of the time for moderate to severe asthma due to various factors, including a lack of knowledge about the proper treatment approach.

In the next few months, as a newly promoted assistant professor of medicine in the Yale Department of Internal Medicine Section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Zaeh will lead the recruitment of subjects from the Yale Center for Asthma and Airways Disease for a study in collaboration with Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the study aims to improve the quality of care for patients at risk of asthma attacks.

In an interview, Zaeh discusses the basics of asthma, different approaches to treating the inflammatory condition, and why controlling asthma is of the utmost importance to asthma physicians and pulmonologists.

What is asthma?

Asthma is a chronic lung disease in which the bronchial airways in the lungs get narrowed and swollen, making it difficult to breathe. People with asthma can feel fine for some time, and then a trigger can cause an asthma attack, which can lead to significant health repercussions. Asthma disproportionately affects Black and Latinx people, low-income populations, and other groups.

How does asthma affect quality of life?

Uncontrolled asthma with frequent exacerbations can cause adults to miss days of work and children to miss school. Asthma can impact your ability to breathe on a day-to-day basis. It can lead to hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and, in some cases, fatality.

How is asthma treated?

For the past several decades, the treatment paradigm for asthma has involved control and relief medications. Controller therapy usually includes an inhaled corticosteroid that you take one to two times a day to control your symptoms. You take a reliever therapy between controller doses to minimize asthma symptoms such as cough, shortness of breath, and wheezing. The traditional reliever therapy has been albuterol, a short-acting bronchodilator that quickly opens the airways.

Interestingly, the data now supports a slightly different management strategy. The big update in asthma management is the introduction of anti-inflammatory reliever therapy for asthma. Current guidelines promote the use of the same inhaler for both control and relief for moderate to severe asthma, with a combination of an inhaled steroid and a quick-acting, long-acting beta agonist called formoterol. This approach is called SMART, or Single Maintenance and Reliever Therapy, because one inhaler does the job that two inhalers used to do.

Tell us about your study involving patients at risk of asthma attacks.

Even though SMART is currently guideline-based care, we’re having difficulty implementing this approach in clinical practice. There are similar, alternative approaches that may be better for certain patients. One of those approaches, which will be tested in this study, is PARTICS, or Patient Activated Reliever-Triggered Inhaled CorticoSteroids. Every time PARTICS patients use their albuterol inhaler, they’re asked to use one puff of inhaled steroid. When they use their albuterol nebulizer as a reliever, they're asked to use five puffs of inhaled steroid. It’s different than SMART because the approach uses more than one inhaler and incorporates the use of nebulizers as relievers.

Many people in the U.S. use an albuterol nebulizer as a reliever because they feel it works more effectively. The PARTICS approach incorporates those individuals.

Studied in Black and Latinx patients with moderate to severe asthma a few years ago, PARTICS was shown to reduce severe asthma exacerbations and improve asthma control and quality of life. Our study compares PARTICS to SMART, the current standard of care. The idea of the study is to test to see if the two approaches are equally effective or if one is more effective than the other.

What do you hope to accomplish through this research?

It’s important to have different asthma management approaches that can be used and tailored for each patient based on needs and preferences. For example, PARTICS is perhaps more appropriate than SMART for people who use nebulizers as their reliever. PARTICS may be more effective or better covered by insurance for some people.

Whether PARTICS or SMART, these approaches are the future of asthma management. By studying these different anti-inflammatory reliever approaches, we can improve implementation and use these therapies more efficaciously.

The more options we have to treat asthma, the better.

The Section of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine is one of the eleven sections within Yale School of Medicine’s Department of Internal Medicine. To learn more about Yale-PCCSM, visit PCCSM's website , or follow them on Facebook and Twitter .

Internal Medicine
Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine

Featured in this article

Sandra Zaeh, MD, MS Instructor

Share full article

Supported by

A Peek Inside the Brains of ‘Super-Agers’

New research explores why some octogenarians have exceptional memories.

Close up of a grey haired, wrinkled older woman’s eye.

By Dana G. Smith

When it comes to aging, we tend to assume that cognition gets worse as we get older. Our thoughts may slow down or become confused, or we may start to forget things, like the name of our high school English teacher or what we meant to buy at the grocery store.

But that’s not the case for everyone.

For a little over a decade, scientists have been studying a subset of people they call “super-agers.” These individuals are age 80 and up, but they have the memory ability of a person 20 to 30 years younger.

Most research on aging and memory focuses on the other side of the equation — people who develop dementia in their later years. But, “if we’re constantly talking about what’s going wrong in aging, it’s not capturing the full spectrum of what’s happening in the older adult population,” said Emily Rogalski, a professor of neurology at the University of Chicago, who published one of the first studies on super-agers in 2012.

A paper published Monday in the Journal of Neuroscience helps shed light on what’s so special about the brains of super-agers. The biggest takeaway, in combination with a companion study that came out last year on the same group of individuals, is that their brains have less atrophy than their peers’ do.

The research was conducted on 119 octogenarians from Spain: 64 super-agers and 55 older adults with normal memory abilities for their age. The participants completed multiple tests assessing their memory, motor and verbal skills; underwent brain scans and blood draws; and answered questions about their lifestyle and behaviors.

The scientists found that the super-agers had more volume in areas of the brain important for memory, most notably the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex. They also had better preserved connectivity between regions in the front of the brain that are involved in cognition. Both the super-agers and the control group showed minimal signs of Alzheimer’s disease in their brains.

“By having two groups that have low levels of Alzheimer’s markers, but striking cognitive differences and striking differences in their brain, then we’re really speaking to a resistance to age-related decline,” said Dr. Bryan Strange, a professor of clinical neuroscience at the Polytechnic University of Madrid, who led the studies.

These findings are backed up by Dr. Rogalski’s research , initially conducted when she was at Northwestern University, which showed that super-agers’ brains looked more like 50- or 60-year-olds’ brains than their 80-year-old peers. When followed over several years, the super-agers’ brains atrophied at a slower rate than average.

No precise numbers exist on how many super-agers there are among us, but Dr. Rogalski said they’re “relatively rare,” noting that “far less than 10 percent” of the people she sees end up meeting the criteria.

But when you meet a super-ager, you know it, Dr. Strange said. “They are really quite energetic people, you can see. Motivated, on the ball, elderly individuals.”

Experts don’t know how someone becomes a super-ager, though there were a few differences in health and lifestyle behaviors between the two groups in the Spanish study. Most notably, the super-agers had slightly better physical health, both in terms of blood pressure and glucose metabolism, and they performed better on a test of mobility . The super-agers didn’t report doing more exercise at their current age than the typical older adults, but they were more active in middle age. They also reported better mental health .

But overall, Dr. Strange said, there were a lot of similarities between the super-agers and the regular agers. “There are a lot of things that are not particularly striking about them,” he said. And, he added, “we see some surprising omissions, things that you would expect to be associated with super-agers that weren’t really there.” For example, there were no differences between the groups in terms of their diets, the amount of sleep they got, their professional backgrounds or their alcohol and tobacco use.

The behaviors of some of the Chicago super-agers were similarly a surprise. Some exercised regularly, but some never had; some stuck to a Mediterranean diet, others subsisted off TV dinners; and a few of them still smoked cigarettes. However, one consistency among the group was that they tended to have strong social relationships , Dr. Rogalski said.

“In an ideal world, you’d find out that, like, all the super-agers, you know, ate six tomatoes every day and that was the key,” said Tessa Harrison, an assistant project scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who collaborated with Dr. Rogalski on the first Chicago super-ager study.

Instead, Dr. Harrison continued, super-agers probably have “some sort of lucky predisposition or some resistance mechanism in the brain that’s on the molecular level that we don’t understand yet,” possibly related to their genes.

While there isn’t a recipe for becoming a super-ager, scientists do know that, in general , eating healthily, staying physically active, getting enough sleep and maintaining social connections are important for healthy brain aging.

Dana G. Smith is a Times reporter covering personal health, particularly aging and brain health. More about Dana G. Smith

A Guide to Aging Well

Looking to grow old gracefully we can help..

The “car key conversation,” when it’s time for an aging driver to hit the brakes, can be painful for families to navigate . Experts say there are ways to have it with empathy and care.

Calorie restriction and intermittent fasting both increase longevity in animals, aging experts say. Here’s what that means for you .

Researchers are investigating how our biology changes as we grow older — and whether there are ways to stop it .

You need more than strength to age well — you also need power. Here’s how to measure how much power you have and here’s how to increase yours .

Ignore the hyperbaric chambers and infrared light: These are the evidence-backed secrets to aging well .

Your body’s need for fuel shifts as you get older. Your eating habits should shift , too.

People who think positively about getting older often live longer, healthier lives. These tips can help you reconsider your perspective .

Main navigation

Our Articles
Dr. Joe's Books
Media and Press
Our History
Public Lectures
Past Newsletters

Subscribe to the OSS Weekly Newsletter!

Add to calendar
Tweet Widget

Let’s start with some facts. Antiperspirants, cell phones, root canals or wired bras do not cause cancer. Sugar or dairy products do not “feed” the disease. You cannot cure cancer with an alkaline diet, crystals, juices, shark cartilage, apricot pits, magnets, mistletoe, soursop, chlorella, black walnuts, coconut oil, cesium chloride, reiki, psychic surgery, baking soda, antineoplastons, bioresonance machines, orgone accumulators, Rife frequency generators or coffee enemas.

All of this comes to mind now because I was forwarded a link to a document entitled “Everyday Products Linked to Cancer” which also offers solutions to the problem. So, I clicked. I quickly learned that the discoverer of “the missing link” to “conquering cancer” is identified as a “natural health researcher and certified holistic cancer coach.” That immediately set my alarm bells ringing. This is not terminology that would ever be used to describe a legitimate scientist. And those bells really started to clamor when I encountered phrases like “groundbreaking,” “unveil cancer care known only to a few,” “challenge the one-sided, conventional understanding and offer more effective ways to conquer cancer,” “discover the proven protocols that have helped hundreds of thousands of people prevent and conquer cancer,” and “discover why many cancer treatments and prevention protocols fail.”

It seems Nathan Crane, also described as a “plant-based athlete,” has found the secret that has eluded thousands and thousands of researchers around the globe and is now equipped to “pave the way for future generations to live cancer free.” A search for this sage’s educational background reveals only that he went to Belgrade High School in Montana.

What is the key to living cancer-free? Staying away from “toxic household and personal care products” and “turning to nature” for replacements. Of course, we also need to fortify our body against toxins. How? By making use of “the power of nature’s detoxifiers.” Let me point out that the term “detoxify” is generally indicative of pseudoscience since the toxins being removed are never identified nor is the mechanism by which they are eliminated elucidated.

There is nothing novel in this “Conquering Cancer” manuscript. The Internet and bookstores brim with articles and books about purported carcinogens in everyday products and secret cures hidden by “Big Pharma” for fear of losing profits from the sale of ineffective, toxic chemotherapeutic agents. The idea of secret cures is nonsense, but when it comes to chemicals found in consumer products, there are some legitimate issues. However, fear-mongering documents, such as this one, generally smack of an ignorance of dose-response relationships and claim to have greater knowledge of the impact of these chemicals on health than what actually exists. Suppositions are presented as facts.

Some personal care products and cleaning agents contain chemicals that can be classified as endocrine disruptors or carcinogens. Furthermore, some of these can be detected in our bloodstream and urine. But it is critical to understand that the presence of a chemical cannot be equated to the presence of risk. Labeling a substance as an endocrine disruptor or carcinogen is in general based on cell culture or animal studies that use amounts far greater than what humans can possibly encounter. This does not mean that concerns about the likes of phthalates, bisphenol A, dioxane and nonylphenol ethoxylates should be swept under the carpet, but proclamations that “we’re poisoning ourselves” by using products that contain traces of these substances magnify whatever risk they may pose in an unrealistic fashion.

While reducing our use of products that contain chemicals that have the shadow of carcinogen or endocrine disruptor hanging over them has merit, the claim that turmeric, ginger, cayenne pepper, cinnamon, frankincense, Camu Camu or blueberries are “nature’s detoxifiers” and protect us from cancer is not evidence-based.

However, my biggest problem with this publication is the simplistic view it presents about preventing cancer. This is a very complex disease in which genetics, diet, infections, overweight, smoking, alcohol consumption, certain chemicals, exposure to ionizing radiation, changes in hormone levels, physical activity and age can all play roles. Suggestions that cancer risk can be significantly reduced by adding turmeric to the diet or replacing a commercial cleaning agent with vinegar, or switching from store-bought shampoo to a homemade concoction of aloe vera gel, coconut milk and castile soap, are naïve.

Something else is bothersome about this publication. The talk about “dangerous” everyday products and the use of herbs to “bolster our natural defenses” seems to be just bait to hook people to click on a link to a docuseries about “Conquering Cancer.” We are asked if we are “ready to explore the hidden cause of cancer that has eluded experts for years” and told that we will discover “how to starve your cancer cells without chemo, radiation or surgery.” The latter is a hallmark of quackery.

I did not take the bait because I follow cancer research closely and know that there are no hidden causes or magical cures. Certainly not any that have been discovered by a “certified holistic cancer coach.” I also suspect that if I were to click on the link for a “free ticket” to the series that promises to reveal “how natural, proven methods have helped over 591,753 people prevent and treat this life-threatening disease,” I might at some point be prompted to dig out my credit card for some over-hyped dietary supplement or a book with an assortment of twisted facts. But that’s just a guess.

@JoeSchwarcz

What to read next

No, eating french fries is not the same as smoking cigarettes 10 may 2024.

Taking a Bite Out of the Carnivore Diet 3 May 2024

“Hey Doc, I’m Hard To Freeze” 3 May 2024

Quandary About Fats in the Diet 1 May 2024

The Best Diet for You? Here It Is 26 Apr 2024

The Folly of Water-Fuelled Vehicles 26 Apr 2024

Department and University Information

Office for science and society.

Brain imaging study reveals connections critical to human consciousness

Human consciousness requires arousal (i.e., wakefulness) and awareness. Brain imaging studies over the last decade have produced connectivity maps of the cortical networks that sustain awareness, but maps of the subcortical networks that sustain wakefulness are lacking, due to the small size and anatomic complexity of subcortical structures such as the brainstem. In a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study that integrated high-resolution structural and functional connectivity data, researchers mapped a subcortical brain network that is believed to integrate arousal and awareness in human consciousness.

In a paper titled, "Multimodal MRI reveals brainstem connections that sustain wakefulness in human consciousness," published today in Science Translational Medicine , a group of researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital, a founding member of the Mass General Brigham healthcare system, and Boston Children's Hospital, created a connectivity map of a brain network that they propose is critical to human consciousness.

The study involved high-resolution scans that enabled the researchers to visualize brain connections at submillimeter spatial resolution. This technical advance allowed them to identify previously unseen pathways connecting the brainstem, thalamus, hypothalamus, basal forebrain, and cerebral cortex.

Together, these pathways form a "default ascending arousal network" that sustains wakefulness in the resting, conscious human brain. The concept of a "default" network is based on the idea that specific networks within the brain are most functionally active when the brain is in a resting state of consciousness. In contrast, other networks are more active when the brain is performing goal-directed tasks.

To investigate the functional properties of this default brain network, the researchers analyzed 7 Tesla resting-state functional MRI data from the Human Connectome Project. These analyses revealed functional connections between the subcortical default ascending arousal network and the cortical default mode network that contributes to self-awareness in the resting, conscious brain.

The complementary structural and functional connectivity maps provide a neuroanatomic basis for integrating arousal and awareness in human consciousness. The researchers released the MRI data, brain mapping methods, and a new Harvard Ascending Arousal Network Atlas, to support future efforts to map the connectivity of human consciousness.

"Our goal was to map a human brain network that is critical to consciousness and to provide clinicians with better tools to detect, predict, and promote recovery of consciousness in patients with severe brain injuries," explains lead-author Brian Edlow, MD, co-director of Mass General Neuroscience, associate director of the Center for Neurotechnology and Neurorecovery (CNTR) at Mass General, an associate professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School and a Chen Institute MGH Research Scholar 2023-2028 .

Dr. Edlow explains, "Our connectivity results suggest that stimulation of the ventral tegmental area's dopaminergic pathways has the potential to help patients recover from coma because this hub node is connected to many regions of the brain that are critical to consciousness."

Senior author Hannah Kinney, MD, Professor Emerita at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, adds that "the human brain connections that we identified can be used as a roadmap to better understand a broad range of neurological disorders associated with altered consciousness, from coma, to seizures, to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)."

The authors are currently conducting clinical trials to stimulate the default ascending arousal network in patients with coma after traumatic brain injury, with the goal of reactivating the network and restoring consciousness.

Brain-Computer Interfaces
Brain Injury
Neuroscience
Intelligence
Learning Disorders
Spirituality
Disorders and Syndromes
Neocortex (brain)
Human brain
Conflict resolution
Psychedelic drug
Traumatic brain injury
Brain damage

Story Source:

Materials provided by Massachusetts General Hospital . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

Brian L. Edlow, Mark Olchanyi, Holly J. Freeman, Jian Li, Chiara Maffei, Samuel B. Snider, Lilla Zöllei, J. Eugenio Iglesias, Jean Augustinack, Yelena G. Bodien, Robin L. Haynes, Douglas N. Greve, Bram R. Diamond, Allison Stevens, Joseph T. Giacino, Christophe Destrieux, Andre van der Kouwe, Emery N. Brown, Rebecca D. Folkerth, Bruce Fischl, Hannah C. Kinney. Multimodal MRI reveals brainstem connections that sustain wakefulness in human consciousness . Science Translational Medicine , 2024; 16 (745) DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.adj4303

Cite This Page :

Explore More

Brain Flexibility for a Complex World
ONe Nova to Rule Them All
AI Systems Are Skilled at Manipulating Humans
Planet Glows With Molten Lava
A Fragment of Human Brain, Mapped
Symbiosis Solves Long-Standing Marine Mystery
Surprising Common Ideas in Environmental ...
2D All-Organic Perovskites: 2D Electronics
Generative AI That Imitates Human Motion
Hunting the First Stars

Our research shows a strong link between unemployment and domestic violence: what does this mean for income support?

Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne

Professor of Health Economics, Monash University

Senior Research Fellow, Monash University

Disclosure statement

David Johnston receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Karinna Saxby and Rachel Knott do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Monash University and University of Melbourne provide funding as founding partners of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Increasing income support could help keep women and children safe according to new work demonstrating strong links between financial insecurity and domestic violence.

Our mapping of local government areas in Melbourne and Sydney reinforces the relationship between unemployment and the greater risk of violence.

At a time when the nation is speaking out against the killing of women by men – with at least 27 deaths recorded since the start of this year – the federal government is under increasing pressure to help those at greatest risk.

How money might help

Financial dependence can trap people in abusive relationships. The dependency creates barriers to leaving , as victim-survivors may not have the money necessary for alternative housing, legal help and basic living expenses.

Higher income support for women can change the dynamics within relationships by enhancing their financial decision-making and bargaining power within the household.

However, the relationship between economic factors and domestic violence is complex.

While higher income generally corresponds with lower domestic violence, overseas evidence suggests higher unemployment benefits may lengthen unemployment spells. In such situations, joblessness could lead to violence due to increased exposure between perpetrators and victim-survivors at home.

Economic downturns and personal financial crises can also cause uncertainty and household stress, which may escalate into abuse .

These economic patterns are clear in Australia. Areas with low-income and high-unemployment tend to have the highest levels of domestic violence.

Problem areas

The graphics below illustrate this by mapping unemployment and violence rates across local government areas in greater Sydney and greater Melbourne. The patterns are striking. High rates, marked in darker red, often occur in similar locations.

In Melbourne, the areas with the highest levels of both unemployment and domestic violence are greater Dandenong, Frankston, Casey, Cardinia, Maribyrnong, Brimbank, Melton and Hume. They are marked in red.

In Sydney, the highest rates are in Campbelltown, Liverpool, Canterbury-Bankstown, Fairfield, Penrith, Cumberland, Blacktown and Hawkesbury.

The economic disparities in domestic violence have also increased in recent years. In 2001, rates of violence in the most disadvantaged parts of New South Wales were about 5.6 times higher in the most advantaged suburbs. In 2023, these differences were almost 6.5 times higher.

Long lasting impact

Domestic violence disproportionately impacts women and children and can create significant long lasting social, health, psychological and financial damage.

Estimates suggest the lifetime cost of domestic violence for every victim-survivor is in the tens of thousands of dollars. Healthcare costs alone are close to A$50,000 for every person directly affected.

And the broader costs are staggering.

National data from 2016 which looked at costs including medical care, lost productivity, legal fees, and extended social services, puts the total annual costs at about $22 billion .

This shows the problem is not just a critical social and health issue, but a major economic challenge for victim-survivors and the nation.

Helping to solve the problem

Providing adequate financial support to vulnerable people during times of economic uncertainty is critical to reduce domestic violence and its harmful effects.

But unemployment benefits in Australia are much lower than in other OECD countries. JobSeeker is only $386 per week – 43% of the full-time minimum wage. Australia is ranked among the lowest of all OECD countries when it comes to unemployment benefits, second only to Greece.

International evidence , based on more generous support schemes, suggests raising benefits may lead to extended periods out of work and therefore greater exposure to violence at home.

But this is unlikely to occur in Australia if JobSeeker payments are raised. Given the current low rate, there will still be a considerable financial incentive for JobSeeker recipients to get paid work if the rate is increased.

Analysis of the almost doubling of payments during 2020 supports this conclusion.

Improving economic safety nets could help prevent environments that breed violence. Investing in safety is an essential step towards combating Australia’s domestic violence crisis.

Domestic violence
Income support
Family violence
Financial Empowerment
Women's empowerment
Federal budget 2024

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

Events and Communications Coordinator

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Americans are less likely than others around the world to feel close to people in their country or community

Americans are less likely than people abroad to feel close to others in their country and community, according to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey of 24 nations . This is especially the case among certain groups of Americans, including younger adults, those with lower incomes and less education, those who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, and those who are religiously unaffiliated.

Comparatively few Americans feel close to others in their country, community

This Pew Research Center analysis focuses on Americans’ feelings of closeness to others in their community and their country. We compare data from the United States to data from 23 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, North America and sub-Saharan Africa.

In the U.S., we surveyed 3,576 adults from March 20 to 26, 2023. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

For non-U.S. data, this report draws on nationally representative surveys of 27,285 adults conducted from Feb. 20 to May 22, 2023. All surveys were conducted over the phone with adults in Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Surveys were conducted face-to-face in Argentina, Brazil, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland and South Africa. In Australia, we used a mixed-mode probability-based online panel. Read more about our international survey methodology .

Across all 24 countries surveyed, a median of 83% of adults say they feel very or somewhat close to other people in their country. A majority of U.S. adults (66%) also hold this view, but Americans are the least likely among those in the countries surveyed to do so.

Even fewer Americans feel close to people in their local community : 54% feel a connection to others near them, compared with a median of 78% of adults across all 24 countries. South Korea is the only country with a lower share of adults who feel connected with others in their community (50%).

Feeling close to other Americans

Some Americans are less likely than others to feel a connection to people in their country. For example, only 46% of adults under 30 feel connected to other Americans, compared with 83% of those ages 65 and older.

Fewer than half of U.S. adults under 30 feel close to other Americans

There are also differences by party and ideology. Six-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents – compared with three-quarters of Republicans and Republican leaners – feel close to other Americans. Liberal Democrats are the least likely to say they feel close to other Americans, while conservative Republicans are the most likely to do so.

A similar ideological gap exists in several other countries , with people on the political left less likely than those on the right to feel close to people in their country.

Religion also plays a role. Religiously unaffiliated Americans are far less likely than their affiliated counterparts to feel close to others in the U.S. (51% vs. 73%). This pattern is mirrored in other measures of religiosity. For example, Americans who say religion is not too or not at all important to them, or who never attend religious services, are generally less likely to feel close to other Americans.

Feeling close to others in their local community

When it comes to feeling close to other people in the same community , there are again large differences by age. Only 42% of U.S. adults under 30 feel close to people in their community, compared with larger shares of older Americans.

Americans differ by age, education and other factors in feeling close to other people in their community

There are additional differences on this question by education, income and community type:

51% of Americans without a college degree feel close to other people in their local community, compared with 61% of those with a college degree. A similar educational gap is evident in several other countries.
Lower-income Americans are less likely than those with upper incomes to feel this connection (50% vs. 63%).
While urban residents may live physically closer to others, they’re less likely than suburban or rural residents to say they feel connected to people in their community.

Differences by religion also emerge. Religious ly unaffiliated Americans are much less likely than those who are religiously affiliated to feel connected to others in their local community (43% vs. 60%).

This pattern aligns with previous research on interpersonal connectedness and philanthropy among religious people. Religious people tend to be more likely than nonreligious people to volunteer and give to charity – though they prefer these activities benefit others within their own religious groups .

Friendships
International Political Values
National Conditions

Janell Fetterolf is a senior researcher focusing on global attitudes at Pew Research Center .

Stephanie Kramer is a senior researcher focusing on religion at Pew Research Center .

How People in 24 Countries Think Democracy Can Improve

What can improve democracy, representative democracy remains a popular ideal, but people around the world are critical of how it’s working, language and traditions are considered central to national identity, attitudes on an interconnected world, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Age & Generations
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Economy & Work
Family & Relationships
Gender & LGBTQ
Immigration & Migration
International Affairs
Internet & Technology
Methodological Research
News Habits & Media
Non-U.S. Governments
Other Topics
Politics & Policy
Race & Ethnicity
Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Terms & Conditions

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

IMAGES

Critical Thinking Activity
What is critical thinking?
7 Methods to Develop Creative Thinking Skills for Students
Critical_Thinking_Skills_Diagram_svg
5+ Critical Thinking Strategies for your Essay (2023)
Importance of Critical Thinking

VIDEO

Carnegie Mellon Mind Reading Experiments
Kriyayoga
How to keep your mind open: Dr. Ellen Langer (Harvard psychologist)
Critical thinking and deferring to experts
अच्छा बनना है तो लोको क बारे में अच्छा सोचो
Open-mindedness Fact #psychologyfacts #shorts

COMMENTS

What Is Critical Thinking?
Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment. To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources. Critical thinking skills help you to: Identify credible sources. Evaluate and respond to arguments.
What is Critical Thinking?
Critical thinking is characterized as a habit of mind. One college class is not enough to develop a habit, so one college class is not going to create "critical thinkers.". Instead, this class will introduce you to some component skills of the habit. Your routine and daily decisions will determine whether you develop (or deepen) the habit ...
What is Critical Thinking in Academics
Critical thinking is the disciplined art of analysing and evaluating information or situations by applying a range of intellectual skills. It goes beyond mere memorisation or blind acceptance of information, demanding a deeper understanding and assessment of evidence, context, and implications. Moreover, paraphrasing in sources is an essential ...
Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and
The findings support the important role of the critical-thinking skill of inference in scientific reasoning in writing, while also highlighting ways in which other aspects of science reasoning (epistemological considerations, writing conventions, etc.) are not significantly related to critical thinking. Future research into the impact of ...
Two Perspectives on Critical Thinking and Research
Critical thinking is inherent to the research process. Critical thinking starts with a curious and open mind, and a willingness to look deeper and wider than those who explored this topic before. We look deeply at sources, and the questions at the heart of those sources. We look widely to cross established boundaries of field, discipline, and ...
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking ...
The search for scientific meaning in mindfulness research: Insights
Definitions in mindfulness research. In scientific research, the ability to replicate and validate measures is directly related to the ability for a particular concept to be theoretically stable across research contexts, especially when it comes to measuring abstract human constructs (see for example, [16, 17]).The ability to measure a phenomenon is premised on the ability to describe, in ...
The Importance of Critical Thinking Skills in Research
The answer is critical thinking skills. The more that academic research becomes governed by policies outside of the research process, the less opportunity there will be for researchers to exercise such skills. True research demands new ideas, perspectives, and arguments based on willingness and confidence to revisit and directly challenge ...
Critical Thinking and Academic Research: Intro
Critical Thinking and Academic Research. Academic research focuses on the creation of new ideas, perspectives, and arguments. The researcher seeks relevant information in articles, books, and other sources, then develops an informed point of view within this ongoing "conversation" among researchers. The research process is not simply collecting ...
Bridging critical thinking and transformative learning: The role of
Most critical thinking researchers agree that open-mindedness is a component of critical thinking (Ennis, 2018; Facione et al., ... research suggests, perspective-taking can be decoupled from empathy as it is possible to take on another individual's perspective without having any feelings for them. What is necessary for perspective-taking, in ...
The Art and Science of Critical Thinking in Research: A Guide to
Critical Thinking involves questioning assumptions, examining evidence, identifying biases and logical fallacies, and drawing logical conclusions based on the evidence available. The art and science of critical thinking in research is a multifaceted and dynamic process that requires intellectual rigor, creativity, and an open mind. In research ...
Critical Thinking: Definition, Examples, & Skills
In general, critical thinking is understood to involve skeptical scrutiny—an open-minded but cautious approach to determining the veracity of a proposition through reasoning informed by evidence. ... Research suggests that critical thinking, like other skills, can be developed through intention and practice (Wallace & Jefferson, 2015). To ...
Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples
Critical thinking refers to the ability to analyze information objectively and make a reasoned judgment. It involves the evaluation of sources, such as data, facts, observable phenomena, and research findings. Good critical thinkers can draw reasonable conclusions from a set of information, and discriminate between useful and less useful ...
Critical thinking
Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgement by the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation. The application of critical thinking includes self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective habits of the mind, thus a critical thinker is a person who practices the ...
What is Critical Thinking?
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. Paul and Scriven go on to suggest that ...
The Research Mindset
Research is designed to convey a message. Your professor will likely want you to have a thesis - an argument - fo your project. The particular thesis you are using will determine the process you use for your research and the creation of your project. Consider what you want to prove, and why you want to prove it. Is there a gap in the research?
Open-Mindedness and Skepticism in Critical Thinking
It's about being open to constructive criticism and new ideas. People who are sceptical do all of this as well—they challenge ideas and they withhold judgment until sufficient evidence is ...
Mindfulness and creativity: Implications for thinking and learning
Existing research points to a connection between mind-wandering and deficits in task performance or problems with task completion. However, mind-wandering may be beneficial in some areas, such as planning for the future, positive stimulation via interesting thoughts, and notably, creativity. ... Mindfulness and creativity are critical to ...
What is Critical Thinking?
Critical thinking is characterized as a habit of mind. One college class is not enough to develop a habit, so one college class is not going to create "critical thinkers.". Instead, this class will introduce you to some component skills of the habit. Your routine and daily decisions will determine whether you develop (or deepen) the habit ...
Critical thinking and science education
Science education often includes in its aims the development of critical-mindedness. This is usually regarded as one of a range of scientific attitudes. The paper presents a critical review of attempts to classify scientific attitudes, and the stereotype of the objective, detached scientist is discussed. It is argued that critical-mindedness ...
Assessing and developing students' critical thinking
The focus of the research is students' critical thinking skills and their characteristics, and how these change under the influence of the critical thinking development ... Open-mindedness refers to the disposition of being tolerant of divergent views. Analyticity is the disposition of being alert to potentially problematic
Shifting your Mindset: Thinking Like a Researcher
1 Shifting your Mindset: Thinking Like a Researcher . There is a stark difference between being a 'consumer' of research and an 'author' of research. That is, although a reader may look at a research article and glean insight for application to their own practice, the reader relies upon the integrity of both the author, or authors, as well as in the rigor of the journal such that the ...
research@BSPH
In order to provide extensive guidance, infrastructure, and support in pursuit of its research mission, research@BSPH employs three core areas: strategy and development, implementation and impact, and integrity and oversight. Our exceptional research teams comprised of faculty, postdoctoral fellows, students, and committed staff are united in our collaborative, collegial, and entrepreneurial ...
Finding the Right Approach to Treating Asthma < Pulmonary, Critical
Sandra Zaeh, MD, is interested in improving clinical outcomes for patients with asthma.In recent research, she found that current guideline-based asthma treatment is implemented less than 15 percent of the time for moderate to severe asthma due to various factors, including a lack of knowledge about the proper treatment approach.
A Peek Inside the Brains of 'Super-Agers'
The research was conducted on 119 octogenarians from Spain: 64 super-agers and 55 older adults with normal memory abilities for their age. The participants completed multiple tests assessing their ...
Twisting Facts About Cancer
Suppositions are presented as facts. Some personal care products and cleaning agents contain chemicals that can be classified as endocrine disruptors or carcinogens. Furthermore, some of these can be detected in our bloodstream and urine. But it is critical to understand that the presence of a chemical cannot be equated to the presence of risk.
Brain imaging study reveals connections critical to ...
A new study involved high-resolution scans that enabled the researchers to visualize brain connections at submillimeter spatial resolution. Together, these pathways form a 'default ascending ...
National Labs Guide Critical AI, Energy Storage, And Grid Research
The research and development done at the national laboratories is making room on the grid for more renewables and electric vehicles. The goal now is to ensure a smooth and dependable transition.
Our research shows a strong link between unemployment and domestic
Increasing income support could help keep women and children safe according to new work demonstrating strong links between financial insecurity and domestic violence.
Feeling close to country, community less common ...
ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions.

What is Critical Thinking?

Share This Book

What is Critical Thinking in Academics – Guide With Examples

What is Critical Thinking?

The Origins and Evolution of Critical Thinking

Historical Perspective on the Concept of Critical Thinking

Philosophers and Educators Who Championed Critical Thinking

Al-Farabi And Ibn Rushd (Averroes)

Sir Francis Bacon

Paulo Freire

Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

1. Open-mindedness

2. Analytical Nature

3. Scepticism

4. Intellectual Humility

5. Logical Reasoning

The Difference Between Critical Thinking and Memorisation

Nature Of Learning

Depth of Engagement

Application in New Situations

Why Critical Thinking Produces Long-Term Academic Benefits

Enhanced Retention

Skill Development

Adaptability

Lifelong Learning

Improved Decision-Making

Preparation for Real-World Challenges

Steps in the Critical Thinking Process

Step 1. Identification and Clarification of the Problem or Question

Step 2. Gathering Information and Evidence

Step 3. Analysing the Information

Step 4. Drawing Conclusions and Making Decisions

Step 5. Reflecting on the Process And The Conclusions Reached

The research done by our experts have:

The Role of Critical Thinking in Different Academic Subjects

1. Sciences

2. Humanities

3. Social Sciences

4. Mathematics

Examples of Critical Thinking in Academics

Case Study 1: Evaluating A Scientific Research Paper

Case Study 2: Analysing a Literary Text

Case Study 3: Decoding Historical Events

Challenges to Developing Critical Thinking Skills

1. Common Misconceptions and Cognitive Biases

2. The Influence of Technology and Social Media

3. The Danger of Echo Chambers and Confirmation Bias

Benefits of Promoting Critical Thinking in Education

Improved Problem-Solving Skills

Enhanced Creativity and Innovation

Better Decision-Making Abilities

Greater Resilience in the Face of Complex Challenges

Frequently Asked Questions

What makes critical thinking?

What is the purpose of critical thinking?

How to improve critical thinking?

What are some critical thinking skills?

What is information literacy?

What makes a credible source?

How do I analyse information critically?

You May Also Like

Bibliography

Critical Thinking

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2. Examples and Non-Examples

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

12. Controversies

Support SEP

The Importance of Critical Thinking Skills in Research

Why is Critical Thinking Important: A Disruptive Force

A Slow Decline

A Misunderstood Skill

The Dependent Generation

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for data interpretation

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right approach

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Disclosing the Use of Generative AI: Best practices for authors in manuscript preparation

Search Site

Critical Thinking and Academic Research