critical thinking doctoral dissertation

• UNH Library

• < Previous

Home > STUDENT > DISSERTATION > 1892

Doctoral Dissertations

Critical thinking: a voyage of the imagination.

David Glenn Hodgdon , University of New Hampshire, Durham

Date of Award

Spring 1996

Project Type

Dissertation

Program or Major

Degree name.

Doctor of Philosophy

First Advisor

Barbara Houston

In this dissertation I contend that there is a strong connection between critical thinking and the imagination, a connection which increases the dynamism and vitality of critical thinking. By acknowledging a role for the imagination, we are able to form a more coherent and complete critical thinking conception, which leads to the positing of a new theory of critical thinking. This new conception has pedagogical implications demanding that we alter or augment current approaches to critical thinking instruction.

Employing a conceptual analysis, I first focus on critical thinking conceptions found on a continuum from traditional conceptions, which focus on logic and argument analysis, to expanded conceptions, which are more eclectic and admit a role for the affective as well as the cognitive. In order to focus on the nature of the imagination, which I argue plays an important role especially in expanded conceptions of critical thinking, I examine first the philosophical and then the literary conceptions of the imagination, specifically considering the arguments by the philosophers Edward Casey and Mary Warnock and the writers William Wordsworth, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and Wallace Stevens. These philosophers and writers reveal an imagination characterized by a connection to creativity, the capacity to construct meaning, the generation of potentially unending possibilities, the capacity to enable the emotions to emerge and coexist with rationality. Other writers and literary theorists like Samuel Johnson, Toni Morrison, and Deanne Bogdan alert us to the epistemological and moral dangers of the imagination, dangers which need to be acknowledged and addressed in order to allow for the imagination to fully enrich and enhance critical thinking.

The new conception of critical thinking, which I call integrative critical thinking, fully employs the imagination to generate a variety of possible avenues for our thinking and our conclusions, evokes emotions held in creative tension with reason, envisages a conclusion (or conclusions) to one's thought process and the means to reach those conclusions, and allows for creativity during the critical thinking process. Integrative critical thinking incorporates criticism and judgment, but also recognizes that critical thinking occurs in and is affected by a social context. This conception integrates the three enduring approaches (knowledge, skills, and dispositions) to critical thinking and opens up the critical thinker not only to envision a liberated state of mind and being but also to act on that vision.

Recommended Citation

Hodgdon, David Glenn, "Critical thinking: A voyage of the imagination" (1996). Doctoral Dissertations . 1892. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/1892

Since April 13, 2018

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Contributors

• Submit Research

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Robert E. Levasseur, PhD

Blog Categories

• Collaborative Meeting Management
• Decision Making
• Doctoral Study
• High Performance Team Building
• Hiking and Nature
• Leadership and Change
• Lifelong Learning

Recent Posts

• Step 3. Transitioning from Group to Team
• Step 2. Creating Psychological Safety
• Step 1. Balancing the Team
• The Perfect Team Model
• Tips on Building a Perfect Team

Critical Thinking at the Doctoral Level

What does it mean to exercise critical thinking? Does it mean to be negative and adversarial? Does it mean to provide constructive criticism? Or does it mean something totally different? To explore the nature of critical thinking, we begin by examining the concept of left and right brain thinking.

Left and Right Brain Thinking

Brain research suggests that the left and right sides of the brain have distinct and complementary functions. Simply put, the left brain is the seat of logic and, hence, analytical thinking, and the right brain is the seat of intuition and, hence, system thinking.

So, is critical thinking left-brained, analytical thinking, or is it right-brained, system thinking?

Lower vs. Higher-order Thinking

differentiate the work of students from scholars, academics use a framework called Bloom’s Taxonomy. According to Benjamin Bloom, there are multiple levels of thinking.

They follow a hierarchy from the lowest to the highest order or level:

Comprehension

Application

New doctoral students tend to focus on the lower level skills since the educational system at the levels below the doctorate tend to emphasize their use.

As a doctoral student, however, your work must reflect all levels of thinking, particularly the higher-order thinking skills of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. In addition, your work should incorporate a whole-brain approach that uses right-brained, systemic thinking to support left-brained, analytical thinking, and vice-versa.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy .

• Departments
• University Research
• About the University

Evaluating the impact of instruction in critical thinking on the critical thinking skills of English language learners in higher education

EL-SOUFI, NADA (2019) Evaluating the impact of instruction in critical thinking on the critical thinking skills of English language learners in higher education. Doctoral thesis, Durham University.

In 1994 the Lebanese government called for an education reform to introduce critical thinking (CT) in the curriculum. The reform failed as there was no consensus on how CT should be taught. Some commentators consider CT a cultural practice that cannot be taught in cultures that do not encourage independent thinking. This study examines whether instruction in CT can develop the CT skills of undergraduate English language learners in a system where politics and religion take precedence over the quality of education. The thesis begins with a systematic review that synthesises empirical evidence of the effect of teaching CT on CT skills of undergraduate English language learners. Of 1,830 records, only 36 studies were deemed relevant. The review suggests indicative evidence that explicit instruction may be beneficial. However, because of methodological flaws, the strength of the evidence is weak. To establish the effect of this approach, a cluster randomised control trial was carried out in a university in Lebanon involving 29 English classes (413 students). The trial was conducted over one term in which 11 lessons in CT (14 sessions) were substituted for material from the regular curriculum. Experimental students made bigger gains on the Cornell Critical Thinking Test between pre- and post-test (ES = +0.3). Process evaluation shows that the key factors in successful implementations were teachers’ positive attitude, training of teachers, and the readily available lesson plans that were integrated into the curriculum. Students’ attitudes and lack of general knowledge were key barriers. The predominance of poorly designed research in the review suggests that research in CT is underdeveloped and is not a priority for policymakers in non-native English speaking countries. More funding could be invested to strengthen research in CT. Overall, this study shows that the objective of the education reforms in Lebanon to introduce CT is not difficult to achieve if teachers are trained.

Quick links

• Latest additions
• Browse by year
• Browse by department
• Deposit thesis
• Usage statistics

Prospective students

• International students
• Research degrees
• Durham e-Theses
• Deposit Guide

Last Modified: Summer 2013 | Disclaimer | Trading name | Powered by EPrints 3

Enhancing college students' critical thinking: A review of studies

• Published: March 1987
• Volume 26 , pages 3–29, ( 1987 )

Cite this article

• James H. McMillan 1  

2948 Accesses

123 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Twenty-seven studies are reviewed that investigate the effect of instructional methods, courses, programs, and general college experiences on changes in college students' critical thinking. Only two studies used true experimental designs; most were nonequivalent pretest-posttest control group designs. The results failed to support the use of specific instructional or course conditions to enhance critical thinking, but did support the conclusion that college attendance improves critical thinking. What is lacking in the research is a common definition of critical thinking, good instrumentation to provide specific measurement, and a clear theoretical description of the nature of an experience that should enhance critical thinking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision

The Effectiveness of Instruction in Critical Thinking

Student perceptions of effective instruction and the development of critical thinking: a replication and extension.

Association of American Colleges. (1985). Integrity in the College Curriculum: A Report to the Academic Community . Washington, D.C.

Abo El-Nasser, M. E. M. (1978). Conflicting concepts of critical thinking. (Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College of Teachers). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39 , 480A.

Bailey, J. F. (1979). The effects of an instructional paradigm on the development of critical thinking of college students in an introductory botany course. (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40 , 3138A.

Beckman, V. E. (1956). An investigation of the contributions to critical thinking made by courses in argumentation and discussion in selected colleges. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota). Dissertation Abstracts International, 16 , 2551A.

Beyer, B. (1985). Critical thinking: What is it? Social Education 49(4): 270–276.

Google Scholar  

Brabeck, M. M. (1983). Critical thinking skills and reflective judgment development: redefining the aims of higher education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 4(1): 23–24.

Broughton, J. (1977). Beyond formal operations: theoretical thought in adolescence. Teachers College Record 79(1): 87–97.

Carmichael, J. W., Hassell, J., Hunter, J., Jones, L., Ryan, M. A., and Vincent, H. (1980). Project SOAR (stress on analytical reasoning). The American Biology Teacher 42(3): 169–173.

Chipman, S. F., Segal, J. W., and Glaser, R., eds. (1985). Thinking and Learning Skills (Volume 2: Research and Open Questions) . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Coscarelli, W. C., and Schwen, T. M. (1979). Effects of three algorithmic representations on critical thinking, laboratory efficiency, and final grade. Educational Communication & Technology 27(1): 58–64.

Dressel, P. L., and Mayhew, L. B. (1954). General Education: Explorations in Evaluation . Westport, T: Greenwood Press.

Elstein, A. S., Shulman, L. S., and Sprafka, S. A. (1978). Medical Problem Solving . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership 43(2): 44–48.

Feldman, K. A., and Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The Impact of College on Students (Vol. 1). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Fishbein, E. L. (1975). The effect of three patterns of small group assignment in promoting critical thinking, open-mindedness, and creativity in community college students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami). Dissertation Abstracts International, 36 , 7946A.

Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: the role of knowledge. American Psychologist 39(2): 93–104.

Glaser, E. M. (1985). Critical thinking: educating for responsible citizenship in a democracy. National Forum 65(1): 24–27.

Gressler, L. A. (1976). The effect of research courses upon the attitudes and critical thinking abilities of graduate students. (Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 37 , 3994A.

Hancock, B. W. (1981). The effect of guided design in the critical thinking ability of college level administrative science students. (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42 , 4275A.

Hardin, L. D. (1977). A study of the influence of a physics personalized system of instruction versus lecture on cognitive reasoning, attitudes, and critical thinking. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38 , 4711A.

Hayden, V. M. B. (1978). A study of the effects of traditional biology and selected biological science curriculum study (BSCS) minicourses on the attitudes, achievement levels, and critical thinking abilities of students at Alcorn State University. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39 , 2167A.

Jackson, T. R. (1961). The effects of intercollegiate debating on critical thinking ability. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin). Dissertation Abstracts International, 21 , 3556A.

Jones, J. T. (1974). An experimental study of four interdisciplinary approaches to promoting critical thinking skills and personal development in the college classroom. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Florida). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35 , 5216A.

Keeley, S., Browne, and Kreutzer, J. (1982). A comparison of freshmen and seniors on general and specific essay tests of critical thinking. Research in Higher Education 17(2): 139–154.

Kitchener, K. and King, P. (1981). Reflective judgment: concepts of justification and their relationship to age and education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 2(1): 89–116.

Kulick, J. A., and McKeachie, W. J. (1975). Effective college teaching. In F. Kerlinger (ed.), Review of Research and Education , Vol. 3, Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.

Lehmann, I. J. (1963). Changes in critical thinking, attitudes, and values from freshman to senior years. Journal of Educational Psychology 54(6): 305–315.

Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego Development . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Logan, G. H. (1976). Do sociologists teach students to think more critically? Teaching Sociology 4(1): 29–48.

Lyle, E. (1958). An exploration in the teaching of critical thinking in general psychology. Journal of Educational Research 52(4): 129–133.

McKeachie, W. J. (1970). Research on college teaching: a review. Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearninghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 043 789)

McPeck, J. E. (1981). Critical Thinking and Education . New York: St. Martin's Press.

Mentkowski, M., and Strait, M. J. (1983). A longitudinal study of student change in cognitive development, learning styles, and generic abilities in an outcomecentered liberal arts curriculum. (Final Report to the National Institute of Education: Research Report Number Six). Milwaukee: Alverno College, Office of Research and Evaluation. (NIE-G-77-0058)

Mitchell, J. V. Jr., ed. (1985). The Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook . [Reviews of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal]. Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, pp. 1692–1694.

Modjeski, R. B., and Michael, W. B. (1983). An evaluation by a panel of psychologists of the reliability and validity of two tests of critical thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement 43: 1187–1197.

Morante, E. A., and Vlesky, A. (1984). Assessment of reasoning abilities. Educational Leadership 42(1): 71–74.

National Institute of Education. (1984). Involvement in Learning: Realizing the Potential of American Higher Education . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Pascarella, E. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive development: a critical review and synthesis. In J. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research , Vol. I, pp. 1–62. New York: Agathon Press.

Paul, R. W. (1984). Critical thinking: fundamental to education for a free society. Educational Leadership 42(1): 4–14.

Paul, R. W. (1985). The critical thinking movement: a historical perspective, National Forum 65(1): 2–3, 32.

Perkins, D. N. (1982). Difficulties in everyday reasoning and their change with education. Report to the Spencer Foundation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Perkins, D. N. (1985). General cognitive skills: why not? In Chipman, S. F., Segal, J. W., and Glaser, R. (eds.), Thinking and Learning Skills (Volume 2: Research and Open Questions) pp. 339–364. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Perry, W. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development 15: 1–12.

Presseisen, B. Z. (1986). Critical thinking and thinking skills: State of the art definitions and practice in public schools. Paper presented at the 1986 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Resnick, L. B. (1985). Education and learning to think. Unpublished paper. Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.

Segal, J. W., Chipman, S. F., and Glaser, R., eds. (1985). Thinking and Learning Skills (Volume 1: Relating Instruction to Research) . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shuch, M. L. (1975). The use of calculators versus hand computations in teaching business arithmetic and the effects on the critical thinking ability of community college students. (Doctoral dissertation, New York University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 36 , 4299A.

Smith, D. G. (1977). College classroom interactions and critical thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology 69(2): 180–190.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Teaching critical thinking, part 2: possible solutions. Phi Delta Kappan 67(4): 277–280.

Stonewater, J. K. (1980). Strategies for problem-solving. In Young, Fostering Critical Thinking , pp. 33–58.

Suksringarm, P. (1976). An experimental study comparing the effects of BSCS and the traditional biology on achievement understanding of science, critical thinking ability, and attitude toward science of first year students at the Sakon Nakorn Teachers College, Thailand. (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 37 , 2764A.

Terenzini, P. T., Theophilides, C., and Lorang, W. G. (1984). Influences on students' perceptions of their academic skill development during college. Journal of Higher Education 55(5): 621–636.

Tomlinson-Keasey, C. A., and Eisert, D. (1977). Second year evaluation of the ADAPT program. In Multidisciplinary Piagetian-Based Programs for College Freshmen: ADAPT . Lincoln: University of Nebraska.

Tomlinson-Keasey, C. A., Williams, V., and Eisert, D. (1977). Evaluation report of the first year of the ADAPT program. In Multidisciplinary Piagetian-Based Programs for College Freshmen: ADAPT . Lincoln: University of Nebraska.

Whitla, D. K. (1977). Value added: Measuring the Impact of Undergraduate Education . Cambridge, MA: Office of Instructional Research and Evaluation, Harvard University.

Williams, D. E. (1951). The effects of training in debating on critical thinking ability. Unpublished master's thesis, Purdue University.

Yinger, R. J. (1980). Can we really teach them to think? In Young, Fostering Critical Thinking , pp. 11–32.

Young, R. E., ed. (1980). Fostering Critical Thinking . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Educational Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, Box 2020, 23284, Richmond, VA

James H. McMillan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

McMillan, J.H. Enhancing college students' critical thinking: A review of studies. Res High Educ 26 , 3–29 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991931

Download citation

Received : 31 October 1986

Issue Date : March 1987

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991931

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• College Student
• Critical Thinking
• Education Research
• Specific Measurement
• Theoretical Description
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Exerc Sci

Factors Affecting PhD Student Success

Sonia n. young.

1 Department of Physical Therapy, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA

WILLIAM R. VANWYE

2 Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, Gannon University, Ruskin, FL, USA

MARK A. SCHAFER

3 School of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA

TROY A. ROBERTSON

4 School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA

5 Educational Leadership Doctoral Program, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA

ASHLEY VINCENT POORE

Attrition rates for Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) programs in the United States across the fields of engineering, life sciences, social sciences, mathematics and physical sciences, and humanities range from 36 – 51%. A qualitative literature review indicates certain factors may impact the PhD student’s success in completing the program and degree. The factors focused on in this review include the student-advisor relationship, mentorship, and the dissertation process. Although kinesiology doctoral programs are evaluated and ranked by the National Academy of Kinesiology, little information is available exploring kinesiology PhD student success. General information on PhD student success may, therefore, be valuable to kinesiology PhD students and programs.

INTRODUCTION

Results from 2006 ( 31 ), 2007 ( 30 ), 2011 ( 28 ), and 2015 ( 33 ) provide evidence that the National Academy of Kinesiology (formerly the American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education) evaluates and ranks kinesiology doctoral programs in the United States (U.S.) every five years. However, ranking information and data regarding the attrition rate of kinesiology PhD students and factors that may impact student attainment of the degree is not included. Although not specific to kinesiology, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) attrition data is available through The Council of Graduate Schools who performed a quantitative analysis of 30 institutions and nearly 50,000 students across five fields (i.e., engineering, life sciences, social sciences, mathematics and physical sciences, and humanities; 6). The 10-year PhD completion rate was 64%, 63%, 56%, 55%, and 49% for engineering, life sciences, social sciences, mathematics and physical sciences, and humanities, respectively ( 6 ). This relates to the field of kinesiology as it is classified as a life science by the Council of Graduate Schools ( 7 ).

Across the country, kinesiology programs typically do not have a standardized core curriculum and the outcomes of each program are established by the teaching and research expertise of the faculty. However, common courses such as research design and statistics are included in kinesiology PhD curriculums ( 26 ). Each program varies in the courses offered and amount and type of mentoring and advising of PhD students dependent on program faculty. Confusion also exists in the definition of the terms advising and mentoring in regard to PhD students. In a study by Titus and Ballou in 2013, 3,534 researchers, who had received a National Institute of Health (NIH) grant and had at least one PhD student, completed a survey to determine views of the role of advising and mentoring in PhD students ( 32 ). The participants were asked to rate and classify 19 activities as advisor only, mentor only, both, or neither ( 32 ). The activities of chairing a student’s dissertation committee and providing financial support were identified as the highest “advisor only” activities while teaching life or social skills and preparing contracts or grant proposals rated highest in “mentor only” activities ( 32 ). However, results indicated that most faculty members view their roles as mentor and advisor almost synonymously ( 32 ). As these terms can be used interchangeably, the authors will use the term mentoring or mentorship to encompass all advising and mentoring activities with PhD students. Titus and Ballou ( 32 ) also found that, while the majority of faculty supervising PhD students had training in human or animal subjects’ protection (89.6%) and responsible conduct of research (72.3%), relatively few had formal training on how to mentor (27.7%) or advise (25.4%) PhD students. Much of the mentorship therefore is dictated by the faculty’s personal doctoral experience and not typically from any formal training. Based on the amount of experience and training a mentor possesses, as well as the level of involvement in the PhD student experience, students may have vastly different experiences and outcomes such as completion of the program ( 8 ) and opportunities for professional development ( 20 ).

While little data is available on PhD student attrition in the area of kinesiology, research has indicated that multiple reasons contribute to PhD students in general not completing their programs ( 9 , 14 , 16 ). One of those reasons is navigating the dissertation process and following through to completion. In regard to the dissertation, it is typically up to the student to be intrinsically motivated and resourceful to manage the process and ensure the dissertation process persists until completion ( 9 ). Involvement of the faculty mentor in the dissertation process varies and may be dependent on the motivation and capabilities of the student. Faculty mentoring can play a monumental role in ensuring that doctorial students are successful throughout the coursework, dissertation process, and professional development. Russell advocates for kinesiology PhD programs to focus on developing professional stewardship in students ( 25 ). Stewardship includes teaching students how to: interact as a professional, become involved in and promote the profession, maintain ethical standards, and become autonomous researchers ( 13 , 24 , 25 ). Understanding reasons for attrition in PhD students can lead to a plan to mitigate barriers.

Overall, there has been limited research examining kinesiology PhD student success ( 20 , 25 ). Therefore, examining the existing evidence regarding PhD student success would be of benefit for kinesiology students and faculty alike by examining how to ensure successful completion of the program and determine any potential barriers. A qualitative literature review was performed by four of the authors with one additional author providing first-hand insight into the field of PhD level kinesiology programs. One author performed a search on PubMed using terms such as “kinesiology doctoral student success” and “kinesiology doctoral student” which garnered only one pertinent article. Three authors also performed an expanded electronic search on general PhD or doctoral student success, persistence, advising/mentoring, and attrition. The articles were selected if they related to kinesiology or general PhD success. The articles were then read and analyzed resulting in three recurring themes. For this review, PhD success was interpreted to mean successful completion of the degree and dissertation process. Attrition, in this review, is interpreted to mean students who did not complete the degree and or dissertation process and included those who dropped out during the program/coursework or those who finished the program/coursework but not the dissertation. In this review, the authors will discuss the following commonly cited issues affecting PhD student success: the student-advisor relationship, mentorship, and the dissertation process ( Table 1 ). In addition, the authors will provide practical recommendations to address these issues to aid in success. By addressing the potential factors that may impact student success of completing the dissertation and program, administration, faculty, and students can have conversations that may lead to a better understanding of the process and address potential issues.

Summary of potential factors influencing PhD student success.

POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PHD STUDENT SUCCESS

Student-advisor relationship.

A critical factor in PhD student success (i.e., attaining the degree) is the student-advisor relationship ( 11 ). In a qualitative study by Knox et al., 19 psychology faculty members were interviewed about their student-advisor relationship with PhD students ( 18 ). Results indicated that it is not uncommon for doctoral advisors to adopt a mentoring style based on their own experience as a PhD student ( 18 ). Furthermore, they found a lack of training or preparation by the instructional institution leaves the task of acquiring mentoring skills to the practicing faculty member ( 18 ). This is in agreement with Golde and Dore who found that there appears to be a lack of emphasis programmatically on doctoral advising and mentoring ( 10 ).

An investigation by Mansson and Myers the authors found that advisors and advisees have similar ideas of what make a successful relationship ( 19 ). In this study, 636 doctoral and 141 faculty advisors from around the United States were surveyed about the mentoring relationship by using the Mentoring and Communication Support Scale, the Academic Mentoring Behavior Scale, and the Advisee Relational Maintenance Scale ( 19 ). This study found that advisees can positively influence the advisor-advisee relationship with 6 behaviors: showing appreciation, completing assignments in a timely manner, being courteous, protecting the reputation of the advisor, using humor in interactions with the advisor, and consulting the advisor about their individual goals ( 19 ). This was also supported by a qualitative study by Mazerolle et al. in 2015 in which 28 students completing a PhD in varied programs, including kinesiology and exercise science, were interviewed to determine their perception of mentoring from their advisors ( 20 ). The study found that most PhD students had positive relationships with their advisors with students founded on trust and communication ( 20 ). The students in this study further identified themes that must exist in a healthy mentoring relationship: encouraging independence and collaboration in a supportive environment, reciprocal relationship, and providing chances for professional development ( 20 ).

In the interest of improving PhD student success, some studies suggested that university and program-specific officials should evaluate how they can best provide structured and consistent mentorship, including training/mentoring for advisors ( 14 , 18 ). These mentorship strategies must be structured to consider that each student begins a program with different skill sets, levels of intrinsic motivation, and resilience. Harding-DeKam et al. postulated that initial steps for advisors, when the student initiates the program, included asking students what they intend to accomplish during the doctoral program and what area(s) they foresee needing the most support ( 15 ). The authors further suggest that advisors should schedule purposeful meetings to foster a relationship of open communication and trust, as well as using this time to provide explicit expectations ( 15 ). In a study of graduate students from library and information science, public affairs, higher education, and a variety of doctoral programs in the humanities and social sciences by Grady et al., the authors devised additional goals of regular meetings including: 1) timeline planning for degree completion and 2) possible funding available during and throughout their coursework ( 14 ). Some evidence offered advice on how to foster an improved relationship between the advisor and the PhD student but did not offer data that indicated whether or not the positive relationship impacted success.

While the evidence demonstrates that a healthy mentoring relationship is beneficial for the PhD student, there is conflicting evidence that this relationship has a direct impact on attrition. Golde et al. performed a qualitative analysis of 58 individuals from the humanities (English and history) and the science (biology and geology) who did not complete a doctoral program at a major American research institution to determine reasons for attrition ( 11 ). Major themes indicated that students feeling they were a mismatch and in isolation emerged ( 11 ). One of the areas of mismatch was in the student-advisor relationship and was cited as a reason for attrition ( 11 ). This is contrast to a qualitative study by Devos et al. who interviewed 21 former PhD students in Belgium (8 completing and 13 who did not) from science and technology, social sciences, and health sciences disciplines) to explore the students’ experiences that led to completion or attrition of the degree ( 8 ). The results indicated that while the supervisor support had a large impact, the quality of the relationship did not necessarily predict the success of the student in completing ( 8 ).

In summary, the student-advisor relationship can have both positive and negative influences ( Table 1 ). Recommendations to foster a positive student-advisor relationship include establishing mutual trust and clear communication early in the program including setting expectations, goals, and deadlines. The advisor should be supportive but also provide opportunities for development and encourage independence. The student should be proactive in the process of developing and maintaining a collaborative relationship rather than relying solely on the advisor to perform these tasks. Finally, administrators can also assist by providing an emphasis on advising tasks.

Mentorship plays a significant role in developing PhD students into professionals ( 9 ). Therefore, the advisor can also serve as a mentor to help the transition from student to professional ( 14 ). A study by Golde and Dore contends mentors are pivotal, not only for the PhD student’s education, but also for the development of the student’s desired career path ( 12 ). This includes exposing students to teaching, research, and service, but also includes helping students navigate professional subtleties, such as office politics ( 25 ).

An investigation of graduate student stress and strain found great value when mentors advised students transitioning into their new position being that there are many new added responsibilities beyond the pedagogical aspects of degree attainment ( 14 ). This is essential for PhD students, who often have many added responsibilities and subsequent stressors beyond the pedagogical aspects of the degree. For example, graduate students are often required to take on novel tasks beyond their studies (e.g., research, teach and/or oversee undergraduates), without the status, resources, or experience of a professional ( 14 ). Added responsibilities without support can lead to role conflict and overload, possibly affecting mental health and student success ( 14 ). A study that looked at the mental health of 146 graduate students in Brazil, who had been seen at a university mental health clinic, found that depression and anxiety were the main diagnoses reported (44%) and caused 4.5% of the students to be suspended from their programs ( 22 ). As mental health disorders are present in the graduate student population, advisors should be aware of this and may advise students on mental health resources.

It is also important to consider the advisor’s professional background and experience. A study by Carpenter et al. surveyed 21 doctoral faculty members of varying academic ranks in the field of communication, from a representative 14 universities, and revealed four main areas of support mentors provide: career, psychosocial, research, and intellectual ( 4 ). Of particular interest were the factors contributing to how this advisement was delivered ( 4 ). For example, lower ranking faculty provided mentorship that was more psychosocially-based ( 4 ). The authors speculated that as newer faculty tend to relate easier to students as they are not as far removed from their own graduate studies experience ( 4 ). On the other hand, the authors found that higher-ranking professors tend to provide more career and intellectual mentorship than their lower-ranking colleagues ( 4 ). However, tenured professors were less likely to collaborate on research compared to assistant professors ( 4 ). The authors of the study speculate that assistant professors are more inclined to collaborate with graduate students on research projects being that they are working towards tenure and promotion ( 4 ). Effective mentorship of the PhD student provides an avenue of development of professional behaviors and understanding of professional roles. This supportive environment may contribute to successful completion of a degree ( 4 ). Quality advising indicators of “number of doctoral advisees, faculty with at least one doctoral advisee, doctoral advisees who graduate, faculty with at least one doctoral advisee graduated, graduates who found employment within the field” were once used by the National Academy of Kinesiology in the five-year reports to rank and evaluate doctoral programs in kinesiology ( 33 ). Specific data related to these indicators for each school was not published, however. Additionally, in the latest report in 2015, the faculty indicators of total number and number of advisees that graduated were removed and employment was moved to a student indicator ( 33 ). The removal of these indicators, as well as the lack of specific data other than rank of the program, makes it difficult to gauge quality of mentorship as it relates to successful completion of a degree in kinesiology PhD programs.

Mentorship can also have a potential positive and negative influence on PhD student success ( Table 1 ). Recommendations for effective mentorship include providing students with exposure to and guidance in research, teaching, service and office politics. Additionally, the mentor should model professional behaviors and provide advice on mental health resources if needed.

Dissertation Process

The dissertation process may impact a PhD student’s success in completing the degree. Ali and Kohun divide the PhD program into four stages: Stage 1 – Preadmission to Enrollment, Stage II – First Year through Candidacy, Stage III- Second Year to Candidacy, and Stage IV – Dissertation Stage ( 1 ). Throughout theses stages, the student must build a committee and find a chair, formulate a research proposal, manage scheduling and time deadlines, and complete the dissertation. This process is often performed in relative isolation which can impact completion ( 1 ). A researcher interviewed 58 individuals from 4 departments in one university in the fields of history, biology, geology, and English who did not complete a PhD program and found isolation to be a major theme of the reason for attrition ( 11 ). Alternative dissertation models such as use of the cohort model and a lock-step process ( 11 ), the companion dissertation ( 21 , 23 ), and the supervision across disciplines model ( 5 ) have been proposed to mitigate the feelings of isolation.

Building a committee and finding a chair can complicate the dissertation process ( 15 , 27 ). Difficulties can arise from not knowing the pertinent questions to ask, nor understanding one’s options when selecting a chair and committee members. Spaulding and Rockinson-Szapkiw advise to carefully select a chair and committee that work well together and with you ( 27 ). Beatty found that lack of effective communication with the committee and chair can also be a concern ( 3 ). This ineffective communication can lead to the supervisor being unaware of the amount and type of feedback that the student needs or lead to ambiguity about authorship and writing responsibilities ( 3 ). Another challenge noted by Beatty and Harding-DeKam et al. is selecting a topic that is unique, interesting, and relevant ( 3 , 15 ). Beatty further reports that PhD students should consider the focus of the topic area, whether the research is feasible and congruent with the committee chair’s expertise, and whether the methodology is appropriate ( 3 ). It has also been suggested that students start considering dissertation topics early at the start of the program to narrow the focus of their research ( 3 ). This may benefit students if assignments throughout the program can serve as preliminary work for the final dissertation ( 3 , 15 ). Lastly, time management skills may impact dissertation completion. The PhD student must be responsible and willing to take on tasks and to complete them in a timely manner ( 17 ). It has been proposed that PhD students should set deadlines and work continuously, avoiding taking extended breaks ( 2 , 13 ). As time is a critical factor, scheduling time for research and writing may keep the student focused ( 2 , 12 , 13 ). Harding-DeKam suggests that PhD advisors utilize structured meetings where what the student knows is analyzed against what the student needs to learn ( 15 ). The student is then given individualized and explicit expectations and deadlines to complete assignments depending on the stage of the process that he or she is in ( 15 ).

The dissertation process offers the PhD student an opportunity to develop critical thinking skills as well as positive attributes and behaviors needed as a professional. This challenging period of growth from student to professional may have barriers that will need to be overcome to be successful. Unfortunately, however, some students are unable to overcome these barriers. Completing the dissertation can be a major hurdle in PhD student success and influence attrition ( 23 ). These barriers were also noted in studies related to doctoral degrees in the field of education where when the student is no longer in the classroom, there is a loss of support from peers and instructors giving an opportunity to develop independence ( 15 , 27 ). This loss of structure can lead to apprehension and feelings of isolation, with the dissertation often cited as the most isolating portion of doctoral training ( 2 , 12 , 13 , 21 ). In addition, lack of structure as an all but dissertation (ABD) PhD student may lead to feelings of isolation and a loss of focus resulting in the student never completing his/her dissertation. This is congruent with a study by Gardner who interviewed 60 PhD students and 34 faculty members to determine perceived attributes for attrition from these stakeholders ( 10 ). The results of this study indicated that faculty found “student lacking” (including a lack of focus and motivation) to be the most identified reason for attrition at 53% ( 10 ). Both groups identified “personal problems” as reasons for PhD student attrition (15% faculty and 34% student) ( 10 ). Ali and Kohun found social isolation to be a major factor in attrition of the doctoral program and developed a four-stage framework to combat this ( 1 , 2 ). Some of the highlights from the proposed framework included a structured orientation, formal social events, a structured advisor selection, collaboration, and face-to-face communication ( 2 ). Kinesiology students also need structure and support. A study examining the socialization experiences of kinesiology PhD students by utilizing a qualitative approach found that they needed both social and resource support to be successful with difficulty noted most during times of transition – such as from the coursework phase to the dissertation phase ( 24 ).

Multiple alternative models for the dissertation process have been suggested. One alternative model is the cohort approach with a lock-step program. A study by Ali and Kohum described a PhD program of Information Systems and communications at Robert Morris University (RMU) that has a higher graduation rate (90%) and time of completion (3 years) than the national average ( 1 ). The RMU program utilizes a three-year lock-step program in which a strict schedule of community dinners, debriefings, presentation of proposals to students and faculty, and individual meetings with each member of the students’ committee is required to keep the PhD student on track ( 1 ). Additionally, the PhD students presented their progress to others in their cohort and elicited feedback throughout the process from development to completion allowing them to find issues and make modifications quicker ( 1 ). This method was also noted to decrease these PhD students’ feelings of isolation ( 1 ). The use of a companion dissertation is another alternative model for the dissertation process that has been described in the education ( 21 ) and nursing ( 23 ) fields which may decrease feelings of isolation. In a companion dissertation, two PhD students work together on the same project ( 23 ). Essential components are sharing a dissertation chair, a common research agenda, and a collaborative completion of the research and writing ( 21 , 23 ). While Robinson and Tagher found that this approach improved interactions between PhD students and, subsequently, degree completion ( 23 ), limited evidence on the number of schools utilizing this method was found. Limitations were also noted with the companion dissertation including co-writing taking longer, the dissertation seen as less rigorous, and tension between students to meet all deadlines ( 23 ). Thus, this dissertation approach may not be feasible in the field of kinesiology without further evidence of success. Additionally, Carter-Veale et al proposed another alternative dissertation model that utilized faculty mentors from multiple departments to give additional support and collaboration ( 5 ). However, limited information is available on the effectiveness of this proposed model or the number of schools utilizing this multi-department collaboration. Overall, the goal of these alternative methods is to decrease feelings of isolation by improving connectivity, collaboration, and communication between students, their peers, and their advisors and mentors ( 5 , 23 ). While the dissertation process can impact a PhD student’s completion of a degree, effective communication with the dissertation committee, early and relevant topic selection, effective time management skills, and adoption of alternative models may positively impact this process, but more evidence is needed.

As with the other areas identified, the dissertation process has positive and negative consequences on completion ( Table 1 ). Recommendations to improve the dissertation process include choosing a topic at the start of the program and scheduling times for research and writing with set deadlines. As isolation and ambiguity in the process can impact completion, mentors should ensure the students understand the dissertation process early in the program, be available to consult, and encourage the student to ask questions. Likewise, the student should take a proactive approach to understanding the process and seek help when needed.

A review of the literature suggests repeated themes of potential factors that impact PhD student success in completing the program and degree: the student-advisor relationship, mentorship, and the dissertation process. As limited evidence is available regarding factors of success in PhD students specific to kinesiology, this general information gives insight to potential factors that may impact kinesiology PhD student success as well.

The student-advisor relationship can positively influence PhD student success by incorporating structured meetings, communication, and training for the advisors may improve the student-advisor relationship and therefore impact student success. This information may be useful to advisors so that they can help students better understand and navigate the program, as well as assist students in setting goals for meeting dissertation timeline deadlines.

Mentorship may also have a potential impact on PhD student success. Having a mentor to provide critical and timely information offers support to PhD students as they face the challenges listed in this review. Additionally, a mentor provides an opportunity for modeling and instruction on professional behaviors needed by the PhD student. A student could also find a mentor that is outside the department as in the Dissertation House Model where PhD students utilize multiple mentors across many disciplines to help supervise and assist in a cohort model ( 5 ).

The dissertation process should not be overlooked as an impactful experience on PhD student success. Evidence suggests selecting a chair and committee, building a topic, and managing the process and deadlines can impact success. Choosing a dissertation chair and committee was found to be a critical aspect to student success. To navigate this process, students are encouraged to proactively ask questions to understand the dissertation process, seek help from a mentor inside or outside of their department, research the chair and committee members area of research to see if it congruent with their interests, foster positive relationship by being proactive, and schedule time for writing and research. It has been suggested that the selection of a dissertation topic should begin early in the doctoral process. However, students should spend time reflecting prior to selecting a topic to ensure that it is interesting to them and that it will be relevant to their profession. As PhD students may feel isolated in the dissertation process, alternate models such as collaboration or the companion dissertation were reviewed; however little evidence is available on the widespread use or success of these models.

PhD student success of completing a degree and program is multifactorial. More evidence is needed regarding PhD student success for those enrolled in kinesiology programs. This could include a comprehensive survey to PhD students enrolled in kinesiology programs and those who completed the degree to determine the factors that these stakeholders attribute to successful completion. Additionally, a rise in undergraduate majors in kinesiology programs also necessitates the need for qualified PhD trained faculty as these majors are often selected by students entering physical therapy and other professional graduate programs ( 29 ). Therefore, future studies may also look at the type and quality of mentorship of PhD students for careers in higher education. Because there is limited information regarding kinesiology PhD student success degree completion, more research is needed with the aim of improving retention and completion.

• < Previous

Home > ETD > 9

Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Media literacy and critical thinking: is there a connection.

Edward Arke

Defense Date

Graduation date.

Spring 1-1-2005

Availability

Worldwide Access

Submission Type

dissertation

Degree Name

Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program for Education Leaders (IDPEL)

School of Education

Committee Chair

Robert B. Bartos

Committee Member

Janie Harden Fritz

Kim S. Phipps

higher education, media education, media literacy, media literacy measurement

This study investigated the relationship between media literacy and critical thinking skills. To date media literacy advocates have not developed a quantitative means of measuring media literacy. While numerous claims that media literacy and critical thinking are related, a review of the existing literature has not revealed any academic support for the assertion. As a result, a demographic survey and test to measure each skill set respectfully was administered to a sample of undergraduate college students. For this study, a new media literacy measure was developed. Statistical analysis of the test results did show a statistically significant correlation between the scores recorded on each measure (r(34) = 0.322, p < 0.05). The results did not provide support for statistically significant correlations between college students' self-reported level of media literacy education or self-reported media consumption and their critical thinking scores. This study provides a starting point for the quantitative measurement of media literacy and makes an argument for the inclusion of media literacy education at institutions of higher education.

Recommended Citation

Arke, E. (2005). Media Literacy and Critical Thinking: Is There a Connection? (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/9

Since October 31, 2016

• Collections
• Disciplines

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS

Author Corner

• Submit Research

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

• Get IGI Global News

• All Products
• Book Chapters
• Journal Articles
• Video Lessons
• Teaching Cases
• Recommend to Librarian
• Recommend to Colleague
• Fair Use Policy

• Access on Platform

Export Reference

• Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development
• e-Book Collection
• Education e-Book Collection
• e-Book Collection Select
• Transformative Practice in Higher Education Collection - e-Books
• Education Knowledge Solutions e-Book Collection

Developing Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students: Issues and Solutions

It is generally accepted (van den Brink-Budgen, 2006) that the basis of critical thinking is the argument, and the reasoning behind that argument. Similarly, a doctorate is also about a thesis, which is itself; a reasoned argument. Doctoral study is all about researching to find the evidence to back up the reasoning behind the thesis, or the argument. Facione (1998) proposes that there are six core critical thinking skills: interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation, and self-regulation. All of these skills are evident within doctoral studies. However, on reflection, the author realises that critical thinking is also one of the most difficult skills to develop, or teach, and one of the things that students find most challenging about their doctoral studies.

Much has been written about critical thinking, and the need to develop this in students (Beyers, 1995; Paul, 1995; Terenzini et al, 1995). Surprisingly, however given the nature of the doctorate, little has been written about the development of critical thinking in doctoral students. King et al (1990) discuss the issue of assessing critical thinking in graduate students, noting that there is little agreement as to what constitutes critical thinking. Onwuegbuzie (2001) compared critical thinking skills in Master's and doctoral students and concluded that, as might be expected, the doctoral students exhibited considerably greater criticality than the Master's students. Zipp and Olson (2011) discuss the role of mentors in promoting critical thinking in doctoral students and conclude that ‘good mentors lead students on a journey that forever changes the ways in which they think and act’.

Key Terms in this Chapter

Thesis : An academic document which a higher degree student produces to report on their project. This is the normal means of assessment for the degree of PhD.

Reflection : The action of thinking and analysing one’s actions in order to learn for the future.

Viva : An oral examination of a higher degree (e.g. a PhD).

Action Research : A research approach which involves iterations of practical action, followed by reflection.

Doctorate : A higher degree obtained by research.

Professional Doctorate : A practice-based research degree.

Supervisor : A member of academic staff supporting a higher degree student.

Complete Chapter List

• Skip to main content
• Skip to main navigation

Doctoral Writing Self-Efficacy Throughout the Dissertation Process

Edd learning and organizational change research.

Scholarship on doctoral education consistently identifies the dissertation writing process as one of the most critical areas of inquiry for those seeking to maximize completion rates within the desired time-to-completion projections (e.g., Boote & Beile, 2005; Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007; Ondrusek, 2012; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). Parallel to this scholarly trajectory of doctoral writing, many scholars have identified academic self-efficacy as a positive mediating factor that correlates with positive academic outcomes, even in the midst of complications and barriers  (e.g., Caprara et al., 2008; Eakman et al., 2019; Fokkens-Bruinsma et al., 2021; D. H. Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2016; D. H. Schunk & Pajares, 2002). Scholars of writing instruction, therefore, have logically applied these implications to writing development, noting that perceived writing self-efficacy often serves as a mediating factor that can help students achieve positive writing outcomes despite potential obstacles. While such inquiries have yielded implications for the study of writing development, they tend to focus on students early in their academic journeys, such as college composition students (e.g., Lane et al., 2003; Prat-Sala & Redford, 2012; Wachholz & Etheridge, 1996; Woodrow, 2011) or students writing in a second language (e.g., Abdel Latif, 2015; Arroyo González et al., 2021; Han & Hiver, 2018; Lee & Evans, 2019; Ruegg, 2018; Sun et al., 2021; Sun & Wang, 2020; Teng et al., 2018, 2020; Tsao, 2021; Zabihi, 2018). Despite the potential that self-efficacy theory has to contribute to the scholarly understanding of the dissertation writing process, comparatively few studies have focused specifically on writing self-efficacy at the doctoral level (e.g., Dupont et al., 2013; Hines, 2011; Varney, 2010). Given how costly doctoral student attrition is to both the student and the department (Garcia, 1987; Pritchard, 2018; Santicola, 2013) as well as the potential of writing self-efficacy to serve as a positive mediating factor for doctoral students writing their dissertations, this convergent mixed methods study explores changes in writing self-efficacy and writing apprehension doctoral students working on their dissertation.

Research Team

Corina Kaul Nicholas R. Werse Leanne Howell Brenda Davis Lacy Papadakis Jess Smith Laila Sanguras Ryann Shelton Jessica Meehan

Baylor University ONE-URC Research Grant

International Writing Centers Association 2022 Research Grant

Baylor University Teaching Exploration Grant

Online Programs

• School of Education

One Bear Place #97304 Waco, TX 76798-7304

• General Information
• Academics & Research
• Administration
• Gateways for ...
• About Baylor
• Give to Baylor
• Pro Futuris
• Social Media
• College of Arts & Sciences
• Diana R. Garland School of Social Work
• George W. Truett Theological Seminary
• Graduate School
• Hankamer School of Business
• Honors College
• Louise Herrington School of Nursing
• Research at Baylor University
• Robbins College of Health and Human Sciences
• School of Engineering & Computer Science
• School of Music
• University Libraries, Museums, and the Press
• More Academics
• Compliance, Risk and Safety
• Human Resources
• Marketing and Communications
• Office of General Counsel
• Office of the President
• Office of the Provost
• Operations, Finance & Administration
• Senior Administration
• Student Life
• University Advancement
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Admissions
• Baylor Law School Admissions
• Social Work Graduate Programs
• George W. Truett Theological Seminary Admissions
• Online Graduate Professional Education
• Virtual Tour
• Visit Campus
• Alumni & Friends
• Faculty & Staff
• Prospective Faculty & Staff
• Prospective Students
• Anonymous Reporting
• Annual Fire Safety and Security Notice
• Cost of Attendance
• Digital Privacy
• Legal Disclosures
• Mental Health Resources
• Web Accessibility

Drowning in a sea of authors – How to be critical in a PhD literature review.

Feb 10, 2019

One of the problems I see often when I proofread PhDs is people being too descriptive and not being critical enough. This is most often the case in the literature review.

Critical thinking is one of the hardest skills to master in the entire PhD. Yet, it’s frustrating that many supervisors and doctoral training programs assume that PhD students are already capable critical thinkers.

To be critical in your PhD literature review doesn’t just mean describing what others have written. Instead, it means evaluating and analysing what it is that is being said.

Easy, right?

In this post we explain how to master the art of being critical in your literature review. If you haven’t already, check out our post on how to conduct a literature review.

We’ve also made an infographic. Simply click on the image below to download it.

So many questions…

When we say ‘you must be critical’, we mean that you must critically evaluate whatever it is you are discussing. Your job when critically evaluating is to think analytically, rather than descriptively.

However, being critical doesn’t mean criticising. Instead it means evaluating.

We saw in our post on how to write a literature review and in the PhD Writing Template that the literature review serves three purposes.

• To provide sufficient background information so that your own research problem can be contextualised
• To discuss how, how well, or even if, others have solved similar problems
• To outline the methods used by others when discussing similar problems

It is the first and second purposes that require critical thinking skills, because you want to be evaluating each work you read and act as an investigator.

A quick and easy way to do so is to ask five standard questions of each thing you read:

1. Who? 2. Where? 3. What? 4. When? 5. Why?

Asking these questions means we don’t just take what is written at face value. Instead, we evaluate, interpret, explain, analyse and comment on the text. These questions are a starting point for you to do that.

You’ll need to expand on these questions in order to go into more depth. You can do this by asking (you’ll find these questions in your PhD Writing Template ):

• Who wrote this and why?
• What are the authors trying to say?
• On what basis are they forming their judgements and arguments?
• Are they convincing?
• What theories or perspectives have been used? What alternative ones may have been used instead?
• What perspective are they coming from? What research tradition? What methods do they use? Are they appropriate?
• How does this work relate to others in the field?
• What are others arguing about the same topic?
• How does it relate to your research question or problem?

Ultimately, you’re asking: so what?

Don’t drown in a sea of authors

Let’s take an example of what not to do. Consider the following paragraph, from my very own PhD, on a theory of environmental politics known as ecological modernisation (that’s what the EM stands for):

We can see that I’ve become lost in the literature. All I’m really doing is listing various different studies. I’ve failed to think analytically and instead I’m just thinking descriptively.

I’m drowning in authors, navigating complex ideas and theories with little care for critically thinking about each of them. Instead I am piling up layers of ‘this person said this’ in order to showcase the field.

I – the academic – do not appear in this text at all. I offer no insight into my own critical reflection on any of the concepts, authors or ideas that I have listed. I have become invisible. I have not used the literature to put forward my own argument about the state of the discipline or to make the case for my own study.

There are two things to take from this:

• You need to speak with authority. Avoid falling into the trap of ‘he said, she said’, simply listing scholars and becoming invisible in the process.
• Avoid being overwhelmed by the literature.

How could I have improved my own literature review, using what I know now after years of working as an academic, proofreader and a literature review writer?

Consider the following excerpt from a literature review a colleague and I wrote as part of a journal article we had published . Notice how we aren’t invisible in a sea of authors and a sea of ‘he said, she said’.

Instead, we offer our own voice and put forward our own analysis of the literature. The sentence, ’this article argues, however, that all institutional formations are characterised by a combination or formal rules…’ is just one example of this.

Read, read, read, then write, write, write

Counterintuitively, when you are reading something for the first time, you should do so uncritically. Get a sense of what the writer is trying to do and whether the problem that they are tackling is in itself interesting.

We’ve written a guide about how to find content for your literature review. Check it out here .

You want to understand at this stage the ‘how’ and the ‘what’.

Once you have read the chapter, article, or book, and once you have a good sense of what it is about, you can then ask the when, why and how.

You can begin to unpack whether the conclusions are valid, whether the methods are appropriate, whether alternative theories or concepts could have been applied, and so on.

It is also at this stage that you can judge the validity of the paper as a whole. You need to ask yourself:

• Is it an incremental increase in the knowledge in your field, or is it game-changing?
• Is it a classic, or does it just add a little to what we knew before?

The answer to these questions can impact the significance the article or book plays in your literature review when you come to write.

As you write, you are forced to tackle what might seem like a wide range of literature. You are forced to relate different articles and books to one another and to explain the who, where, what, when and why.

But, you need a filter; much of what you read won’t be relevant to the study you are trying to develop or may be of poor quality.

It is these five questions above that act as your filter and which serve as your guide, against which you relate one piece of literature with another.

Master your lit review & theory framework.

Learn what goes where (and why), and how it all fit together with this free, interactive guide to the PhD literature review and theory framework.

Conclusion: Don’t be mean

So, thinking critically involves thinking like a detective in order to understand what others have written, why, and how it relates to that which came before and to your thesis. It involves not taking things at face value and questioning everything.

But, it’s not your job to be mean to other scholars. It’s your job to understand how well something was written and how relevant it is to your purposes. If you just list articles in a descriptive way, you won’t be doing this. You need instead to be critical, to ask questions, to probe the words.

Doing so will give you a voice and avoid you getting lost in sources.

Hello, Doctor…

Sounds good, doesn’t it?  Be able to call yourself Doctor sooner with our five-star rated How to Write A PhD email-course. Learn everything your supervisor should have taught you about planning and completing a PhD.

Now half price. Join hundreds of other students and become a better thesis writer, or your money back. 

Share this:

32 comments.

Thanks this was useful!

Great! Glad you found it useful.

I am yet to write a Ph.D. literature review in English Literature on Kazuo Ishiguro. This article boosted me up to the importance of Critical and analytical thinking rather than descriptive thinking. I am also a blogger of Ph.D. https://phdstudytips.com But this information I have not written anywhere on my blog. Thanks for all efforts Dr.Max Lempriere

Thanks for the kind words. Critical thinking is so important, but so hard! I hope this article helped you in your academic journey.

Do you have any tips on how to approach a research proposal regarding structure and the do’s and don’ts ?

Thank you David

Sure – you can check out a guide we’ve written here: https://www.thephdproofreaders.com/writing/how-to-write-a-phd-proposal/

Hope this helps,

Hey Max.. This is very helpful for me. Thank u for writing this blog, i am now confident to start my review

I’m glad you are finding it useful. Good luck!

Really helpful. Thank you.

You’re welcome. I’m glad you found it useful.

Hi Dr Max, I’m about to write my Literature review. Your blog helps me a lot. However could you share with me some samples of Literature reviews in Phd?

Hi Sachin. Thanks for your kind words. I’m glad you’re finding the blog useful. I can’t offer any specific examples of literature reviews. It depends on your discipline. My advice would be to read similar PhDs in your discipline for inspiration. If in doubt, ask your supervisor or colleagues for their suggestions of particularly good examples. I hope this helps! Good luck!

Hello Dr. Max. I must say that I enjoyed in this guide to literature review, and while I initially made the same mistake about just listing different studies, I have corrected that thanks to your guide.

There is one thing that I would like to ask you. How to approach to a thesis that is rarely documented, with very small number of published and relevant papers. Obviously, future PhD. thesis is going to offer better understanding of the matter that is about to be explored by experimental study, but what to do when very small number of researchers is dealing with this subject, or all of the available literature is of old date, but there is nothing new or better than this literature from the 60’s or 70’s.

Wish you all the best, and once again thank you for this guide.

Hi Faruk, thanks for the kind words. Your struggle is a common one. If there isn’t much literature to review, your literature review will necessarily be shorter than average and that’s okay. Make sure you thoroughly review the literature that goes exist, even if it is old, and make sure that your argument in the literature review chapter is built upon this idea that the literature is poorly developed. In some ways this makes your life easier, as the gap in your literature is so large that it will be easier for you to fill it. Hope this helps!

Hello again,

Thank you for the prompt response. Yes, this definitely helps. It gives hope :)

Thanks for this article. My thesis is on a specific artist about whom very little has been written, relative to other artists. On the other hand, my general approach to the questions I am asking about this artist is interdisciplinary, which means there is a massive literature from about five different fields to review. Do you have any advice about how to manage this. I’ve written about 17,000 words, but my supervisor keeps telling me it’s not enough.

Hi! Without knowing more about your topic it’s hard to say, but I know from my own PhD that blending various literatures together in a review is tough. If you find yourself getting stuck and tied in knots, step away from the chapter/review for a few days and come back with a fresh set of eyes.

Very Very helpful Sir. I am about to start my PhD.

Welcome to the club! Good luck on your amazing PhD journey.

Dear Dr Max

I just started this course and would like to say that its contents are very useful to my current confused state of mind. Thank you for making me see the clearer picture so as not be overwhelmed by the PhD thesis writing. I was at the brink of giving up few years of work, and am so glad I came across your website and registered for the course. Thank you.

I’m glad you’re finding it useful. It’s my mission to make other students’ lives easier than mine was when I was doing my PhD, so I’m glad to see it is having the desired effect.

Thank you so much Dr. Max. It is very helpful, I joined PhD in this year 2020 in January.

You’re welcome. Thanks for reading.

Dear Dr Max ,

Good day sir and thanks for all your good work trying to make sure we get it easier than you did . am not yet in PHD class yet but in DR class .Please how soon can i start my Thesis Writing ? and how do i chose topic to write on ? Please i need help . Thanks again and God bless. Osy

Hi Osy, I’m afraid I can’t offer any advice to help you choose a topic. Have you approach any potential supervisors and asked them? They’ll be better placed to help.

This was very useful. However, I find it difficult to articulate some complex thoughts (English is not my first language). Developing a discursive writing style is my greatest challenge in doing a Ph.D. I am only able to recognize them when someone else has written them,

You might want to work with a proofreader. Check out our website for more info.

Very good pointers shared. thanks for this post.

No problem.

Thank you very much for your article. It addresses some of the many struggles PhD students seem to face. Knowing that I am not alone is a good start. I have finished my methodology and currently writing my literature review. I thought I would have enjoyed it more… but it’s a tough one! I must say I am finding it quite overwhelming particularly to organize the chapter. The first part contexualising the research is fine and done, but trying to critique the main text that acted as a springboard to my research is tough.

I am not quite sure whether I should engage with recent research that has adopted the same main text/research I am using and critically discuss those or else fuse the said recent existing research with other broader themes (which I still need to include as part of the lit review).

Getting my head around this is overwhelming!

Thanks again!

When it gets too tough, remind yourself that this stuff is meant to be difficult.

Thank you, Dr. Max. This blog is a booster for me. I am a research scholar in agribusiness I cover green marketing in agro-based industries. This blog helps me a lot.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

The PhD Knowledge Base Categories

• Your PhD and Covid
• Mastering your theory and literature review chapters
• How to structure and write every chapter of the PhD
• How to stay motivated and productive
• Techniques to improve your writing and fluency
• Advice on maintaining good mental health
• Resources designed for non-native English speakers
• PhD Writing Template
• Explore our back-catalogue of motivational advice

Professors say they teach critical thinking. But is that what students are learning?

Suzanne Cooper. " Do we teach critical thinking? A mixed methods study of faculty and student perceptions of teaching and learning critical thinking at three professional schools . February 21, 2024

Faculty Authors

Suzanne Cooper

What’s the issue.

The ability to think critically is an essential skill for professionals, including doctors, government officials, and educators. But are instructors at professional schools teaching it, or do they just think they are? Approaches to teaching and assessing critical thinking skills vary substantially across academic disciplines and are not standardized. And little data exists on how much students are learning—or even whether they know their instructors are trying to teach them critical thinking. 

What does the research say? 

The researchers, including Suzanne Cooper, the Edith M. Stokey Senior Lecturer in Public Policy at HKS, compared instructors’ approaches to teaching critical thinking with students’ perceptions of what they were being taught. They surveyed instructors and conducted focus groups with students at three professional schools (Harvard Medical School, Harvard Kennedy School, and the Harvard Graduate School of Education). 

The researchers found that more than half (54%) of faculty surveyed said they explicitly taught critical thinking in their courses (27% said they did not and 19% were unsure). When the researchers talked to students, however, the consensus was that critical thinking was primarily being taught implicitly. One student said discussions, debates, and case study analyses were viewed as opportunities “for critical thinking to emerge” but that methods and techniques were not a specific focus. The students were also generally unable to recall or define key terms, such as “metacognition” (an understanding of one’s own thought process) and “cognitive biases” (systematic deviations from norms or rationality in which individuals create their own subjective reality). 

Based on their findings, the researchers recommend that faculty should be required to teach critical thinking explicitly and be given specific approaches and definitions that are appropriate to their academic discipline. They also recommend that professional schools consider teaching core critical thinking skills, as well as skills specific to their area of study.   

More from HKS

Developing a rehabilitation program that works for incarcerated people, the link between poor housing conditions and covid-19 infection, parents play a role in leading boys and girls down different paths of study.

Get smart & reliable public policy insights right in your inbox.