Critical Reading During Research

When compiling your data and coming to your final conclusion about what you’ve learned, always utilize Critical thinking and analysis skills; as the British politician Barbara Castle, too, once said"Think, think, think. It will hurt like hell at first, but you’ll get used to it"

Firstly, recognize that critical thinking is a skill that must be learned. As Alfred Mander asserted, "Thinking is skilled work. It is not true that we are naturally endowed with the ability to think clearly and logically– without learning how or without practicing". Don’t worry if thinking critically initially confuses you, however. As the Greek philosopher Socrates put it, "Confusion is the beginning of wisdom".

Secondly, recognize that thinking critically does not mean simple criticism. It means not accepting information at face value in a non-critical or non-evaluating way; the essence of critical thinking centers not on answering questions, but on questioning things in the first place- and especially the answers that you are given to your questions. And so it involves probing, analyzing, and evaluating information. Most of this is pretty common sense, but again: It is still a skill that needs to be learned.

1. Check the source.

Who wrote the article or scripted the program? How knowledgeable is the source? Does the source have a particular interest or ‘angle’ or prejudice? Is the source known to you by reputation or previous work? In the case of a website in particular, it may be difficult to establish the source.

2. Check the publication date.

Generally speaking, the more recent the material, the more accurate it is likely to be, and the more useful it is as a result. This is especially the case in changing situations. For instance, something about Russia written after the fall of communism may well have been able to use sources not available in previous decades. In a war situation, even a few days or hours may make a significant difference to the information and perspective available. On the web, material is frequently undated especially and one needs to be aware that it could be outdated.

3. Check the publisher, promoter, or funder.

Many newspapers, magazines and television stations have a definite political orientation and can be expected to push a particular ‘line’ or interpretation. A Government source may be regarded as particularly authoritative or dangerously partial, depending on the circumstances. A report on the effect of smoking on cancer rates might be regarded with some caution if the underlying research is found to be funded by tobacco companies.

4. Remember that prominence does not equate to importance.

A newspaper may have made its lead story the rumor of a break-up between Britney Spears and her latest boyfriend, but that does not necessarily make it the most important news item that day. Conversely, in 1914 that tiny story about the assassination of an obscure nobleman in some backwater called Sarajevo proved to have rather more repercussions than most readers first appreciated.

5. Look out for exceptions.

There is a popular saying: “It’s the exception that proves the rule”. In fact, in scientific terms, it is the exception that disproves the rule. So, for instance, for many centuries it was assumed that there could not be a black swan and therefore that ‘All swans are white’. However, in the 17th century, the discovery of black swans in Australia forced a change in that thinking. The identification of exceptions or black swans requires us to rethink current orthodoxy.

6. Look out for trends.

There are many different ways of measuring most variables whether it is economic growth, crime rates, or hospital waiting lists so the absolute figures may not be that helpful. However, if a consistent method of measurement is used (that is, over time one is comparing like with like), then trends may well be apparent, so that one can see a rise or a fall or a cycle.

7. Look for cause and effect.

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation– that is, because two variables often occur together does not necessarily mean that one variable actually causes the other. To take a trivial and obvious example, when I get up from bed, the sun comes up– but there is obviously no causality. On the other hand, when I go to bed, I feel refreshed– and there clearly is a relationship.

8. Always consider alternative explanations.

Those who believe that they have been abducted by aliens might have dreamt or fantasized it. The report of a body found in the park could mean a murder or a suicide or a heart attack or old age. The fall in crime levels could be the result of more police, better detection procedures, social changes or simply new methods of reporting.

9. Seek out assumptions.

Most statements or assertions are based on certain assumptions. Sometimes these assumptions are explicit but are not easy to find. For instance, a political opinion poll may well assume that voters in all constituencies and supporters of all political parties are equally likely to vote. This assumption may well be in the small print of the report if one looks hard enough. Sometimes assumptions may be implicit and therefore harder to discern. For instance, a political opinion poll may assume that everyone polled is telling the truth about their likely voting intentions. This sort of assumption is unlikely to be spelled out anywhere in a report.

10. Beware making assumptions yourself.

Someone once said “Never assume, as assume makes an ass out of you and me”. So, just because a particular source is usually accurate doesn’t necessarily make it accurate this time; just because the facts can be explained by one particular scenario doesn’t mean that another scenario isn’t possible and maybe even more likely.

11. Don’t jump to conclusions, either.

As Harold Acton pointed out: “Some people take no mental exercise apart from jumping to conclusions”. Although the currently available facts may suggest a particular conclusion, other conclusions may be possible. Further facts may support an alternative conclusion and even invalidate the original conclusion. Even when this is not the case, it is always helpful to have further, supporting evidence to support the original conclusion.

12. Don’t rest on authority.

There is a popular saying that “Great minds think alike”. But remember that another popular saying is that “Fools seldom differ”. And in fact the greatest minds frequently think very differently from their contemporaries and peers- and as the scientist Albert Einstein once remarked “Foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth”. Study the evidence and make an independent judgment based on the balance of the available evidence.

13. Don’t necessarily rest on the received wisdom.

Today even the most fundamental rule of modern physics– Einstein’s insistence that the speed of light is a constant– is being challenged by a scientist called João Magueijo. Many management styles and political policies are the received wisdom for a time, but frequently deserve to be challenged. The important thing is to marshal the evidence and subject it to both review and analysis.

14. Look for ‘meaningful’ statements.

Often politicians and businessmen make statements which are virtually meaningless, such as “I think that, if we tried harder, we could possibly do somewhat better” or “Some improvements in performance might be expected in the fullness of time”. Much more meaningful sentences– and ones therefore to be preferred– would be something like “We will reduce recorded crimes of violence by 10% before the next General Election” or “If we increase our capital expenditure by 5% annually for the next three years, we should achieve a 25% increase in revenues by the end of the decade”.

15. Beware of anecdotes.

People sometimes talk of “anecdotal evidence”, but really this is an oxymoron. An anecdote is not evidence. At best, it is one person’s experience. At worst it is simply an unsubstantiated rumor; one of your friends may have had a poor vacation which might be interesting, but is unlikely to be conclusive of what others might expect. Your friend’s experience might have been years ago, or be more to do with the travel company than the place itself. Check the information on independent travel guides and surveys before making a more informed and balanced judgment.

16. Challenge “It works”.

Agreeing on a definition of what ‘works’ means establishing a cause and effect relationship between action and outcome. But if I perform a traditional Indian rain dance in my back garden, it may rain in an hour, a day or a month. Over what period are we going to assume the dance may have had an influence? Then, can we reasonably infer a causality here? It may be that my neighbor was performing a different, more effective rain dance in her garden; it may be that the rain clouds had been seeded by a specially chartered aircraft to ensure good weather for a sports event tomorrow; it may be that I am in India in the monsoon season and it usually rains at this time of day at this time of year anyway.

17. Challenge “There is no alternative”.

There is always an alternative– even if it is simply doing nothing and waiting to see what happens. In fact, usually there is more than one alternative, in which case technically you do not have alternatives but choices. The other choices might be more expensive or less effective but they should be considered before deciding on the ‘best’ choice which should be presented in that manner and not as the only choice.

18. Beware of group thinking.

You can be seduced by this at any time, but especially if you are a member of a close-knit group of people where there is a strong sense of loyalty to the group, deference to an authority figure within the group, and a demonized view of those outside the group.

19. On the other hand, trust your instincts.

If something doesn’t ‘feel’ right, even if it is in a newspaper or a television program, then dig deeper into it; strange though it may seem to some, the media can (and frequently does) make mistakes- and corrections rarely achieve the prominence of the original story.

20. Always look for evidence.

The Scottish philosopher David Hume noted that “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”. However, it is tempting to seize on evidence that confirms one’s original view or the prevailing orthodoxy and to dismiss evidence that challenges it, but one needs to be open-minded about all the evidence and equally rigorous about establishing its authenticity.

21. Deconstruct the elements of a work.

In the case of a paper or speech, look at the arguments, the evidence, the structure, and the presentation. In the case of a novel, consider the plot, the characterisation and the language. In the case of a film, think about the script, the acting, the direction, the cinematography and the music.

22. Think about what is not there.

When invited to respond to material, most people confine their comments or their thinking to what they can see or hear. Sometimes what is not there is just as important. You might want to ask: Why are certain arguments missing? Why have certain sources not been used? Is this the full picture? A political manifesto will inevitably mention achievements but not failures and will often criticize another party’s policy or performance but fail to offer a constructive alternative.

23. Consider a SWOT analysis.

SWOT analysis is a strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats involved in a project or situation. It can be a relatively quick and comprehensive, and sometimes fun, way to assess something. It encourages you to see different ‘sides’ of an organization or a situation.

24. Learn to think ‘out of the box’.

Albert Einstein once said that “Problems cannot be solved by thinking within the framework in which they were created”. For instance, you are asked to decide whether a new product should be trialed in Manchester, Birmingham or London. But maybe it should be trialed in all three or in three different locations. Maybe it shouldn’t be tried at all, but launched straight away, because a competitor is about to launch a similar product. Maybe it shouldn’t be tried at all because it is still an inferior product that needs more development. Maybe the whole discussion is irrelevant because the company is about to be taken over by another company which already has such a product in the marketplace.

25. If you dare, go beyond thinking ‘out of the box’ to thinking the ‘unthinkable’.

What does this mean? It means considering variations to the most basic of parameters and entertaining the most radical of possibilities. In the last example, thinking the unthinkable might mean leaving the company, forming your own and marketing a rival product or it might involve a recognition that you are disillusioned with such products altogether and want to make a career change.

26. Test your thinking on others.

Brainstorm your ideas before starting a piece of work. Show drafts of work in progress to colleagues or friends. Welcome corrections, suggestions and constructive criticism. Entertain challenge. Embrace change. Encourage diversity.

27. Finally, remember that ‘thinking critically’ ends in ‘why’.

The word ‘why?’ is the most powerful tool in your mental toolbox. Keep asking ‘why?’ Why is this person writing this story in this particular newspaper? Why is this politician making this statement now? Why has the author of this paper quoted this source and not that one? Why has she used a percentage instead of an absolute figure? Why am I asking all these questions?