研究综述
当针对一个课题完成了大量的研究后，就可以做这种研究。综述者审查所有完成的学术研究并且汇总和比较他们的发现。通常要审查数十个甚至几百个研究成果。一个全面的研究综述要回顾这个领域的赞成和反对意见，并且提供这个主题目前知识情况有价值的全面综述。比如，在评论电视对青少年的影响时，Victor Strasburger考察了很多研究，包括三个“超级研究”—一个包括67个独立研究，另外230项研究，还有其他188项研究。
在评价研究综述时，你要问，给定综述中的研究，综述者的结论看上去合理吗？综述者有没有忽略任何相关的研究？（作为外行人，你自己可能无法回答后面的问题。然而，你可以询问另一个在这个领域中，同时对实际研究和综述都熟悉的专家。）
还有个额外的问题适合所有类型的证据：证据和考察的问题相关吗？如果不相关，不管这个证据在其他方面有多好，不值得去考虑。这里有一个案例，因为使用了不相关的证据而被彻底弄糊涂了。多年前，很多大学管理者拒绝了老师关于减少写作，演讲和批判性思维课程规模的请求。 管理者引用了学术成果证明教学效率和课堂规模无关——换句话说，课堂里有50个学生或者15个学生，老师的效率是一样的。但是，问题中的学术结论只考察了传递信息的课程，没有包括其他培养技能的课程。对于后者，即便对于问题中的每一个课程，证据不相关。
评估证据
我们都认为自己是完全客观的，对每个问题的两面同样开放。但是这是非常稀少的。即使我们没有在我们评估开始采取一个非常坚定的看法，我们也通常因为我们整体人生哲学，我们的政治或者社会观点，我们对相关议题的意见，或者对于各类观点相关人员的态度而产生意见倾斜。这种倾斜，也是众所周知的偏见，可能会很轻微，对我们的判断没有或者产生一点影响。另一方面，它可能会发生巨大作用，以至于我们的批判性思维短路了。我们对一个议题越倾斜，我们思考不足的可能性就越大。…
当你的偏见阻碍了你对证据的评估时，你如何分辨？寻找下面一个或几个特征。
你对待评估的态度是总想证明一个方面是正确的。
你开始你的调查，假设熟悉的观点会被证明正确。
你寻找支持问题中你偏好一边的证据，忽略反对方的证据。
你通过对你的思考有多有利，而不是通过它们研究的可靠性和质量来评价证据来源。
你对于你反对观点的证据非常挑剔的批判，对你喜欢观点的证据就不批判了。
当你遇到和你偏见相反的证据时，通常在你还没有完全审查之前，你开始争辩反对。
虽然你可能不能消除你的偏见，你还是可以识别和控制它们，并且这是必须的。评估证据的目的是发现真相，不管它是令人愉快还是不愉快，要做到这一点的唯一办法就是公正地评估。有时候，这样的评估需要你得出结论：你依赖的（或者实际持有的）观点是错误的。当发现证据支持这样的结论，要有勇气去拥抱它。改变你的想法不可耻，但是为了有面子坚持一个错误的观点不仅仅是愚蠢的还是学识上的不诚实。
原文：
RESEARCH REVIEW
This kind of study is undertaken when a considerable body of research has already been done on a subject. The reviewer examines all the scholarly studies that have been done and then summarizes and compares their findings. Often dozens or even hundreds of studies are examined. A thorough review of research reveals areas of agreement and disagreement and provides a valuable overview of the current state of knowledge on the subject. For example, in reviewing the research on the impact of TV on adolescents, Victor Strasburger examined many research studies, including three “super studies”—one covering 67 separate studies, another 230 studies, and another 188 studies.3
When evaluating a research review, ask, Do the reviewer’s conclusions seem reasonable given the research covered in the review? Has the reviewer omitted any relevant research? (As a layperson, you may find the latter question impossible to answer yourself. You could, however, ask it of another expert in the field who is familiar with both the actual research and the review.)
One additional question is applicable to all kinds of evidence: Is this evidence relevant to the issue under consideration? If it is not relevant, it deserves no consideration, no matter how excellent it may be in other respects. Here is an actual example of an issue that has been badly confused by the use of irrelevant evidence. For years, many college administrators rejected instructors’ requests for a reduction in class size for courses such as writing, speaking, and critical thinking.The administrators cited scholarly studies demonstrating that teaching effectiveness is unrelated to class size—in other words, that teachers can be as effective with fifty students in the classroom as they are with fifteen. Yet the scholarly studies in question examined only courses that impart information, not those that develop skills. For the latter, the very courses in question, the evidence had no relevance.
Evaluating Evidence
We all like to think of ourselves as totally objective, equally open to either side of every issue. But that is rarely the case. Even if we have not yet taken a firm position on an issue at the outset of our evaluation, we will usually be tilted in one direction or the other by our overall philosophy of life, our political or social views, our opinions on related issues, or our attitude toward the people associated with the various views. This tilting, also known as bias, may be so slight that it has little or no effect on our judgment. On the other hand, it may be significant enough to short-circuit critical thinking. The more we tilt on an issue, the greater our thinking deficit is likely to be.
How can you tell when bias is hindering your evaluation of evidence? Look for one or more of these signs:
· You approach your evaluation wanting one side to be proved right.
· You begin your investigation assuming that familiar views will prove correct.
· You look for evidence that supports the side of the issue you favor and ignore evidence that opposes it.You rate sources by how favorable they are to your thinking rather than by their reliability and the quality of their research.
· You are nitpickingly critical of evidence for views you oppose and uncritical of evidence for views you favor.
· When you encounter evidence that opposes your bias, you begin arguing against it, often before you have completed examining it.
Although you may not be able to eliminate your biases, you can nevertheless identify and control them, and that is all that is necessary. The purpose of evaluating evidence is to discover the truth, regardless of whether it is pleasant or unpleasant, and the only way to do so is to evaluate fairly. Such an evaluation will sometimes require you to conclude that the view you leaned toward (or actually held) is mistaken.When the evidence supports such a conclusion, have the courage to embrace it. Changing your mind is not dishonorable, but maintaining a false view in order to save face is not only foolish but also intellectually dishonest.
网友评论