Critical Thinking For

Researchers
By
Shumank Deep
Research Is a Conversation
Process of research,
evaluation,
reflection and
feedback is like a
conversation

Before you start a What do I already know?

course or an
What do I want to learn about this subject?
assignment,
consider these What assumptions, attitudes, values or beliefs do I have that may
questions: influence my thinking?
 Critical thinking can
be defined as, "the
art of analysing and Critical thinkers test

What is
evaluating thinking what they are told
with a view to and what they read.
improving it" (Paul
& Elder 2009).

Critical
Thinking The critical thinking
involves rational,
sceptical, unbiased
The critical thinking
is like an onion you
peel off on layer in
order to get
evaluation of facts.
otherone.
Why think
critically
• Critical thinking is necessary for every aspect
of your study:
• reading
• listening
• note-making
• writing
• presentations
• professional practice
• While writing a thesis you are expected to
show higher level thinking and reasoning: to
analyse, evaluate or judge a concept, or apply
a concept or theory to a practical situation.
• You are required compare and contrast
theories, to find flaws or gaps in evidence,
look for new evidence or reflect on your own
learning.
How to be a has a goal
What do I already know? What do I

Critical thinker
need to work out?
applies relevant and well-focused
questions to information and Is this fact or opinion?
opinions
• A critical thinker: seeks clarity, consistency and
How do I know this?
accuracy
tests conclusions and reasoning What evidence do they have for their
against specific relevant criteria claims/ conclusions?
attemps to understand the causes,
effects and implications of events, Why does/ did that happen?
systems and ideas

strives to recognise bias including What are the stated and unstated
their own assumptions in this information?

is open to alternate ideas, views and What other ways can we think
information about/ act on this?
 • It takes a conscious effort to develop a critical
attitude. Before you can think critically, you need to
be aware of what’s stopping you. Attitudes that
prevent us from thinking critically include the
following:
• I want you to tell me what I need to know, not

Develop a figure it out myself.

• I ‘know’ what is right so I don’t have to think

critical about it.

• I don't usually try to think about why things
Attitude happen the way they do.
• I’m not an expert but this other person is, so I
can’t say anything.
• I don't like to be criticised.
• I don’t want to get into an argument.
• I don’t want to be disrespectful.
 The argument you made must persuade you towards your own
point of view

Alertness for Everything you see, hear or read is an argument attempting to

persuade you to believe or do something

persuasive
techniques The main idea of an argument is called the contention. This is
the ‘claim’ the author is making. The contention can be
anywhere within the overall argument and can usually be
identified by asking the following question:
•What is the author expecting me to do or think as a result of this argument?

The persuasiveness of the claim can be evaluated by asking

additional questions:
•Is the language appealing to my emotions or beliefs?
•Is the author being reasonable in what they expect to happen?
 A contention needs to be supported by relevant,
reliable, credible, sufficient and current evidence.

If there is no evidence, it isn’t an argument - it is only an

opinion, a description, or an explanation.

Evaluate the Question the evidence the author has used.

Evidences • Does the evidence provided support the argument?

• How credible (trustworthy) is the evidence?
• Has enough evidence been presented?
• Does it come from different sources?
• Are there any missing links between the evidence and the author’s
contention?
• Is the evidence current?
• Is there other evidence available that might challenge the evidence
used?
 Analyse assumptions and reasoning

Use the following Has the author used Has the author linked Does the author apply
Is the argument calling
series of questions to words that might have one element or general principles or
for a particular course
critically analyse an more than one situation in their personal experience to
of action?
argument: meaning? argument to another? a specific example?

Is the general What might be the

Has a context been
Is the link principle or personal possible
provided for all words
appropriate? experience relevant consequences of such
or terms used?
to the example? action?

Have those words

been used Is the comparison
consistently or is relevant?
there ambiguity?
The level of
thinking
Expected
Inductive and deductive reasoning
Research Paradigms

“Research paradigms can be

A research paradigm is “the set
characterized by the way
of common beliefs and
Scientists respond to three
agreements shared between
basic questions: ontological,
scientist about how problems
epistemological and
should be understood and
methodological questions”
addressed” (Kuhn, 1970)
(Guba, 1990)
A well- RAISES VITAL QUESTIONS AND
PROBLEMS, FORMULATING
THEM CLEARLY AND PRECISELY
GATHERS AND ASSESSES
RELEVANT INFORMATION,
USING ABSTRACT IDEAS TO
COMES TO WELL-REASONED
CONCLUSIONS AND
SOLUTIONS, TESTING THEM

cultivated
INTERPRET IT EFFECTIVELY AGAINST RELEVANT CRITERIA
AND STANDARDS

critical
thinker:
THINKS OPEN-MINDEDLY COMMUNICATES EFFECTIVELY
WITHIN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS WITH OTHERS IN FIGURING
OF THOUGHT, RECOGNIZING OUT SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX
AND ASSESSING, AS NEEDS BE, PROBLEMS
THEIR ASSUMPTIONS,
IMPLICATIONS, AND
PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES
Some tips for
Check the Read strategically Make notes as you
requirements of read
your courses

critical
thinking
Discuss ideas Write regularly Find your voice
about your own
ideas
Questions
Writing a
Research
Article (Paper)
By
Shumank Deep
Abstract

• This part is the summary of your research article

• Use Simple-past tense referring to the work you’ve done
• Word limit is vital here must be kept in between (200-250 words)
• The abstract must be structure in the following order
• Brief Introduction (not more than 50-60 words)
• Aim of research/study (not more than 30-40 words)
• Principal Objectives (not more than 25-30 words)
• Methods used (not more than 25-30 words)
• Principal results (not more than 50-60 words)
• Main conclusion (not more than 25-30 words)
 This is the section where u are required to build your problem, lay the
foundation and create the logic

Generally the word limit of Introduction is 500-1000 words

You must begin with discussion the present state of the issue you goanna
discuss in this article/report. This part must not be more than the 10% of

Introduction
total word limit.

Continuing the discussion you must tell the readers what are the reason
for the issues that you’ve discussed this part must not be more than 25%
of the word limit.

Later in this section you must discuss about what is the nature and scope
of problem which should not be more than 25% of the word limit.

After nature and scope you must Identify the aims and objectives of your
study in not more than 20% of the word limit.

In this section you must also discuss in brief about your approach for the
problem which must not be more than 20% of the word limit.
 • This is most important section of a research article the
reviewers generally look for this section to understand the logic
of study and gap in knowledge.
• The literature review section provides the rationale for study
• This section must be written in present tense to establish the
body of knowledge and identify the world view
• This section is expected to be between 1000-2000 words but
Literature can be extended depending on the nature and scope of problem.

Review • Gap in knowledge (research gap) is essential for the study this
must be identified in literature review by providing recent
evidences which must not be more than 2-3 year old.
• To address your research gap research question and
hypothesis’s play a vital role. These must be developed in this
section
• The research approach must also be justified in this section
along with identification of theoretical lens to look into the
problem.
 • After finding the most suitable articles (there are tools which can help you in
this regard, but we are not discussing them here) you should examine the
parts which include “introduction” section, which always has a sentence or
two about the reasons why that research is done; “conclusion” section and of
course “suggestions for future research” section in which the author of the
article, having examined the literature and conducted a research himself,
would point his readers to areas which lack investigation or need closer
examination.

Identifying a • One approach to identify a research gap is to read systematic review. These
papers delve deep into the literature and examine the trends and changes in
a discipline or specific field of study and provide summaries of the literature

research gap which can in some cases save a lot of research time. Moreover, content
analysis reports, citation analysis reports and meta-analysis reports can be
very illuminating and helpful, especially the later which reports the findings
of the previous researches.
• Another way you can find the research problem is by using the research gap
table.
• The first column in the table includes the category which consists of characteristics, presentation of
the research problem etc.
• The Second column is made up of the sub-category possessing knowledge deficiency, non-matching
evidence, conflict in the resources, etc.
• The third column contains the definition where the causes of the research problem, reasons for the
existence of the research gap are mentioned and at the same time how to present your findings in
the research table is also mentioned.
• The last column which is nothing but the research gaps show the no of gaps in the research.
 • Researchers should begin by identifying a broader subject of interest that
lends itself to investigation. For example, a researcher may be interested in
childhood obesity.
• The next step is to do preliminary research on the general topic to find out
what research has already been done and what literature already exists. How
much research has been done on childhood obesity? What types of

How to studies? Is there a unique area that yet to be investigated or is there a

particular question that may be worth replicating?

Develop a
• Then begin to narrow the topic by asking open-ended "how" and "why"
questions. For example, a researcher may want to consider the factors that are
contributing to childhood obesity or the success rate of intervention

Good
programs. Create a list of potential questions for consideration and choose
one that interests you and provides an opportunity for exploration.
• Finally, evaluate the question by using the following list of guidelines:

Research • Is the research question one that is of interest to the researcher and
potentially to others? Is it a new issue or problem that needs to be

Question
solved or is it attempting to shed light on previously researched topic.
• Is the research question researchable? Consider the available time
frame and the required resources. Is the methodology to conduct the
research feasible?
• Is the research question measureable and will the process produce data
that can be supported or contradicted?
• Is the research question too broad or too narrow?
 Examples of research questions:
Considering the information above, the following provides examples of flawed research questions as well as questions that are well-designed:
Too narrow: What is the childhood obesity rate in Phoenix, AZ?
This is too narrow because it can be answered with a simple
statistic. Questions that can be answered with a "yes" or a "no" should also
typically be avoided.
Unfocused and too broad: What are the effects of childhood obesity in the
United States?
This question is so broad that research methodology would be very difficult
and the question is too broad to be discussed in a typical research paper.
Too objective: How much time do young children spend doing physical
activity per day?
This question may allow the researcher to collect data but does not lend
itself to collecting data that can be used to create a valid argument because
the data is just factual information.
Too simple: How are school systems addressing childhood obesity?
This information can be obtained without the need to collect unique data.
The question could be answered with a simple online search and does not
provide an opportunity for analysis.
*source (https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/developmentresources/tutorials/question)
Less narrow: How does the education level of the parents impact childhood
obesity rates in Phoenix, AZ?
This question demonstrates the correct amount of specificity and the results
would provide the opportunity for an argument to be formed.
More focused: How does childhood obesity correlate with academic
performance in elementary school children?
This question has a very clear focus for which data can be collected, analyzed,
and discussed.
More Subjective: What is the relationship between physical activity levels
and childhood obesity?
This is a more subjective question that may lead to the formation of an
argument based on the results and analysis of the data.
More Complex: What are the effects of intervention programs in the
rd th
elementary schools on the rate of childhood obesity among 3 - 6 grade
students?
This question is more complex and requires both investigation and evaluation
which will lead the research to form an argument that may be discussed.

This section consists of
description of following elements:
Research Method e.g.
qualitative/quantitative
Sampling technique
Tool of data collection
Tool for data analysis

This section is aimed at describing what was done as part of this

Methods
study.

Since you are referring to past work that you’ve done please write in

and simple past tense

Materials This section consists of description and justification of methods and

population

Description of the procedure of data collection and analysis in a

logical order

Sufficient details so that the procedure can be reproduce

 This section presents the data, the facts, your observation and
analysis

Demographics of study

Description of full analysis technique i.e. coding, SPSS results,

etc.

Results Your observations during the fieldwork

Observations from analysis using the data

One must also clearly describe the rate of error

In a quantitative study rejection rate for the responses must be

mentioned
 This section is used to relate the observations

Demonstrate the relationships among the facts

Support observations from literature

Discussion Emphasize on establishing knowledge while presenting results

Demonstrate the trends, relationships and generalization shown

by the results

Any exceptions, outlying the data and the reason to make those
exceptions

How your results agree or disagree with the previous studies

and why
 Conclusion should relate back to the
introduction, the hypothesis

Must present summary of evidences

supporting every part of conclusion

Conclusion Implication, the significance of your

results

Limitation of Study

Future research
THANK
YOU
Performing a
Systematic
Literature Review
using Vos-Viewer
Important Formulate a research question

Steps for Develop research protocol: A research protocol is a detailed plan

an SLR
for how you will study a biomedical or health sciences problem.
Systematic review protocols should include details such as:
• objectives of your project
• specifics on the methods and processes that will be used;
• eligibility criteria for individual studies (such as study design);
• how data will be extracted from individual studies; and
• what analyses will be performed.

Conduct literature search

• Title Analysis
• Abstract Analysis
• Content Analysis
Content Analysis
The Vos-Viewer Software
Steps to perform bibliometric analysis
using Vos viewer
Steps to perform bibliometric analysis
using Vos viewer
Articles you should read

 Khirfan, L., Peck, M., & Mohtat, N. (2020). Systematic content analysis: A combined
method to analyze the literature on the daylighting (de-culverting) of urban
streams. MethodsX, 7, 100984.
 Goyal, K., & Kumar, S. (2021). Financial literacy: A systematic review and bibliometric
analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(1), 80-105.
 Nguyen, B. N., London, K., & Zhang, P. (2021). Stakeholder relationships in off-site
construction: a systematic literature review. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment.
 Kifokeris, D. (2021). Variants of Swedish Lean Construction Practices Reported in
Research: Systematic Literature Review and Critical Analysis. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 147(7), 05021005.