Big Six Critical Research Skills and Critical Thinking: Detailed Study Notes

The Big Six Critical Research Skills and Critical Thinking

• Focus: How to leverage critical research skills to improve employability and decision-making in information-rich environments.
• Core framework: The Big Six research skills plus critical thinking processes for evaluating information, arguments, and evidence.
• Presented by: IS20150: Critical Research Skills (Week 2) with contributors Dr. Brendan Spillane & Dr. Conor Keogh; original slides by Dr Páraic Kerrigan.

Learning outcomes (overview)

• Begin to think meta-cognitively about critical thinking.
• Demonstrate awareness of identifying different kinds of arguments.
• Understand critical thinking in relation to the Big Six critical research skills.
• (From slides) Learning outcomes aim to frame thinking about arguments and research processes.

Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning

• Hierarchy of cognitive levels (from lowest to highest):
  • Level 1: Remember
  • Define, duplicate, list, memorize, repeat, state
  • Level 2: Understand
  • Classify, describe, discuss, explain, identify, locate, recognize, report, select, translate
  • Level 3: Apply
  • Execute, implement, solve, use, interpret, demonstrate, operate, schedule, sketch
  • Level 4: Analyze
  • Differentiate, organize, relate, compare, contrast, distinguish, examine, experiment, question, test
  • Level 5: Evaluate
  • Appraise, argue, defend, judge, select, support, value, critique, weight
  • Level 6: Create
  • Design, assemble, construct, conjector, develop, formulate, author, investigate
• See also: https://www.simplypsychology.org/blooms-taxonomy.html

Section 1: Critical Thinking and Identifying Arguments (Good and Bad)

• Core idea: Distinguish between arguments and other types of discourse; identify what constitutes an argument in a text.
• Modern day examples (depicted): Different types of sources (Leading Scientist, PhD Student, Media Expert, Karen on Facebook) across decades (1980s–2010s) to illustrate how arguments and credibility shift with sources.

Critical Thinking concepts and models

• Halpern (2003): Definition of critical thinking
  • "Critical thinking is the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome. It is used to describe thinking that is purposeful, reasoned, and goal directed." [1]
• Elder & Elder (2001): Definition of a well-cultivated critical thinker
  • Gathers and assesses relevant information, interprets it, questions conclusions against criteria and standards, thinks openly across alternative systems, considers assumptions and practical consequences, communicates effectively to solve complex problems. [2]
• See the video link for supplementary context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnJ1bqXUnIM

The elements of Cottrell’s model of Critical Thinking (CT) – key steps

• Stepwise elements (Cottrell, 2017):
  • Identifying other people’s positions, arguments, and conclusions
  • Evaluating evidence for alternative points of view
  • Weighing up opposing arguments fairly
  • Reading between the lines of arguments; identifying faulty arguments
  • Recognising rhetorical devices and false logic used to persuade
  • Reflecting in a structured way to consider logic and insight
  • Drawing justifiable conclusions based on good evidence and assumptions
  • Synthesising information to create your own argument
  • Challenging our own assumptions and testing them systematically
• Source: Cottrell, S. (2017). Critical thinking skills: Effective analysis, argument and reflection. (3rd ed.). London, UK: Palgrave.

Gerras’ Critical Thinking framework (six steps, phrasing varies)

• Step 1: Clarify Concern
• Step 2: Point of View
• Step 3: Assumptions
• Step 4: Inferences
• Step 5: Evaluation of Information
• Step 6: Implications

Step 1: Clarify Concern

• An argument is the author’s key message; what are they trying to tell us?
• An argument begins with a point of view or a perspective; the author tries to persuade the audience using reasons.
• To identify an argument, look for persuasive reasons and the conclusions the author wants you to accept.
• In clarifying the concern, ensure you:
  • Consider the complexities of the argument; avoid oversimplification.
  • Do not leave sub-components unaddressed.
  • Set out the argument in general terms to avoid cutting off useful elements.

Step 2: Point of View

• Consider the point of view adopted by the author and their discipline/background; how does this affect their writing?
• Be self-aware of your own point of view and how it might affect interpretation.
• Gerras emphasises egocentric tendencies as barriers to effective critical thinking.
• Egocentric tendencies described in military culture (examples):
  • Egocentric memory: forgetting information that does not support one’s view
  • Egocentric myopia: overly narrow point of view
  • Egocentric righteousness: belief of having figured out how the world works
  • Egocentric blindness: ignoring facts that contradict beliefs

Step 2: Point of View – What does not count as an argument?

• Disagreement alone is not critical thinking; it must present a point of view with logically connected reasons.
• Description: explains how something is done or what something is like; does not persuade a point of view.
• Explanations: may include reasons but do not persuade audiences of a point of view.
• Summaries: list key points without persuading a point of view.

Step 3: Assumptions

• Most arguments contain assumptions—things taken as true without proof.
• Questions to ask:
  • Are assumptions explicit or implicit?
  • Are hidden assumptions addressed or ignored? Do вони affect conclusions?
  • Are some assumptions unreasonable or false premises?
  • Do we disagree with the assumptions, and do they work in the context?

Step 4: Inference

• Definition: drawing logical conclusions from evidence and reasoning.
• Process:
  • Identify evidence (facts/data)
  • Link evidence to conclusion; assess if evidence logically supports the conclusion or if gaps exist
  • Consider alternative explanations that same evidence could support
• Common pitfalls:
  • Jumping to conclusions with insufficient evidence
  • Correlation vs. causation confusions
  • Overgeneralising from a single example
  • Ignoring counter-evidence
• Guiding question: Does this follow logically?

Step 5: Evaluation of Information

• How does the article generate findings from data?
• Watch for heuristics and logical fallacies that undermine evaluation.
• Assess whether premises are true/false, acceptable, relevant, and sufficient; determine if conclusions are well-supported.
• Be wary of literature relying on heuristics or simplifications or “rules of thumb.”

Step 5: Evaluation of Information – Biases, Traps and Errors

• Biases and traps to watch:
  • The confirmation trap: seeking confirmatory information and discarding inconsistent evidence
  • The fundamental attribution error: attributing actions to a person’s character rather than context
  • Logical fallacies: common errors in reasoning undermining argument logic
• A strong critical thinker also assesses the soundness of arguments using critical reasoning

Step 5: Evaluation of Information – Cotrell’s listed mistakes (examples of weak reasoning)

• Common mistakes include:
  • Assuming a causal link
  • Making false correlations
  • Not meeting necessary conditions to prove an argument (e.g., lottery scenario)
  • Not meeting sufficient conditions (e.g., winning lottery requires a winning ticket)
  • Making false analogies (invalid comparisons)
  • Deflecting by language to suggest proof that hasn’t occurred
  • Excluding objections by creating in/out-group complicity
  • Misrepresenting or trivialising opposing arguments

Step 6: Implications

• Implications = consequences of an argument or decision
• Questions to ask:
  • If this is true, what follows?
  • What are the intended and unintended outcomes?
  • Short-term vs. long-term effects
  • Who benefits and who is harmed?

Survivorship bias (context and fallacy)

• Definition: A form of sampling bias where attention focuses on winners that passed a selection process while ignoring those that did not.
• It can become a logical fallacy when faulty conclusions are drawn from the sample of survivors.

Section 2: The Big Six Critical Research Skills

• The Big Six are a structured framework for information problems and solutions:
  • Task Definition
  • Information-Seeking Strategies
  • Location and Access
  • Use of Information
  • Synthesis
  • Evaluation
• See: https://thebig6.org/

The Big Six Research Skills (detailed)

• 1) Task Definition
  • Identify information needed to complete the task
  • Questions to ask:
  • Do you need a specific number of journal articles?
  • Do you need a variety of printed or electronic resources?
  • Will you need statistics? Primary resources?
  • Define the information problem; shape and redefine research requirements; clarify responsibilities for the project.
• 2) Information-Seeking Strategies
  • Brainstorm the range of possible sources (a literature review context in college)
  • Possible sources: books, websites, exhibits, interviews, films, etc.
  • Evaluate sources to determine priorities; select the best sources based on the information needs.
• 3) Location and Access
  • Locate sources both intellectually and physically
  • Set up potential interviews; search library catalogs; use electronic databases
  • Find information within sources (e.g., chapters in books, page numbers in journals)
• 4) Use of Information
  • Engage with information: read, listen, or view
  • Extract relevant information; take notes supporting the information problem
• 5) Synthesis
  • Organise information from different sources; consider an outline for the final project
  • Present the information in a usable package for others
• 6) Evaluation
  • Evaluate the results and the process of the research

How this is important in the context of industry

• Assessing arguments and facts requires evidence to support a position.
• Develop a personal opinion or stance on a subject matter with supporting justification.
• Develop a workflow for the research process that yields credible, well-supported conclusions.
• Provide multiple perspectives and obtain essential information for informed decision making.