Critical thinking & writing

Martyn Stewart, Academic Enhancement Unit

Unpicking an argument Argument structure? Assumptions ? Values ? Supporting evidence ? Accurate judgements ?

Purpose of this session is to help you understand how to approach acritical analysis of text (published research, policy documents, and your own writing):

- To introduce main elements of a critical analysis

- To consider how validity is defined differently in scientific, qualitative and critical studies

- To consider how an argument is structured

- To critically analyse your own work

What is the issue?:

In any text (read or written) we need to determine……

What are the conclusions?

What is the argument that is being made?

What are the reasons / evidence given in support of the conclusions?

Are there any implicit assumptions? Values?

Is the argument a good one? Why? How do you know?

Exercise 1

Stages in critical analysis / writing

Identifying elements (reasoning, conclusions) in a case

Gathering & assembling pertinent information

Recognising & evaluating assumptions & values

Clarifying & interpreting expressions & ideas

Appraising evidence & evaluating credibility of statements

Analysing, evaluating & producing explanations

Drawing inferences

Rendering accurate judgements

Producing arguments

Adptd Glaser (1941); Fisher (2001)

Education research literature - some considerations:

• Education is a multidisciplinary field

• Formal education / pedagogic research (to inform sector)• Action research (local - mainly to inform individual teacher)• Psychology research (cognition, individual differences, social behaviours)• Sociology / educational philosophy• Education policy and management theory

• Conflicting research cultures, values, methods & epistemologies (scientific, interpretive, mixed method)

• Empirical research papers, discussion articles, policy reports

• Practical limitations on research design (ethical & pragmatic)

• Different international and subject perspectives (East v West perspectives)

A framework for informing critical analysis & writing

Viewed through an objective lens

(science view)

Viewed through a subjective lens

(qualitative view)

Viewed through a critical theory lens

(political, sociological view)

We tend to look at problems through a particular‘lens’ often shaped by our subject specialism

Which lens do you see through?

OBJECTIVE ‘Positivist’ philosophy

Scientific approach founded on realism:

phenomena in the world (incl. human behaviour) are real and exist independently of what we believe or feel

• Empirical studies

• Researcher as distant, objective observer and analyst

• Goal = establishing fact

• Constructing theory based on observed behavioural trends

Real world governed by general universal laws

Is this you?

Validity in quantitative research

Goal: Establishing empirical fact based on observed behaviours

Underpinning philosophy: Positivist

Best defined in terms of philosophy of this research tradition. Characterised by, and validity defined by:

• Predictability of theory & replicability of results

• Removal of context - generalisable

• Randomisation of samples

• Observability

• Appropriateness of instrumentation & treatment of data

SUBJECTIVE‘Naturalist’ philosophy

Rather than realism, founded on ‘idealism’

the real world exists but different people construe it

in very different ways

• Understanding individuals’ interpretations of the world around them can only come from the inside, not be observed from the outside

• People are autonomous, have free will and do not subconsciously follow predictable patterns of behaviour.

• Goal = Meanings and interpretations

Good teaching

is...

Good teaching

is...

Is this you?

Validity in qualitative research

Goal: Understanding individuals’ subjective interpretations. Meanings.

Underpinning philosophy: Idealism, naturalism

Characterised by, and validity defined by:

• Choice of participants

• Honesty, richness, depth and scope of the data achieved

• Use of triangulation

• Disinterestedness and objectivity of the researcher (researcher is central to the process).

• Accuracy in catching meaning and interpretation

• Preservation of context, representing natural setting accurately

• Socially situated and culturally rich data

CRITICAL THEORY Various philosophical traditions:

Marxism, feminism, postmodern etc

‘Traditional theory’ aims to understand and explain

‘Critical theory’ aims to critique to transform society

• Interpretation & hidden meanings in texts –symbolism, presumptions

• Examination of underpinning values, philosophies and politics

‘Whose interests are being served by current policies for testing children in schools?’

‘Plagiarism: like copyright, underpinned by western ideals about respect for individual intellectual property. For students brought up in collectivist cultures, are we taking account of their worldviews?’

Is this you?

Validity in critical theory

Goal: To critique & and transform. Meanings, symbolism. Who’s interests & agendas are being served? Values?

Underpinning philosophy: e.g. Marxism, Postmodernism, feminism, Politics

Characterised by, and validity defined by:

• Disinterestedness and objectivity of the researcher (researcher is central to the process).

• Accuracy in catching meaning and interpretation

• Breadth of analysis – wide-ranging perspectives.

• Preservation of context, representing natural setting accurately

• Socially situated and culturally rich data

Exercise

Read the extract in the attached exercise setting out a call to rethink our approach to higher education.

Try to deconstruct the argument:

- What argument is being made?

- Is there reasoning / evidence to support this?

- Are authors making any implicit assumptions?

- Is the world getting more complex, or less? Defend both viewpoints.

Patterns of reasoning

Exercise 2

A plus B leads to C, therefore X

LANGUAGE OF CRITICAL WRITING:

ARGUMENT INDICATORS

Conclusion ‘indicators’

thus….hence…which proves that…..so….from which can be inferred…..consequently…….must…….requires

Reasoning ‘indicators’

because….for…since…..so….firstly……secondly…

….follows from the fact that……

The exam was poor measure of students’ understanding because, in contrast to coursework marks, the profile of exam grades was

extremely variable, suggesting they were influenced by other factors such as stress. Therefore if the sole purpose of an assignment is

only to measure student understanding we need to considerwhether exams are the best tool.

LANGUAGE OF CRITICAL WRITING: Patterns of reasoning

Simple reasoningOne reason supports one conclusion

There is a proven positive correlation between attendance and grade, therefore poor performance can only be solved through strategies to improve attendance.

‘Side by side’ reasoningReason 1 and reason 2 and reason 3, support one conclusion

dissection teaches little respect [1] …supply companies mistreat animals [2]….good simulations now available [3]……so no longer should teach dissection

Adptd Fisher (2001)

‘Chain’ of reasoningReason 1 so conclusion 1 therefore conclusion 2

Treating teaching & research in isolation damages academic identity, so we need to rethink reward strategies [1]therefore governing bodies need to send clearer signals to institutional managers [2].

Complex patterns of reasoningReason 1 so conclusion 1 and reason 2. Therefore conclusion 2

Most students dislike mathematics [1]. So if students had more choice over subjects and avoided maths eventually fewer students would have abilities in maths [1].

This could seriously damage the Nation’s capacity for producing scientists and engineers [2]. Therefore we should limit freedom of student’s choices over subjects chosen [2].

Adptd Fisher (2001)

Exercise

Re-read the last paragraph of the exercise extract.

Where is the reasoning and the conclusions ?

What is the structure of the argument?

Reasoning 1

Conclusion 1, leading in turn to

Conclusion 2

Paragraphs 1 – 3 are reasoning, but not progressive. Rather the same statement supported by examples.

Paragraph 4 is a ‘chain’ pattern. X, thus Y and in turn Z

Paragraph 4

Analysing your arguments

What are your conclusions?

What are the reasons you give (supported by evidence? - literature, data)?

What is the structure to your reasoning – is there a single line of reasoning or is your work supported by a chain or body of reasoning?

What is assumed (e.g. values, empirical stance)?

Evaluating your arguments

Are the reasons acceptable and credible (is supporting literature reliable? Is data missing)?

Does the reasoning support the conclusions? Alternative explanations?

Are there associated arguments that would weaken or strengthen your claims?

What is your ‘judgement’?

Critiquing your own work