Critical analysis

Incorrect, the answer is e).

Critical reasoning involves analysing, synthesising, evaluating and integrating. The Open University website http://www.open.ac.uk/skillsforstudy/critical-thinking.php includes useful information on these and other stages of critical thinking. More information is given in response to the questions below.

Incorrect, the answer is true.

In order to read a text efficiently and critically, it is helpful to read the title and abstract first and review what you know about the topic before you read the main body of the paper.

John W Little and Roy Parker of the University of Arizona have produced a very helpful paper entitled 'Reading a scientific paper'. http://www.biochem.arizona.edu/classes/bioc568/papers.htm.They point out that this approach to reading helps you in three ways.

'It clarifies whether you in fact know enough background to appreciate the paper.

It refreshes your memory about the topic.

Perhaps most importantly, it helps you as the reader integrate the new information into your previous knowledge about the topic.'

Incorrect, the answer is true.

In order to analyse the content of a text, it is not enough to simply read and hope you will absorb the information. You need to 'interrogate' the text. Little and Parker http://www.biochem.arizona.edu/classes/bioc568/papers.htm#evaluate (accessed 02.06.2011) have a helpful list of questions to aid your analysis of a paper in addition to those suggested in this exercise. If you ask questions, not only will you have a better understanding of the text, you will also spot flaws in the authors' reasoning or logic.

Incorrect, the answer is false.

At postgraduate level, it is essential that you challenge what you read. You need to consider it in relation to other ideas and theories that you have read and to your own thoughts on the topic.

Although there is a temptation to believe that papers published in peer reviewed journals are always right, this is not always the case. As pressure increases on academics to publish more and more, so there is increased space for errors to creep in. The peer-review process is not foolproof so you need to hone your critical skills and have faith in your own judgement! More common than factual errors are subjective interpretations: it is important to keep in mind that authors may be somewhat biased in their presentation of their findings to highlight those that support their own view and those that will be interesting to a journal editor. Consider if there are any other analyses or perspectives that you think the authors may not have conducted or investigated, or if they may be suppressing findings from these. Are all the necessary details of the methodology reported or are there gaps where authors may be trying not to mention the less rigorous techniques they used, assumptions made or all the limitations of the study? Be careful not to ignore potential 'publication bias' : http://www.cochrane-net.org/openlearning/html/mod15-2.htm "

Incorrect, the answer is true.

All of these questions (and others) could be useful in assessing the value of a paper. For more information about how to form such questions, look at Little and Parker's paper, 'How to read a scientific paper'. http://www.biochem.arizona.edu/classes/bioc568/papers.htm#evaluate (accessed 02.06.2011)

Incorrect, the answer is true.

Synthesis has been described by Bruce Reichenbach in his 'Introduction to Critical Thinking' (2001, Boston, McGraw Hill, p. 25) as

'the ability of putting together the parts you analyzed with other information to create something original. You reach out for data or ideas derived from a variety of sources.'

Some elements of synthesis and integration (or incorporation) overlap. However, the synthesis stage is really pulling together all the different strands of evidence that you have found in readiness for integrating them into your own work.

Many other useful resources are listed on the DL PH MSc project webpage. In particular there a several YouTube videos that are part of a series of information literacy tutorials from PCC libraries:-

(i) Searching and browsing the internet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBJyhu1GrTI&feature=channel_page

(ii) Types of information sources (and quality issues): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjJBE9OWovI&feature=channel_page

(iii) Evaluating information sources for quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvVhN3_ex_8&feature=channel_page"

And also on DL PH MSc project webpage:

(ii) A tutorial on critical appraisal and using the literature:
www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/08/11/10/slides%202009-10.ppt

Incorrect, the answer is true.

A matrix or grid is often a helpful device for producing an 'at-a-glance' visual of the evidence. If you list your key topics on one axis and the texts you have found on the other, you will be able chart each paper's position on your key topics. This will make it easier to group them together according to themes and attitudes.

The following link to North Carolina State University gives you more information and an example of a matrix

http://www.ncsu.edu/tutorial_center/writespeak/download/Synthesis.pdf

Incorrect, the answer is false.

In order to synthesise the data you need to bring the findings of several papers together as in the following extract from a systematic review of condom use in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia:

For example:

"Factors cited as diminishing the likelihood of documenting a significant increase include small sample sizes [53, 57, 65, 86], the use of very short or long follow-up periods [52, 76], no adequate control group [60, 61], high pre-intervention levels of condom use [54, 84, 85], or contextual changes that undermined the intervention [84, 85]."

Foss AM, Hossain M, Vickerman PT, Watts CH. A systematic review of published evidence on intervention impact on condom use in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Sex Transm Infect 2007, 83(7):510-516.

In this example, the key points are extracted from the papers (references given in brackets) and grouped together to produce a body of evidence for a particular point.

The NHS critical appraisal skills website gives detailed information on gathering data for a systematic review: http://www.sph.nhs.uk/sph-files/casp-appraisal-tools/S.Reviews%20Appraisal%20Tool.pdf

Incorrect, the answer is true.

You should not hide evidence that contradicts your argument but cite it and argue against it. The following advice is given on the University of Indiana's guide to using evidence.http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/using_evidence.shtml#incorporating

'Offer evidence that agrees with your stance up to a point, then add to it with ideas of your own.

Present evidence that contradicts your stance, and then argue against (refute) that evidence and therefore strengthen your position.

Use sources against each other, as if they were experts on a panel discussing your proposition.

Use quotations to support your assertion, not merely to state or restate your claim.'

Incorrect, the answer is true.

It is not sufficient to quote from someone else's research; you need to explain how their findings support your own argument. The following extract from Foss et al's systematic review shows how this can be done.

'Such interventions should draw upon a recent review conducted by WHO, identifying the forms of intervention for adolescents that are most promising (21). Promoting condoms for contraception may increase use among young people, as Cleland and Ali (2006) found that, across 13 African countries, pregnancy prevention can be an important motivating force for condom use by young single women (9). Gender differences were also noted.'

Foss AM, Hossain M, Vickerman PT, Watts CH. A systematic review of published evidence on intervention impact on condom use in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Sex Transm Infect 2007, 83(7):510-516.

In this example the authors use the findings of Cleland and Ali to support their own recommendation that interventions should consider the reasons for the success of a condom promotion intervention.