Can Critical Thinking Skills Be Transferred from the Accomplished Scientist to the Beginning Scientist?

Abstract

We seldom apply rigorous methods to how scientists think as they make new discoveries and open new avenues of inquiry. The progress of science relies on one generation of scientists transferring their thought processes and methods to the next. In a culture of inquiry, respect, rigor, and role modeling, critical thinking can thrive as novices become accomplished scientists. Although scientists are typically judged on the basis of results (publication, symposium, etc.) rather than the thought process used to get that result, the thought process is of paramount importance for training the next generation of scientists. As a profession pays closer attention to the educational process whereby novices become accomplished scientists, a wider discussion of how accomplished scientists think is vital to help novice scientists positively advance through the early vulnerable years. Thinking critically about our goals and values—including the value of emulation, experience, biases, and doubt—is a necessary part of that process.

References to critical thinking are ubiquitous in scientific journals. Yet few discussions explore the way scientists think as they bring their work closer to the limits of what is known. Perhaps the most important part of that pedagogical moment is the process whereby the next generation of scientists acquires the ability to think critically like the accomplished scientist. This process involves not only a transfer of subject matter expertise (i.e., “what are the important concepts and ideas”) but also learning how to think like an accomplished scientist. This article discusses the central role of a culture in supporting a critical thinking pedagogy and explores how other disciplines describe this educational process while calling for a wider discussion on how the accomplished scientist thinks.

The literature on the general importance of critical thinking is extensive, but the literature on explicit thought models or learning guides of experienced scientists is sparse. Central concepts in critical thinking are used extensively and inherently among experienced scientists, yet the literature on explicit thought processes for scientists is sparse. The heart of critical thinking includes cognitive activities like analysis, synthesis, prioritizing, exploring, and conceptualizing. One definition of critical thinking is analyzing one’s thinking with the intent of improving it (Paul and Elder 2006). Accomplished scientists regularly and routinely analyze their own thinking in scientific research (Shearer and Gould 1999; Bao et al. 2009). The accomplished scientist consistently synthesizes previously unconnected ideas in a fluid and flexible manner using their common sense and creativity.

Virtually every major scientific journal regularly employs concepts related to critical thinking. For example, at least 17 articles in Science from January 2020 through January 2022 have the word critical in the title; in these articles, the word is used to reflect the prioritization of the investigator’s thought process.

But there is a clear difference between the thinking of the accomplished scientist and the student who is learning the science. For the accomplished scientist, the outcome for the practice of science is most fully realized in presentations and interpretations of the investigation. For a student-scientist, the outcome for the practice of science is most fully realized in developing their thought process, which generates alternative hypotheses, improves project design, produces interpretations of results, and so on (and patient/learning outcomes in the case of health care).

In addition to probing the mind for the thinking for the experienced scientist, culture plays a vital role in creating an environment where this thinking can be transferred to a new scientist. A factor in the transfer of thinking from the accomplished scientist to the novice/beginner is the culture: in a culture of inquiry, respect, rigor, and role modeling, critical thinking can thrive—a culture that engages the new scientist to learn and at the same time to produce immediate results.

Other fields can serve as reflections on how the accomplished person thinks. For example, in music, the great composers know where they want to wind up (Booth 2009). They have a good idea of the path and use the mechanics of music to get there. Just as with the great composer, the accomplished scientist knows a path they will be taking and uses team building, technology, and systematic assessment of biases to progress on that path (Kahneman 2011). In education, the idea is to emulate the thinking of the expert—the more direct the emulation, the greater the validity—what the student aspires to do (Lane and Stone 2006; Johnsen et al. 2012; Marshall et al. 2017). Likewise, the accomplished scientist can develop critical thinking through emulation if the discrete steps in the emulation are clearly articulated for the student. In nursing, practitioners acknowledge that the novice needs structure, and yet structure can interfere with progress for an expert who already has a highly structured thought process, often highly intuitive, developed over many years (Benner 2001). Similarly, the accomplished scientist has an established method that is often highly intuitive but needs structured articulation to become pedagogically effective. Philosophy has many examples. One of these is: “Thinking starts with doubt; and Reflection is at the heart of scholarship” (Hume 2007). And this is true for the scientist too, where an openness to new evidence and self-reflection are crucial.

In summary, we are calling for a wider discussion on how accomplished scientists think to help the novice advance through the early vulnerable years more positively. Does a pedagogy for the scientist involve more trial and error, following a role model, as well as experience? Patience and time will be part of an actively stimulated mind as it progresses to maturity. The academic community is on board with analyzing how scientists think as indicated with books on education and learning published by the National Academic Press (Singer et al. 2012). Yet we still need more developed discussion on the thinking of the accomplished scientist.

Author Contributions

D.C. Johnsen, A. Butali, contributed to conception and design, data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation, drafted and critically revised the manuscript. Both authors gave final approval and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.