Tomorrow I'll be seeing some of you for a lecture on critical thinking.
So in addition to the oh-so-lucky ones who are attending, I thought I'd give a general explanation as to what critical thinking is.
Put simply, it's about questioning everything and not assuming facts are unchanging. Because they're not.
Facts are transient, like opinions, countries, people and theories. So that's what tomorrow will partly be about. It'll also touch on how you can pick apart theories and research too. This is a tremendous skill to have in readiness for your dissertation, because the option to be more refined in your selection of materials is key in final year.
We have loads of books (both electronic and paper) which cover the skills required to be a critical thinker. The e-book I'd recommend as a starting point is this one by Aveyard but there's plenty of others on the shelves.
One more thing.
Any of you who've had sessions with me previously will know that I'm interested in engaging with you. Not just talking at you but having a proper two-way conversation. Tomorrow will be no different. However, there are times to speak and times to stay quiet and listen and I've recently been involved in conversations between students and lecturers on the thorny issue of classroom disruption.
In my lectures and training sessions you get one chance. If you continue to talk over me, use your phone or disrupt others I will ask you to leave. My time with students is too precious to be wasted.
That aside, I'm hoping that the lecture will confuse, bemuse and eventually inform you.
See you tomorrow, second years.
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
Tuesday, 25 November 2014
Friday, 8 August 2014
Think tanks
I've been thinking about referencing again. Sorry, but there it is. I've also been thinking about bias in research and how objectivity still seems to be the holy grail of social enquiry. Personally, I've never been entirely comfortable with the whole subject/object argument as I think we're more complicated than that.
Sometimes people know they're being subjective; the films of Michael Bay, Coldplay records, a restaurant menu where every other word is an adjective, IQ tests and Robbie Savage - these are all things that I'm hugely vocal and subjective about. My opinions are very much my own. But what about a theoretical approach? Does it have to aspire to neutrality or can it also be subjective?
The reason I'm asking the question is that I wanted to write about think tanks. You may have come across these institutes already, but in case you haven't let me explain what they are. A think tank is usually comprised of a group of academics who conduct research from a specific standpoint. Sometimes this standpoint can be political (left or right wing) or methodological (for example, action research) or issue based (such as environmentalism). Rarely do think tanks aspire to objectivity.
So the question for you, as a perspective user of think tank research is, should I read this stuff and stick it in my reference list?
My short answer is yes.
My long answer is yes, but be careful in what you choose. A range of resources is often a good approach if you want a broad scope to your assignment. So read things from multiple perspectives in order to examine themes and inconsistencies across a range of research.
If you'd like a succinct list of UK think tanks then the Guardian (who also have their own bias for you to think about!) produced a nice list last year. Have a look here if you're interested.
One final thing. I'm away now for a few weeks, but I'll be back for September when we'll be picking up the pace in readiness for the new term. Hope to see you soon.
Sometimes people know they're being subjective; the films of Michael Bay, Coldplay records, a restaurant menu where every other word is an adjective, IQ tests and Robbie Savage - these are all things that I'm hugely vocal and subjective about. My opinions are very much my own. But what about a theoretical approach? Does it have to aspire to neutrality or can it also be subjective?
The reason I'm asking the question is that I wanted to write about think tanks. You may have come across these institutes already, but in case you haven't let me explain what they are. A think tank is usually comprised of a group of academics who conduct research from a specific standpoint. Sometimes this standpoint can be political (left or right wing) or methodological (for example, action research) or issue based (such as environmentalism). Rarely do think tanks aspire to objectivity.
So the question for you, as a perspective user of think tank research is, should I read this stuff and stick it in my reference list?
My short answer is yes.
My long answer is yes, but be careful in what you choose. A range of resources is often a good approach if you want a broad scope to your assignment. So read things from multiple perspectives in order to examine themes and inconsistencies across a range of research.
If you'd like a succinct list of UK think tanks then the Guardian (who also have their own bias for you to think about!) produced a nice list last year. Have a look here if you're interested.
One final thing. I'm away now for a few weeks, but I'll be back for September when we'll be picking up the pace in readiness for the new term. Hope to see you soon.
Saturday, 9 November 2013
Bias, prejudice, angle, theoretical approach or slant?
I have a list of personal biases and prejudices a yard long (anyone who calls football 'footie' can go straight to the top of the list for a start), but acknowledging and addressing bias in published research is a more serious issue.
Sometimes when I'm trying to explain concepts like evidence based practice or the nature of academic writing then I invent examples. Other times real world examples of an issue land in my lap and they're so perfect that all I have to do is pass it on. So here's an example of the thorny issue of subjectivity (bias?) and academic report writing.
A report was published this week by the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM). If you want to read it, it's here. It's an investigation of whether immigrants are a financial drain on society or good for the economy.That's somewhat simplistic (false binary opposition social work first years?!?), but hopefully you take my point. It broadly decided that immigration was a positive economic factor. So far, so unremarkable.
However, on the same day Migration Watch (whose website is here) commented on the CReAM report as well as the new Office for National Statistics report on population (which you can read here) and recommended immediate curbs on immigration. Admittedly Migration Watch do say this sort of thing a lot, but it really struck me this time due to the timing of both statements.
Almost as if it was deliberate.
Or is that just the bias of a Guardian-reading, soft arsed liberal shining brightly?
Sometimes when I'm trying to explain concepts like evidence based practice or the nature of academic writing then I invent examples. Other times real world examples of an issue land in my lap and they're so perfect that all I have to do is pass it on. So here's an example of the thorny issue of subjectivity (bias?) and academic report writing.
A report was published this week by the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM). If you want to read it, it's here. It's an investigation of whether immigrants are a financial drain on society or good for the economy.That's somewhat simplistic (false binary opposition social work first years?!?), but hopefully you take my point. It broadly decided that immigration was a positive economic factor. So far, so unremarkable.
However, on the same day Migration Watch (whose website is here) commented on the CReAM report as well as the new Office for National Statistics report on population (which you can read here) and recommended immediate curbs on immigration. Admittedly Migration Watch do say this sort of thing a lot, but it really struck me this time due to the timing of both statements.
Almost as if it was deliberate.
Or is that just the bias of a Guardian-reading, soft arsed liberal shining brightly?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
