difference between analytical and critical thinking skills

Critical Thinking vs Analytical Thinking: What’s the Difference?

What is critical thinking, what is analytical thinking, traits of critical thinkers, traits of analytical thinkers, for example, why are critical thinking and analytical skills important, how to develop a critical thinking and analytical mind , critical thinking vs analytical thinking faqs.

Other Related Blogs

• Curious:  They possess a natural curiosity and an insatiable desire to learn and understand. They constantly ask questions and seek deeper knowledge.
• Structured Problem-Solving :  Analytical thinkers approach problems systematically. They break down complex issues into smaller, manageable components for thorough analysis.
• Data-driven:  They rely on data and evidence to support their conclusions. Data analysis is a key aspect of their decision-making process.
• Critical Evaluation:  They critically assess the quality and reliability of information sources. They are discerning about the credibility of data.
• Logical Reasoning:  They employ logical reasoning to connect facts and deduce insights. Their arguments are based on sound logic.

• Questioning Attitude:  Critical thinkers question assumptions, statements, and conventional wisdom. They challenge ideas to seek deeper understanding.
• Open-Minded:  They maintain an open mind, considering multiple perspectives and being receptive to new information.
• Problem-Solving:  Critical thinkers approach problems by examining all angles, evaluating evidence, and identifying the best possible solutions.
• Inquisitive:  They have a natural curiosity and an appetite for knowledge. They are motivated to dig deeper into subjects.
• Emotional Intelligence :  They are attuned to emotions, both their own and those of others. This awareness helps them understand human behavior and reactions.

Critical Thinking vs Analytical Thinking for Managers

• A retail store manager might use analytical thinking skills to analyze sales data to identify patterns and trends. For example, they might examine sales data to determine which products are selling well and at what times of day or year. They might then use this information to adjust inventory levels, schedule staff, or develop marketing campaigns to capitalize on trends. 
• A manager might use analytical thinking skills to analyze financial data to identify cost savings or revenue growth opportunities. For example, they might analyze expense data to identify areas where costs are higher than expected and develop strategies to reduce them. They might also analyze sales data to identify opportunities to expand into new markets or increase revenue from existing customers. 
• A manager might use critical thinking skills to evaluate competing proposals for a new project. For example, they might consider each proposal based on feasibility, cost, the potential impact on the organization, and alignment with its strategic goals. They might then use this evaluation to make an informed decision about which proposal to pursue. 
• A manager might use critical thinking skills to evaluate the performance of individual employees or teams. For example, they might evaluate employee performance based on factors such as productivity, quality of work, and adherence to company policies and procedures. They might then use this evaluation to decide on promotions, training, development, or disciplinary action. 
• 7 Great Effective Communication Hacks Every Manager Needs (With Examples)
• The Ultimate Resource For Software Engineer Behavioral Interview Questions
• Mastering the Art of Hiring: A Comprehensive Hiring Manager Interview Guide
• 5 Ways To Ensure Effective Communication With Remote Teams
• Top 15 ways of Improving influence and negotiation skills
• 7 Signs To Note For A Psychologically Safe Workplace
• WOOP Goals: A Simple 4-step Journey To Success
• Assertive communication styles: Learn about your communication style as a manager
• Navigating New Beginnings: The Impact of a Buddy Program at Work
• What Is A Personal Leadership Brand And How To Build Yours
• Effective problem-solving: Critical thinking and analytical skills are essential for identifying, analyzing, and solving complex problems. By breaking down problems into smaller parts and evaluating each part objectively, individuals can develop effective solutions to complex problems .
• Improved decision-making: Critical thinking and analytical skills help individuals make well-informed decisions by evaluating and synthesizing information from multiple sources. By objectively assessing information, individuals can make decisions based on evidence rather than biases or emotions.
• Increased creativity: Analytical thinking skills can help individuals identify patterns and connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of information, leading to creative problem-solving and innovative solutions.
• Better communication: Critical thinking skills help individuals evaluate the quality of arguments and evidence presented by others, leading to more transparent and effective communication .
• Success in the workplace: Employers value critical thinking and analytical skills because they enable individuals to be more effective problem-solvers and decision-makers, leading to better business outcomes and increased success.

• Ask questions: Ask questions to clarify information, evaluate evidence, and challenge assumptions. This helps you better understand the information and think more critically about it.
• Seek out diverse perspectives: Engage with people who have different backgrounds and experiences from your own. This helps you to see problems from different angles and gain new insights.
• Evaluate sources: Practice evaluating the credibility of sources, such as news articles or research studies. This helps you develop a critical eye and avoid being swayed by false information.
• Practice active listening: When engaging in conversation, try to listen to others and truly understand their perspectives. This helps you to evaluate information objectively and avoid making assumptions.
• Practice problem-solving: Regularly engage in problem-solving activities like puzzles or brain teasers. This helps you to develop your analytical skills and practice thinking creatively.
• Practice analyzing data: Analyze data from different sources and identify patterns or trends. This helps you to develop your analytical skills and practice thinking critically about information.
• Reflect on your thinking: Regularly reflect on your thinking processes and evaluate how you approach problems or make decisions. This helps you identify improvement areas and develop better critical thinking habits.
• Seek feedback: Ask for feedback from others on your critical thinking and analytical skills. This helps you to identify areas where you can improve and develop new strategies for thinking more critically.
• Practice decision-making: Practice decision making based on evidence and logical reasoning rather than emotions or biases. This helps you to develop more effective decision-making skills.
• Engage in a debate: Participate in debates or discussions where you are challenged to defend your position and evaluate opposing arguments. This helps you to practice critical thinking and develop more effective communication skills.

Test your critical thinking skills for free!

Start the free critical thinking skills assessment for managers .

Is analyzing a critical thinking skill?

Can you be both an analytical and critical thinker, how can i be critical and analytical .

6 Steps to Beat Common Critical Thinking Barriers at Work

How to develop the 8 conceptual skills every manager needs, 7 ways to develop critical thinking skills as a manager, 5 steps to excellent strategic thinking skills for managers.

• Find a Course
• For Business
• For Educators
• Product News

Analytical thinking: what it is and why it matters more than ever

January 30, 2024

Welcome back to our high-impact workplace skills series. We really enjoyed the conversations happening in the comments section of last week’s top skills of 2023 issue, so be sure to check those out for perspectives and insights from fellow members of our Career Chat community.

One comment that’s been on our mind came from Kendra Vivian Lewis , who asked some thoughtful questions about the comparative importance of workplace and technical skills and if there’s a way to forecast which skills will be important in the coming years. This week’s topic—analytical thinking, the number one skill on the list—is a great example as we explore both questions. Be sure to read to the end to discover a special offer that we’re running on Coursera Plus subscriptions through September 21.

What it means to think analytically

Analytical thinking involves using data to understand problems, identify potential solutions, and suggest the solution that’s most likely to have the desired impact. It’s similar to critical thinking skills , which are the skills you use to interpret information and make decisions.

In order to succeed as a strong analytical thinker, you also need to have strong technical skills in your field. Remember: technical skills describe the things you do, while workplace skills describe how you do them. So your workplace skills, used effectively, enhance your technical skills. That’s why we consider them to be high-impact—they stand to make your work more impactful than it would have been had you only used your technical skills.

To illustrate, suppose you just started a job as a data analyst for a think tank focused on climate change, and you’ve been tasked with raising community engagement in future climate action efforts.

You might start with your technical data analysis skills as you gather data from a few sources. Then, you’ll use your analytical thinking skills to determine the validity of each data source. Perhaps you’ll discard one source when you learn the research was funded by a firm with a financial stake in fossil fuel consumption. Your technical skills lead again as you clean data, and then you’ll return to your analytical thinking skills to analyze and interpret your findings, ultimately leading to your recommendation to start a transparency campaign to display water and energy use in the community.

Tell us in the comments: How do you use your analytical skills alongside your technical skills in your day-to-day work?

Why analytical skills top the list

To develop the skills list, the World Economic Forum surveyed 800+ global employers on their views of skills and jobs over the next five years, so this list is forward-looking. According to the Future of Jobs Report , employers believe analytical thinking skills will grow in importance by 72 percent in this timeframe.

The reason employers are keen to hire employees with strong analytical thinking skills is informed by trends in automation and technological advancements. While technical data analysis becomes easier with automation, reasoning and decision-making automation is advancing at a much slower pace—meaning employers anticipate that, within the next five years, we’ll have a wealth of data at our fingertips and too few people to interpret what that data means.

Where to begin

For a crash course in critical thinking, try the University of California, Davis’s Critical Thinking Skills for the Professional course. You can finish this beginner-level course in about 7 hours.

For a more comprehensive exploration into analytical thinking , try Duke University’s Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking Specialization . Over four courses, you’ll learn how to effectively argue and reason using logic.

For a technical process to guide your analytical thinking, try Google’s Data Analytics Professional Certificate . Ground your analytical thinking skills in technical know-how in this eight-course series.

Interested in multiple programs? Don’t miss this special offer!

Through September 21, we’re offering $100 off annual Coursera Plus subscriptions for new subscribers. With this offer, you’ll pay less than $25 per month for one year of access to 6,100 courses, Specializations, and Professional Certificates with flexibility to start new courses and move between programs at your pace.

This offer is a great choice if you are frequently tempted to enroll in multiple courses at once or plan to complete a Specialization or Professional Certificate within the next year. If that sounds like you, take a closer look at the offer and the Coursera Plus course catalog.

That’s all for this week! Join us next week to talk about motivation and self-awareness skills.

Keep reading

• Coursera Receives Industry-first Authorized Instructional Platform Designation from the American Council on Education
• How to answer “what are your strengths and weaknesses?” in interviews
• Job interviews: How to confidently prepare

• Online Degree Explore Bachelor’s & Master’s degrees
• MasterTrack™ Earn credit towards a Master’s degree
• University Certificates Advance your career with graduate-level learning
• Top Courses
• Join for Free

What Is Analytical Thinking and How Can You Improve Your Analytical Thinking Skills?

Learn why analytical thinking is important and how it differs from critical and creative thinking. Explore some good-paying jobs for analytical thinkers, and find out how you can improve your analytical thinking skills.

When processing a lot of information or facing challenging problems, it often helps to take an analytical approach. Analytical thinking helps you determine the validity of information and allows you to carefully consider problems and arrive at the best solutions.

What is analytical thinking? 

Analytical thinking involves using a systemic approach to make decisions or solve problems. Analytical thinkers can better understand information and come to a sensible conclusion by breaking it into parts. 

For instance, once analytical thinkers identify a problem, they typically gather more information, develop possible solutions, test them, and analyze which works best. Solving complex problems often requires analytical reasoning, which may involve:

Determining causation (if and how one event causes another)

Examining similarities, differences, and relationships

Predicting the next event by following a sequence

Recognizing patterns or trends

Using conditional and converse (if-then) statements 

Why is analytical thinking important?

In daily life, analytical thinking allows you to sift through a steady barrage of information from the news, social media, and accounts from friends and family to get to the truth. Analytical thinking also offers professional value. Employers look for candidates with good analytical skills to help solve problems and make sound decisions in the workplace. 

How is analytical thinking different from creative and critical thinking?

To better understand analytical thinking, it helps to learn how it's different from other types of thinking. For instance, when solving a problem, analytical thinkers take a methodical approach, breaking up information and analyzing each part until they form a conclusion. 

Creative thinkers take a less organized approach to problem-solving. They examine a problem from many angles and welcome new information to come up with a creative solution.  

Critical thinkers are open-minded and have superior evaluative skills. To develop a logical solution to a problem, a critical thinker studies evidence, asks questions, assesses other points of view, and explores any relative assumptions or biases. 

4 good-paying careers for analytical thinkers 

If you can think analytically, it can benefit you in a variety of careers. Explore four good-paying careers for analytical thinkers. 

1. Business analyst

Median annual US salary (BLS): $95,290 [ 1 ]

Job outlook: 10 percent job growth [ 1 ]

Job requirements: A business analyst often holds a bachelor's or master's degree in business administration . Skills that benefit a business analyst include analytical skills, communication, problem-solving, and time management. 

Tasks and responsibilities: As a business analyst, you'll gather information about a company by observing business practices and procedures, examining financial data, and conducting employee interviews. Then, you'll study and evaluate the information and make recommendations to help the company run more effectively.  

Read more: What Is a Business Analyst? Career Guide

2. Cybersecurity analyst

Median annual US salary (BLS): $112,000 [ 2 ]

Job outlook: 32 percent job growth [ 2 ]

Job requirements: A cybersecurity analyst often holds a bachelor's degree in cybersecurity or computer and information technology. Skills that benefit a cybersecurity analyst include analytical skills, attention to detail, communication, computer skills, and problem-solving.

Tasks and responsibilities: A cybersecurity analyst develops and monitors methods for safeguarding computer networks and systems within an organization. Additional tasks involve creating security standards and procedures, writing security reports, and providing tech support for employees installing or learning new security software.

3. Data scientist

Median annual US salary (BLS): $103,500 [ 3 ]

Job outlook: 35 percent job growth [ 3 ]

Job requirements: A data scientist usually holds a bachelor's degree but may hold a master's or PhD in data science, computer science, mathematics, or statistics. Skills that benefit a data scientist include analytical skills, logical reasoning, communication, computer skills, and proficiency in math.  

Tasks and responsibilities: A data scientist gathers, analyzes, and interprets data. Your additional duties in this role include presenting findings of data analysis and making recommendations based on findings. Types of industries that use data scientists include business, education, government, health care, and professional sports.

4. Financial analyst 

Median annual US salary (BLS): $96,220 [ 4 ]

Job outlook: 8 percent job growth [ 4 ]

Job requirements: A financial analyst commonly holds a bachelor's degree in finance, business, or a related field like accounting, economics, or statistics. Skills that benefit a financial analyst include analytical skills, attention to detail, communication, computer skills, decision-making, and proficiency in math. 

Tasks and responsibilities: Generally, a financial analyst offers guidance to individuals or businesses regarding finances and investments. Different types of financial analysts include financial risk analysts, fund managers, portfolio managers, and ratings analysts. 

Read more: What Is a Financial Analyst? (+ How to Become One)

Tips for improving your analytical thinking skills 

The ability to think analytically offers benefits in your professional and personal life. To improve your analytical thinking skills, go through some key steps when problem-solving or decision-making:

Do your research.

Gather information.

Think of several ideas or solutions.

Analyze your ideas or solutions and choose the best one.

Evaluate the success of the idea or solution. 

Consider these additional tips for becoming a more analytical thinker:

Take an analytics class or classes.

Boost analytical skills with riddles, crossword puzzles, jigsaw puzzles, or strategic board games like chess or checkers.

Enhance your ability to analyze a problem and break it into steps by taking a math class. Equations and world problems require careful examination, and you may have to engage in trial and error before solving them. 

Read books about data analytics or other types of analytics that interest you.

Network with analytics professionals.

Next steps on Coursera

To determine if you would enjoy a career in analytics, consider the Google Data Analytics Professional Certificate on Coursera. You'll have the opportunity to learn how to gather data, clean and organize it for analysis, and conduct analysis using various computer programs. 

When you finish this eight-course series, you may have as much knowledge as many junior-level data analysts. You'll also receive a Professional Certificate highlighting your data analytics expertise.

Article sources

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. " Occupational Outlook Handbook: Management Analysts , https://www.bls.gov/OOH/business-and-financial/management-analysts.htm?utm_source=fit/programs/8422/ms-information-technology-database-administration/classesutm_medium." Accessed February 23, 2024.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. " Occupational Outlook Handbook: Information Security Analysts , https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/information-security-analysts.htm." Accessed February 23, 2024.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. " Occupational Outlook Handbook: Data Scientists , https://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/data-scientists.htm." Accessed February 23, 2024.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. " Occupational Outlook Handbook: Financial Analysts , https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/financial-analysts.htm." Accessed February 23, 2024.

Keep reading

Coursera staff.

Editorial Team

Coursera’s editorial team is comprised of highly experienced professional editors, writers, and fact...

This content has been made available for informational purposes only. Learners are advised to conduct additional research to ensure that courses and other credentials pursued meet their personal, professional, and financial goals.

Radford University

Center for Innovation and Analytics

Departments

• Academic Affairs
• Audit and Advisory Services
• Finance and Administration
• Human Resources
• Information Technology
• Office of the President
• Student Affairs
• University Advancement
• University Relations
• Other Offices and Departments
• About the Center for Innovation and Analytics
• Areas of Growth in Analytics
• Analytics Career Preparation
• Microsoft Office Specialist Certifications
• Executives in Residence in Analytics
• Success Stories
• Analytics Events
• SAS Joint Graduate Certificate in Business Analytics
• Analytics Resources
• Online SAS Joint Graduate Certificate in Business Analytics Certificate
• The Background to Support the Center
• What the Center Provides
• Skills Required by Employers
• Director's Bio

P.O. Box 6953 Radford, VA 24142 Kyle Hall Suite 231 540.831.5513 cia@radford.edu cia-analytics@radford.edu cia-innovation@radford.edu

Dr. Wil Stanton, Director wstanton@radford.edu cia-analytics@radford.edu

Vicki Perkins, Administrative Assistant vperkins1@radford.edu

Problem Solving, Critical Thinking, and Analytical Reasoning Skills Sought by Employers

In this section:

Problem Solving

• Critical Thinking

Analytical Reasoning

View the content on this page in a Word document.

Critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and problem-solving skills are required to perform well on tasks expected by employers. 1 Having good problem-solving and critical thinking skills can make a major difference in a person’s career. 2

Every day, from an entry-level employee to the Chairman of the Board, problems need to be resolved. Whether solving a problem for a client (internal or external), supporting those who are solving problems, or discovering new problems to solve, the challenges faced may be simple/complex or easy/difficult.

A fundamental component of every manager's role is solving problems. So, helping students become a confident problem solver is critical to their success; and confidence comes from possessing an efficient and practiced problem-solving process.

Employers want employees with well-founded skills in these areas, so they ask four questions when assessing a job candidate 3 :

• Evaluation of information: How well does the applicant assess the quality and relevance of information?
• Analysis and Synthesis of information: How well does the applicant analyze and synthesize data and information?
• Drawing conclusions: How well does the applicant form a conclusion from their analysis?
• Acknowledging alternative explanations/viewpoints: How well does the applicant consider other options and acknowledge that their answer is not the only perspective?

When an employer says they want employees who are good at solving complex problems, they are saying they want employees possessing the following skills:

• Analytical Thinking — A person who can use logic and critical thinking to analyze a situation.
• Critical Thinking – A person who makes reasoned judgments that are logical and well thought out.
• Initiative — A person who will step up and take action without being asked. A person who looks for opportunities to make a difference.
• Creativity — A person who is an original thinker and have the ability to go beyond traditional approaches.
• Resourcefulness — A person who will adapt to new/difficult situations and devise ways to overcome obstacles.
• Determination — A person who is persistent and does not give up easily.
• Results-Oriented — A person whose focus is on getting the problem solved.

Two of the major components of problem-solving skills are critical thinking and analytical reasoning.  These two skills are at the top of skills required of applicants by employers.

- Return to top of page -

Critical Thinking 4

“Mentions of critical thinking in job postings have doubled since 2009, according to an analysis by career-search site Indeed.com.” 5 Making logical and reasoned judgments that are well thought out is at the core of critical thinking. Using critical thinking an individual will not automatically accept information or conclusions drawn from to be factual, valid, true, applicable or correct. “When students are taught how to use critical thinking to tap into their creativity to solve problems, they are more successful than other students when they enter management-training programs in large corporations.” 6

A strong applicant should question and want to make evidence-based decisions. Employers want employees who say things such as: “Is that a fact or just an opinion? Is this conclusion based on data or gut feel?” and “If you had additional data could there be alternative possibilities?” Employers seek employees who possess the skills and abilities to conceptualize, apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information to reach an answer or conclusion.

Employers require critical thinking in employees because it increases the probability of a positive business outcome. Employers want employees whose thinking is intentional, purposeful, reasoned, and goal directed.

Recruiters say they want applicants with problem-solving and critical thinking skills. They “encourage applicants to prepare stories to illustrate their critical-thinking prowess, detailing, for example, the steps a club president took to improve attendance at weekly meetings.” 7

Employers want students to possess analytical reasoning/thinking skills — meaning they want to hire someone who is good at breaking down problems into smaller parts to find solutions. “The adjective, analytical, and the related verb analyze can both be traced back to the Greek verb, analyein — ‘to break up, to loosen.’ If a student is analytical, you are good at taking a problem or task and breaking it down into smaller elements in order to solve the problem or complete the task.” 9

Analytical reasoning connotes a person's general aptitude to arrive at a logical conclusion or solution to given problems. Just as with critical thinking, analytical thinking critically examines the different parts or details of something to fully understand or explain it. Analytical thinking often requires the person to use “cause and effect, similarities and differences, trends, associations between things, inter-relationships between the parts, the sequence of events, ways to solve complex problems, steps within a process, diagraming what is happening.” 10

Analytical reasoning is the ability to look at information and discern patterns within it. “The pattern could be the structure the author of the information uses to structure an argument, or trends in a large data set. By learning methods of recognizing these patterns, individuals can pull more information out of a text or data set than someone who is not using analytical reasoning to identify deeper patterns.” 11

Employers want employees to have the aptitude to apply analytical reasoning to problems faced by the business. For instance, “a quantitative analyst can break down data into patterns to discern information, such as if a decrease in sales is part of a seasonal pattern of ups and downs or part of a greater downward trend that a business should be worried about. By learning to recognize these patterns in both numbers and written arguments, an individual gains insights into the information that someone who simply takes the information at face value will miss.” 12

Managers with excellent analytical reasoning abilities are considered good at, “evaluating problems, analyzing them from more than one angle and finding a solution that works best in the given circumstances”. 13 Businesses want managers who can apply analytical reasoning skills to meet challenges and keep a business functioning smoothly

A person with good analytical reasoning and pattern recognition skills can see trends in a problem much easier than anyone else.

Main navigation

• Calendar of Events
• No Show Policy

Analytical & critical reasoning

• Self -Knowledge

Analyze and synthesize complex information. Critically evaluate ideas and options. Develop and test hypotheses. Analyze and interpret findings.

Jump to section:   Understanding Analytical & Critical Reasoning  | Cultivating Analytical & Critical Reasoning | Quick Guide to Becoming an Effective Analytical and Critical Thinker  |  Taking Action | Need Help?  |  Resources | References

Understanding Analytical & Critical Reasoning 

Analytical and critical reasoning is the rational process through which you “obtain, interpret, and use knowledge, facts, and data”, while exercising logical thinking in analyzing issues and making proper decisions, to ultimately solve problems. [ 1 ]  

Why does it matter? Analytical and critical reasoning is a highly transferable skill set widely sought after in a variety of career paths. [ 2 ]  Being an analytical and critical “thinker” is the most common attribute of successful researchers, regardless of their field.  [ 3 ]  This ability allows you, whether you are a graduate student or a professional, to effectively navigate the different phases of the research process: From compiling and synthesizing information, to evaluating variable evidence, formulating questions and testing hypotheses, and interpreting and reflecting on your own findings in connection to other studies. Developing analytical and critical reasoning skills is important to reduce biased practices in professions that rely on complex decision making such as healthcare, where errors in judgement have severe consequences.  [ 4 ]   While being critical is a way of utilizing your subject knowledge to solve problems and make decisions, this process compels you to seek and validate new information, thus expanding your knowledge in a familiar or new subject areas. Moreover, analytical and critical reasoning allows you to improve on other skills such as writing and presenting. For instance, by critically examining published evidence and pertinent facts, you will enhance your argumentative writing skills needed for drafting a research manuscript or a thesis.  [ 5 ]   In everyday life, analytical and critical reasoning is essential for solving problems and making adequate decisions. In contrast to the passive “sponge approach” of merely absorbing information by relying on concentration and memory, analytical and critical reasoning provides you with an interactive approach to reach an independent decision or belief about the worth and validity of what you read, hear, or experience.  [ 6 ]  Therefore, through this thinking process, our decisions and beliefs are based on reflective judgement rather than associations or assumptions. 

Cultivating Analytical & Critical Reasoning 

Graduate students are provided with many opportunities to acquire and practice their analytical and critical reasoning skills which, while enhancing the learning process, provide a lifelong tool that goes beyond graduate studies.  [ 7 ]  While it may come to you as second nature, analytical and critical reasoning can be further honed through practice, during and following graduate studies.  [ 8 ]  For instance, in a data-driven learning setting, repeated cycles of making, reflecting, and deciding on how to act vis-a-vis quantitative comparisons, have remarkably improved students’ critical thinking, as well as their learning outcomes (e.g., evaluating models, making appropriate changes to methods). [ 9 ]  

Be a critical reader and writer 

Cultivating critical reading will enhance your critical writing. Critical reading implies that readers should focus on the “Ways of Thinking” about a topic, rather than exclusively gathering the information about it in the text.  [ 10 ]  For example, examine how arguments were presented and conclusions were reached. Adopting a question-asking attitude and reflecting on the answers will guide you through this process.  

Depending on the nature of the questions, the answers could either be definite such as the distance between the moon and the earth in physics, or limited to intelligent guesses such as the reason behind a given human behaviour in psychology. 

Here are some examples of guiding questions: [ 11 ]

• What are the issues of the conclusions?
• What are the reasons?
• Which words or phrases are ambiguous? 
• What are the value conflicts and assumptions?
• What are the descriptive assumptions?
• Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?
• How good is the evidence?

Quick Guide to Becoming an Effective Analytical and Critical Thinker 

Consider what a critical thinker would expect, comment, or ask as you write a manuscript or prepare a presentation 

Be a curious learner by continuously seeking information and discussing concepts and novel discoveries with your peers or supervisor  [ 12 ]  

Avoid “analysis paralysis” by focusing on both the details and the big picture, ensuring a rational decision-making process  [ 13 ]  

Analyze your own reasoning process and effectively communicate it as a way to persuade others  [ 14 ]  

Connect with ideas, people, and organizations beyond your comfort zone to expand your perspectives  

Engage with challenging and dissenting views, and consider unconventional, alternative solutions  [ 15 ]  

Consider how your personal biases, values, views, and location in time and space ‒ collectively known as positionality ‒ influence your reasoning and actions. Positionality is a challenge for objectivity in research, especially in qualitative studies  [ 16 ]  

Play brain training games (validated):  Brain Age,   Luminosity ,  Elevate .. 

Taking Action  

Professional development & training .

• Program –  McGill Analytics Decision Making : An intensive program designed for those in a strategic role. The program includes the use of analytic tools to generate insights and making decisions.    
• Workshop –  McGill Balanced Thinking Skills : This workshop is designed for participants to acquire a well-balanced thinking style when solving problems, making decisions, communicating and leading others.   
• Check  myInvolvement  for upcoming workshops and programs by searching for events tagged with this category: Analytical and Critical Reasoning   

Foundation for Critical Thinking : This site provides a list of programs, courses and materials relevant to improve critical thinking skill 

Farnam Street  by Shane Parrish: a popular intellectual blog covering various topics such as mental models, decision making, learning, reading, and the art of living. 

Groups & Associations 

Association for Science & Reason: This association promotes critical thinking skills and scientific methodology. 

The Critical Thinking Consortium: This organization aims to work in sustained ways with educators and related organizations to inspire, support and advocate for the infusion of critical, creative and collaborative thinking. 

Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2011). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. Boston: Pearson.  http://mcgill.worldcat.org/oclc/725828776  

Levitin, D. J. (2014). The organized mind: Thinking straight in the age of information overload.  http://mcgill.worldcat.org/oclc/861478878 

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.  http://mcgill.worldcat.org/oclc/57726633 

MacDonald, C., & Vaughn, L. (2016). The power of critical thinking.  http://mcgill.worldcat.org/oclc/935757523 

McGill Teaching and Learning Services – SKILLSETS  Tel: 514-398-6648  Email:  skillsets [at] mcgill.ca     

[1]  Career Readiness Defined. NACE. (2014). 

[2]  2013 Campus Recruitment Educator Summary. Smith, P. (2013). 

[3]  Vitae Researcher Development Framework (RDF) 2011.  

[4]  Cognitive forcing strategies in clinical decisionmaking.  Croskerry, P. (2003). 

[5], [6], [11]  Asking the right questions: a guide to critical thinking. Browne, M.N. (2011). 

[7]  Targeted Competencies in Graduate Programs. ADESAQ (2015). 

[8], [9]  Teaching critical thinking. Holmes, N.G. (2015).

[10]  Critical Reading Towards Critical Writing. University of Toronto. 

[12], [13], [14], [15]  5 strategies to grow critical thinking skills. Wiley, S. (2015). 

[16]  Positionality. Sanchez, L. (2010). 

Related Content

Cutting-edge research, dynamite presenters, and a ticking clock.

Join the audience at the 3MT Finals on April 3!

As a McGill student, your participation in full to activities such as training workshops and volunteering are tracked on your Co-Curricular Record (CCR)! Having your co-curricular activities listed in one document can help you revise your CV or cover letter, prepare for interviews, and explore career options. Learn how to leverage this important document through myInvolvement , and make your training count!

Department and university information.

• Teaching and Learning Services
• Meet the Team
• Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies
• Student Services
• Dean of Students
• McGill Writing Centre
• McGill Library
• Post Graduate Students' Society (PGSS)
• Join the team

This web app uses cookies to compile statistic information of our users visits. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. If you wish you may change your preference or read about cookies

Analytical vs Critical Thinking: Know the Difference

Thinking is a big part of our everyday lives. But not all thinking is alike. There are two main types: analytical and critical thinking.

Understanding the difference between these can help us make better decisions and solve problems more effectively. In this article, we’ll look at what sets these two types apart and how we can use them in real life.

By understanding the distinctions, you can improve your thinking skills and become more effective.

What is the difference between critical thinking and analytical thinking?

Defining analytical thinking.

Analytical thinking looks at problems in a different way than critical thinking. Critical thinking breaks down a subject to understand and explain it, while analytical thinking breaks down a problem or task to solve it.

In the workplace, analytical thinking helps with problem-solving and decision-making. For example, a quantitative analyst can find patterns in data to understand sales trends, helping businesses make good decisions.

Analytical thinking means finding patterns, trends, and relationships in information to gain deeper insights. It also means solving problems from different angles in various situations.

These skills are important for managers to handle challenges and keep businesses running well.

Defining Critical Thinking

Critical thinking means analyzing, interpreting, and making judgments. It involves questioning assumptions and considering different perspectives. It’s important to be open-minded, seek diverse viewpoints, and reflect on personal beliefs. In the workplace, critical thinking helps analyze complex problems, make sound decisions, and adapt to challenges. For instance, when solving business problems, critical thinkers consider all outcomes, weigh pros and cons, and solve problems more effectively.

Core Aspects of Analytical Reasoning

Data gathering and analysis.

Methods used for data gathering and analysis include cause and effect, similarities and differences, trends, associations between things, inter-relationships between the parts, the sequence of events, ways to solve complex problems, steps within a process, and diagramming what is happening.

Data can be effectively evaluated and interpreted for analysis by recognizing specific patterns within large data sets and learning to recognize these patterns in both numbers and written arguments. Looking at information to discern patterns within it is also important.

The key steps in formulating a methodical approach to data gathering and analysis involve breaking down problems into smaller parts to find solutions, evaluating problems, analyzing them from more than one angle, and finding a solution that works best in the given circumstances. Arriving at a logical conclusion or solution to given problems is crucial.

Evaluating Evidence

In a specific situation, evaluating evidence involves using reasoning and pattern recognition. This helps in understanding information better. Analyzing from different angles and using cause and effect, similarities and differences, trends, and associations are important for assessing evidence. Critical thinking allows thorough examination, questioning assumptions, recognizing biases, defining terms, and finding inconsistencies.

Therefore, critical thinking is essential for a more reliable analysis.

Formulating Methodical Approaches

Critical thinking and analytical thinking are similar. They both involve assessing and evaluating information. But they differ in how this is done. Critical thinking judges information to determine its relevance and validity. On the other hand, analytical thinking focuses on breaking down problems and discerning patterns within them.

In analytical thinking, a person’s general aptitude in arriving at logical conclusions to given problems is key. It requires the usage of cause and effect, similarities and differences, trends, associations between things, and the inter-relationships between the parts.

Critical thinking focuses on evaluating the elements of information to fully understand or explain it. It involves techniques like inference, interpretation, and evaluation. Often, it requires the individual to use reasoning, evidential support, and a thoughtful analysis of one’s own thinking.

These two methods play a significant role in problem-solving and decision-making processes. They allow individuals to draw deeper patterns and insights from data, text, and other forms of information.

Elements of Critical Thinking

Questioning assumptions.

Analytical reasoning involves breaking down problems into smaller parts to find solutions and determining patterns within information.

Questioning assumptions is integral to critical thinking. It allows individuals to fully understand and explain various parts or details of an issue.

Critical thinking also involves examining the structures of arguments and recognizing deeper patterns. This is crucial for making informed decisions.

Optimizing thinking strategies for the workplace involves evaluating problems from multiple angles and finding the best solution in given circumstances.

Applying analytical reasoning skills to discern patterns in data sets contributes to problem-solving and gaining valuable insights.

Businesses seek employees who possess the aptitude to utilize analytical reasoning skills to address challenges effectively and ensure smooth business operations.

Quality analytical reasoning and pattern recognition skills are essential for recognizing trends within problems, providing a competitive edge in the workplace.

Exploring Perspectives

Analytical thinking involves breaking down a problem into smaller parts to find solutions and discerning patterns within information. Critical thinking, on the other hand, examines different parts or details of something to fully understand or explain it. Exploring different perspectives is crucial to enhancing these skills.

Recognizing patterns in information can be optimized through exploring various viewpoints in analytical thinking, allowing the person to pull more information out of a text or data set. Similarly, for critical thinking, exploring different perspectives can assist in evaluating problems and finding solutions from different angles.

Individuals can optimize their thinking strategies in the workplace by developing analytical and critical thinking skills. For instance, quantitative analysts can discern patterns in data to gain insights, and managers who can apply analytical reasoning are considered excellent problem-solvers. This optimizing involves understanding causes and effects, trends, associations between things, and steps within a process. By applying these thinking strategies, individuals become better equipped to meet the challenges faced at the workplace.

Reflecting on Implications

Reflecting on implications differs between analytical thinking and critical thinking. Analytical thinking requires breaking down a problem into smaller elements to solve it. Critical thinking involves examining different parts or details to fully understand or explain something.

Potential outcomes of not reflecting on implications in both analytical and critical thinking processes include missing deeper patterns in a text or data set, and failing to recognize trends in the problem.

Individuals can improve their ability to reflect on implications in both analytical and critical thinking. This can be achieved by learning to recognize patterns in both numbers and written arguments. Also, developing an aptitude to apply analytical reasoning to problems faced in a business or a given situation.

Analytical Reasoning in Action

Scenario: market research.

Analytical reasoning in market research helps find solutions to complex problems. It breaks them into smaller pieces which allows individuals to discern patterns within information. For instance, seasonal sales trends or large-scale shifts in the market. Similarly, critical thinking contributes to problem-solving by enabling individuals to thoroughly examine and understand different aspects of a problem or situation.

It involves cause and effect, similarities and differences, and sequence of events. These skills lead to a deeper understanding and comprehensive insights. Valuable skills in market research include pattern recognition, trend analysis, and problem evaluation using multiple perspectives. These skills enable professionals to extract actionable insights, identify hidden trends, and make informed decisions based on their findings.

The Role of Critical Thinking in Problem Solving

Example: ethical dilemmas in business.

Analytical thinking means looking at information and finding patterns within it – like the structure of an argument or trends in a big data set. It helps break down complex problems into smaller parts to come to logical conclusions or solutions.

For example, a quantitative analyst might use it to spot trends in data and identify seasonal patterns or wider trends that a company should worry about. When it comes to ethical dilemmas in business, people with strong analytical skills can see important information that others might miss, helping to make ethical decisions.

Employers use analytical thinking to separate it from critical thinking when evaluating potential employees. They look at a person’s ability to find patterns, evaluate problems from different angles, and find the best solutions based on the given circumstances. Critical thinking, on the other hand, means looking at different parts or details of something to understand it fully or explain it, and often involves looking at cause and effect, similarities and differences, trends, and other relationships. Both are important for ethical decision-making and innovation in the workplace, but they need different approaches. So, employers want candidates who can use both analytical and critical thinking to face challenges and make ethical decisions at work.

Situation: Crisis Management

Crisis management involves strategic planning, effective communication, and adaptability.

Analytical and critical thinking skills are essential in this situation. They help individuals thoroughly examine the situation, assess potential risks, and find effective solutions.

For example, during a crisis, analytical thinking allows individuals to discern patterns within the information to make informed decisions.

Critical thinking skills aid in evaluating the problem from various angles and finding practical solutions that align with the circumstances.

To optimize thinking during a crisis, individuals can use strategies like cause and effect analysis, recognizing trends, and understanding inter-relationships.

By breaking down the crisis into smaller elements, individuals can effectively navigate complex problems and develop solutions that address the underlying issues.

Comparing Skills: Analytical vs Critical Thinking

Skill set overlap.

Analytical thinking and critical thinking have similar skill set requirements. Both involve breaking down a problem and examining its parts. Analytical thinking, like critical thinking, involves looking at various details to understand something fully.

For example, analyzing trends in a large data set or examining the structure of an argument. Analytical thinking also involves considering cause and effect, similarities and differences, and connections between things. One key difference is that analytical thinking focuses on recognizing patterns within information, such as trends in large data sets. As business challenges grow, analytical thinking is increasingly important for recognizing patterns in numbers and written arguments, providing insights that others might miss. Both critical and analytical thinking are essential in the workplace, so it’s important to improve these skills. This can be done by evaluating problems and finding effective solutions.

These skills are also valuable for managers, who need to analyze situations from different perspectives and choose the best actions.

Distinguishing Skill Requirements

Critical thinking is all about logical, purposeful thinking. It’s a way to determine if a claim is true or not, and to solve problems. Employers seek people with analytical skills, which involve breaking down problems into smaller parts to find solutions. While analytical reasoning focuses on discerning patterns in information, critical thinking involves evaluating information and making judgments. Both skills are crucial for effective decision-making.

Analytical skills are useful for solving complex problems step by step, a critical aspect of decision-making. For employers, a quantitative analyst who can find patterns in data to draw meaningful conclusions can be invaluable for a business.

What Employers Seek: Analytical vs Critical Thinking Skills

Evaluating job descriptions.

Job descriptions can show if analytical and critical thinking skills are needed.

For example, if a job description talks about problem-solving, data analysis, and pattern recognition, it likely requires analytical thinking. On the other hand, if it mentions sound judgment, decision-making, and identifying potential issues, it may need critical thinking skills.

Employers can make job descriptions clearer by stating the specific skills and capabilities needed, as well as the responsibilities that need analytical or critical thinking.

Also, giving examples of scenarios or challenges employees will face can help candidates understand the thinking skills needed for the job.

Assessing Organizational Needs

Analytical reasoning is important for businesses. It involves breaking down problems to find solutions. For instance, a quantitative analyst can find valuable information by discerning patterns within data. Employers look for candidates who can understand and explain things by critically examining different parts or details. Businesses value managers who can apply analytical reasoning skills to meet challenges and ensure smooth operations.

Therefore, individuals in various job positions should be able to utilize analytical and critical thinking skills for effective problem-solving and decision-making.

Optimizing Thinking Strategies for the Workplace

Approach: decision making processes.

Analytical thinking and critical thinking both play a role in decision-making. But, they are different. Critical thinking involves analyzing and evaluating information to make a judgment. Analytical thinking is about breaking down a problem or task into smaller elements to solve it. Analytical thinking means discerning patterns within information. Critical thinking involves understanding and explaining the different parts or details of something.

In the workplace, people can optimize their thinking by using cause and effect, similarities and differences, trends, and associations between things. Employers want employees with strong analytical and critical thinking skills. They need people who can evaluate problems from different perspectives, find solutions that work best, and recognize patterns in data and written arguments.

Strategy: Innovation and Development

Analytical thinking skills focus on breaking down problems into smaller parts to find solutions. Critical thinking skills involve examining different parts to fully understand or explain something.

For example, a quantitative analyst may use analytical reasoning to discern patterns in data, such as identifying trends in sales. In contrast, critical thinking involves evaluating arguments and making logical conclusions, such as assessing the reasoning behind a particular business decision.

Organizations can benefit from employees who possess both analytical and critical thinking skills. For instance, a manager with excellent analytical skills can evaluate problems from multiple angles to find the best solution. Someone with strong critical thinking skills might assess the potential risks and benefits of different strategies.

In the context of strategy, innovation, and development, a combination of analytical and critical thinking allows companies to identify trends, evaluate potential outcomes, and make informed decisions to keep the business functioning smoothly.

Vizologi is a revolutionary AI-generated business strategy tool that offers its users access to advanced features to create and refine start-up ideas quickly. It generates limitless business ideas, gains insights on markets and competitors, and automates business plan creation.

+100 Business Book Summaries

We've distilled the wisdom of influential business books for you.

Zero to One by Peter Thiel. The Infinite Game by Simon Sinek. Blue Ocean Strategy by W. Chan. …

Embrace an Analytical Thinking Approach

Applying analytical thinking in everyday life.

A generative AI business strategy tool to create business plans in 1 minute

FREE 7 days trial ‐ Get started in seconds

Generate limitless business ideas, gain insights on markets and competitors, and automate business plan creation

Try it Free

Supercharge Your Business Strategy!

Before you download our exclusive content Subscribe to Vizologi’s FREE newsletter. Join 50k+ innovators shaping success with curated content. No spam, just pure value! @vizologi

Thanks for joining us!

Your exclusive content is on the way to your inbox. Ready to elevate your business with Vizologi?

Analytical Skills Vs Critical Thinking

Author: Primeast

Date: 20/04/2021

Required Skills for Developing Leaders

Analytical skills and critical thinking are crucial to business performance. However, according to the updated UK Commission for Employment and Skills’ ‘Employer Skills Survey 2015: UK Results (Amended 2018)’ :

• Managers are lacking in analytical skills
• 55% of managers are deemed to be not proficient in solving complex problems
• There is a lack of analytical and problem-solving skills in existing staff

Analytical skills and critical thinking are no longer nice-to-haves. They are required skills for a changing world , and among the 10 critical skills needed for developing leaders . But which matters most?

What are analytical skills?

Applying analytical skills, you can break down facts and information into small elements that help you to solve problems. You can analyse data, apply reasoning, and recall information. You are curious about the way the data fits together.

Analytical thinkers can spot trends and gain insight into an organiSation’s business by pattern recognition. You’ll seek to identify differences, similarities, trends, and relationships between all the elements.

All these skills make you good at evaluating problems and developing logical solutions – a business-critical function.

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is broader than analytical reasoning. As a critical thinker, you consider all the facts and figures as presented and make judgements based on these and a range of other inputs. These may include opinions, views, and potential solutions put forward.

You don’t automatically accept information as fact. You probe, prompt, question, and research to ensure solid data, and from all you know you draw conclusions. You use all you learn to develop creative solutions.

Critical thinking skills increase your ability to be purposeful, logical, and innovative when decision-making.

Analytical skills vs critical thinking – can they be separated?

Analytical reasoning is a more linear approach to gathering and analysing data. It takes a step-by-step flow that breaks down information in a logical pattern.

Critical thinking skills enable you to question the data, verify it, and analyse outside information before developing a more holistic solution.

Which matters most depends upon your point of view. Analytical reasoning is a crucial step in the process of critical thinking. You analyse data before applying critical thinking to it.

If only using analytical skills, you use the data and facts to support your solution.

By then applying critical thinking, you evaluate all sources of information before making a judgement based on your opinion, knowledge, experience, and expertise.

While both are unique skills, and can be used individually, the nature of them makes them completely complimentary. However, the nature of them also means that critical thinkers typically use their analytical skills as the first step to developing holistic solutions that have a positive impact on their teams and organisations.

In short, analytical skills are usually developed first and are a necessity to meaningful application of critical thinking skills.

Do your employees possess the analytical and critical thinking skills to accelerate your organisation toward its goals? Take a look at our Scaling Talent and Prime Leadership programmes, designed to develop skills and talent across your organisation.

We’d love to talk to you about how we can help you and your organisation develop outstanding learning and development programmes - Virtual Instructor Led or face to face as this becomes possible. Email our team here or call our client relationship team on +44 (0)1423 531083.

Recent Insights

How to Communicate as a Leader: Step 1

To learn how to communicate effectively as a leader, you must first learn about yourself. What are the tools and techniques used to do this?

When Conversations Get Tough

Tough conversations matter. The challenge is how to prepare for them and how to ensure you're in the right frame of mind to navigate towards a successful outcome. Russell Evans provides 7 top tips for turning tough conversations into positive opportunities.

Russell Evans speaks to the Leaders Council

This week, Russell Evans was interviewed by Scott Challinor for the Leaders Council podcast, sharing his experience as a leader, facilitator and leadership coach. Read and listen to the episode in full.

Join our community of learners and leaders

Subscribe to receive updates on service launches, articles and free learning and development resources

• 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

Differences Between Analytical & Critical Thinking

Kyra sheahan.

Any time you read literary materials or experience something that requires you to comprehend it, you employ a variety of thinking skills. Thinking skills relate to the way in which you process and understand information, and you employ specific thinking skills based on what you wish to gain from your thoughts. Analytical and critical thinking are two styles of thinking skills that are commonly used, but employed for different purposes.

Explore this article

• Analytical Thinking
• Critical Thinking
• Facts-Based

1 Analytical Thinking

Analytical thinking describes a thinking style that enables a person to break down complex information or a series of comprehensive data. It uses a step-by-step method to analyze a problem and then come to an answer or solution. In essence, analytical thinking represents a cause and effect style of looking at a problem, and is sometimes referred to as perceiving something through multiple lenses. An example of analytical thinking involves understanding the relationship between leaves and the color green. One could ask "Why are leaves green?" and then use analytical thinking skills to tie the answer together.

2 Critical Thinking

Critical thinking has to do with evaluating information that is fed to you, and determining how to interpret it, what to believe and whether something appears to be right or wrong. In this style of thinking the thinker employs reasoning to come to a conclusion about how he wants to perceive the information. Critical thinking also takes outside information into account during the thought process. Rather than sticking strictly with the information presented, critical thinking lets the thinker explore other elements that could be of influence.

3 Facts-Based

Analytical and critical thinking styles both look at facts, but those facts are then used for different purposes. When it comes to analytical thinking, facts are used to build on information and support evidence that leads to a logical conclusion. Critical thinking, on the other hand, uses facts to determine a belief, form an opinion or decide whether something makes sense.

The processes of analytical thinking and critical thinking are different. Analytical thinking uses a linear and focused process, with one thought following the other in a stream-like formation. Critical thinking occurs more in circles and can go around and around until a conclusion is stumbled upon.

The purposes of critical thinking and analytical thinking are not the same. You do not employ critical thinking strategies to figure out the solution to a complex question or to problem-solve. Rather, analytical thinking is used for this purpose. However, you would not use analytical thinking if your main goal was to come up with a belief or perception about something. In this case, you would use critical thinking methods.

About the Author

Kyra Sheahan has been a writer for various publications since 2008. Her work has been featured in "The Desert Leaf" and "Kentucky Doc Magazine," covering health and wellness, environmental conservatism and DIY crafts. Sheahan holds an M.B.A. with an emphasis in finance.

Related Articles

Seven Key Features of Critical Thinking

Advantages & Disadvantages of Positivism

How to Increase Your Critical Thinking Skills

The Difference Between Research & Science

How Does Bloom's Taxonomy Relate to Critical Thinking...

What Are the Differences Between Bias & Fallacy?

Techniques Used to Solve Ethical Dilemmas

What Are the Four Forms of Critical Thinking and Writing?

How to Identify a Hypothesis

Comprehension Skills That Require Critical Thinking

What Did Plato Contribute to Philosophy?

How to Write a DBQ Essay

When Should You Apply the Idea of Bloom's Taxonomy...

Format for Writing an Information Paper

What Is the Difference Between Conclusion and Inference?

What Actions or Behaviors Are Indicative of a Critical...

Important Elements in Writing Argument Essays

Beliefs Of Agnostics

Types of Argument Syles

Types of Critical Thinking Skills

Regardless of how old we are, we never stop learning. Classroom is the educational resource for people of all ages. Whether you’re studying times tables or applying to college, Classroom has the answers.

• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Copyright Policy
• Manage Preferences

© 2020 Leaf Group Ltd. / Leaf Group Media, All Rights Reserved. Based on the Word Net lexical database for the English Language. See disclaimer .

UCL Careers

Analytical and Critical Thinking Skills

The power to apply logical thinking, break down complex problems into manageable components objectively, and make a reasoned judgement by evaluating information.

Explore your understanding

Applying analytical and critical thinking to a task is about being able to look at a situation and examining it carefully.  Paying attention to detail, remaining focused and having determination are all key elements to apply to this process.

During the recruitment process, industry case study scenarios are sometimes used to test your analytical skills. Employers are looking to see that you are able to critically look at data, evaluate the information you have and produce proposals for suggested actions.

Find and develop your skill

How can you improve your analytical and critical thinking skills at UCL? 

Travel to hone your analytical and critical thinking skills

Travel via UCL Go Abroad programmes which encompass an enriching selection of worldwide opportunities tailored to support UCL students to perform at their full potential and further develop their analytical and critical thinking skills through meeting a wide range of people. Attend an event to learn more about the global opportunities available both short term and longer term as part of your degree.

Learn how to apply analytical and critical thinking

Take part in a skills session delivered by employers to learn more about developing your analytical and critical thinking . You could also try coming to a Mock Assessment Centre where you can practice applying logic and evaluating information as part of a group task. 

Employer-led skills sessions

Use LinkedIn Learning to grow your skillset

LinkedIn Learning has a huge range of video courses supporting learning in software, creative and business skills – all free to UCL staff and currently enrolled students.  Access LinkedIn learning content on how you can build your analytical and thinking skills.

Access LinkedIn Learning

Join a club or society Join a club or society that challenges your critical thinking, such as the Consulting Society, Law for All, the International Relations Society, or even come up with your own proposal if you identify a gap. 

Clubs and societies directory

Develop your analytical and critical thinking skills as a researcher

Access courses related to analytical & critical skills such as Introductions to science, philosophy, and key concepts to develop your skills within this area. The UCL Doc Skills Programme is open to all postgraduate research students at UCL. You’ll find more information on all the courses available on our website . 

UCL Doctoral Skills Development Programme You will also be able to browse the  scheduled events for researchers  and  those for doctoral students .  Research students can also  access courses mapped to the Researcher Development Framework (RDF)  and  one-to-one advice, practice interviews and workshops tailored to researchers.

Prepare your examples

Ask yourself:

Do you have a group project that you are working on? Was there any type of evaluation involved? Think about a piece of research, report or dissertation you completed? What analysis and evaluation processes did you use and why?

Can you describe how you have developed your analytical and critical thinking skills whilst at UCL?

Next steps:

Course projects are also a great way to develop your skills. Need some support on how to apply analytical and critical thinking? Visit our 'Psychometric and aptitude tests' page to see the different examples of problem solving and situational judgement tests.

Practice psychometric and aptitude tests

Get support on how to structure answers on analytical and critical thinking as part of an interview. Visit our Interview Skills page. 

How to demonstrate your skills in an interview

Here you can find out more about how to structure your answer and demonstrate your skills along with many more resources that will help you prepare.

If you have written a draft application for any type of opportunity, our team can provide personalised practical tips and advice to help you better understand how recruiters will shortlist your application, and how you can best demonstrate your motivation and your most relevant skills / experience.

Get one-to-one advice

The employer perspective – Procter and Gamble:

“ Analytical skills is an essential skill for all employees at Procter and Gamble . We recruit a variety of roles including Sales, Marketing, Finance, Engineering and HR and across all of these analytical skills are used in day to day life at P&G. As a data driven company, we make a lot of decisions based on data from the market, our customers and our campaigns which means its crucial all employees have an ability to analyse and manipulate data to create insights used for decision making.

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

Strategic Thinking vs Analytical Thinking: Uncovering Key Differences

Strategic thinking and analytical thinking are two essential skills in the business world. Both play crucial roles in decision-making processes, but they differ in approach and application. Understanding the differences between these two thinking styles can help organizations make informed choices and drive success.

Strategic thinking is a forward-looking process that involves considering the big picture, anticipating future challenges, and developing long-term plans. This type of thinking enables individuals to connect the dots, identify opportunities, and create a clear vision for the organization. On the other hand, analytical thinking is a problem-solving mindset, focusing on breaking down information, examining data, and identifying patterns to solve immediate issues.

While both thinking styles have their place in an organization, it’s essential for individuals to know when to employ each one and how to combine them effectively. By understanding and honing these skills, professionals can make better decisions, drive innovation, and contribute to an organization’s overall success.

Strategic Thinking vs Analytical Thinking

Divergent and convergent thinking.

Strategic thinking and analytical thinking are two different approaches to problem-solving and decision-making. They can be connected to the concepts of divergent thinking and convergent thinking, respectively.

Divergent thinking, often linked to strategic thinking, focuses on generating multiple solutions to a problem, exploring various possibilities, seeking innovative ideas, and identifying potential opportunities ^ . This type of thinking aims to expand the range of options and is considered more creative and open-minded.

On the other hand, convergent thinking, associated with analytical thinking, is a more systematic approach where individuals evaluate, analyze, and narrow down the available options to reach the best solution or decision ^ . This type of thinking is linear, logical, and detail-oriented.

Innovation and Control

Both strategic thinking and analytical thinking are essential for organizations and individuals. However, they serve different purposes and have different characteristics.

Strategic thinking is proactive, agile, and focused on long-term success ^ . It encourages innovation and creativity and involves exploring “what if” scenarios and anticipating future trends. Strategic thinking helps to identify new ways of achieving goals, plan for unforeseen circumstances, and adapt to change.

In contrast, analytical thinking is more concerned with control and maintaining stability. It includes examining data, evaluating evidence, and organizing information to identify patterns and understand complex situations. Analytical thinking allows individuals to make informed decisions and stay aligned with the organization’s objectives.

In summary,

• Strategic thinking (divergent thinking) involves generating multiple solutions and exploring various possibilities.
• Analytical thinking (convergent thinking) is a systematic approach to evaluating and narrowing down options.
• Strategic thinking focuses on innovation, while analytical thinking emphasizes control.

Having a balance between strategic and analytical thinking is crucial for success in today’s dynamic and competitive environment. Both approaches complement one another and can be harnessed for effective problem-solving and decision-making.

Key Components of Strategic Thinking

Strategic thinking is essential in helping individuals and organizations navigate complex issues and effectively plan for the future. It involves anticipating future needs, identifying opportunities, and making decisions that align with long-term goals. This section will discuss some of the core components of strategic thinking, including vision and future focus, problem-solving, and communication.

Vision and Future Focus

Strategic thinkers are known for their strong vision and focus on the future. They have the ability to imagine how current trends and events may impact their organization in the long run, and plan accordingly. This involves strategic foresight which allows them to anticipate potential problems and have backup plans in place. Being intent-focused, they keep their overarching goals and direction in mind while remaining adaptable to ever-changing circumstances. They are curious, never hesitating to question conventional thinking and are constantly looking for new ways to contribute to their organization’s success.

Problem-Solving

Problem-solving is another crucial aspect of strategic thinking. Strategic thinkers analyze situations from multiple perspectives, gathering and synthesizing information to make informed decisions. They are also able to break down complex problems into manageable parts, identifying key issues and developing creative and effective solutions. Constantly scanning for new information and adjusting their approach when needed, strategic thinkers maintain an open mind and are willing to learn from mistakes.

Communication

Effective communication is essential for strategic thinkers, as it enables them to share their ideas, align their team around common goals, and foster a culture of collaboration and innovation. This involves not only clearly articulating their thoughts and plans but also actively listening to others and incorporating feedback. By creating an environment where open and transparent dialogue is encouraged, strategic thinkers can more easily foster a shared understanding of the organization’s direction, inviting employees at all levels to contribute to the overall success.

In summary, strategic thinking involves vision, problem-solving, and communication skills that empower individuals and organizations to plan for the future, navigate complex challenges, and achieve long-term success. By developing these skills, individuals can make more informed decisions, better adapt to changing circumstances, and contribute to their organization’s ongoing growth.

Key Components of Analytical Thinking

Data analysis and insight.

Analytical thinking involves the process of breaking complex problems or systems into smaller parts to understand how they work. One significant component of analytical thinking is data analysis and insight . Data analysis involves evaluating data to detect patterns, make inferences, and draw conclusions. Some key aspects of data analysis include:

• Gathering relevant data from various sources
• Organizing data in a structured manner
• Identifying patterns, trends, and correlations within data
• Interpreting the results and generating insights

Analytical thinkers use these insights to make well-informed decisions and solve problems effectively.

Critical Thinking

Another critical aspect of analytical thinking is critical thinking . It is the ability to think clearly and rationally, understanding the logical connection between ideas. It involves evaluating information objectively and making a judgment based on evidence. Some key elements of critical thinking include:

• Identifying assumptions and biases in the presented information
• Evaluating the quality and credibility of evidence
• Assessing the strength of arguments and conclusions
• Considering alternative viewpoints and perspectives

Developing strong critical thinking skills can help individuals effectively analyze situations and develop creative solutions.

Decision Making

The final component of analytical thinking is decision making . Analytical thinkers use data analysis and critical thinking to make decisions that are logical, rational, and informed by evidence. The decision-making process generally involves the following steps:

• Identifying the problem or decision to be made
• Gathering relevant information and analyzing data
• Generating possible solutions or alternatives
• Evaluating the pros and cons of each option
• Choosing the best option and implementing it
• Monitoring and reviewing the results of the decision

By consistently applying analytical skills in the decision-making process, individuals can boost their ability to make effective decisions and improve their professional and personal lives.

Developing Strategic and Analytical Thinking

Leadership and employee development.

Developing both strategic and analytical thinking is essential to career advancement for both employees and leaders within an organization. Strategic thinking involves the ability to think ahead and anticipate potential problems , while also being proactive in spotting opportunities for growth. On the other hand, analytical thinking focuses on breaking down complex problems into smaller, more manageable parts to find solutions.

To foster strategic thinking skills, employers can encourage staff members to ask strategic questions . This practice promotes planning, problem-solving, and the development of a more strategic mindset that can be leveraged throughout one’s career.

Effective leadership also plays a crucial role in developing strategic and analytical thinking. Leaders should create an environment where employees feel comfortable questioning conventional thinking and exploring new ideas. This can be achieved by offering training opportunities, providing regular feedback, and promoting collaboration among team members.

Nurturing Proactive Habits

Being proactive is an essential component of strategic and analytical thinking. Employees should be encouraged to adopt habits that help them think ahead and prepare for potential challenges. Some proactive habits to nurture include:

• Setting clear goals : Define short-term and long-term objectives, both for individual performance and team outcomes. Goals should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).
• Staying informed : Strategic thinkers stay current on industry trends, emerging technologies, and competitor developments. Encouraging employees to read, engage in professional networks, and attend conferences can help them stay informed and better prepared for change.
• Experimenting and learning : Encourage employees to test new ideas and learn from both successes and failures. This fosters a culture of continuous improvement and innovation, which can contribute to strategic growth.
• Taking calculated risks : Cultivate a mindset of risk-taking, where both leaders and employees are willing to make bold decisions based on thorough analysis and a well-thought-out strategy.

By investing in leadership and employee development and nurturing proactive habits, organizations can create a workforce skilled in strategic and analytical thinking, driving better decision-making and stronger performance for the organization as a whole.

Striking the Balance

When it comes to strategic thinking and analytical thinking, striking a balance between the two is crucial for professional success. This section will delve into how effective communication and decision making, as well as synthesis and competitive advantage, are essential to accomplish this balance.

Effective Communication and Decision Making

Effective communication is vital in both strategic and analytical thinking. Strategic thinkers need to articulate their vision, goals, and plans clearly, while analytical thinkers are responsible for presenting data and findings in a manner that is understandable and actionable for everyone. By ensuring that each individual can communicate efficiently with others, organizations can capitalize on the unique strengths that each thinking style offers.

Decision making is another critical aspect to consider when striking the balance between strategic and analytical thinking. Strategic thinkers are responsible for making decisions that shape an organization’s direction and future, while analytical thinkers help analyze data to support and inform those decisions. It’s important for individuals in both roles to collaborate and draw on each other’s strengths to make the best possible decisions for the success of the organization.

Synthesis and Competitive Advantage

A major benefit of striking the balance between strategic and analytical thinking is the ability to synthesize information effectively. Strategic thinking requires participants to question conventional approaches and anticipate potential problems. On the other hand, analytical thinking is a more linear and focused process that involves breaking down complex information into manageable parts. By combining these two ways of thinking, individuals can become better at identifying trends, patterns, opportunities, and risks, ultimately leading to more informed decisions.

Having a balance of strategic and analytical thinking within an organization can also lead to a competitive advantage. Strategic thinking helps with developing overall business strategies and long-term goals, while analytical thinking allows for the monitoring of metrics and achievement of short-term goals. Together, these two types of thinking create a strong foundation for growth and success in any industry.

In conclusion, striking the balance between strategic thinking and analytical thinking is essential for effective communication, decision making, synthesis of information, and ultimately, gaining a competitive advantage. By acknowledging and valuing the unique strengths that each thinking style offers, professionals and organizations alike can maximize their effectiveness and stay ahead in today’s competitive landscape.

Industry Perspectives and Challenges

Strategic planning and adaptation.

Industry challenges demand a clear and effective strategy planning approach. Strategic thinking involves the ability to see the big picture and make connections to create a path towards organizational success. On the other hand, analytical thinking focuses on breaking down complex problems into smaller, more manageable components to find a solution.

Strategic planning plays a vital role in addressing industry challenges and staying adaptable to rapidly changing conditions. Companies should constantly reassess their goals, strategies, and resources to ensure they remain competitive and relevant. This iterative process helps to align the organization’s direction and fosters a culture that encourages innovation and forward thinking.

Some key aspects of strategic planning and adaptation include:

• Scenario planning and forecasting to anticipate market shifts
• Aligning resources and capabilities to meet long-term goals
• Agility in decision-making and course correction when necessary

Innovation and Industry Trends

Navigating the complexities of an ever-evolving industry landscape is a vital competency for organizations. Understanding the implications of innovation and industry trends helps inform strategic decision-making and fosters an environment that is more responsive to change.

Some common innovation trends that impact industries include:

• Technological advancements, such as AI, automation, and digital transformation
• Evolving customer preferences and behaviors
• New business models and market disruptions

Staying ahead of these trends enables organizations to:

• Identify and capitalize on emerging opportunities
• Develop innovative solutions to existing challenges
• Create a sustainable competitive advantage for the long term

In summary, integrating strategic thinking and analytical abilities through an ongoing focus on the challenges and opportunities inherent in industry dynamics is crucial for thriving in today’s fast-paced business environment. Incorporating strategic planning and an innovative mindset supports the development of effective strategies to navigate complex industry landscapes and overcome potential hurdles.

Consequences of Imbalance

Reactive vs proactive approaches.

Imbalance between strategic thinking and analytical thinking can lead to an organization taking either a predominantly reactive or proactive approach to problem-solving. When an organization relies heavily on analytical thinking, it tends to be more reactive in its decision-making. This is because analytical thinking focuses on evaluating data and trends after the fact, so responses are often directed towards solving problems that have already occurred. In contrast, strategic thinking emphasizes anticipating future challenges and opportunities, allowing organizations to be more proactive in their approach.

A predominantly reactive approach can prevent an organization from anticipating and preparing for potential issues that may arise in the future. This can leave the organization surprised and unprepared when facing challenges, limiting their ability to respond effectively. Proactive approaches, on the other hand, enable organizations to have a strategic vision and plan for the future, allowing them to adapt and respond in a more controlled and efficient manner.

Strategic Thinking vs Analytical Thinking – Impact on Organizational Success

Balancing strategic thinking and analytical thinking is critical to an organization’s success, as an imbalance can have various consequences. One impact of an imbalance is losing control over the direction of the organization. When there’s too much focus on analytical thinking, an organization may find itself constantly reacting to short-term issues without developing a long-term vision or plan.

Another consequence of imbalance can be the limited innovation within the organization. A constant focus on reacting to current challenges and data, as seen in an analytical thinking-driven approach, might inhibit the ability to think creatively and explore new opportunities – a key aspect of strategic thinking.

To achieve balance, organizations should invest in developing the strategic thinking skills of their employees at all levels, encouraging a culture of continuous learning and curiosity, while also giving equal importance to data and analytics for informed decision-making. This balanced approach ensures that the organization is both prepared for the future and able to respond to unexpected challenges with confidence and flexibility.

You may also like

Strategic Thinking and Artificial Intelligence: Unlocking New Possibilities in Problem Solving

The intersection of strategic thinking and artificial intelligence presents opportunities and challenges for businesses in the 21st century. As AI technologies continue […]

Why is Strategic Thinking Important for Effective Decision-Making?

Strategic thinking is the process of developing a vision for the future and understanding the steps necessary to achieve that vision. It […]

Can Strategic Thinking Be Taught? Examining Techniques and Approaches

The concept of strategic thinking has been a buzzword in the corporate world for quite some time now. Essentially, it equips professionals […]

Strategic Thinking vs Tactical Thinking: Key Differences Explained

Strategic thinking and tactical thinking are often discussed in the context of business, project management, and overall decision-making. While both are essential […]