the researcher demonstrates analytical and critical thinking

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on May 30, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

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
• Assess alternative viewpoints
• Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Table of contents

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important for making judgments about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasizes a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.

Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.

In academic writing , critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:

• Is free from research bias
• Provides evidence to support its research findings
• Considers alternative viewpoints

Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.

Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.

Academic examples

However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyze the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.

You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.

Nonacademic examples

However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.

You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words “sponsored content” appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.

There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.

However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

When encountering information, ask:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert in their field?
• What do they say? Is their argument clear? Can you summarize it?
• When did they say this? Is the source current?
• Where is the information published? Is it an academic article? Is it peer-reviewed ?
• Why did the author publish it? What is their motivation?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence? Does it rely on opinion, speculation, or appeals to emotion ? Do they address alternative arguments?

Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:

• Am I only considering evidence that supports my preconceptions?
• Is my argument expressed clearly and backed up with credible sources?
• Would I be convinced by this argument coming from someone else?

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

Ask questions such as:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence?

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

Being information literate means that you:

• Know how to find credible sources
• Use relevant sources to inform your research
• Understand what constitutes plagiarism
• Know how to cite your sources correctly

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe. Relatedly, we tend to forget information that contradicts our opinions.

Although selective recall is a component of confirmation bias, it should not be confused with recall bias.

On the other hand, recall bias refers to the differences in the ability between study participants to recall past events when self-reporting is used. This difference in accuracy or completeness of recollection is not related to beliefs or opinions. Rather, recall bias relates to other factors, such as the length of the recall period, age, and the characteristics of the disease under investigation.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved March 20, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Critical Thinking in Academic Research - Second Edition

(4 reviews)

Cindy Gruwell, University of West Florida

Robin Ewing, St. Cloud State University

Copyright Year: 2022

Last Update: 2023

Publisher: Minnesota State Colleges and Universities

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Julie Jaszkowiak, Community Faculty, Metropolitan State University on 12/22/23

Organized in 11 parts, this his textbook includes introductory information about critical thinking and details about the academic research process. The basics of critical thinking related to doing academic research in Parts I and II. Parts III –... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

Organized in 11 parts, this his textbook includes introductory information about critical thinking and details about the academic research process. The basics of critical thinking related to doing academic research in Parts I and II. Parts III – XI provide specifics on various steps in doing academic research including details on finding and citing source material. There is a linked table of contents so the reader is able to jump to a specific section as needed. There is also a works cited page with information and links to works used for this textbook.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The content of this textbook is accurate and error free. It contains examples that demonstrate concepts from a variety of disciplines such as “hard science” or “popular culture” that assist in eliminating bias. The authors are librarians so it is clear that their experience as such leads to clear and unbiased content.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

General concepts about critical thinking and academic research methodology is well defined and should not become obsolete. Specific content regarding use of citation tools and attribution structure may change but the links to various research sites allow for simple updates.

Clarity rating: 5

This textbook is written in a conversational manner that allows for a more personal interaction with the textbook. It is like the reader is having a conversation with a librarian. Each part has an introduction section that fully defines concepts and terms used for that part.

Consistency rating: 5

In addition to the written content, this textbook contains links to short quizzes at the end of each section. This is consistent throughout each part. Embedded links to additional information are included as necessary.

Modularity rating: 4

This textbook is arranged in 11 modular parts with each part having multiple sections. All of these are linked so a reader can go to a distinct part or section to find specific information. There are some links that refer back to previous sections in the document. It can be challenging to return to where you were once you have jumped to a different section.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

There is clear definition as to what information is contained within each of the parts and subsequent sections. The textbook follows the logical flow of the process of researching and writing a research paper.

Interface rating: 4

The pictures have alternative text that appears when you hover over the text. There is one picture on page 102 that is a link to where the downloaded picture is from. The pictures are clear and supportive of the text for a visual learner. All the links work and go to either the correct area of the textbook or to a valid website. If you are going to use the embedded links to go to other sections of the textbook you need to keep track of where you are as it can sometimes get confusing as to where you went based on clicking links.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

This is not really a grammatical error but I did notice on some of the quizzes if you misspelled a work for fill in the blank it was incorrect. It was also sometimes challenging to come up with the correct word for the fill in the blanks.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

There are no examples or text that are culturally insensitive or offensive. The examples are general and would be applicable to a variety of students study many different academic subjects. There are references and information to many research tools from traditional such as checking out books and articles from the library to more current such as blogs and other electronic sources. This information appeals to a wide expanse of student populations.

I really enjoyed the quizzes at the end of each section. It is very beneficial to test your knowledge and comprehension of what you just read. Often I had to return and reread the content more critically based on my quiz results! They are just the right length to not disrupt the overall reading of the textbook and cover the important content and learning objectives.

Reviewed by Sara Stigberg, Adjunct Reference Librarian, Truman College, City Colleges of Chicago on 3/15/23

Critical Thinking in Academic Research thoroughly covers the basics of academic research for undergraduates, including well-guided deeper dives into relevant areas. The authors root their introduction to academic research principles and practices... read more

Critical Thinking in Academic Research thoroughly covers the basics of academic research for undergraduates, including well-guided deeper dives into relevant areas. The authors root their introduction to academic research principles and practices in the Western philosophical tradition, focused on developing students' critical thinking skills and habits around inquiry, rationales, and frameworks for research.

This text conforms to the principles and frames of the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, published by the Association of College and Research Libraries. It includes excellent, clear, step-by-step guides to help students understand rationales and techniques for academic research.

Essential for our current information climate, the authors present relevant information for students who may be new to academic research, in ways and with content that is not too broad or too narrow, or likely to change drastically in the near future.

The authors use clear and well-considered language and explanations of ideas and terms, contextualizing the scholarly research process and tools in a relatable manner. As mentioned earlier, this text includes excellent step-by-step guides, as well as illustrations, visualizations, and videos to instruct students in conducting academic research.

(4.75) The terminology and framework of this text are consistent. Early discussions of critical thinking skills are tied in to content in later chapters, with regard to selecting different types of sources and search tools, as well as rationales for choosing various formats of source references. Consciously making the theme of critical thinking as applied to the stages of academic research more explicit and frequent within the text would further strengthen it, however.

Modularity rating: 5

Chapters are divided in a logical, progressive manner throughout the text. The use of embedded links to further readings and some other relevant sections of the text are an excellent way of providing references and further online information, without overwhelming or side-tracking the reader.

Topics in the text are organized in logical, progressive order, transitioning cleanly from one focus to the next. Each chapter begins with a helpful outline of topics that will be covered within it.

There are no technical issues with the interface for this text. Interactive learning tools such as the many self-checks and short quizzes that are included throughout the text are a great bonus for reinforcing student learning, and the easily-accessible table of contents was very helpful. There are some slight inconsistencies across chapters, however, relative to formatting images and text and spacing, and an image was missing in the section on Narrowing a Topic. Justifying copy rather than aligning-left would prevent hyphenation, making the text more streamlined.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

(4.75) A few minor punctuation errors are present.

The authors of this text use culturally-relevant examples and inclusive language. The chapter on Barriers to Critical Thinking works directly to break down bias and preconceived notions.

Overall, Critical Thinking in Academic Research is an excellent general textbook for teaching the whys and hows of academic research to undergraduates. A discussion of annotated bibliographies would be a great addition for future editions of the text. ---- (As an aside for the authors, I am curious if the anonymous data from the self-checks and quizzes is being collected and analyzed for assessment purposes. I'm sure it would be interesting!)

Reviewed by Ann Bell-Pfeifer, Program Director/ Instructor, Minnesota State Community and Technical College on 2/15/23

The book has in depth coverage of academic research. A formal glossary and index were not included. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

The book has in depth coverage of academic research. A formal glossary and index were not included.

The book appears error free and factual.

The content is current and would support students who are pursuing writing academic research papers.

Excellent explanations for specific terms were included throughout the text.

The text is easy to follow with a standardized format and structure.

The text contains headings and topics in each section.

It is easy to follow the format and review each section.

Interface rating: 5

The associated links were useful and not distracting.

No evidence of grammatical errors were found in the book.

The book is inclusive.

The book was informative, easy to follow, and sequential allowing the reader to digest each section before moving into another.

Reviewed by Jenny Inker, Assistant Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University on 8/23/22

This book provides a comprehensive yet easily comprehensible introduction to critical thinking in academic research. The author lays a foundation with an introduction to the concepts of critical thinking and analyzing and making arguments, and... read more

This book provides a comprehensive yet easily comprehensible introduction to critical thinking in academic research. The author lays a foundation with an introduction to the concepts of critical thinking and analyzing and making arguments, and then moves into the details of developing research questions and identifying and appropriately using research sources. There are many wonderful links to other open access publications for those who wish to read more or go deeper.

The content of the book appears to be accurate and free of bias.

The examples used throughout the book are relevant and up-to-date, making it easy to see how to apply the concepts in real life.

The text is very accessibly written and the content is presented in a simple, yet powerful way that helps the reader grasp the concepts easily. There are many short, interactive exercises scattered throughout each chapter of the book so that the reader can test their own knowledge as they go along. It would be even better if the author had provided some simple feedback explaining why quiz answers are correct or incorrect in order to bolster learning, but this is a very minor point and the interactive exercises still work well without this.

The book appears consistent throughout with regard to use of terminology and tone of writing. The basic concepts introduced in the early chapters are used consistently throughout the later chapters.

This book has been wonderfully designed into bite sized chunks that do not overwhelm the reader. This is perhaps its best feature, as this encourages the reader to take in a bit of information, digest it, check their understanding of it, and then move on to the next concept. I loved this!

The book is organized in a manner that introduces the basic architecture of critical thinking first, and then moves on to apply it to the subject of academic research. While the entire book would be helpful for college students (undergraduates particularly), the earlier chapters on critical thinking and argumentation also stand well on their own and would be of great utility to students in general.

This book was extremely easy to navigate with a clear, drop down list of chapters and subheadings on the left side of the screen. When the reader clicks on links to additional material, these open up in a new tab which keeps things clear and organized. Images and charts were clear and the overall organization is very easy to follow.

I came across no grammatical errors in the text.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

This is perhaps an area where the book could do a little more. I did not come across anything that seemed culturally insensitive or offensive but on the other hand, the book might have taken more opportunities to represent a greater diversity of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.

This book seems tailor made for undergraduate college students and I would highly recommend it. I think it has some use for graduate students as well, although some of the examples are perhaps little basic for this purpose. As well as using this book to guide students on doing academic research, I think it could also be used as a very helpful introduction to the concept of critical thinking by focusing solely on chapters 1-4.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Part I. What is Critical Thinking?
• Part II. Barriers to Critical Thinking
• Part III. Analyzing Arguments
• Part IV. Making an Argument
• Part V. Research Questions
• Part VI. Sources and Information Needs
• Part VII. Types of Sources
• Part VIII. Precision Searching
• Part IX. Evaluating Sources
• Part X. Ethical Use and Citing Sources
• Part XI. Copyright Basics
• Works Cited
• About the Authors

Ancillary Material

About the book.

Critical Thinking in Academic Research - 2nd Edition provides examples and easy-to-understand explanations to equip students with the skills to develop research questions, evaluate and choose the right sources, search for information, and understand arguments. This 2nd Edition includes new content based on student feedback as well as additional interactive elements throughout the text.

About the Contributors

Cindy Gruwell is an Assistant Librarian/Coordinator of Scholarly Communication at the University of West Florida. She is the library liaison to the department of biology and the College of Health which has extensive nursing programs, public health, health administration, movement, and medical laboratory sciences. In addition to supporting health sciences faculty, she oversees the Argo IRCommons (Institutional Repository) and provides scholarly communication services to faculty across campus. Cindy graduated with her BA (history) and MLS from the University of California, Los Angeles and has a Masters in Education from Bemidji State University. Cindy’s research interests include academic research support, publishing, and teaching.

Robin Ewing is a Professor/Collections Librarian at St. Cloud State University. Robin is the liaison to the College of Education and Learning Design. She oversees content selection for the Library’s collections. Robin graduated with her BBA (Management) and MLIS from the University of Oklahoma. She also has a Masters of Arts in Teaching from Bemidji State University. Robin’s research interests include collection analysis, assessment, and online teaching.

Contribute to this Page

• 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

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

• 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.…

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:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

UCL Careers

Analytical and Critical Thinking Skills

Your ability to apply logical thinking, break down complex problems into manageable components objectively, and make a reasoned judgement by evaluating information.

Explore your understanding

Applying analytical and critical thinking to a task is about being able to look at a situation and examining it carefully.  Paying attention to detail, remaining focused and having determination are all key elements to apply to this process.

During the recruitment process, industry case study scenarios are sometimes used to test your analytical skills. Employers are looking to see that you are able to critically look at data, evaluate the information you have and produce proposals for suggested actions.

Find and develop your skill

 How can you improve your analytical and critical thinking skills at UCL?  There is a lot of support here to help you develop this skill!

• Employer–led Skills Session : Attend a skills session delivered by employers to learn more about developing your analytical and critical thinking .  You could also try coming to a Mock  Assessment Centre where you can practice solving applying logic and evaluating information as part of a group task.  Visit myUCLCareers for upcoming events  

Students' Union UCL : Join a club or society that challenges your critical thinking, such as the Consulting Society, Law for All, the International Relations Society, or even come up with your own proposal if you identify a gap. 

Go Abroad : UCL Go Abroad programmes encompass an enriching selection of worldwide opportunities tailored to support UCL students to perform at their full potential and further develop their problem solving skills. Attend an event to learn more about the global opportunities available both short term and longer term as part of your degree .

Postgraduate Researchers:

UCL Doctoral Skills Development Training Programe (UCL Doc Skills) : The UCL Doc Skills Programme is open to all postgraduate research students at UCL. Here postgraduate researchers will be able to access courses  related to analytical & critical to further develop skills within this area . You’ll find more information on all the courses available on our website .  You will also be able to browse the  scheduled events for researchers  and  those for doctoral students .  Research students can also  access courses mapped to the Researcher Development Framework (RDF) . 

Prepare your examples

Course projects are also a great way to develop your skills. Do you have a group project that you are working on? Was there any type of evaluation involved?

Prepare some examples of when you have had to analyse a large amount of information. Look at the processes you applied? What information did you have to support you?

Can you describe the effects or impact of trends to a particular industry sector?

Think about a piece of research, report or dissertation you completed? What analysis and evaluation processes did you use and why?

Can you describe how you have developed your analytical and critical thinking skills whilst at UCL?

Need some support on how to apply analytical and critical thinking? Visit our 'Psychometric and aptitude tests'   page to see the different examples of problem solving and situational judgement tests.

Get support on how to structure answers on analytical and critical thinking as part of an interview. Visit our Interview Skills page.  

Here you can find out more about how to structure your answer and demonstrate your skills along with many more resources that will help you prepare.

If you have written a draft application for any type of opportunity, our team can provide personalised practical tips and advice to help you better understand how recruiters will shortlist your application, and how you can best demonstrate your motivation and your most relevant skills / experience.

The employer perspective – Procter and Gamble:

“ Analytical skills is an essential skill for all employees at Procter and Gamble . We recruit a variety of roles including Sales, Marketing, Finance, Engineering and HR and across all of these analytical skills are used in day to day life at P&G. As a data driven company, we make a lot of decisions based on data from the market, our customers and our campaigns which means its crucial all employees have an ability to analyse and manipulate data to create insights used for decision making.

Critical thinking in nursing clinical practice, education and research: From attitudes to virtue

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Fundamental Care and Medical Surgital Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Nursing, Consolidated Research Group Quantitative Psychology (2017-SGR-269), University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
• 2 Department of Fundamental Care and Medical Surgital Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Nursing, Consolidated Research Group on Gender, Identity and Diversity (2017-SGR-1091), University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
• 3 Department of Fundamental Care and Medical Surgital Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
• 4 Multidisciplinary Nursing Research Group, Vall d'Hebron Research Institute (VHIR), Vall d'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
• PMID: 33029860
• DOI: 10.1111/nup.12332

Critical thinking is a complex, dynamic process formed by attitudes and strategic skills, with the aim of achieving a specific goal or objective. The attitudes, including the critical thinking attitudes, constitute an important part of the idea of good care, of the good professional. It could be said that they become a virtue of the nursing profession. In this context, the ethics of virtue is a theoretical framework that becomes essential for analyse the critical thinking concept in nursing care and nursing science. Because the ethics of virtue consider how cultivating virtues are necessary to understand and justify the decisions and guide the actions. Based on selective analysis of the descriptive and empirical literature that addresses conceptual review of critical thinking, we conducted an analysis of this topic in the settings of clinical practice, training and research from the virtue ethical framework. Following JBI critical appraisal checklist for text and opinion papers, we argue the need for critical thinking as an essential element for true excellence in care and that it should be encouraged among professionals. The importance of developing critical thinking skills in education is well substantiated; however, greater efforts are required to implement educational strategies directed at developing critical thinking in students and professionals undergoing training, along with measures that demonstrate their success. Lastly, we show that critical thinking constitutes a fundamental component in the research process, and can improve research competencies in nursing. We conclude that future research and actions must go further in the search for new evidence and open new horizons, to ensure a positive effect on clinical practice, patient health, student education and the growth of nursing science.

Keywords: critical thinking; critical thinking attitudes; nurse education; nursing care; nursing research.

© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

• Attitude of Health Personnel*
• Education, Nursing / methods
• Nursing Process
• Nursing Research / methods

Grants and funding

• PREI-19-007-B/School of Nursing. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Barcelona

The Nature and Development of Critical-Analytic Thinking

• Review Article
• Published: 12 October 2014
• Volume 26 , pages 477–493, ( 2014 )

Cite this article

• James P. Byrnes 1 &
• Kevin N. Dunbar 2  

3241 Accesses

53 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In this article, we attempt to provide an overview of the features of the abilities, aptitudes, and frames of minds that are attributed to critical thinking and provide the broad outlines of the development of critical-analytic thinking (CAT) abilities. In addition, we evaluate the potential viability of three main hypotheses regarding the reasons for developmental trends in CAT and address problems of achieving the ideal of a critical-analytic thinker at all age levels. The first hypothesis is that standard instruction in disciplines such as the sciences and social sciences, couch findings, and theories as matters of choice rather than as inferences is being more warranted than others. The second hypothesis is that there are developmental constraints on the expression of CAT that would limit the efficacy of instruction seeking to promote increased appreciation for inferential warrants and the idea of progress in disciplines. These constraints could be tied to the acquisition of knowledge, development of expertise, and brain development. The third hypothesis pertains to motivational reasons for not exerting the time and effort required to engage in CAT. We conclude by proposing a research agenda to investigate these hypotheses, as the first step in understanding the kinds of interventions that might be needed to increase the level of CAT expressed in high school and college graduates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Alexander, P. A. (2014). Thinking critically-analytically about critical-analytic thinking: an introduction. Educational Psychology Review.

American Nursing Association. (2010). Nursing: scope and standards of practice (2nd ed.). MD: Silver Spring.

Google Scholar  

Baltes, B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: a metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55 , 122–136.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baron, J. (2007). Thinking and deciding (4th ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bassok, M., & Novick, L. R. (2012). Problem solving. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 413–432). New York: Oxford University Press.

Baum, L. A., Danovich, J. H., & Keil, F. C. (2008). Children’s sensitivity to circular explanations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 100 , 146–155.

Berliner, D. C. (1993). The 100-year journey of educational psychology: from interest, to disdain, to respect for practice. In T. K. Fagan & G. R. VandenBos (Eds.), Exploring applied psychology: origins and critical analyses (pp. 37–78). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meaning of words . Cambridge: MIT Press.

Brookfield, S. D. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking: tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Byrnes (2008). Cognitive development in instructional contexts (3rd ed.). Needham Hts: Allyn & Bacon.

Capstick, S. B. & Pidgeon, N. F. (2014). What is climate change scepticism? Examination of the concept using a mixed methods study of the UK public. Global Environmental Change, 24 , 389–401.

Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5 , 121–152.

Dewey, J. D. (1933). How we think, a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process . Boston: D. C. Heath.

Diamond, A. (2012). Activities and programs that improve children’s executive functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21 , 335–341.

Dumas, D., Alexander, P., Baker, L.M., Jablansky, S., & Dunbar, K. N. (2014). Clinical relations: how relational reasoning supports medical education and practice. Educational Psychology. First published online May 8.

Dunbar, K. (2002). Science as category: implications of InVivo science for theories of cognitive development, scientific discovery, and the nature of science. In S. Stich & P. Carruthers (Eds.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 154–170). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dunbar, K., Fugelsang, J., & Stein, C. (2007). Do naive theories ever go away? Using brain and behavior to understand changes in concepts. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 193–206). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dunbar, K. N., & Klahr, D. (2012). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 701–718). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: theory and practice (pp. 9–26). New York: W. H. Freeman.

Ericsson, K. A. (2013). Exceptional memory and expert performance: from Simon and Chase’s theory of expertise to skilled memory and beyond. In J. J. Staszewski (Ed.), Expertise and skill acquisition: the impact of William G. Chase (pp. 201–228). New York: Psychology Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2012). Dual process theories of deductive reasoning: facts and fallacies. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 115–133). New York: Oxford University Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8 (223–241), 263–271.

Fugelsang, J.A., & Dunbar, K. N. (2005). Brain-based mechanisms underlying complex causal thinking. Neuropsychologia, 43 , 1204–1213.

Glaser, E. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking . New York: J. J. Little and Ives Company.

Green, A. E., & Dunbar, K. N. (2012). Mental function as genetic expression: emerging insights from cognitive neurogenetics. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 90–114). New York: Oxford University Press.

Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking (5th ed.). New York: Psychology Press.

Harris, P. J. (2002). What do children learn from testimony? In P. Carruthers, S. P. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 316–334). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4, 71–115.

Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8 , 407–424.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Farran, E. K. (2012). Theoretical and empirical directions within a neuroconstructivist framework. In E. K. Farran & A. Karmiloff-Smith (Eds.), Neurodevelopmental disorders across the lifespan: a neuroconstructivist approach (pp. 363–372). New York: Oxford University Press.

Mulvey, K. L., Hitti, A., & Killen, M. (2013). Morality, intentionality, and exclusion: how children navigate the social world. In M. Banaji & S. Gelman (Eds.), Navigating the social world: a developmental perspective (pp. 377–384). New York: Oxford University Press.

Klaczinski, P. A., & Lavallee, K. L. (2005). Domain-specific identity, epistemic regulation, and intellectual ability as predictors of belief-based reasoning: a dual-process perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 92 , 1–24.

Klaczynski, P. A., & Robinson, B. (2000). Personal theories, intellectual ability and epistemological beliefs: adult age differences in everyday reasoning biases. Psychology and Aging, 15 , 400–416.

Kuhl, P. K. (2006). A new view of language acquisition. In H. Luria, D, M, Seymour & T. Smoke (Eds.), Language and linguistics in context: readings and applications for teachers (pp. 29–42). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28 , 16–26.

Kuhn, D. (2011). What people may do versus can do. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 343 , 83.

Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ reasoning. Psychological Science, 22 , 545–552.

Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23 , 512–529.

Lombrozo, T. (2012). Explanation and abductive inference. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 260–276). New York: Oxford University Press.

Maggioni, L., VanSledright, B., & Alexander, P. A. (2009). Walking on the borders: a measure of epistemic cognition in history. Journal of Experimental Education, 77 , 187–213.

Mercier, H. (2011). Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development, 26 , 177–191.

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34 , 57–111.

Mills, C. M. (2012). Knowing when to doubt: developing a critical stance when learning from others. Developmental Psychology, 49 , 404–418.

Moore, T. J. (2011). Critical thinking and language: the challenge of generic skills and disciplinary discourse . New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Nandagopal, K., & Ericsson, K. A. (2012). Enhancing students’ performance in traditional education: implications from the expert–performance approach and deliberate practice. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook. Volume 1: theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 257–293). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104 , 192–233.

Schraw, G., & Gutierrez, A. (2012). Assessment of thinking skills. In M. F. Shaughnessy (Ed.), Critical thinking and higher order thinking: a current perspective (pp. 191–203). Hauppague: Nova Science Publishers.

Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Stanovich, K. E. (2012). On the distinction between rationality and intelligence: implications for understanding individual differences in reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 433–455). New York: Oxford University Press.

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94 , 672–695.

Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22 , 259–264.

Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., Birney, D. P., Naples, A., Stemler, S. E., Newman, T., Otterbach, R., Parish, C., Randi, J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2014). Testing the theory of successful intelligence in teaching grade 4 language arts, mathematics, and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 , 881–899.

Swanson, H. L., & Alloway, T. P. (2012). Working memory, learning, and academic achievement. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook. Volume 1: theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 327–366). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind: statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331 (6022), 1279–1285.

Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014). Rational thinking and cognitive sophistication: development, cognitive abilities, and thinking dispositions. Developmental Psychology, 50 , 1037–1048.

Thompson, V., & Evans, J. S. B. T. (2012). Belief bias in informal reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 18 , 278–310.

Willingham, W. T. (2008). Critical thinking: why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 109 , 21–29.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. (Anscombe, G.E.M., trans.) . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93 , 109–130.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Education, Temple University, 1301 Cecil B. Moore Ave, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA

James P. Byrnes

Department of Human Development, Measurement and Statistics, College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USA

Kevin N. Dunbar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James P. Byrnes .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Byrnes, J.P., Dunbar, K.N. The Nature and Development of Critical-Analytic Thinking. Educ Psychol Rev 26 , 477–493 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9284-0

Download citation

Published : 12 October 2014

Issue Date : December 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9284-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Critical thinking
• Analytic thinking
• Rationality
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Med Sci Monit
• v.17(1); 2011

Evidence and its uses in health care and research: The role of critical thinking

Milos jenicek.

1 Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Michael G. de Groote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Pat Croskerry

2 Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

David L. Hitchcock

3 David L. Hitchcock, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Obtaining and critically appraising evidence is clearly not enough to make better decisions in clinical care. The evidence should be linked to the clinician’s expertise, the patient’s individual circumstances (including values and preferences), and clinical context and settings. We propose critical thinking and decision-making as the tools for making that link.

Critical thinking is also called for in medical research and medical writing, especially where pre-canned methodologies are not enough. It is also involved in our exchanges of ideas at floor rounds, grand rounds and case discussions; our communications with patients and lay stakeholders in health care; and our writing of research papers, grant applications and grant reviews.

Critical thinking is a learned process which benefits from teaching and guided practice like any discipline in health sciences. Training in critical thinking should be a part or a pre-requisite of the medical curriculum.

Sackett et al. originally defined evidence based medicine (EBM) as ‘… the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients’, and its integration with individual clinical expertise [ 1 ].’ In the nearly two decades that have intervened, there has been significant uptake of the idea that clinical care should be based upon sound, systematically researched evidence. There has been less emphasis on how clinical expertise itself might be improved, perhaps because the concept is more amorphous and difficult to define.

Clinical expertise is an amalgam of several things: there must be a solid knowledge base, some considerable clinical experience, and an ability to think, reason, and decide in a competent and well-calibrated fashion. Our focus here is on this last component: the faculties of thinking, reasoning and decision making. Clinicians must be able to integrate the best available critically appraised evidence with insights into their patients, the clinical context, and themselves [ 2 ]. To accomplish this integration, physicians need to develop their critical thinking skills. Yet historically this need has not received explicit attention in medical training. We believe that it should.

As an illustration of the use of critical thinking in clinical care, consider the following clinical scenario from emergency medicine : A 52-year-old male presents to the emergency department of a community centre with a complaint of constipation and is triaged with a low level acuity score to a ‘minors’ area. The department is extremely busy and several hours elapse before he is seen by the emergency physician. His principal complaint is constipation; he hasn’t had a bowel movement for 4 days. His abdomen is soft and non-tender. A large amount of firm stool is evident on rectal examination. He recalls a minor back strain a few days earlier. The physician orders a soapsuds enema and continues seeing other patients. After about 30 minutes he finds the nurse who administered the enema; she reports that it was ineffective. He orders a fleet enema which again proves ineffective. The nurse expresses her opinion that the patient is taking up too much time and suggests he be given an oral laxative and another fleet enema to take home with him. She is clearly unwilling to continue investing her effort in a patient with a trivial complaint. Nevertheless, the physician decides to administer a third enema himself. The third enema is only marginally effective and he then decides to disimpact the patient. The physician notes poor rectal tone and enquires further about the patient’s urination. He says he has been unable to urinate that day. On catheterisation he is found to have 1200cc. Neurological findings are equivocal: reflexes are present in both legs and there is some subjective diminished sensation.

A diagnosis of cauda equina syndrome is made and the emergency physician calls the neurosurgery service at a tertiary care hospital. It is now late in the evening. The neurosurgeon is reluctant to accept the working diagnosis. He suggests that the loss of sphincter tone might be due to the disimpaction, and argues that there was no significant history of back injury or convincing neurological findings. When the ED physician persists, the neurosurgeon suggests transferring the patient to the tertiary hospital ED for further evaluation and asks for a CT investigation of the patient’s lower spine before seeing him. The CT reveals only some minor abnormalities and the patient is kept overnight. An MRI is done in the morning. It shows extensive disc herniation with compression of nerve roots. The patient subsequently undergoes prolonged back surgery.

This case had a good outcome, although things might have been dramatically different. The patient might have suffered permanent neurological injury requiring lifelong catheterisation for urination.

Our scenario illustrates some key points about clinical decision making. At the outset, the patient presents with an apparently benign condition – constipation. The impression of a benign condition is incorporated at triage and results in a low-level acuity score and prolonged wait. The patient’s nurse also incorporates this diagnosis and exerts coercive pressure on the physician to discharge the patient. The neurosurgeon is dismissive of a physician’s assessment in a community centre ED, creating considerable inertia against referral. Thus the ED physician faces a variety of obstacles to ensure optimal patient care. These have little to do with EBM. He must resist and overcome a variety of cognitive, affective and systemic biases, his own as well as others’, and various contextual constraints. He must continue to think critically and persist in a course that has become increasingly challenging.

Our scenario also illustrates some key points about critical thinking. The initial impression of a benign condition of constipation is not the only diagnosis compatible with the patient’s symptoms. A health care professional reaching a preliminary diagnosis must be aware of the danger of fixing prematurely on this diagnosis and ignoring (or failing to look for) subsequent evidence that tells against it, as the nurse in our scenario was inclined to do. Observational and textual studies both indicate that the most common source of errors in reasoning is to close prematurely on a favoured conclusion and then ignore evidence that argues against that conclusion [ 3 ]. It is also important to keep in mind that a patient’s signs or symptoms may have more than one cause. Data that may confirm one of the causes does not necessarily rule out all the others. Attentive listening to the patient and careful looking in the data-gathering stage are essential to good medical practice, as Groopman has recently pointed out [ 4 ]. From a logical point of view, the physician’s diagnostic task is to gather data that will determine which one (or ones) of the possible causes is (or are) responsible for the patient’s problem. This goal will guide the selection of data and of additional tests. ‘Parallel’ or ‘lateral’ thinking [ 5 ] will help with the differential diagnosis.

Critical Thinking

Dewey’s original conceptualization [ 6 ] of what he called “reflective thinking” has spawned in the intervening century a variety of definitions of critical thinking, most notably that of Ennis as “ reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or what to do” [ 7 ] . Scriven and Paul have elaborated this definition as “… the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skilfully conceptualizing, applying, synthesizing or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication as a guide to belief or action ” [ 8 ].

The consensus of 48 specialists in critical thinking from the fields of education, philosophy and psychology was that it should be defined as ‘ purposeful self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgement is based ’ [ 9 ]. The list of additional definitions remains impressive [ 10 , 11 ].

Even more useful than these definitions are various lists of dispositions and skills characteristic of a “critical thinker” [ 7 , 9 , 12 ]. More useful still are criteria and standards for measuring possession of those skills and dispositions [ 13 ], criteria that have been used to develop standardized tests of critical thinking skills and dispositions [ 14 – 17 ] including some with specific reference to health sciences [ 18 ].

The elements of critical thinking subsume what has variously been described as clinical judgment [ 19 ] , logic of medicine [ 20 , 21 ] , logic in medicine [ 22 ] , philosophy of medicine [ 23 ] , causal inference [ 24 ] , medical decision making [ 25 ], clinical decision making [ 26 ], clinical decision analysis [ 27 ], and clinical reasoning [ 28 ]. An increasing number of monographs on logic and critical thinking in general have appeared [ 29 – 34 ] and their content is being adapted for medicine [ 35 – 37 ].

Everyday medical practice, whether in physicians’ offices or emergency departments or hospital wards, clearly involves “ reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe (meaning the understanding of the problem) and/or what to do (i.e. deciding what to do to solve the problem)” [ 7 , 38 ]. Table 1 lists specific abilities underlying critical thinking in medical practice.

Specific abilities underlying critical thinking in medical practice.

Critical thinking is also called for in medical research and medical writing. Editors of leading medical journals have called for it. Edward Huth [ 39 , 40 ], former editor of Annals of Internal Medicine, has urged that medical articles reflect better and more organized ways of reasoning. Richard Horton [ 41 , 42 ], former editor of The Lancet , has proposed the use in medical writing of a contemporary approach to argument along the lines used by the philosopher Toulmin [ 40 , 41 ]. Subsequently, two of us have developed this approach in detail for medicine [ 43 , 44 ]. Dickinson [ 45 ] has called for an argumentative approach in medical problem solving and brought it to the attention to the world of medical informatics and beyond.

Dual Process Theory

An important component of critical thinking is being aware of one’s own thinking processes. In recent years, two general modes of thinking have been described under an approach described as dual process theory. The model is universal and has been directly applied to medicine [ 46 – 48 ] and nursing [ 49 ]. One mode is fast, reflexive, autonomous, and generally referred to as intuitive or System 1 thinking. The other is slow, deliberate, rule-based, and referred to as analytical or System 2 thinking. The mechanisms that underlie System 1 thinking are based on associative learning and innate dispositions: the latter are hard-wired, as a result of the evolutionary history of our species, to respond reflexively to certain cues in the environment. We have discrete, functionally-specialized mental programs that were selected when the brain was undergoing significant development especially spanning the last 6 million years of hominid evolution [ 50 ]. Although these programs may have served us well in our ancestral past, they may not be appropriate in some aspects of modern living. Some of this System 1 substrate also underlies various heuristics and biases in our thinking – the tendency to take mental short-cuts, or demonstrate reflexive responses in certain situations, often on the basis of past experience. Not surprisingly, most error occurs in System 1 thinking.

Contemplative , or fully reflective thinking, is System 2 thinking. It suits any practice of medicine or medical research activity where there is time to utilise the best critically appraised evidence in a step-by-step process of reasoning and argument. Contemplative, fully reflective thinking is appropriate, for example, in internal medicine, psychiatry, public health, and other specialties, in etiological research and clinical trials, and in writing up the results of such research [ 35 ].

In contrast, a shortcut or heuristic approach [ 51 ] with somehow truncated thinking is often dictated by the realities of emergency medicine, surgery, obstetrics or any situation where there is incomplete information, bounded rationality, and insufficient time to be fully reflective. The extant findings and the decision maker’s experience are all that is available. The quintessential challenge for well-calibrated decision making is to optimise performance in System 1. Hogarth [ 52 ] sees this challenge as educating our intuitive processes and has delineated a variety of strategies through which this might be accomplished.

No responsible physician would engage in reflective thinking on every occasion when a decision has to be made. Such acute emergencies as sudden complications of labour and delivery, ruptured aneurysms, multiple trauma victims and other immediately life-threatening situations generally leave no time for fully reflective thinking. A shortcut or heuristic approach is required [ 51 ], involving pattern recognition, steepest ascent reasoning, or algorithmic paths [ 21 , 53 ]. There is of course a place for reflective thinking before and after such time-constrained emergency decisions. More generally, reflective thinking is called for in any aspect of medical practice where there is time and reason for it.

The distinction should be made between the involuntary autonomous nature of System 1 thinking and a deliberate decision to use a shortcut for expediency, which is System 2 thinking. There is normally an override function of System 2 over System 1 but this may be deliberately lifted under extreme conditions.

Future Direction

Critical thinking is a learned process which benefits from teaching and guided practice like any other discipline in health sciences. It was already proposed as part of an early medical curriculum [ 54 ]. If we are to train future generations of health professionals as critical thinkers, we should do so in the spirit of critical thinking as it stands today. Clinical teachers should know how to run a Socratic discourse, and in which situations it is appropriate. They should be aware of contemporary models of argument. Clinical teachers should be trained and experienced in engaging with their interns and residents in meaningful discourse while presenting and discussing morning reports, at floor and other rounds, in morbidity and mortality conferences, or at less informal ‘hallway’, ‘elevator’ or ‘coffee-maker/drinking fountain’ teaching sites for busy clinicians. Such discourse is better than so-called “pimping”, i.e. quizzing of juniors with objectives ranging from knowledge acquisition to embarrassment and humiliation [ 37 , 55 ].

Also, somebody should point out to trainees the relevance to the health context of some basics of informal logic, critical thinking and argumentation, if those basics have been acquired as the result of studying for their first undergraduate degree.

Unquestionably, the appropriate critically appraised best evidence should be used as a foundation for reasoning and argument about how to care for patients. But, if we want to link the best available evidence to a patient’s biology, the patient’s values and preferences, the clinical or community setting, and other circumstances, we should take all these factors into account in using the best available evidence to get to the beliefs and decisions that have the best possible support.

Such a reflective integration cannot be mastered by mere exposure. A learning experience is required. Trainees in medicine need to learn how to think critically [ 56 ], just as they need to learn contemporary approaches to ‘rational’ medical decision making: how to use Bayes’ theorem in the diagnostic process, how to determine the sample size in a clinical trial, how to analyze survival curves in prognosis and outcomes studies, and how to calculate odds ratios in case control research. To understand each other, the teacher and the learner should both know the fundamentals of reasoning and argument in medicine. To achieve this understanding, we can either offer separate and distinct courses on critical thinking and decision making in medicine; or spread learning, practice and experience in critical thinking and decision making across various specialties; or do both. Only the future will show which of the alternatives is better. The integrated approach seems more promising, but harder to implement. Given the limitations on the current medical undergraduate curriculum, we might be hard-pressed to persuade a curriculum committee that precious space and time should be allocated to such concepts. The overriding rationale, however, should be that the knowledge of critical and reflective thinking is declarative knowledge (knowing how) and not simply an addition of procedural knowledge (know-how) or explicit knowledge. The old adage about it being preferable to teach someone how to fish rather than giving them fish applies. Any new additions will need to be streamlined and practical. A teaching module on critical thinking might for example include attention to how we reason and make decisions, factors that may impair decision making, the concept of critical thinking, situations where critical thinking is appropriate, some basic principles of logic and some logical fallacies. However the teaching, learning and practice of critical thinking is incorporated in the medical curriculum, it will need to include not only the contemplative, fully reflective thinking on hospital floors and in clinics but also the shortcut thinking [ 57 ] in such heuristic environments as operating theatres or emergency departments [ 46 , 48 , 58 – 60 ].

Similar education is required as a basis for framing grant applications and research reports as reasoned arguments, especially in the discussion section [ 61 , 62 ]. We may see a day when most medical journals are what Paton [ 63 ] terms “reflective journals”. If an application for a research grant, a research proposal, or a group of research findings (systematically reviewed or not) presented in a medical article are all exercises in argumentation and critical thinking, their authors, readers, and editors should find a common language for all these types of scientific and professional communication.

Almost four decades ago Feinstein [ 64 ] asked what kind of basic science clinical medicine needs. At that time, he had mostly clinical biostatistics and epidemiology in mind. Recently, Redelmeier et al. [ 65 ] proposed to add cognitive psychology as one more basic science. It is time, we think, to add critical thinking to that list.

Competing interests

None declared.

Source of support: None. Departmental support to produce the manuscript is acknowledged and appreciated

• Find a Course
• For Business
• For Educators
• Product News

Analytical thinking: what it is and why it matters more than ever

January 30, 2024

Welcome back to our high-impact workplace skills series. We really enjoyed the conversations happening in the comments section of last week’s top skills of 2023 issue, so be sure to check those out for perspectives and insights from fellow members of our Career Chat community.

One comment that’s been on our mind came from Kendra Vivian Lewis , who asked some thoughtful questions about the comparative importance of workplace and technical skills and if there’s a way to forecast which skills will be important in the coming years. This week’s topic—analytical thinking, the number one skill on the list—is a great example as we explore both questions. Be sure to read to the end to discover a special offer that we’re running on Coursera Plus subscriptions through September 21.

What it means to think analytically

Analytical thinking involves using data to understand problems, identify potential solutions, and suggest the solution that’s most likely to have the desired impact. It’s similar to critical thinking skills , which are the skills you use to interpret information and make decisions.

In order to succeed as a strong analytical thinker, you also need to have strong technical skills in your field. Remember: technical skills describe the things you do, while workplace skills describe how you do them. So your workplace skills, used effectively, enhance your technical skills. That’s why we consider them to be high-impact—they stand to make your work more impactful than it would have been had you only used your technical skills.

To illustrate, suppose you just started a job as a data analyst for a think tank focused on climate change, and you’ve been tasked with raising community engagement in future climate action efforts.

You might start with your technical data analysis skills as you gather data from a few sources. Then, you’ll use your analytical thinking skills to determine the validity of each data source. Perhaps you’ll discard one source when you learn the research was funded by a firm with a financial stake in fossil fuel consumption. Your technical skills lead again as you clean data, and then you’ll return to your analytical thinking skills to analyze and interpret your findings, ultimately leading to your recommendation to start a transparency campaign to display water and energy use in the community.

Tell us in the comments: How do you use your analytical skills alongside your technical skills in your day-to-day work?

Why analytical skills top the list

To develop the skills list, the World Economic Forum surveyed 800+ global employers on their views of skills and jobs over the next five years, so this list is forward-looking. According to the Future of Jobs Report , employers believe analytical thinking skills will grow in importance by 72 percent in this timeframe.

The reason employers are keen to hire employees with strong analytical thinking skills is informed by trends in automation and technological advancements. While technical data analysis becomes easier with automation, reasoning and decision-making automation is advancing at a much slower pace—meaning employers anticipate that, within the next five years, we’ll have a wealth of data at our fingertips and too few people to interpret what that data means.

Where to begin

For a crash course in critical thinking, try the University of California, Davis’s Critical Thinking Skills for the Professional course. You can finish this beginner-level course in about 7 hours.

For a more comprehensive exploration into analytical thinking , try Duke University’s Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking Specialization . Over four courses, you’ll learn how to effectively argue and reason using logic.

For a technical process to guide your analytical thinking, try Google’s Data Analytics Professional Certificate . Ground your analytical thinking skills in technical know-how in this eight-course series.

Interested in multiple programs? Don’t miss this special offer!

Through September 21, we’re offering $100 off annual Coursera Plus subscriptions for new subscribers. With this offer, you’ll pay less than $25 per month for one year of access to 6,100 courses, Specializations, and Professional Certificates with flexibility to start new courses and move between programs at your pace.

This offer is a great choice if you are frequently tempted to enroll in multiple courses at once or plan to complete a Specialization or Professional Certificate within the next year. If that sounds like you, take a closer look at the offer and the Coursera Plus course catalog.

That’s all for this week! Join us next week to talk about motivation and self-awareness skills.

Keep reading

• Job search tips for a career change
• The latest courses, Specializations, and Professional Certifications in UX design, generative AI, real estate, and cybersecurity
• Job search tips for entry-level roles