Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critical Inquiry: Considering the Context

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the relevance of considering context for critical thinking. We argue that critical thinking is best viewed in terms of ‘critical inquiry’ in which argumentation is seen as a way of arriving at reasoned judgments on complex issues. This is a dialectical process involving the comparative weighing of a variety of contending positions and arguments. Using the model which we have developed for teaching critical thinking as critical inquiry, we demonstrate the role played by the following aspects of context: (1) knowledge of the dialectical context (the debate around an issue, both current and historical); (2) an understanding of the current state of practice and belief surrounding an issue; (3) an understanding of the intellectual, political, historical and social contexts in which an issue is embedded; (4) knowledge of the relevant disciplinary context; (5) information about the sources of an argument; (6) awareness of one’s own beliefs and biases.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ariely, D. 2010. Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailin, S., and M. Battersby. 2010. Reason in the balance: An inquiry approach to critical thinking. Whitby, Ont.: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailin, S., and M. Battersby. 2009. Inquiry: A dialectical approach to teaching critical thinking. In Argument cultures, CD-ROM, ed. H.V. Hansen, et al. Windsor, ON: OSSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battersby, M., and S. Bailin. 2010. Guidelines for reaching a reasoned judgment. University of Windsor: Presented at Symposium on Conductive Argumentation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R.H., and J.A. Blair. 2006. Logical self defense. New York: International Debate Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taubes, Gary. 2007. Good calories, bad calories. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnie, Richard J., and Charles H. Whitebread II. 1970. The forbidden fruit and the tree of knowledge: An inquiry into the legal history of American marijuana prohibition. Virginia Law Review 56: 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shermer, M. (2008). Five fallacies of grief: Debunking psychological stages. Scientific American. Accessed 20 March 2008 at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=five-fallacies-of-grief.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Capilano University, Vancouver, Canada

    Mark Battersby

  2. Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

    Sharon Bailin

Authors
  1. Mark Battersby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sharon Bailin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharon Bailin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Battersby, M., Bailin, S. Critical Inquiry: Considering the Context. Argumentation 25, 243–253 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9205-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9205-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation