Critiquing Scholarly Writing: Evidence and Critical Thinking

Introduction to Scholarly Standards

One of the great breakthroughs of the past fifty years has been the widespread availability of the personal computer. This powerful learning tool has revolutionized everything from commerce to education and changed the very way everyone conducts his or her daily life. Most notably, where only a few years ago people wrote about the "digital divide" between those who could afford computers and those who could not, there is almost no discussion along these lines any longer. Why would there be? Poor people can now save enough to buy their families a computer for home and school use. In fact, an article in Business Week in 2001 estimated that more than 80% of all high school students were "plugged in."

The paragraph above is an example of an attempt at scholarly writing that ultimately fails to meet basic academic requirements for substantiating evidence in a clear and well-cited manner. The following discussion post and writing assignment analyze that failure in detail.

Discussion: Weaknesses of the Sample Paragraph

The sample paragraph relies on the "common sense" notion that "everyone knows" the computer has changed modern life, rather than presenting scientific data to substantiate its claims. The writer assumes the reader is most likely a young person like him or herself who is accustomed to the ubiquity of technology. While the statement "the computer has changed everything" may resonate with someone who is very connected technologically, a reader with a different life experience may disagree. An older person, for instance, may find it difficult to accept that the computer has changed life so radically — beliefs once established are notoriously difficult to revise — and, given the argumentative structure of the paragraph, it is necessary to substantiate this first, fundamental assertion (Douglas, 2000).

In addition to this failure to substantiate its claims, the paragraph also exhibits a notable inability to interrogate the terms it uses to describe the phenomenon of the digital divide. A scholarly author must break down his or her assumptions into their component parts (Paul & Elder, 2003). What, for example, is meant by "poor people"? Does "poor" mean unable to afford the very best technology, or genuinely destitute? Without defining the term, the assertion that the digital divide between rich and poor has been closed is meaningless.

Similarly, what is meant by "plugged in"? The author fails to question this term as well (Paul & Elder, 2003). Does "plugged in" mean that a student has access to a word-processing program, or to sophisticated technology that will give him or her real skills to advance in the workplace? It is difficult to accept, without more substantiated evidence, that the technological gap between rich and poor schools has truly been closed on the basis of a single statistic from Business Week. Furthermore, the writer does not question whether being "plugged in" at school is genuinely significant. A student without a computer at home is still likely to be disadvantaged in terms of the research he or she can conduct, compared with students who have access to computers and other high-end technology — such as a smartphone, video camera, or DVR — at home.

Scholarly Writing and Critical Thinking Defined

Scholarly writing is not a mere regurgitation of cut-and-paste source material, nor is it gut, uninformed personal opinion. Scholarly writing demands evidence to substantiate a claim: it cannot simply be asserted that "everyone knows" technology has changed "everything." Scholarly writing requires rational thought, and those thoughts must be supported by the work of others. Above all, it is rigorous in the way it questions common assumptions. Critical thinking breaks down everyday assumptions — what is often called "common sense" — into their component parts, and demonstrates how what "makes sense" may not actually hold up in fact (Paul & Elder, 2003).

Questioning the Claim: Computers and Social Change

The sample paragraph does not achieve these standards. First and foremost, although directed at a general audience, it blatantly assumes the reader agrees with the author that computers have changed the world in a self-evident fashion. Even if the reader is an enthusiastic consumer of technology, the question arises of what evidence actually exists for real societal change, as opposed to superficial and cosmetic shifts. Even the selection of "fifty years" as the period for this transformation seems arbitrary rather than justified by any evidence. As Pope (1998) notes, "What, if any, scientific research supports such claims? It appears that there are no scientific studies published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that establish the validity of these statements. It is not just conclusions, such as those above, but also evaluative instruments that may lack a basis in research providing scientific evidence of their validity or reliability."

When analyzing a passage for logical consistency, it is important to ask what the "main inferences/conclusions" are (Paul & Elder, 2003, p. 36). In addition to assuming the computer's importance as a life-transforming technology, the existence of a "digital divide" is itself assumed. This is critical, since the "digital divide" is one of the main components of the author's argument. The author states that the divide between rich and poor has been closing because more poor people can now afford computers, as evidenced by the claim that 80% of all high school students are "plugged in." But what does "plugged in" mean? Does it mean that all of these students have access to computers on their school campuses? Having access to a word-processing computer on campus is very different from being able to use advanced technology on a home computer, or having the familiarity with a smartphone to use it for research on a consistent, daily basis. Merely being plugged in at school does not mean a student has home-based resources for going online.

Furthermore, "plugged in" may not refer to having a computer at all. While mobile devices can usefully enhance the use of computers in research, a student still needs a laptop or desktop to function effectively in a classroom environment — to write papers and access long-form articles via academic databases. Not all "plugged in" technology, in other words, is created equal.

Conclusion

Scholarly writing demands that every claim be substantiated with peer-reviewed evidence and that foundational terms be clearly defined. The sample paragraph examined here fails on both counts. It presents unsubstantiated assertions as self-evident truths, leaves key terms undefined, and relies on a single non-scholarly source to support broad claims about technology and social equality. Applying the critical thinking framework outlined by Paul and Elder (2003), it becomes clear that rigorous academic argument must interrogate its own assumptions at every level — from the meaning of individual words to the broader social claims those words are meant to support.

References

Douglas, N. L. (2000). Enemies of critical thinking: Lessons from social psychology research. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 129–144.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2003). Critical thinking: Teaching students how to study and learn (Part III). Journal of Developmental Education, 26(3), 36–37.

Pope, K. S. (1998). Pseudoscience, cross-examination, and scientific evidence in the recovered memory controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 4(4), 1160–1181.