what are the benefit of critical thinking

Tips for Online Students , Tips for Students

Why Is Critical Thinking Important? A Survival Guide

Updated: June 19, 2024

Published: April 2, 2020

Why is critical thinking important? The decisions that you make affect your quality of life. And if you want to ensure that you live your best, most successful and happy life, you’re going to want to make conscious choices. That can be done with a simple thing known as critical thinking. Here’s how to improve your critical thinking skills and make decisions that you won’t regret.

What Is Critical Thinking?

You’ve surely heard of critical thinking, but you might not be entirely sure what it really means, and that’s because there are many definitions. For the most part, however, we think of critical thinking as the process of analyzing facts in order to form a judgment. Basically, it’s thinking about thinking.

How Has The Definition Evolved Over Time?

The first time critical thinking was documented is believed to be in the teachings of Socrates , recorded by Plato. But throughout history, the definition has changed.

Today it is best understood by philosophers and psychologists and it’s believed to be a highly complex concept. Some insightful modern-day critical thinking definitions include :

• “Reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.”
• “Deciding what’s true and what you should do.”

The Importance Of Critical Thinking

Why is critical thinking important? Good question! Here are a few undeniable reasons why it’s crucial to have these skills.

1. Critical Thinking Is Universal

Critical thinking is a domain-general thinking skill. What does this mean? It means that no matter what path or profession you pursue, these skills will always be relevant and will always be beneficial to your success. They are not specific to any field.

2. Crucial For The Economy

Our future depends on technology, information, and innovation. Critical thinking is needed for our fast-growing economies, to solve problems as quickly and as effectively as possible.

3. Improves Language & Presentation Skills

In order to best express ourselves, we need to know how to think clearly and systematically — meaning practice critical thinking! Critical thinking also means knowing how to break down texts, and in turn, improve our ability to comprehend.

4. Promotes Creativity

By practicing critical thinking, we are allowing ourselves not only to solve problems but also to come up with new and creative ideas to do so. Critical thinking allows us to analyze these ideas and adjust them accordingly.

5. Important For Self-Reflection

Without critical thinking, how can we really live a meaningful life? We need this skill to self-reflect and justify our ways of life and opinions. Critical thinking provides us with the tools to evaluate ourselves in the way that we need to.

6. The Basis Of Science & Democracy

In order to have a democracy and to prove scientific facts, we need critical thinking in the world. Theories must be backed up with knowledge. In order for a society to effectively function, its citizens need to establish opinions about what’s right and wrong (by using critical thinking!).

Benefits Of Critical Thinking

We know that critical thinking is good for society as a whole, but what are some benefits of critical thinking on an individual level? Why is critical thinking important for us?

1. Key For Career Success

Critical thinking is crucial for many career paths. Not just for scientists, but lawyers , doctors, reporters, engineers , accountants, and analysts (among many others) all have to use critical thinking in their positions. In fact, according to the World Economic Forum, critical thinking is one of the most desirable skills to have in the workforce, as it helps analyze information, think outside the box, solve problems with innovative solutions, and plan systematically.

2. Better Decision Making

There’s no doubt about it — critical thinkers make the best choices. Critical thinking helps us deal with everyday problems as they come our way, and very often this thought process is even done subconsciously. It helps us think independently and trust our gut feeling.

3. Can Make You Happier!

While this often goes unnoticed, being in touch with yourself and having a deep understanding of why you think the way you think can really make you happier. Critical thinking can help you better understand yourself, and in turn, help you avoid any kind of negative or limiting beliefs, and focus more on your strengths. Being able to share your thoughts can increase your quality of life.

4. Form Well-Informed Opinions

There is no shortage of information coming at us from all angles. And that’s exactly why we need to use our critical thinking skills and decide for ourselves what to believe. Critical thinking allows us to ensure that our opinions are based on the facts, and help us sort through all that extra noise.

5. Better Citizens

One of the most inspiring critical thinking quotes is by former US president Thomas Jefferson: “An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” What Jefferson is stressing to us here is that critical thinkers make better citizens, as they are able to see the entire picture without getting sucked into biases and propaganda.

6. Improves Relationships

While you may be convinced that being a critical thinker is bound to cause you problems in relationships, this really couldn’t be less true! Being a critical thinker can allow you to better understand the perspective of others, and can help you become more open-minded towards different views.

7. Promotes Curiosity

Critical thinkers are constantly curious about all kinds of things in life, and tend to have a wide range of interests. Critical thinking means constantly asking questions and wanting to know more, about why, what, who, where, when, and everything else that can help them make sense of a situation or concept, never taking anything at face value.

8. Allows For Creativity

Critical thinkers are also highly creative thinkers, and see themselves as limitless when it comes to possibilities. They are constantly looking to take things further, which is crucial in the workforce.

9. Enhances Problem Solving Skills

Those with critical thinking skills tend to solve problems as part of their natural instinct. Critical thinkers are patient and committed to solving the problem, similar to Albert Einstein, one of the best critical thinking examples, who said “It’s not that I’m so smart; it’s just that I stay with problems longer.” Critical thinkers’ enhanced problem-solving skills makes them better at their jobs and better at solving the world’s biggest problems. Like Einstein, they have the potential to literally change the world.

10. An Activity For The Mind

Just like our muscles, in order for them to be strong, our mind also needs to be exercised and challenged. It’s safe to say that critical thinking is almost like an activity for the mind — and it needs to be practiced. Critical thinking encourages the development of many crucial skills such as logical thinking, decision making, and open-mindness.

11. Creates Independence

When we think critically, we think on our own as we trust ourselves more. Critical thinking is key to creating independence, and encouraging students to make their own decisions and form their own opinions.

12. Crucial Life Skill

Critical thinking is crucial not just for learning, but for life overall! Education isn’t just a way to prepare ourselves for life, but it’s pretty much life itself. Learning is a lifelong process that we go through each and every day.

How to Think Critically

Now that you know the benefits of thinking critically, how do you actually do it?

How To Improve Your Critical Thinking

• Define Your Question: When it comes to critical thinking, it’s important to always keep your goal in mind. Know what you’re trying to achieve, and then figure out how to best get there.
• Gather Reliable Information: Make sure that you’re using sources you can trust — biases aside. That’s how a real critical thinker operates!
• Ask The Right Questions: We all know the importance of questions, but be sure that you’re asking the right questions that are going to get you to your answer.
• Look Short & Long Term: When coming up with solutions, think about both the short- and long-term consequences. Both of them are significant in the equation.
• Explore All Sides: There is never just one simple answer, and nothing is black or white. Explore all options and think outside of the box before you come to any conclusions.

How Is Critical Thinking Developed At School?

Critical thinking is developed in nearly everything we do. However, much of this important skill is encouraged to be practiced at school, and rightfully so! Critical thinking goes beyond just thinking clearly — it’s also about thinking for yourself.

When a teacher asks a question in class, students are given the chance to answer for themselves and think critically about what they learned and what they believe to be accurate. When students work in groups and are forced to engage in discussion, this is also a great chance to expand their thinking and use their critical thinking skills.

How Does Critical Thinking Apply To Your Career?

Once you’ve finished school and entered the workforce, your critical thinking journey only expands and grows from here!

Impress Your Employer

Employers value employees who are critical thinkers, ask questions, offer creative ideas, and are always ready to offer innovation against the competition. No matter what your position or role in a company may be, critical thinking will always give you the power to stand out and make a difference.

Careers That Require Critical Thinking

Some of many examples of careers that require critical thinking include:

• Human resources specialist
• Marketing associate
• Business analyst

Truth be told however, it’s probably harder to come up with a professional field that doesn’t require any critical thinking!

Photo by  Oladimeji Ajegbile  from  Pexels

What is someone with critical thinking skills capable of doing.

Someone with critical thinking skills is able to think rationally and clearly about what they should or not believe. They are capable of engaging in their own thoughts, and doing some reflection in order to come to a well-informed conclusion.

A critical thinker understands the connections between ideas, and is able to construct arguments based on facts, as well as find mistakes in reasoning.

The Process Of Critical Thinking

The process of critical thinking is highly systematic.

What Are Your Goals?

Critical thinking starts by defining your goals, and knowing what you are ultimately trying to achieve.

Once you know what you are trying to conclude, you can foresee your solution to the problem and play it out in your head from all perspectives.

What Does The Future Of Critical Thinking Hold?

The future of critical thinking is the equivalent of the future of jobs. In 2020, critical thinking was ranked as the 2nd top skill (following complex problem solving) by the World Economic Forum .

We are dealing with constant unprecedented changes, and what success is today, might not be considered success tomorrow — making critical thinking a key skill for the future workforce.

Why Is Critical Thinking So Important?

Why is critical thinking important? Critical thinking is more than just important! It’s one of the most crucial cognitive skills one can develop.

By practicing well-thought-out thinking, both your thoughts and decisions can make a positive change in your life, on both a professional and personal level. You can hugely improve your life by working on your critical thinking skills as often as you can.

At UoPeople, our blog writers are thinkers, researchers, and experts dedicated to curating articles relevant to our mission: making higher education accessible to everyone.

Related Articles

• Get started with computers
• Learn Microsoft Office
• Apply for a job
• Improve my work skills
• Design nice-looking docs
• Getting Started
• Smartphones & Tablets
• Typing Tutorial
• Online Learning
• Basic Internet Skills
• Online Safety
• Social Media
• Zoom Basics
• Google Docs
• Google Sheets
• Career Planning
• Resume Writing
• Cover Letters
• Job Search and Networking
• Business Communication
• Entrepreneurship 101
• Careers without College
• Job Hunt for Today
• 3D Printing
• Freelancing 101
• Personal Finance
• Sharing Economy
• Decision-Making
• Graphic Design
• Photography
• Image Editing
• Learning WordPress
• Language Learning
• Critical Thinking
• For Educators
• Translations
• Staff Picks
• English expand_more expand_less

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making  - What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking and decision-making  -, what is critical thinking, critical thinking and decision-making what is critical thinking.

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making: What is Critical Thinking?

Lesson 1: what is critical thinking, what is critical thinking.

Critical thinking is a term that gets thrown around a lot. You've probably heard it used often throughout the years whether it was in school, at work, or in everyday conversation. But when you stop to think about it, what exactly is critical thinking and how do you do it ?

Watch the video below to learn more about critical thinking.

Simply put, critical thinking is the act of deliberately analyzing information so that you can make better judgements and decisions . It involves using things like logic, reasoning, and creativity, to draw conclusions and generally understand things better.

This may sound like a pretty broad definition, and that's because critical thinking is a broad skill that can be applied to so many different situations. You can use it to prepare for a job interview, manage your time better, make decisions about purchasing things, and so much more.

The process

As humans, we are constantly thinking . It's something we can't turn off. But not all of it is critical thinking. No one thinks critically 100% of the time... that would be pretty exhausting! Instead, it's an intentional process , something that we consciously use when we're presented with difficult problems or important decisions.

Improving your critical thinking

In order to become a better critical thinker, it's important to ask questions when you're presented with a problem or decision, before jumping to any conclusions. You can start with simple ones like What do I currently know? and How do I know this? These can help to give you a better idea of what you're working with and, in some cases, simplify more complex issues.  

Real-world applications

Let's take a look at how we can use critical thinking to evaluate online information . Say a friend of yours posts a news article on social media and you're drawn to its headline. If you were to use your everyday automatic thinking, you might accept it as fact and move on. But if you were thinking critically, you would first analyze the available information and ask some questions :

• What's the source of this article?
• Is the headline potentially misleading?
• What are my friend's general beliefs?
• Do their beliefs inform why they might have shared this?

After analyzing all of this information, you can draw a conclusion about whether or not you think the article is trustworthy.

Critical thinking has a wide range of real-world applications . It can help you to make better decisions, become more hireable, and generally better understand the world around you.

/en/problem-solving-and-decision-making/why-is-it-so-hard-to-make-decisions/content/

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

• It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
• The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
• The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

• suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
• an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
• the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
• the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
• testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

• Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
• Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
• Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
• Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
• Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
• Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
• Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
• Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
• Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
• Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
• Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

• Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
• Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
• Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
• Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
• Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
• Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

• reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
• distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
• indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
• orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
• being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
• being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
• doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
• reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
• attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
• winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

• Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
• Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
• Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
• In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
• Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• –––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
• –––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
• Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
• Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
• Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• –––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• –––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• –––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
• Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Insight Assessment
• Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
• The Critical Thinking Consortium
• The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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 June 24, 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, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

11 Benefits of Critical Thinking That Rapidly Improve Your Life

Anthony metivier.

• July 4, 2023
• Critical Thinking , Podcast

Podcast: Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS

The number is huge and here’s why:

The value of learning to think critically compounds over time.

In fact, the more you practice, the more positive outcomes you’ll experience. 

So let’s dive into these benefits and point out some tips that you probably haven’t applied before. 

The best part?

We’ll exercise our critical thinking skills as we go as I demonstrate a few ways I’ve used critical thinking myself. 

Why Is Critical Thinking Important?

See what I just did there?

I asked a question to demonstrate the first major benefit.

Asking and knowing why something matters helps you:

• Place it in context
• Learn about its history
• Unpack and analyze its parts

For example, we know that human civilization only really starts going when people started to think. 

And that probably only became possible because our ancestors discovered how to irrigate land for farming. 

Although human history is obviously more complex than that, it’s also pretty simple: If you don’t have to spend all your time hunting and foraging for food, you can rest and think more. 

The more you can rest and think, the more you can think about maximizing your free time, which is ultimately what gave rise to the Internet we’re using to communicate with each other now. 

This means that more free time and better communication between people make critical thinking so important.

Because the better you get at thinking critically, the more free time and better communication you will enjoy. 

11 Incredible Benefits Of Critical Thinking

The following list of the benefits you can expect from thinking more critically are in no particular order of importance. 

But that doesn’t mean they can’t be ordered. You can benefit a great deal by thinking through which of these benefits you feel are the most important. Use ordering as a means of practicing your objective reasoning skills.

One: Critical Thinking Gives You Practice In Multiple Disciplines

Want to be able to think faster?

Use “mental rotation.”

When I was in university, and even to this day, I used this critical thinking skill.

Here’s how it works:

Let’s say you are given a problem to solve, such as inner city poverty. 

It’s a huge benefit when you can look at the problem from several perspectives, rather than just one. For example, you can mentally rotate through:

• Political perspectives
• Psychological perspectives
• Biological perspectives
• Ethnographic perspectives
• Historical perspectives 
• Economic perspectives
• Ethical perspectives

The critical thinking benefits of “rotating” through these perspectives happen because they exercise your thinking skills . As your perspective grows, you can spot more possible options for the next benefit.

Two: Avoid Unnecessary Problems

The more perspectives you have, the more models you can mentally navigate. These models (like the ones listed above) help you imagine different outcomes. 

Essentially, you enable yourself to create multiple versions of the W.R.A.P. technique taught in the training on ars combinatoria , an early critical thinking tool you might want to explore. It’s just one of several critical thinking strategies you’ll want to learn.

Of course, not all problems are avoidable, and it would not be appropriate to think critical thinking will create some kind of friction free paradise. 

But although some decisions will always create new issues, you can seriously reduce the negative impact of those decisions in advance simply by thinking things through with the widest variety of mental tools you can find.

Three: Brain Exercise

You get brain exercise from critical thinking for a few reasons.

When you shift through multiple perspectives, you’ll be promoting cognitive switching . Research shows that this mental movement is the healthy equivalent of walking for your heart and lungs. Only in this case, the benefits are directed at your brain.

In this case, you’ll be getting even more benefits thanks to how critical thinking gets used in conversations. For example, a fit brain is much more likely to use objective reasoning and avoid the traps of subjective reasoning. 

Here are more brain exercises I think you’ll enjoy.

Four: Personal Time Expands

Now, we’ve talked about how critical thinking was used to help entire societies expand their free time. This works at the individual level too.

For example, if you run an online business and want more free time, nothing will help you faster than applying critical thinking skills to how you can release yourself from certain tasks.

If you’re a student, you can learn techniques like interleaving , just one way of several authentic ways to read faster. 

But, if you don’t have critical thinking skills to help cut through the rubbish and pseudoscience out there, you could wind up losing time instead of gaining it.

Five: Communication And Your Use Of Language Improves

Like any area of skill, you will learn new vocabulary when you study critical thinking . 

New words directly lead to improved language abilities. 

Plus, you’ll gain a sense of which kinds of words and phrases to use in which contexts. 

Linking thinking with better use of language has always been part of the memory tradition we discuss on this blog. It goes back at least as far as 90 BCE where it was codified in Rhetorica ad Herennium .

Six: Scientific Living Improves Health

When you use your mind well, you’ll be able to make much better decisions related to your health.

For one thing, instead of always taking your doctor’s word for it, you’ll learn to understand the math behind their decisions and decide just how much it applies to you.

This relates to the use of language as well. For example, how many people know that “doctor” is the Latin word for “teacher.”

If you start to think about your own medical professionals in this light and treat them as the starting point for educating yourself, you’ll probably make much better health decisions.

Plus, when you know word origins like this, an important skill for critical thinkers, you’re able to think faster on your feet.

That is very beneficial for our text major set of benefits:

Seven: Catch Yourself In Conversations

How many times have you found yourself in a loop of self punishment after saying something you regretted?

According to psychoanalysts like Robert Langs and Robert Haskell, we “encode” unconscious ideas in how we speak. 

Now, some critics think these thinkers were reaching after hidden meanings that aren’t there. Although it is true that some of the evidence presented by both is questionable, at least in Langs’ case, he was protecting the identities of his clients.

I feel that Langs has compelling ideas and one of the issues he faces is simply that his theory attempts to account for criticisms leveled at it. As a result, there is a history of people going on the attack rather than having a decent conversation about the topic.

And that’s said because if Langs is even remotely correct, we could all stand to reduce a lot of unnecessary problems from our lives by holding our tongues in advance, rather than feeling badly about the innuendo encoded in our speech later.

Eight: Intellectual Honesty Increases

I give the Langs example because the contemporary world is filled with bad actors willing to criticize theories or ideas they haven’t fully explored or tried. 

That leads to intellectual dishonesty and it harms many people. 

But if you’re willing to admit that you haven’t looked at something enough to think critically about it, you do everyone a favor. You also save yourself a huge amount of time and energy because you don’t have to backtrack, watch your back or have part of your brain monitoring the environment for threats created by a lack of integrity. 

Nine: Critical Thinking Promotes Independence

People who fail to acquire the advantages of critical thinking never experience as much independence as they could.

Obviously, we always want to consult others. That need is never going to go out of fashion.

But there are many situations in life where we simply don’t have the luxury of getting a second opinion. And when that happens, we want to be able to rely upon ourselves. 

The problem is… what if you can’t remember how to use the tools of critical thinking?

Don’t worry. I’ve got you covered. 

Once you can remember the critical thinking tools and perspectives you’d added to your mental toolkit, you can use the same Memory Palace technique to train yourself to use them almost on autopilot. 

Ten: Better Career

Who enjoys the best jobs on the market?

The people who can think on their feet and consistently make great decisions. 

Not only that, but they’re able to accomplish other lifestyle goals a lot faster because they have great careers. 

Think about it. When you have a great job, you’ll enjoy:

• Better salary
• Gold standard health insurance
• Retirement packages
• Company perks like travel expenses and a car
• Nicer offices to work in
• Closer access to higher level colleagues
• The pleasures of contributing more, etc.

Eleven: Everyone Becomes A Better Citizen Of Planet Earth

Of course, you don’t have to be (or even want to be) a top level employee or executive manager. 

You can enjoy the benefits of contributing to your fellow humans no matter what roles you choose in life.

Merely by learning the importance of critical thinking and applying it in daily life, you will be helping other people. 

How Many More Benefits Do You Want? 

As you can probably tell, there’s a fair amount of crossover between these benefits. 

And that means you can expect a lot more than eleven  benefits as you practice critical thinking in your daily life.

I know because I taught a fourth year Critical Thinking course for several years as a professor.

I saw many students experience all of the benefits on this page and more. 

If I were to sum it up in one word, it would be that they flourished . 

This means that they were more than happy. They enjoyed an abundance of positive rewards, and all because they took a bit of time to learn how to think better.

So what do you say? Are you ready to start practicing your thinking skills ? Let me know in the comments section and together we can contribute so much to the world. 

Related Posts

Reading on its own is not enough. You also need critical thinking strategies. Here are…

Real life critical thinking examples are hard to come by. This post gives you 7…

Most critical thinking quotes have nothing to do with the critical part. These 5 quotes…

Most barriers to critical to critical thinking are easily removed. Read this post to boost…

2 Responses

I love to make critical thinking a part of my life, I love to think between lines. My name is Stanley Joseph Dean.

Thanks for stopping by, Stanley.

Critical thinking is indeed a great thing to do and helps with reading between the lines.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

I accept the Privacy Policy

WANT TO LEARN SIMPLE EVERYDAY THINGS WITHOUT FORGETTING?

Enter your email below to get instant access to my FREE course that gives you a proven step-by-step process for remembering anything you want . You'll discover how to:

• Speak any language fluently
• Recall complicated formulas, math equations, or numbers.
• Master the technical terms for your field of work or study.
• Recite poetry, jokes, and even long speeches word-for-word
• Quickly absorb the most important ideas from books, textbooks, or lectures...

Unlock your natural ability to learn and remember anything 3x faster now!

ABOUT ANTHONY METIVIER

Anthony Metivier is the founder of the Magnetic Memory Method, a systematic, 21st century approach to memorizing foreign language vocabulary, names, music, poetry and more in ways that are easy, elegant, effective and fun.

Dr. Metivier holds a Ph.D. in Humanities from York University and has been featured in Forbes, Viva Magazine, Fluent in 3 Months, Daily Stoic, Learning How to Learn and he has delivered one of the most popular TEDx Talks on memory improvement.

His most popular books include, The Victorious Mind and… Read More

Anthony Metivier taught as a professor at:

POPULAR POSTS

Recent posts, 7 meaningful ways to improve cognitive function, memory & focus, how to build virtual memory palaces & use them for learning, maximum learning in minimum time with exam study expert william wadsworth, why can’t i remember what i read 4 ugly truths & 6 fast fixes, how to remember things: 19 proven memory techniques, pay with confidence.

P.O. Box 933 Mooloolaba, QLD 4557 Australia

MEMORY COURSES

Quick links, memory boosting tips & tutorials.

Copyright © 2012 – 2024 Anthony Metivier · Advanced Education Methodologies Pty Ltd

This Is the Secret to Remembering EVERYTHING Better

Enter your email below to get instant access to my exclusive course that will show you how to use memory palaces to MASSIVELY improve your memory so you can learn new skills, retain information, and stay sharp .

Critical Thinking & Why It’s So Important

Critical thinking is a cognitive skill with the power to unlock the full potential of your mind. In today’s rapidly evolving society, where information is abundant but discerning its validity is becoming increasingly challenging, the art of critical thinking has never been more crucial.

At Nichols College, we believe that cultivating strong critical thinking abilities is not just a pursuit for the academically inclined, but a fundamental necessity for individuals across all walks of life. Join us as we explore the significance of critical thinking and the remarkable impact it can have on your decision-making, problem-solving, and overall cognitive prowess.

Discover why our Graduate Certificate program in Advanced Critical Thinking and Decision Making is your gateway to becoming a perceptive and adept thinker, ready to tackle the complex challenges of today’s world with confidence and ingenuity.

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is a fundamental skill that allows individuals to analyze, evaluate, and interpret information objectively and rationally. It goes beyond merely accepting information at face value; instead, critical thinkers are equipped to delve deeper, question assumptions, and explore various perspectives before arriving at well-informed conclusions. This ability to think critically is highly valued across various domains, including education, business, and everyday life.

Benefits of using critical thinking

The countless advantages of critical thinking extend far beyond the realms of academia. For starters, critical thinking fosters superior decision-making by equipping individuals with the tools to weigh options, assess consequences, and arrive at better choices. Critical thinkers also benefit from heightened self-reflection, gaining a profound understanding of their own biases and areas for improvement.

Critical thinkers become well-informed individuals who can navigate the sea of information with discernment, adeptly identifying misinformation and unreliable sources. Furthermore, this invaluable skill enables creative problem-solving, allowing thinkers to craft innovative solutions to intricate challenges. Some of the most important benefits of using critical thinking include:

Better decision making

Critical thinkers excel at weighing pros and cons, considering alternatives, and anticipating potential consequences. This leads to more informed and effective decision-making processes, both in personal and professional realms.

Better self-reflection

By fostering a habit of introspection, critical thinkers become more self-aware, recognizing their own biases and limitations. This heightened self-awareness allows them to continually improve and adapt their thinking patterns.

Being well-informed

Critical thinkers actively seek out diverse sources of information, ensuring they have a comprehensive understanding of complex issues. This empowers them to engage in meaningful discussions and contribute constructively to their communities.

The ability to identify misinformation

In a world filled with misinformation, critical thinkers possess the skills to discern fact from fiction. They scrutinize sources, verify information, and avoid being misled by deceptive content.

Building creative problem solving skills

Critical thinking encourages innovative and outside-the-box problem-solving approaches. By considering multiple angles and challenging conventional ideas, critical thinkers arrive at inventive solutions to complex challenges.

What skills do critical thinkers have?

Critical thinkers possess a remarkable set of skills that elevate their cognitive abilities and enable them to approach complex issues with acuity. Embracing these skills empowers them to tackle challenges, unravel complexities, and make meaningful insights and well-informed decisions. Some of the most valuable skills critical thinkers have include:

Critical thinkers have a natural inclination to ask questions and explore topics in-depth. Their thirst for knowledge drives them to seek out answers and continually expand their understanding.

Proficient in conducting thorough research, critical thinkers gather information from reliable sources and assess its validity. They are skilled at distinguishing credible data from biased or unsubstantiated claims.

Pattern recognition

Critical thinkers recognize recurring patterns and connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of information. This allows them to draw meaningful insights and make well-founded predictions.

Bias identification

Having honed the ability to identify biases, critical thinkers remain open-minded and impartial in their assessments. They acknowledge their own biases and strive to approach each situation objectively.

How to use critical thinking skills in the workplace

In any work environment, critical thinking is a valuable asset that can enhance productivity and foster a more innovative and collaborative workplace. Employees with strong critical thinking skills contribute to problem-solving sessions, provide constructive feedback, and make informed decisions based on thorough analysis. By promoting critical thinking, organizations encourage employees to challenge assumptions, seek out novel solutions, and contribute to the overall growth and success of the company.

Examples of good critical thinking in action

The real-world application of critical thinking can be awe-inspiring, as it empowers individuals to approach various scenarios with astute judgment and creativity. In the business realm and with regard to project management, critical thinkers demonstrate their prowess by:

• Analyzing Market Trends : A marketing professional employs critical thinking skills to assess market trends, consumer behavior, and competitor strategies before devising a successful marketing campaign that aligns with the target audience’s needs.
• Problem-Solving in Project Management : A project manager utilizes critical thinking to identify potential roadblocks, consider alternative approaches, and ensure projects are executed efficiently and within budget.

Furthermore, critical thinkers shine in scientific research, meticulously evaluating data, and drawing evidence-based conclusions that contribute to groundbreaking discoveries. In everyday life, they navigate the digital landscape with discernment, identifying misinformation and making informed decisions about their health, finances, and general well-being. These examples illustrate the power of critical thinking to transform not only individual lives but also entire industries, making it an indispensable skill in the pursuit of success and progress.

Get a critical thinking graduate certificate from Nichols College

If you are eager to enhance your problem-solving abilities, decision-making processes, and overall cognitive skills, the Nichols College graduate certificate in critical thinking may be right for you. Designed to equip individuals with the necessary tools to excel in today’s complex world, this program will empower you to think critically, analyze data effectively, and approach challenges with creativity and confidence. Elevate your potential and join Nichols College in cultivating a new generation of sharp-minded leaders, ready to make a positive impact on the world. Enroll in the Advanced Critical Thinking and Decision Making certificate program today and unlock a brighter future for yourself and your community.

• Master of Science in Counterterrorism
• Critical Thinking Certificate
• Career Paths
• Financial Aid
• Request Information

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Critical Thinking Is About Asking Better Questions

• John Coleman

Six practices to sharpen your inquiry.

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze and effectively break down an issue in order to make a decision or find a solution. At the heart of critical thinking is the ability to formulate deep, different, and effective questions. For effective questioning, start by holding your hypotheses loosely. Be willing to fundamentally reconsider your initial conclusions — and do so without defensiveness. Second, listen more than you talk through active listening. Third, leave your queries open-ended, and avoid yes-or-no questions. Fourth, consider the counterintuitive to avoid falling into groupthink. Fifth, take the time to stew in a problem, rather than making decisions unnecessarily quickly. Last, ask thoughtful, even difficult, follow-ups.

Are you tackling a new and difficult problem at work? Recently promoted and trying to both understand your new role and bring a fresh perspective? Or are you new to the workforce and seeking ways to meaningfully contribute alongside your more experienced colleagues? If so, critical thinking — the ability to analyze and effectively break down an issue in order to make a decision or find a solution — will be core to your success. And at the heart of critical thinking is the ability to formulate deep, different, and effective questions.

• JC John Coleman is the author of the HBR Guide to Crafting Your Purpose . Subscribe to his free newsletter, On Purpose , follow him on Twitter @johnwcoleman, or contact him at johnwilliamcoleman.com.

Partner Center

To appreciate the benefits of Critical thinking, its worthwhile to ask the psychologists about 'how we think', and then see where Critical thinking actually fits in. 

  two systems of thinking.

Over the decades there has been plenty of research into how we think and make decisions. Daniel Kahneman is a noble prize winning researcher who did a lot of research on the cognitive processes of the brain and how it makes judgments under various conditions. 

Kahneman in his book ‘Thinking fast and Slow’ states that we need to look at our thinking processes as consisting of two distinct and different types of processes. He calls them ‘System 1 thinking’ and System 2 thinking’. 

System 1 and system 2 are not associated with the left or right brains or with creativity or any physical parts of the brain in the human body. But these are names given to two different types of thinking. 

Kahneman gives some examples to illustrate the two types of thinking:  

The Angry woman 

When you look at the picture above, and are asked what is the woman thinking or emotion that she is experiencing, you are most likely to find that your brain has deciphered the emotion to be one of anger - and this understanding that the woman is angry is almost instantaneous. You did not have to concentrate, analyze or mentally compare with past interpretations of the look to arrive at your conclusion that she is angry. 

 Numerical example 

Or lets take a look at another example that Kahneman gives. Take a look at the problem below, and decide whether each of the answers below is correct 

17x24 = ? 

• 120068 ? 

In the first three answers you would have found that you did not need any time to decide that the answers are wrong. But when you came to 568, its quite likely that your brain paused for a moment and considered the answer. Could this be correct? 

And as I have seen in several workshops, most people declare that it is the right answer. The number of digits look right, the number ends in a ‘8’ which the right answer should end in.  

Critical thinking benefits- at a glance

There is a qualitative difference in the way our thinking operates while negating the first three numbers, and while considering and evaluating whether 568 is the right answer. In the first three instances, we did not need to pause to think - we knew the answers were wrong. But in the last instance - we paused, evaluated for short or long, and then delivered a verdict - of right or wrong.  

The brain focused on the problem, put in some concentration and effort in the evaluation. Kahneman calls this deliberate, attention giving type of thinking as System 2 thinking. 

• System 2 thinking requires attention and effort, and the activity suffers if attention is disrupted. System 2 thinking is also associated with the feeling of agency. When we think of ourselves as a person, it is system 2 thinking. 
• System 1 operates automatically and quickly with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control 
• system 2 allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it including complex computations 
• The operations of system two are often associated with the subjective experience of agency choice and concentration 

When we think of others we identify with system 2 

• let's take a look at some of the system one activities 
• detect that one object is more distant than another 
• Orient to the source of a certain sound 
• Complete the phrase bread an 
• detect hostility in a voice 
• answer to 2 + 2 is equal to 
• Read words on large billboards 
• Drive a car on an empty Rd 
• Find a strong move in chess especially if you're a chess master. those who might not be experts in chess uh they would not necessarily have an operation of system one thinking  they but they would need system 2 thinking 

The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one feature in common: they require attention and are disrupted when attention is drawn away. Here are some examples:    

•  Check the validity of a complex logical argument. 
•  Budgeting for building a house 
•  Developing a marketing strategy 
•  Fill out a Tax return 
•  Brace for the starter gun in a race.  
• Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room. 

Critical thinking is a system 2 activity.  It is a consciously directed activity and needs attention and effort.  If attention is taken away from the activity on hand the activity gets disrupted.

....And now for the benefits of Critical thinking skills

Enhanced problem-solving: Critical thinking helps individuals break down complex problems into manageable parts, identify underlying issues, and generate effective solutions. It promotes a systematic approach to problem-solving, reducing reliance on assumptions or biases.

Improved decision-making: Critical thinking involves evaluating evidence, considering multiple perspectives, and weighing the pros and cons of different options. This leads to more informed and rational decision-making, minimizing the influence of emotions or personal biases.

Increased creativity: Critical thinking encourages individuals to think outside the box, challenge established norms, and explore alternative viewpoints. It fosters creativity and innovation by promoting open-mindedness and the ability to generate unique ideas.

Effective communication: Critical thinking helps individuals express their thoughts and ideas clearly, logically, and persuasively. It enables them to analyze and construct arguments, recognize fallacies, and communicate their viewpoints with evidence-based reasoning.

Stronger analytical skills: Critical thinking enhances analytical skills by training individuals to gather relevant information, evaluate its credibility and validity, and draw logical conclusions. It enables them to identify patterns, make connections, and think critically about the implications of data.

Increased self-awareness: Critical thinking involves self-reflection and the examination of one's own beliefs, biases, and assumptions. It allows individuals to become more aware of their cognitive processes, biases, and areas for improvement, fostering personal growth and intellectual humility.

Effective problem prevention: Critical thinking is not only about solving existing problems but also about preventing them. By critically evaluating situations and potential outcomes, individuals can anticipate problems, identify potential risks, and take proactive measures to avoid or mitigate them.

Better academic and professional performance: Critical thinking is highly valued in academic and professional settings. It equips individuals with the skills necessary for research, analysis, and argumentation, leading to improved academic performance, better job prospects, and career advancement.

Enhanced empathy and understanding: Critical thinking involves considering diverse perspectives and evaluating evidence objectively. This fosters empathy, tolerance, and a willingness to understand viewpoints different from one's own. It promotes respectful dialogue and effective collaboration with others.

Lifelong learning: Critical thinking is essential for continuous learning and intellectual growth. It encourages individuals to question assumptions, seek out reliable information, and remain open to new ideas and knowledge. It empowers individuals to become lifelong learners, adapting to new challenges and opportunities.

Critical thinking training in Sales

Sales leaders trained in critical thinking would appreciate Aristotle's triangle of persuasion, and easily apply the relevant modes of convincing required for different sales situations. They would also realize that every sales proposal is an inductive argument which answers the questions' why this solution' and 'why my company'. Structuring logically strong proposals is a breeze once you understand inductive reasoning.  Read about how critical thinking applies in B2B sales.

Critical thinking training for HR

HR professionals who are aware of fallacies and tactics such as 'Poisoning the well', 'hasty generalization' and selection bias will find it easier to understand and deal with employees and get better at evaluating people and situations. An understanding of various fallacies and cognitive biases would mitigate the risks of bad decisions due to faulty reasoning. They would also understand that 'Resume's are an exercise in Inductive arguments to prove why a candidate is the best fit for the job, and this would help in better shortlisting, interviewing and selection of candidates.

Critical thinking training for Analysts and Consultants

Business analysts, Consultants would find an understanding of Causal reasoning extremely useful, and an appreciation of common errors would result in better diagnosis of root causes of problems, and also provide a good framework for understanding whether the recommended solution would indeed address the problem identified. Regular application of the Critical thinking framework to problem solving and decision making ensures that the issue is examined from all relevant angles and perspectives before a solution is accepted.                                 

Critical thinking training for Managers

Managers are called to make decisions and solve problems and devise strategies on an ongoing basis. While domain knowledge and experience have a great role to play in being successful, knowledge of fallacies and cognitive biases will ensure that they do not make errors in reasoning, and also whet their solutions for eliminating any cognitive biases they may have. The Critical thinking framework will assist in systematic analysis and problem solving for addressing complex issues

Why Critical thinking is important for students

A 2013 Survey of Employers by “The Association Of American Colleges And Universities” revealed that : Nearly all employers surveyed (93 percent) say that “a demonstrated capacity to think critically, communicate clearly, and solve complex problems is more important than [a candidate’s] undergraduate major.”  More than 75 percent of those surveyed say they want more emphasis (In teaching) on five key areas including: critical thinking, complex problem solving, written and oral communication, and applied knowledge in real world settings.

Critical thinking in academics

A knowledge of inductive reasoning and causal reasoning helps students break down any theory or subject into logical segments, and they are also able to build connections between what they learn and their existing knowledge. This makes them better students who develop a deeper understanding of the subject, and by virtue of reasoning while learning, they tend to retain their learning for longer periods of time.  All writing tasks are an exercise in persuasion - presenting arguments and supporting them (excepting story writing and pure narrative writing). Developing, evaluating and presenting arguments are the skills developed while doing a course in Critical thinking. Combined with the knowledge of writing argumentative essays, and applying critical thinking frameworks, students are well equipped to deal with a variety of analyses and writing tasks.  Knowledge of Causal reasoning helps research students develop sharp hypotheses and set up experiments or surveys to test their hypothesis. Causal reasoning is at the root of all research.  Critical thinking skills also makes students better at discussions and debates. Having learnt to apply logic, and veer clear of fallacies and cognitive biases, students with leadership qualities find themselves equipped to productively lead and manage teams in various projects.

Critical thinking and Resume's

Aristotle had said there are three ways of persuading human beings: With logic, credibility or emotions. A candidate's Resume is a written document that attempts to persuade a potential employer of 'Why he is the best candidate for the job'. The tools of persuasion employed in a Resume are logic and credibility. As a matter of fact, it consists of a chain of inductive arguments reinforcing each other, and credibility established with certifications, awards and recommendations. A student of Critical thinking would find it very easy to structure and write a Resume to persuasively present their credentials and suitability for the job.

Critical thinking in Group discussions and Personal interviews

In group discussions,  participants are presenting arguments for or against a topic or just evaluating a situation. At the heart of any discussion is the ability to reason logically and conduct a 360 degree examination of any issue to ensure that all the dimensions of the issue are explored and analyzed. Those who do not understand logical reasoning do not have the benefit of approaching or arguing any topic in a logical and progressive manner. Critical thinking teaches students how to define and analyze problems, while avoiding fallacies and cognitive biases. They develop the ability to make very strong and persuasive arguments based on logic and evidence. They are also good at finding holes and gaps and unwarranted assumptions in others arguments.  In personal interviews , you will find trained students answering pretty much to the question, and clarifying questions where required. Their answers are logical and their training guides them in strengthening their arguments with evidence or examples..

All applicants to foreign universities are required to submit a SOP (Statement of Purpose) along with their applications and GRE/GMAT scores. Many students have difficulty with writing a SOP for two reasons: (1) they are not clear what needs to go into the SOP and (2) how to actually structure and write the SOP. For a student who has studies logical reasoning and inductive arguments in particular, writing a persuasive essay is an easy task. Further, those who learn how to structure and write an argumentative essay will never have a problem with any writing task.

Critical thinking in GRE & GMAT  

Critical reasoning questions in gre and gmat.

GRE and GMAT have complete sections in their tests dedicated to test the logical reasoning capabilities of applicants. They are called 'Critical reasoning' tests and are designed to test the ability of test takers to analyze arguments logically. The questions revolve around : Strengthening or weakening arguments, revealing unstated assumptions or assumptions which if proved wrong or right could make a significant difference to the strength of the argument. Some questions relate to an understanding of the arguments presented. Most test takers answer these questions using intuition, experience from past tests or guess-work. Very few if any actually have learnt the fundamentals of logical reasoning, and as a result, answers generally are a 'hit or miss'. On the contrary, if test takers have studied and understood logical reasoning and fallacies, they would be able to take a knowledgable and structured approach to these questions which minimizes the chances of making any errors. The current approach is akin to asking someone to read a balance sheet without understanding accounting.  Training in Critical thinking helps students answer the Critical reasoning questions with the confidence that comes with knowledge on how to scientifically evaluate and answer these questions.

Do B2B Sales Professionals require Critical thinking skills?

A typical B2B buyer journey consists of three broad stages: Awareness, Consideration and Purchase. In…

Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples

• Homework Help
• Private School
• College Admissions
• College Life
• Graduate School
• Business School
• Distance Learning

• Indiana University, Bloomington
• State University of New York at Oneonta

Critical thinking refers to the ability to analyze information objectively and make a reasoned judgment. It involves the evaluation of sources, such as data, facts, observable phenomena, and research findings.

Good critical thinkers can draw reasonable conclusions from a set of information, and discriminate between useful and less useful details to solve problems or make decisions. These skills are especially helpful at school and in the workplace, where employers prioritize the ability to think critically. Find out why and see how you can demonstrate that you have this ability.

Examples of Critical Thinking

The circumstances that demand critical thinking vary from industry to industry. Some examples include:

• A triage nurse analyzes the cases at hand and decides the order by which the patients should be treated.
• A plumber evaluates the materials that would best suit a particular job.
• An attorney reviews the evidence and devises a strategy to win a case or to decide whether to settle out of court.
• A manager analyzes customer feedback forms and uses this information to develop a customer service training session for employees.

Why Do Employers Value Critical Thinking Skills?

Employers want job candidates who can evaluate a situation using logical thought and offer the best solution.

Someone with critical thinking skills can be trusted to make decisions independently, and will not need constant handholding.

Hiring a critical thinker means that micromanaging won't be required. Critical thinking abilities are among the most sought-after skills in almost every industry and workplace. You can demonstrate critical thinking by using related keywords in your resume and cover letter and during your interview.

How to Demonstrate Critical Thinking in a Job Search

If critical thinking is a key phrase in the job listings you are applying for, be sure to emphasize your critical thinking skills throughout your job search.

Add Keywords to Your Resume

You can use critical thinking keywords (analytical, problem solving, creativity, etc.) in your resume. When describing your work history, include top critical thinking skills that accurately describe you. You can also include them in your resume summary, if you have one.

For example, your summary might read, “Marketing Associate with five years of experience in project management. Skilled in conducting thorough market research and competitor analysis to assess market trends and client needs, and to develop appropriate acquisition tactics.”

Mention Skills in Your Cover Letter

Include these critical thinking skills in your cover letter. In the body of your letter, mention one or two of these skills, and give specific examples of times when you have demonstrated them at work. Think about times when you had to analyze or evaluate materials to solve a problem.

Show the Interviewer Your Skills

You can use these skill words in an interview. Discuss a time when you were faced with a particular problem or challenge at work and explain how you applied critical thinking to solve it.

Some interviewers will give you a hypothetical scenario or problem, and ask you to use critical thinking skills to solve it. In this case, explain your thought process thoroughly to the interviewer. He or she is typically more focused on how you arrive at your solution rather than the solution itself. The interviewer wants to see you analyze and evaluate (key parts of critical thinking) the given scenario or problem.

Of course, each job will require different skills and experiences, so make sure you read the job description carefully and focus on the skills listed by the employer.

Top Critical Thinking Skills

Keep these in-demand skills in mind as you refine your critical thinking practice —whether for work or school.

Part of critical thinking is the ability to carefully examine something, whether it is a problem, a set of data, or a text. People with analytical skills can examine information, understand what it means, and properly explain to others the implications of that information.

• Asking Thoughtful Questions
• Data Analysis
• Interpretation
• Questioning Evidence
• Recognizing Patterns

Communication

Often, you will need to share your conclusions with your employers or with a group of classmates or colleagues. You need to be able to communicate with others to share your ideas effectively. You might also need to engage in critical thinking in a group. In this case, you will need to work with others and communicate effectively to figure out solutions to complex problems.

• Active Listening
• Collaboration
• Explanation
• Interpersonal
• Presentation
• Verbal Communication
• Written Communication

Critical thinking often involves creativity and innovation. You might need to spot patterns in the information you are looking at or come up with a solution that no one else has thought of before. All of this involves a creative eye that can take a different approach from all other approaches.

• Flexibility
• Conceptualization
• Imagination
• Drawing Connections
• Synthesizing

Open-Mindedness

To think critically, you need to be able to put aside any assumptions or judgments and merely analyze the information you receive. You need to be objective, evaluating ideas without bias.

• Objectivity
• Observation

Problem-Solving

Problem-solving is another critical thinking skill that involves analyzing a problem, generating and implementing a solution, and assessing the success of the plan. Employers don’t simply want employees who can think about information critically. They also need to be able to come up with practical solutions.

• Attention to Detail
• Clarification
• Decision Making
• Groundedness
• Identifying Patterns

More Critical Thinking Skills

• Inductive Reasoning
• Deductive Reasoning
• Noticing Outliers
• Adaptability
• Emotional Intelligence
• Brainstorming
• Optimization
• Restructuring
• Integration
• Strategic Planning
• Project Management
• Ongoing Improvement
• Causal Relationships
• Case Analysis
• Diagnostics
• SWOT Analysis
• Business Intelligence
• Quantitative Data Management
• Qualitative Data Management
• Risk Management
• Scientific Method
• Consumer Behavior

Key Takeaways

• Demonstrate you have critical thinking skills by adding relevant keywords to your resume.
• Mention pertinent critical thinking skills in your cover letter, too, and include an example of a time when you demonstrated them at work.
• Finally, highlight critical thinking skills during your interview. For instance, you might discuss a time when you were faced with a challenge at work and explain how you applied critical thinking skills to solve it.

University of Louisville. " What is Critical Thinking ."

American Management Association. " AMA Critical Skills Survey: Workers Need Higher Level Skills to Succeed in the 21st Century ."

• Questions for Each Level of Bloom's Taxonomy
• Critical Thinking in Reading and Composition
• Bloom's Taxonomy in the Classroom
• How To Become an Effective Problem Solver
• 2020-21 Common Application Essay Option 4—Solving a Problem
• Introduction to Critical Thinking
• Creativity & Creative Thinking
• Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Education
• 6 Skills Students Need to Succeed in Social Studies Classes
• College Interview Tips: "Tell Me About a Challenge You Overcame"
• Types of Medical School Interviews and What to Expect
• The Horse Problem: A Math Challenge
• What to Do When the Technology Fails in Class
• What Are Your Strengths and Weaknesses? Interview Tips for Teachers
• A Guide to Business Letters Types
• Landing Your First Teaching Job

• Open training
• Team training

What is Critical Thinking and Why is it Valuable in the Workplace?

• Articles and Resources
• > Personal Effectiveness and Preparing for Change
• > What is Critical Thinking and Why is it Valuable in the Workplace?

There are times at work when you simply have to “do.” A tight deadline, a demanding project outline, or a highly particular superior might mean that it makes sense to complete a task without too much mental tinkering. But work like this can be unsustainable and worse — it won’t leverage your ability to think critically.

There is value in thinking critically in every aspect of your life. From making decisions in your personal life, to interrogating the media you consume, to assessing your work with a critical eye, applying critical thinking is an essential skill everyone should be trying to hone.

At your workplace, critical thinking can distinguish you as a leader, and a valuable mind to bounce ideas off. It can help improve the quality of your work, and the perception those higher up the chain have of you.

Here’s what you need to know about critical thinking in the workplace:

What Exactly is “Critical Thinking”?

  In a nutshell, critical thinking is the ability to think reasonably, detaching yourself from personal bias, emotional responses, and subjective opinions. It involves using the data at hand to make a reasoned choice without falling prey to the temptations of doing things simply because they’ve always been done a certain way.

Critical thinking takes time. It might be quicker simply to take instruction at face value, or rely on the traditions of your team. But without analyzing the reasons behind decisions and tasks, it becomes extremely easy to adopt bad habits. This might be time-wasting meetings, inefficient uses of effort, or poor interactions with team members. Taking the time to ask “why” you’re doing something is the first step to thinking critically.

Sometimes, data is available which allows you to make reasoned decisions based on absolute facts. If you can show that a new best practice can objectively improve current processes with hard data, you’ve used the very basics of critical thinking. That said, actual numbers aren’t always available when making a decision. Real critical thinking involves taking a careful look at situations and making a decision based on what is known, not what is felt.

Why Is Critical Thinking Important in the Workplace?

The short answer to the above question is this: critical thinkers make the best decisions, most often. And in the workplace, where choices about how to complete tasks, communicate information, relate with coworkers, and develop strategy are so common, critical thinkers are extremely valuable.

A savvy hiring manager will make this part of the recruitment process. It’s pretty easy to gauge how someone is inclined to solve a problem — ask them how they would deal with a specific situation, and give them the opportunity to use their critical thinking skills, versus deferring to an emotional, or prescribed reaction. Employing people who can think and act reasonably will pay enormous dividends down the road.

Using your critical thinking skills in the workplace will define you as a problem solver. This is not only useful career-wise (although having upper-level people at your company think highly of you is undoubtedly a benefit) it also establishes you as a leader among your fellow team members. Demonstrating your ability to solve problems and accomplish goals effectively will help instill confidence in you with all your coworkers.

How to Use Critical Thinking in the Workplace

The first step to actually using critical thinking is approaching every situation with an open mind. You need to be receptive to all information available, not just the kind that satisfies your preconceived notions or personal biases. This can be easier said than done, of course — lessons learned and beliefs held are often done so with a reason. But when it comes to critical thinking, it’s important to analyze each situation independently.

Once you’ve analyzed a situation with an open mind, you need to consider how to communicate it properly. It’s all very well and good to approach situations with objective logic, but it doesn’t do you any favours to sound like  Mr. Spock  when you’re conveying your conclusions. Be tactful, patient and humble when you are explaining how and why you’ve come to decisions. Use data if available to support your findings, but understand that not everyone is able to remove emotion from situations.

The final, and perhaps least obvious, application with critical thinking is creativity. Often, getting creative means pushing boundaries and reshaping convention. This means taking a risk — one that can often be worth the reward. Using a critical thinking approach when getting creative can help you mitigate the risk, and better determine what value your creativity can bring. It will help you and your team try new things and reinvent current processes while hopefully not rocking the boat too much.

Learn More About Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a valuable skill for all aspects of your life. It benefits problem solving, creativity, and teamwork. And it translates particularly well to the workplace, where it can distinguish you as a valuable employee and leader.

Taking the extra time to examine things objectively, make decisions based on logic, and communicate it tactfully will help you, those you work with, and your work goals prosper. To learn more about how to do that, have a look at our  Critical Thinking and Problem Solving for Effective Decision-Making   workshop and register today!

Let us help you create your training solution

Hello we'd love to hear from you.

Complete the form below or reach us at: [email protected] , or 613-234-2020

Contact details

To help you.

• I wish to subscribe to PMC Training content.

Welcome to our new website!

We appreciate your patience as we add the finishing touches. In the meantime, go and explore!

Cookie Usage Disclaimer: This website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience. By continuing to use this site, you consent to our use of cookies. For more information, please review our Privacy Policy .

Why Critical Thinking Is Important (& How to Improve It)

Last updated May 1, 2023. Edited and medically reviewed by Patrick Alban, DC . Written by Deane Alban .

By improving the quality of your thoughts and your decisions, better critical thinking skills can bring about a big positive change in your life. Learn how.

The quality of your life largely depends on the quality of the decisions you make.

Amazingly, the average person makes roughly 35,000 conscious decisions every day! 

Imagine how much better your life would be if there were a way to make better decisions, day in and day out?

Well, there is and you do it by boosting a skill called critical thinking .

Learning to master critical thinking can have a profoundly positive impact on nearly every aspect of your life.

What Exactly Is Critical Thinking?

The first documented account of critical thinking is the teachings of Socrates as recorded by Plato. 

Over time, the definition of critical thinking has evolved.

Most definitions of critical thinking are fairly complex and best understood by philosophy majors or psychologists.

For example, the Foundation for Critical Thinking , a nonprofit think tank, offers this definition:

“Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.”

If that makes your head spin, here are some definitions that you may relate to more easily.

Critical thinking is “reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.”

WHAT'S THE BEST BRAIN SUPPLEMENT?

I hear this question often. Here's my answer:

#1 Live a brain-healthy lifestyle first (Be Brain Fit tells you how).

#2 Give Mind Lab Pro a try.

This brain supplement meets all 12 of my requirements for a high-quality brain supplement, including effectiveness, safety, purity, and value. So it's easier for you to be mentally sharper, positive, and more productive.

Choosing the right brain supplement is all about quality. See why I recommend Mind Lab Pro.

Or, a catchy way of defining critical thinking is “deciding what’s true and what you should do.”

But my favorite uber-simple definition is that critical thinking is simply “thinking about thinking.”

6 Major Benefits of Good Critical Thinking Skills

Whether or not you think critically can make the difference between success and failure in just about every area of your life.

Our human brains are imperfect and prone to irrationality, distortions, prejudices, and cognitive biases .

Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of irrational thinking.

While the number of cognitive biases varies depending on the source, Wikipedia, for example, lists nearly 200 of them ! 

Some of the most well-known cognitive biases include:

• catastrophic thinking
• confirmation bias
• fear of missing out (FOMO)

Critical thinking will help you move past the limitations of irrational thinking.

Here are some of the most important ways critical thinking can impact your life.

1. Critical Thinking Is a Key to Career Success

There are many professions where critical thinking is an absolute must.

Lawyers, analysts, accountants, doctors, engineers, reporters, and scientists of all kinds must apply critical thinking frequently.

But critical thinking is a skill set that is becoming increasingly valuable in a growing number of professions.

Critical thinking can help you in any profession where you must:

• analyze information
• systematically solve problems
• generate innovative solutions
• plan strategically
• think creatively
• present your work or ideas to others in a way that can be readily understood

And, as we enter the fourth industrial revolution , critical thinking has become one of the most sought-after skills.

According to the World Economic Forum , critical thinking and complex problem-solving are the two top in-demand skills that employers look for. 

Critical thinking is considered a soft or enterprise skill — a core attribute required to succeed in the workplace . 

NUTRITION FOR THE MIND/BODY CONNECTION

It’s almost impossible to live a lifestyle that provides all the nutrients needed for good brain health and performance. The reason? All of us confront multiple nutrient thieves — stress, poor diet, insomnia, pharmaceuticals, pollution, and more — that steal nutrients that the brain needs to thrive.

• Provides the building blocks to create new brain cells and brain chemicals
• Helps increase resilience to stress to avoid mental burnout
• Supplies the brain with the fuel it needs for mental energy

A foundational principle of mental health and cognitive performance is to supply the body with the best nutrition possible. See why I recommend Performance Lab.

According to The University of Arizona, other soft skills include : 

• interpersonal skills
• communication skills
• digital literacy

Critical thinking can help you develop the rest of these soft skills.

Developing your critical thinking can help you land a job since many employers will ask you interview questions or even give you a test to determine how well you can think critically.

It can also help you continually succeed in your career, since being a critical thinker is a powerful predictor of long-term success.

2. Critical Thinkers Make Better Decisions

Every day you make thousands of decisions.

Most of them are made by your subconscious , are not very important, and don’t require much thought, such as what to wear or what to have for lunch. 

But the most important decisions you make can be hard and require a lot of thought, such as when or if you should change jobs, relocate to a new city, buy a house, get married, or have kids.

At work, you may have to make decisions that can alter the course of your career or the lives of others.

Critical thinking helps you cope with everyday problems as they arise.

It promotes independent thinking and strengthens your inner “BS detector.”

It helps you make sense of the glut of data and information available, making you a smarter consumer who is less likely to fall for advertising hype, peer pressure, or scams.

3. Critical Thinking Can Make You Happier

Knowing and understanding yourself is an underappreciated path to happiness. 

We’ve already shown how your quality of life largely depends on the quality of your decisions, but equally as important is the quality of your thoughts.

Critical thinking is an excellent tool to help you better understand yourself and to learn to master your thoughts.

You can use critical thinking to free yourself from cognitive biases, negative thinking , and limiting beliefs that are holding you back in any area of your life.

Critical thinking can help you assess your strengths and weaknesses so that you know what you have to offer others and where you could use improvement.

Critical thinking will enable you to better express your thoughts, ideas, and beliefs.

Better communication helps others to understand you better, resulting in less frustration for both of you.

Critical thinking fosters creativity and out-of-the-box thinking that can be applied to any area of your life.

It gives you a process you can rely on, making decisions less stressful.

4. Critical Thinking Ensures That Your Opinions Are Well-Informed

We have access to more information than ever before .

Astoundingly, more data has been created in the past two years than in the entire previous history of mankind. 

Critical thinking can help you sort through the noise.

American politician, sociologist, and diplomat Daniel Patrick Moynihan once remarked , “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” 

Critical thinking ensures your opinions are well-informed and based on the best available facts.

You’ll get a boost in confidence when you see that those around you trust your well-considered opinions.

5. Critical Thinking Improves Relationships

You might be concerned that critical thinking will turn you into a Spock-like character who is not very good at relationships.

But, in fact, the opposite is true.

Employing critical thinking makes you more open-minded and better able to understand others’ points of view.

Critical thinkers are more empathetic and in a better position to get along with different kinds of people.

Critical thinking keeps you from jumping to conclusions.

You can be counted on to be the voice of reason when arguments get heated.

You’ll be better able to detect when others:

• are being disingenuous
• don’t have your best interests at heart
• try to take advantage of or manipulate you

6. Critical Thinking Makes You a Better, More Informed Citizen

“An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.”

This quote has been incorrectly attributed to Thomas Jefferson , but regardless of the source, these words of wisdom are more relevant than ever. 

Critical thinkers are able to see both sides of any issue and are more likely to generate bipartisan solutions.

They are less likely to be swayed by propaganda or get swept up in mass hysteria.

They are in a better position to spot fake news when they see it.

5 Steps to Improve Your Critical Thinking Skills

Some people already have well-developed critical thinking skills.

These people are analytical, inquisitive, and open to new ideas.

And, even though they are confident in their own opinions, they seek the truth, even if it proves their existing ideas to be wrong.

They are able to connect the dots between ideas and detect inconsistencies in others’ thinking.

But regardless of the state of your critical thinking skills today, it’s a skill set you can develop.

While there are many techniques for thinking rationally, here’s a classic 5-step critical thinking process . 

How to Improve Your Critical Thinking Skills

Clearly define your question or problem.

This step is so important that Albert Einstein famously quipped:

“If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions.”

Gather Information to Help You Weigh the Options

Consider only the most useful and reliable information from the most reputable sources.

Disregard the rest.

Apply the Information and Ask Critical Questions

Scrutinize all information carefully with a skeptic’s eye.

Not sure what questions to ask?

You can’t go wrong starting with the “5 Ws” that any good investigator asks: Who? What? Where? When? Why?

Then finish by asking “How?”

You’ll find more thought-provoking questions on this Critical Thinking Skills Cheatsheet .

Consider the Implications

Look for potential unintended consequences.

Do a thought experiment about how your solution could play out in both the short term and the long run.

Explore the Full Spectrum of Viewpoints

Examine why others are drawn to differing points of view.

This will help you objectively evaluate your own viewpoint.

You may find critical thinkers who take an opposing view and this can help you find gaps in your own logic.

Watch the Video

This TED-Ed video on YouTube elaborates on the five steps to improve your critical thinking.

Recommended: Upgrading brain health is key to making your brain work better.

• Improve your mental clarity and focus.
• Boost your memory and your ability to learn.
• Increase your capacity to think critically, solve problems, and make decisions.

P.S. Like what you've read on this page? Get more like this -- Sign up for our emails .

Back to Blogs

The Benefits of Critical Thinking & How to develop it

April 02, 2024

Before we proceed to understand the importance and benefits of critical thinking for students, it is important to understand what critical thinking is.

Critical thinking is the mode of thinking about any subject, problem, or content. It skillfully thinks. Later, it implements and inherent those intellectual thoughts upon them. The best part of critical thinking is, it improves the quality of thinking.

It has intellectual values like clarity, sound evidence, precision, good reasons, relevance, consistency, depth, breadth, and fairness.

Critical thinking requires a proper process, it involves skillfully conceptualizing, analyzing different aspects, synthesizing, most importantly evaluating whatever information is gathered, keenly observing all factors, and experiencing the overall view.

Now let us understand the benefits of critical thinking.

1] it helps to improve decision-making.

Critical thinking will let you make decisions by yourself. It will help you improve decision-making.

For students, while making career decisions or making a new career move, it is crucial to make quick decisions, and hence critical thinking plays a vital role here.

2] Enhances problem-solving ability

Problem-solving is the key skill required for adapting to changes and facing challenges.

This skill of critical thinking should be developed by students to avoid making any situation complex and help find a solution to it.

For instance, two people in the same situation have been given a task and asked to find a solution. One person might take 5 minutes yet can’t give a relevant solution, whereas another person with problem-solving ability will dedicate enough time to research and provide a relevant solution.

Read Here: The Importance of Problem-Solving Skills & How to Develop Them

3] refine your research skills.

Critical Thinking will refine your research skills, moreover will help you research accurately by observing, analyzing, synthesizing, and experimenting with every aspect in detail for a better result.

4] Polishes your creativity

It will help you polish your creative side. Creativity unquestionably defines itself as a requisite skill in the collaborative modern workforce. As critical thinking will surely polish your creativity.

5] Stimulates Curiosity

It stimulates curiosity in you to find the right solution for the problem or the subject you are working on. Curiosity will let you dig and delve deeper to get a better result. This factor will let you stay a lifelong learner.

All these aspects of critical thinking play a vital role in Banking and financial sector. If you are seeking to develop these crucial skills, then you must certainly opt for ‘ Thadomal Shahani Centre for Management ’ institute based in Mulund, Mumbai.

It is one of the Best institutes, aids in developing critical thinking with its innovative teaching methodology, and focuses on comprehensive development, providing students with a globally relevant curriculum, and international faculty members who have hands-on business leadership.

Additionally, If you want to enroll in Certificate in Banking and Financial Services (CBFS) or top global MBA courses, you can contact us for detailed information where you will find the program, curriculum, specializations, certifications, eligibility criteria, and everything related to it.

Consult a Career Advisor

Now lets us learn how to develop Critical Thinking skills

– ask questions.

For developing critical skills, it is important to ask more questions. The more you ask questions, the more the curiosity and quest to learn increase. The questions will clarify your thinking, and conceptualizing and analyzing will become more accessible through it.

– Scrutinize the consequences

By asking questions, you have the availability of various options. However, you must not make a hasty decision. You have to scrutinize the consequences of each option and accordingly take a decision. Therefore, it will lead to solving your problems.

– Become Active Listener

To be a critical thinker, you need to first be an active listener. You will ask numerous questions to satisfy your quest, but to know the answers, you need to be a good listener too. Listen to different people’s thoughts, views, and opinions; these will help you form your own decisions.

Know what are the advantages of developing Critical Thinking Skills

Now that you know the importance and advantages of critical thinking.

Important Links:

• Certificate in Banking and Financial Services (CBFS): https://tscfm.org/courses/certificate-in-banking-and-financial-services/
• 4-IN-1 Professional Diploma in Banking, Financial Services & Insurance (PDBFSI): https://tscfm.org/courses/4-in-1-professional-diploma-in-banking-financial-services-insurance-pdbfsi/

Previous post

5 Time Management Tips for Students to Study Effectively and Crack Exams Better

How to crack the campus placement interview, want a successful career.

Fill up this form for a free career psychometric test & a 30 min career guidance session with our advisor.

Business Management Program

Banking and finance, digital marketing, mba for working professionals, business english, career advice, master of business administration (mba), certificate in wealth management (cwm), mba from uk university, certificate in banking and financial services (cbfs), 4-in-1 professional diploma in banking, financial services & insurance (pdbfsi), professional diploma in investment banking, professional diploma in digital marketing, certificate in business english, most popular posts, useful tips on how to ace an mba interview, which one is better - mba in marketing or finance, top reasons why a global mba degree is powerful.

Related Post

June 24, 2024

June 22, 2024

June 20, 2024

About TSCFM

TSCFM, is a part of The Shahani Group of Institutions. We are the only B-school in Mumbai to bring the best of international management education to India. We are ranked at No 3 among colleges offering Global Business Courses in India by Outlook.

• Awards & Affiliation
• Career Advices
• Industry News
• Testimonials
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Refund and Cancellation Policy

+91 9930978000

[email protected]

Kindly Fill up the details to receive a call from our Career expert

More From Forbes

The power of critical thinking: enhancing decision-making and problem-solving.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Dr. Ron Young, Founder and Board Chair of Trove, Inc . Ron specializes in psychological coaching & transition consulting.

Critical thinking is a fundamental cognitive process that enables individuals to objectively analyze, evaluate and interpret information to make informed decisions and solve complex problems. It involves employing reasoning and logic, questioning assumptions, recognizing biases and considering multiple perspectives. It requires self-monitored, self-directed, self-disciplined and self-corrective thinking. Critical thinking is essential in a world of information and diverse opinions. It helps us see things more clearly and avoid being misled or deceived.

Importance Of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is crucial in various aspects of life, including education, professional endeavors and personal decision-making. In academic settings, it allows students to comprehend and engage with complex subjects while discerning valid arguments from fallacious ones. In the workplace, critical thinking empowers individuals to analyze problems, devise creative solutions and make informed judgments. In everyday life, it helps individuals navigate an increasingly complex world by making sound choices and avoiding cognitive biases. It is our primary defense against misleading or "spun" information.

Benefits Of Critical Thinking

There are many benefits of critical thinking.

Enhanced Decision-Making

Critical thinking helps us trust our gut feelings and think independently. It enables individuals to make logical and well-reasoned decisions based on evidence and objective analysis. It encourages the consideration of all relevant factors and the evaluation of potential consequences, leading to more informed choices.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024, effective problem-solving.

Critical thinking facilitates the identification of underlying issues, the generation of innovative solutions and the evaluation of their viability. It encourages individuals to approach problems from different angles and consider various perspectives, increasing the likelihood of finding effective resolutions.

Reduction Of Cognitive Biases

Critical thinking supports self-reflection. It helps individuals recognize and challenge cognitive biases that hinder clear judgment. Individuals can better overcome confirmation bias, groupthink and the availability heuristic (judging the likelihood of an event based on recall of similar events) by understanding and questioning their assumptions and beliefs. It requires a commitment to overcoming the tendency to see the world from a narrow, self-centered perspective.

Enhanced Communication Skills

Practicing critical thinking fosters effective communication by enabling individuals to articulate and defend their ideas with logical reasoning and evidence. It encourages active listening, empathy and the ability to evaluate and respond to counterarguments, leading to more constructive and meaningful discussions.

More United Citizens

Using critical thinking enables citizens to see the whole picture by better protecting against biases and propaganda. It reduces partisanship and a “we/they” mentality.

Cultivating Critical Thinking

How can you cultivate critical thinking?

Be curious and inquisitive.

Foster a mindset of curiosity and an eagerness to explore and understand the world. Talk with people from different backgrounds, cultures, political affiliations or religions. Ask probing questions, seek new perspectives and engage in active learning. Learn from people who hold different viewpoints.

Develop analytical skills.

You can do this by learning to break down complex problems into manageable parts, recognize patterns and identify cause-and-effect relationships. Remember, not all opinions are equal, and some are flat-out wrong.

Evaluate information.

Develop skills to evaluate the credibility and reliability of information sources. Be aware of bias, assess evidence and differentiate between fact and opinion. Guard against "swallowing information whole" or believing that "If it's on the internet, it must be true."

Practice reflection.

Engage in reflective thinking by evaluating your thoughts, beliefs and assumptions. Consider alternative viewpoints, and be open to changing your perspective based on new information.

Embrace intellectual humility.

Be humble and aware that you could be wrong. Knowledge is an ongoing process; be open to admitting mistakes or gaps in understanding. Embrace a growth mindset that values continuous learning and improvement.

Develop your sense of belonging.

The third tier in Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a sense of belonging. One aspect of belonging is connection. All humans have this need. Without critical thinking, we are vulnerable to making our group's beliefs our own rather than evaluating which beliefs align with our values.

Align your view and your values.

Rather than defining yourself by a particular view, ask whether a different view aligns with your values. When we identify ourselves by the beliefs of our reference group (religious, political, etc.), we look for ways to justify our ideas. In doing so, we deny ourselves access to critical thinking.

Evidence Of Critical Thinking

When you practice critical thinking, it will be evident in several areas:

Evidence-Based Decision-Making

Rely on facts rather than emotions or personal biases. Follow five distinct steps, called the five A’s : ask, access, appraise, apply and audit. Gather relevant information, evaluate the evidence objectively and consider different perspectives before making decisions. Then reevaluate them as you learn new information.

Problem-Solving

Approach problems systematically by defining the issue, gathering relevant data, brainstorming potential solutions and evaluating feasibility. Engage in collaborative problem-solving to benefit from diverse perspectives. Open-mindedly consider alternative systems of thought. Recognize assumptions, implications and practical consequences, then adjust as needed.

Effective Communication

Solve complex problems by clearly and effectively communicating with others. Utilize critical thinking skills to articulate your thoughts clearly, listen actively and engage in respectful and constructive dialogue. Challenge ideas through logical arguments and evidence rather than resorting to personal attacks. Respecting people with different views does not mean you agree with their opinions. Evaluate, formulate and communicate questions with clarity and precision.

Continuous Learning

Apply critical thinking to ongoing personal and professional development. Seek opportunities for further education, engage in intellectual discourse and actively challenge your beliefs and assumptions.

Using Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a powerful cognitive tool that empowers individuals to navigate the complexities of the modern world. Critical thinking enhances decision-making, problem-solving and communication abilities by fostering logical reasoning, analytical skills and an open mindset. It enables individuals to overcome cognitive biases, evaluate information effectively and make informed choices. Cultivating and applying critical thinking skills benefits individuals and contributes to a more thoughtful and rational society. Embracing critical thinking is essential for fostering intellectual growth, facilitating progress and addressing the challenges of the 21st century.

Forbes Coaches Council is an invitation-only community for leading business and career coaches. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

• Developing technical and problem-solving skills
• Engaging in more active listening
• Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
• Seeking out more diversity of thought
• Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

• What information should be included?
• Which information resources should the author look to?
• What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
• What is the most effective way to show information?
• How should the report be organized?
• How should it be designed?
• What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

• Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
• Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
• Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
• Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.

Main navigation

• Our Articles
• Dr. Joe's Books
• Media and Press
• Our History
• Public Lectures
• Past Newsletters
• Photo Gallery: The McGill OSS Separates 25 Years of Separating Sense from Nonsense

Subscribe to the OSS Weekly Newsletter!

On the trail of chemtrail nonsense.

• Add to calendar
• Tweet Widget

This article was first published in  The Montreal Gazette.

I remember the day I first became acquainted with the notion of “chemtrails.” It was December 13, 2002, the day before I was to be a guest on Art Bell’s Coast to Coast, a very popular overnight radio show. I had just come out with my book The Genie in the Bottle, some chapters of which the producer told me intrigued Art. “Bending Spoons of Bending Minds,” “A Writer and a Magician Among the Spirits” and “pHooey to pHake Health Claims” were of interest.

“Would you like to come on Coast to Coast to have a discussion with Mr. Bell?”

I didn’t know very much about the program except that it was indeed aired coast to coast and that it dealt with some offbeat topics. I thought I had better look into what it was all about to have an idea of the sorts of questions that might arise. Offbeat turned out to be right. Previous shows had dealt with UFO abductions, ancient astronauts and a host of conspiracy theories ranging from the Kennedy assassination to the “fake” moon landing. I was familiar with these, but there was another subject that had been featured: the matter of chemtrails. This I had not heard of, so down the rabbit hole I went.

I learned that the white “contrails” left by high flying aircraft — that, according to what I had learned in my elementary physics course, were tiny ice crystals formed by the condensation of water vapour from jet engine exhaust — actually have a nefarious side. Some are actually chemtrails, went the argument. Certain chemicals are secretly carried in planes to be spewed out along with the water crystals. Why? Several theories surfaced. The chemicals were designed to control the minds of the masses, or were intended to make people sick to benefit drug companies, or aimed to change the weather, or most disturbingly, were a form of population control. Who was behind all of this? Take your pick: The CIA, the military, Bill Gates, or the “deep sate,” whatever that may be.

The claims are quite extraordinary. And, as we are fond of saying in science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So, what evidence do the chemtrail proponents offer? Here goes. Prior to about 1995, they say, contrails dissipated very quickly. But from then on, some lasted for many hours, a phenomenon that could only be explained by something other than just ice crystals being released. Wrong. Numerous textbooks on physics and atmospheric science explain in detail how the rate at which contrails dissipate depends on weather conditions. If the air humidity is very high, contrails exist for a long time. If the air is dry, they quickly dissipate or may not even form at all. There is nothing new here. World War II era photographs document long lasting contrails.

What chemicals are supposedly being released? Compounds of barium and aluminum are the ones most frequently mentioned, with claims that testing the soil underneath chemtrails finds higher than normal levels. Barium and aluminum are common elements widely distributed geologically, and the “studies” claiming unusually high levels have been thoroughly debunked. Then there are pictures that show numerous barrels instead of passenger seats in a Boeing 747 aircraft that claim to show an aerosol dispersion system. Nonsense! Such water-filled barrels are used during the testing of airplanes to simulate the weight of passengers or cargo.

Despite the lack of evidence, an international survey in 2016 revealed that about 17 per cent of the population believes claims of the existence of some sort of secret program to alter the chemistry of the atmosphere to be true or partially true. This prompted a group of scientists headed by Steven Davis of the University of California to carry out its own survey among atmospheric chemists with expertise in condensation trails and geochemists working on atmospheric deposition of dust and pollution. In an extensive paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, they describe how 76 of the 77 experts surveyed said they had not encountered any evidence of chemtrails and that the evidence cited on their behalf could be explained through other factors, including well-understood physics and chemistry associated with aircraft contrails and atmospheric aerosols. The single dissenter referred to one experiment that detected high levels of atmospheric barium in a remote area with low soil barium, although there was no connection made to aircraft.

The one claim made by the chemtrail advocates that does have an aura of truth brings us to geoengineering, the science that focuses on possible methods to manipulate the atmosphere to offset the impact of climate change. Global warming is a huge concern, with its impact already being felt in changing weather patterns that signal potentially catastrophic effects. One possibility that has been deemed worthy of exploration is the spraying of some substance into the atmosphere with hopes of reflecting sunlight. A number of scientists are exploring this possibility in the laboratory, but no outdoor experiments have been carried out.

One of the leading researchers in the field, University of Chicago physicist David Keith, has proposed calcium carbonate — essentially, chalk dust — as a candidate and planned to carry out an experiment in which a high altitude balloon would be launched over northern Sweden to monitor the release of a small amount (2 kg) of calcium carbonate. The aim was to investigate the dispersal of the chemical. The project never materialized due to opposition by environmental groups.

What did materialize was ugly, often antisemitic hate mail to Keith from chemtrail believers who opined that he should die for his sins. There were also threats of physical violence that necessitated calls to the police. What sins had Keith committed? He had studied possible ways to counter climate change. Such threats of course are not only directed at climate change researchers. Dr. Anthony Fauci has been subjected to horrific warnings of harm for his stance on vaccinations and supposed faulty advice about handling COVID-19.

As we know, politicians are also prone to strange beliefs. Steve Southerland, a republican in the state of Tennessee, sponsored a bill that, while not mentioning chemtrails, speaks of the government “intentionally dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere” and proposes to ban their “intentional injection, release, or dispersion, by any means.” A right wing Pennsylvania state senator also has plans to introduce a similar bill. Doug Mastriano has posted photos of contrails with the caption “I have legislation to stop this.”

What actually needs to be stopped is the perverse hijacking of physics and chemistry to make unsubstantiated claims about the public being harmed by nonexistent chemtrails, and the threats to scientists who are carrying out research that aims to benefit the public.

As far as my appearance on Coast to Coast went, there was no talk of conspiracy theories and Art Bell was respectful. He readily accepted my opinion that spoons cannot be bent by the power of the mind, and perhaps, with somewhat more reservation, that there is no evidence for the existence of spirits.

Had he asked about chemtrails, I was ready with my “no evidence” argument.

@JoeSchwarcz

What to read next

Facial creams and lotions offer hope in a jar 14 jun 2024.

Protect Yourself Against Sunscreen Myths 14 Jun 2024

Time To Dampen the Enthusiasm For Energy Drinks 13 Jun 2024

Spikeopathy Speculative Fiction Contaminates the Blood Supply 8 Jun 2024

So, You Want To Grow Hair? 29 May 2024

Sleeping on the Floor Is Not Like Getting an Eight-Hour Massage 24 May 2024

Department and University Information

Office for science and society.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Collaborative working and critical thinking: adoption of generative artificial intelligence tools in higher education.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 2.1. generative ai tools in higher education, 2.2. importance and challenges of collaborative work and critical thinking, 2.3. principles and applications of generative ai tools, 2.4. best practices and success stories, 2.5. limitations of existing studies and how this article addresses them, 2.6. comparative table of existing studies, 2.7. cluster analysis and emerging trends.

• Cluster 1 (Red): Artificial Intelligence and Education
• Cluster 2 (Green): Education and Technology
• Cluster 3 (Blue): Higher Education and Innovation
• Cluster 4 (Yellow): Research and Critical Thinking

2.8. Enhancing Collaborative Work with Generative AI Tools

2.9. contribution of artificial intelligence tools to critical thinking, 3. materials and methods, 3.1. context of the population, 3.2. justification of the selection process, 3.3. survey distribution and response rate, 3.4. the rationale for the mixed methods approach, 3.5. inclusion of statistical measures, 3.6. designing activities with generative ai tools using the 4padafe methodology, 3.7. integrating generative ai tools into activities, 3.8. assessing the effectiveness of generative ai-powered activities, 4.1. quantitative and qualitative analyses, 4.2. results of the survey on the use of generative ai tools, 5. discussion, 6. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Disability|United Nations Enable. 2022. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/about-us/sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-and-disability.html (accessed on 10 March 2024).
• Weng, J.C. Putting Intellectual Robots to Work: Implementing Generative AI Tools in Project Management ; NYU SPS Applied Analytics Laboratory: New York, NY, USA, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Muca, E.; Cavallini, D.; Odore, R.; Baratta, M.; Bergero, D.; Valle, E. Are Veterinary Students Using Technologies and Online Learning Resources for Didactic Training? A Mini-Meta Analysis. Educ. Sci. 2022 , 12 , 573. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luan, H.; Geczy, P.; Lai, H.; Gobert, J.; Yang, S.J.H.; Ogata, H.; Baltes, J.; Guerra, R.; Li, P.; Tsai, C.-C. Challenges and future directions of big data and artificial intelligence in education. Front. Psychol. 2020 , 11 , 580820. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ibda, H.; Syamsi, I.; Rukiyati, R. Professional elementary teachers in the digital era: A systematic. Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. 2023 , 12 , 459–467. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peramunugamage, A.; Ratnayake, U.W.; Karunanayaka, S.P. Systematic review on mobile collaborative learning for engineering education. J. Comput. Educ. 2023 , 10 , 83–106. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hemachandran, K.; Verma, P.; Pareek, P.; Arora, N.; Rajesh Kumar, K.V.; Ahanger, T.A.; Pise, A.A.; Ratna, R. Artificial Intelligence: A Universal Virtual Tool to Augment Tutoring in Higher Education. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2022 , 2022 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• OpenAI. ChatGPT V4. 2024. Available online: https://chat.openai.com/ (accessed on 10 March 2024).
• Tome, M. Tome AI. 2024. Available online: https://tome.app/ (accessed on 11 March 2024).
• AI Chatbot to Search the Web. 2023. Available online: https://you.com/ (accessed on 15 April 2024).
• Canva. What Will You Design Today? 2024. Available online: https://www.canva.com/ (accessed on 15 April 2024).
• Google. Google Docs. Available online: https://docs.google.com/ (accessed on 22 April 2024).
• Zoom Video Communications. Video Communications. 2024. Available online: https://zoom.us/meeting (accessed on 8 June 2024).
• Ruiz-Rojas, L.I.; Acosta-Vargas, P.; De-Moreta-Llovet, J.; Gonzalez-Rodriguez, M. Empowering Education with Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools: Approach with an Instructional Design Matrix. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 11524. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, Z. Why and how to embrace AI such as ChatGPT in your academic life. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2023 , 10 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bansal, G.; Mitchell, A.; Li, D. A Panel Report on Higher Education in the Age of AI from the Perspective of Academic Leaders in the Midwest U.S. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2024 , 54 , 360–375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pavlik, J.V. Collaborating with ChatGPT: Considering the Implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Journalism and Media Education. J. Mass Commun. Educ. 2023 , 78 , 84–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Orduño-Osuna, J.H.; Cota-Rivera, E.I.; Raygoza, L.M.E.; Jimenez-Sanchez, R.; Limón-Molina, G.M.; Bravo-Zanoguera, M.; Mercado-Herrera, A.; Rico, F.N.M. Exploring the challenges and applications of generative AI on engineering education in Mexico. In Facilitating Global Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing in Higher Education with Generative AI ; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023; pp. 259–286. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu, P.; Mulli, J.; Syed, Z.A.S.; Umme, L. Facilitating Global Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing in Higher Education with Generative AI ; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023; pp. 1–356. [ Google Scholar ]
• Branig, M.; Engel, C.; Schmalfuß-Schwarz, J.; Müller, E.F.; Weber, G. Where Are we with Inclusive Digital Further Education? Accessibility Through Digitalization. Lect. Notes Netw. Syst. 2022 , 389 LNNS , 21–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ssemugenyi, F. Teaching and learning methods compared: A pedagogical evaluation of problem-based learning (PBL) and lecture methods in developing learners’ cognitive abilities. Cogent Educ. 2023 , 10 , 2187943. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guerra, E. The contribution of critical thinking to STEM disciplines at the time of generative intelligence. STEM Educ. 2024 , 4 , 71–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Shu, Y.; Yu, H. Fairness in design: A framework for facilitating ethical artificial intelligence designs. Int. J. Crowd Sci. 2023 , 7 , 32–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fotaris, P.; Mastoras, T.; Lameras, P. Designing Educational Escape Rooms with Generative AI: A Framework and ChatGPT Prompt Engineering Guide. Proc. Eur. Conf. Games-Based Learn. 2023 , 2023 , 180–189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, T.; Ji, Y.; Zhan, Z. Expert or machine? Comparing the effect of pairing student teacher with in-service teacher and ChatGPT on their critical thinking, learning performance, and cognitive load in an integrated-STEM course. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 2024 , 44 , 45–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miller, D.D.; Wood, E.A. AI, autonomous machines and human awareness: Towards shared machine-human contexts in medicine. Hum.-Mach. Shar. Contexts 2020 , 10 , 205–220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abrami, P.C.; Bernard, R.M.; Borokhovski, E.; Waddington, D.I.; Wade, C.A.; Persson, T. Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-Analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 2015 , 85 , 275–314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Halaweh, M. ChatGPT in education: Strategies for responsible implementation. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 2023 , 15 , 421. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fui-Hoon Nah, F.; Zheng, R.; Cai, J.; Siau, K.; Chen, L. Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration. J. Inf. Technol. Case Appl. Res. 2023 , 25 , 277–304. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Den Berg, G.; Du Plessis, E. ChatGPT and generative AI: Possibilities for its contribution to lesson planning, critical thinking and openness in teacher education. Educ. Sci. 2023 , 13 , 998. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Okuogume, A.; Toledano, N. Co-Creation in Sustainable Entrepreneurship Education: Lessons from Business–University Educational Partnerships. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2272. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Santórum, M.; Carrión-Toro, M.; Morales-Martínez, D.; Maldonado-Garcés, V.; Acosta-Vargas, G.; Acosta-Vargas, P. PAR: Towards a Reference Architecture for Accessible Platforms in Respiratory Therapies. Appl. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 840. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salinas-Navarro, D.E.; Vilalta-Perdomo, E.; Michel-Villarreal, R.; Montesinos, L. Using Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools to Explain and Enhance Experiential Learning for Authentic Assessment. Educ. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spiros, M.C.; Plemons, A.M.; Biggs, J.A. Pedagogical access and ethical considerations in forensic anthropology and bioarchaeology. Sci. Justice 2022 , 62 , 708–720. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hall, P.; Ellis, D. A systematic review of socio-technical gender bias in AI algorithms. Online Inf. Rev. 2023 , 47 , 1264–1279. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Michel-Villarreal, R.; Vilalta-Perdomo, E.; Salinas-Navarro, D.E.; Thierry-Aguilera, R.; Gerardou, F.S. Challenges and opportunities of generative AI for higher education as explained by ChatGPT. Educ. Sci. 2023 , 13 , 856. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thornhill-Miller, B.; Camarda, A.; Mercier, M.; Burkhardt, J.M.; Morisseau, T.; Bourgeois-Bougrine, S.; Vinchon, F.; El Hayek, S.; Augereau-Landais, M.; Mourey, F.; et al. Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education. J. Intell. 2023 , 11 , 54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kim, J. Leading teachers’ perspective on teacher-AI collaboration in education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023 , 29 , 8693–8724. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, X.; Xie, H.; Zou, D.; Wang, F.L. ChatGPT for generating stories and mind-maps in storytelling. In Proceedings of the 2023 10th International Conference on Behavioural and Social Computing (BESC), Larnaca, Cyprus, 30 October–1 November 2023; pp. 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, Y.; Liu, J.; Yao, B.; Chen, J.; Wang, D.; Ma, X.; Lu, Y.; Xu, Y.; He, L. Exploring Parent’s Needs for Children-Centered AI to Support Preschoolers’ Storytelling and Reading Activities. arXiv 2024 , arXiv:2401.13804. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kang, M.; Shin, J.; Park, J. StudioGAN: A taxonomy and benchmark of GANs for image synthesis. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2023 , 45 , 15725–15742. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Albisua, M.J.B.; Ruiz, M.P.; Nogueira, D.F.; Turnes, S.A.; Carrasco, L.C. Critical thinking from the perspective of university teachers. Estud. Pedagog. 2018 , 44 , 89–113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koreshnikova, J.N.; Froumin, I.D. Teachers’ professional skills as a factor in the development of students’ critical thinking. Psychol. Sci. Educ. 2021 , 25 , 88–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruiz Rojas, L.I.; Castillo, C.; Cañizares, S. Digital Teaching Skills to Design Virtual Learning Classrooms with the 4PADAFE Methodology. Lect. Notes Educ. Technol. 2023 , 1062–1071. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Ruiz-Rojas, L.I.; Salvador-Ullauri, L.; Acosta-Vargas, P. Collaborative Working and Critical Thinking: Adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Higher Education. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5367. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135367

Ruiz-Rojas LI, Salvador-Ullauri L, Acosta-Vargas P. Collaborative Working and Critical Thinking: Adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Higher Education. Sustainability . 2024; 16(13):5367. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135367

Ruiz-Rojas, Lena Ivannova, Luis Salvador-Ullauri, and Patricia Acosta-Vargas. 2024. "Collaborative Working and Critical Thinking: Adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Higher Education" Sustainability 16, no. 13: 5367. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135367

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

How IBM helps Wimbledon use generative AI to drive personalised fan engagement

This collaboration with Wimbledon teams extends beyond the fan-facing digital platform, into enterprise-wide transformation.

Re-evaluating data management in the generative AI age

4 min read - A good place to start is refreshing the way organizations govern data, particularly as it pertains to its usage in generative AI solutions.

Top 7 risks to your identity security posture

5 min read - Identity misconfigurations and blind spots stand out as critical concerns that undermine an organization’s identity security posture.

Intesa Sanpaolo and IBM secure digital transactions with fully homomorphic encryption

6 min read - Explore how European bank Intesa Sanpaolo and IBM partnered to deliver secure digital transactions using fully homomorphic encryption.

What is AI risk management?

8 min read - AI risk management is the process of identifying, mitigating and addressing the potential risks associated with AI technologies.

June 27, 2024

IBM announces new AI assistant and feature innovations at Think 2024

June 26, 2024

A major upgrade to Db2® Warehouse on IBM Cloud®

June 25, 2024

Increase efficiency in asset lifecycle management with Maximo Application Suite’s new AI-power...

Achieving operational efficiency through Instana’s Intelligent Remediation

June 24, 2024

Manage the routing of your observability log and event data 

Best practices for augmenting human intelligence with AI

2 min read - Enabling participation in the AI-driven economy to be underpinned by fairness, transparency, explainability, robustness and privacy. 

Microcontrollers vs. microprocessors: What’s the difference?

6 min read - Microcontroller units (MCUs) and microprocessor units (MPUs) are two kinds of integrated circuits that, while similar in certain ways, are very different in many others.

Mastering budget control in the age of AI: Leveraging on-premises and cloud XaaS for success 

2 min read - As organizations harness the power of AI while controlling costs, leveraging anything as a service (XaaS) models emerges as strategic.

Highlights by topic

Use IBM Watsonx’s AI or build your own machine learning models

Automate IT infrastructure management

Cloud-native software to secure resources and simplify compliance

Run code on real quantum systems using a full-stack SDK

Aggregate and analyze large datasets

Store, query and analyze structured data

Manage infrastructure, environments and deployments

Run workloads on hybrid cloud infrastructure

Responsible AI can revolutionize tax agencies to improve citizen services

Generative AI can revolutionize tax administration and drive toward a more personalized and ethical future.

How IBM and AWS are partnering to deliver the promise of responsible AI

4 min read - This partnership between IBM and Amazon SageMaker is poised to play a pivotal role in shaping responsible AI practices across industries

Speed, scale and trustworthy AI on IBM Z with Machine Learning for IBM z/OS v3.2 

4 min read - Machine Learning for IBM® z/OS® is an AI platform made for IBM z/OS environments, combining data and transaction gravity with AI infusion.

The recipe for RAG: How cloud services enable generative AI outcomes across industries

4 min read - While the AI is the key component of the RAG framework, other “ingredients” such as PaaS solutions are integral to the mix

Rethink IT spend in the age of generative AI

3 min read - It's critical for organizations to consider frameworks like FinOps and TBM for visibility and accountability of all tech expenditure.

6 hard truths CEOs must confront in the generative AI era

5 min read - A call to action for CEOs to confront the realities of generative AI and to seize its potential for your organization.

Immutable backup strategies with cloud storage

4 min read - IBM Cloud Object Storage is a versatile and scalable solution that is crucial for storing and protecting data backups.

IBM Newsletters

• Open access
• Published: 22 June 2024

Public involvement in UK health and care research 1995–2020: reflections from a witness seminar

• Marisha Emily Palm 1 , 2 ,
• David Evans 3 ,
• Sophie Staniszewska 4 ,
• Louca-Mai Brady 5 ,
• Bec Hanley 6 ,
• Kate Sainsbury 7 , 8 ,
• Derek Stewart 7 , 9 &
• Paula Wray 7  

Research Involvement and Engagement volume  10 , Article number:  65 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

243 Accesses

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

Public involvement is important to the relevance and impact of health and care research, as well as supporting the democratisation of research. In 2020, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) reorganized and eliminated INVOLVE, an internationally recognised group that had played a central role in public involvement in the UK since 1996. Its remit was subsumed within a new center tasked with public involvement, participant recruitment, and evidence dissemination. A year later, in 2021, interested parties came together to discuss the evolution of INVOLVE and consider how to retain some of the important historical details and learn lessons from its long and important tenure.

We hosted a witness seminar in 2022 that was one of four work groups and brought together public involvement leaders that had been part of the conception, development, and evolution of INVOLVE between 1995 and 2020. Witness seminars are a method used to capture the complexity and nuance of historical events or initiatives. They support critical thinking and reflection rather than simple commemoration. We identified those who had played a role in INVOLVE history, ensuring diversity of perspective, and invited them to attend and speak at the seminar. This took place during two sessions where witnesses provided their recollections and participated in a facilitated discussion.

Across the two online sessions, 29 witnesses attended and contributed thoughts and recollections. Two authors (SS, MP) identified six themes that were described in the witness seminar report and have been discussed, elaborated, and illustrated with witness quotations. These are: the importance of historical perspective; INVOLVE as a social movement; how INVOLVE worked (e.g. its hospitality, kindness, and inclusivity); INVOLVE as a quiet disruptor; public involvement evidence, knowledge, and learning; the infrastructure, processes, and systems developed by INVOLVE; and the demise and loss of INVOLVE as an internationally recognized center of excellence.

The authors of this commentary reflected on the discussions that took place during the witness seminar and the themes that emerged, and share six broad learnings for future practice; (1) it is important to create and nurture public involvement communities of practice; (2) collaborative ways of working support open discussion amongst diverse groups; (3) be aware of the tensions between activism and being part of the establishment; (4) continued efforts should be made to build an evidence base for public involvement practice; (5) there are both benefits and drawbacks to having a centralized organization leading public involvement; and (6) support for public involvement in research requires a fit-for-purpose tendering process that embeds robust public involvement.

Plain Language Abstract

Involving members of the public in research can improve the way that research is planned, managed, and shared. Between 1996 and 2020 an organization in the UK called INVOLVE had an important role in public involvement in research. When INVOLVE lost this role, some people who had been part of the group got together to think about how to save some of the important information and learn lessons from the time it had existed.

A meeting was arranged where people who have been part of an event or topic get together to share what it was like for them. This was called a witness seminar and it took place online over two days in 2022. Twenty-nine people attended and spoke about their experiences.

The people who attended the witness seminar had different ideas about why INVOLVE was important and agree that it is now missed. People talked about INVOLVE as part of a certain time in history and said it was a social movement. They felt that it was kind and caring, brought together lots of people with different ideas, and supported changes in thinking. INVOLVE had a focus on evidence and learning and created structure and systems to support public involvement in research. Losing INVOLVE was difficult because a lot of people within the UK and beyond looked to them as a leader in public involvement. We share quotes on all of these topics.

In this article we looked at how people remembered INVOLVE and thought about what information could be saved. We share lessons that will support thinking about the future of public involvement. These include things like how important it is for there to be spaces for people to come together to learn, discuss, and share, and that we have more work to do to understand public involvement and fully include it in research.

Peer Review reports

Health research is essential to improving individual and public health, and public involvement can improve the quality and impact of this research. In England, beginning in the 1990s there was emerging recognition of the importance of involving the public in health care research. The 1991 National Health Service (NHS) Research and Development Strategy was the first government document to note the relevance of public involvement [ 1 ]. In 1996, England’s Department of Health (DH) established the Standing Advisory Group on Consumer Involvement in the NHS Research and Development Programme, a group to support public involvement in research that was later rebranded as Consumers in NHS Research, and then as INVOLVE in 2003 [ 2 ]. The mention of involvement within NHS Research and Development policy, and the establishment of a national centre focused on public involvement, meant that the UK was at the forefront of a move towards inclusive involvement in health research. The NHS supported and funded public involvement, producing policies, research deliverables, and maintaining the INVOLVE Centre. When the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), England’s largest funder of health and social care research, was established in 2006, INVOLVE became part of its portfolio. In the same year, newly published Department of Health guidance stated that “patients and public must be involved in all stages of the research process” [ 2 ].

The first decades of the twenty-first century were a time of expansion, where public involvement in health and care research became more established. The involvement of public members in health research was adopted by many other research and funding organizations, including the Medical Research Council [ 3 ]. The NIHR integrated public involvement policies and practices within the Central Commissioning Facility, the Research Design Services, and some of the large grant schemes (e.g., Research for Patient Benefit, Health and Social Care Delivery Research). The public involvement zeitgeist went beyond the UK policy and funding climate, with Australia, Denmark, Canada, and the United States, and other countries, establishing support systems for public involvement in research [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Throughout this time INVOLVE was a centralized national home for public involvement in research, answering queries, developing resources to support involvement, and acting as a convener of academics, practitioners, and public members. Its inclusion in the NIHR meant that it worked in partnership with the NHS, UK universities, and local government, and collaborated widely through active outreach and Advisory Group membership. Many Advisory Group members were affiliates of UK-based patient organisations with a focus on health, some were NHS clinicians, and others were university academics with strong links to the NHS. INVOLVE primarily operated in England, and despite not having the same reach or authority, it worked closely with colleagues in the devolved nations of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. INVOLVE was not only well known in the UK, it also become internationally recognised for its leadership in public involvement.

Support for INVOLVE was maintained through an NIHR tendering process that included a funding application, a contract, and regular renewal cycles. In 2019, a call was put out for a new incarnation to support public involvement within the NIHR. The NIHR Centre for Engagement and Dissemination (CED), launched in 2020, subsumed the remit of INVOLVE. In addition to public involvement, the CED was tasked with responsibilities related to participant recruitment and evidence dissemination. The CED is still a relatively new organization, and it is unclear whether and how INVOLVE materials, processes, and learnings will be retained, though some materials have been reviewed and updated. As the CED was established, the Advisory Group was disbanded, the INVOLVE name, in use for nearly two decades, was removed, and the website fell into disuse.

A group of those who had been engaged in the work of INVOLVE, as co-founders, Advisory Group chairs and members, and Centre staff came together in 2021 to discuss the evolution of INVOLVE and consider how to retain this historical knowledge and distill lessons learned. Work groups were formed, with one group compiling INVOLVE documents, another developing a timeline, a third discussing the eternal struggle of democratising research, and the fourth hosting a witness seminar (Table  1 ).

In this paper we describe the witness seminar methodology, present a synthesis of the themes, provide illustrative quotations, and distill some of the key learnings that we hope will inform the future of public involvement. The full witness seminar report with a brief introduction, approved transcripts, a synthesis of themes, the chronology, and references, is included as an appendix to this article.

Witness seminars have been used to document significant events and historical developments, particularly in medicine and politics [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. The methodology has been developed to be flexible and fit-for-purpose; however, it often includes (1) mapping people who have been involved in a particular event, initiative, or development and inviting them to speak, (2) a facilitated discussion where invited guests, or ‘witnesses,’ share memories and reflections of the event or initiative, and (3) transcription and publication of the discussion. This method of collecting reflections allows for a full and nuanced capture of complex activities that are influenced by the environmental and social context. Experiences and perceptions are gathered from key vantage points to provide a rich understanding and lay the groundwork for considering lessons learned and next steps. Although this method is not well known, it was chosen because of its contextual and nuanced approach, which includes voices from different perspectives and is aligned with the ethos of public involvement in research.

Witness identification

We began the witness seminar process by identifying potential witnesses. INVOLVE’s governance structure included an Advisory Group of between 13 and 17 members, with a mix of public members, health professionals, and researchers. We aimed to identify former INVOLVE Advisory Group members with a range of perspectives, Advisory Group chairs, directors and staff members. The second work group (see Table  1 ), who had developed the INVOLVE timeline, shared this information, including notation that highlighted key players in the public involvement field as it evolved over the quarter century from 1995 to 2020. We reviewed this list of names, then added to it, intentionally taking an inclusive approach to engage a diversity of perspectives. We further supplemented this list via outreach to the full group of 20 individuals who had begun meeting in 2021. We shared the names of those we intended to invite to the seminar and asked the group for additional people and perspectives.

Witness invitation

After mapping the list of witnesses across time and perspective, we used our personal contacts and the internet to find publicly available email addresses for as many of the witnesses as possible. Two dates were set a week apart and a formal invitation was sent to potential witnesses. Those organizing the witness seminar (DE, SD, MP, SS) set the agenda so that the first session of the event would cover the first decade of INVOLVE and the second session would cover the second decade of INVOLVE. We invited two chairs for each session, all four of whom were in the public involvement field and had significant expertise in facilitation of diverse groups. It was important to have a balance of professional and public members of the involvement community guiding the discussion, therefore we invited one professional and one public member to share the facilitation work of each session.

Practices and procedures

Formal ethical review was not required as this was a seminar that involved a group of contributors working toward a common goal. Contributors had full ownership and control of their own text, with the opportunity to edit or withdraw text up to final approval for publication. However, the editors were mindful of ethical considerations including power inequalities between professionals and public members and sought to follow INVOLVE good practice guidance at all times [ 13 ]. The invitation sent to witnesses included notice that the online seminars would be recorded and transcribed, and that the transcriptions would be reviewed by all those participating before being published. The transcripts of both three-hour sessions were reviewed by the team organizing the witness seminar and errors were corrected. They were then sent to witnesses for their review and approval.

The transcripts were reviewed by two authors (SS, MP) to identify key themes and sub-themes. They iterated on the themes and co-developed descriptions for inclusion in the full witness seminar report (see appendix ). These themes were shared with the authors of this commentary, who discussed them in detail, shaping and adding nuance to their description. Authors met once to agree the framing of the manuscript and to discuss the themes in detail, and then again to share thoughts about recommendations arising from the witness seminar. After each virtual meeting a draft of the manuscript was circulated for review and comment.

We identified 45 potential witnesses and found contact details for 36 (80%); of those contacted, 29 witnesses agreed to participate in the seminar, 13 in the first session and 16 in the second. Four of the witnesses were asked to chair and/or facilitate the discussion. All witnesses were invited to attend both sessions but given a speaking slot at one, and many people attended and contributed to the discussion in both sessions.

The witnesses who attended included many UK public involvement leaders with a diversity of roles within health care organisations, research institutions, user-led organisations, governmental organisations, and the community and voluntary sector. There were also public involvement leaders in attendance who were experts through experience with the health and/or social care system and were not part of a wider organisation. Brief biographical details of the witnesses are included in the full report, where the broad range of skills and perspectives represented are apparent.

Qualitative themes

The themes that were identified and discussed are captured in Table  2 and appear as numbered headers below. These are explained briefly in the final pages of the witness seminar report. In this paper we share quotes that illustrate the themes and showcase the mixed history of INVOLVE. The quotes are long but their length has largely been maintained to protect the rich and detailed information provided by witness accounts.

The importance of historical perspective

Witnesses talked about the historical context and its impact on the development of INVOLVE. There were references to the context and wider government and political changes, changes in the health research climate, and their influence on INVOLVE and its remit. There was recognition of the mixed history and the importance of this nuanced perspective. The quotations here showcase some of the historical shifts that witnesses experienced, from changes in the political climate, to structural transformation in the organizational environment surrounding INVOLVE, to the widening of INVOLVE’s remit.

One witness talked about the shift away from the hierarchical medical model common before the mid-90 s and towards a flattened hierarchy or shared approach that has supported progress in health research and health care.

“You go back to the mid-'90s, and it's not gone now entirely, but there was still that feeling that scientists invented, doctors prescribed, patients took and were grateful, whether it worked or not. Shifting away from that cascade, that hierarchical model, to a more, sort of, matrix-based approach where there was an expectation of, to a certain extent at least, a negotiated approach to planning and delivering research and development, to service provision and so on, was actually very important. I think that then translated through into the developments that we've seen since.” – Alistair Kent (Advisory Group Member)

The history of the contextual structures, remit, and priorities of INVOLVE was also discussed, with expansion leading to an evolution of INVOLVE’s organizational role over time.

“The budget involved did increase over time quite considerably, certainly from the very early days, but the remit and priorities of the group continued to expand, because when we started off it was very much just NHS and it moved towards public health and social care and other work. The other issue in terms of when the NIHR was established, that in one way the expertise and involvement grew across the NIHR, there were a lot more people involved who were able to support and work with people and develop ideas. The INVOLVE role in developing and providing shared resources also needed to expand because there were more people needing to think about these issues and talking about it.” – Sarah Buckland (Director)

“I was in the staff unit for seven and a half years and it was an immense period of change in itself, of expansion. I do remember feeling that towards the end it-, it's almost like the environment around us was changing very rapidly, and the rhetoric was changing rapidly in the wider environment. It wasn't just about INVOLVE, what it had become. It wasn't just about the group. We were beginning to work more and more in an environment where other organisations had their own patient public involvement units and staff, and so on... So, I felt that there was becoming an increasing tension with it as well, in the sense that INVOLVE having, sort of, broken through institutionalisation was maybe becoming a bit of an institution as well.” – Roger Steel (Staff member)

The political context and government actions were also mentioned by witnesses, with one witness reflecting on how changes in political climate affected the work of INVOLVE.

“There seems to be a distinct arc for me, from about 2006 to when INVOLVE morphed into the Centre for Engagement. And that begins with some very heady days around 2010, 2011, 2012, when we were seeing things like the NHS Constitution come forward, the research mandate in the Health and Social Care Act of 2013. You know, it seemed to be that people's idea may not be what we would class as public involvement but people's idea of public involvement was spawning everywhere and that felt a very, very exciting time. Even though that was against a very clear, difficult agenda around austerity. And then, I think around 2016, 2017, things became very much more difficult. The political environment changed. There was a change in government with Cameron and Brexit and all those things and things became a lot harder if you had anything to do with the Citizen Agenda. And so, I would say that became the next phase that was very, very difficult to navigate.” – Simon Denegri (Advisory Group Chair)

INVOLVE as a social movement

The theme of INVOLVE as a social movement emerged strongly through both days of the witness seminars. INVOLVE brought together people who sought change and it was described as having persuasive storytellers, champions, and people who led the way toward democratisation of health and social care research. The quotes below capture what it felt like to be part of that movement, pushing boundaries, campaigning for change, growing the movement, and eventually becoming a powerful force not only nationally but internationally. In many ways it was the loss of this social movement that caused concern and distress for some.

A sub-theme within the idea of INVOLVE as a social movement was the importance of public involvement leaders and champions, which was mentioned by many of the witnesses. The early champions spoken about in the first quote below led to a movement that created future champions and inspired others to promote public engagement, as expressed in the final three quotes.

“The key thing I wanted to pick up was about the importance of leadership in all this. So, leadership of Ruth [Evans], and Nick [Partridge], and Iain [Chalmers], and Harry [Cayton], of what was then the Standing Advisory Group, and then Consumers in NHS Research, but also leadership of a number of researchers who, as Nick [Partridge] said, really stuck their neck on the block to champion involvement, and other people who were leaders in their own field, so other members of the Standing Advisory Group who were leaders, who pushed for involvement in research in their own ways-, that, I think, has been key to what's happened.” – Bec Hanley (Director)

“I know that, at national, local, and international level, members of INVOLVE, or people who used our resources, came to the conferences, were inspired by what the Support Unit was doing, what INVOLVE was publishing, went out and made extraordinary contributions, and challenged people, across health and social care, to ensure much greater patient and public engagement in the whole of the research cycle.” – Nick Partridge (Advisory Group Chair)

“At the beginning, there were these strong people that were willing to say what they thought, and come up with new ideas, and really push for public and patient involvement to become the norm, sort of, laid the ground for us that were going to come in later. I've always been known as a bit of a revolting peasant, so it's great that there were some revolting peasants before me.” – Amander Wellings (Advisory Group Member)

“And I think I would say that all of the INVOLVE members, they were all great ambassadors for going out and telling that story. And that's, I think, one of the ways-, we weren't armed with lots of money to communicate, actually, we were just armed with an awful lot of very good people who are excellent communicators and, and really good at telling a story.” – Simon Denegri (Advisory Group Chair)

One of the quotes above mentions ‘revolting peasants’, a metaphor for those experiencing oppression rising up against their oppressors, and the quote below refers to campaigning and power differentials. This vocabulary echoes the language of social movements, with collective efforts to seek change and a shift in power.

"I think there's also something really important…about dress, and costume, and title. I came along as a representative-, as a mother, somebody without the formal role. I came along as a mother who knew that there weren't services, and was campaigning, and had come through a background of campaigning, for the lack of services, not that one service should be measured against another. I remember that the first conference I attended, and participated, and took the soapbox-, I actually changed into a nightdress and dressing gown to go on stage, because it always felt to me really important that we embodied, and actually modelled, what it was to be powerless, and you don't get much more powerless than wearing a nightdress and a dressing gown in front of a professor in a suit." – Kate Sainsbury (Advisory Group Chair)

The growth of the movement and the increased recognition that it received over time was also mentioned, with INVOLVE's reach starting in the UK but eventually becoming international as it was as the forefront of change.

“Both the extent to which greater public involvement was beginning to spread across the globe, literally, but the degree to which, at the front of that movement, whatever you want to call it, was the INVOLVE name. Everywhere you went people talked about INVOLVE. They talked about the resources. They talked about it as their North Pole. You know, everybody looked at INVOLVE as providing the leadership and the hope and the aspiration that they were all looking to embed in their own nation. And I think it's quite difficult to describe just how strong that was and continues… So, so that international, global, reach was incredible.” – Simon Denegri (Advisory Group Chair)

The importance of how INVOLVE worked

INVOLVE was positioned as a convener and witnesses described the importance of how it brought people together in meetings, work groups, and at biannual conferences. There was an intentional flattening of hierarchies and a recognition of the importance of language and its use. Witnesses talked about the hospitality and kindness of the INVOLVE support staff and members. There was a deliberate inclusivity and support for a diversity of voices to speak respectfully. This was described as building a community, supporting trust and leading to INVOLVE becoming a respected brand.

Witnesses spoke about how INVOLVE brought people together, created community and a forum for discussion, supported networking, and empowered active involvement.

“Bringing together such a wide range of people and the fact that everybody was supported to be heard, to feel comfortable, to be valued, I think was really, really important. And I think--, that was both through the advisory group, but I think also through things like the conferences and the events. I think the INVOLVE conference was absolutely critical in bringing together the wider public involvement community. And, you know, I think I always came away from those things really enthused, really inspired, but also with new information, new networks, new contacts. And there feels like a real gap in the public involvement world now, particularly without the conferences. There's been nothing else that's replicated that. And I think physically bringing people together in that way, was so, so important.” – Louca-Mai Brady (Advisory Group Member)

“It’s important to say that INVOLVE was, I think, the most significant force in enabling the voices and experiences of patients and the public to have a voice and a presence in what we know as patient public involvement in research. It created a forum to talk about involvement, produced guidance and guidelines, held conferences and developed a community, and we who are here today were all there, and are still there in this.” – Derek Stewart (Advisory Group Member)

The word humanity was used by a few of the witnesses to describe how INVOLVE supported the public involvement community.

“I think the humanity of INVOLVE was really, really important and I think it didn't get clouded by lots of jargon and words and all sorts of stuff, it just ended up being something we all understood for a very long time.” – Rachel Purtell (Advisory Group Member)

Examples of what is meant by humanity are captured in the quotes below, with one witness talking about how INVOLVE staff and the Advisory Group modelled good practice in making sure everyone felt important, another witness talking about demonstrations of kindness and compassion, and a third talking about feeling part of a family.

“What Roger [Steel] and I were trying to do is model what we saw as good practice, which is the opposite of the bad practice of the people with all the titles, with the big table in Leeds Castle, making people feel small. Actually, there's no place in this world…for making somebody else feel small and as Goethe said, only everyone knows the truth. I think we were there to bear witness to that.” – Kate Sainsbury (Advisory Group Chair)

“That culture that was engendered by the organisation, the way in which all of the staff involved in that showed and demonstrated kindness and compassion. And that's really important for everybody. It was important for me, too… You were made to feel special, and that, I think, made all of us feel the ability to stand up and speak and say what you felt…Probably my last point would be the diversity of what INVOLVE was about. And I don't mean that just in the sense of people being different, but people's opinions being different. It was wonderful to be involved in something where I could sit in a room and hear people with vehemently different views, but a sense that they were all accepted. And it was okay that there was disagreement. And that was special, and it's unusual to, to, to experience that and see that and be a part of it.” – Stuart Eglin (Advisory Group Member)

“In terms of personal contribution, I actually felt like I was part of a family. And that's quite difficult to find in this day and age. It was lovely to be a part of that community. And at the time, some of you may remember, I was fairly introverted in, in the classic way of difficulty speaking up in a group. And I held my idea 'til the end and sometimes missed the moment, but with facilitation, people generally brought that out of me. I'm not so introverted now, I hasten to add. And I have no problem challenging or questioning, because I know some of you around the table now. But seriously, I honed some of those skills through INVOLVE.” – Tracey Williamson (Advisory Group Member)

The last two quotes related to how involved worked go beyond talking about the kindness of INVOLVE and also touch on how this supported the expression of a diversity of views and encouraged people to speak up and share their ideas and questions.

INVOLVE as a quiet disruptor

There was a theme of INVOLVE as a "quiet disruptor" that witnesses talked about as a strategic way to challenge the status quo and push for change. These forms of influence were described as sometimes subtle and calculated to work from within and to balance “challenge and encouragement” as one witness described. Depending upon perspective, these softer efforts to influence may have complemented some of the activist elements of INVOLVE or perhaps dulled them.

One witness talked about the work done by INVOLVE members and the staff centre using discussion, conversation, and presentation, to support public involvement in various venues.

“I know INVOLVE members would often, through the work they were doing, by those conversations and discussions with people, could often change how things might then develop and how people might think about things, also through the conferences, the opportunities of people to come together and have those conversations or workshops and discuss things. Some of it from the INVOLVE Coordinating Centre, we were often chipping away by going and talking to people, giving presentations or being part of advisory groups, just trying to influence alongside members doing some of that as well. Sometimes it felt we got somewhere, sometimes we were still carrying on trying to knock at the door.” – Sarah Buckland (Director)

This influence, using passion and persuasion rather than authority, caused a spreading awareness and allowed those in patient communities to be more assertive in their attempts to influence health research and service delivery.

“That core group, the influence, the awareness spread out into the patient community, the family community, and gave confidence to support organisations for those supporting families with particular conditions to be more assertive in the way in which they were able to approach the research community, the clinical community, to shape the nature of the research that was being undertaken, where that was possible, and also to influence beyond that into the way in which services were delivered within the context of the NHS.” – Alistair Kent (Advisory Group Member)

The witness quotations below recognise the importance of choosing battles carefully and knowing when to be disruptive and when not to push boundaries.

“I remember having discussions with Harry [Cayton], with Bec [Hanley], and with Sarah [Buckland] about making sure that we chose the battles that we could win, and getting the balance right between challenge and encouragement, and giving the resources and the push and the lift to those researchers and research funders who really wanted to embrace this.” – Nick Partridge (Advisory Group Chair)

“One of my reflections is knowing when to be disruptive and when to play the system is actually quite an important awareness to have as a change facilitator.” – David Evans (Advisory Group Member)

However, there was acknowledgement of the limits of quiet disruption, and the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable forms of disruption. This tension between activism and being part of an institution is also reflected in the demise and loss of INVOLVE theme described below.

“I wonder if there was always this idea, and I think it exists even now, of acceptable people outside the system that could be invited in, and people that were just so unacceptable that they weren't.” – Lynn Laidlaw (Advisory Group Member)

Evidence, knowledge and learning

Witnesses spoke of the importance that INVOLVE placed on evidence, knowledge, and learning, and how public involvement practice was supported via collective learning and building an evidence base. INVOLVE’s sub-group ‘Evidence, Knowledge and Learning’ engaged in thinking about evidence and knowledge from different perspectives, and INVOLVE created resources and evidence syntheses that helped to inform practice as well as convince others of the importance and impact of public involvement. While the quotes below capture important progress, they also reflect concern that the work fell short and there were missed opportunities to be the driver of a change in research culture, especially around methodology development.

One witness talked about the evolution of evidence collection and synthesis that was supported by INVOLVE.

“I think Nick [Partridge] referred to the database of research projects that was first established very early on, which developed into the evidence library, studies of consumers involved in NHS regions, and then moving on later to impact of involvement and examples of public involvement, but building a background knowledge and issues that people could understand about what has gone on and what difference public involvement is making for some organisations and some individuals was hugely important.” – Sarah Buckland (Director)

Another spoke about the evidence synthesis being a tool in successfully convincing those outside of the public involvement community of its important contributions to research.

“One of the things I think INVOLVE gave me was the resources to tackle the entrenched culture which was not inclusive and involving. And it was partly the confidence that having the experience of being part of the group gave me. It was partly things like the evidence synthesis work, which was really, really important. That was a very useful tool in convincing people that there was something of substance in public involvement, that it really did contribute to research. – David Evans (Advisory Group Member)

Witnesses also spoke about the nature of the evidence collection and synthesis, which was inclusive and diverse, and the role that it played in future developments, like the launch of an international journal that has been co-developed with a patient editor in chief.

"I always felt really proud of the work that Evidence, Knowledge and Learning [Advisory Committee Sub-group] did, and I think we were really careful to value different forms of knowledge, and different forms of evidence and learning, and it wasn't just about academic knowledge and publication. It was about a whole range of perspectives, including the tacit knowledge people have as practitioners, which is hugely important. So, the work we did was vital and from that group came our journal, Research Involvement and Engagement, and lots of people inputted into that, and it's still the only journal, international journal, with a patient as co-editor in chief." – Sophie Staniszewska (Advisory Group Member)

Although witnesses acknowledged the importance of the tools and resources developed by INVOLVE, this was tempered by a feeling that there was a limit to INVOLVE’s remit that meant that it could promote change but did not have the power to drive that change forward.

“I think it did an absolutely brilliant job and I've always been a huge fan of everything that's been done but it always felt that it didn't have the executive power to drive and support, and make the change happen. It just had to do things, it produced lots of the tools but couldn't actually be the driver. Everybody who was part of it wanted it to do but it wasn't given the remit to do and it wasn't given the high level support.” – Jim Elliott (Advisory Group Member)

There was also acknowledgement of where INVOLVE did not achieve its aims; despite leading the synthesis of evidence and building resources, witnesses spoke about a failure to change the culture in research, and particularly the hierarchy of methods and evidence production.

"I think that something that we have really failed to do is change the culture in research, where actually we're still just, tolerated, 'we'll put patients at the centre', but actually what does that mean? We tinker around at the edges, and we have frameworks, and we have tick boxes, and whatever. But unless we fundamentally change the culture of what evidence, or what knowledge, is valued then I think we're stuck." – Lynn Laidlaw (Advisory Group Member)

“I think all of those things that particularly we didn't crack…like the hierarchy of methods - the hierarchy of evidence is not a hierarchy of evidence, it's a hierarchy for producing evidence, a hierarchy of methods and we didn't manage to crack it.” – Diana Rose (Advisory Group Member)

Infrastructure, processes, and systems

INVOLVE played an important role in developing infrastructure to support public involvement. Witnesses mentioned the development of guidance documents and standards, as well as how these resources laid the foundation for network building and collaboration. In addition, INVOLVE played a key role in development of NIHR public involvement infrastructure, including its embedding in peer review and the setting of research priorities.

Witnesses spoke about the practical guidance documents that were developed early in INVOLVE’s tenure and remain relevant.

“The work of INVOLVE, I would say, was absolutely hugely valuable. Numerous guidance documents, so for me, the, the biggest benefit and then, I believe, impact is through the guidance documents that were developed that are still largely relevant today. And obviously, some got refreshed. The Briefing Notes for Researchers was, I personally think, the best thing they ever did.” – Tracey Williamson (Advisory Group Member)

INVOLVE also acted as a convenor of public involvement priority working groups where diversity and inclusion were prioritized.

“All of our working groups, everything we did, we looked at all the diverse stakeholders, anyone that wanted to be a part, could be a part in shaping what we were doing, and it was about the common purpose. Standards [ 14 , 15 ] was a fantastic example of that, representatives of the devolved nations and Northern Ireland, and Ireland, and public contributors, where you didn't know who was who around the table.” – Paula Wray (Staff Member)

The development of resources and networks was described by one witness as creating a positive environment for patient and public involvement (PPI) that allowed new collaborative partnerships to develop.

“I was trying to set up a network of people across the west of England because I was aware that every institution, every university, every research centre had a part time somebody …sometimes funded and sometimes unfunded, to do a bit of PPI. And it was really, really difficult to get resource together to do things on a more collaborative basis and everybody was reinventing the wheel… Becoming a member of INVOLVE and getting really into the INVOLVE world, and understanding all the resources and understanding the networks enabled me, with others, to build a real network of people and… get the different bits of NIHR, in the west of England, to work together and pool their resource and ended up having a team which has been… working collaboratively across the universities and the bits of NIHR. And develop a, a real infrastructure and resource and memory and really good practice and so on. And so, for me, this is one of the key things that INVOLVE contributed to, was creating this much more positive environment for PPI in our region and it wouldn't have happened without INVOLVE.” – David Evans (Advisory Group Member)

The embedding of public involvement in the NIHR was described by a witness as including a role for patients and the public in commissioning and peer reviewing of research, in setting research priorities, and in selection of senior investigators.

“Throughout this time, public involvement in research did become firmly embedded in what became NIHR, rather than CDRC [Central Research and Development Committee], NIHR systems, strategy and structures. We ought to recognise the importance, and how fortunate we were, with the different medical officers of health that we had. They were hugely important in helping us be able to do this. Members of public became routinely involved as members of NIHR programme boards commissioning research, and as peer reviewers of research bids, in a way that was almost unimaginable in 1999. Patients and the public also became involved in a range of strategic activities, including setting research priorities, and in selection of NIHR senior investigators. I do wonder if that still happens. The INVOLVE Coordinating Centre became an integral part of NIHR.” – Nick Partridge (Advisory Group Chair)

The demise and loss of INVOLVE as an internationally recognised centre of excellence

There was a lot of discussion amongst witnesses about how INVOLVE’s role and remit changed over time, and the move from relative independence to more constraint. Witnesses reflected on INVOLVE’s link to the DH and NIHR, increases in bureaucracy, decreases in transparency and influence, and a tendering process that some felt did not include adequate consultation with members of the public and was not fit for purpose. There was great sadness and disappointment around the loss of INVOLVE as an important international leader in public involvement and a desire to consider lessons learned. The demise and loss of INVOLVE was a substantive theme with interconnected elements that we wanted to highlight via the subheadings of: changes in INVOLVE’s role and remit; a decrease in independence and an increase in bureaucracy; and the loss of INVOLVE after a long tenure.

Changes in INVOLVE’s role and remit

The growth of INVOLVE’s remit over time and the increase in public involvement across the NIHR were described by witnesses.

“Over a period of time INVOLVE seemed to get busier and busier and trying to respond to a whole range of expectations as we went through the years. It was almost becoming a victim of its own success and had to think about reconfiguring.” – Roger Steel (Staff Member)

There were challenges related to this growth and evolution that were discussed, with one witness acknowledging the lack of resources and the difficulty navigating expansion over time, and other witnesses talking about what was perceived as an inherent conflict in INVOLVE’s remit growing to include engagement and participation/recruitment.

“Suddenly there was involvement spawning everywhere across this family. It needed to be the centre of gravity for that, but it was never really well-resourced enough to do that. It could never actually-, it was probably set up for failure. Not deliberately set up for failure in that sense and I think they found it very, very difficult to understand, navigate, think about its relationship, its position, in relation to that growth and spread of an idea and ideals and quite what its best role should be.” – Simon Denegri (Advisory Group Chair)

“I felt at the time and still do that involvement needed to be kept separate because bringing in engagement and participation both confused people and diverted resources away from involvement alone, the other two being bigger enterprises in terms of people and likely to need more input.” – Jim Elliott (Advisory Group Member)

“It seemed to me that INVOLVE was about research by the public, not on the public, by the public and with the public, by patients and with patients, not on patients and on the public, but now all of a sudden we're into recruitment. We're into getting more and more people into research as subjects or participants, as they laughingly like to call them. I think that was a bit of an undoing and that tension ran through things for quite a long time. So, we had, ‘It's okay to ask,’ it was very much persuading people to come and participate in trials. At the same time we're talking about co-production and research being done by the public and research being done by patients, it was a conflict I felt and it wasn't well-handled.” – Diana Rose (Advisory Group Member)

These changes over time led to perceived differences over the underlying purpose of involvement, which one witness described as the tension between “propping up the neoliberal state and…challenging it”.

“I see the time of INVOLVE as us moving from feeling we're all on the same road together, to a gradual realisation, amongst us as service users, that those who talk PPI actually are often concerned with something rather different. And those of us concerned with user involvement, from a perspective of disabled people, mental health services users and so on are about liberatory democratisation. And that one is concerned with propping up the neo-liberal state and the other is with challenging it. This realisation of a growing gap, perhaps, making the role of INVOLVE untenable, I think was very important. Also, I began to feel, maybe it's because I was hanging around, a lack of transparency in the direction of travel of the unit of INVOLVE. A sense of diminishing influence.” – Peter Beresford (Advisory Group Member)

A decrease in independence and increase in bureaucracy

Witnesses talked about the relationship between INVOLVE, England’s Department of Health, and the NIHR. The first witness in this section describes INVOLVE’s closeness to the Department of Health.

“The first dilemma, I think, for INVOLVE was its closeness to the Department of Health. It's been touched on a lot. I think INVOLVE played that role brilliantly. It was incredibly influential and central to success with governments and civil servants. I think some days it meant there was a caution, that instead of just going, 'just get on with it', or 'just do it', meant that they stopped and thought what it might mean to the Department. I think that was right and proper, but I think sometimes it had a frustration attached to it.” – Derek Stewart (Advisory Group Member)

Another witness talked about changes over time from an initial position of relative independence to progressively more constraint and management by the NIHR.

“I think a key strength of the Standing Group and then INVOLVE, in its early days, was its relative independence compared to when it was more directly-managed, and increasingly directly-managed by National Institute for Health Research, because it could constructively criticise what the Department of Health did, and what NHS R&D did, and that was very effective. That did bring about change… But actually it's been much more difficult in the second half of the history when it's been, kind of, managed out-, the independence has been felt like it's been managed out, and I think everybody's contributions so far have really brought that out, the really important element of that relative independence and the ability to be very vocal and say what we think and not be afraid of that, and it really makes me feel that the second half of it was quite constrained, and actually that was one of the reasons why I let my tenure on the Advisory Group end sooner than it might have done.” – Jim Elliott (Advisory Group Member)

One witness described INVOLVE as playing the role of a critical friend and outsider before the links between NIHR grew and the role became more about process and standards.

“I think, I'd say, reflecting what people said about how INVOLVE changed, I agree. Certainly, at the beginning, it felt a lot more open, a lot more exciting. A lot more of a collaborative process where things were up for grabs. And obviously that may be because I was younger then and a bit more enthusiastic and less cynical. But I think there was also the sense of being a critical friend to NIHR, but also having a wider remit. Being an outsider. And I think that was really important, and I think over the time, it became increasingly more about a focus on process, about standards, about how involvement is done. And a lot more, as people have said, a lot more closely linked to the NIHR.” – Louca-Mai Brady (Advisory Group Member)

The decrease in independence was also experienced as an increase in bureaucracy that made it more difficult to achieve things.

“So, I'd started off in INVOLVE that was really, really active and really good at achieving something, to INVOLVE that was strangled by bureaucracy and politics, and funding cuts, and, and changes of contracts, and all that. And I was just in the middle of that, like a swan. You couldn't see how much my feet were going under the water to try and actually get things to be achieved, and that, as an autistic person, was really hard for me, because I wanted to see things being produced. I didn't want to sit in a group where they talked about a strategy that may not happen, and business models. That wasn't me. I just needed to get out there, work with people and produce things. That was my passion.” – Amander Wellings (Advisory Group Member)

Loss of INVOLVE after its long tenure

Many witnesses reflected on the last years of INVOLVE and its loss. The first witness quoted in this section acknowledged its long tenure and strength over time.

“INVOLVE actually had a remarkable continuity and a longevity, compared to other patient and public involvement structures in the early 2000s. I think that's really important to remember. So, of the ones I can remember, we saw the abolition of the community health councils, the establishment and then, in quick succession, the abolition of patient forums, local involvement networks or LINKs, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, and the NHS National Centre for Involvement, among others. INVOLVE, though, survived and thrived.” – Nick Partridge (Advisory Group Chair)

One witness described feeling a sadness about the final years of INVOLVE as public involvement became more mainstream and those championing it became less well positioned to agitate for change.

“The last few years of INVOLVE's life, I just felt, were really, really deeply saddening, because the system in some ways had accepted involvement and engagement as an important issue, but was sucking it into itself to swallow it up and make it part of the mainstream. And as soon as it becomes part of the mainstream, it loses its ability to, I've used the word already, agitate to do something to keep changing things.” – Stuart Eglin (Advisory Group Member)

There was surprise about the move away from INVOLVE, with one witness feeling that it came “out of the blue” without sufficient consultation, and another mourning the loss of the INVOLVE reputation and brand.

“INVOLVE becoming part of the Centre for Engagement and Dissemination came as a big surprise to me as somebody who'd been involved. It just came out of the blue. There was no consultation about it within the PPI world and I think that was a very big missed opportunity, and in a way it was related to tendering, obviously, but the government seems to want to do consultations all the time so I don't know why there wasn't a consultation about this change.” – Mary Nettle (Advisory Group Member)

“The credibility and respect that INVOLVE had both nationally and indeed internationally for its work on patient and public involvement and it had a really, really great reputation. So, it was always slightly sad to see the INVOLVE brand, the name, actually go and that was something that we all fought very hard for at the end. At one stage I think we thought we had got it agreed that it would keep the name, but, but hey, it, it didn't and we move on.” – Gary Hickey (Staff member)

It is an indication of the importance of INVOLVE that a large number of those who had worked in and around the organization over the years gave their time to engage in the witness seminar. One limitation of the commentary is that, though a wide range of public members, health professionals, and researchers were able to join the witness seminar, it was an unfunded project and we were not able to offer any support to join in dissemination efforts. This meant that not all public members who we initially invited to be part of the commentary writing group were able to join as some had to prioritize paid opportunities. Another limitation was the close involvement of all witnesses in the development and evolution of INVOLVE. While this is common in witness seminars, it can mean a bias toward insider perspectives while neglecting perspectives that are further removed. To address this, a retired senior manager at NIHR who would have had oversight of the tendering process was invited to participate, but they declined, so unfortunately this perspective was not able to be included.

A clear message from the seminar is that there is historical knowledge that should be maintained and the themes can inform future efforts to build communities of practice around public involvement in research. The theme of INVOLVE as a social movement is an important consideration for the field. Social movements are agents of change that work through collective behaviour and typically sit outside of organizational constraints [ 16 ]. INVOLVE began as the efforts of a minority who saw the importance of involving public members in shaping health care research. From the early days of INVOLVE through the expansion of the early 2010s some of the social movement ethos was maintained. The foothold in the NIHR gave INVOLVE a voice within the traditional structures of health and care research and research funding. This was seen as a useful lever, a way to have influence, and a seat at the table where decisions were being made. However, this was counter-balanced by the institutionalization of the Centre, with early freedom to act as a critical friend later seen as subsumed by strictures of inflexible systems.

The description of the evolution of INVOLVE as the development of a social movement exists as a backdrop to much of the conversation within the witness seminar. With this as context, and the feeling there are many things that can be learned from the recollections of those who were part of the emergence, evolution, and demise of INVOLVE, the authors of this commentary report six important lessons based on the conversations that occurred as part of the witness seminar. The witness seminar report provides a nuanced and detailed account that we encourage others to read in full, conducting further analyses and parsing the information for additional lessons and specific recommendation for groups that develop, support, and fund public involvement in health and care research. We have included below what we believe are broad learnings for future practice nationally and internationally, framed in a way that we intend to be useful for all those interested in the future success of public involvement in health and care research.

It is important to create and nurture public involvement communities of practice

The early days of public involvement saw small numbers of committed individuals working together to inspire others and eventually accessing levers of power that provided funding, structure and support. The expansion of public involvement meant that there was an ongoing need to convene groups of like-minded people to share learnings, support each other, and build knowledge and evidence. The bi-annual INVOLVE conference and centralized web space, listing groups supporting public involvement around the country and housing a database of evidence, supported and grew the community of practice in essential ways. The loss of INVOLVE as a hospitable convener has meant fragmentation and fewer opportunities for collaboration and shared learning.

Collaborative ways of working support open discussion amongst diverse groups

There was a lot of conversation about INVOLVE’s ways of working, which included transparency, responsiveness, openness, and respect. In order to bring a diverse range of voices into the room, forethought and understanding of accommodation, dietary, and access needs, were essential. Good facilitation and an intentional approach were crucial to witness reports of growing confidence and the ability to voice ideas. Hospitality, awareness and celebration of differences, and platforms to speak and be heard, all came together to open discussions. Healthy disagreement and productive tension were part of this open discussion, and a culture of respect meant that ideas could be challenged and iterated upon in an arena where many people felt understood.

Be aware of the tensions between activism and being part of the establishment

Public involvement, with its roots in a social movement of activists for change, maintains the spirit of collective action, pushing boundaries and supporting the embedding of involvement and the importance of power-sharing. The first iterations of INVOLVE were composed of those outside of the mainstream agitating for change and achieving a platform within existing structures. The subtle shifts as the role of INVOLVE was shaped not only from the inside but also by the structures it existed within led to the tension that was described by the witnesses who spoke at the seminar. While some of activist ideas and approaches were maintained, over the years the Centre was asked to take on a wider remit and the tendering process for the Centre budget became more opaque. The work of INVOLVE began to be focused on process rather than leadership and this evolution limited its range of motion and access to power. While the tension was experienced as essential and positive at times, eventually the balance was tipped and there was the perception that the work was becoming less activist and more institutionalized.

Continued efforts should be made to build an evidence base for public involvement practice

INVOLVE championed building an evidence base for public involvement. This meant supporting an understanding of where, when, and how public involvement in research is being carried out and what makes it successful for members of the public, researchers, and the scientific community. INVOLVE supported scoping reviews, literature reviews, identification of gaps, and filling of those gaps. They created a repository of peer reviewed literature as well as a database of public involvement activity across the country so that local and regional groups could interact and learn from one another. These efforts to join thinking, support prioritization of literature and practice gaps, and highlight existing evidence were important to the growth of the field. A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement that looked at literature between 1995 and 2009 found that the UK publication by population was by far the highest, with those in the UK contributing significantly to the evidence base [ 17 ]. The loss of INVOLVE as an advocate for building evidence, and as a force for ensuring the capture and centralized sharing of this information, may mean a longer road to change and impact.

There are both benefits and drawbacks to having a centralized organization leading public involvement

The national progress made to involve the public in health research was supported by INVOLVE in many ways. They had a seat at the table by virtue of being embedded into structures of power and were seen as the experts and therefore could be part of shaping policy and practice. Researchers interested in involving the public in their work were directed to INVOLVE for advice and support, including materials, templates, and links to relevant literature. The longevity of INVOLVE acting as a centralised home for public involvement expertise benefited health care funders, researchers, and public members who were interested in getting involved. A ‘home’ for public involvement meant easy access to cutting edge research and practice in the area. However, these benefits came alongside less flexibility and challenges related to institutionalization. Having one central voice rather than many can risk dampening dialogue and feel constraining to those who are agitating for change in different ways. It is likely that future iterations of the organised work of public involvement will experience a similar balancing act – with benefits to centralised organising being tempered by the restrictions inherent in institutionalised efforts.

Support for public involvement in research requires a fit-for-purpose tendering process that embeds robust public involvement

There was discussion amongst the witnesses about the evolution of INVOLVE and the tendering process. While the early tendering process was collaborative, with some flexibility and interaction between those with expertise in public involvement, as time went on tendering became more prescriptive and was developed by people who were perceived as having less understanding of the work and how it sits within the wider landscape. The INVOLVE brand had been built over decades, took an inclusive approach, and had a particular remit. The remit, stretched initially to include public health and social care, was then grouped with participation in research, and dissemination of research. The most recent tender had the widest remit, with less focus on building on earlier successes and a requirement to do more with fewer staff and less funding. The developers of the tender were seen as sitting outside of the public involvement sphere and not sufficiently engaging those with expertise in the area. Public involvement was bundled with other issues and the priority and focus shifted. The changes did not feel informed, and left the witnesses feeling that a fit-for-purpose model would have better avoided losing momentum and historical knowledge.

Conclusions

This paper illustrates some of the themes and sub-themes that arose in the INVOLVE witness seminar using quotations from the witnesses who attended. After attending the seminars and reviewing the transcripts, we developed lessons that may inform future efforts to support public involvement. The tension between activism and the institutionalisation of public involvement is something that is likely to continue. Thoughtful discussion about this balance will be important, and the tightrope walk between agitating for change and becoming part of the establishment may be inherently difficult. The lesson around matching process to fit and function bears repeating. Witnesses talked about the context and confluence of events that led to the dissolution of INVOLVE, and there was agreement regarding the difficulty of the tendering process and the fact that it was disruptive, opaque, and ultimately led to a change in course that meant the end of the INVOLVE tenure.

The witness seminar provided a “mixed history” of INVOLVE spoken by a diverse group of people who were a key part of its development and evolution. Individuals with lived experience played leadership roles in INVOLVE, and their independence served to hold it to account. True to this spirit, there was a sense that the witnesses wanted to engage in a critical review rather than a simple celebratory history. The full transcript, an appendix to this paper, showcases problems and tensions as well as celebrating the growth of an inclusive movement. The constructive reflection shown by witnesses, as well as the open and respectful conversation, make us feel hopeful that we can use some of the difficult lessons to support reflective thought and action, inform future efforts, and continue the push toward democratisation of research.

Availability of data and materials

Our commentary relates to the Witness Seminar, which was written up as a report and published on the International Patient and Public Involvement Network website. All of the data is available in full, with reviewed and approved transcripts included as part of the report.

Abbreviations

Central Research and Development Committee

NIHR Centre for Engagement and Dissemination

Department of Health

National Health Service

• National Institute for Health and Care Research

Patient and Public Involvement

Research and Development

Peckham M. Research and development for the National Health Service. The Lancet. 1991;338(8763):367–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(91)90494-A .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Department of Health. Duty to Involve Patients Strengthened: Briefing on Section 242 of NHS Act 2006. Gateway Reference 9138. London: DH, 2007. Available at: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130123192901/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_081089

Medical Research Council. Public involvement and engagement – Medical Research Council. https://www.ukri.org/what-we-do/public-engagement/public-engagement-mrc/ .

Clancy C, Collins FS. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: The Intersection of Science and Health Care. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2(37). https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3001235 .

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Canada’s Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research. Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2012. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44000.html .

Staley K, Sandvei M, Horder M. “ A Problem Shared...” The Challenges of Public Involvement for Researchers in Denmark and the UK. TwoCan Associates; April 2019: 22. https://www.twocanassociates.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/A-problem-shared_forskningsrapport_A4.pdf

Consumer and Community Engagement. National Health and Medical Research Council https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/consumer-and-community-involvement/consumer-and-community-engagement .

Consumers Health Forum of Australia. Statement on Consumer and Community Involvement in Health and Medical Research, National Health and Medical Research Council . ; 2006. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/statement-consumer-and-community-involvement-health-and-medical-research .

Jones EM, Tansey EM, eds. Human Gene Mapping Workshops c.1973-c.1991: The Transcript of a Witness Seminar Held by the History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group, Queen Mary, University of London, on 25 March 2014. Queen Mary University of London; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2016.02.030

Crowson NJ, Hilton M, McKay J, Marway H. Witness Seminar: The Voluntary Sector in 1980s Britain. Contemp Br Hist. 2011;25(4):499–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2011.626658 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Nicholls EJ. The witness seminar: A research note. Qual Res. 2022;22(1):166–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120974153 .

Doel RE, Söderqvist T, eds. The Historiography of Contemporary Science, Technology, and Medicine: Writing Recent Science. 1. publ. Routledge; 2006. ISBN: 0415272947

INVOLVE. Briefing Notes for Researchers: Involving the Public in NHS, Public Health and Social Care Research. INVOLVE; 2012. ISBN 978-0-9557053-7-3

UK Standards for Public Involvement. National Institute for Health and Care Research; Public Health Agency Northern Ireland; Health and Care Research Wales; Chief Scientist Office Scotland; 2016. https://sites.google.com/nihr.ac.uk/pi-standards/standards .

Crowe S, Adebajo A, Esmael H, et al. ‘All hands-on deck’, working together to develop UK standards for public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6(1):53, s40900–020–00229-y. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00229-y .

Della Porta D, Diani M. Social Movements: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishing; 2006 ISBN-13: 978-1-4051-0282-7.

Boote J, Wong R, Booth A. ‘Talking the talk or walking the walk?’ A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009. Health Expect. 2015;18(1):44–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12007 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all of the witnesses who gave their time, dug into their filing cabinets, email inboxes, and memories, and provided such a rich historical account from a variety of perspectives. In addition to the authors of this paper, the witnesses were: Ade Adebajo, Peter Beresford, Sarah Buckland, Iain Chalmers, Simon Denegri, Stuart Eglin, Jim Elliott, Ruth Evans, Zoe Gray, Gary Hickey, Alastair Kent, Mary Nettle, Nick Partridge, Stan Papoulias, Rachel Purtell, Holly Rogers, Diana Rose, Patsy Staddon, Roger Steel, Amander Wellings, and Tracey Williamson. The witness seminar would not have been possible without the help of the Academy of Medical Sciences and its staff, who arranged and hosted the two virtual sessions. The idea to capture the lessons learned during INVOLVE’s tenure came from a group brought together in 2021 by Bec Hanley and Derek Stewart. We are also indebted to this group, including Peter Beresford, Jonathan Boote, Louca-Mai Brady, Eleni Chambers, Shoba Dawson, Simon Denegri, Stuart Eglin, Jim Elliott, David Evans, Alison Faulkner, Amanda Farwell, Helen Hayes, Gary Hickey, Thomas Kabir, Meerat Kaur, Lynn Laidlaw, Elspeth Mathie, Marisha Palm, Stan Papoulias, Rachel Purtell, Sophie Staniszewska, Maryrose Tarpey, and Amander Wellings.

The Witness Seminar event as well as the report and this commentary were all unfunded and relied on the commitment of individuals who care about the future of public involvement and were willing to give up their time to capture lessons from the INVOLVE tenure.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Tufts University, Boston, USA

Marisha Emily Palm

Tufts Medical Center, Boston, USA

University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

David Evans

University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

Sophie Staniszewska

University of Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire, UK

Louca-Mai Brady

Former Director, INVOLVE, Eastleigh, UK

University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Kate Sainsbury, Derek Stewart & Paula Wray

Founder Appletree Community, Advocate for People with Profound Learning Disabilities, Perth, UK

Kate Sainsbury

Patient Advocate, Nottingham, UK

Derek Stewart

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MP drafted a manuscript outline, which was reviewed and shaped by all authors (DE, SS, LMB, BH, KS, DS, PW). MP, DE, and SS reviewed transcripts, edited, and wrote the related report, which is attached as an appendix. MP drafted the manuscript text, which was again reviewed by all authors (DE, SS, LMB, BH, KS, DS, PW), who met and provided thoughts on the manuscript content, title, illustrative quotations, and lessons learned. All authors (DE, SS, LMB, BH, KS, DS, PW) also provided track changes and comments for the early draft and a final draft revised according to discussions and suggested amendments.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marisha Emily Palm .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

As stated in the manuscript, formal ethical review was not required as the witness seminar involved a group of contributors working toward a common goal. All contributors had full ownership and control of their own text, with the opportunity to edit or withdraw text up to final approval for publication.

Consent for publication

The manuscript authors and the witnesses who have been quoted in the manuscript have all given their consent for publication.

Competing interests

S.S. has a competing interest as Co-Editor in Chief of Research Involvement and Engagement and excludes herself from the handling or review of this manuscript. S.S. is part funded by NIHR ARC WM, NIHR HPRU GI, NIHR HPRU GED, NIHR ESG Warwick, and NIHR HDRC Coventry.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Palm, M.E., Evans, D., Staniszewska, S. et al. Public involvement in UK health and care research 1995–2020: reflections from a witness seminar. Res Involv Engagem 10 , 65 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00598-8

Download citation

Received : 12 March 2024

Accepted : 07 June 2024

Published : 22 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00598-8

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

• Public involvement
• Public engagement
• Patient and public involvement
• Witness seminar
• Social movement

Research Involvement and Engagement

ISSN: 2056-7529

• General enquiries: [email protected]