Reading Research Articles

Reading Research Articles Reading research articles does not come naturally.

This prĂŠcis reviews the contribution that critical thinking can make to discerning proof.

Olivier Serrat 01/09/2017

1 When scientists (and other scholars) want to publicize the results of their work they usually circulate them in academic journals after one or more referees—typically academics working in the same field—have confirmed that the contents are suitable for publication.1 Since the idea is to advance knowledge, the requirement is that research articles should present original research results or review existing results: for this reason, they cannot be opinion-based documents such as newspaper articles, editorials, book or test reviews, or columns giving advice.

The Scaffolding of Research Articles IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, [and] Discussion) is a useful mnemonic for the basic structure of research articles (to which an abstract and references are as a rule also added).

The "meat", however, is to be found in the sections that should elaborate the Introduction and Theoretical Framework, Statement of the Problem, Purpose of the Study, Review of the Literature, Question(s) and/or Hypothesis/Hypotheses, Design—Methods and Procedures, Limitations and Delimitations, and Significance of the Study. The idea, then, is to logically group and sequence ideas in expository writing.

Thinking Critically About Research Researchers aim to write clear, accurate, and convincing articles. But, if the world is replete with ill-substantiated proofs and false predictions, and Meltzoff (1998) showed how very wrong the predictions of a few outstanding authorities were, are we to accept without a doubt—merely on account of faith in authoritative pronouncements and democratic judgments, pure reason, feelings, sensory information and experiences, legal methods, or empirical and experimental methods—everything research articles say? Rather, hearing that "research shows …", we should exercise basic skepticism about proof and characterize our responses by a "show me", "prove it", and "what is the evidence". Some, such as Paul and Elder (2008), and Meltzoff (1998), thought likewise: inspired by Socratic Questioning, they urged critical thinking (and naturally development of the capacity to do so). Specifically, Paul and Elder (2008) held that critical thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it and the ability to think critically involves three things: (i) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences, (ii) knowledge of methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and (iii) some skill in applying those methods. To Paul and Elder (2008), then, a well-cultivated critical thinker: • Raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; • Gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards; • Thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and • Communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems. (Paul & Elder, 2008) So, if one were to read a research article critically, what approach might one take? Specifically, how might our appreciation be analytical, judgmental, and selective? Paul and Elder (2008) invited attention to eight elements of thought, that (much as they can direct our own thinking) we 1

A paper may undergo several reviews, revisions, and re-submissions before it is accepted or as the case may be rejected.

2 can also leverage to the best of our abilities to read research articles critically. Paraphrasing Paul and Elder (2008) in extenso: • All reasoning has a purpose. Therefore, we should take time to identify the purpose behind a research article, distinguish that from related purposes, check periodically to confirm the purpose is still on target, and confirm it is significant and realistic.

• All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some question, to solve some problem. Therefore, we should take time to clearly and precisely review the question at issue, check that it is expressed in what ways clarify its meaning and scope, break the question into sub questions, and identify if the research article has one right answer, is a matter of opinion, or requires reasoning from more than one point of view.

• All reasoning is based on assumptions. Therefore, we should clearly identify what assumptions the research article makes and determine whether they are justifiable, and consider how the assumptions are shaping the research article's point of view.

• All reasoning is done from some point of view. Therefore, we should identify the research article's point of view, seek other points of view and identify their strengths as well as weaknesses, and strive to be fair-minded in evaluating all points of view.

• All reasoning is based on data, information, and evidence. Therefore, we should check that the research article's claims are restricted to those that are supported by the data it has; search for information that opposes the research article's position as well as information that supports it; make sure that all the information used is clear, accurate, and relevant to the question at issue; and confirm that the research article has gathered sufficient information.

• All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, concepts and ideas. Therefore, we should identify what key concepts underpin the research article and check that they have been explained clearly, consider alternative concepts or alternative definitions to concepts, and confirm that the research article has used concepts with care and precision.

• All reasoning contains inferences by which we draw conclusions and give meaning to data.

Therefore, we should investigate if the research article has inferred only what the evidence implies, check inferences for consistency with one another, and identify what assumptions led to the inferences.

• All reasoning leads somewhere, has implications and consequences. Therefore, we should trace the implications and consequences that follow from the research article's reasoning, search for negative as well as positive implications, and consider all possible consequences.

(Paul & Elder, 2008) For maximum understanding, Meltzoff (1998) suggested we should engage in interactive reading with knowledge of research design. Unlike passive–receptive readers, who take in what the text says, interactive readers anticipate what is to come and then discover whether expectations have been met along the way. With critical thinking, interactive readers work all the way. Toward this, Meltzoff (1998) and Paul and Elder (2008) agreed that such readers must have background and training in principles of research design, such as the basic structure of research articles and the eight elements of thought mentioned earlier, so they might critique research articles intelligently. Fortunately, principles of research design transcend content areas.

That said, because of cognitive limitations (such as bounded rationality and personality), we often "see" bias in others but not in ourselves: we are wont to think that we are objective and we may, for example, reckon ourselves more ethical and fairer than others. With self-serving introspection, we acquit ourselves of accusations of bias but use unrealistic (or harsh) notions of human behavior to detect bias in others. Because of this, pace Meltzoff (1998), it is not always

3 easy to judge a research article purely on its merits, with unprejudiced consideration of its arguments.2 Is Critical Thinking Enough?

Critical thinking, then, is analytical, judgmental, and selective: when you are thinking critically, you are making choices. But what of creative (or lateral) thinking? That is generative, nonjudgmental, and expansive. Creative thinking has to do with change, especially when that involves escaping from a pattern. When you are thinking creatively, you are generating ideas that are unique and effective. Sadly, even if critical thinking and creative thinking are both crucial for solving problems and discovering new knowledge, they are often treated separately.

Critical thinking is typically thought of as a left-brain activity and creative thinking as a right-brain activity. Yet, both involve thinking. Some have spoken of critico-creative thinking to emphasize the positive, imaginative aspects of critical thinking; however, this ungainly expression has not caught on.

Culturally, we need to discard the belief that critical thinking is sufficient: obviously, critical thinking is a very valuable part of thinking but it is totally inadequate in the absence of the possibility systems that the generative, productive, creative, and design aspects of creative thinking throw up. When reading research articles, discerning proof may not be all that is needed. For superior outcomes, since nature has equipped us with complementary ways of processing information, whole-brain thinking is needed.3 To this intent, thankfully, Gardner's (1993) notion of multiple intelligences refreshed and expanded traditional views of human potential.

References Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Meltzoff, J. (1998). Chapter 1: Critical reading. In Critical thinking about research: Psychology and related fields (pp. 1–12). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Pascal, Blaise, 1623–1662. (1958). Pascal's pensées. New York, NY: E.P. Dutton.

Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2008). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

2

Cognitive biases creep into pretty much all our sense- and decision-making processes, excepting the simplest. A select—yet long—alphabetical list includes anchoring and adjustment, attribution asymmetry, choice-supportive bias, framing bias, groupthink, incremental decision making and escalating commitment, optimism or wishful thinking, premature termination of search for evidence, inertia, recency, repetition bias, role fulfillment, selective perception, selective search for evidence, source credibility bias, and underestimates of uncertainty and the illusion of control. Recognizing some of the foregoing biases will not arise when reading research articles, It stands to reason we should constantly be on our guard against subjectivity: here, there may be more art than science.

3 Like many others, Pascal felt that "Man is obviously made for thinking. Therein lies all his dignity and his merit; and his whole duty is to think as he ought" (Pascal, 1958). A contemporary of Descartes, Pascal is however best remembered for resisting rationalism, which he thought could not determine major truths: "The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know" (Pascal, 1958). Pascal and Descartes are reference points for two major attitudes to conscious representation of the world: although both saw reason as the primary source of knowledge, they disagreed profoundly over the competence of Man. (More often than not, the "truth" will lie somewhere between faith and radical doubt.)