U.S. flag

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
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • CBE Life Sci Educ
  • v.17(1); Spring 2018

Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and Science Reasoning among Undergraduate Thesis Writers

Jason e. dowd.

† Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708

Robert J. Thompson, Jr.

‡ Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708

Leslie A. Schiff

§ Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455

Julie A. Reynolds

Associated data.

This study empirically examines the relationship between students’ critical-thinking skills and scientific reasoning as reflected in undergraduate thesis writing in biology. Writing offers a unique window into studying this relationship, and the findings raise potential implications for instruction.

Developing critical-thinking and scientific reasoning skills are core learning objectives of science education, but little empirical evidence exists regarding the interrelationships between these constructs. Writing effectively fosters students’ development of these constructs, and it offers a unique window into studying how they relate. In this study of undergraduate thesis writing in biology at two universities, we examine how scientific reasoning exhibited in writing (assessed using the Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol) relates to general and specific critical-thinking skills (assessed using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test), and we consider implications for instruction. We find that scientific reasoning in writing is strongly related to inference , while other aspects of science reasoning that emerge in writing (epistemological considerations, writing conventions, etc.) are not significantly related to critical-thinking skills. Science reasoning in writing is not merely a proxy for critical thinking. In linking features of students’ writing to their critical-thinking skills, this study 1) provides a bridge to prior work suggesting that engagement in science writing enhances critical thinking and 2) serves as a foundational step for subsequently determining whether instruction focused explicitly on developing critical-thinking skills (particularly inference ) can actually improve students’ scientific reasoning in their writing.

INTRODUCTION

Critical-thinking and scientific reasoning skills are core learning objectives of science education for all students, regardless of whether or not they intend to pursue a career in science or engineering. Consistent with the view of learning as construction of understanding and meaning ( National Research Council, 2000 ), the pedagogical practice of writing has been found to be effective not only in fostering the development of students’ conceptual and procedural knowledge ( Gerdeman et al. , 2007 ) and communication skills ( Clase et al. , 2010 ), but also scientific reasoning ( Reynolds et al. , 2012 ) and critical-thinking skills ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ).

Critical thinking and scientific reasoning are similar but different constructs that include various types of higher-order cognitive processes, metacognitive strategies, and dispositions involved in making meaning of information. Critical thinking is generally understood as the broader construct ( Holyoak and Morrison, 2005 ), comprising an array of cognitive processes and dispostions that are drawn upon differentially in everyday life and across domains of inquiry such as the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Scientific reasoning, then, may be interpreted as the subset of critical-thinking skills (cognitive and metacognitive processes and dispositions) that 1) are involved in making meaning of information in scientific domains and 2) support the epistemological commitment to scientific methodology and paradigm(s).

Although there has been an enduring focus in higher education on promoting critical thinking and reasoning as general or “transferable” skills, research evidence provides increasing support for the view that reasoning and critical thinking are also situational or domain specific ( Beyer et al. , 2013 ). Some researchers, such as Lawson (2010) , present frameworks in which science reasoning is characterized explicitly in terms of critical-thinking skills. There are, however, limited coherent frameworks and empirical evidence regarding either the general or domain-specific interrelationships of scientific reasoning, as it is most broadly defined, and critical-thinking skills.

The Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education Initiative provides a framework for thinking about these constructs and their interrelationship in the context of the core competencies and disciplinary practice they describe ( American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ). These learning objectives aim for undergraduates to “understand the process of science, the interdisciplinary nature of the new biology and how science is closely integrated within society; be competent in communication and collaboration; have quantitative competency and a basic ability to interpret data; and have some experience with modeling, simulation and computational and systems level approaches as well as with using large databases” ( Woodin et al. , 2010 , pp. 71–72). This framework makes clear that science reasoning and critical-thinking skills play key roles in major learning outcomes; for example, “understanding the process of science” requires students to engage in (and be metacognitive about) scientific reasoning, and having the “ability to interpret data” requires critical-thinking skills. To help students better achieve these core competencies, we must better understand the interrelationships of their composite parts. Thus, the next step is to determine which specific critical-thinking skills are drawn upon when students engage in science reasoning in general and with regard to the particular scientific domain being studied. Such a determination could be applied to improve science education for both majors and nonmajors through pedagogical approaches that foster critical-thinking skills that are most relevant to science reasoning.

Writing affords one of the most effective means for making thinking visible ( Reynolds et al. , 2012 ) and learning how to “think like” and “write like” disciplinary experts ( Meizlish et al. , 2013 ). As a result, student writing affords the opportunities to both foster and examine the interrelationship of scientific reasoning and critical-thinking skills within and across disciplinary contexts. The purpose of this study was to better understand the relationship between students’ critical-thinking skills and scientific reasoning skills as reflected in the genre of undergraduate thesis writing in biology departments at two research universities, the University of Minnesota and Duke University.

In the following subsections, we discuss in greater detail the constructs of scientific reasoning and critical thinking, as well as the assessment of scientific reasoning in students’ thesis writing. In subsequent sections, we discuss our study design, findings, and the implications for enhancing educational practices.

Critical Thinking

The advances in cognitive science in the 21st century have increased our understanding of the mental processes involved in thinking and reasoning, as well as memory, learning, and problem solving. Critical thinking is understood to include both a cognitive dimension and a disposition dimension (e.g., reflective thinking) and is defined as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considera­tions upon which that judgment is based” ( Facione, 1990, p. 3 ). Although various other definitions of critical thinking have been proposed, researchers have generally coalesced on this consensus: expert view ( Blattner and Frazier, 2002 ; Condon and Kelly-Riley, 2004 ; Bissell and Lemons, 2006 ; Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ) and the corresponding measures of critical-­thinking skills ( August, 2016 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ).

Both the cognitive skills and dispositional components of critical thinking have been recognized as important to science education ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ). Empirical research demonstrates that specific pedagogical practices in science courses are effective in fostering students’ critical-thinking skills. Quitadamo and Kurtz (2007) found that students who engaged in a laboratory writing component in the context of a general education biology course significantly improved their overall critical-thinking skills (and their analytical and inference skills, in particular), whereas students engaged in a traditional quiz-based laboratory did not improve their critical-thinking skills. In related work, Quitadamo et al. (2008) found that a community-based inquiry experience, involving inquiry, writing, research, and analysis, was associated with improved critical thinking in a biology course for nonmajors, compared with traditionally taught sections. In both studies, students who exhibited stronger presemester critical-thinking skills exhibited stronger gains, suggesting that “students who have not been explicitly taught how to think critically may not reach the same potential as peers who have been taught these skills” ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 , p. 151).

Recently, Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight (2016) found that first-year general chemistry students who engaged in a science writing heuristic laboratory, which is an inquiry-based, writing-to-learn approach to instruction ( Hand and Keys, 1999 ), had significantly greater gains in total critical-thinking scores than students who received traditional laboratory instruction. Each of the four components—inquiry, writing, collaboration, and reflection—have been linked to critical thinking ( Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). Like the other studies, this work highlights the value of targeting critical-thinking skills and the effectiveness of an inquiry-based, writing-to-learn approach to enhance critical thinking. Across studies, authors advocate adopting critical thinking as the course framework ( Pukkila, 2004 ) and developing explicit examples of how critical thinking relates to the scientific method ( Miri et al. , 2007 ).

In these examples, the important connection between writing and critical thinking is highlighted by the fact that each intervention involves the incorporation of writing into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education (either alone or in combination with other pedagogical practices). However, critical-thinking skills are not always the primary learning outcome; in some contexts, scientific reasoning is the primary outcome that is assessed.

Scientific Reasoning

Scientific reasoning is a complex process that is broadly defined as “the skills involved in inquiry, experimentation, evidence evaluation, and inference that are done in the service of conceptual change or scientific understanding” ( Zimmerman, 2007 , p. 172). Scientific reasoning is understood to include both conceptual knowledge and the cognitive processes involved with generation of hypotheses (i.e., inductive processes involved in the generation of hypotheses and the deductive processes used in the testing of hypotheses), experimentation strategies, and evidence evaluation strategies. These dimensions are interrelated, in that “experimentation and inference strategies are selected based on prior conceptual knowledge of the domain” ( Zimmerman, 2000 , p. 139). Furthermore, conceptual and procedural knowledge and cognitive process dimensions can be general and domain specific (or discipline specific).

With regard to conceptual knowledge, attention has been focused on the acquisition of core methodological concepts fundamental to scientists’ causal reasoning and metacognitive distancing (or decontextualized thinking), which is the ability to reason independently of prior knowledge or beliefs ( Greenhoot et al. , 2004 ). The latter involves what Kuhn and Dean (2004) refer to as the coordination of theory and evidence, which requires that one question existing theories (i.e., prior knowledge and beliefs), seek contradictory evidence, eliminate alternative explanations, and revise one’s prior beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence. Kuhn and colleagues (2008) further elaborate that scientific thinking requires “a mature understanding of the epistemological foundations of science, recognizing scientific knowledge as constructed by humans rather than simply discovered in the world,” and “the ability to engage in skilled argumentation in the scientific domain, with an appreciation of argumentation as entailing the coordination of theory and evidence” ( Kuhn et al. , 2008 , p. 435). “This approach to scientific reasoning not only highlights the skills of generating and evaluating evidence-based inferences, but also encompasses epistemological appreciation of the functions of evidence and theory” ( Ding et al. , 2016 , p. 616). Evaluating evidence-based inferences involves epistemic cognition, which Moshman (2015) defines as the subset of metacognition that is concerned with justification, truth, and associated forms of reasoning. Epistemic cognition is both general and domain specific (or discipline specific; Moshman, 2015 ).

There is empirical support for the contributions of both prior knowledge and an understanding of the epistemological foundations of science to scientific reasoning. In a study of undergraduate science students, advanced scientific reasoning was most often accompanied by accurate prior knowledge as well as sophisticated epistemological commitments; additionally, for students who had comparable levels of prior knowledge, skillful reasoning was associated with a strong epistemological commitment to the consistency of theory with evidence ( Zeineddin and Abd-El-Khalick, 2010 ). These findings highlight the importance of the need for instructional activities that intentionally help learners develop sophisticated epistemological commitments focused on the nature of knowledge and the role of evidence in supporting knowledge claims ( Zeineddin and Abd-El-Khalick, 2010 ).

Scientific Reasoning in Students’ Thesis Writing

Pedagogical approaches that incorporate writing have also focused on enhancing scientific reasoning. Many rubrics have been developed to assess aspects of scientific reasoning in written artifacts. For example, Timmerman and colleagues (2011) , in the course of describing their own rubric for assessing scientific reasoning, highlight several examples of scientific reasoning assessment criteria ( Haaga, 1993 ; Tariq et al. , 1998 ; Topping et al. , 2000 ; Kelly and Takao, 2002 ; Halonen et al. , 2003 ; Willison and O’Regan, 2007 ).

At both the University of Minnesota and Duke University, we have focused on the genre of the undergraduate honors thesis as the rhetorical context in which to study and improve students’ scientific reasoning and writing. We view the process of writing an undergraduate honors thesis as a form of professional development in the sciences (i.e., a way of engaging students in the practices of a community of discourse). We have found that structured courses designed to scaffold the thesis-­writing process and promote metacognition can improve writing and reasoning skills in biology, chemistry, and economics ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ; Dowd et al. , 2015a , b ). In the context of this prior work, we have defined scientific reasoning in writing as the emergent, underlying construct measured across distinct aspects of students’ written discussion of independent research in their undergraduate theses.

The Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol (BioTAP) was developed at Duke University as a tool for systematically guiding students and faculty through a “draft–feedback–revision” writing process, modeled after professional scientific peer-review processes ( Reynolds et al. , 2009 ). BioTAP includes activities and worksheets that allow students to engage in critical peer review and provides detailed descriptions, presented as rubrics, of the questions (i.e., dimensions, shown in Table 1 ) upon which such review should focus. Nine rubric dimensions focus on communication to the broader scientific community, and four rubric dimensions focus on the accuracy and appropriateness of the research. These rubric dimensions provide criteria by which the thesis is assessed, and therefore allow BioTAP to be used as an assessment tool as well as a teaching resource ( Reynolds et al. , 2009 ). Full details are available at www.science-writing.org/biotap.html .

Theses assessment protocol dimensions

In previous work, we have used BioTAP to quantitatively assess students’ undergraduate honors theses and explore the relationship between thesis-writing courses (or specific interventions within the courses) and the strength of students’ science reasoning in writing across different science disciplines: biology ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ); chemistry ( Dowd et al. , 2015b ); and economics ( Dowd et al. , 2015a ). We have focused exclusively on the nine dimensions related to reasoning and writing (questions 1–9), as the other four dimensions (questions 10–13) require topic-specific expertise and are intended to be used by the student’s thesis supervisor.

Beyond considering individual dimensions, we have investigated whether meaningful constructs underlie students’ thesis scores. We conducted exploratory factor analysis of students’ theses in biology, economics, and chemistry and found one dominant underlying factor in each discipline; we termed the factor “scientific reasoning in writing” ( Dowd et al. , 2015a , b , 2016 ). That is, each of the nine dimensions could be understood as reflecting, in different ways and to different degrees, the construct of scientific reasoning in writing. The findings indicated evidence of both general and discipline-specific components to scientific reasoning in writing that relate to epistemic beliefs and paradigms, in keeping with broader ideas about science reasoning discussed earlier. Specifically, scientific reasoning in writing is more strongly associated with formulating a compelling argument for the significance of the research in the context of current literature in biology, making meaning regarding the implications of the findings in chemistry, and providing an organizational framework for interpreting the thesis in economics. We suggested that instruction, whether occurring in writing studios or in writing courses to facilitate thesis preparation, should attend to both components.

Research Question and Study Design

The genre of thesis writing combines the pedagogies of writing and inquiry found to foster scientific reasoning ( Reynolds et al. , 2012 ) and critical thinking ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ; Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ; Stephenson and Sadler-­McKnight, 2016 ). However, there is no empirical evidence regarding the general or domain-specific interrelationships of scientific reasoning and critical-thinking skills, particularly in the rhetorical context of the undergraduate thesis. The BioTAP studies discussed earlier indicate that the rubric-based assessment produces evidence of scientific reasoning in the undergraduate thesis, but it was not designed to foster or measure critical thinking. The current study was undertaken to address the research question: How are students’ critical-thinking skills related to scientific reasoning as reflected in the genre of undergraduate thesis writing in biology? Determining these interrelationships could guide efforts to enhance students’ scientific reasoning and writing skills through focusing instruction on specific critical-thinking skills as well as disciplinary conventions.

To address this research question, we focused on undergraduate thesis writers in biology courses at two institutions, Duke University and the University of Minnesota, and examined the extent to which students’ scientific reasoning in writing, assessed in the undergraduate thesis using BioTAP, corresponds to students’ critical-thinking skills, assessed using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST; August, 2016 ).

Study Sample

The study sample was composed of students enrolled in courses designed to scaffold the thesis-writing process in the Department of Biology at Duke University and the College of Biological Sciences at the University of Minnesota. Both courses complement students’ individual work with research advisors. The course is required for thesis writers at the University of Minnesota and optional for writers at Duke University. Not all students are required to complete a thesis, though it is required for students to graduate with honors; at the University of Minnesota, such students are enrolled in an honors program within the college. In total, 28 students were enrolled in the course at Duke University and 44 students were enrolled in the course at the University of Minnesota. Of those students, two students did not consent to participate in the study; additionally, five students did not validly complete the CCTST (i.e., attempted fewer than 60% of items or completed the test in less than 15 minutes). Thus, our overall rate of valid participation is 90%, with 27 students from Duke University and 38 students from the University of Minnesota. We found no statistically significant differences in thesis assessment between students with valid CCTST scores and invalid CCTST scores. Therefore, we focus on the 65 students who consented to participate and for whom we have complete and valid data in most of this study. Additionally, in asking students for their consent to participate, we allowed them to choose whether to provide or decline access to academic and demographic background data. Of the 65 students who consented to participate, 52 students granted access to such data. Therefore, for additional analyses involving academic and background data, we focus on the 52 students who consented. We note that the 13 students who participated but declined to share additional data performed slightly lower on the CCTST than the 52 others (perhaps suggesting that they differ by other measures, but we cannot determine this with certainty). Among the 52 students, 60% identified as female and 10% identified as being from underrepresented ethnicities.

In both courses, students completed the CCTST online, either in class or on their own, late in the Spring 2016 semester. This is the same assessment that was used in prior studies of critical thinking ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ; Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). It is “an objective measure of the core reasoning skills needed for reflective decision making concerning what to believe or what to do” ( Insight Assessment, 2016a ). In the test, students are asked to read and consider information as they answer multiple-choice questions. The questions are intended to be appropriate for all users, so there is no expectation of prior disciplinary knowledge in biology (or any other subject). Although actual test items are protected, sample items are available on the Insight Assessment website ( Insight Assessment, 2016b ). We have included one sample item in the Supplemental Material.

The CCTST is based on a consensus definition of critical thinking, measures cognitive and metacognitive skills associated with critical thinking, and has been evaluated for validity and reliability at the college level ( August, 2016 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). In addition to providing overall critical-thinking score, the CCTST assesses seven dimensions of critical thinking: analysis, interpretation, inference, evaluation, explanation, induction, and deduction. Scores on each dimension are calculated based on students’ performance on items related to that dimension. Analysis focuses on identifying assumptions, reasons, and claims and examining how they interact to form arguments. Interpretation, related to analysis, focuses on determining the precise meaning and significance of information. Inference focuses on drawing conclusions from reasons and evidence. Evaluation focuses on assessing the credibility of sources of information and claims they make. Explanation, related to evaluation, focuses on describing the evidence, assumptions, or rationale for beliefs and conclusions. Induction focuses on drawing inferences about what is probably true based on evidence. Deduction focuses on drawing conclusions about what must be true when the context completely determines the outcome. These are not independent dimensions; the fact that they are related supports their collective interpretation as critical thinking. Together, the CCTST dimensions provide a basis for evaluating students’ overall strength in using reasoning to form reflective judgments about what to believe or what to do ( August, 2016 ). Each of the seven dimensions and the overall CCTST score are measured on a scale of 0–100, where higher scores indicate superior performance. Scores correspond to superior (86–100), strong (79–85), moderate (70–78), weak (63–69), or not manifested (62 and below) skills.

Scientific Reasoning in Writing

At the end of the semester, students’ final, submitted undergraduate theses were assessed using BioTAP, which consists of nine rubric dimensions that focus on communication to the broader scientific community and four additional dimensions that focus on the exhibition of topic-specific expertise ( Reynolds et al. , 2009 ). These dimensions, framed as questions, are displayed in Table 1 .

Student theses were assessed on questions 1–9 of BioTAP using the same procedures described in previous studies ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ; Dowd et al. , 2015a , b ). In this study, six raters were trained in the valid, reliable use of BioTAP rubrics. Each dimension was rated on a five-point scale: 1 indicates the dimension is missing, incomplete, or below acceptable standards; 3 indicates that the dimension is adequate but not exhibiting mastery; and 5 indicates that the dimension is excellent and exhibits mastery (intermediate ratings of 2 and 4 are appropriate when different parts of the thesis make a single category challenging). After training, two raters independently assessed each thesis and then discussed their independent ratings with one another to form a consensus rating. The consensus score is not an average score, but rather an agreed-upon, discussion-based score. On a five-point scale, raters independently assessed dimensions to be within 1 point of each other 82.4% of the time before discussion and formed consensus ratings 100% of the time after discussion.

In this study, we consider both categorical (mastery/nonmastery, where a score of 5 corresponds to mastery) and numerical treatments of individual BioTAP scores to better relate the manifestation of critical thinking in BioTAP assessment to all of the prior studies. For comprehensive/cumulative measures of BioTAP, we focus on the partial sum of questions 1–5, as these questions relate to higher-order scientific reasoning (whereas questions 6–9 relate to mid- and lower-order writing mechanics [ Reynolds et al. , 2009 ]), and the factor scores (i.e., numerical representations of the extent to which each student exhibits the underlying factor), which are calculated from the factor loadings published by Dowd et al. (2016) . We do not focus on questions 6–9 individually in statistical analyses, because we do not expect critical-thinking skills to relate to mid- and lower-order writing skills.

The final, submitted thesis reflects the student’s writing, the student’s scientific reasoning, the quality of feedback provided to the student by peers and mentors, and the student’s ability to incorporate that feedback into his or her work. Therefore, our assessment is not the same as an assessment of unpolished, unrevised samples of students’ written work. While one might imagine that such an unpolished sample may be more strongly correlated with critical-thinking skills measured by the CCTST, we argue that the complete, submitted thesis, assessed using BioTAP, is ultimately a more appropriate reflection of how students exhibit science reasoning in the scientific community.

Statistical Analyses

We took several steps to analyze the collected data. First, to provide context for subsequent interpretations, we generated descriptive statistics for the CCTST scores of the participants based on the norms for undergraduate CCTST test takers. To determine the strength of relationships among CCTST dimensions (including overall score) and the BioTAP dimensions, partial-sum score (questions 1–5), and factor score, we calculated Pearson’s correlations for each pair of measures. To examine whether falling on one side of the nonmastery/mastery threshold (as opposed to a linear scale of performance) was related to critical thinking, we grouped BioTAP dimensions into categories (mastery/nonmastery) and conducted Student’s t tests to compare the means scores of the two groups on each of the seven dimensions and overall score of the CCTST. Finally, for the strongest relationship that emerged, we included additional academic and background variables as covariates in multiple linear-regression analysis to explore questions about how much observed relationships between critical-thinking skills and science reasoning in writing might be explained by variation in these other factors.

Although BioTAP scores represent discreet, ordinal bins, the five-point scale is intended to capture an underlying continuous construct (from inadequate to exhibiting mastery). It has been argued that five categories is an appropriate cutoff for treating ordinal variables as pseudo-continuous ( Rhemtulla et al. , 2012 )—and therefore using continuous-variable statistical methods (e.g., Pearson’s correlations)—as long as the underlying assumption that ordinal scores are linearly distributed is valid. Although we have no way to statistically test this assumption, we interpret adequate scores to be approximately halfway between inadequate and mastery scores, resulting in a linear scale. In part because this assumption is subject to disagreement, we also consider and interpret a categorical (mastery/nonmastery) treatment of BioTAP variables.

We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni method ( Holm, 1979 ). At the most general level, where we consider the single, comprehensive measures for BioTAP (partial-sum and factor score) and the CCTST (overall score), there is no need to correct for multiple comparisons, because the multiple, individual dimensions are collapsed into single dimensions. When we considered individual CCTST dimensions in relation to comprehensive measures for BioTAP, we accounted for seven comparisons; similarly, when we considered individual dimensions of BioTAP in relation to overall CCTST score, we accounted for five comparisons. When all seven CCTST and five BioTAP dimensions were examined individually and without prior knowledge, we accounted for 35 comparisons; such a rigorous threshold is likely to reject weak and moderate relationships, but it is appropriate if there are no specific pre-existing hypotheses. All p values are presented in tables for complete transparency, and we carefully consider the implications of our interpretation of these data in the Discussion section.

CCTST scores for students in this sample ranged from the 39th to 99th percentile of the general population of undergraduate CCTST test takers (mean percentile = 84.3, median = 85th percentile; Table 2 ); these percentiles reflect overall scores that range from moderate to superior. Scores on individual dimensions and overall scores were sufficiently normal and far enough from the ceiling of the scale to justify subsequent statistical analyses.

Descriptive statistics of CCTST dimensions a

a Scores correspond to superior (86–100), strong (79–85), moderate (70–78), weak (63–69), or not manifested (62 and lower) skills.

The Pearson’s correlations between students’ cumulative scores on BioTAP (the factor score based on loadings published by Dowd et al. , 2016 , and the partial sum of scores on questions 1–5) and students’ overall scores on the CCTST are presented in Table 3 . We found that the partial-sum measure of BioTAP was significantly related to the overall measure of critical thinking ( r = 0.27, p = 0.03), while the BioTAP factor score was marginally related to overall CCTST ( r = 0.24, p = 0.05). When we looked at relationships between comprehensive BioTAP measures and scores for individual dimensions of the CCTST ( Table 3 ), we found significant positive correlations between the both BioTAP partial-sum and factor scores and CCTST inference ( r = 0.45, p < 0.001, and r = 0.41, p < 0.001, respectively). Although some other relationships have p values below 0.05 (e.g., the correlations between BioTAP partial-sum scores and CCTST induction and interpretation scores), they are not significant when we correct for multiple comparisons.

Correlations between dimensions of CCTST and dimensions of BioTAP a

a In each cell, the top number is the correlation, and the bottom, italicized number is the associated p value. Correlations that are statistically significant after correcting for multiple comparisons are shown in bold.

b This is the partial sum of BioTAP scores on questions 1–5.

c This is the factor score calculated from factor loadings published by Dowd et al. (2016) .

When we expanded comparisons to include all 35 potential correlations among individual BioTAP and CCTST dimensions—and, accordingly, corrected for 35 comparisons—we did not find any additional statistically significant relationships. The Pearson’s correlations between students’ scores on each dimension of BioTAP and students’ scores on each dimension of the CCTST range from −0.11 to 0.35 ( Table 3 ); although the relationship between discussion of implications (BioTAP question 5) and inference appears to be relatively large ( r = 0.35), it is not significant ( p = 0.005; the Holm-Bonferroni cutoff is 0.00143). We found no statistically significant relationships between BioTAP questions 6–9 and CCTST dimensions (unpublished data), regardless of whether we correct for multiple comparisons.

The results of Student’s t tests comparing scores on each dimension of the CCTST of students who exhibit mastery with those of students who do not exhibit mastery on each dimension of BioTAP are presented in Table 4 . Focusing first on the overall CCTST scores, we found that the difference between those who exhibit mastery and those who do not in discussing implications of results (BioTAP question 5) is statistically significant ( t = 2.73, p = 0.008, d = 0.71). When we expanded t tests to include all 35 comparisons—and, like above, corrected for 35 comparisons—we found a significant difference in inference scores between students who exhibit mastery on question 5 and students who do not ( t = 3.41, p = 0.0012, d = 0.88), as well as a marginally significant difference in these students’ induction scores ( t = 3.26, p = 0.0018, d = 0.84; the Holm-Bonferroni cutoff is p = 0.00147). Cohen’s d effect sizes, which reveal the strength of the differences for statistically significant relationships, range from 0.71 to 0.88.

The t statistics and effect sizes of differences in ­dimensions of CCTST across dimensions of BioTAP a

a In each cell, the top number is the t statistic for each comparison, and the middle, italicized number is the associated p value. The bottom number is the effect size. Correlations that are statistically significant after correcting for multiple comparisons are shown in bold.

Finally, we more closely examined the strongest relationship that we observed, which was between the CCTST dimension of inference and the BioTAP partial-sum composite score (shown in Table 3 ), using multiple regression analysis ( Table 5 ). Focusing on the 52 students for whom we have background information, we looked at the simple relationship between BioTAP and inference (model 1), a robust background model including multiple covariates that one might expect to explain some part of the variation in BioTAP (model 2), and a combined model including all variables (model 3). As model 3 shows, the covariates explain very little variation in BioTAP scores, and the relationship between inference and BioTAP persists even in the presence of all of the covariates.

Partial sum (questions 1–5) of BioTAP scores ( n = 52)

** p < 0.01.

*** p < 0.001.

The aim of this study was to examine the extent to which the various components of scientific reasoning—manifested in writing in the genre of undergraduate thesis and assessed using BioTAP—draw on general and specific critical-thinking skills (assessed using CCTST) and to consider the implications for educational practices. Although science reasoning involves critical-thinking skills, it also relates to conceptual knowledge and the epistemological foundations of science disciplines ( Kuhn et al. , 2008 ). Moreover, science reasoning in writing , captured in students’ undergraduate theses, reflects habits, conventions, and the incorporation of feedback that may alter evidence of individuals’ critical-thinking skills. Our findings, however, provide empirical evidence that cumulative measures of science reasoning in writing are nonetheless related to students’ overall critical-thinking skills ( Table 3 ). The particularly significant roles of inference skills ( Table 3 ) and the discussion of implications of results (BioTAP question 5; Table 4 ) provide a basis for more specific ideas about how these constructs relate to one another and what educational interventions may have the most success in fostering these skills.

Our results build on previous findings. The genre of thesis writing combines pedagogies of writing and inquiry found to foster scientific reasoning ( Reynolds et al. , 2012 ) and critical thinking ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ; Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). Quitadamo and Kurtz (2007) reported that students who engaged in a laboratory writing component in a general education biology course significantly improved their inference and analysis skills, and Quitadamo and colleagues (2008) found that participation in a community-based inquiry biology course (that included a writing component) was associated with significant gains in students’ inference and evaluation skills. The shared focus on inference is noteworthy, because these prior studies actually differ from the current study; the former considered critical-­thinking skills as the primary learning outcome of writing-­focused interventions, whereas the latter focused on emergent links between two learning outcomes (science reasoning in writing and critical thinking). In other words, inference skills are impacted by writing as well as manifested in writing.

Inference focuses on drawing conclusions from argument and evidence. According to the consensus definition of critical thinking, the specific skill of inference includes several processes: querying evidence, conjecturing alternatives, and drawing conclusions. All of these activities are central to the independent research at the core of writing an undergraduate thesis. Indeed, a critical part of what we call “science reasoning in writing” might be characterized as a measure of students’ ability to infer and make meaning of information and findings. Because the cumulative BioTAP measures distill underlying similarities and, to an extent, suppress unique aspects of individual dimensions, we argue that it is appropriate to relate inference to scientific reasoning in writing . Even when we control for other potentially relevant background characteristics, the relationship is strong ( Table 5 ).

In taking the complementary view and focusing on BioTAP, when we compared students who exhibit mastery with those who do not, we found that the specific dimension of “discussing the implications of results” (question 5) differentiates students’ performance on several critical-thinking skills. To achieve mastery on this dimension, students must make connections between their results and other published studies and discuss the future directions of the research; in short, they must demonstrate an understanding of the bigger picture. The specific relationship between question 5 and inference is the strongest observed among all individual comparisons. Altogether, perhaps more than any other BioTAP dimension, this aspect of students’ writing provides a clear view of the role of students’ critical-thinking skills (particularly inference and, marginally, induction) in science reasoning.

While inference and discussion of implications emerge as particularly strongly related dimensions in this work, we note that the strongest contribution to “science reasoning in writing in biology,” as determined through exploratory factor analysis, is “argument for the significance of research” (BioTAP question 2, not question 5; Dowd et al. , 2016 ). Question 2 is not clearly related to critical-thinking skills. These findings are not contradictory, but rather suggest that the epistemological and disciplinary-specific aspects of science reasoning that emerge in writing through BioTAP are not completely aligned with aspects related to critical thinking. In other words, science reasoning in writing is not simply a proxy for those critical-thinking skills that play a role in science reasoning.

In a similar vein, the content-related, epistemological aspects of science reasoning, as well as the conventions associated with writing the undergraduate thesis (including feedback from peers and revision), may explain the lack of significant relationships between some science reasoning dimensions and some critical-thinking skills that might otherwise seem counterintuitive (e.g., BioTAP question 2, which relates to making an argument, and the critical-thinking skill of argument). It is possible that an individual’s critical-thinking skills may explain some variation in a particular BioTAP dimension, but other aspects of science reasoning and practice exert much stronger influence. Although these relationships do not emerge in our analyses, the lack of significant correlation does not mean that there is definitively no correlation. Correcting for multiple comparisons suppresses type 1 error at the expense of exacerbating type 2 error, which, combined with the limited sample size, constrains statistical power and makes weak relationships more difficult to detect. Ultimately, though, the relationships that do emerge highlight places where individuals’ distinct critical-thinking skills emerge most coherently in thesis assessment, which is why we are particularly interested in unpacking those relationships.

We recognize that, because only honors students submit theses at these institutions, this study sample is composed of a selective subset of the larger population of biology majors. Although this is an inherent limitation of focusing on thesis writing, links between our findings and results of other studies (with different populations) suggest that observed relationships may occur more broadly. The goal of improved science reasoning and critical thinking is shared among all biology majors, particularly those engaged in capstone research experiences. So while the implications of this work most directly apply to honors thesis writers, we provisionally suggest that all students could benefit from further study of them.

There are several important implications of this study for science education practices. Students’ inference skills relate to the understanding and effective application of scientific content. The fact that we find no statistically significant relationships between BioTAP questions 6–9 and CCTST dimensions suggests that such mid- to lower-order elements of BioTAP ( Reynolds et al. , 2009 ), which tend to be more structural in nature, do not focus on aspects of the finished thesis that draw strongly on critical thinking. In keeping with prior analyses ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ; Dowd et al. , 2016 ), these findings further reinforce the notion that disciplinary instructors, who are most capable of teaching and assessing scientific reasoning and perhaps least interested in the more mechanical aspects of writing, may nonetheless be best suited to effectively model and assess students’ writing.

The goal of the thesis writing course at both Duke University and the University of Minnesota is not merely to improve thesis scores but to move students’ writing into the category of mastery across BioTAP dimensions. Recognizing that students with differing critical-thinking skills (particularly inference) are more or less likely to achieve mastery in the undergraduate thesis (particularly in discussing implications [question 5]) is important for developing and testing targeted pedagogical interventions to improve learning outcomes for all students.

The competencies characterized by the Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education Initiative provide a general framework for recognizing that science reasoning and critical-thinking skills play key roles in major learning outcomes of science education. Our findings highlight places where science reasoning–related competencies (like “understanding the process of science”) connect to critical-thinking skills and places where critical thinking–related competencies might be manifested in scientific products (such as the ability to discuss implications in scientific writing). We encourage broader efforts to build empirical connections between competencies and pedagogical practices to further improve science education.

One specific implication of this work for science education is to focus on providing opportunities for students to develop their critical-thinking skills (particularly inference). Of course, as this correlational study is not designed to test causality, we do not claim that enhancing students’ inference skills will improve science reasoning in writing. However, as prior work shows that science writing activities influence students’ inference skills ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ; Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ), there is reason to test such a hypothesis. Nevertheless, the focus must extend beyond inference as an isolated skill; rather, it is important to relate inference to the foundations of the scientific method ( Miri et al. , 2007 ) in terms of the epistemological appreciation of the functions and coordination of evidence ( Kuhn and Dean, 2004 ; Zeineddin and Abd-El-Khalick, 2010 ; Ding et al. , 2016 ) and disciplinary paradigms of truth and justification ( Moshman, 2015 ).

Although this study is limited to the domain of biology at two institutions with a relatively small number of students, the findings represent a foundational step in the direction of achieving success with more integrated learning outcomes. Hopefully, it will spur greater interest in empirically grounding discussions of the constructs of scientific reasoning and critical-thinking skills.

This study contributes to the efforts to improve science education, for both majors and nonmajors, through an empirically driven analysis of the relationships between scientific reasoning reflected in the genre of thesis writing and critical-thinking skills. This work is rooted in the usefulness of BioTAP as a method 1) to facilitate communication and learning and 2) to assess disciplinary-specific and general dimensions of science reasoning. The findings support the important role of the critical-thinking skill of inference in scientific reasoning in writing, while also highlighting ways in which other aspects of science reasoning (epistemological considerations, writing conventions, etc.) are not significantly related to critical thinking. Future research into the impact of interventions focused on specific critical-thinking skills (i.e., inference) for improved science reasoning in writing will build on this work and its implications for science education.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

We acknowledge the contributions of Kelaine Haas and Alexander Motten to the implementation and collection of data. We also thank Mine Çetinkaya-­Rundel for her insights regarding our statistical analyses. This research was funded by National Science Foundation award DUE-1525602.

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC: Retrieved September 26, 2017, from https://visionandchange.org/files/2013/11/aaas-VISchange-web1113.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
  • August D. (2016). California Critical Thinking Skills Test user manual and resource guide . San Jose: Insight Assessment/California Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Beyer C. H., Taylor E., Gillmore G. M. (2013). Inside the undergraduate teaching experience: The University of Washington’s growth in faculty teaching study . Albany, NY: SUNY Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bissell A. N., Lemons P. P. (2006). A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroom . BioScience , ( 1 ), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0066:ANMFAC]2.0.CO;2 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Blattner N. H., Frazier C. L. (2002). Developing a performance-based assessment of students’ critical thinking skills . Assessing Writing , ( 1 ), 47–64. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Clase K. L., Gundlach E., Pelaez N. J. (2010). Calibrated peer review for computer-assisted learning of biological research competencies . Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education , ( 5 ), 290–295. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Condon W., Kelly-Riley D. (2004). Assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities . Assessing Writing , ( 1 ), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.003 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ding L., Wei X., Liu X. (2016). Variations in university students’ scientific reasoning skills across majors, years, and types of institutions . Research in Science Education , ( 5 ), 613–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9473-y . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Dowd J. E., Connolly M. P., Thompson R. J., Jr., Reynolds J. A. (2015a). Improved reasoning in undergraduate writing through structured workshops . Journal of Economic Education , ( 1 ), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2014.978924 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Dowd J. E., Roy C. P., Thompson R. J., Jr., Reynolds J. A. (2015b). “On course” for supporting expanded participation and improving scientific reasoning in undergraduate thesis writing . Journal of Chemical Education , ( 1 ), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500298r . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Dowd J. E., Thompson R. J., Jr., Reynolds J. A. (2016). Quantitative genre analysis of undergraduate theses: Uncovering different ways of writing and thinking in science disciplines . WAC Journal , , 36–51. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Facione P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations . Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association; Retrieved September 26, 2017, from https://philpapers.org/archive/FACCTA.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gerdeman R. D., Russell A. A., Worden K. J., Gerdeman R. D., Russell A. A., Worden K. J. (2007). Web-based student writing and reviewing in a large biology lecture course . Journal of College Science Teaching , ( 5 ), 46–52. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Greenhoot A. F., Semb G., Colombo J., Schreiber T. (2004). Prior beliefs and methodological concepts in scientific reasoning . Applied Cognitive Psychology , ( 2 ), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.959 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Haaga D. A. F. (1993). Peer review of term papers in graduate psychology courses . Teaching of Psychology , ( 1 ), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2001_5 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Halonen J. S., Bosack T., Clay S., McCarthy M., Dunn D. S., Hill G. W., Whitlock K. (2003). A rubric for learning, teaching, and assessing scientific inquiry in psychology . Teaching of Psychology , ( 3 ), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP3003_01 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hand B., Keys C. W. (1999). Inquiry investigation . Science Teacher , ( 4 ), 27–29. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Holm S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure . Scandinavian Journal of Statistics , ( 2 ), 65–70. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Holyoak K. J., Morrison R. G. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning . New York: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Insight Assessment. (2016a). California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) Retrieved September 26, 2017, from www.insightassessment.com/Products/Products-Summary/Critical-Thinking-Skills-Tests/California-Critical-Thinking-Skills-Test-CCTST .
  • Insight Assessment. (2016b). Sample thinking skills questions. Retrieved September 26, 2017, from www.insightassessment.com/Resources/Teaching-Training-and-Learning-Tools/node_1487 .
  • Kelly G. J., Takao A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing . Science Education , ( 3 ), 314–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kuhn D., Dean D., Jr. (2004). Connecting scientific reasoning and causal inference . Journal of Cognition and Development , ( 2 ), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327647jcd0502_5 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kuhn D., Iordanou K., Pease M., Wirkala C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? . Cognitive Development , ( 4 ), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.006 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lawson A. E. (2010). Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation, and discovery . Science Education , ( 2 ), 336–364. https://doi.org/­10.1002/sce.20357 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Meizlish D., LaVaque-Manty D., Silver N., Kaplan M. (2013). Think like/write like: Metacognitive strategies to foster students’ development as disciplinary thinkers and writers . In Thompson R. J. (Ed.), Changing the conversation about higher education (pp. 53–73). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Miri B., David B.-C., Uri Z. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking . Research in Science Education , ( 4 ), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Moshman D. (2015). Epistemic cognition and development: The psychology of justification and truth . New York: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school . Expanded ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Pukkila P. J. (2004). Introducing student inquiry in large introductory genetics classes . Genetics , ( 1 ), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.166.1.11 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Quitadamo I. J., Faiola C. L., Johnson J. E., Kurtz M. J. (2008). Community-based inquiry improves critical thinking in general education biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 3 ), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-11-0097 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Quitadamo I. J., Kurtz M. J. (2007). Learning to improve: Using writing to increase critical thinking performance in general education biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 2 ), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-11-0203 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Reynolds J. A., Smith R., Moskovitz C., Sayle A. (2009). BioTAP: A systematic approach to teaching scientific writing and evaluating undergraduate theses . BioScience , ( 10 ), 896–903. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.11 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Reynolds J. A., Thaiss C., Katkin W., Thompson R. J. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Reynolds J. A., Thompson R. J. (2011). Want to improve undergraduate thesis writing? Engage students and their faculty readers in scientific peer review . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 2 ), 209–215. https://doi.org/­10.1187/cbe.10-10-0127 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rhemtulla M., Brosseau-Liard P. E., Savalei V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions . Psychological Methods , ( 3 ), 354–373. https://doi.org/­10.1037/a0029315 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Stephenson N. S., Sadler-McKnight N. P. (2016). Developing critical thinking skills using the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory . Chemistry Education Research and Practice , ( 1 ), 72–79. https://doi.org/­10.1039/C5RP00102A . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tariq V. N., Stefani L. A. J., Butcher A. C., Heylings D. J. A. (1998). Developing a new approach to the assessment of project work . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , ( 3 ), 221–240. https://doi.org/­10.1080/0260293980230301 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Timmerman B. E. C., Strickland D. C., Johnson R. L., Payne J. R. (2011). Development of a “universal” rubric for assessing undergraduates’ scientific reasoning skills using scientific writing . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , ( 5 ), 509–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/­02602930903540991 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Topping K. J., Smith E. F., Swanson I., Elliot A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , ( 2 ), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611428 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Willison J., O’Regan K. (2007). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: A framework for students becoming researchers . Higher Education Research and Development , ( 4 ), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658609 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Woodin T., Carter V. C., Fletcher L. (2010). Vision and Change in Biology Undergraduate Education: A Call for Action—Initial responses . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 2 ), 71–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-03-0044 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Zeineddin A., Abd-El-Khalick F. (2010). Scientific reasoning and epistemological commitments: Coordination of theory and evidence among college science students . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , ( 9 ), 1064–1093. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20368 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Zimmerman C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills . Developmental Review , ( 1 ), 99–149. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1999.0497 . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Zimmerman C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school . Developmental Review , ( 2 ), 172–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001 . [ Google Scholar ]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • View all journals
  • My Account Login
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • Review Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 29 February 2024

Citizen science as a relevant approach to the challenges of complex thinking development in higher education: mapping and bibliometric analysis

  • Berenice Alfaro-Ponce   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7046-1019 1 ,
  • Rosa Durán-González 2 ,
  • Luisa Morales-Maure 3 &
  • Jorge Sanabria-Z   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8488-5499 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  341 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

245 Accesses

Metrics details

  • Science, technology and society

Educational strategies have undergone significant transformations in an era marked by rapid globalization, advancements in communication technologies, and challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic. Amid these changes, Citizen Science (CS) has gained prominence as an innovative educational approach, particularly in fostering complex thinking skills necessary to navigate contemporary global trends. This study aims to fill the knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of CS projects in developing complex thinking competencies within higher education. Through a bibliometric analysis of 28 Scopus-indexed articles from 2000 to 2022, this research maps the landscape of CS as an educational strategy and evaluates its alignment with complex thinking development. The analysis indicates a strong link between CS projects and the enhancement of complex thinking and its sub-competencies. It demonstrates that CS initiatives have successfully achieved their educational objectives, substantially enriching the learning experience. Furthermore, the research highlights a growing trend in applying CS for educational purposes. These findings suggest that CS can be a valuable component of higher education curricula, offering a practical method for developing critical competencies in students. The study underscores the potential of CS to contribute meaningfully to the evolution of pedagogical practices and provides a foundation for future research to build upon, particularly in the context of higher education’s response to global educational demands.

Similar content being viewed by others

critical thinking social scientists

Concepts for historical and geographical thinking in Sweden’s and Spain’s Primary Education curricula

Juan Ramón Moreno-Vera & Fredrik Alvén

critical thinking social scientists

Subject integration and theme evolution of STEM education in K-12 and higher education research

Zehui Zhan & Shijing Niu

critical thinking social scientists

Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a bibliometric study from a global perspective

Chengliang Wang, Xiaojiao Chen, … Yuhui Jing

Introduction

Global phenomena such as human rights crises, armed conflicts, migrations, environmental challenges, and pandemics are reshaping the landscape of higher education. These issues underscore the pressing need for educational reforms that address the content of learning and the development of critical competencies. The decline in democratic engagement is alarming and indicative of a broader crisis in citizenship, independent thinking, and the capacity to address complex social issues related to gender, race, and identity. Such a backdrop of uncertainty and tension necessitates innovative educational strategies that empower individuals to navigate and contribute to an increasingly complex world.

Citizen Science (CS), rooted in the democratization of scientific inquiry, has emerged as a promising approach within higher education. It leverages mass collaboration to advance scientific knowledge and cultivate various competencies among participants. It aligns with UNESCO’s vision for transforming the scientific process, advocating for a model of science that is inclusive, participatory, and capable of bridging gaps in science, technology, and education. This study explores the potential of CS to act as a catalyst in higher education, specifically examining its role in enhancing complex thinking sub-competencies that are vital for grappling with contemporary global challenges.

The central research question guiding this inquiry is: How does integrating CS as a pedagogical strategy impact the development of complex thinking sub-competencies in higher education? The study employs a bibliometric analysis to map the influence of CS on these competencies, aiming to uncover trends and assess the educational value of CS initiatives. By doing so, it seeks to provide insights into the transformative potential of CS in equipping students with the skills necessary to engage with and address the multifaceted challenges of our time.

The importance of incorporating complex thinking into Education 4.0

In response to current educational challenges, we propose several pathways for higher education, notably the shift towards knowledge democratization facilitated by the technological revolution inherent in Education 4.0. Morin ( 1996 ) presciently argued that digital transformation would catalyze a shift from a traditional, restrictive educational paradigm to one characterized by openness and adaptability, more suited to the 21st century. Thus, Education 4.0 is not just about bridging the digital divide across generations and socioeconomic backgrounds (Oliveira et al., 2022 ) but also about harnessing the potential of CS, communication technologies, and innovative methodologies to enrich educational experiences.

The twentieth century has witnessed substantial changes in various domains, including education; however, despite these advances, educational practices have scarcely evolved since the century’s commencement, clinging to a traditional framework and encountering difficulties in altering educational paradigms. In this context, teachers are often products of a generation educated within this conventional schooling paradigm (Hubbard and Datnow, 2020 ; Marshall, 2010 ), confined to classroom settings where teacher-student interactions suggest an imbalanced power dynamic and where disciplinary knowledge is segmented, detached from the burgeoning issues of social reality. This paradigm fails to capture the complexity of reality and its global repercussions in localized settings (Morin, 1996 ). Consequently, cultivating interdisciplinary spaces and developing sub-competencies in complex thinking is imperative for a comprehensive understanding of the interconnected phenomena that characterize the present day.

During the pandemic, we shifted towards hybrid models, representing a significant advancement, yet considerable room remains for improvement. Insights from Dhawan ( 2020 ), Malatyinszki ( 2020 ), and Willermark and Gellerstedt ( 2022 ) highlighted that virtual classes should not merely replicate traditional classroom settings in a digital format. Furthermore, it has become apparent that the teacher is not the sole custodian of knowledge; students can seek information through various platforms, engaging with expert lectures, specialized content, and virtual essays, among other resources (Hajar Halili, 2019 ). This access allows students to complement, enhance, challenge, and even surpass the knowledge provided by their teachers, facilitating a shift from a one-sided to a dialogic relationship between students and teachers.

The traditional classroom is undergoing a crisis; students turn to the web for video conferences, video essays with experts, databases, and cutting-edge knowledge. This wealth of content, accessible through media technologies, fosters an autonomous approach to learning, redefining the teacher’s role as a mediator and facilitator within an open classroom (Huck, 2020 ). Such a shift necessitates reimagining the educational space as a forum for dialog that transcends geographical, linguistic, and cultural barriers. It also calls for adopting innovative educational strategies (Ramírez-Montoya et al., 2022 ) and creating democratic spaces for knowledge access, thereby underscoring the need to integrate approaches that nurture complex thinking for the students’ sustainable development. Consequently, the challenges confronting education, especially higher education, are substantial and require a comprehensive and inclusive approach to align with global objectives.

Integrating complex thinking into the learning process can be a strategic move. Morin ( 1996 ) posits that complex thinking weaves together interdisciplinary perspectives for problem-solving, highlighting the necessity for a situated and critical analysis that coalesces disparate strands of knowledge. Echoing this, RÉ ( 2020 ) suggests that curricula grounded in complexity can be designed with a multidisciplinary approach to meet global needs and challenges. Silva Pacheco ( 2020 ) describes complex thinking as a meta-competency, which Vázquez-Parra et al. ( 2022 ) define as encompassing critical, systemic, and scientific thinking, with innovative thinking also recognized as essential. Therefore, complex thinking is indispensable for 21st-century education for a multifaceted examination of problems from various angles and perspectives.

Citizen Science projects as an educational strategy

Exploring and experimentation within the real-world are at the heart of scientific inquiry. Advancing science involves observing phenomena, documenting them, and testing hypotheses to confirm or revise them; these are crucial steps in the scientific process. However, an individual’s capacity to gather sufficient data to support a theory is often limited by logistical constraints, such as the inability to be in multiple places simultaneously. This limitation is not new; even Darwin depended on the contributions of others to illustrate his findings (Organ, 1994 ). The collaborative approach to data gathering has evolved into what we now recognize as CS, which broadens the scope of volunteer involvement to include not just data collection but also interpretation, analysis, and even the development of projects from problem identification to the dissemination of results, often in partnership with professional researchers (Eitzel et al., 2017 ). While initially, the focus of observation in CS was predominantly on natural phenomena such as plants, animals, and atmospheric conditions, it has since expanded to encompass virtually every scientific discipline.

Exposure to nature is advantageous for those seeking to learn through observation, but urban sprawl has increasingly truncated this possibility. In the case of students in educational institutions, the bridges to counteract the lack of proximity to these phenomena have been constructed beyond books and laboratories, expanding from audiovisual interactive media to integrating new technologies for their simulation (Chernikova et al., 2020 ). This somewhat artificial way of experiencing science has been enhanced by the widespread adoption of mobile devices, becoming the norm for teaching and learning even when there may be access to the local environment (Bonfield et al., 2020 ). Against this detachment, contemporary CS has contributed to the convergence of face-to-face experimental science by leveraging modern technologies, bringing students—and teachers—back to the field.

While CS aimed initially to engage the public as volunteers in formal research endeavors, it has impressively entered into academic settings, facilitated by the ease of recruiting participants from educational institutions, thus ensuring project continuity. In contemporary educational settings, it is common to see students engaged in outdoor activities, using their smartphones to collect data and geotagging images and sounds to create extensive databases that support grander research initiatives (Herodotou et al., 2018 ). The synergy between research and educational environments—scientists and educators alike—has become apparent, with both recognizing the reciprocal advantages of incorporating CS projects into regular curricular activities (Ryan et al., 2018 ). For students, participating in hands-on, real-world scientific inquiries enhances their engagement and instills a sense of contributing to meaningful research, thereby adding value to their educational experience (Condon and Wichowsky, 2018 ). From a curricular perspective, CS projects are instrumental in cultivating a range of competencies and skills in students, integrating multiple disciplines in the process.

Employing CS projects as an educational strategy immerses students in an experience that embodies the principles of transparency, collaboration, and knowledge dissemination, which are at the forefront of modern educational frameworks. UNESCO’s endorsement of open science underscores approaches that align with the ethos of CS, particularly in fostering interactions among ecosystem participants to enhance science literacy (UNESCO, 2021 ). Integrating CS into the curriculum promotes collaboration between different sectors, inviting open engagement from societal actors beyond traditional research communities (Sanabria-Z et al., 2022 ). This inclusive approach also opens avenues for dialog among diverse knowledge systems, giving voice to vulnerable communities or minority groups often underrepresented in scientific endeavors (Hicks et al., 2019 ). On a practical level, physical and digital research infrastructures, such as advanced scientific instruments, open data repositories, computing systems for data analysis, and tools for open dissemination, are all critical components of open science that align with its core values and principles and enrich learning.

Incorporating CS projects into education can significantly enhance an individual’s comprehensive understanding of the phenomena under study. Developing frameworks to assess student outcomes in CS projects and establishing guidelines are crucial for tailoring these initiatives to educational settings (Kelemen-Finan et al., 2018 ). Indeed, educational impact measurements can be integrated into a broader set of indicators, such as those outlined in the typology by Sanabria-Z et al. ( 2022 ), “Threshold for CS projects.” This typology includes variables like context awareness, technological innovation, citizen engagement, and complex thinking. Operationalizing CS as a pedagogical method through curricular integration empowers students as change agents who inspire others to adapt to change rather than resist it (European Research Council, 2022 ). Therefore, to effectively track the progress of CS in education, it is vital to continually document and analyze the themes, methodologies, and outcomes of CS projects over time.

Exploration of emerging trends through mapping review and bibliometric analysis

The pace of scientific and academic progress across various disciplines is accelerating. Conducting a literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the major research trajectories within a subject area and identifies less-explored fields (Ridley, 2019 ). Literature reviews, especially systematic ones, are crucial for uncovering trends and gaps from such studies, thereby aiding in knowledge creation on these topics (Onwuegbuzie and Frels, 2016 ). The Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis (SALSA) framework is widely recognized and adaptable to multiple disciplines (Jesson et al., 2011 ; Machi and McEvoy, 2012 ). The SALSA method involves four steps: 1. Search, which entails defining search strings and selecting appropriate databases; 2. Appraisal, where inclusion and exclusion criteria are established for analysis; 3. Synthesis, where information is categorized according to the mapping’s objectives; and 4. Analysis, which includes a quantitative bibliometric analysis of the reviewed publications, is complemented by a qualitative examination of the prominent themes and concepts that emerge from the mapping questions.

Therefore, the literature review is a powerful tool that identifies and explores specific topics of interest. The advancement of scientific and academic research is often marked by the publication of study results, which contributes to the proliferation of knowledge through articles in scientific journals. This has led to increased publication of studies subject to rigorous evaluation processes, assessing their potential contributions to their respective fields (de Bakker et al., 2016 ; Goyal and Kumar, 2021 ). In this context, bibliometric analysis has emerged as a fundamental method for discerning research direction (Ellegaard and Wallin, 2015 ). Bibliometric analysis primarily involves a bibliographical review of selected studies, encompassing data related to authors, publications, geographical distribution (Zhuang et al., 2013 ), disciplines involved (Hou et al., 2022 ), and the time frame of the studies (Huffman et al., 2013 ), among other metrics. Thus, identifying these publications, authors, countries, and other relevant data has become essential to understanding research processes and trends.

Cebral-Loureda et al., ( 2022 ) posit that Bibliometrics, a subset of scientometrics, employs quantitative-statistical analysis of bibliographic data to assess research trends and outputs. Urbizagastegui-Alvarado ( 2021 ) highlights two critical types of analysis in bibliometric studies: a) analysis according to activity, which includes data on publication distribution, author connections, collaboration patterns, and more, and b) analysis according to impact, which reveals the publication’s impact factor, citation count, and frequency of concepts within articles, thereby assessing the influence of journals within their respective fields. The article underscores the importance of combining a qualitative literature review to gain a deeper understanding of the topics related to the theme and its various aspects with a quantitative bibliometric analysis that evaluates the bibliographic footprint and impact of the research.

Materials and methods

The methodology of this paper was a literature review enriched by a bibliometric analysis. This approach facilitated gathering qualitative and quantitative data pertinent to using CS as an educational strategy, particularly its utility in fostering complex thinking competencies in higher education. The review process identified trends related to this subject by examining various studies.

Mapping questions

The research questions formulated for this mapping seek to provide a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of various studies conducted over time on CS as an educational strategy. Furthermore, this research examines the integration of complex thinking competency and its sub-competencies of critical, innovative (creative), scientific, and systemic thinking. Table 1 presents the mapping questions, which fall into three dimensions: (1) Scope: this dimension aims to clarify the type of CS research, whether it involves actual projects or theoretical proposals, and whether there is a connection to complex thinking; (2) Approaches and Trends in Education: this dimension assesses whether the project serves as an educational strategy and specifies the educational level it targets; and (3) Metrics: this dimension quantitatively evaluates the most meaningful bibliometric data from the studies in question.

Data collection and analysis: SALSA framework

We employed the SALSA framework to accurately identify prior studies pertinent to the topic of this research, per the recommendations for mapping and systematic literature reviews by Petersen et al. ( 2015 ):

Selection of the Database: Scopus was chosen as the database for this research due to its substantial academic and scientific relevance and considered the following criteria: it is recognized as one of the foremost databases for research and dissemination; it ensures the quality of the references it indexes; and a broad range of institutions have access to Scopus, which can facilitate the review process of the articles.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: This step is crucial as it is essential to accurately select and define the criteria for the scope of the articles’ review. Without proper selection, the analysis and conclusions may not be imprecise. The criteria applied in this mapping were: Inclusion criteria: publications indexed in Scopus; a historical publication that contains the following words in the title, keywords, and abstract: Citizen Science, Education, Higher Education, High school, Complex thinking, Critical thinking, Systemic thinking, Innovative thinking, Creative thinking, and Scientific thinking; and articles in the English language. Exclusion criteria: publications not indexed in Scopus; publications without the following words in the title, keywords, and abstract: Citizen Science, Education, Higher Education, High school, Complex thinking, Critical thinking, Systemic thinking, Innovative thinking, Creative thinking, and Scientific thinking; and other types of publications and languages other than English.

For the creation of the search string, it was crucial to incorporate the most pertinent and compelling concepts for analysis. In this instance, the necessary terms to analyze and interrelate with CS included “higher education,” “high school,” and “competencies.” Regarding competencies, separate searches looked for scientific, critical, creative, innovative, systemic, and complex thinking. Notably, this search string was utilized exclusively within the Scopus database. The choice to utilize Scopus as the primary database for our research was a strategic and vital decision. Scopus has a renowned, comprehensive, and authoritative collection of peer-reviewed literature, particularly in education and science. This database was selected to guarantee the dependability and caliber of the data gathered for our study. Although alternative databases exist, the extensive scope and indexing capabilities of Scopus position it as the optimal resource for acquiring a thorough overview of the literature on CS and complex thinking within the educational context. This decision aligns with our objective to conduct a thorough and trustworthy examination of the subject matter.

The resulting query string for Scopus was: “Citizen Science” AND “Higher Education” OR “High school” AND “Competency” AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)). The competency query considered the terms Scientific thinking, Critical thinking, Creative thinking, Innovative thinking, Systemic thinking, and Complex thinking.

Review Process: Following the selection of the database, the establishment of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the definition of the query string, the subsequent steps for the mapping review were carried out, as depicted in Fig. 1 .

figure 1

Collection of raw results, document analysis and evaluation.

Data and representation

The study employed computational tools such as R, provided by the R Core Team ( 2017 ) with the integrated development environment RStudio Team ( 2020 ), to conduct the quantitative bibliometric analysis. These tools are widely recognized for their robust statistical computing and graphics capabilities, which are particularly useful for managing, analyzing, and visualizing bibliometric data.

The study results are organized and presented in alignment with each of the mapping questions previously outlined.

MQ1. What type of CS research is being addressed, as classified by Wiggins and Crowston ( 2011 )?

According to the typology established by Wiggins, the following types of CS projects were identified: Conservation projects accounted for 7.1%, investigation projects made up 21.4%, virtual projects constituted 10.7%, and the category with the highest number of projects was education, representing 60.7%. Note that no projects were identified as action-oriented CS projects.

MQ2. Does the research explore the relationship between CS, education, and complex thinking? MQ3. If the relationship with complex thinking is addressed, on which sub-competency does the project focus?

The study determined that irrespective of their specific typology, all projects exhibited some form of correlation to complex thinking, as evidenced through various sub-competencies. The identified sub-competencies of complex thinking, including instances where multiple sub-competencies were combined within a single project, were as follows (see Fig. 2 ): complex thinking with critical thinking (3.6%); critical thinking alone (25%); critical thinking combined with innovative-creative thinking and scientific thinking (10.7%); critical thinking and scientific thinking (32.1%); innovative-creative thinking and scientific thinking (7.1%); and scientific thinking exclusively (21.4%.)

figure 2

Type of competencies and their recurrence in projects.

MQ4. Does the CS approach serve as an educational strategy? MQ5. To which educational level does the CS project contribute?

The analyzed CS projects contributed to educational strategies in various ways, as shown in Table 2 . On the one hand, some projects explicitly had educational objectives, such as those by Belluigi and Cundill ( 2017 ) and Aristeidou et al. ( 2021 ), which served as practical examples of pedagogically driven initiatives. On the other hand, some projects were investigative, like those by Maicas et al., ( 2020 ), or virtual, such as Barak and Asakle ( 2018 ), which, although not primarily educational, substantially enhanced the students’ learning experiences. Figure 3 further delineates the educational levels targeted by these projects, showing a predominance at the high school level, sometimes including educators from that tier, followed by higher education and, to a lesser extent, middle school, primary school, and projects aimed at educators.

figure 3

Different educational levels and their recurrence in projects.

MQ6. What is the annual production per search chain?

The annual growth rate of CS projects with an educational focus was 4.43%. Figure 4 shows that this growth has been consistent since 2014, indicating an increased exploration in the field. Prior to that year, the production of such projects was sporadic and less regular.

figure 4

Number of articles and years of publication.

The evolution of themes within CS projects reveals a consistent focus on environmental and natural sciences over time, as depicted in Fig. 5 . Additionally, due to the nature of these projects, educational themes are also prominently featured. Notably, there is a substantial emphasis on competencies, particularly the sub-competency of critical thinking and other thinking-related skills, indicating their importance in the context of CS projects.

figure 5

Frequency of occurrence of topics per year in the journals.

MQ7. Who are the most prominent authors, which countries are most active, and what are the key areas of knowledge in the field?

Figure 6 illustrates the connections between authors, the most salient topics of the analyzed CS projects, and the countries where these studies were published. This visualization helps pinpoint the specific interests of these countries in particular subjects and discern the current trends and themes related to CS. For instance, projects focused on developing new antibiotics or addressing antibiotic resistance were predominantly spearheaded by researchers in Switzerland. Meanwhile, the United States concentrated on CS as an approach to address environmental and educational issues.

figure 6

Three-column Sankey diagram.

Scientific production by countries and regions was identified; Europe and North America led the project count. The United States held the majority with 48.1% of the projects, followed by Spain at 18.5% and Switzerland at 7.4%. Other countries such as Argentina, the Czech Republic, Israel, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, and Sweden each contributed 3.7% to the total project count (see Fig. 7 ).

figure 7

World map on which dark blue means higher production than light blue.

It is also crucial to identify the primary sources for disseminating scientific research. In this line, the journals that feature a concentration of these publications, with Citizen Science: Theory and Practice (three publications) being the foremost, indicating a trend among authors to publish on these topics, followed by Environmental Education Research (2), Fems Microbiology Letters (2), and the Journal of Biological Education (2). Other journals considered in the study included only one publication.

MQ8. Who are the authors with the greatest intellectual structure on the subject?

Figure 8 presents a visualization of the co-citation network among authors within the analyzed body of literature. This network was instrumental in pinpointing key thought leaders in CS as an educational strategy. Notably, Bonney emerged as a pivotal figure whose extensive and influential contributions to CS literature are critical for contextualizing its educational applications.

figure 8

Color groupings indicate clusters; thicker lines mean higher co-citation.

MQ9. What are the key terms most frequently used in these studies, and how are they interconnected?

In the analyzed articles, we discovered key themes by identifying the most meaningful keywords. Central to these themes were “education,” “curriculum,” and “evaluation,” with secondary concepts including “higher education,” “critical thinking,” and “experiential learning” featuring prominently (see Fig. 9 ).

figure 9

The size of the words is proportional to their recurrence.

Following the identification of key concepts, their relationship with CS was analyzed. Figure 10 illustrates the development of these conceptual relationships, highlighting environmental, health, and educational issues as critically discussed concepts.

figure 10

Color groupings indicate clusters; thicker lines mean stronger relationship with CS.

The mapping review reports the following findings of interest, which are closely aligned with the mapping questions posed. Each finding is associated with the relevant mapping question, indicated in brackets at the beginning of each point.

[MQ1, MQ3] Most of the CS projects analyzed were of an educational type and demonstrated some relationship with complex thinking or its sub-competencies (Fig. 2 ). The predominant educational orientation of the analyzed CS projects directly connected to our intentional selection of projects designed with educational objectives in mind. This strategic approach aligned with our overarching educational goals, ensuring that participants were engaged in scientific or community-based research and on a platform that fosters essential sub-competencies, including critical and scientific thinking. This perspective was in harmony with the findings of Ramírez-Montoya et al. ( 2022 ) and the insights provided by Wiggins and Crowston ( 2011 ), both of which highlighted the vital role of CS projects in nurturing these cognitive skills, which are crucial for the participants’ learning journey. Notably, a specific emphasis on cultivating systemic thinking was absent among the selected projects. Furthermore, there was a limited number of projects explicitly aimed at fostering innovative thinking. Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge that, despite the lack of explicit objectives in these areas, many CS initiatives indirectly contributed, to some extent, to the development of systemic and innovative thinking among participants.

[MQ4] The CS projects analyzed effectively achieved their objectives and added significant value to the participants’ learning process (Table 2 ). The results consistently show increased participant engagement and interest across the board. For instance, the studies by Rodríguez-Loinaz et al. ( 2022 ), Ojeda et al. ( 2021 ), and Smith et al. ( 2021 ) provided clear instances of increased engagement and interest among participants.

Our analysis underscores the capacity of CS projects to bolster the learning process, as demonstrated by initiatives such as those by Brandt et al. ( 2022 ). These projects stand out, mainly when they include clear learning goals in their designs to optimize their educational influence. Many CS projects primarily targeted high school education, with higher education following closely, as shown in Fig. 2 . This trend suggests a promising area for additional research, especially within higher education, to investigate and enhance approaches that cater to students’ distinct requirements and aspirations at this educational stage.

[MQ2, MQ3] The trajectory of Citizen Science (CS) research for educational purposes has been notable, highlighting a consistent interest in this pedagogical method (as illustrated in Fig. 3 ). The upward trend indicates a commitment to investigating CS’s role in enriching participants’ educational journeys. Moreover, the analysis of evolving themes within CS projects, as depicted in Fig. 4 , shows a list of topics encompassing CS, natural sciences, education, and cognitive skills development. This integration indicates a comprehensive approach to CS projects, integrating scientific inquiry with the educational and cognitive growth of the participants. Our bibliometric analysis was instrumental in mapping the progression of these themes over time. In recent years, the focus has shifted toward the educational implications of CS and its influence on the learning process, as evidenced in Fig. 4 . This shift highlights a growing recognition of the educational value of CS projects, particularly their effect on the learning outcomes of those involved.

[MQ7] From our analysis, we noted a prevalence of information society initiatives in Europe and North America. Yet, this observation is based on a dataset limited to English-language publications. Hence, these results may not comprehensively represent the global landscape of information society participation. Populations such as Latin America, which may have significant CS activities, might be underrepresented in our study due to language restrictions. This constraint is particularly relevant given that the study focuses on articles written in English, and is recognized as a limitation in our findings.

Thus, although our results suggest regional affinities for CS projects in the data we analyzed, these findings should be interpreted with caution. They represent trends within the scope of the English-language scholarly literature and may not fully reflect the diversity and scope of information society activities around the world. This gap underscores the need for more inclusive research that spans a wider range of languages and regions, providing a more complete picture of worldwide information society engagement. This type of research could reveal unique educational initiatives and practices in non-English speaking regions, enriching our understanding of the global impact and reach of CS.

Conclusions

To synthesize these insights, we turn to the conclusions drawn from our analysis, reflecting on the educational potential of CS and the avenues for future research. The study’s findings highlight the current state of CS in education and the need for further exploration, particularly in developing innovative and systemic thinking competencies through CS initiatives. Through this process, we aimed to provide an understanding of the current status of CS in confronting the ongoing challenges of developing complex thinking in higher education. The study focused on understanding the scope of CS research, the educational approaches and trends where CS and complex thinking converge, and the relevant metrics regarding authors and their publications. Among the findings, we identified (a) a clear relationship between CS and the sub-competencies of complex thinking, (b) how the role of CS projects contributes value to the learning process, and (c) the evident growth of CS projects in the academic community.

There are several implications for educational practice arising from this study. First, while there is a growing emphasis on developing sub-competencies of complex thinking through CS initiatives, there is still a need to strengthen innovative and systemic thinking within teaching-learning strategies. Additionally, the predominance of CS projects at the high school level, followed by higher education, suggests an opportunity to re-evaluate and tailor educational strategies at the tertiary level, focusing on the distinct objectives appropriate for each educational stage. Regarding the implications for CS research within educational settings, this study highlights a potential area for growth in Latin America. The unique characteristics of the teaching-learning context in this region warrant a detailed exploration. Furthermore, the study offers a framework for future research on developing complex thinking skills through social studies, capitalizing on the strong presence of environmental studies within the CS domain.

The methodology of this literature review had certain limitations. First, the study’s focus on the constructs of complex thinking and its four sub-competencies—critical, innovative, systemic, and scientific thinking—may not align with the varied terminologies and frameworks used across different educational contexts. A more inclusive approach to identifying types of thinking could reveal different priorities and insights. Second, the exclusive use of the Scopus database may overlook relevant studies housed in other databases, particularly those prevalent in Latin America that offer more coverage in Spanish and Portuguese. This limitation also excludes “gray literature:” materials and research produced outside of traditional academic publishing and journals; these may offer insights more reflective of the on-the-ground educational environment where educators may not publish in high-impact journals. Additionally, the terms used to define the educational level and the concept of citizen science could be broadened to include synonyms and alternative expressions, potentially capturing a more comprehensive array of studies.

Future research could address these limitations by adopting a more expansive approach to complex thinking and its sub-competencies, incorporating various search terms, databases, and article analysis techniques such as digital semantic mining tools. Furthermore, a comprehensive study could also consider including platforms and dissemination channels commonly used by educators, particularly at the higher education level in Latin America, to share and promote CS projects.

Data availability

The database generated for this study is available on an open platform at this location: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10091107 . The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Aristeidou M, Ferguson R, Perryman LA, Tegama N (2021) The roles and value of citizen science: perceptions of professional educators enrolled on a postgraduate course. Citiz Sci: Theory Pract 6(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.5334/CSTP.421

Article   Google Scholar  

Barak M, Asakle S (2018) Augmented world: facilitating the creation of location-based questions. Comput Educ 121:89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2018.02.014

Belluigi DZ, Cundill G (2017) Establishing enabling conditions to develop critical thinking skills: A case of innovative curriculum design in environmental science. Environ Educ Res 23(7):950–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1072802

Bonfield CA, Salter M, Longmuir A, Benson M, Adachi C (2020) Transformation or evolution?: Education 4.0, teaching and learning in the digital age. High Educ Pedagogies 5(1):223–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2020.1816847

Brandt M, Groom Q, Magro A, Misevic D, Narraway CL, Bruckermann T, Beniermann A, Borsen T, Gonzalez J, Meeus S, Roy HE, Sa-Pinto X, Torres JR, Jenkins T (2022) Promoting scientific literacy in evolution through citizen science. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 289 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1098/RSPB.2022.1077

Cebral-Loureda M, Tamés-Muñoz E, Hernández-Baqueiro A (2022) The fertility of a concept: A bibliometric review of human flourishing. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH19052586

Chernikova O, Heitzmann N, Stadler M, Holzberger D, Seidel T, Fischer F (2020) Simulation-based learning in higher education: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 90(4):499–541. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544

Condon M, Wichowsky A (2018) Developing citizen-scientists: Effects of an inquiry-based science curriculum on STEM and civic engagement. Am J Polit Sci 119(2):196–222. https://doi.org/10.1086/700316

de Bakker FGA, Groenewegen P, den Hond F (2016) A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Bus Soc 44(3):283–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650305278086

Dhawan S (2020) Online learning: a panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. J Educ Technol Syst 49(1):5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018

Eitzel MV, Cappadonna JL, Santos-Lang C, Duerr RE, Virapongse A, West SE, Kyba CCM, Bowser A, Cooper CB, Sforzi A, Metcalfe AN, Harris ES, Thiel M, Haklay M, Ponciano L, Roche J, Ceccaroni L, Shilling FM, Dörler D et al. (2017) Citizen science terminology matters: exploring key terms. Citiz Sci: Theory Pract 2(1):1. https://doi.org/10.5334/CSTP.96

Ellegaard O, Wallin JA (2015) The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: how great is the impact? Scientometrics 105(3):1809–1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11192-015-1645-Z

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

European Research Council (2022, December 7) Young people engaged for the planet. European Research Council YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV3ZqvfZ0ow

Goyal K, Kumar S (2021) Financial literacy: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Int J Consum Stud 45(1):80–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/IJCS.12605

Halili SH (2019) Technological advancements in education 4.0. Online J Distance Educ E-Learn 7(1):63–69. www.tojdel.net

Herodotou C, Aristeidou M, Sharples M, Scanlon E (2018) Designing citizen science tools for learning: lessons learnt from the iterative development of nQuire. Res Pract Technol Enhanc Learn 13(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/S41039-018-0072-1/FIGURES/6

Hicks A, Barclay J, Chilvers J, Armijos MT, Oven K, Simmons P, Haklay M (2019) Global mapping of citizen science projects for disaster risk reduction. Front Earth Sci 7:226. https://doi.org/10.3389/FEART.2019.00226/BIBTEX

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Hou X, Li R, Song Z (2022) A bibliometric analysis of wicked problems: from single discipline to transdisciplinarity. Fudan J Humanit Soc Sci 15(3):299–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40647-022-00346-W

Hubbard L, Datnow A (2020) Design thinking, leadership, and the grammar of schooling: implications for educational change. 126(4):499–518. https://doi.org/10.1086/709510

Huck A (2020) Teacher candidates and the open classroom: concerns for professional growth, safety, and collaboration. Excelsior: Leadersh Teach Learn 13(1):5. https://doi.org/10.14305/jn.19440413.2020.13.1.02

Huffman MD, Baldridge A, Bloomfield GS, Colantonio LD, Prabhakaran P, Ajay VS, Suh S, Lewison G, Prabhakaran D (2013) Global cardiovascular research output, citations, and collaborations: a time-trend, bibliometric analysis (1999–2008). PLoS ONE 8(12):e83440. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0083440

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Humphrey EA, Wiles JR (2021) Lessons learned through listening to biology students during a transition to online learning in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ecol Evol 11(8):3450–3458. https://doi.org/10.1002/ECE3.7303

Jesson J, Matheson L, Lacey FM (2011) DoingYourLiteratureReview.pdf. 1:9–69. https://books.google.com/books/about/Doing_Your_Literature_Review.html?hl=es&id=LUhdBAAAQBAJ

Kelemen-Finan J, Scheuch M, Winter S (2018) Contributions from citizen science to science education: an examination of a biodiversity citizen science project with schools in Central Europe. Int J Sci Educ 40(17):2078–2098. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1520405

Kinslow AT, Sadler TD, Nguyen HT (2019) Socio-scientific reasoning and environmental literacy in a field-based ecology class. Environ Educ Res 25(3):388–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1442418

Kjelvik MK, Schultheis EH (2019) Getting messy with authentic data: Exploring the potential of using data from scientific research to support student data literacy. CBE Life Sci Educ18(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-02-0023

Koomen MH, Rodriguez E, Hoffman A, Petersen C, Oberhauser K (2018) Authentic science with citizen science and student-driven science fair projects. Sci Educ 102(3):593–644. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21335

Machi LA, McEvoy BT (2012) The literature review: six steps to success. 2nd edn. Corwin, pp 1–11

Maicas S, Fouz B, Figàs-Segura À, Zueco J, Rico H, Navarro A, Carbó E, Segura-García J, Biosca EG (2020) Implementation of antibiotic discovery by student crowdsourcing in the Valencian Community through a service learning strategy. Front Microbiol 11:2956. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.564030

Malatyinszki S (2020) Experiencing digital education. Easy chair. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36400.38408

Marshall C (2010) Teachers’ learning styles: how they affect student learning. Clearing House 64(4):225–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.1991.9955852

Morin E (1996) Introduccion al pensamiento complejo. Gedisa, Barcelona, pp. 175–176

Ojeda MD, Queiruga-Dios MÁ, Velasco-Pérez N, López-Iñesta E, Vázquez-Dorrío JB (2021) Inquiry through industrial chemistry in compulsory secondary education for the achievement of the development of the 21st-century skills. Educ Sci 11(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090475

Oliveira VMde, de Brito HL, Almeida W de JB, Barbosa MV, Marinho AS (2022) Education 4.0: value of subjectivity in meeting with technology. Res Soc Dev 11(2):e44611225959. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v11i2.25959

Onwuegbuzie AJ, Frels R (2016) Seven steps to a comprehensive literature review. J Educ Soc Stud 23(2):48–64

Google Scholar  

Organ MK (1994) Conrad Martens: journal of a voyage from England to Australia aboard HMS Beagle and HMS Hyacinth 1833–1835. Available at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/asdpapers/123

Peters-Burton EE (2015) Outcomes of a self-regulated learning curriculum model. Sci Educ 24(7):855–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9769-3

Petersen K, Vakkalanka S, Kuzniarz L (2015) Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Inf Softw Technol 64:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007

Ramírez-Montoya MS, Castillo-Martínez IM, Sanabria-Z J, Miranda J (2022) Complex thinking in the framework of Education 4.0 and open innovation—a systematic literature review. J Open Innov Technol Mark Complex 8(1):4. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010004

RÉ CR (2020) Morinian complexity and the nursing curriculum. Investig Enferm 38(2). https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.iee.v38n2e11

R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/

Ridley D (2019) Literature review: a step-by-step guide for students. Sage 3(1):47

Rodríguez-Loinaz G, Ametzaga-Arregi I, Palacios-Agundez I (2022) ICT tools and citizen science: a pathway to promote science learning and education for sustainable development in schools. J Biol Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2022.2092192

RStudio Team (2020) RStudio: Integrated development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA. Available at: http://www.rstudio.com/

Ryan SF et al. (2018) The role of citizen science in addressing grand challenges in food and agriculture research. Proc R Soc B 285 (1891). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1977

Salimpour S, Fitzgerald MT, Tytler R, Eriksson U (2021) Educational design framework for a web-based interface to visualize authentic cosmological “big data” in high school. J Sci Educ Technol 30(5):732–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09915-2

Sanabria-Z J, Alfaro-Ponce B, González Peña OI, Terashima-Marín H, Ortiz-Bayliss JC (2022) Engagement and social impact in tech-based citizen science initiatives for achieving the SDGs: a systematic literature review with a perspective on complex thinking. Sustainability 14(17):10978. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710978

Sanabria-Z JC, Molina Espinosa JM, Alfaro Ponce B, Vycudilíková Outlá M (2022) A threshold for citizen science projects: Complex thinking as a driver of holistic development. RIED-Rev Iberoam Educ Distancia 25(2). https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.25.2.33052

Silva Pacheco C (2020) Art education for the development of complex thinking meta-competence: a theoretical approach. Int J Art Des Educ 39(1):242–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12261

Smith H et al. (2021) Leveraging Citizen Science in a college classroom to build interest and efficacy for science and the environment. Citiz Sci Theory Pract 6(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.434

Sosa AJ et al. (2021) The educational community and its knowledge and perceptions of native and invasive alien species. Sci Rep. 11(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00683-y

Article   ADS   MathSciNet   CAS   Google Scholar  

Tal T, Kedmi Y (2006) Teaching socio-scientific issues: classroom culture and students’ performances. Cult Stud Sci Educ 1(4):615–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9026-9

UNESCO (2021) UNESCO recommendation on open science. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.locale=en

Urbizagastegui-Alvarado R (2021) A bibliometria brasileira e o modelo de difusão de inovações. Ciênc Inf 50(2):41–55. https://revista.ibict.br/ciinf/article/view/5231

Vázquez-Parra JC, Castillo-Martínez IM, Ramírez-Montoya MS, Millán A (2022) Development of the perception of achievement of complex thinking: a disciplinary approach in a Latin American student population. Educ Sci 12(5):289. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050289

Vitone T, Stofer KA, Steininger MS, Hulcr J, Dunn R, Lucky A (2016) School of Ants goes to college: integrating citizen science into the general education classroom increases engagement with science. J Sci Commun 15(1):A03. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15010203

Ware M, Sampson C, Lann D, Linard E, Chance LG (2019) Bridging the gap: bringing professionals into the classroom to effectively teach environmental science concepts. Am Biol Teach 81(9):618–624. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2019.81.9.618

Wiggins A, Crowston K (2011) From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. Proc Annu Hawaii Int Conf Syst Sci. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2011.207

Willermark S, Gellerstedt M (2022) Facing radical digitalization: capturing teachers’ transition to virtual classrooms through ideal type experiences. J Educ Comput Res 60(6):1351–1372. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211069424

Wooten MM, Coble K, Puckett AW, Rector T (2018) Investigating introductory astronomy students’ perceived impacts from participation in course-based undergraduate research experiences. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res 14(1):010151. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010151

Zhuang Y, Liu X, Nguyen T, He Q, Hong S (2013) Global remote sensing research trends during 1991-2010: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 96(1):203–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0918-z

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank academic support from Writing Lab, Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico, and the financial support from Tecnologico de Monterrey through the “Challenge-Based Research Funding Program 2022”. Project ID # I001-IFE001-C1-T1–E.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Guadalajara, Mexico

Berenice Alfaro-Ponce & Jorge Sanabria-Z

Academic Area of Education Science, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Hidalgo, Mexico

Rosa Durán-González

Department of Mathematics, Universidad de Panama, Panama City, Panama

Luisa Morales-Maure

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

BA-P contributed to the study conception, design, and coordination. BA-P, RD, LM, and JS-Z contributed to the writing of the manuscript. BA-P developed the dataset and did the methodological analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge Sanabria-Z .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

This article does not report experimental studies on human participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Alfaro-Ponce, B., Durán-González, R., Morales-Maure, L. et al. Citizen science as a relevant approach to the challenges of complex thinking development in higher education: mapping and bibliometric analysis. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 341 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02853-5

Download citation

Received : 03 July 2023

Accepted : 19 February 2024

Published : 29 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02853-5

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

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

critical thinking social scientists

SEP home page

  • Table of Contents
  • Random Entry
  • Chronological
  • Editorial Information
  • About the SEP
  • Editorial Board
  • How to Cite the SEP
  • Special Characters
  • Advanced Tools
  • Support the SEP
  • PDFs for SEP Friends
  • Make a Donation
  • SEPIA for Libraries
  • Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

  • Friends PDF Preview
  • Author and Citation Info
  • Back to Top

Critical Theory (Frankfurt School)

[ Editor’s Note: The following new entry by Robin Celikates and Jeffrey Flynn replaces the former entry on this topic by the previous author. ]

“Critical theory” refers to a family of theories that aim at a critique and transformation of society by integrating normative perspectives with empirically informed analysis of society’s conflicts, contradictions, and tendencies. In a narrow sense, “Critical Theory” (often denoted with capital letters) refers to the work of several generations of philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. Beginning in the 1930s at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, it is best known for interdisciplinary research that combines philosophy and social science with the practical aim of furthering emancipation. There are separate entries on influential figures of the first generation of the Frankfurt School – Max Horkheimer (1895–1973), Theodor W. Adorno (1903–1969), Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979), and Walter Benjamin (1892–1940) – and the leading figure of the second generation, Jürgen Habermas (b. 1929).

In a broader sense, there are many different strands of critical theory that have emerged as forms of reflective engagement with the emancipatory goals of various social and political movements, such as feminist theory, critical race theory, queer theory, and postcolonial/decolonial theory. In another, third sense, “critical theory” or sometimes just “Theory” is used to refer to work by theorists associated with psychoanalysis and post-structuralism, such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida (see these separate entries as well as the entry on postmodernism ).

This entry is primarily focused on the critical theory of the Frankfurt School, but broadens outward at various points to discuss engagements by that tradition with a range of critical theories and social developments. The need for a broad approach to critical theory is prompted today by a range of contemporary social, political, economic, and ecological crises and struggles as well as the critique of Eurocentric forms of knowledge production.

1.1 Origins and Generations

1.2 influences, 1.3 critical theory versus traditional theory, 1.4 studies on authoritarianism and mass culture, 1.5 the dialectic of enlightenment, 1.6 the communicative turn, 1.7 a continuing and contested tradition, 2.1 immanent critique, 2.2 normative foundations for critique, 2.3 reconstructive critique, 2.4 disclosive critique, genealogy, and the critique of normativity, 2.5 current challenges, 3.1 alienation, 3.2 reification, 3.3 ideology, 3.4 emancipation, 4.1.1 gender, 4.1.3 colonialism and post-colonialism, 4.2.1 economic crises, 4.2.2 ecological crises, 4.2.3 political crises, 4.3 critical practices, other internet resources, related entries, 1. the frankfurt school: origins, influences, and development.

The “Frankfurt School” of critical theory is not really a school at all. It is a loosely held together tradition constituted by ongoing debates among adherents about how best to define and develop that tradition. This includes disagreements about methods, about how to interpret earlier figures and texts in the tradition, about whether past shifts in focus were advances or dead ends, and about how to respond to new challenges arising from other schools of thought and current social developments. This section tells a largely chronological story, focusing on the origins, influences, and key texts of the Frankfurt School, and concludes with reference to ongoing debates on how to inherit and continue the tradition.

In their attempt to combine philosophy and social science in a critical theory with emancipatory intent, the wide-ranging work of the first generation of the Frankfurt School was methodologically innovative. They revised and updated Marxism by integrating it with the work of Sigmund Freud, Max Weber, and Friedrich Nietzsche while developing a model of radical critique that is immanently anchored in social reality. They used this model to analyze a wide range of phenomena – from authoritarianism as a political formation and as it manifests in both the nuclear family and deep-seated psychological dispositions, to the effects of capitalism on psychological, social, cultural, and political formations as well as on the production of knowledge itself (for excellent guides, see Thompson 2017 and Gordon et al. 2019).

Max Horkheimer outlined the original research agenda for the Frankfurt School in his 1931 inaugural lecture upon becoming director of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt (founded in 1923). He proposed an interdisciplinary research program combining philosophy and social theory with psychology, political economy, and cultural analysis (Horkheimer 1931). In that way, “social philosophy” aims at providing an encompassing interpretation of social reality as a whole – as “social totality,” to use a concept central to the Marxist tradition (Jay 1984).

Other key figures of the first generation include Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, and Walter Benjamin, along with Erich Fromm, Friedrich Pollock, Leo Löwenthal, Franz Neumann, Otto Kirchheimer, and figures like Siegfried Kracauer, who belonged to the broader circle for a few years (for rich historical accounts, see Jay 1973, Buck-Morss 1977, Dubiel 1978, Wiggershaus 1986, Wheatland 2009). The work of the largely Jewish members of the first generation was deeply marked by the rise of National Socialism, the experience of exile, and, for some of its inner circle, their return to Germany after 1945. After the Nazis closed the Institute, Horkheimer, who had already moved it to Geneva, re-established it at Columbia University in 1934, where he was soon joined by Pollock, Marcuse, and Löwenthal, while Adorno did not emigrate to the US until 1938. Horkheimer, Adorno, and Pollock moved the Institute from New York to Los Angeles in 1941. Those three reestablished the Institute in Germany after the War, with Horkeimer as director from 1951 to 1958 and Adorno from 1958 to 1969. Key figures who worked with first generation figures during this period emerged as the second generation: Jürgen Habermas, Alfred Schmidt, Albrecht Wellmer, Oskar Negt, and Claus Offe.

Habermas was the leading figure of this second generation, taking up Horkheimer’s chair in Frankfurt in 1964 before moving to a research post in Starnberg in 1971. Habermas returned to Frankfurt in 1981, retiring from this position in 1994. Axel Honneth worked closely with Habermas in the 1980s and took over the chair in social philosophy in Frankfurt in 1996; Honneth was also director of, and largely responsible for the revival of, the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt from 2001 to 2018. He is considered a leading figure in the third generation, along with Seyla Benhabib, Nancy Fraser, and Christoph Menke (Anderson 2000, Allen 2010). Going beyond the second and third generations of the Frankfurt School, there are far too many figures to list; and the focal points for critical theory in this tradition have expanded, both geographically – with prominent figures in the United States and an active reception in Latin America – and thematically – for example, with a turn to feminism (see §4.1.1 ).

The first generation of the Frankfurt School took inspiration from an earlier generation of critical theorists: “Left Hegelians” in Germany who, after Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s death in 1831, applied his philosophy critically to social and political phenomena like religion and the state, maintaining that the progressive realization of freedom in history that was central to Hegel’s thought was not yet complete and required a fundamental transformation of the status quo. Karl Marx became the most influential of this group. In a materialist transformation of Hegel’s thought, Marx analyzed the concrete conditions for realizing autonomy for all and viewed philosophy itself as conditioned by socioeconomic developments. By developing a critique of political economy in order to analyze the nature of capitalism and the possibilities for revolutionary social transformation, Marx set the standard for future generations of critical theory by combining radical philosophy with a critique of the best available social science of the day in the pursuit of emancipation.

Marx’s early writings, in the 1840s, were written when capitalist modernization was only just beginning in Germany, but he already saw contradictory social relations as the objective condition of capitalist society and exploited workers as a nascent revolutionary force. By the time the Frankfurt School began working out a critical theory of society in the 1930s much had changed as Germany had emerged as a leading economic power in an industrialized, capitalist Europe. Frankfurt School theorists were committed to social transformation, but the vehicle for change Marx identified – workers in advanced capitalist states like Germany – not only lacked revolutionary consciousness, but would soon embrace fascist politics when faced with economic crisis and mass unemployment. Radical social theorists would need revised analytical tools.

To study the psychology of individuals and groups along with social and cultural influences on that psychology, they could not rely on the then-dominant dogmatic versions of scientific Marxism (Pensky 2019). To understand how social conflicts get denied or repressed, and why individuals and groups turn to authoritarian politics that seem not to align with their class interests, they turned to Freudian psychoanalysis. In contrast to orthodox Marxism, they analyzed individual and group psychology, changes in the modern family, and the cultural “superstructure” of society, not just the material “base,” in order to understand how the rise of “mass culture” and the decline of authority figures in the family led to the decline of critical capacities both in the individual psyche and in society generally. This effort to combine Marx and Freud is one of the distinctive features of the Frankfurt School; exactly how to integrate psychoanalytic theory into critical theory has been a long-standing debate (Marcuse 1955, Whitebook 1995, Honneth 2010, Part IV; Allen and O’Connor 2019, Allen 2021).

In addition to incorporating insights from Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, early critical theorists drew on Max Weber’s social theory to analyze contemporary society. Crucial here was Weber’s theory of rationalization, which stressed the growing dominance of instrumental rationality, or means-end reasoning, through the expanding bureaucratization of society. Weber posited a loss of freedom, due to the “iron cage” of modern bureaucracy, and a loss of meaning generated by the “disenchantment of the world” associated with secularization. Weber’s work was crucial for Horkheimer and Adorno’s critique of instrumental reason (1947) as well as for Habermas’s later theory of communicative action (1981).

In synthesizing Marx and Weber, the first generation of critical theory was heavily influenced by Georg Lukács’s attempt to do the same in his ground-breaking 1923 essay “Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat” (see Brunkhorst 1983). Radically extending Marx’s analysis of commodities by analyzing how they transform the character of society as a whole, and drawing on Weber to describe a process of rationalization that extends to all aspects of life, Lukács used the term “reification” (see 3.2 below) to describe how the commodity form transforms the consciousness of those living in capitalist societies, who then see all social relations, even their relation to themselves, as taking on a “thing-like” character.

The classic philosophical influences on the Frankfurt School range widely, from Immanuel Kant and German Idealism to Nietzsche. In some form, Kant’s appeal to Mündigkeit (autonomy, maturity, responsibility) in his famous essay “What is Enlightenment?” – with its call for freely and publicly making use of reason – animates the ideal of emancipation throughout the work of the Frankfurt School, along with the Kantian conception of the critique of reason: the use of reason to reflect on the limits of reason. But its adherents follow Hegel and Marx in focusing on the social, cultural, and material conditions for achieving autonomy and insisting that reason is always socially and historically embedded. For first generation critical theorists, this entailed a critique of Kant’s own individualist and repressive understanding of autonomy as it arises within capitalist social conditions (Horkheimer 1933) and formalizes the domination of our own inner nature (Horkheimer and Adorno 1947, Excursus II, Adorno 1963a, Chs. 10–11). Some later critical theorists have engaged more positively with Kant, as in Habermas’s attempt to “detranscendentalize” core aspects of Kant’s transcendental philosophy (Habermas 2005, Ch. 2) and Rainer Forst’s Kantian constructivism in moral and political theory (Forst 2007, 2021a).

Hegel’s work has been a continual reference point for Frankfurt School philosophers, with key figures in the tradition – from Marcuse (1941) and Adorno (1963b) to Benhabib (1986, Part I) and Honneth (1992, 2001, 2011) – contributing both substantive studies and relying on Hegel’s methodology either for its holistic approach or as a paradigm of immanent critique while eschewing his metaphysical, teleological, and reconciliatory tendencies. Honneth first built on Hegel’s account of the struggle for recognition and the intersubjective conditions for living an autonomous life (Honneth 1992) before developing his own account of the practices and institutions of modern ethical life that realize freedom in a way that goes beyond its liberal and Kantian interpretations (Honneth 2011). Rahel Jaeggi builds on Hegel’s method of immanent critique in her account of progressive social change as learning processes in response to problems, contradictions, and crises that arise from within ethically thick forms of life (Jaeggi 2014).

In aiming to explain irrationality, the first generation extended the critique of reason, going beyond rationalist philosophers like Kant and Hegel to figures like Freud and Nietzsche. They turned to Nietzsche in particular as a critic of modern bourgeois culture and the violent formation of individual subjectivity. Engagement with Nietzsche’s thought extends from early essays by Horkheimer (1933, 1936a) through Horkheimer and Adorno’s shift toward doing critical theory in a more Nietzschean spirit with the genealogy of reason in Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947), and Habermas’s more critical take on Nietzsche’s supposed irrationalism (1985, Ch. 3–4), to contemporary authors such as Menke, who returns to Nietzsche as a positive reference point in the critique of the repressive dimensions of the modern ideal of equality (2000) and for a genealogical analysis of the modern subject who demands rights (2015).

One way of categorizing work by later generations of the Frankfurt School is to note how, even when drawing on a range of theoretical resources, they give pride of place to the legacy of a particular figure like Kant, Hegel, Marx, or Nietzsche (often via Foucault), or how they combine approaches. For instance, Honneth and Jaeggi are more Hegelian while Forst is more Kantian, and Benhabib is, like Habermas, a Hegelianized Kantian, and Fraser draws heavily on Marx in recent work while Amy Allen and Martin Saar are influenced by Foucauldian genealogy. The latter is part of a broader engagement between the Frankfurt School and post-structuralism, ranging from the more critical (Habermas 1985) through the more sympathetic (Honneth 1985, Menke 1988, 2000) to attempts to combine deconstructive and reconstructive approaches to critical theory (McCarthy 1991; see also Fraser 1989).

It is not easy to capture key features of an intellectual tradition shaped by such a variety of influences, including multiple figures whose own thinking changed over time, and a body of work addressing a vast range of topics spanning from the 1930s to the present. The rest of this section outlines some of the main arguments and focal points of key texts by key figures. It is not meant to be exhaustive, but to identify influential methodological approaches, arguments, and themes that are indicative of the work of the Frankfurt School and still provide important reference points for contemporary debates.

One largely undisputed reference for defining Frankfurt School critical theory is Horkheimer’s 1937 essay “Traditional and Critical Theory,” in which he defines critical theory by contrasting it with traditional theories that take the existing social order as given. Social sciences do this, for example, when they model themselves after the natural sciences in attempting to descriptively mirror a given set of facts or establish law-like generalizations. The point is not that empirical social research is invalid, but that traditional theories fail to analyze the broader social context in which they are embedded. This form of “positivism” views science as a purely theoretical undertaking divorced from practical interests even while it actually serves a particular social function in relying on established concepts and categories in a way that reinforces dominant ideologies and power structures. In that way, the forms of knowledge production that we rely on for insight into the social order become obstacles to social change.

Critical theory, by contrast, reflects on the context of its own origins and aims to be a transformative force within that context. It explicitly embraces an interdisciplinary methodology that aims to bridge the gap between empirical research and the kind of philosophical thinking needed to grasp the overall historical situation and mediate between specialized empirical disciplines. Critical theory aims not merely to describe social reality, but to generate insights into the forces of domination operating within society in a way that can inform practical action and stimulate change. It aims to unite theory and practice, so that the theorist forms “a dynamic unity with the oppressed class” (1937a [1972, 215]) that is guided by an emancipatory interest – defined negatively as an interest in the “abolition of social injustice” (ibid., 242) and positively as an interest in establishing “reasonable conditions of life” (ibid., 199). “The theory never aims simply at an increase of knowledge as such,” but at “emancipation from slavery” (1937b [1972, 246]) in the broadest sense of eliminating all forms of domination. The critique of traditional social science was further developed by Adorno and Habermas in the so-called positivism dispute in German sociology (Adorno et al. 1969, Wellmer 1969) and Horkheimer’s model of critical theory continues to inform discussions about how social critique might be carried out today in a variety of contexts (Outlaw 2005, Collins 2019, 57–65).

Nothing epitomizes the Frankfurt School’s interdisciplinary approach to analyzing irrational elements of modern society better than their studies of authoritarianism, beginning with studies of German society in the 1930s and continuing with studies of the U.S. in the 1940s. This work combined philosophy, social theory, and psychoanalytic theory with empirical research.

The first substantial foray was Studies in Authority and the Family (Horkheimer 1936b), the product of five years of research carried out by members of the Institute as part of the research agenda outlined by Horkheimer when he became director in 1930. In an essay articulating the study’s theoretical framework, Erich Fromm argued that the “drives underlying the authoritarian character” are “the pleasure of obedience, submission, and the surrender of one’s personality” along with “aggression against the defenseless and sympathy with the powerful” (Fromm 1936 [2020, 39, 41]). A main concern of the Studies was that the nuclear family had lost the power it once had to counter other socializing forces, which could now more directly influence the individual, and that individuals who view the world as governed by irrational forces submit to powerful leaders who ease their feelings of powerlessness.

The focus on authoritarianism continued into exile, with Neumann and Kirchheimer focusing more on distinctly political phenomena such as law, the state structure, and competing political groups under the Nazi regime (see Neumann 1944, Scheuerman 1996). Neumann and Kirchheimer were the main legal and political analysts of the first generation, but were outside the inner circle and less influential on the trajectory the Frankfurt School took in the 1940s (see Scheuerman 1994 and Buchstein 2020 for attempts to revive interest in their legal and political analysis).

The work on authoritarianism that the Institute is most well-known for came with the publication of The Authoritarian Personality (1950), the result of research conducted by Adorno in collaboration with a team of psychologists at the University of California, Berkeley. The aim was to identify personality types that might be susceptible to authoritarianism, based not on explicit commitments to fascist political movements but on psychological characteristics and social attitudes (measured on an “F-scale”). The researchers posited that individuals with an authoritarian personality tend to exhibit traits such as rigid conformity to conventional norms, a tendency toward stereotypical thinking, a preference for strong authority figures and disdain for perceived weakness, a preoccupation with power and status, and a propensity for prejudice and hostility towards minority groups. The book explored the link between authoritarianism and antisemitism, highlighting the role of scapegoating and the projection of repressed aggression onto targeted minority groups.

The text was published in a series edited by Horkheimer, titled Studies in Prejudice , along with other innovative studies such as Prophets of Deceit: A Study of the Techniques of the American Agitator (1949), a psychoanalytic analysis of the rhetoric and tropes of American demagogues authored by Frankfurt School member Leo Löwenthal and Norbert Guterman. If The Authoritarian Personality studied the kinds of people potentially receptive to the messages of authoritarian leaders, Prophets of Deceit studied the content of the messaging itself. Adorno would later follow up on all these themes – both the form and content of fascist agitation and the social and psychological conditions under which it can succeed (1951b, 1967a).

The Authoritarian Personality had a major impact on the field of political sociology, inspiring a wave of similar studies and commentary. The recent resurgence of authoritarian populism has inspired renewed interest in Frankfurt School analysis of authoritarianism (see Section 4.2 below) in conjunction with publication of new editions of some of the classic texts along with previously untranslated work by Kracauer on totalitarian propaganda dating from the late 1930s (Kracauer 2013 [2022]) and a 1967 lecture by Adorno on “Aspects of the New Right-Wing Extremism” (Adorno 1967a [2020]).

One point of continuity between the studies of authoritarianism and Frankfurt School cultural analysis more broadly was the idea that “mass culture” was one of the powerful forces playing an increasing role in the direct socialization of individuals, a role that led to the “disappearance of the inner life” of the individual (Horkheimer 1941) and an increasing loss of the ability to imagine a world any different than the existing one. In its various forms, this general thesis was common to Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse in their critiques of mass culture from the 1930s to the 1960s.

More generally, the Frankfurt School is known for its analysis of popular culture. By contrast to orthodox Marxist dismissal of cultural analysis for focusing on the less consequential “superstructure” of society, Frankfurt School theorists attentively analyzed the form and content of cultural objects along with the genres and modes of producing works of art and popular culture. In an early essay titled “Mass Ornament” (1927), Kracauer argued that analyzing the “inconspicuous surface-level expressions” of an epoch, by virtue of their “unconscious nature,” can disclose its “fundamental substance” and “unheeded impulses” (1927 [1975, 75]). Adorno would later maintain that “cultural criticism must become social physiognomy” (1951a [1967, 30]), a method he pursued in his interpretations of works of literature and music by interpreting the surface features and forms of various cultural artifacts in relation to underlying social conditions as a mode of disclosive critique.

The more pessimistic analysis of mass culture of Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse can be distinguished from the more optimistic views developed by Kracauer and Walter Benjamin. Benjamin posited, in his famous essay, “The Work of Art in the Age of Technological Reproducibility” (1936), that the rise of technologies for mechanical reproduction, such as photography and film, led to the decline of the “aura” surrounding traditional works of art – the “authenticity” associated with the unique presence of the original in space and time – in part because it makes no sense to talk about the “original” version of a photograph. The resulting changes in perception and modes of collective experience and participation in cultural production could, Benjamin hoped, also bring about political forms of art and a more general democratization of culture. He contrasted this emancipatory potential of mass culture, through a politicization of aesthetics, with the aestheticization of politics under fascism (Buck-Morss 1992). Adorno expressed his disagreement in an earlier letter to Benjamin and in published work (Adorno 1936, 1938). As Wellmer puts it, “in technologized mass culture, Benjamin sees elements of an antidote to the psychic destruction of society, whereas Adorno regards it above all as a medium of conformism and psychic manipulation” (1985/86 [1991, 32–33]). While Benjamin placed hope in mass culture, Adorno saw it lying in the kind of autonomous art that resists reconciling subjects to their social world, instead offering a kind of “promise of happiness” in a transfigured future that lies beyond that social world (Adorno 1970, Finlayson 2015, Gordon 2023).

The critique of mass culture took its most dramatic form in the chapter on the “culture industry” in Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (first circulated in 1944 and published in 1947). They introduced the term “culture industry” to underline the fact that “mass culture” is not something “the masses” spontaneously generate (Adorno 1967b [1991, 98]), but is manufactured using the same standardized and profit-oriented methods as any industrial production method. In this sense, culture is no longer a relatively autonomous realm of meaning (that might aim, at its best, at beauty, freedom, and truth) or source of critical awareness, but is thoroughly commodified by the “distraction factories” of the culture industry. “Cultural entities typical of the culture industry are no longer also commodities, they are commodities through and through” (ibid., 129). Entertainment replaces experience, numbing the audience’s capacity for critical thought and reconciling them to the status quo in a form of domination far more subtle than direct tyranny.

In this way, Dialectic of Enlightenment , which is perhaps the most influential text by Frankfurt School philosophers, analyzes two forms of mass society, fascist Germany and the United States, focusing primarily on the latter. Co-authored by Horkheimer and Adorno between 1939 and 1944 at the height of Nazi rule and World War II, the text opens with these lines:

Enlightenment, understood in the widest sense as the advance of thought, has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear and installing them as masters. Yet the wholly enlightened earth is radiant with triumphant calamity (1947 [2002, 1]).

The book is a genealogy of reason that traces its self-destruction from the dawn of human history to the present. Reason was supposed to liberate human beings. Instead, in the dominant form it takes as instrumental rationality, it has become the primary instrument of their domination. With reason taking this form, humans lose their capacity for critical reflection as their thinking is increasingly oriented solely toward self-preservation within a system in which they are powerless. “Thought is reified as an autonomous, automatic process, aping the machine it has itself produced, so that it can finally be replaced by the machine” (ibid., 19).

The root of the catastrophic dynamic lies not just with modernity or capitalism, but goes back to humanity’s earliest attempts to dominate nature. A core thesis of the book is that myth and enlightenment are entwined. The process of enlightenment began with the earliest attempts to overcome “mythic fear” as a way of explaining the unknown and mitigating threats from nature. This anthropological claim about enlightenment is combined with a historical claim about the Enlightenment and the rise of modern science and technology. This is when instrumental rationality truly comes to dominate, as means-end calculation is the kind of reasoning required for capitalist production and efficient bureaucracy. “Enlightenment is totalitarian” (ibid., 50), Adorno and Horkheimer argue; it subsumes everything under its dissolvent rationality. In this way, enlightenment reverts back to myth.

The book represents a shift away from the critique of political economy, indebted to Marx, to the critique of instrumental reason, indebted to Weber (Benhabib 1986, 149–163). Although this shift is sometimes attributed to the growing pessimism of its authors during National Socialism, it was also motivated by Pollock’s analysis of the shift from nineteenth-century liberal capitalism to “state capitalism”: increased intervention by the state into the economy meant that the primacy of the economy posited by Marx had been replaced by the primacy of politics (1941). This claim supported the focus in Dialectic of Enlightenment on the administered control of society by the state apparatus. The book paints a bleak picture of a society in which people live “totally administered lives” under the sway of efficient and calculating institutions. For the sake of self-preservation, they adapt themselves entirely to this apparatus. All the while the culture industry, as an “organ of mass deception,” keeps them entertained at the price of numbing their critical capacities, producing conformity, and undermining any sense of individuality or capacity for autonomy. The book also represents a shift away from the earlier idea of critical theory as interdisciplinary social theory, which could marshal the findings of empirical social science toward the practical aim of emancipation, and more toward speculative history. In the story they tell, the effects of domination are so ubiquitous that every form of scientific knowledge is corrupted.

If Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment was supposed to provide the grounds for a positive concept of enlightenment – as they maintained in its preface (1947 [2002, xviii]) – many critics have wondered what that is supposed to be (Wellmer 1983). Habermas would later argue that the authors needed to leave “at least one rational criterion intact for their explanation of the corruption of all rational criteria” in order to “set the normative foundations of critical social theory;” but they failed to do so (1985 [1987, 127–9]; see also Benhabib 1986).

Reappraisals of the text in recent decades range from defending its approach as a form of world-disclosive critique (Kompridis 2006) that reveals our familiar social world as pathological by using techniques like “rhetorical condensation” (Honneth 1998), to reading it as developing a dialectical conception of progress – not simply a history of decline – aimed at making us more aware of the inevitable entanglement of reason with power (Allen 2014, 2016), and attempts to build on the chapter on antisemitism, which analyzes its social function in providing a “release valve” that allows rage to be “vented on those who are both conspicuous and unprotected” (1947 [2002, 140]), thereby stabilizing domination by channeling potential resistance to social suffering into hatred of a group (Rabinbach 2000, Rensmann 2017).

Herbert Marcuse’s influential book One-Dimensional Man (1964) – best summarized by its subtitle, Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society – can be read as an attempt to update Dialectic of Enlightenment in the form of a diagnosis of U.S. society and its perfected mechanisms of pacification and social control, ranging from art, sexuality, and politics to philosophy and the very act of thinking. Marcuse argues that all forms of critical thought and practice, having been wholly integrated into the wasteful, dehumanizing, profit-seeking, imperialist logic of advanced capitalism, are subsumed by one-dimensional ideology, a “flattening out of the antagonism between culture and social reality” (61).

Marcuse developed his influential concept of “repressive desublimation” to explain how the manipulated need for instant gratification has sanitized any transgressive forces within the domains of sexuality and art. Prior to the rise of the “affluent society,” art contained a transcendent capacity in the sense that it thought of, engaged with, and appropriated the idea of breaking out of the world in which one lived and embodied the hope for a better one to replace it. Within late capitalism, art has lost this critical aspect and dissolved into consumer culture and technological rationality, masking the “surplus repression” that shapes human instincts and needs in line with the functional requirements of social domination and the reproduction of the status quo.

Marcuse’s work has been criticized for its totalizing diagnosis of domination, his reliance on an objectivist account of human nature and needs, and the paternalistic or even authoritarian implications that possibly result from combining these two elements (Jaeggi 2014 [2018, 104–108]). Nonetheless, it has remained an important reference point for the critique of technology (Feenberg 2023a, 2023b, Fong 2016, Ch. 5) and of false needs, and of new right-wing forms of “repressive desublimation” that affirm the status quo in a transgressive mode (Brown 2019, 165–169). Regardless of how one today assesses Marcuse’s concrete analyses, his work exemplifies a tension that all critical theories have to address between the dominating forces of one-dimensionality and the possibility of breaking free of them.

First-generation critical theorists posited various responses to their own bleak diagnoses of society from the 1940s to the 1960s. Marcuse supported rebellious social movements in the 1960s and 1970s, in contrast to other leading representatives of critical theory who kept a conspicuous distance. In One-Dimensional Man , he placed hope for overcoming the repressive, one-dimensional society in a “Great Refusal” to abide by its norms, as carried out by the “substratum of the outcasts and outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other races and other colors, the unemployed and the unemployable” (1964, 256). He later expressed solidarity with, and saw as examples of this refusal in, both the global student movement (1968, 119) and the feminist movement with its aim of overcoming dominant forms of aggressive masculinity (1974). He likewise praised counter-cultural movements for expressing sexual, moral, and political rebellion in a non-aggressive form of life that might generate a total change in values (1967). For Marcuse, emancipation involves a new morality that fulfills the vital needs for joy and happiness and encompasses an aesthetic-erotic dimension that is foreshadowed in alternative artistic tastes and new social and cultural practices. While Horkheimer and Adorno were less supportive of rebellious social movements, they did become important institutional figures and public intellectuals after their return to Germany (Müller-Doohm 2003, part IV; Demirović 2016). Adorno’s radio addresses in particular can be viewed as an attempt to educate the public for autonomy and so as a kind of response to their own bleak diagnoses of society.

But the core of Adorno’s response, from the early essay on the culture industry to his posthumously published Aesthetic Theory (1970), was to posit that “autonomous” or “authentic” art, by contrast to the products of the culture industry, maintains a utopian impulse insofar as it points beyond, and provides a moment of resistance to, the status quo. For example, atonal music by composers like Arnold Schoenberg generates dissonance in the listener by challenging the unity of the whole found in more harmonious music. Adorno maintained that such art, in challenging aesthetic norms and conventions, can provide aesthetic experiences that are resistant to the homogenizing forces of the culture industry. Critics of this turn to the aesthetic have wondered how this is supposed to provide a sound basis for a critical theory of society (Benhabib 1986, 222).

But one can argue that Adorno’s later work was an attempt to push against that kind of grounding for critical theory. The title of Adorno’s 1966 magnum opus, Negative Dialectics (1966a), refers to a methodology that takes from traditional Hegelian dialectics the emphasis on difference and mediation but abandons the attempt to overcome difference through a unifying synthesis. Instead, taking up an argument already developed in Dialectic of Enlightenment , Adorno argues that “identity thinking” and the “identity principle” have been at the basis of humanity’s destructive project of cognitive as well as practical domination of external as well as internal nature, thereby linking the philosophical to the social oppression of particularity. Adorno rejects “identity thinking” in favor of affirming the negative, namely “non-identity,” that is, the irreducible particularity of objects, experiences, and persons that cannot be subsumed under concepts.

This approach undermines the totalizing aspirations of theoretical systems in philosophy as traditionally understood. The struggle to recognize that which is nonidentical is not only an epistemological but also an ethical and political project that seeks to do justice to both the object and the subject of cognition in their irreducible individuality (Bernstein 2001). Linking epistemology and the philosophy of language to critical theory of society, this leads Adorno to reject not only Hegel’s affirmative synthesis but also Heideggerian ontology and Kantian dualism. Methodologically, Adorno explores alternative ways of thinking about how to use and develop philosophical concepts, taking up the Benjaminian notion of constellation and developing “critical models” in order to articulate the complexity of experience, and suffering, without reducing or constraining it. In Adorno’s view, negative dialectics is a form of immanent critique engaged in a dynamic and transformative process, as it “must transform the concepts which it brings, as it were, from outside into those which the object has of itself, into what the object, left to itself, seeks to be, and confront it with what it is” (Adorno 1957 [1976, 69]). In his cultural criticism and interventions in public debates, Adorno follows this paradigm by exploring how concrete experiences exemplify a form of social domination that is obscured by mass culture but also open up the possibility of transcending reified consciousness by articulating the internal contradictions within social reality.

Jürgen Habermas, who worked closely with Horkheimer and Adorno in the 1950s until he fell out of favor with Horkheimer for seeming too radical, inherited one of the central claims of the Dialectic of Enlightenment , namely that Enlightenment is inseparable from the self-critique of Enlightenment, while also insisting on the context-transcending force of reason embedded in everyday practice.

Two works from the 1960s established his status as a leading figure in the second generation: The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962) and Knowledge and Human Interests (1968b). In the former, Habermas provides a historical and conceptual reconstruction of the idea of the public sphere in which subjects recognize each other as equals, submit to the “force of the better argument,” and subject legislation to the public use of reason. Against the backdrop of its emergence in eighteenth-century European societies, Habermas identifies the internal contradictions of the public sphere under the conditions of capitalism and traces its decline under the combined pressure of mass culture and mass media that has gradually transformed a reasoning public into passive consumers – a claim consistent with the “culture industry” thesis.

Critics argued that Habermas’s historical narrative of decline presupposes highly idealized versions of public debate and a “reasoning” public – a public that has always in truth been fragmented by class, gender, and race-based domination – and neglects the political significance of a multiplicity of subaltern and non-official public spheres and counter-publics (Negt and Kluge 1972, Fraser 1990, Warner 2002, Allen 2012). Nevertheless, his critical analysis of a contemporary public of consumers as the objects of processes of de-politicization, commercialization, political manipulation, and refeudalization seems to have lost nothing of its relevance (Seeliger and Sevignani 2022). The claim that a robust and independent public sphere is crucial to a healthy democracy is central to Habermas’s later, systematic contribution to democratic theory in Between Facts and Norms (1992), and he continues to analyze recent transformations in the structures and modes of communication within the public sphere (Habermas 2006, 2021).

Habermas’s Knowledge and Human Interests (1968b) was an ambitious attempt to ground critical social theory as a form of inquiry aimed at fostering a distinct type of knowledge tied to a deep-seated human interest in emancipation. This was a return to Horkheimer’s methodological aims in “Traditional and Critical Theory” (1937), but with a novel set of arguments, such as Habermas’s claim that the method of critical theory can be illuminated by way of an analogy with psychoanalysis – “the only tangible example of a science incorporating methodological self-reflection” (1968b [1971, 124]). Like Horkheimer, Habermas was critical of the positivist understanding of science for failing to see the connection between specific kinds of inquiry and fundamental human interests. Habermas posited that both the natural sciences and the “human sciences” (interpretive social sciences and humanities) are grounded in distinct practical interests. The natural sciences are a reflective extension of “labor” (instrumental action), which is tied to the practical interest in material reproduction. The human sciences are a reflective extension of “interaction” (linguistic communication), which is tied to the practical interest in symbolic reproduction. Habermas distinguished “critique” or “reflection” as a third practice organized around the interest in emancipation, understood in terms of overcoming various forms of heteronomy, domination, and dependency.

In the early 1970s, Habermas largely abandoned this framework, based in an anthropology of knowledge, though he did continue to pursue some of its themes, and epistemological questions have remained central to his work in at least two domains: first, in his “postmetaphysical” (non-foundationalist and fallibilistic) understanding of philosophy as a form of critical reflection at the intersection between science and society (Habermas 1983a, Ch. 1) and, second, in his critique of naturalism, especially neuroscience as a form of positivism or scientism that absolutizes the observer’s perspective, thereby negating the irreducibility of the participants’ perspective and occluding the normative structure of interpersonal communication (Habermas 2005, Ch. 6).

Habermas increasingly came to the view that critical theory needed more robust social-theoretical and normative foundations, since, in his eyes, the totalizing critique of the first generation had proven to be self-undermining (1985, Ch. 5) and his own approach in Knowledge and Human Interests had conflated the reconstruction of invariant structures of communication (formal pragmatics) with the critique of the false consciousness of particular persons and societies (1973a). Habermas’s alternative path, after abandoning that methodological framework, was to focus on communicative reason in a two-volume magnum opus titled The Theory of Communicative Action (1981). By contrast with an instrumentalist understanding of reason and action, Habermas’s “communicative turn” starts from a reconstruction of the rational and normative potential of everyday interactions.

This turn involves a multidimensional paradigm shift, illustrating the theoretical ambition of Habermas’ enterprise. He develops a theory of communicative action and rationality that is anchored in everyday practices of communication, in which we raise validity claims whose normative dynamic is context-transcendent and which allow for consensus-based coordination of action. He provides a historical reconstruction of modern rationalization processes, in which social integration via authority or shared tradition has been increasingly replaced by an expanded use of communicative reason in response to the pressure to cooperate. Finally, he constructs a two-level model of society based on the distinction between “system” and “lifeworld,” claiming that the regulation of coexistence in modern societies depends on both communication oriented towards mutual understanding (“lifeworld”) and on the anonymous systems of state bureaucracy and the capitalist market (“system”).

For the methodological renewal of critical theory, Habermas’s central claim is that within complex societies, social order always has a double form: It must simultaneously be viewed as lifeworld and as system. The lifeworld can only be understood from the hermeneutic perspective of its participants while the mechanisms of systemic integration only come into view from a system-theoretical or external perspective. Critical theory needs both perspectives in order to identify distorting effects of the system on the lifeworld. Habermas famously and controversially diagnoses a “colonization of the lifeworld” by the systemic media of money and power, which impose economic and administrative rationality – the main forms of “functionalist reason” – on areas of the lifeworld whose reproduction relies on communicative processes of cultural reproduction, social integration, and socialization that cannot be subsumed under the media of money and power without generating resistance. This provides a new foundation for critical theory by updating the critique of reification in the form of a critique of systematic distortions of communication. The “critique of functionalist reason” becomes a central task for critical theory, along with the aim of diagnosing the “selective pattern” of capitalist modernization that only partially realizes the actually available potential for rationality and learning within society.

In the ensuing discussion, Habermas was accused of reifying the “system” by conceptualizing the capitalist market and the bureaucratic state as functionally necessary and supposedly norm-free systems that lie beyond the theoretical reach of critical social theory and the political reach of emancipatory politics (Honneth and Joas 1991), of idealizing the lifeworld in ways that largely ignore the domination and exploitation of women and minorities (Fraser 1985), of subscribing to a progressivist theory of modernization and history that is Eurocentric and insensitive to the continuing effects of colonial domination (Allen 2016, Ch. 2), and of underestimating how deeply power penetrates into and distorts the very heart of communicative reason (Allen 2008, Chs. 5–6).

Habermas and his followers insist that while these phenomena are real, it is only the power of communicative reason – and the public discourses and deliberations in which it manifests itself and gets institutionalized – that allows us to detect, criticize, and ultimately overcome (if only partially and temporarily) those forms of domination. Whether one agrees or not that the communicative turn enables critical theory to analyze and bring to agents’ attention the distortions that block them from addressing and overcoming obstacles to emancipation, one important legacy of Habermas’s theory can be seen in opening up space for a methodologically pluralist critical theory in response to the fundamental need to capture the perspective of both participants and observers (Bohman 2003). Some Frankfurt School theorists have also built on Habermas’s system-lifeworld distinction in maintaining that social change must be viewed from the perspective of both “evolution” and “revolution” (Brunkhorst 2002, 2014).

One dominant story told about the Frankfurt School begins with Horkheimer’s original research program in the 1930s and views Horkheimer and Adorno’s radical departure from that vision in Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947) as an intellectual dead end from which Habermas rescued the tradition and returned it to its original methodology. From this perspective, the second generation, dominated by Habermas, superseded the first (see Kompridis 2006, 255–258, for a critique of this story). An alternative story would point out that Dialectic of Enlightenment was in many ways consistent with themes first articulated by Adorno in work from the 1930s – particularly his 1931 inaugural lecture, heavily inspired by Benjamin – that ultimately came to fruition in Negative Dialectics (1966a). To complicate matters in another way, while collaborating on Dialectic of Enlightenment in the 1940s Adorno also contributed to the interdisciplinary collaboration that culminated in The Authoritarian Personality (1950), a product of Horkheimer’s original vision for critical theory that combined social theory with empirical research.

Rather than viewing the second generation solely in terms of Habermas overcoming deficits in the first, this alternative story recognizes that there have always been multiple models and styles of critical theory operating simultaneously within the tradition ​​and that Adorno was heavily influenced by Benjamin prior to collaborating with Horkheimer (Buck-Morss 1977, Wolin 1994, 166, 265–274). Moreover, Adorno’s influence is evident in work by figures in the second generation such as Albrecht Wellmer (1933–2018), who used Adorno’s work as a basis for challenging Habermas’s approach (Wellmer 1985/86, 1993) and was far more sympathetic with post-structuralism than Habermas – also true of Wellmer’s students in the third generation, Christoph Menke (1988, 2000) and Martin Seel. Adorno scholars have defended his work directly against Habermas’s criticisms (Cook 2004, O’Connor 2004: 165–170), and critical theorists continue to defend Adorno’s approach to critical theory (Allen 2016, 2021, 175–183, Marasco 2015, Ch. 3).

To complicate the story further, Benjamin’s work has had an enormous influence on work by a variety of critical theorists, though his wider influence had to wait until Adorno collected Benjamin’s essays for a German audience in 1955 and Hannah Arendt edited them for English readers in 1968. There have been significant studies of Benjamin’s work by scholars working within the Frankfurt School tradition (see Buck-Morss 1989 and Pensky 1993), while many critical theorists beyond the Frankfurt School have engaged Benjamin’s critique of linear notions of progress, and the ways in which they fail to break with the catastrophic continuity of the present (Benjamin 1940, see Löwy 2001), as well as his analysis of the constitutive relation between law and violence (Benjamin 1920/21; see the recently published critical edition, 2021), to mention only Jacques Derrida’s “Force of Law” (1990), Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer (1995), and Judith Butler’s Parting Ways (2012) (see also Loick 2012).

Methodological debates within the Frankfurt School focus not only on the legacy of first-generation theorists but also on Habermas’s earlier work, with some arguing that Knowledge and Human Interests is worth revisiting because it was more attuned than his subsequent work to the dynamics of power and domination, making it more apt for addressing oppression based on gender (Allen 2008) or race (McCarthy 2004), or for developing a more comprehensive critical theory of domination (Klein 2020). Honneth (2017) has recently taken Habermas’s text as a jumping off point for refocusing critical theory on the task of elaborating the relation between emancipatory interests and emancipatory knowledge. Honneth nonetheless maintains that Habermas’s use of the methodology of psychoanalysis as a model for emancipatory critique is not apt, while others argue that it is still in many ways productive (Celikates 2009 [2018, 137–157]; see Allen 2021, Ch. 5 for a critique of Habermas, Honneth, and Celikates).

The latter debate is part of the resurging interest in psychoanalysis by some theorists working in the Frankfurt School tradition. Habermas’s own engagement with Freud and psychoanalysis in Knowledge and Human Interests was largely methodological in contrast to the substantive use of Freudian ideas by the first generation (in their analysis of the entanglement of reason and repression and the concrete forces of fascism and antisemitism), and Habermas (1983a) subsequently abandoned psychoanalytic theory entirely in favor of engagement with developmental psychologists like Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg. In developing his theory of recognition, Honneth (1992, Ch. 5) returned to psychoanalysis in the form of object relations theory, primarily in the work of Donald Winnicott, arguing that the experience of fusion and symbiosis that characterizes the early infant-mother relationship is foundational in two ways: It serves as the template for the type of recognition Honneth calls “love” and explains why individuals and groups continue to experience existing relations of recognition – that necessarily fall short of fusion and symbiosis – as unsatisfactory and continue to struggle for recognition. While Honneth’s use of Winnicott is controversial (McAfee 2019, Ch. 2; Whitebook 2021, Deranty 2021), recent debates have more generally focused on how to take up object relations within critical theory (Allen and O’Connor 2019). As a result, the divide now seems to be primarily between those who focus on the pro-social implications of psychoanalytic theory (Honneth 2010, Part IV) and those who also stress asocial or antisocial forces of Freud’s drive theory in general and the death drive in particular in order to avoid what they see as the risk of over-idealization and romanticization built into Honneth’s way of integrating psychoanalysis into his theory of recognition (Allen 2021, Ch. 5). Those critics advocate returning to the more negativistic approaches familiar from first-generation critical theorists (Fong 2016, McAfee 2019, Allen 2021).

Honneth’s return to the question of struggles oriented by emancipatory interests (2017) hearkens back to a shift that began in the 1980s, when a significant strand of Frankfurt School critical theory, including Honneth’s early work (1985), aimed at recovering the connection between theory and practice by linking the development of theory itself to social conflicts and movements. Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge’s Public Sphere and Experience (1972) is an early example of a critique of the bourgeois (i.e. hegemonic) public sphere that invokes proletarian or plebeian non-state forms of the public and the divergent critical experiences they articulate as alternative sources of normativity, while also identifying blockages they face in the form of the “consciousness industry” and the pacification of social conflicts through “pseudo-publics.”

In a more explicit vein, Nancy Fraser contributed to the feminist turn in Frankfurt School critical theory – for which the work of Seyla Benhabib, Jean Cohen, and Amy Allen has also been decisive – in echoing Marx by arguing that critical theory should frame its “research program and its conceptual framework with an eye to the aims and activities of those oppositional social movements with which it has a partisan, though not uncritical, identification” (Fraser 1985, 97), and that the Frankfurt School in general and Habermas in particular had failed to theorize one of the most significant struggles against domination: the feminist movement (see §4.1.1 ).

Honneth has also sought to systematically reconstruct the link between theory development and struggles by taking experiences of misrecognition that lead to social struggles for recognition as a pre-theoretical reference point (1992). Drawing on a wide range of philosophical work, psychological and psychoanalytic accounts of identity-formation, and sociological and historical accounts of social movements struggling for recognition, Honneth has developed a theory of recognition that is the most prominent alternative paradigm, within Habermasian critical theory broadly construed, to Habermas’s theory of communicative action (Honneth 2000, Zurn 2015). Honneth maintains Habermas’s focus on intersubjectivity, but instead of linguistic practice and the ideal of “undistorted communication,” he focuses on relations of mutual recognition and the ideal of “undistorted recognition,” which then serve as the basis for the critique of “social pathologies” that he considers central to the project of critical theory (Honneth 2004).

In short, the Frankfurt School of critical theory is today constituted by lively debates, discussed more below, about how to deploy various critical methods ( Section 2 ) and concepts ( Section 3 ) while remaining attuned to social struggles and crises ( Section 4 ) and positioning itself in relation to critical theories developed out of other traditions.

2. Critical Methods

Frankfurt School critical theory is best characterized by a set of methodological aspirations that set it apart from many other forms of social and political theorizing (both in philosophy and the social sciences): It aspires to be (1) self-reflexive , accounting for its own embeddedness in specific social and historical conditions, (2) interdisciplinary , integrating philosophical analysis with social theory and empirical social research, (3) materialist , grounding critical theorizing in social reality, and (4) emancipatory , orienting itself toward the goal of social emancipation. These commitments situate the Frankfurt School firmly in the Marxist tradition, and that tradition’s aim of overcoming the division between theory and practice without uncritically subsuming one under the other.

This has given rise to three interrelated methodological challenges: how to conceptualize (1) the relation of theory to social reality, (2) the role and standpoint of critical theorists, and (3) the normative foundations, content, or force of their critical theorizing. In light of historical developments in the first half of the twentieth century – the rise of fascism and Stalinism and the integration of the working class into the liberal welfare state – Frankfurt School theorists lost confidence in an identifiable direction of history or an identifiable collective subject like the proletariat to lead the way. It became increasingly unclear how to uphold a link between their theories and a pre-theoretical anchor within social reality – such as oppositional experiences, forms of consciousness, practices of resistance, or social struggles and movements – or even to see how the conditions for any of those things to emerge were present at all.

Against this backdrop, this section first sketches the common ground most Frankfurt School theorists find in the approach of immanent critique ( §2.1 ) before tracing the various ways in which they have sought normative foundations ( §2.2 ) in a more or less constructive or reconstructive ( §2.3 ) register, then turns to methods such as disclosive and genealogical critique that are critical of those normative approaches ( §2.4 ), and concludes by outlining a set of methodological challenges that shape contemporary debates ( §2.5 ).

In responding to the three-pronged methodological challenge of relating theory to social reality, reflecting on the standpoint of critique, and spelling out its normativity, Frankfurt School critical theory moves beyond the usual juxtaposition between internal and external critique. Frankfurt School theorists rely on a third model of critique, which builds on Hegel and Marx and is often understood as immanent or reconstructive. Critique proceeds immanently or reconstructively when it seeks to secure its normative resources and epistemic standpoint from the (often implicit) normative structures and epistemic possibilities of the practices and self‐understandings that are constitutive of the (type of) society in question. Immanent critique avoids the dichotomy between an internal critique that refers to standards and standpoints that are already recognized by those criticized and an external critique that refers to standards and standpoints that are not (or not yet) recognized and therefore have to be derived independently from the agents’ perspective and their social context (see Jaeggi 2005, 2014, Celikates 2009, Stahl 2013a). Critical theory understood in this way is both grounded in social reality as it exists and emancipatory in seeking to radically transform this reality.

The critique of ideology can both serve as a paradigmatic example of immanent critique in this sense and illustrate some of the challenges this model faces (Ng 2015). Ideology critique is immanent insofar as it starts from the contradictions of a social and ideological constellation and the experience of those affected, which is shaped by these contradictions. It does not criticize an ideological form of consciousness because it is immoral or unethical, but because of its epistemic, functional, and genetic features, i.e. for being false or distorted, for contributing to the reproduction of relations of domination, and for arising from within such relations in ways that are relatively immune to self-reflection. Consequently, the critique of ideology does not focus primarily on the injustice or domination found in society, but on the forms of consciousness, culture, practice, habit, and affect that make this injustice or domination seem natural or unavoidable (Jaeggi 2008). On this view, any critical theory that aims at emancipation must first aim at diagnosing and overcoming those obstacles that keep agents from fully experiencing, critically reflecting on, and collectively acting against the unjust and dominating conditions under which they live. The question is how critical theorists can do so without falling back into epistemologically and politically problematic distinctions between false and true consciousness, between ideology and scientific insight, and between true (“objective”) and false (“purely subjective”) interests and needs (Celikates 2006; see Section 3.3 below).

These challenges are among the many challenges critical theorists face in developing an immanent critique that is linked to social reality and practice, a link that comes out in two ways. First, theory is anchored in social reality in terms of its genesis, as it is shaped by the social context from which it emerges. Second, theory aims at a practice that transforms social reality. This dual commitment to linking theory and practice is spelled out in two rather different ways, both in the history of the Frankfurt School and in contemporary discussions. One way of anchoring theory in social reality – call it the crisis approach – starts with social contradictions, antagonisms, and crises, along with the practical challenges and conflicts that result, and maintains that identifying those conflicts requires socio-theoretical analysis and sociological research (Jaeggi 2017a, Fraser and Jaeggi 2018). A second way of anchoring theory in social reality – call it the struggles approach – takes social struggles and movements and the practices of critique and resistance of oppressed groups as its starting point. This approach incorporates alternative standpoints and counter-hegemonic epistemologies into its theorizing with the aim of countering the potentially disempowering and anti-emancipatory effects that arise when critical theorists view crises mainly in terms of structural contradictions while ignoring or underestimating the ways that social and political movements themselves can produce and intensify crises (Collins 2019, Celikates 2022).

While this distinction between crisis and struggle is useful for heuristic purposes, it should not be overstated. Most critical theorists share a commitment to the emancipatory role of theory as well as an immanent anchoring of theory in social reality, whether qua crises or struggles. The distinction is a matter of degree and starting points, and it is usually agreed that crises and struggles stand in need of mutual articulation (see Benhabib 1986, 123–133, and Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 below).

Horkheimer maintained that a critical theory should not have an external relation to, but must enter into a “dynamic unity” with, practice, so that it is “not merely an expression of the concrete historical situation but also a force within it to stimulate change” (1937a [1972: 215], see also Marcuse 1937, Horkheimer 1937b). But under social conditions that neutralize social struggles or turn them into regressive backlash movements, the “dynamic unity” envisaged by Horkheimer can appear foreclosed. Even for Adorno, whose diagnosis of the “totally administered world” is the most radical example of this foreclosure, however, it would be a mistake to conceptualize existing society as a perfectly closed, monolithic, and functionally integrated self-reproducing totality. Rather, even when society is viewed as a totality, it has to be understood not in terms of homogeneity or frozen stability but in terms of structural antagonisms (Adorno 1957 [1976, 77]), conflict, and process (Adorno 1966b), i.e. as riddled with contradictions that, at least in principle, allow for forms of oppositional experience, consciousness, or practice that a critical theory can build on. In one of his last texts written shortly before his death, Adorno concludes that “critical theory is not aiming at totality, but criticizes it. This also means, however, that it is, in its substance, anti-totalitarian, with the utmost political determination” (Adorno 1969a; our translation). Even – or especially – in the face of the closure of political space, the political significance of a critical theory can consist in safeguarding the link between theory and the possibility of a radically different practice. At the same time, this defense of the relation to practice needs to be complemented by a defense of theory in the face of what Adorno identified as an “actionist” and anti-theoretical ideology of “pseudo-activity” in arguing that “praxis without theory, lagging behind the most advanced state of cognition, cannot but fail, and praxis, in keeping with its own concept, would like to succeed” (Adorno 1969b [1998, 265]).

Despite this more nuanced reading of Adorno on the relation between theory and practice, the broader diagnosis – put forth in different guises by Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse – that social integration, the pacification of class conflict, and the internalization of conformist attitudes had robbed critical theory of any pre-theoretical anchor, provides an important background for Habermas’s break with the first generation. That break concerns not only their “pessimism,” but the basic methodological and substantial premises of their theories. In Habermas’s view, the first generation had navigated themselves into a dead end with their totalizing diagnosis of an all-encompassing state of delusion dominated by instrumental rationality. In response, and in order to provide firm normative foundations for critical theory, Habermas advocates a “communicative turn,” reformulating social critique in terms of a critique of the conditions of communication and grounding it in the normative content presupposed within the practice of linguistically mediated social interaction and argumentation.

This element of normative validity – as opposed to merely factual social validity that is forced, imposed, or presupposed – is elaborated in Habermas’s discourse theory, originally referred to as “discourse ethics” (Habermas 1983a, Ch. 4) but later evolving into a differentiated approach that distinguishes between ethical and moral norms (Habermas 1991) and a discourse theory of law and democracy (Habermas 1992). At the heart of discourse theory is a principle of discursive justification that Habermas refers to as the “discourse principle” or “D,” which states: “just those norms of action are valid if all persons affected could agree as participants in rational discourse” (Habermas 1992 [1996, 107]). He further specifies discourse theory with a universalization principle (“U”) that is operative when arguing about moral norms, and a democratic principle that is operative when attempting to justify legal norms within a democratic society. Habermas does not naively suggest that actually existing discourses correspond to these ideals, but maintains that in those discourses participants necessarily make idealizing presuppositions that can then be used to identify and criticize the shortcomings of actual discourse as distorted by interests, power relations, and ideologies.

As a response to the challenges of immanent critique outlined above, Habermas’s work can be understood in terms of a “dialectics of immanence and transcendence” (Cooke 2006, Ch. 3). Habermas maintains the need to situate reason historically and within social reality – the largely Hegelian, pragmatist, or reconstructive element of his thought. But the idealizations that are immanent in our linguistic practices point toward context-transcending validity claims that must be defended in a discursive procedure – the Kantian or constructivist element in his thought. Habermas now refers to his attempt to “de-transcendentalize Kant” as a form of “Kantian pragmatism” (Habermas 1999; see also Bernstein 2010, Ch. 8; Baynes 2016, Ch. 4; Flynn 2014b).

Some interpretations of Habermas stress that his theory of communicative action is still a form of immanent critique (Finlayson 2007, Stahl 2013b) while others object to his increasingly Kantian focus on moral norms (Heath 2014). To provide empirical confirmation of his rational reconstruction of the “moral point of view,” further situating it within social reality, Habermas drew on Kohlberg’s developmental moral psychology, itself decidedly Kantian in its defining the highest stage of moral development in terms of the ability to make universalizable moral judgements (Habermas 1983a, Ch. 4; for a critique, see Benhabib 1992, Chs. 5–6, which, drawing on Carol Gilligan’s critique of Kohlberg, distinguishes a “generalized other” from a “concrete other” whose experience cannot be accounted for by abstract conceptions of the moral standpoint).

Habermas’s shift toward a Kantian position is particularly evident in the Rawls-Habermas debate (Habermas 1995a, Rawls 1995, Habermas 1996), widely viewed as a “family quarrel” among two Kantian political philosophers. In his early work on discourse ethics, Habermas compared his own principle (U) to Rawls’s “original position,” arguing that his approach was the better way to “operationalize” the moral point of view as a form of moral constructivism that tests moral norms in a discursive procedure posited as a dialogical alternative to Kant’s categorical imperative (Habermas 1991). The debate shifted in the 1990s with their contributions to legal-political constructivism: Rawls’s Political Liberalism (1993) and Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms (1992), in which he provides a rational reconstruction of the institutions of constitutional democracy. In that context, Habermas argues that Rawls’s approach is not transcendent enough, since in Habermas’s view Rawls reduces normative validity to the notion of reasonableness immanent within liberal democratic societies (for the implications of their debate for multiple issues in moral and political philosophy, see Hedrick 2010, Baynes 2016, Chs. 6–7, and Finlayson 2019).

Habermas’s Kantian turn also came to the fore when extending his work in a cosmopolitan or “post-national” direction (beginning with Habermas 1995b), even if he has continued to combine a Kantian approach to justifying universal norms with a wide-ranging analysis of the empirical phenomena of globalization (1998). This combination of normative and empirical theorizing, a hallmark of the Frankfurt School, is present in a range of work by other critical theorists addressing global issues (Ingram 2019, Ibsen 2023), from the challenge of disaggregating citizenship from the nation-state (Benhabib 2004) to transnationalizing the public sphere (Fraser et al. 2014), and theorizing new forms of transnational democracy (Bohman 2007). Rather than simply defending abstract cosmopolitan norms, such approaches typically aim at some form of critical cosmopolitanism (Milstein 2015), with some stressing the crucial role of political contestation of allegedly universal norms “from below” (J. Ingram 2013) or of concrete struggles for rights as part of a broadly construed intercultural dialogue on human rights (Flynn 2014a).

In light of Habermas’s turn to Kant, a significant focus of debate among Habermasians and interpreters of Habermas has been the status of idealizing presuppositions and the ultimate status of the principles of justification within discourse theory. Defenders of discourse theory can be divided up into those who focus more on immanence – pointing in a Hegelian, pragmatist, contextualist, or reconstructive direction – and those who focus more on transcendence – pointing in a Kantian or constructivist direction. Among the former, some argue, echoing Hegel’s critique of Kant, that Habermas should situate reason more thoroughly within its social and historical context in order to avoid an overly rationalistic, abstract, or gendered approach (Benhabib 1986, 1992), while others have argued for Habermas to embrace a more pragmatist (McCarthy 1991, Bernstein 2010) or contextualist approach (Rorty 1985, Allen 2008, Ch. 6). Habermas’s most recent work (2019) attempts a kind of middle path, going in a decidedly historical direction by tracing the provincial, European origins of his “post-metaphysical” mode of theorizing as a preparatory stage to a fully inclusive, global intercultural dialogue as the way to establish its universal validity in a world characterized by “multiple modernities” (see Forst 2021b, Chambers 2022, and Flynn 2022 for critical assessments).

Those who have taken discourse theory in a more Kantian or transcendental direction include Habermas’s long-time interlocutor Karl Otto-Apel, who argued that the dynamic of universal validity claims in practices of argumentation transcendentally presupposes an ideal communication community from which universal normative foundations for the assessment of discourses can be derived (Apel 1985). Apel maintained that grounding reason, and thereby critique, requires a more transcendental justification (or “ultimate grounding”) than Habermas has provided (Apel 1989; see Habermas’s most recent reply to Apel in 2005, Ch. 3).

More recently, Rainer Forst has embraced Kantian constructivism in positing that every human being has a “right to justification,” a right to demand reciprocal and general reasons for the practices, institutions, and structures that affect them (Forst 2007). Forst views moral and political constructivism as distinct, but integrated stages. While the task of moral constructivism is to construct a list of basic moral rights that cannot be reasonably rejected, those abstract rights must be given concrete content by citizens in a process of political constructivism. He maintains that his approach is immanent insofar as the right to justification is “recursively grounded” by reconstructing the validity claims implicit in all morally justified claims, while maintaining a moment of transcendence since the right to justification can be justifiably claimed in any context. Forst views this as the normative core of a critical theory that understands society as an ensemble of practices of justification. In that sense, the concept of justification is both descriptive (referring to actual arguments given within a particular social order) and normative (referring to reasons that could or should be accepted), and Forst maintains both perspectives are needed for a critique of existing justification narratives and relations of justification (see the Introductions to Forst 2011 and 2021a).

Various critics of Habermas have argued that his normative turn and shift to Kant risks transforming critical theory into something that looks increasingly like a liberal theory of justice. They posit alternative approaches such as reconstructive, disclosive, and genealogical critique that also return to questions and arguments developed by the first generation.

Those who subscribe to the model of reconstructive critique emphasize the downsides of uncoupling normative argument from social analysis and social theory. In Axel Honneth’s work, this shift takes two forms. In his earlier work (1992), he argues that the relatively narrow rationalist focus on communicative reason occludes more fundamental and often prelinguistic experiences and intersubjective relations that give rise to struggles for recognition and that his Hegel-inspired theory is better able to articulate, thus reestablishing the link between theory and social reality in more substantial ways. Relatedly, Honneth insists that critical theory can be distinguished from other normative enterprises by its reference to “the pretheoretical resource in which its own critical viewpoint is anchored extra-theoretically as an empirical interest or moral experience” (Honneth 1994 [2007, 63–64]).

Expanding on this earlier commitment, in his later work Honneth argues against the division of theoretical labor in which (constructivist) philosophy engages in normative theorizing while empirical sociology investigates our social reality (2011). By contrast, he undertakes a “normative reconstruction” of how modern society – its legal, moral, political as well as social and economic practices and institutions – came to be centered around individual freedom as the highest value of this cultural formation. Honneth wants to show that we can only gain an adequate theoretical understanding of, and critical perspective on, modern society if we analyze its different social spheres as attempts to institutionalize the value of freedom. In contrast to both revolutionary and conservative approaches, he wants to show that the structure of this institutionalization allows for a progressive realization of the value of freedom as social actors appeal to the constitutive idea of freedom to challenge the concrete forms of unfreedom that remain characteristic of our social reality.

Similar to Honneth methodologically, Rahel Jaeggi argues, in her reconstructive approach to the critique of forms of life, that bracketing the question of how to rationally evaluate and criticize forms of life as a whole, as Rawlsians do in the name of liberal neutrality and Habermasians in the name of “ethical abstinence,” ends up hindering precisely the kind of experimental learning processes that are crucial for forms of life to remain dynamic and avoid stagnation and failure (2014 [2018, 9–24, 318–319]). But Jaeggi places a greater emphasis on contradictions, crises, and conflicts than the later Honneth (see also Schaub 2015).

The approaches of both Honneth and Jaeggi exemplify a conception of immanent critique that closely links analysis and critique, issuing in a critique that is neither a mere description of what exists nor a normative demand imposed on what exists from the outside. Accordingly, it does not proceed in a free-standing, normative way, but relies on a specific combination of philosophical reflection and social-theoretical as well as empirical research that is grounded in social developments and crises and actual social experiences and self-understandings. This methodological reorientation has also led to a more substantial engagement with questions of the economy and the sphere of work, both from a more Durkheim-inspired (Honneth 2022, 2023, Celikates, Honneth, and Jaeggi 2023) and a more Marx-inspired (Fraser 2022) position that has also resulted in a fundamental (non-reformist) critique of capitalism (Fraser and Jaeggi 2018).

While these approaches seek to develop a socially grounded form of normativity, critics argue that they are still too idealizing in their understanding of social reality and its historical genesis, as well as too normative in their methods from the point of view of yet another model of critique, which has been called disclosive or genealogical.

Disclosive critique typically takes its cue from Adorno (and sometimes other theoretical sources from Heidegger to contemporary aesthetics), moving beyond the dichotomy between literary world-disclosure and philosophical reason-giving or the quest for normative foundations. On this view, critique has the task of revealing the world in a new and different light, disclosing unrecognized suffering and intricate forms of domination that are not only occluded by dominant ideologies but also shape the norms that emanate from that order in ways that escape more strongly normative versions of immanent critique that build on them. Dialectic of Enlightenment can be read as an exercise in disclosive critique that seeks to defamiliarize the social world for its readers and thereby break open their unquestioned acceptance of how things appear to them (Honneth 1998).

This negative orientation of disclosive critique can be complemented by a more positive one, in which what is disclosed also involves potentialities and horizons that have no space or way to articulate themselves within the existing social and normative order. Walter Benjamin’s writings on the radical potential of mass culture or Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble (1990) can be seen as examples of disclosive critique that involve both the disruption of established and the experimental opening up of new experiences and schemas (Vogelmann 2016).

Some critical theorists attempt to integrate a more positive idea of disclosure into critical theory while maintaining that this is not at odds with expanded conceptions or normativity. Some draw on Heidegger to develop an account of world-disclosive critique that rethinks reason and agency, stressing receptivity and “self-decentering” as an alternative model to Habermas’s focus on procedural reason (Kompridis 2006). Others stress that while disclosure can and must be subject to intersubjective validation through argumentation, critical theory must have recourse to the disclosive power of imagination, which is revealed in the force of exemplarity (Ferrara 2008), in focusing attention on the aesthetic dimension of narratives that social movements use to imagine alternative possibilities (Lara 1998, 2021), or in the way that powerful representations of the good society function to disclose a transcendent object that cannot be fully known or represented but can nonetheless provide ethical orientation (Cooke 2006). In a variety of different ways, these approaches attempt to maintain the utopian dimension of critique (Marcuse 1937).

Genealogical critique, by contrast, can be seen as a form of disclosive critique that is more focused on problematizing, unmasking, and disrupting (Saar 2002, Koopman 2013). Given its association with Nietzsche and Foucault, it also has a distinct trajectory, set of methodological commitments, and theoretical implications. Taking aim at social practices, self-understandings, identities and normative commitments that are seen as natural or accepted as given, genealogical critique traces their historical emergence, highlighting their contingency and denaturalizing them with the aim of opening up the possibility of thinking and acting differently. From this perspective, the search for normative foundations is misguided as it both underestimates how normativity is shaped by unacknowledged histories and power relations and overestimates the transformative power of a normative critique that appeals to reason alone. Genealogical critique, by contrast, seeks to destabilize and decenter the subject and its fundamental commitments (Owen 2002, Hoy and McCarthy 1994; for a version of this claim that builds on psychoanalytic theory, see Allen 2021, Ch. 5).

While earlier engagements with genealogical critique, especially Foucault’s, were marked by criticisms of his supposed rejection of all normative and rational standards, lack of social theorizing, and relativism (Habermas 1985, Chs. IX–X, Fraser 1981, Dews 1987), more recently critical theorists have sought to emphasize the potential convergence and mutual illumination of genealogy and Frankfurt School critical theory in providing an analysis of the workings of contemporary forms of power and domination (Allen 2008, Koopman 2013, Ch. 7, Saar 2018). At the same time, a recent debate between Forst and Wendy Brown exemplifies how the earlier split between Habermas and Foucault is rearticulated today, with Forst taking a broadly Habermasian position in arguing that his “respect conception of tolerance” manages to safeguard the autonomy of individuals by grounding toleration in the right to justification, and Brown insisting, with Foucault, on the normalizing, disciplining, and depoliticizing effects of liberal discourses of toleration that ultimately obfuscate the complex operations of social power (Brown and Forst 2014, see also Vogelmann 2021).

A genealogical orientation also characterizes postcolonial critiques of Frankfurt School critical theory that point out the lack of explicit and sustained engagement with European colonialism and imperialism and its legacies, including contemporary forms of racism, and the ways in which these have enabled and shaped the processes of “modernization” and thus the formation of “modern”’ societies, subjects, and forms of knowledge and rationality, all of which critical theorists purport to investigate critically (see §4.1.3 below).

Exponents of genealogical critique and struggle-centered approaches problematize forms of immanent or reconstructive critique that take institutional achievements as their starting point, challenging them by excavating the histories of domination and repression, as well as struggles, that have constituted these institutions and continue to shape their functioning. This gives rise to numerous challenges that continue to animate methodological debates in critical theory: (1) how (or even whether) to defend the putative normative achievements of liberal democracies, and if those are to be defended as achievements, then (2) how to theorize about the relation between struggles, crises, and institutional achievements, in contexts that may involve either (3) an absence of struggles, or (4), the opposite problem, a proliferation and fragmentation of struggles:

From the perspective of genealogical and post-colonial critique, the commitment to the institutions of the modern liberal nation-state (Habermas 1992, Honneth 2011) relies on an idealizing view of the history and present of this political formation that ignores, or treats as historically contingent and philosophically inconsequential, the forms of domination and exclusion that have accompanied it. At a time when the putative institutional achievements of liberal democracies – such as the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, the integrity of elections, or the protection of fundamental rights, especially for minorities – have come under attack from right-wing and neo-authoritarian movements and governments, the question is how critical theorists can defend the normative achievements of the existing order despite its systemic shortcomings. Offering a more radical challenge, some critical race theorists and post-colonial critics argue that those shortcomings reveal that what were thought to be normative achievements were historically premised on, and continue to functionally presuppose, domination and exclusion both at a societal and global level (see §4.1.2 and §4.1.3 below). On a methodological level, this involves the challenge of revising or going beyond the normative and sociological categories of critical theory that seem, at least in part, to be tied to a specifically Western experience.

Many critical theorists who accept the claim that these are normative achievements insist that a more complex view of the relation between institutions, struggles, and crises is necessary. As mentioned above, an alternative strand within critical theory that reaches from Negt and Kluge’s recovery of proletarian counterpublics through Fraser’s theorization of feminist movements to current attempts to reconnect critical theory with the struggles of our age, has insisted that abstracting from collective movements and struggles and relocating the emancipatory potential in the normative achievements of the existing institutional order risks underestimating how institutional dynamics, the inherent crisis tendencies of (more or less) liberal democracies, and social struggles are inextricably intertwined. Beyond a merely historical and social-theoretical point, how this question is answered will also affect how to conceptualize the role of emancipatory as opposed to regressive struggles in the face of the new authoritarianism (see §4.2.3 below).

More abstractly, critical theorists must account for situations in which there seem to be no struggles or forms of critical consciousness to latch onto, or only highly constrained forms of them. How can a critical theory respond to a situation in which domination is more or less total and has managed to suppress any critical consciousness and practice? Some of Marcuse’s descriptions of contemporary society come closest to this scenario. One might respond that “a society of happy slaves, genuinely content with their chains,” a society in which domination is experienced not as domination but as freedom, might be the critical theorists’ nightmare, but it “is a nightmare, not a realistic view of a state of society which is at present possible” (Geuss 1981, 83–84). Nevertheless, the challenge points to a dilemma critical theorists need to navigate. On the one hand, a critical theory requires a starting point in the forms of consciousness, experience, and practice of its addressees, but, on the other hand, critical theory should respond to and address distortions and blockages of precisely these forms of consciousness, experience, and practice. While these distortions and blockages will in most cases turn out to be partial rather than total and thus allow for some form of problematization to emerge (Celikates 2009, Part III), it seems equally important to not simply tie a critical theory to already existing social movements and thus to “goals that have already been publicly articulated” since this “neglects the everyday, still unthematized, but no less pressing embryonic form of social misery and moral injustice” (Honneth 2003, 114; see also Renault 2004, 2008).

The opposite problem can arise when critical theorists diagnose a proliferation of social struggles and lines of conflict beyond the classic antagonism of labor and capital. After the demise of the kind of philosophy of history that identified the proletariat as the revolutionary subject and the workers’ movement as the emancipatory force to which critical theory could and should attach itself, it has become unclear how critical theorists can determine with which of the different emancipatory movements of their day to enter into the kind of alliance envisaged by Marx and Horkheimer and which “forms of existing social critique” or “experiences of injustice” to pick up on. This difficulty is not only due to the plurality – or intersectionality – of movements, practices of critique, and experiences of injustice, but also due to the fact that struggles are often far from perfectly aligned and can operate at cross-purposes, with regard to both their aims and their methods. In answering this challenge, critical theorists can neither simply deduce the “correct” struggle from some overarching laws of historical development (the pole of determinism), nor claim that theorists simply have to decide which struggle or movement to link their theory to (the pole of voluntarism).

Insofar as critical theory is committed to immanent critique, focusing on the internal contradictions and crises of a specific social order and the struggles and movements that arise from within it, these challenges cannot be easily resolved. Rather than seeking to resolve them at an abstract level, they could instead be viewed as opening up a field of tensions that critical theorists need to navigate within the specific constellation they find themselves in. While critical theory needs to be anchored in actually existing forms of theoretical as well as practical critique, in the social struggles that people actually engage in, it also has the task of articulating the experiences of those who are blocked from engaging in struggles of their own and of contributing to the further theoretical articulation of existing struggles. At times, critical theory may need “to push beyond the ‘subjective’ elements of struggle and languages of claims-making to the more ‘objective’ dimensions of contradictions and crises, which turn more on the dynamics of systemic elements operating independently of whether or not people actually thematize them via struggle” (Fraser and Jaeggi 2018, 11), without losing sight of the epistemic and political risks this involves.

In addressing these risks, one way forward has been to embrace methodological pluralism and to understand critical theory less as a comprehensive social theory and more as a critical practice, as something critics do (Bohman 2003, Kompridis 2006, Celikates 2019a). This approach can more systematically incorporate alternative standpoints and epistemologies and the practices of epistemic resistance they are tied to, and more easily build on other traditions and paradigms of critical theory, such as feminist, anti-colonial, and anti-racist struggles and theorizing (Mills 1988, Collins 1990, 2019, Medina 2013, Loick 2021, Celikates 2022; see Section 4.1 below). Anchoring the perspective of critical theory within the social struggles and epistemic standpoints of the oppressed can serve as a counterweight – in the sense of “reflexive accountability” (Collins 2019) – to the tendency of actually existing critical theories to set in motion a disempowering spiral of epistemic asymmetries that denies the existence of theoretically sophisticated practices of critique and resistance on the ground and thereby reproduces existing obstacles to equal participation in knowledge production and to radical social transformation. On this view, critical theorizing is itself a social practice that recognizes its addressees as equal partners in a dialogical struggle for appropriate interpretations and realization of transformative potentials that is informed by social theory and sociological research. As such, it can make use of a variety of critical methods – reconstructive, constructive, disclosive, or genealogical (Freyenhagen 2018) – that are not easily subsumed under one unified metatheoretical framework, even if they can be seen as various attempts to spell out the idea of a critical theory as self-reflexive, interdisciplinary, materialist, and emancipatory.

3. Critical Concepts

The basic concepts of Frankfurt School critical theory – such as alienation, reification, ideology, but also emancipation – are expressive of the specific methodology, or set of methodologies, that critical theorists in this tradition employ. As explained in the previous section, critical theory in this tradition proceeds in an immanent way, and this implies that its concepts are both developed from within a certain social constellation and seek to go beyond the self-understanding characteristic of this constellation, they are both descriptive and evaluative, and they exemplify the unity of analysis and critique inherited from Marx. While some concepts are primarily “anticipatory-utopian” (like emancipation) and others primarily “explanatory-diagnostic” (like alienation, reification, and ideology, as obstacles to emancipation) (Benhabib 1986), they are all “thick concepts” whose descriptive content is irreducibly social-theoretically as well as evaluatively loaded.

In addition, some of the critical concepts developed by Frankfurt School authors – again alienation, reification and ideology are the clearest examples – point to second-order phenomena. In contrast to substantial first-order injustices, these concepts seek to critically diagnose what happens when unjust (or exploitative or oppressive) social relations are not experienced as unjust (or exploitative or oppressive) but are accepted as legitimate or natural, or if they are intuitively experienced but not explicitly recognized as such, or recognized but not adequately interpreted and articulated. These concepts pick out social phenomena that are often ignored by more mainstream approaches in moral and political philosophy that focus on the moral status of the individual and their actions, or the legitimacy of institutional arrangements, to the neglect of the domain of the social, with its distinct structure, dynamics, and challenges (see, e.g., Honneth 2000, Ch. 1, Zurn 2011, Neuhouser 2022, Ch. 1). The following subsections introduce four key concepts that exemplify both the critical methodologies discussed in the previous section and the substantial social-theoretical and diagnostic contributions to our understanding of contemporary society that Frankfurt School critical theory aspires to. There are of course other concepts used by critical theorists – from normativity, justice, and autonomy to power, domination, and oppression – but the focus here is on concepts less widely discussed in other traditions or to which Frankfurt School theorists have made distinctive contributions.

The concept of alienation has a long history within critical theory. The basic concept refers to the idea of humans being separated, estranged, or distanced from something crucial to their freedom or capacity to flourish. One is alienated when one has a distorted or deficient relation to oneself or to the natural or social world. Critical theorists face a number of challenges in developing a critique of alienation. Classic critiques of alienation, Rousseau and the early Marx for example, relied on substantive conceptions of human nature or self-realization to ground their diagnoses and provide standards for critique. Thick accounts of human nature are less compelling today, which means contemporary critics of alienation have pursued alternative approaches. Since a critique of alienation attempts to diagnose a social pathology, not a problem with particular individuals, critical theorists must also provide a social theory that can convincingly diagnose the social causes of, and possible paths for overcoming, alienation.

Rousseau can be credited with inaugurating “social philosophy” as a domain of inquiry while developing a critique of alienation (Honneth 2000, Ch. 1). Although he does not refer to alienation in his “Second Discourse” (1755), the term captures his argument that living in society leaves human beings disconnected from their true desires and passions, which he explored by speculating about what humans would have been like in a state of nature. Within Hegelian and Marxist social criticism, the concept of alienation has been used to capture the idea that something produced by humans is wrongly taken by them as something given or outside their conscious control (Jaeggi 2005 [2014, 13–14]). In his Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), Hegel first develops a concept of alienation to describe the relation of the human mind to reality when the products of human reason are not recognized as our own creation but are instead experienced as alien forces. In his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844), Marx analyzed how wage labor within capitalist societies causes alienation. Workers produce a world of objects, but the products of their labor as well as their own productive activity are commodities over which they have no control; the world they create becomes an alien power with increasing control over them. They are alienated from the kind of spontaneous and creative productive activity that Marx, in his early work, posits as the essence of human nature.

The concept of alienation was influential among first-generation Frankfurt School theorists, particularly in the work of Marcuse and the later work of Erich Fromm (1961). In Dialectic of Enlightenment , Horkheimer and Adorno echo Rousseau in telling a story of alienation going back to the dawn of civilization. They maintain that human beings, in their quest to dominate the natural world (external nature) and to acquire mastery over themselves (inner nature), become estranged from both aspects of nature, failing to see what Enlightenment denies: that we are fundamentally natural beings (Vogel 1996, 69).

Contemporary critical theorists have attempted to rejuvenate the concept of alienation without relying on overly substantive accounts of human nature and without the totalizing diagnosis of Dialectic of Enlightenment . Rahel Jaeggi formalizes key elements of the Hegelian-Marxist approach in developing a philosophical account of alienation focused on how failure to adequately appropriate oneself or the world results in a “relation of relationlessnes” (2005). In this way, the non-alienated self is not defined by a substantive conception of human nature but by the quality of one’s relation to the world: whether this relation is sustained by successful processes of appropriation. Hartmut Rosa also defines alienation as a distorted relation to the world but with a more substantive approach to the quality of non-alienated relations to the world. For this, he has developed a multifaceted concept of “resonance” to capture a kind of vibrant or responsive relation to the world by contrast with the alienated experience of the world as ossified, mute, or hostile (2016). In contrast to these approaches, which are largely framed in terms of necessary conditions for living a good life, Rainer Forst has argued that deontological aspects of the critique of alienation have been neglected, and that there is a kind of “noumenal alienation” that results from not being recognized, or failing to recognize oneself, as an agent of justification (2017).

Reification is a concept with close ties to alienation. If alienation is viewed as diagnosing a distorted relation to the world, reification can be understood as one way of articulating the form that distortion can take. In the broadest sense, reification is a term used to critique cases in which some entity that should not be viewed as an object – oneself, other people, or some segment of the social or natural world – is treated as a thing-like object. It is instrumentalized, objectified, or quantified in a way that is inappropriate according to some critical standard. One challenge for critical theorists is articulating the standard or perspective – a non-reified relation or perspective – according to which the reified stance is not appropriate.

Georg Lukács’s classic 1923 essay on reification heavily influenced the Frankfurt School. Lukács combined Marx’s analysis of the “fetishism of commodities” – which causes social relations between human beings to appear as quantifiable and thing-like – with Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy – which extends this instrumentalizing attitude to all social domains. Reification becomes “the necessary, immediate reality of every person living in capitalist society” (1923 [1971, 197]), which can refer to an instrumentalizing attitude taken toward objects (whose qualitative feature are reduced to quantitative terms), other people, and features of one’s own personality when viewed solely from the perspective of their marketability.

Different critical theorists have appealed to the concept of reification to capture similar but not identical phenomena, with differing definitions corresponding to differences in the larger theoretical framework in which they deploy the concept. For Horkheimer and Adorno, the concept captures the dominance of instrumental reason and the totally administered world that results (1947). Habermas reinterpreted the concept to describe the ways in which systems such as the economy and the bureaucratic state, which function properly as spheres in which instrumental rationality dominates, extend too far into spheres of everyday life that he refers to as the lifeword (1981). This “colonization” of the lifeworld by the system results in the communicative structures of the lifeworld becoming reified. Honneth, by contrast, takes up the concept of reification in relation to his theory of recognition, arguing that reification involves a kind of forgetting of a primary relation of mutual recognition that he calls “empathetic engagement” (2005). Within Rosa’s theory of resonance, in which he attempts to capture one side of the history of modernity as a “catastrophe of resonance,” reification can be viewed as a “forgetfulness of resonance” (2016 [2019, 325]). The revival of this concept has been extended in other ways by using reification as a guiding concept for analyzing the relation between economics and subject formation within a “political economy of the senses” (Chari 2015) or pairing reification with a suitably modified notion of reconciliation to assess experiences of exclusion and integration within modern social orders (Hedrick 2019).

Ideology is similar to alienation and reification in being both a concept critical theory inherits from the Marxist tradition and one that is used to identify a distorted relationship to the world and one’s own place in it (Eagleton 1991). In the Marxist tradition, it has played a prominent role in answering questions such as why people accept social and political conditions that seem to be contrary to their own interests, or how it is possible that subjects feel free although they are dominated. When people experience and describe relations of exploitation and domination as natural and without alternative or even as just, this seems to be an effect of ideology. Ideology, on this critical understanding, usually denotes a more or less coherent system of action-guiding beliefs, such as liberal individualism, that is said to obscure social reality – especially power relations, crisis tendencies, and social conflicts. As Marx (1844, 1846, 1867) and subsequent critical theorists argue, by obscuring these, ideology contributes to the reproduction of the prevailing order (Rosen 1996). Accordingly, any radically transformative and emancipatory practice presupposes that this ideological obfuscation must be recognized as such, criticized, and overcome. The challenge to such critical reflection is particularly acute when the possibility of even asking questions about how we might want to live, if we could transform society, is occluded by a technocratic ideology that reframes such practical questions as technical problems with narrow solutions (Habermas 1963, 1968a).

Ideology differs from mere deception, propaganda, or conspiracy theories. Because it is structurally anchored in social reality and plays a functional role for its reproduction, it cannot be explained with reference to the individual psyche or manipulation by others alone. Even if false consciousness is an element of ideology, critical theorists from Adorno to Jaeggi emphasize the practical nature of ideology as it shapes identities, is embedded in social practice, and functions via affects and habitus.

According to one influential interpretation, the critical notion of ideology developed in the Frankfurt School is characterized by three dimensions (Geuss 1981, Jaeggi 2008). In the first, epistemic dimension, ideologies always encompass epistemically deficient beliefs and attitudes that can range from substantially false beliefs to the confusion of particular and universal interests and inadequate concepts (such as “illegal alien” to refer to undocumented immigrants). In the second, functional dimension, ideologies are seen as playing a necessary, or at least supporting, role for the stabilization and legitimation of social relations of domination, i.e. for their more or less smooth reproduction. In the third, genetic dimension, ideologies are shaped, in ways that are not transparent to the agents themselves, by the social conditions under which they emerge, so that it is not an accident that people end up with the specific sets of beliefs they end up with in a specific type of society.

Radicalizing the Marxist notion of ideology as “necessarily false consciousness,” i.e. consciousness that is false (and not simply morally problematic) for structural reasons (and not just accidentally), Adorno and Marcuse often seem to argue that ideology reaches into the innermost core of subjects, who are shaped all the way down to their psychological and physical impulses, leading them to affirm the existing order and thereby preempting any resistance to domination. While this might help explain the resilience of ideology and its continued effectiveness, it also poses the challenge for critical theorists to find an anchor for their critique in the forms of consciousness, experience, and practice of its addressees (Celikates 2006, and Section 2.5 above).

Due to its emancipatory orientation, the critique of ideology must connect up with the self-understanding of those affected by trying to initiate learning processes, which in turn are supposed to lead to a transformation of those social conditions that are hidden behind ideologies. At the same time, without recourse to critical theories agents themselves will often continue to face obstacles to identifying, diagnosing, and explaining the effects of ideology on their critical capacities and practices. Arguably, showing that a contradiction is inscribed in the existing social order and can only be “dissolved” if this order itself is fundamentally transformed is also a task for a critical theory.

Although for most critical theorists ideology is not merely false consciousness but embedded in social practices and identities, ideology critique has been criticized for being overly cognitivist and underestimating the role of habitualized attitudes and cultural practices, for relying on an overly strong distinction between true and distorted consciousness, and for presupposing an idealized notion of the subject. Critics such as Foucault and Bourdieu speak instead of power-knowledge (Foucault 1973, 15) or of symbolic power and its embodiment (Bourdieu 1980, Ch. 8). The epistemological and political challenges the notion of ideology gives rise to continue to animate discussions (Celikates, Haslanger, and Stanley (eds.) forthcoming), including, more recently, on the relation between ideology and epistemic injustice (Fricker 2007, Mills 2017), cultural technē (Haslanger 2017a), and propaganda (Stanley 2015).

Frankfurt School critical theory inherits its emancipatory orientation from Marx, in the sense that it aims not only to understand, but also to contribute to a radical transformation of the social world that is already under way, and the commitment to real emancipation as requiring a radical, irreducibly social and political transformation that overcomes the fundamental contradictions of modern society instead of partial or local reforms aimed at surface-level symptoms. Emancipation is thus understood as liberation, including self-liberation, from domination by social, political, and economic powers, both personal and structural. Against this background, however, critical theorists have given different accounts of what emancipation is, what it requires, and how much can be said about it as a process and as an aim or state. While some (Horkheimer 1937a, Habermas 1968b) have thought of emancipation as a process of enlightenment and self-reflection that would allow for the realization of a rational organization of society, others thought of emancipation as sensual liberation (Marcuse 1969), or as emancipation from the (internalized) destructive imperatives of capitalism towards a state “of lying on water and looking peacefully at the sky” (Adorno 1951c [2005, 157]).

At the same time, and insofar as the working class has been integrated, fragmented, or at least reconstituted, it has become increasingly less clear who is to be emancipated (or self-emancipated) from which forms of domination and how. The challenges to the possibility of emancipation include reflections on the potentially overblown ideals of autonomy, sovereignty, and transparency that seem to underlie it (Laclau 1992), the limits of active self-transformation under conditions in which subjects have been shaped by power-ridden forms of subjectivation (Allen 2015), and the prospects of overcoming capitalism given the apparent lack of any clear and viable alternative. Today, critical theorists also face the challenge of reorienting the emancipatory project in the face of a catastrophic climate crisis that seems to privilege adaptation, mitigation, and sheer survival over utopian visions of emancipation that have also served historically as a pretext for an extractive and dominating relation to nature (Brown 2022).

In light of these challenges, a critical theory that wishes to hold on to its emancipatory orientation will need to articulate emancipation as an immanent possibility that is enabled and in some ways required by unprecedented historical developments. Whether in doing so it can build on the presumption of an emancipatory interest of the oppressed that theorists from Marx and Horkheimer to Habermas and Honneth (2017) have sought to identify remains contested. But thinking of emancipation as a second-order process that aims at enabling collective practices of self-determination over and against the obstacles picked out by concepts such as alienation, reification, and ideology, rather than as a substantial ideal or positive utopian vision of emancipation to be attained, might provide a starting point. Insofar as critical theory continues to see the existing social order as one of structurally entrenched domination, exploitation, and alienation, it will also continue to rely on some notion of an emancipatory process that points beyond those structures, even if this process is invariably plural, non-teleological, open-ended, and negative in orientation.

4. Critical Theories Today

Marx defined critical theory as the “self-clarification of the struggles and wishes of the age” (Marx 1843). The vitality of this approach to critical theory depends on continually taking up this task in new social contexts, as the first generation of the Frankfurt School did. Contemporary critical theorists continue this legacy by engaging with and theorizing in relation to contemporary struggles, crises, and practices. This has meant engaging a much wider range of emancipatory social movements than earlier generations of the Frankfurt School, who focused more on class struggle and capitalism (and the ways these were entangled with antisemitism and fascism) while largely neglecting issues like colonialism, racism, and the subordination of women. Contemporary critical theorists have expanded and enriched the Frankfurt School tradition by engaging with, and in some cases making contributions to, feminist theory, critical race theory, and postcolonial and decolonial theory (4.1), enlarging their analyses of crises beyond capitalism and its contradictions (4.2), and exploring a variety of critical practices ranging from civil disobedience to prefigurative, abolitionist, and revolutionary practices (4.3).

4.1 Theorizing Struggles and Movements

As emphasized above, Frankfurt School critical theory is methodologically interdisciplinary and defined by its aim of contributing to the emancipatory transformation of society by critically reflecting on the ways in which thinking itself can be distorted by structures of domination. This is also true of the various forms of critical theorizing that have emerged from and in relation to struggles against gendered oppression, racism, and colonialism and its legacies. Indeed, those critical theories bring to light structures of domination and modes of thinking (patriarchy, white supremacy, neocolonialism and Eurocentrism) that have until recently been neglected by the Frankfurt School and must be taken into account by any theory that aims to be critical and emancipatory.

More than one feminist theorist has argued that engaging feminism has been, and still is, crucial to renewing Frankfurt School critical theory both methodologically and in order to live up to its emancipatory aims (Fraser 1985, Ferrarese 2018). But analyzing the intersection between feminist theory and the Frankfurt School is complicated by the diverse array of theorists on both sides of that intersection. Some of the debates among feminist critical theorists mirror debates already discussed, for instance between those who draw on first generation versus Habermas or those who embrace Habermasian versus poststructuralist critical theory.

In most accounts, the first generation of the Frankfurt School is portrayed as not including any women and, with the exception of Marcuse in the 1970s (Marcuse 1974), its main protagonists largely failed to theorize about gender-based oppression or engage with feminist movements or the feminist theory of their time (there is, however, a new research project at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt that aims to challenge the dominant historiography by highlighting contributions of female researchers such as Käthe Weil and Else Frenkel-Brunswik and feminist work within the Frankfurt School). While fully acknowledging why feminists might find little of value in the first generation, some feminist theorists have highlighted important methodological affinities between, and potential for productive engagement with, that body of work (Brown 2006, Heberle 2006, Marasco 2006). In spite of the first generation’s nostalgia for the authority of the patriarchal family, their studies of authoritarianism were groundbreaking in analyzing the family as a political institution and breeding ground for fascism (Marasco 2018). Recent interest in Adorno’s work in particular builds on his theory of the nonidentical as support for the feminist critique of essentialist identities as well as affinities between feminist aims and his deconstruction of dualisms like nature and history or reason and desire, and his appeal to lived experience as crucial to philosophy and critique (Heberle 2006, 5–6). Attempts at synthesis include using his theory of the nonidentical, in dialogue with Lacan and Marx, to theorize a new approach to feminist political subjectivity (Leeb 2017), and combining Adorno’s insights into “bourgeois coldness” with the feminist ethics of care to rethink the fragility of our concern for others within a capitalist form of life that fosters “generalized indifference” while also producing a gendered form of attention to others (Ferrarese 2018).

Turning to the second generation, the critique of Habermas’s failure to adequately theorize gender in his Theory of Communicative Action (1981) was a turning point. In a now-classic essay, Nancy Fraser (1985) took a cue from the Marx quote about critical theory reflecting on the struggles of the age to criticize the Frankfurt School, and Habermas in particular, for failing to theorize one of the most significant struggles against domination. Seyla Benhabib raised similar concerns about whether the theory of communicative action could adequately theorize the feminist movement (1986, 252), and in Situating the Self (1992) aimed to make Habermasian discourse theory more cognizant of the self as gendered (see also the essays collected in Meehan 1995). In his later discourse theory of democracy, Habermas does engage the feminist theory and politics of equality to illuminate his core thesis about how private and public autonomy mutually presuppose each other (1992 [1996, 418–427]). But feminist critical theorists maintain that his rationalist approach fails to adequately capture the way power operates (Allen 2008, Ch. 5; McNay 2022, Ch. 1) or to incorporate forms of communication like narrative that have been crucial to feminism (Lara 1998, 2021; Young 2000).

The third generation of the Frankfurt School represents a crucial shift, with prominent feminist theorists like Fraser and Benhabib attempting to make critical theory more amenable to feminism from within the tradition, while also engaging in debates with leading figures in the poststructuralist strand of feminist critical theory like Judith Butler (Benhabib et. al. 1995). A core issue in these debates has been between Habermasian feminists who stress autonomy and poststructuralists who stress the idea of subjection – the ways in which power is central to the formation of subjects and their desires (Butler 1997). Amy Allen critically engages and synthesizes insights from both sides of this debate in viewing subjects as both constituted through relations of power and able to exercise autonomy in the form of critical reflection (Allen 2008). Axel Honneth, another key figure in the third generation, has engaged with feminist theory (Honneth 2000) and the feminist movement (2011 [2014, 154–176]), and in debates with feminist critical theorists including Fraser (Fraser and Honneth 2003) and Butler (Ikäheimo et al. 2021), but his work has also been the subject of sustained feminist critique of his conception of love, the family, and caring labor (Young 2007, Rössler 2007, Wimbauer 2023).

Fraser has, over several decades, developed a systematic defense of socialist feminism while charting various shifts in the feminist movement (see the essays collected in Fraser 2013), recently making the case that the contemporary crisis in care work must be understood as part of a larger general crisis in capitalist society (Fraser 2016, 2022, Ch. 3). Other feminist critical theorists also argue for a return to the critique of capitalism as crucial to feminist theorizing (Leeb 2017). From a different perspective, Lois McNay argues that recent Frankfurt School theorists, not only Honneth and Forst but also Fraser and Jaeggi, have failed to adequately incorporate the experience of gendered oppression into critical theory (McNay 2022). Another set of challenges arises from the need to develop an intersectional analysis of power and domination while engaging with a broader range of work in feminist and gender theory including queer and trans* theory as well as transnational and postcolonial feminism (Allen 2019, 537–538).

Apart from the influential studies on antisemitism and fascism by the first generation, Frankfurt School theorists have until recently shown little interest in issues of race and racism despite the prominence of anti-racist struggles and theorizing throughout the twentieth century and the present. The silence is of course not total. Early analyses point to prejudice toward Jews and other minority groups as an important part of the authoritarian personality and a key mechanism of providing “pseudo-orientation in an estranged world” (Adorno et al. 1950, 622), diagnose a culturalist transformation of the earlier biological racism at the center of fascism in post-war Europe that serves to maintain white supremacy (Adorno 1955, 148–9), and identify the phantasmatic dimension of racism and its fictions of homogeneity, purity, and essential difference (Adorno 1967a). Arguably, there are also broader methodological lessons from the relational and materialist theory of antisemitism developed by Adorno and Horkheimer that also hold for the study of racism (even if their relation remains contested, see Catlin 2023), namely the rejection of psychologizing and individualizing approaches, the insistence that the pathology always lies in the antisemitic or racist subjects and not in their victims, and the emphasis on structural factors that include the functional role of racism in the context of the crisis of capitalism and democracy (see Postone 1980 for an early attempt to explain modern antisemitism in relation to the nature of capitalism and the anti-capitalism of National Socialism).

Despite these openings, there has not been any sustained engagement with the phenomena of race and racism or with anti-racist struggles and theorizing, an eminently emancipatory form of knowledge production that, from W.E.B. Du Bois and Frantz Fanon to Black feminism (Collins 1990, 2019, Mills 2017), has been engaged in crossing the theory-practice divide and articulating dominated standpoints in ways that should have been of significant interest to Frankfurt School theorists (Outlaw 2005; for a relatively early exception see McCarthy 2009).

This missed opportunity is all the more astonishing as the intersection of class and race, of racism and capitalism has been at the center of theorists that share a Marxist orientation, and even some closeness to the Frankfurt School, most notably Angela Davis – who had studied with Marcuse in the US and with Adorno in Frankfurt, and, following Marcuse, insists on the need to bridge the gap between theory and practice and to combine the critique of racism as well as gender-based domination with a critique of capitalism (Davis 1983, 2004) – and Stuart Hall, who, building on Marxist and post-Marxist approaches, theorizes racism as a historically variable response to crisis and as a mechanism that allows capital to divide the working class (Hall 2021).

In contrast to the first generation’s focus on the “dark side” of modernity, later theorists, from Habermas to Honneth, developed a stronger commitment not only to Enlightenment values, but to the belief that these have been, more or less successfully, institutionalized in Western societies. As a result, their views clash with a core aim of Critical Race Theory (Crenshaw et al. 1995) – itself influenced by Marxist theories of the state and the law – namely, the aim of debunking the idea that the law and the state are neutral institutions that secure the common good and the rights of all as an ideology masking their character as instruments of racial (and class) oppression, as evidenced by massive and persistent inequalities that systematically disadvantage Blacks in the US in particular and racialized populations on a global scale, in various areas of life, from access to education, health, jobs, and housing to the risk of becoming a victim of police violence. According to this view, the forms of freedom and solidarity realized in liberal-democratic societies are not just contingently accompanied by exclusions of racialized groups, as if these values had only been insufficiently realized up to now and only need to be extended to those hitherto excluded. Rather, the thesis is that these exclusions have played a constitutive role in the history of these societies and their value systems and continue to shape them to this day, and that radical emancipation would therefore require developing entirely different visions of living together in freedom and solidarity (Kelley 2002).

More recently, Nancy Fraser (2022, Ch. 2) has picked up on Black Marxist discussions of racial capitalism (prominently Du Bois 1935) by arguing that capitalism provides a structural basis for racial oppression and thus exhibits an inherent (even if historically variable) tendency to racialize populations in order to more effectively expropriate and exploit them. Others have elaborated a relational and materialist understanding of racism that builds on how antisemitism was theorized in the early Frankfurt School, and how racism was rearticulated in a culturalist register in reaction to anticolonial and antiracist struggles (Balibar and Wallerstein 1991, Bojadžijev 2020). What these approaches share, and what might be a distinctive contribution of a critical theory of race and racism, is a commitment to understanding racism as a comprehensive social relation that needs to be understood in relation to broader (capitalist) social formations, “race” as an ideological effect rather than an unquestioned category for social analysis, and anti-racist struggles as a starting point for critical theorizing about race – commitments that are at least partially shared with important contributions in the critical philosophy of race (Mills 2003, Shelby 2003, Haslanger 2017b).

For all its focus on modes of domination in modern society, Frankfurt School critical theory has largely failed to address European colonialism and imperialism (Said 1993, 278) and their continuing effects in a world structured by massive inequalities and asymmetries between the Global North and the Global South. With a few recent exceptions to be discussed here, critical theorists in this tradition have not engaged much with the large body of postcolonial and decolonial theory, even if in recent years debates about the universal validity of human rights and cosmopolitanism, globalization and multiple modernities, religious pluralism and postsecularism, have provided ample occasion to go beyond still operative Eurocentric limitations and become more globally relevant (Mendieta 2007, Butler et al. 2011, Baum 2015, Ingram 2019, Kerner 2018; on some early Frankfurt School engagement with Chinese thought, specifically in Benjamin’s work, see Ng 2023).

The main target of postcolonial critique is the idea of a universal history in which the central engine of progress is located in modern Europe while non-Europeans are viewed as always lagging behind. The story has taken many forms, from narratives of progress in Enlightenment thinkers and their critics, such as Hegel (Buck-Morss 2009), to nineteenth-century theories of racial hierarchy and twentieth-century theories of development that have been shaped by, and in turn, rationalized, racism, slavery, and imperialism (McCarthy 2009, Bhambra and Holmwood 2021). Both anticolonial struggles and theorizing (in the work of Mahatma Gandhi, Aimé Césaire, Fanon and others) have insisted that the history and present of capitalism and of modern European and North American societies are constitutively entangled with colonialism, imperialism, and their afterlives, and that taking their trajectory as paradigmatically modern ends up representing a specific and heterogeneous trajectory and experience as universal and self-contained (Grüner 2010). While some aspects of postcolonial critique can be seen as overlapping with the critique of conceptions of the subject, reason, and universal history in the early Frankfurt School, the former also goes beyond the latter by understanding these as the effects of specifically colonial forms of domination and by tracing a different genealogy of fascism through its roots in the colonialism of the nineteenth century (Bardawil 2018).

Recent decades have seen attempts to bring postcolonial theory into dialogue with the Frankfurt School. From the side of decolonial theory, Enrique Dussel has been one of the most prominent decolonial philosophers to engage with Frankfurt School philosophers, developing a global ethics of liberation in critical dialogue with the discourse ethics of Apel and Habermas (Dussel 1998; see also Dusell 2011 and Allen and Mendieta 2021).

From the side of Frankfurt School critical theory, postcolonial critique has been taken up in a variety of ways (see also Vázquez-Arroyo 2018). In the same spirit of Horkheimer and Adorno’s attempt to critique enlightenment in the name of an alternative conception of enlightenment, both Susan Buck-Morss (2009) and Thomas McCarthy (2009) attempt to salvage something of the core idea that is the target of their critique: “universal history” for Buck-Morss, and “development” for McCarthy.

Amy Allen (2016), on the other hand, is more decidedly critical of the role of the discourse of “progress” and the role of such concepts in grounding normativity and shaping assumptions about historical development, modernization, and reason in the work of Habermas, Honneth, and Forst. She regards the latter approaches as deeply Eurocentric and contrasts them with a contextualist form of critique, inspired by Foucault and Adorno, that takes the form of a critical history of the present that uncovers the deep entanglement between reason and domination. Calling for an even more thorough revision of historical narratives, conceptual frameworks, and normative criteria, Gurminder Bhambra (2021) argues that the prevalent understanding of modernity as an endogenous European achievement obscures the fact that colonization and slavery were integral to and constitutive of the Enlightenment project of modernity in both its epistemic and institutional dimensions, a task for which historical and theoretical resources beyond Adorno and Foucault would be required. Fundamental questions about modernity, the human subject, and freedom also emerge from an encounter between critical theory in the Frankfurt School tradition and Caribbean thought (Sealey and Davis forthcoming). In a similar vein, contemporary critics of the persistence of colonial structures point to how a denial of the colonial past reaffirms a violent global color line (Mbembe 2016) that affects how societies treat Indigenous peoples (Coulthard 2014) and racialized and migrant populations (Celikates 2022).

4.2 Diagnosing Crises

Diagnosing crises, and the social contradictions that give rise to them, is a hallmark of Hegelian-Marxist critical theory. Marx famously diagnosed capitalism as a crisis-ridden social system, and the early work of the first generation of the Frankfurt School was a response to the economic, social, and political crises of their time. Dialectic of Enlightenment (Horkheimer and Adorno 1947) can be understood as addressing the crisis of reason that was experienced with the rise of National Socialism, but the critique of instrumental reason was disconnected from more concrete crises and struggles. Habermas aimed to restore the link between critique and crisis beginning with his 1973 book Legitimation Crisis (Benhabib 1986, 252–3, Cordero 2017, Ch. 3). Writing in the context of state-managed capitalism, Habermas diagnosed the distinctively political contradictions and potential for political crises within a social system that aims to steer the economy and manage economic crises (a point influentially elaborated by Offe 1984).

In subsequent decades, crisis critique, along with the critique of capitalism, was largely abandoned by Frankfurt School theorists (for a notable exception see Postone 1993). Renewed theoretical interest has coincided with rising public concern about social, political, and economic systems currently in, or always seemingly on the brink of, crisis, all against the backdrop of the unfolding effects of the ongoing climate catastrophe.

Nancy Fraser was one of the first critical theorists to revive crisis critique and to do so as part of a comprehensive critique of capitalism that renews the link between analytical diagnosis and critique (Fraser 2011, 2014; see Wellmer 2014 for a critique of the Frankfurt School’s earlier neglect). What distinguishes Fraser’s approach is that it posits capitalism as the unifying causal link among seemingly distinct crises – in relation to care work, the environment, and political institutions – by viewing capitalism as an institutionalized social order in which the economic system “cannibalizes” the very conditions that make it possible within the spheres of social reproduction, the natural environment, and the political system (Fraser 2022). Fraser combines analysis of “objective” social conditions – contradictions and crises – with an orientation toward social movements by analyzing the “boundary struggles” that arise at the seams between the economic system and other domains, making the case for these struggles to unite around an anti-capitalist agenda.

In a similar way, Rahel Jaeggi has developed a crisis-oriented theory of immanent critique (2014, Ch. 6) that is not limited to diagnosing systemic dysfunction but includes the normative expectations and self-understandings of social agents (Jaeggi 2017a; see Fraser and Jaeggi 2018), but at a more abstract theoretical level than Fraser’s immanent analysis of capitalism as a social order. Like Fraser and Jaeggi, Albena Azmanova argues for renewed attention to the critique of capitalism but is skeptical about how helpful “crisis” talk is (2014) and maintains that radical social change is possible without crisis, revolution, or utopia through a united struggle against forms of precarity that are endemic to contemporary capitalism (2020). More generally, the turn to economic crisis dynamics has also led to a renewed interest in work – its general significance, pathologies, and emancipatory potential (Jaeggi 2017b, Dejours et al. 2018, Honneth 2023).

Turning specifically to the ecological crisis, Frankfurt School theorists have only recently begun taking seriously the task of rethinking their approach to critical theory in the current context of an ongoing ecological disaster on a global scale (for an early exception, see Vogel 1996). Some critical theorists argue that this situation calls for a new paradigm of “Critical Naturalism” (Gregoratto et al., 2022); others argue for a fundamental rethinking of Western conceptions of human freedom and a radical shift in conceptions of the ethically good life as a precondition for the kind of radical social change required by the current crisis (Cooke 2020, 2023). Fraser focuses on the role of capitalism in the climate catastrophe and the need for eco-politics to be anti-capitalist so that we can reassert control over, and begin to reinvent from the ground up, our relation to nature (Fraser 2021, 2022; see Bernstein 2022 for a recent approach to such rethinking).

In rethinking our conception of nature, given the lack of serious attention to theorizing about nature in the second and, until quite recently, third generation of the Frankfurt School, it is not surprising that many critical theorists have looked more to the first generation (see the collected essays in Biro 2011), with Adorno’s work viewed as a promising starting point for rethinking humans’ relation to nature (Cook 2011, Cassegård 2021, Ch. 3). Cook argues that the “project of showing that human history is always also natural history and that non-human nature is entwined with history… informs all Adorno’s work” and that there are important affinities between his work and proponents of radical ecology (Cook 2011, 1, 5–6). On the other hand, the view of nature as having a kind of otherness that is beyond and not fully graspable by humans – a view expressed at times by Adorno and Horkeimer as well as Marcuse – has been criticized in favor of a more Hegelian-Marxist approach that sees “nature” as a product of human activity (Vogel 1996, 2011). Others argue for reviving critical engagement with Marcuse’s work as a resource for addressing the ecological crisis, with its combination of a critique of science and technology (most radically, as a call for a “new science”) with the idea that social transformation must include a changed, aesthetic relation to nature (Feenberg 2023a, 2023b). At this point, it is clear that there must be more engagement between Frankfurt School theorists and the many “critical ecologies” being developed today, e.g., deep ecology, eco-feminism, eco-socialism, ecological Marxism, environmental justice, indigenous and decolonial ecologies, and new materialism (on the recent dialogue between Frankfurt School theorists and new materialism, see Rosa et al., 2021).

Finally, Frankfurt School theorists have turned their attention to political crises and the rise of right-wing populist, authoritarian, and neo-fascist movements, parties, and governments (Brown, Gordon, and Pensky 2018, Gordon 2017, Abromeit 2016). This crisis is particularly important because adequately addressing the economic and ecological crises of our time requires political solutions, which will be hindered by political systems that are themselves in crisis, thereby contributing to a regressive dynamic (Jaeggi 2022, Forst 2023).

From the perspective of critical theorists, there seem to be two aspects of the political crisis that are often missing from mainstream liberal accounts. The first pertains to the genesis and the causes of the crisis (Brown 2019, Gambetti 2020). Against accounts that see authoritarianism only in terms of a rupture with and as entirely foreign to liberal democracy, they argue that we need to examine the continuities and enabling conditions that allow authoritarian tendencies to arise from within liberal-democratic capitalist societies. Without analyzing the neoliberal restructuring of social relations and the ways in which populist and authoritarian movements exploit electoral strategies, fragmented public spheres, and liberal ideological frameworks such as “freedom of speech,” the critique of and resistance to them will necessarily remain truncated.

The second aspect pertains to the dynamic of authoritarianism and the political crisis it engenders. Beyond focusing on its political dimension (e.g. political aims and values), critical theorists have sought to analyze the socio-cultural, affective, and psycho-social dynamics of authoritarianism and its attractiveness to populations that seem to have little to gain from the election of populist leaders (Marasco 2018, Brown 2019, McAfee 2019, Redecker 2020, Zaretsky 2022). These approaches can draw on and are supported by Adorno’s analysis (1967a) of core features of authoritarian right-wing populism. First, it is not so much actual abandonment but a feared, anticipated, or imagined abandonment, along with a perceived loss of privileges that had come to seem natural, that are the driving force of the rise of a reactionary authoritarianism that then gets misdescribed as a revolt of the oppressed and exploited. Second, the proponents of authoritarianism, following an antisemitic and/or racist logic, personalize the blame for their fears and feelings of abandonment by projecting it onto groups they classify as alien, rather than attributing it to structural features of society.

In responding to all the crises discussed here – economic, ecological, and political – critical theorists must grapple with a number of challenges. Purely at the level of theory, there is the question of whether positing unity or convergence among crises is diagnostically accurate. At a practical level, it remains to be seen whether a unity thesis will be politically motivating and whether a convergence of social struggles is indeed on the horizon. The issue of practice also bears on the question of whether and to what extent the objective conditions of crisis and contradiction diagnosed by critical theorists actually affect people’s everyday lived experience and become motivating factors for political movements (see Section 2.5 ). Such questions about the relation between theory and practice have long been a focus of critical theorists and have recently gained attention in theorizing about a range of critical and political practices.

While overcoming the gap between theory and practice has been a central methodological and political concern for critical theorists, critics have pointed out the prominent turn away from practice to theory in the first generation – accused by Lukács of taking up residence in the “Grand Hotel Abyss” (Lukács 1963, 22) – and the continued marginalization of critical praxis in later generations (Harcourt 2020). There are multiple grounds for challenging this assessment. Frankfurt School theorists had arguments all along about how to assess and relate to radical movements, such as the student movement of 1968 (Adorno and Marcuse 1969, Freyenhagen 2014, Pickford 2023), and there has always been a strand that continuously engaged with struggles and movements, from Marcuse to Negt and Kluge and Fraser. Some critical theorists have focused on deliberative democracy, the public sphere, and civil society (Habermas 1962, 1992, 2021, Cohen and Arato 1992, Benhabib 2004, Lafont 2019) as core fora for critical practice, while others have argued for critical theory itself to be democratized and understood as a critical practice (Bohman 2003, Celikates 2009).

Still, many of these approaches have been criticized for prioritizing institutional achievements over struggles and critical practices, and reform over revolution. Given the challenges outlined above (4.2), it is not surprising that some recent work tries to reverse this tendency by exploring more radical responses to such crises. These attempts notably push beyond the dichotomy between reform and revolution – for example, by promoting non-reformist reforms that could “alter the terrain on which future struggles will be waged, thus expanding the set of feasible options for future reforms” (Fraser, in Fraser and Honneth 2003, 79) – and mine the rich history and present of radical struggles outside traditional forms of political organizing such as the party or reimagine the party in radical ways (Dean 2016).

The range of critical practices engaged with by critical theorists past and present is extensive (for an inventory, see Harcourt 2020, Ch. 15). Frankfurt School theorists of earlier generations covered various forms of resistance, from the “Great Refusal” of the 1960s (Marcuse) and the potential for resistance in independent thinking and critical analysis in the face of universal reification (Adorno) to civil disobedience as a sign of a dynamic public sphere and civil society (Habermas 1983b, Cohen and Arato 1992, Ch. 11). More recently, critical theorists within various traditions have analyzed forms of disobedience (direct, digital, migrant etc.) as political practices of contestation and struggles for democratization “from below” (Young 2001, Smith 2013, Scheuerman 2018, Celikates 2019b). Other practices of resistance that do not directly engage with state institutions or appeal to the broader public include forms of sabotage (Malm 2020), fleeing, withdrawal, or defection. These turn away from what are seen as state-oriented struggles for visibility, recognition, or representation (Virno 2004, Roberts 2015) and towards subaltern forms of sociality (Moten and Harney 2013) and counter-communities that prefigure fundamental alternatives for living together (Loick 2021). Emphasizing the revolutionary dimension of critical practices, theorists have drawn on the abolitionist tradition of struggles against slavery and colonialism, and its revitalization in movements like Black Lives Matter, to call for a fundamental critique of racial capitalism and its entanglement with the punitive state, and a correspondingly radical transformation of all social relations and institutions (Davis 2005, Gilmore 2022). Critical theorists have also explored political practices of assembling (Butler 2015), occupying, striking, and reorganizing processes of social reproduction (Gago 2019), linking these to the need to rethink revolution beyond the model of a single break or event and more as an interstitial process (Redecker 2018, Saar 2020).

Whether the new revolutionary subjects and struggles that emerge in these critical practices will indeed converge to fundamentally challenge the existing order, open up new pathways to emancipation, and develop emancipated – more just, democratic, and sustainable – modes of living together remains to be seen. Horkheimer’s quip still holds: “if the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the eating here is still in the future” (1937a [1972, 220–1]). Against this background, theoretical explorations of critical practices – in the multiplicity of their forms, terrains, and actors – can be seen as part of the ongoing attempt to bring theory and practice together with an emancipatory orientation in light of the crises and struggles of the age. This approach has characterized the Frankfurt School from its very beginnings and has been a driving force in its continual (self-)transformation, making it into one of the most influential paradigms in social philosophy today.

  • Abromeit, John, 2016, “Critical Theory and the Persistence of Right-Wing Populism”, Logos: A Journal of Modern Society and Culture , 15(2) [ Abromeit 2016 available online ].
  • Adorno, Theodor W., 1931 [year this lecture was given], “Die Aktualität der Philosophie”, in Theodor W. Adorno, Gesammelte Schriften I: Philosophische Frühschriften , Rolf Tiedemann (ed.), Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1973, pp. 325–344; translated as “The Actuality of Philosophy”, Benjamin Snow (trans.), Telos , 31 (1977): 120–133.
  • –––, 1936 “Wiesengrund-Adorno an Benjamin, 18. März 1936”, in Theodor W. Adorno and Walter Benjamin, Briefwechsel 1928–1940 , Henri Lonitz (ed.), Frankfurt am Main, 1994, pp. 168–177; translated as March 18, 1936, “Wiesengrund-Adorno to Benjamin, March 18, 1936”, Theodor W. Adorno and Walter Benjamin , The Complete Correspondence 1928–1940 ,, Nicholas Walker (trans.), Henri Lonitz (ed.), Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999, pp. 127–133.
  • –––, 1938, “Über den Fetischcharakter in der Musik und die Regression des Hörens”, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung , 7(3), 321–356; translated as “On the Fetish Character in Music and the Regression of Listening”, Susan L. Gillespie (trans.), in Theodor W. Adorno, Essays on Music , Richard Leppert (ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002, pp. 288–317.
  • –––, 1951a, “Kulturkritik und Gesellschaft”, in Karl Gustav Specht (ed.), Soziologische Forschung unserer Zeit , Köln and Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1951, pp. 228–240, republished in Theodor W. Adorno, Prismen: Kulturkritik und Gesellschaft , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1955, pp. 7–31; translated as “Cultural Criticism and Society”, in Theodor W. Adorno, Prisms , Samuel Weber and Shierry Weber (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981, pp. 17–34.
  • –––, 1951b, “Freudian Theory and the Pattern of Fascist Propaganda”, in Géza Roheim (ed.), Psychoanalysis and the Social Sciences Vol. 3 , New York: International Universities Press, 279–300. Reprinted in The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture , Jay Bernstein (ed.), New York: Routledge, 1991, pp. 132–157.
  • –––, 1951c, Minima Moralia: Reflexionen aus dem beschädigten Leben , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life , Edmund Jephcott (trans.), London: Verso, 2005.
  • –––, 1955, “Schuld und Abwehr”, in Friedrich Pollock (ed.), Gruppenexperiment: Ein Studienbericht , Frankfurt am Main: Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 278–428; translated as Guilt and Defense: On the Legacies of National Socialism in Postwar Germany , Jeffrey K. Olick and Andrew J. Perrin (eds./trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.
  • –––, 1957, “Soziologie und empirische Forschung”, in K . Ziegler (ed.), Wesen und Wirklichkeit des Menschen: Festschrift für Helmuth Plessner , Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 245–260; translated as “Sociology and Empirical Research”, Glyn Adey and David Frisby (trans.), in Theodor W. Adorno et al. (eds.), The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology , London: Heinemann, 1976, pp. 68–86.
  • –––, 1963a [year this transcribed lecture course was given], Probleme der Moralphilosophie , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1996; translated as Problems of Moral Philosophy , Rodney Livingstone (trans.), Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000.
  • –––, 1963b, Drei Studien zu Hegel , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Hegel: Three Studies , Shierry Weber Nicholsen (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.
  • –––, 1966a, Negative Dialektik , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Negative Dialectics , E. B. Ashton (trans.), New York: Seabury Press, 1973.
  • –––, 1966b, “Gesellschaft”, in Hermann Kunst and Siegfried Grundmann (eds.), Evangelisches Staatslexikon , Stuttgart: Kreuz Verlag, pp. 636–643; translated as “Society”, Fredric R. Jameson (trans.), Salmagundi , 10–11 (1969): 144–153.
  • –––, 1969a, “Zur Spezifikation der kritischen Theorie”, in Theodor W. Adorno Archiv (ed.), Adorno. Eine Bildmonographie , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, p. 292.
  • –––, 1969b, “Marginalien zu Theorie und Praxis”, Die Zeit , No. 33 (1969); translated as “Marginalia to Theory and Praxis”, Henry W. Pickford (trans.), in Critical Models: Interventions and Catchwords , New York: Columbia University Press, 2005, pp. 259–278.
  • –––, 1967a [year this transcribed lecture was given], Aspekte des neuen Rechtsradikalismus , Berlin: Suhrkamp, 1999; translated as Aspects of the New Right-Wing Extremism , Wieland Hoban (trans.), Cambridge: Polity, 2020.
  • –––, 1967b, “Résumé über Kulturindustrie”, in Theodor W. Adorno, Ohne Leitbild: Parva Aesthetica , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 60–70; translated as “The Culture Industry Reconsidered”, Anson G. Rabinbach (trans.), in Jay Bernstein, (ed.), The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture , New York: Routledge, 1991, pp. 98–106.
  • –––, 1970, Ästhetische Theorie , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Aesthetic Theory , Robert Hullot-Kentor (trans.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977.
  • Adorno, Theodor W., Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford, 1950, The Authoritarian Personality , with a new Introduction by Peter E. Gordon, New York: Verso, 2019.
  • Adorno, Theodor W., Hans Albert, Ralf Dahrendorf, Jürgen Habermas, Harald Pilot, and Karl R. Popper, 1969, Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie , Neuwied/Berlin: Luchterhand; translated as The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology , Glyn Adey and David Frisby (trans.), London: Heinemann, 1976.
  • Adorno, Theodor W. and Herbert Marcuse, 1969, “Correspondence on the German Student Movement”, New Left Review , 233 (1999), 123–136.
  • Agamben, Giorgio, 1995, Homo Sacer: Il potere sovrano e la nuda vita , Turin: Einaudi; translated as Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life , Daniel Heller-Roazen (trans.), Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998.
  • Allen, Amy, 2008, The Politics of Our Selves: Power, Autonomy, and Gender in Contemporary Critical Theory , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • –––, 2010, “Third Generation Critical Theory: Benhabib, Fraser, and Honneth”, in Rosi Braidotti (ed.), After Poststructuralism: Transitions and Transformations , Durham: Acumen, pp. 129–48.
  • –––, 2012, “The Public Sphere: Ideology and/or Ideal?”, Political Theory , 40(6): 822–829. doi:10.1177/0090591712457664
  • –––, 2014, “Reason, Power and History: Re-reading the Dialectic of Enlightenment ”, Thesis Eleven , 120(1): 10–25. doi:10.1177/0725513613519588
  • –––, 2015, “Emancipation without Utopia: Subjection, Modernity, and the Normative Claims of Feminist Critical Theory”, Hypatia , 30(3): 513–29. doi:10.1111/hypa.12160
  • –––, 2016, The End of Progress: Decolonizing the Normative Foundations of Critical Theory , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • –––, 2019, “Critical Theory and Feminism”, in Gordon, Peter, Espen Hammer, and Axel Honneth (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Frankfurt School , London: Routledge, pp. 528–541.
  • –––, 2021, Critique on the Couch: Why Critical Theory Needs Psychoanalysis , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Allen, Amy, and Eduardo Mendieta, (eds.), 2021, Decolonizing Ethics: The Critical Theory of Enrique Dussel , University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
  • Allen, Amy, and Brian O’Connor (eds.), 2019, Transitional Subjects: Critical Theory and Object Relations , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Anderson, Joel, 2000, “The ‘Third Generation’ of the Frankfurt School”, Intellectual History Newsletter 22, 49–61.
  • Apel, Karl-Otto, 1985, “Ist die Ethik der idealen Kommunikationsgemeinschaft eine Utopie? Zum Verhältnis von Ethik, Utopie und Utopiekritik”, in Wilhelm Vosskamp (ed.), Utopieforschung , Frankfurt: Suhrkamp; translated as “Is the Ideal Communication Community a Utopia? On the Relationship between Ethics, Utopia, and the Critique of Utopia”, David Frisby (trans.), in Seyla Benhabib and Fred Dallmayr (eds.), The Communicative Ethics Controversy , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990, pp. 23–59.
  • –––, 1989, “Normative Begründung der ‘Kritischen Theorie’” durch Rekurs auf lebensweltliche Sittlichkeit? Ein transzendentalpragmatisch orientierter Versuch, mit Habermas gegen Habermas zu denken”, in Axel Honneth, Thomas McCarthy, Claus Offe, and Albrecht Wellmer (eds.), Zwischenbetrachtungen im Prozess der Aufklärung: Jürgen Habermas zum 60. Geburtstag , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 15–65; translated as “Normatively Grounding ‘Critical Theory’ through Recourse to Lifeworld? A Transcendental-Pragmatic Attempt to Think With Habermas Against Habermas”, William Rehg (trans.), in Axel Honneth, Thomas McCarthy, Claus Offe, and Albrecht Wellmer (eds.), Philosophical Interventions Into the Unfinished Project of Enlightenment , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp. 125–70.
  • Azmanova, Albena, 2014, “Crisis? Capitalism is Doing Very Well. How is Critical Theory?”, Constellations , 21(3): 351–365. doi:10.1215/00382876-7165857
  • –––, 2020, Capitalism on Edge: How Fighting Precarity Can Achieve Radical Change Without Crisis or Utopia , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Balibar, Etienne, and Immanuel Wallerstein, 1988, Race, nation, classe: les identités ambiguës , Paris: La Découverte; translated as Race, Nation, Class. Ambiguous Identities , Chris Turner (trans.), New York: Verso, 1991.
  • Bardawil, Fadi, 2018, “Césaire with Adorno: Critical Theory and the Colonial Problem”, South Atlantic Quarterly , 117(4): 773–789. doi:10.1215/00382876-7165857
  • Baum, Bruce, 2015, “Decolonizing Critical Theory”, Constellations , 22(3): 420–434. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12169
  • Baynes, Kenneth, 2016, Habermas , New York: Routledge.
  • Benhabib, Seyla, 1986, Critique, Norm, and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • –––, 1992, Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics , New York: Routledge.
  • –––, 2004, The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Benhabib, Seyla, Judith Butler, Drucilla Cornell, and Nancy Fraser, 1995, Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange , New York: Routledge.
  • Benjamin, Walter, 1920/21, “Zur Kritik der Gewalt”, in Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik , 47(3): 809–832; translated as “Toward the Critique of Violence”, Julia Ng (trans.), in Peter Fenves and Julia Ng (eds.), Toward the Critique of Violence: A Critical Edition , Stanford University Press, 2021, pp. 39–60.
  • –––, 1936, “Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit”, originally published as “L’œuvre d’art à l’époque de sa réproduction mécanisée”, Pierre Klossowski (trans.), Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung , 5(1), 40–68, all textual variants can be found in Walter Benjamin, Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit (Walter Benjamin Werke und Nachlaß: Kritische Gesamtausgabe vol. 16), Burkhardt Lindner (ed.), Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2012, the essay was translated as “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility”, Michael W. Jennings (trans.), Grey Room , 39 (2010): 11–37. doi:10.1162/grey.2010.1.39.11
  • –––, 1940, “Über den Begriff der Geschichte”, in Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften I , Rolf Tiedemann and Hermann Schweppenhäuser (eds.), Frankfurt am Main, 1974, pp. 691–706; translated as “On the Concept of History”, Harry Zohn (trans.) in Howard Eiland and Michael W. Jennings (eds.) Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings (Volume 4), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006, pp. 389–400.
  • –––, 1955, Schriften , 2 vols., Theodor W. Adorno and Gretel Adorno (eds.), Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated in parts as Illuminations , Harry Zohn (trans.), Hannah Arendt (ed.), New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968.
  • Bernstein, Jay, 2001, Adorno: Disenchantment and Ethics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bernstein, Richard, 2010, The Pragmatic Turn , Malden, MA: Polity.
  • –––, 2022, The Vicissitudes of Nature: From Spinoza to Freud , Malden, MA: Polity.
  • Bhambra, Gurminder K., 2021, “Decolonizing Critical Theory?: Epistemological Justice, Progress, Reparations”, Critical Times , 4(1): 73–89. doi:10.1215/26410478-8855227
  • Bhambra, Gurminder K., and John Holmwood, 2021, Colonialism and Modern Social Theory , Malden, MA: Polity.
  • Biro, Andrew, 2011, Critical Ecologies: The Frankfurt School and Contemporary Environmental Crises , Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  • Bohman, James, 2003, “Critical Theory as Practical Knowledge: Participants, Observers, and Critics”, in S. P. Turner and P. A. Roth (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences , Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 91–109.
  • –––, 2007, Democracy Across Borders: From Dêmos to Dêmoi, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Bojadžijev, Manuela, 2020, “Anti-Racism as Method”, in John Solomos (ed.), The Routledge International Handbook of Contemporary Racisms , London: Routledge 2020, pp. 193–204.
  • Bourdieu, Pierre, 1980, Le sens pratique , Paris: Minuit; translated as The Logic of Practic e, Richard Nice (trans.), Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992.
  • Brown, Wendy (ed.), 2006, “Feminist Theory and the Frankfurt School”: a Special Issue of differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies , 17(1).
  • –––, 2019, In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • –––, 2022, “Rethinking Politics and Freedom in the Anthropocene”, Crisis and Critique , 9(2): 24–44 [ Brown 2022 available online ].
  • Brown, Wendy, and Rainer Forst, 2014, The Power of Tolerance: A Debate , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Brown, Wendy, Peter Gordon, and Max Pensky, 2018, Authoritarianism. Three Inquiries in Critical Theory , Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Brunkhorst, Hauke, 1983, “Paradigmenkern und Theoriedynamik der Kritischen Theorie der Gesellschaft”, Soziale Welt , 34: 22–36; translated as “Paradigm-core and theory-dynamics in critical social theory: people and programs”, Peter Krockenberger (trans.), Philosophy & Social Criticism , 24(6) (1998): 67–110.
  • –––, 2002, Solidarität: Von der Bürgerfreundschaft zur globalen Rechtsgenossenschaft , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Solidarity: From Civic Friendship to a Global Legal Community , Jeffrey Flynn (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005.
  • –––, 2014, Critical Theory of Legal Revolutions: Evolutionary Perspectives , New York: Bloomsbury.
  • Buchstein, Hubertus, 2020, “Otto Kirchheimer and the Frankfurt School: Failed Collaborations in the Search for a Critical Theory of Politics”, New German Critique , 47(2): 81–106.
  • Buck-Morss, Susan, 1977, The Origin of Negative Dialectics: Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin and the Frankfurt Institute , New York: The Free Press.
  • –––, 1989, The Dialectics of Seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • –––, 1992, “Aesthetics and Anaesthetics: Walter Benjamin’s Artwork Essay Reconsidered”, October , 62: 3–41. doi:10.2307/778700
  • –––, 2009, Hegel, Haiti, and Universal History , Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Butler, Judith, 1990, Gender Trouble , London: Routledge.
  • –––, 1997, The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection , Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • –––, 2012, Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • –––, 2015, Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Butler, Judith, Jürgen Habermas, Charles Taylor, and Cornel West, 2011, The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Cassegård, Carl, 2021, Toward a Critical Theory of Nature: Capital, Ecology, and Dialectics , New York: Bloomsbury.
  • Catlin, Jonathon, 2023, “Antisemitism and Racism ‘After Auschwitz’: Adorno on the ‘Hellish Unity’ of ‘Permanent Catastrophe’ ”, in Marcel Stoetzler (ed.), Critical Theory and the Critique of Antisemitism , New York: Bloomsbury, pp. 203–230.
  • Celikates, Robin, 2006, “From Critical Social Theory to a Social Theory of Critique: On the Critique of Ideology after the Pragmatic Turn”, Constellations , 13(1): 21–40. doi:10.1111/j.1351-0487.2006.00438.x
  • –––, 2009, Kritik als soziale Praxis: Gesellschaftliche Selbstverständigung und kritische Theorie , Frankfurt am Main: Campus; translated as Critique as Social Practice: Critical Theory and Social Self-Understanding , Naomi van Steenbergen (trans.), London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2018.
  • –––, 2019a, “Critical Theory and the Unfinished Project of Mediating Theory and Practice”, in Peter Gordon, Espen Hammer, and Axel Honneth (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Frankfurt School , London: Routledge, pp. 206–220.
  • –––, 2019b, “Constituent Power Beyond Exceptionalism: Irregular Migration, Disobedience, and (Re-)Constitution”, Journal of International Political Theory , 15(1): 67–81. doi:10.1177/1755088218808311
  • –––, 2022, “Remaking the Demos ‘from Below’? Critical Theory, Migrant Struggles, and Epistemic Resistance”, in Didier Fassin and Axel Honneth (eds.), Crisis Under Critique: How People Assess, Transform, and Respond to Critical Situations , New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 97–120.
  • Celikates, Robin, Sally Haslanger, and Jason Stanley (eds.), forthcoming, Analyzing Ideology , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Celikates, Robin, Axel Honneth, and Rahel Jaeggi, 2023, “The Working Sovereign: A conversation with Axel Honneth”, Journal of Classical Sociology , 23(3): 318–338. doi:10.1177/1468795X231170980
  • Chambers, Simone, 2022, “Can Postmetaphysical Reason Escape its Provincial Roots?”, in Tom Bailey (ed.), Deprovincializing Habermas: Global Perspectives , Second Edition , New York: Routledge, pp. 229–248.
  • Chari, Anita, 2015, A Political Economy of the Senses: Neoliberalism, Reification, Critique , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Cohen, Jean L., and Andrew Arato, 1992, Civil Society and Political Theory , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Collins, Patricia Hill, 1990, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment , London: Routledge. Second edition published in 2000.
  • –––, 2019, Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory , Durham and London: Duke University Press. doi:10.1515/9781478007098
  • Cook, Deborah, 2004, Adorno, Habermas, and the Search for a Rational Society , London and New York: Routledge.
  • –––, 2011, Adorno on Nature , Durham: Acumen.
  • Cooke, Maeve, 2006, Re-Presenting the Good Society , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • –––, 2020, “Ethics and Politics in the Anthropocene”, Philosophy & Social Criticism , 46(10): 1167–1181. doi:10.1177/0191453720903491
  • –––, 2023, “Reenvisioning Freedom: Human Agency in Times of Ecological Disaster”, Constellations , 30: 119–127. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12681
  • Cordero, Rodrigo, 2017, Crisis and Critique: On the Fragile Foundations of Social Life , New York: Routledge.
  • Coulthard, Glen Sean, 2014, Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition , Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Crenshaw, Kimberlé, Neil Gotanda, Gary Peller, and Kendall Thomas, 1995, “Introduction”, Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement , New York: The New Press, pp. viii–xxxii.
  • Davis, Angela Y., 1983, Women, Race and Class , New York: Vintage.
  • –––, 2004, “Marcuse’s Legacies”, in John Abromeit and W. Mark Cobb (eds.), Herbert Marcuse: A Critical Reader . New York, Routledge, pp. 43–50.
  • –––, 2005, Abolition Democracy , New York: Seven Stories Press.
  • Dean, Jodi, 2016, Crowds and Party , London: Verso.
  • Dejours, Christophe, Jean-Philippe Deranty, Emmanuel Renault, and Nicholas H. Smith, 2018, The Return of Work in Critical Theory: Self, Society, Politics , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Demirović, Alex, 2016, “The Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, and Sociology at the Institute for Social Research (1950 to 1960)”, in Gabriel R. Ricci (ed.), The Persistence of Critical Theory , London: Routledge, pp. 25–40.
  • Deranty, Jean-Philippe, 2021, “Negativity in Recognition: Post-Freudian Legacies in Contemporary Critical Theory”, in Ikäheimo, Heikki, Kristina Lepold and Titus Stahl (eds.), Recognition and Ambivalence , New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 223–255.
  • Derrida, Jacques, 1990 [year the lecture was given], Force de loi , Paris: Galilée, 1994; translated as “The Force of Law”, Mary Quaintance (trans.), in Drucilla Cornell, Michel Rosenfeld, and David G. Carlson (eds.), Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice , New York: Routledge, 1992, pp. 3–67.
  • Dews, Peter, 1987, Logics of Disintegration: Poststructuralist Thought and the Claims of Critical Theory , London: Verso.
  • Dubiel, Helmut, 1978, Wissenschaftsorganisation und politische Erfahrung: Studien zur frühen Kritischen Theorie , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Theory and Politics: Studies in the Development of Critical Theory , Benjamin Gregg (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985.
  • Du Bois, W. E. B., 1935, Black Reconstruction in America, 1860–1880 , New York: The Free Press, 1998.
  • Dussel, Enrique, 1998, Ética de la Liberación en la edad de globalización y de la exclusión ; translated as Ethics of Liberation in the Age of Globalization and Exclusion , Eduardo Mendieta, Camilo Pérez Bustillo, Yolanda Angulo, and Nelson Maldonado-Torres (trans.), Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2013.
  • –––, 2011, “From Critical Theory to the Philosophy of Liberation: Some Themes for Dialogue”, Transmodernity , 1(2): 16–43. doi.org:10.5070/T412011806
  • Eagleton, Terry, 1991, Ideology: An Introduction , London, Verso.
  • Feenberg, Andrew, 2023a, “Marcuse’s Critique of Technology Today”, Philosophy & Social Criticism 49(6): 672–685. doi:10.1177/01914537231164657
  • –––, 2023b, The Ruthless Critique of Everything Existing: Nature and Revolution in Marcuse’s Philosophy of Praxis , London: Verso.
  • Ferrara, Alessandro, 2008, The Force of the Example: Explorations in the Paradigm of Judgment , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Ferrarese, Estelle, 2018, La fragilité du souci des autres: Adorno et le care , Lyon: ENS Éditions; translated as The Fragility of Concern for Others: Adorno and the Ethics of Care , Steven Corcoran (trans.), Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2020.
  • Finlayson, James Gordon, 2007, “Political, Moral and Critical Theory: On the Practical Philosophy of the Frankfurt School”, in Michael Rosen and B. Leiter (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Continental Philosophy , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 626–670.
  • –––, 2015, “The Artwork and the Promesse du Bonheur in Adorno”, European Journal of Philosophy , 23(3): 392–419. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0378.2012.00542.x
  • –––, 2019, The Habermas-Rawls Debate , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Flynn, Jeffrey, 2014a, Reframing the Intercultural Dialogue on Human Rights: A Philosophical Approach , New York: Routledge.
  • –––, 2014b, “Truth, Objectivity, and Experience after the Pragmatic Turn: Bernstein on Habermas’s ‘Kantian Pragmatism’ ”, in Judith M. Green (ed.), Richard J Bernstein and the Pragmatist Turn in Contemporary Philosophy , Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 190–209.
  • –––, 2022, “Decentering Eurocentrism through Dialogue”, in Tom Bailey (ed.), Deprovincializing Habermas: Global Perspectives , Second Edition , New York: Routledge, pp. 249–270.
  • Fong, Benjamin Y., 2016, Death and Mastery: Psychoanalytic Drive Theory and the Subject of Late Capitalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Forst, Rainer, 2007, Das Recht auf Rechtfertigung: Elemente einer konstruktivistischen Theorie der Gerechtigkeit , Berlin: Suhrkamp; translated as The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice , Jeffrey Flynn (trans.), New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.
  • –––, 2011, Kritik der Rechtfertigungsverhältnisse , Berlin: Suhrkamp; translated as Justification and Critique: Towards a Critical Theory of Politics , Ciaran Cronin (trans.), Cambridge: Polity, 2014.
  • –––, 2017, “Noumenal Alienation: Rousseau, Kant and Marx on the Dialectics of Self-Determination”, Kantian Review , 22(4): 523–551. doi:10.1017/S1369415417000267
  • –––, 2021a, Die noumenale Republik: Kritischer Konstruktivismus nach Kant , Berlin: Suhrkamp; translation, The Noumenal Republic: Critical Constructivism after Kant , Ciaran Cronin (trans.), forthcoming.
  • –––, (ed)., 2021b, “Symposium on Jürgen Habermas, Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie ”, Constellations , 28(1): 1–147.
  • –––, 2023, “The rule of unreason: Analyzing (Anti-)Democratic Regression”, Constellations , 30(3): 217–224. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12671
  • Foucault, Michel, 1973 [year this lecture was given], “La vérités et les formes juridiques”, Chimères , 10 (1990): 8–28; translated as “Truth and Juridical Forms”, in Michel Foucault, Power , ed. James D. Faubion, New York: New Press, 2000, pp. 31–45.
  • Fraser, Nancy, 1981, “Foucault on Modern Power: Empirical Insights and Normative Confusions”, PRAXIS International , 3: 272–287.
  • –––, 1985, “What’s Critical about Critical Theory? The Case of Habermas and Gender”, New German Critique , 35: 97–131. doi:10.2307/488202
  • –––, 1989, Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory , Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • –––, 1990, “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” Social Text , 25/26: 56–80.
  • –––, 2011, “Marketization, Social Protection, Emancipation: Toward a Neo-Polanyian Conception of Capitalist Crisis”, in Craig Calhoun and Georgi Derlugian (eds.), Business as Usual: The Roots of the Global Financial Meltdown , New York University Press, pp. 137–58.
  • –––, 2013, Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis , London: Verso.
  • –––, 2014, “Behind Marx’s Hidden Abode”, New Left Review , 86: 55–72.
  • –––, 2016, “Contradictions of Capital and Care”, New Left Review , 100: 99–117.
  • –––, 2021, “Climates of Capital”, New Left Review , 127: 94–127.
  • –––, 2022, Cannibal Capitalism: How Our System is Devouring Democracy, Care, and the Planet – And What We Can Do about It , New York: Verso.
  • Fraser, Nancy, et al., 2014, Transnationalizing the Public Sphere , Kate Nash (ed.), Cambridge: Polity.
  • Fraser, Nancy, and Axel Honneth, 2003, Redistribution or Recognition? A Philosophical-Political Exchange , New York: Verso.
  • Fraser, Nancy and Rahel Jaeggi, 2018, Capitalism: A Conversation in Critical Theory , Brian Milstein (ed.), Cambridge: Polity.
  • Freyenhagen, Fabian, 2014, “Adorno’s Politics: Theory and Praxis in Germany’s 1960s”, Philosophy & Social Criticism , 40: 867–893. doi:10.1177/0191453714545198
  • –––, 2018, “Critical Theory: Self-Reflexive Theorizing and Struggles for Emancipation”, in: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics [ Freyenhagen 2018 available online ].
  • Fricker, Miranda, 2007, Epistemic Injustice , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Fromm, Erich, 1936, “Studien über Autorität und Familie. Sozialpsychologischer Teil”, in Max Horkheimer (ed.), Schriften des Instituts für Sozialforschung, Vol. V: Studien über Autorität und Familie , Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan; translated as “Studies on Authority and the Family. Socio-psychological Dimensions”, Fromm Forum , 24 (2020): 8–58.
  • –––, 1961, Marx’s Concept of Man , New York: Continuum.
  • Gago, Verónica, 2019, La potencia feminista: O el deseo de cambiarlo todo , Buenos Aires: Tinta Limón; translated as Feminist International: How to Change Everything , Liz Mason-Deese (trans.), London: Verso, 2020.
  • Gambetti, Zeynep, 2020, “Exploratory Notes on the Origins of New Fascisms”, Critical Times , 3(1): 1–32. doi:10.1215/26410478-8189841
  • Geuss, Raymond, 1981, The Idea of a Critical Theory , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gilmore, Ruth Wilson, 2022, Abolition Geography: Essays Towards Liberation , London: Verso.
  • Gordon, Peter, 2017, “The Authoritarian Personality Revisited”, boundary 2 , 44(2): 31–56. doi:10.1215/01903659-3826618
  • –––, 2023, A Precarious Happiness: Adorno and the Sources of Normativity , Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.4324/9780429443374
  • Gordon, Peter, Espen Hammer, and Axel Honneth (eds.), 2019, The Routledge Companion to the Frankfurt School , London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429443374
  • Gregoratto, Federica, Heikki Ikäheimo, Emmanuel Renault, Arvi Särkelä, and Italo Testa, 2022, “Critical Naturalism: A Manifesto”, Krisis: Journal for Contemporary Philosophy , 42(1): 108–24. doi:10.21827/krisis.42.1.38637
  • Grüner, Eduardo, 2010, La oscuridad y las luces , Buenos Aires: Edhasa; translated as The Haitian Revolution: Capitalism, Slavery and Counter-Modernity , Ramsey McGlazer (trans.), Cambridge: Polity, 2019.
  • Habermas, Jürgen, 1962, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft , Neuwied, Berlin: Luchterhand; translated as The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society , Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989.
  • –––, 1963, Theorie und Praxis: Sozialphilosophische Studien , Neuwied am Rhein and Berlin: Luchterhand. New and extended edition Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1971; translated as Theory and Practice , John Viertel (trans.), Boston: Beacon Press, 1973.
  • –––, 1968a, Technik und Wissenschaft als ‘Ideologie’ , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Chapters 4–6 of Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science, and Politics , Jeremy J. Shapiro (trans.), Boston: Beacon Press, 1970.
  • –––, 1968b, Erkenntnis und Interesse , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Knowledge and Human Interests , Jeremy J. Shapiro (trans.), Boston: Beacon Press, 1971.
  • –––, 1973a, “Nachwort”, in Jürgen Habermas, Erkenntnis und Interesse, Mit einem neuen Nachwort , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 367–417; translated as “A Postscript to Knowledge and Human Interests ”, Christian Lenhardt (trans.), Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 3: 157–189.
  • –––, 1973b, Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Legitimation Crisis , Thomas McCarthy (trans.), Boston: Beacon Press, 1975.
  • –––, 1981, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns , 2 vols., Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as The Theory of Communicative Action , 2 vols., Thomas A. McCarthy (trans.), Boston: Beacon Press, 1984.
  • –––, 1983a, Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Handeln , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, translated as Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action , Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.
  • –––, 1983b, “Ziviler Ungehorsam: Testfall für den demokratischen Rechtsstaat”, in Peter Glotz (ed.), Ziviler Ungehorsam im Rechtsstaat , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 29–53; translated as “Civil Disobedience: Litmus Test for the Democratic Constitutional State”, Berkeley Journal of Sociology , 30: 95–116.
  • –––, 1985, Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne: Zwölf Vorlesungen , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures , Frederick Lawrence (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.
  • –––, 1991, Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics , Ciaran Cronin (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.
  • –––, 1992, Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , William Rehg (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
  • –––, 1995a, “Reconciliation Through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism”, The Journal of Philosophy , 92(3): 109–131. doi:10.5840/jphil199592335
  • –––, 1995b, “Kants Idee des ewigen Friedens aus dem historischen Abstand von 200 Jahren”, Kritische Jusitiz , 3: 293–319; translated as “Kant’s Idea of Perpetual Peace, with the Benefit of Two Hundred Years’ Hindsight”, in James Bohman and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann (eds.), Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997, pp. 113–153.
  • –––, 1996, “Vernünftig versus Wahr oder die Moral der Weltbilder”, in Die Einbeziehung des Anderen: Studien zur politischen Theorie , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as “‘Reasonable’ versus ‘True,’ or the Morality of Worldviews”, Ciaran Cronin (trans.), in The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory , Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff (eds.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998, pp. 75-105.
  • –––, 1998, Die postnationale Konstellation: politische Essays , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays , Max Pensky (ed./trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.
  • –––, 1999, Wahrheit und Rechtfertigung: philosophische Aufsätze , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Truth and Justification , Barbara Fultner (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.
  • –––, 2005, Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion. Philosophische Aufsätze , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Between Naturalism and Religion , Ciaran Cronin (trans.), Malden, MA: Polity, 2008.
  • –––, 2006, “Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research”, Communication Theory , 16(4): 411–426. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x
  • –––, 2019, Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie , 2 vols., Berlin: Suhrkamp; part of volume 1 translated as Also a History of Philosophy, Volume 1: The Project of a Genealogy of Postmetaphysical Thinking , Ciaran Cronin (trans.), Cambridge: Polity, 2023.
  • –––, 2021, “Überlegungen und Hypothesen zu einem erneuten Strukturwandel der politischen Öffentlichkeit”, in: Martin Seeliger and Sebastian Sevignani (eds.), Ein neuer Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit? , Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag, 470–500; translated as “Reflections and Hypotheses on a Further Structural Transformation of the Political Public Sphere”, Ciaran Cronin (trans.), Theory, Culture & Society , 39(4) (2022): 145–171. doi:10.1177/02632764221112341
  • Hall, Stuart, 2021, Selected Writings on Race and Difference , Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  • Harcourt, Bernard E., 2020, Critique and Praxis , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Haslanger, Sally, 2017a, “Culture and Critique”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplementary Volume), 91: 149–173. doi:10.1093/arisup/akx001
  • –––, 2017b, “Racism, Ideology, and Social Movements”, Res Philosophica , 94(1): 1–22. doi:10.11612/RESPHIL.1547
  • Heath, Joseph, 2014, “Rebooting Discourse Ethics”, Philosophy & Social Criticism , 40(9): 829–866. doi:10.1177/0191453714545340
  • Hedrick, Todd, 2010, Rawls and Habermas: Reason, Pluralism, and the Claims of Political Philosophy , Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • –––, 2019, Reconciliation and Reification: Freedom’s Semblance and Actuality from Hegel to Contemporary Critical Theory , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Heberle, Renée (ed.), 2006, Feminist Interpretations of Theodor Adorno , University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania University Press.
  • Honneth, Axel, 1985, Kritik der Macht: Reflexionsstufen einer kritischen Gesellschaftstheorie , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Critique of Power: Reflective Stages in a Critical Social Theory , Kenneth Baynes (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.
  • –––, 1992, Kampf um Anerkennung: Zur moralischen Grammatik sozialer Konflikte , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts , Joel Anderson (trans.), Cambridge: Polity, 1995.
  • –––, 1994, “Die soziale Dynamik von Mißachtung: Zur Ortsbestimmung einer kritischen Gesellschaftstheorie”, Leviathan , 22(1): 78–93; translated as “The Social Dynamics of Disrespect: On the Location of Critical Theory Today”, John Farrell (trans.), Constellations , 1(2): 255–69, reprinted in in Axel Honneth, Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory , Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007, pp. 63–79.
  • –––, 1998, “Über die Möglichkeit einer erschließenden Kritik. Die Dialektik der Aufklärung im Horizont gegenwärtiger Debatten über Sozialkritik”, Paradigmi. Rivista di critica filosofica , 16(48): 501–514; translated as “The Possibility of a Disclosing Critique of Society: The Dialectic of Enlightenment in Light of Current Debates in Social Criticism”, Constellations , 7(1) (2000): 116–127. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.00173
  • –––, 2000, Das Andere der Gerechtigkeit ; translated as Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory , Joseph Ganahl (trans.), Cambridge: Polity, 2007.
  • –––, 2001, Leiden an Unbestimmtheit: Eine Reaktualisierung der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie , Stuttgart: Reclam; translated as The Pathologies of Individual Freedom: Hegel’s Social Theory , Ladislaus Löb (trans.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.
  • –––, 2003, “Redistribution as Recognition”, in N. Fraser and A. Honneth (eds.), Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange , London: Verso, pp. 110–197.
  • –––, 2004, “Eine soziale Pathologie der Vernunft. Zur intellektuellen Erbschaft der Kritischen Theorie”, in Christoph Halbig and Michael Quante (eds.), Axel Honneth: Sozialphilosophie zwischen Kritik und Anerkennung , Münster: LIT-Verlag, pp. 9-32; translated as “A Social Pathology of Reason: On the Intellectual Legacy of Critical Theory”, in A. Honneth , Pathologies of Reason: On the Legacy of Critical Theory , New York: Columbia University Press, 2009, pp. 19-42.
  • –––, 2005, Verdinglichung: Eine anerkennungstheoretische Studie , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Reification , Martin Jay (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • –––, 2010, Das Ich im Wir: Studien zur Anerkennungstheorie , Berlin: Suhrkamp; translated as The I in We: Studies in the Theory of Recognition , Joseph Ganahl (trans.), Cambridge: Polity, 2012.
  • –––, 2011, Das Recht der Freiheit: Grundriß einer demokratischen Sittlichkeit , Berlin: Suhrkamp; translated as Freedom’s Right: The Social Foundations of Democratic Life , Joseph Ganahl (trans.), New York: Columbia University Press, 2014.
  • –––, 2017, “Is There an Emancipatory Interest? An Attempt to Answer Critical Theory’s Most Fundamental Question”, European Journal of Philosophy , 25: 908–920. doi:10.1111/ejop.12321
  • –––, 2022, “‘Labour’, A Brief History of a Modern Concept”, Philosophy , 97(2), 149–167. doi:10.1017/S003181912100036X
  • –––, 2023, Der arbeitende Souverän , Berlin: Suhrkamp; translation, The Working Sovereign , Cambridge: Polity, forthcoming.
  • Honneth, Axel, and Hans Joas (eds.), 1986, Kommunikatives Handeln: Beiträge zu Jürgen Habermas ‘Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Communicative Action: Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s The Theory of Communicative Action, Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.
  • Horkheimer, Max, 1931, “Die gegenwärtige Lage der Sozialphilosophie und die Aufgaben eines Instituts für Sozialforschung”, Frankfurter Universitätsreden , XXXVII: 3–16; translated as “The Present Situation of Social Philosophy and the Tasks of an Institute for Social Research”, John Torpey (trans.), in Max Horkheimer, Between Philosophy and Social Science: Selected Early Writings , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993, pp. 1–14. Retranslated as “The State of Contemporary Social Philosophy and the Tasks of an Institute for Social Research”, Journal for Cultural Research , Peter Wagner (trans.), 22(2) (2018): 113–121. doi:10.1080/14797585.2018.1461354
  • –––, 1933, “Materialismus und Moral”, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung , 2(2): 162–197; translated as “Materialism and Morality”, G. Frederick Hunter (trans.), in Max Horkheimer, Between Philosophy and Social Science: Selected Early Writings , Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993, pp. 15–47.
  • –––, 1936a, “Egoismus und Freiheitsbewegung: Zur Anthropologie des bürgerlichen Zeitalters”, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung , 5(2): 161–234; translated as “Egoism and Freedom Movements: On the Anthropology of the Bourgeois Era”, G. Frederick Hunter (trans.), in Max Horkheimer, Between Philosophy and Social Science: Selected Early Writings , Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993, pp. 49–110.
  • ––– (ed.), 1936b, Studien über Autorität und Familie: Forschungsberichte aus dem Institut für Sozialforschung , Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan.
  • –––, 1937a, “Traditionelle und kritische Theorie”, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung , 6(2): 245–294; translated as “Traditional and Critical Theory”, Matthew J. O’Connell (trans.), in Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory: Selected Essays , New York: Continuum, 1972, pp. 188–243.
  • –––, 1937b, “Nachtrag”, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung , 6(3): 625–631; translated as “Postscript”, Matthew J. O’Connell (trans.), in Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory: Selected Essays , New York: Continuum, 1972, pp. 244–252.
  • –––, 1941, “Art and Mass Culture”, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung , 9(2), 290–304, republished in Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory: Selected Essays , New York: Continuum, 1972, pp. 273–290.
  • Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno, 1947, Dialektik der Aufklärung: Philosophische Fragmente , Amsterdam: Querido; translated as Dialectic of Enlightenment , Edmund Jephcott (trans.), Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002.
  • Hoy, David Couzens and Thomas McCarthy, 1994, Critical Theory , Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Ibsen, Malte Froslee, 2023, A Critical Theory of Global Justice: The Frankfurt School and World Society , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ikäheimo, Heikki, Kristina Lepold and Titus Stahl (eds.), 2021, Recognition and Ambivalence , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Ingram, David, 2018, World Crisis and Underdevelopment: A Critical Theory of Poverty, Agency, and Coercion , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ingram, James, 2013, Radical Cosmopolitics: The Ethics and Politics of Democratic Universalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • –––, 2019, “Critical Theory and Postcolonialism”, in Gordon, Peter, Espen Hammer, and Axel Honneth (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Frankfurt School , London: Routledge, pp. 500–513.
  • Jaeggi, Rahel, 2005, Entfremdung: Zur Aktualität eines sozialphilosophischen Problems , Campus; translated as Alienation , Frederick Neuhouser and Alan E. Smith (trans.), New York: Columbia University Press, 2014.
  • –––, 2008, “Re-Thinking Ideology”, in Christopher Zurn, Boujdewijn de Bruijn (eds.), New Waves in Political Philosophy , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
  • –––, 2014, Kritik von Lebensformen , Berlin.: Suhrkamp; translated as Critique of Forms of Life , Ciaran Cronin (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018.
  • –––, 2017a, “Crisis, Contradiction, and the Task of a Critical Theory”, in Banu Bargu und Chiara Bottici (eds.), Feminism, Capitalism, and Critique. Essays in Honor of Nancy Fraser , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 209–224.
  • –––, 2017b, “Pathologies of Work”, Women’s Studies Quarterly , 45(3/4): 59–76. doi:10.1353/wsq.2017.0044
  • –––, 2022, “Modes of Regression: The Case of Ressentiment”, Critical Times , 5(3): 501–537. doi:10.1215/26410478-10030204
  • Jay, Martin, 1973, The Dialectical Imagination , Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown.
  • –––, 1984, Marxism and Totality , Cambridge: Polity.
  • Kelley, Robin D. G., 2002, Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination , Boston: Beacon Press. Revised and expanded edition published in 2022.
  • Kerner, Ina, 2018, “Postcolonial Theories as Global Critical Theories”, Constellations , 25(4): 614– 628. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12346
  • Klein, Steven, 2020, The Work of Politics: Making a Democratic Welfare State , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kompridis, Nikolas, 2006, Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory between Past and Future , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Koopman, Colin, 2013, Genealogy as Critique , Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  • Kracauer, Siegfried, 1927, “Das Ornament der Masse”, Frankfurter Zeitung , July 9–10, 1927; translated as “Mass Ornament”, Barbara Correll and Jack Zipes (trans.) New German Critique , 5 (1975): 67–76.
  • –––, 2013, Totalitäre Propaganda , Bernd Stiegler (ed.), Berlin: Suhrkamp. Selections are translated as part of “Studies of Totalitarianism, Propaganda, and the Masses (1936–1940)” in Siegfried Kracauer, Selected Writings on Media, Propaganda, and Political Communication , Jaeho Kang, Graeme Gilloch, and John Abromeit (eds.), New York: Columbia University Press, 2022.
  • Laclau, Ernesto, 1992, “Beyond Emancipation”, in Emancipation(s) , London: Verso, 1996, pp. 1–19.
  • Lafont, Cristina, 2019, Democracy without Shortcuts : A Participatory Conception of Deliberative Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lara, Maria Pia, 1998, Moral Textures: Feminist Narratives in the Public Sphere , Cambridge: Polity.
  • –––, 2021, Beyond the Public Sphere: Film and the Feminist Imaginary , Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
  • Leeb, Claudia, 2017, Power and Feminist Agency in Capitalism: Toward a New Theory of the Political Subject , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Löwenthal, Leo, and Norbert Guterman, 1949, Prophets of Deceit: A Study of the Techniques of the American Agitator (Studies in Prejudice: Volume 5), with a new Introduction by Alberto Toscano, London: Verso, 2021.
  • Löwy, Michael, 2001, Walter Benjamin: Avertissement d’incendie , Paris: Presses Universitaires de France; translated as Fire Alarm: Reading Walter Benjamin’s ‘On the Concept of History’ , Chris Turner (trans.), London: Verso, 2016.
  • Loick, Daniel, 2012, Kritik der Souveränität , Frankfurt: Campus; translated as A Critique of Sovereignty , Amanda DeMarco (trans.) London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2018.
  • –––, 2021, “The Ethical Life of Counter-Communities”, Critical Times , 4(1): 1–28. doi:10.1215/26410478-8855203
  • Lukács, Georg, 1923, “Verdinglichung und das Bewußtsein des Proletariats”, in Geschichte und Klassenbewußtsein , Berlin: Malik; translated as “Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat”, in History and Class Consciousness , Rodney Livingstone (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971, pp. 83–222.
  • –––, 1963, “Vorwort” to Die Theorie des Romans , Berlin: Luchterhand; translated as The Theory of the Novel , Anna Bostock (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1974.
  • Malm, Andreas, 2020, How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire , London: Verso.
  • Marasco, Robyn, 2006, “‘Already the Effect of the Whip’: Critical Theory and the Feminine Ideal”, differences , 17(1): 88–115. doi:10.1215/10407391-2005-005
  • –––, 2015, The Highway of Despair: Critical Theory After Hegel , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • –––, 2018, “There’s a Fascist in the Family: Critical Theory and Antiauthoritarianism”, South Atlantic Quarterly , 117(4): 791–813. doi:10.1215/00382876-7165871
  • Marcuse, Herbert, 1937, “Philosophie und kritische Theorie”, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung , 6(3): 625–647; translated as “Philosophy and Critical Theory”, in H. Marcuse (ed.), Negations , Jeremy J. Shapiro (trans), London: MayFlyBooks, 1968, pp. 99–117.
  • –––, 1941, Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • –––, 1955, Eros and Civilization , Boston: Beacon Press.
  • –––, 1964, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society , Boston: Beacon Press.
  • –––, 1967, “Liberation from the Affluent Society” in Douglas Kellner (ed.), The New Left and the 1960s: Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse, Volume 3 , New York: Routledge, 2004.
  • –––, 1968, “Beyond One-Dimensional Man”, in Douglas Kellner (ed.), Towards a Critical Theory of Society , Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse, Volume 2 , New York: Routledge, 2001.
  • –––, 1969, An Essay on Liberation , Boston: Beacon Press.
  • –––, 1974, “Marxism and Feminism”, Women’s Studies , 2: 279–288.
  • Marx, Karl, 1843, “Brief an Ruge, September 1843”, in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Briefwechsel bis April 1846 (Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Gesamtausgabe, vol. III.1), Berlin: Dietz: 1975, pp. 54–57; translated as “Letter to Ruge, September 1843”, in Karl Marx: Early Writings (Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Collected Works, vol. 1), Rodney Livingstone (trans.), London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1975, pp. 209–211.
  • –––, 1844, “Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie: Einleitung”, in Karl Marx: Werke, Artikel, Entwürfe: März 1843 – August 1944 (Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Gesamtausgabe, vol. I.2), Berlin: Dietz, 1975, pp. 170–184; translated as “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law”, Martin Milligan and Barbara Ruhemann (trans.), in Karl Marx March 1843 – August 1944 (Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Collected Works, vol. 3), London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1975, pp. 3–127.
  • –––, 1846, Die deutsche Ideologie: Manuskripte und Drucke (Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Gesamtausgabe, vol. I.5), Berlin: De Gruyter/Akademie, 2017; translated as The German Ideology (Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Collected Works, vol. 5), Clemens Dutt, W. Lough, and C. P. Magill (trans.), London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1976.
  • –––, 1867, Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band (Hamburg 1867) (Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Gesamtausgabe, vol. II.5), Berlin: Dietz, 1983; translated as Capital, Volume I (Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Collected Works, vol. 35), London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1996.
  • Mbembe, Achille, 2016, Politiques de l’inimitié ; translated as Necropolitics , Steven Corcoran (trans.), Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2019.
  • McAfee, Noëlle, 2019, Fear of Breakdown: Politics and Psychoanalysis , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • McCarthy, Thomas, 1991, Ideals and Illusions : On Reconstruction and Deconstruction in Contemporary Critical Theory , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • –––, 2004, “Political Philosophy and Racial Injustice: From Normative to Critical Theory” in Seyla Benhabib and Nancy Fraser (eds.), Pragmatism, Critique, Judgment: Essays for Richard J. Bernstein , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 147–168.
  • –––, 2009, Race, Empire, and the Idea of Human Development , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • McNay, Lois, 2022, The Gender of Critical Theory: On the Experiential Grounds of Critique , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Medina, José, 2013, The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Meehan, Johanna (ed.), 1995, Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse , New York: Routledge.
  • Mendieta, Eduardo, 2007, Global Fragments: Globalizations, Latinamericanisms, and Critical Theory , New York: SUNY Press.
  • Menke, Christoph, 1988, Die Souveränität der Kunst: Ästhetische Erfahrung nach Adorno und Derrida ; translated as The Sovereignty of Art: Aesthetic Negativity in Adorno and Derrida , Neil Solomon (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.
  • –––, 2000, Spiegelungen der Gleichheit , Berlin: Akademie; translated as Reflections of Equality , Howard Rouse and Andrei Denejkine (trans.), Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006.
  • –––, 2015, Kritik der Rechte , Berlin: Suhrkamp; translated as Critique of Rights , Christopher Turner (trans.), Cambridge: Polity, 2020.
  • Mills, Charles, 1988, “Alternative Epistemologies”, Social Theory and Practice , 14(3): 237–63.
  • –––, 2003, From Class to Race: Essays in White Marxism and Black Radicalism , New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • –––, 2017, “Criticizing Critical Theory”, in Critical Theory in Critical Times: Transforming the Global Political and Economic Order , Penelope Deutscher and Cristina Lafont (eds.), New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 233–250.
  • Milstein, Brian, 2015, Commercium: Critical Theory from a Cosmopolitan Point of View , New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Moten, Fred, and Stefano Harney, 2013, The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning and Black Study , London: Minor Compositions/Autonomedia.
  • Müller-Doohm, Stefan, 2003, Adorno: Eine Biographie , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Adorno: A Biography , Rodney Livingstone (trans.), Cambridge: Polity, 2005.
  • Negt, Oskar, and Alexander Kluge, 1972, Öffentlichkeit und Erfahrung: Zur Organisationsanalyse von bürgerlicher und proletarischer Öffentlichkeit , Frankfurt: Suhrkamp; translated as Public Sphere and Experience: Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere , Peter Labanyi, Jamie Owen Daniel, and Assenka Oksiloff (trans.), London: Verso, 2016.
  • Neuhouser, Frederick, 2022, Diagnosing Social Pathology: Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, and Durkheim , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Neumann, Franz L., 1944, Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism, 1933–1944 , New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Ng, Julia, 2023, “The Action of Non-Action: Walter Benjamin, Wu Wei and the Nature of Capitalism”, Theory, Culture & Society , 40(4–5): 219–238. doi:10.1177/02632764231169944
  • Ng, Karen, 2015, “Ideology Critique from Hegel and Marx to Critical Theory”, Constellations , 22(3): 393–404. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12170
  • O’Connor, Brian, 2004, Adorno’s Negative Dialectic: Philosophy and the Possibility of a Critical Rationality , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Offe, Claus, 1984, Contradictions of the Welfare State , John Keane (ed.), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Outlaw, Lucius T., Jr., 2005, Critical Social Theory in the Interests of Black Folks , London: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Owen, David, 2002, “Criticism and Captivity: On Genealogy and Critical Theory”, European Journal of Philosophy , 10: 216–230. doi:10.1111/1468-0378.00158
  • Pensky, Max, 1993, Melancholy Dialectics: Walter Benjamin and the Play of Mourning , Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
  • –––, 2019, “Western Marxism: Revolutions in Theory”, in Peter Gordon and Warren Breckman (eds.), The Cambridge History of Modern European Thought, Volume 2: The Twentieth Century , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 259–288.
  • Pickford, Henry, 2023, “Adorno and the Categories of Resistance”, Constellations . doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12652
  • Pollock, Friedrich, 1941, “State Capitalism: Its Possibilities and Limitations”, Studies in Philosophy and Social Science , 9: 200–225.
  • Postone, Moishe, 1980, “Anti-Semitism and National Socialism: Notes on the German Reaction to ‘Holocaust’ ”, New German Critique , 19: 97–115. doi:10.2307/487974
  • –––, 1993, Time, Labor, and Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx’s Critical Theory , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rabinbach, Anson, 2000, “Why Were the Jews Sacrificed? The Place of Anti-Semitism in Dialectic of Enlightenment” , New German Critiqu e, 81: 49–64. doi:10.2307/488545
  • Rawls, John, 1993, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • –––, 1995, “Political Liberalism: Reply to Habermas”, The Journal of Philosophy , 92(3): 132–180. doi:10.2307/2940843
  • Redecker, Eva von, 2018, Praxis und Revolution , Frankfurt am Main: Campus; translated as Praxis and Revolution: A Theory of Social Transformation , Lucy Duggan (trans.), New York: Columbia University Press, 2022.
  • –––, 2020, “Ownership’s Shadow: Neoauthoritarianism as Defense of Phantom Possession”, Critical Times , 3(1): 33–67. doi:10.1215/26410478-8189849
  • Renault, Emmanuel, 2004, L’expérience de l’injustice: Reconnaissance et clinique de l’injustice , Paris: La Découverte; translated as The Experience of Injustice: A Theory of Recognition , Richard A. Lynch (trans.), New York: Columbia University Press, 2019.
  • –––, 2008, Souffrances sociales: Sociologie, psychologie et politique , Paris: La Découverte; translated as Social Suffering: Sociology, Psychology, Politics , Maude Dews (trans.), London: Rowman & Littlefield International, 2017.
  • Rensmann, Lars, 2017, The Politics of Unreason: The Frankfurt School and the Origins of Modern Antisemitism , Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  • Roberts, Neil, 2015, Freedom as Marronage , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Rorty, Richard, 1985, “Habermas and Lyotard on Postmodernism”, in Richard J. Bernstein (ed.), Habermas and Modernity , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 161–75.
  • Rosa, Hartmut, 2016, Resonanz: Eine Soziologie der Weltbeziehung , Berlin: Suhrkamp; translated as Resonance: A Sociology of Our Relationship to the World , James C. Wagner (trans.), Cambridge: Polity, 2019.
  • Rosa, Hartmut, Christoph Henning, and Arthur Bueno (eds.), 2021, Critical Theory and New Materialisms , New York: Routledge.
  • Rosen, Michael, 1996, On Voluntary Servitude: False Consciousness and the Theory of Ideology , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Rössler, Beate, 2007, “Work, Recognition, Emancipation”, in Bert van den Brink and David Owen (eds.), Recognition and Power: Axel Honneth and the Tradition of Critical Social Theory . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–163.
  • Saar, M. 2002, “Genealogy and Subjectivity”, European Journal of Philosophy , 10(2): 231–245. doi:10.1111/1468-0378.00159
  • –––, 2018, “What Is Social Philosophy? Or: Order, Practice, Subject”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 118(2): 207–223. doi:10.1093/arisoc/aoy009
  • –––, 2020, “Rethinking Resistance: Critical Theory before and after Deleuze”, Coils of the Serpent: Journal for the Study of Contemporary Power , 5(6): 68–80. [ Saar 2020 available online ].
  • Said, Edward, 1993, Culture and Imperialism , New York: Vintage.
  • Schaub, Jörg, 2015, “Misdevelopments, Pathologies, and Normative Revolutions: Normative Reconstruction as Method of Critical Theory”, Critical Horizons , 16(2): 107–130. doi:10.1179/1440991715Z.00000000043
  • Scheuerman, William, 1994, Between the Norm and the Exception: The Frankfurt School and the Rule of Law , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • –––, (ed.), 1996, The Rule of Law under Siege: Selected Essays of Franz L. Neumann and Otto Kirchheimer , Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • –––, 2018, Civil Disobedience , Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Sealey, Kris F. and Benjamin P. Davis (eds.), forthcoming, Creolizing Critical Theory: New Voices in Caribbean Philosophy , New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Seeliger, Martin and Sebastian Sevignani (eds.), 2022, Special Issue: A New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere? , Theory, Culture & Society , 39(4).
  • Shelby, Tommie, 2003, “Ideology, Racism, and Critical Social Theory”, Philosophical Forum , 34(2): 153–188. doi:10.1111/1467-9191.00132
  • Smith, William, 2013, Civil Disobedience and Deliberative Democracy , London: Routledge.
  • Stahl, Titus, 2013a, Immanente Kritik: Elemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken , Frankfurt: Campus; translated as Immanent Critique , John-Baptiste Oduor (trans.), London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2022.
  • –––, 2013b, “Habermas and the Project of Immanent Critique”, Constellations , 20(4): 533–552. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12057
  • Stanley, Jason, 2015, How Propaganda Works , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Thompson, Michael J. (ed.), 2017, The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Theory , New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-55801-5
  • Vázquez-Arroyo, Antonio Y., 2018, “Critical Theory, Colonialism, and the Historicity of Thought”, Constellations , 25: 54–70. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12348
  • Virno, Paolo, 2004, A Grammar of the Multitude: For an Analysis of Contemporary Forms of Life , New York: Semiotext(e).
  • Vogel, Steven, 1996, Against Nature: The Concept of Nature in Critical Theory , New York: SUNY Press.
  • –––, 2011, “On Nature and Alienation”, in Andrew Biro (ed.), Critical Ecologies: The Frankfurt School and Contemporary Environmental Crises , Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  • Vogelmann, Frieder, 2016, “Measuring, Disrupting, Emancipating: Three Pictures of Critique”, Constellations , 24(1): 101–112. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12254
  • –––, 2021, “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Idealism in Critical Theory”, Constellations , 28(3): 322–336. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12548
  • Warner, Michael, 2002, Publics and Counterpublics , New York: Zone Books.
  • Wellmer, Albrecht, 1969, Kritische Gesellschaftstheorie und Positivismus , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Critical Theory of Society , John Gumming (trans.), New York: Herder and Herder, 1971.
  • –––, 1983, “Reason, Utopia, and the Dialectic of Enlightenment”, Praxis International , 3(2): 83–107.
  • –––, 1985/86, Zur Dialektik von Moderne und Postmoderne , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1985, and Ethik und Dialog , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1986. Portions of both books are translated in The Persistence of Modernity: Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism , David Midgley (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.
  • –––, 1993, Endspiele: Die unversöhnliche Moderne , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; translated as Endgames: The Irreconcilable Nature of Modernity , David Midgley (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1998.
  • –––, 2014, “On Critical Theory”, Social Research , 81(3): 705–733. doi:10.1353/sor.2014.0045
  • Wheatland, Thomas, 2009, The Frankfurt School in Exile , Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Whitebook, Joel, 1995, Perversion and Utopia: A Study in Psychoanalysis and Critical Theory , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • –––, 2021, “Misuse of Winnicott: On Axel Honneth’s Appropriation of Psychoanalysis”, Constellations , 28(3): 306–321. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12582
  • Wiggershaus, Rolf, 1986, Die Frankfurter Schule: Geschichte, theoretische Entwicklung, politische Bedeutung , München: Hanser; translated as The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance , Michael Robertson (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994.
  • Wimbauer, Christine, 2023, “Taking Care Seriously: Gendering Honneth’s The Working Sovereign – A Normative Theory of Work ”, Journal of Classical Sociology , 23(3): 389–400. doi:10.1177/1468795X231170827
  • Wolin, Richard, 1994, Walter Benjamin: An Aesthetic of Redemption , Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Young, Iris Marion, 2000, Inclusion and Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • –––, 2001, “Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy”, Political Theory , 29(5): 670–90. doi:10.1177/0090591701029005004
  • –––, 2007, “Recognition of Love’s Labor: Considering Axel Honneth’s Feminism”, in Bert van den Brink and David Owen (eds.), Recognition and Power: Axel Honneth and the Tradition of Critical Social Theory . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189–212.
  • Zaretsky, Eli, 2022, “Donald Trump and the Paranoid Position”, Critical Historical Studies , 9(1): 133–157. doi:10.1086/719127
  • Zurn, Christopher, 2011, “Social pathologies as second-order disorders”, in Danielle Petherbridge (ed.), Axel Honneth: Critical Essays , Leiden: Brill, pp. 345–70.
  • –––, 2015, Axel Honneth: A Critical Theory of the Social , Cambridge: Polity.
How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.
  • Critical Theory in Berlin
  • The Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt
  • International Consortium of Critical Theory Programs
  • Critical Theory in the Global South
  • The Syllabus Exchange Platform
  • Bohman, James, “Critical Theory”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/critical-theory/ >. [This was the previous entry on this topic in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – see the version history .]

Adorno, Theodor W. | alienation | Benjamin, Walter | colonialism | critical philosophy of race | disability: critical disability theory | feminist philosophy, interventions: epistemology and philosophy of science | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on power | Foucault, Michel | Habermas, Jürgen | Horkheimer, Max | Lukács, Georg [György] | Marcuse, Herbert | postmodernism | recognition

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Amy Allen, Axel Honneth, Noëlle McAfee, and Martin Saar for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts and Christian Meyer for judicious editorial assistance.

Copyright © 2023 by Robin Celikates < robin . celikates @ fu-berlin . de > Jeffrey Flynn < jeflynn @ fordham . edu >

  • Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

  • Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Library homepage

  • school Campus Bookshelves
  • menu_book Bookshelves
  • perm_media Learning Objects
  • login Login
  • how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
  • hub Instructor Commons
  • Download Page (PDF)
  • Download Full Book (PDF)
  • Periodic Table
  • Physics Constants
  • Scientific Calculator
  • Reference & Cite
  • Tools expand_more
  • Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

Social Sci LibreTexts

1.2: Critical Thinking Skills

  • Last updated
  • Save as PDF
  • Page ID 155778

  • Jim Marteney
  • Los Angeles Valley College via ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative (OERI)

We are not born with natural critical thinking abilities. Critical thinking is a skill that can be developed. The good news is that we all have the ability to improve our critical thinking skills. We can become more effective decision makers and improve our self- confidence. Below are some of those Critical Thinking Skills that can be developed and enhanced:

Critical thinkers are intellectually curious . This skill implies that the critical thinker is never totally satisfied with what they know. He or she seeks answers to various kinds of questions and problems. The critical thinker is concerned with investigating the causes and seeking explanations of events; asking why, how, who, what, when, and where.

Critical thinkers are open-minded . An open-minded person is one who is confident enough in his/her abilities to accept new and contradictory ideas, which challenge his/her current beliefs. This is opposed to being “tolerant” where the dogmatic person may politely listen to other arguments, but their minds will not be changed.

The open-minded person is one who is not only willing to listen to new ideas, but will alter an already adopted position if the new data dictates. The open-minded person is willing to consider a wide variety of positions and beliefs as possibly being valid. Open-minded people are flexible. They are willing to change their beliefs and methods of inquiry, if they are faced with a more valid argument. Open-minded people show a willingness to admit they may be wrong and that other ideas they did not accept may be correct. Critical thinkers do not just want to prove they are correct; they are open- minded enough to change their mind.

Critical thinkers avoid “Red Herrings.” Critical thinkers follow a line of reasoning consistently to a particular conclusion. They avoid irrelevancies, called “red herrings,” that stray from the issue being argued. When Jim and his wife Suzy argue, and Jim feels he is losing, he looks at Suzy and says, “You argue pretty well for a short person.” He is hoping to draw her off the argument and send her fishing for the “red herring,” her being short. If she takes the bait the original argument fades away. Critical thinkers won’t go after “red herrings.”

Critical thinkers are aware of their own biases . All humans are biased, some more than others. Some know that they have biases, some are not aware of their biases. We all have biases that we are not aware of and the critical thinker strives to learn them, so he or she can be more in charge of their thinking. It may be too much of a challenge to eliminate the different biases we have. Instead a critical thinker needs to be aware of the bias and how it will affect the thinking process. Thinking about thinking is referred to as metacognition. A critical thinker looks at how he or she thinks and makes decisions in order to improve the process.

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

----F. Scott Fitzgerald 1

Screen Shot 2020-09-06 at 11.02.37 PM.png

Critical thinkers learn to handle confusion . People will do almost anything to avoid the mental pain that comes with lingering confusion. We bypass it, avoid it, and even try to pass it off to someone else. In this haste to avoid confusion we often make quick decisions based on limited data or overworked stereotypes. The critical thinker allows him or herself to be confused as they work through the argument towards a conclusion.

Critical thinkers are able to control and use their emotions . Notice this does not say, “ Eliminate emotions .” We gather all sorts of valuable data through our emotions, that we can use in the decision-making process. We just have to be careful not to let emotions dominate our critical thinking and argumentation. Nothing will destroy the critical thinking process faster than misplaced or misdirected anger, fear, or frustration.

Critical thinkers are sensitive and empathetic to the needs of others . Critical thinkers need to pay particular attention to the needs of their target audience. The needs, concerns, and desires of your audience may be different than yours. The critical thinker is more effective if he or she can understand those concerns. They may not agree with them, but at least they understand them. The target audience may be the person trying to convince you of their argument or the person you are trying to convince with your argument. Persuasion usually takes place when an advocate is able to meet the needs of his or her target audience. In fact, your needs may be unimportant as it pertains to moving a target audience towards adherence to your point of view.

Critical thinkers can distinguish between a conclusion that might be “true” and one that they would like to be “true.” Notice the use of "truth" with a lower case "t . " This "truth" refers to just what a person believes, not the ultimate correct position that would be indicated by "Truth." A conclusion that might be true, is based on calculating the probability of its outcome, to see if it has a reasonable chance of becoming a reality. The second type, a conclusion that you would like to be true, is based more on your wishing, wanting, and desiring that it become a reality. The first can be put to the tests of critical reasoning, but the second cannot, and, therefore, is of little value in critical thinking. You may believe your child to be a great person, but the evidence might suggest otherwise.

Critical thinkers know when to admit to not knowing something . An essential prerequisite to understanding is humility; to be able to admit when you don’t know an answer to a situation. Although we want to protect our egos by believing we know everything, learning comes from questioning, not from knowing all the answers. When we can admit that we don’t know, we are more likely to ask questions that will enable us to learn. By giving ourselves permission to admit we don’t know everything, we can overcome the fear that our lack of knowledge will be discovered. The energy expended trying to cover up what we don’t know diminishes our ability to learn. If we are always trying to disguise our lack of knowledge of a subject, we will never fully understand what it is we don’t know about it. Feel free to say, "I don't know."

Critical Thinkers are independent Thinkers. They have the confidence to state their opinions and point of view to others who might disagree. They use the skills of critical thinking to support their positions and make their arguments.

Critical thinkers seek a “dialogical” approach to the process of argument. “Dialogical” thinkers seriously seek points of view other than their own. The ability to think “dialogically” would include the abilities to: analyze, synthesize, compare and contrast, explain, evaluate, justify, recognize valid and invalid conclusions, identify or anticipate or pose problems, look for alternatives, apply logical principles, and solve conventional or novel problems. These are many of the skills of critically thinkers.

Stephen Brookfield in his book, Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking, writes,

“Critical thinking is only possible when people probe their habitual ways of thinking, for their underlying assumptions, those taken-for-granted values, common-sense ideas, and stereotypical notions about human nature that underlie our actions.” 2

We are looking at the process of argumentation and the type of person who can be most effective in an argumentative situation. You as a critical thinker will be both involved in an argument and an observer of an argument. We can improve our abilities to do both.

  • Thomas Oppong "F. Scott Fitzgerald on first Rate Intelligence," 2018, medium.com/personal-growth/f...e-7cf8ea002794 (accessed on November 6, 2019)
  • Brookfield, Stephen. Developing Critical Thinkers : Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting. (Baltimore: Laureate Education, 2010)

Bookmark this page

  • International Center for the Assessment of Higher Order Thinking
  • Our Team of Presenters
  • Fellows of the Foundation
  • Dr. Richard Paul
  • Dr. Linda Elder
  • Dr. Gerald Nosich
  • Permission to Use Our Work
  • Create a CriticalThinking.Org Account
  • Contributions to the Foundation for Critical Thinking
  • Contact Us - Office Information
  • Testimonials
  • Center for Critical Thinking
  • The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking
  • Main Library of Critical Thinking Resources
  • Defining Critical Thinking
  • About Critical Thinking
  • A Brief History of the Idea of Critical Thinking
  • Critical Thinking: Basic Questions & Answers
  • Our Conception of Critical Thinking
  • Sumner’s Definition of Critical Thinking
  • Research in Critical Thinking
  • Critical Societies: Thoughts from the Past
  • Fundamentals of Critical Thinking
  • Content Is Thinking, Thinking is Content
  • Critical Thinking in Every Domain of Knowledge and Belief
  • Using Intellectual Standards to Assess Student Reasoning
  • Open-minded inquiry
  • Valuable Intellectual Traits
  • Universal Intellectual Standards
  • Thinking With Concepts
  • The Analysis & Assessment of Thinking
  • Glossary of Critical Thinking Terms
  • Distinguishing Between Inert Information, Activated Ignorance, Activated Knowledge
  • Critical Thinking: Identifying the Targets
  • Distinguishing Between Inferences and Assumptions
  • Critical Thinking Development: A Stage Theory
  • Becoming a Critic Of Your Thinking
  • Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking
  • Richard Paul Anthology Classic
  • Documenting the Problem
  • Intellectual Foundations: The Key Missing Piece in School Restructuring
  • Pseudo Critical Thinking in the Educational Establishment
  • Research Findings and Policy Recommendations
  • Why Students and Teachers Don’t Reason Well
  • Critical Thinking in the Engineering Enterprise: Novices typically don't even know what questions to ask
  • Critical Thinking Movement: 3 Waves
  • Higher Education Instruction
  • An Overview of How to Design Instruction Using Critical Thinking Concepts
  • Recommendations for Departmental Self-Evaluation
  • College-Wide Grading Standards
  • Sample Course: American History: 1600 to 1800
  • CT Class Syllabus
  • Syllabus - Psychology I
  • A Sample Assignment Format
  • Grade Profiles
  • Critical Thinking Class: Student Understandings
  • Structures for Student Self-Assessment
  • Critical Thinking Class: Grading Policies
  • Socratic Teaching
  • John Stuart Mill: On Instruction, Intellectual Development, and Disciplined Learning
  • Critical Thinking and Nursing
  • K-12 Instruction Strategies & Samples
  • Tactical and Structural Recommendations
  • Teaching Tactics that Encourage Active Learning
  • The Art of Redesigning Instruction
  • Making Critical Thinking Intuitive
  • Remodelled Lessons: K-3
  • Remodelled Lessons: 4-6
  • Remodelled Lessons: 6-9
  • Remodelled Lessons: High School
  • Introduction to Remodelling: Components of Remodels and Their Functions
  • Strategy List: 35 Dimensions of Critical Thought
  • For Students
  • Critical Thinking in Everyday Life: 9 Strategies
  • Developing as Rational Persons: Viewing Our Development in Stages
  • How to Study and Learn (Part One)
  • How to Study and Learn (Part Two)
  • How to Study and Learn (Part Three)
  • How to Study and Learn (Part Four)
  • The Art of Close Reading (Part One)
  • The Art of Close Reading (Part Two)
  • The Art of Close Reading (Part Three)
  • Looking To The Future With a Critical Eye: A Message for High School Graduates
  • For Young Students (Elementary/K-6)
  • Issues in Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking and the Social Studies Teacher

  • Ethical Reasoning Essential to Education
  • Ethics Without Indoctrination
  • Engineering Reasoning
  • Accelerating Change
  • Applied Disciplines: A Critical Thinking Model for Engineering
  • Global Change: Why C.T. is Essential To the Community College Mission
  • Natural Egocentric Dispositions
  • Diversity: Making Sense of It Through Critical Thinking
  • Critical Thinking, Moral Integrity and Citizenship
  • Critical Thinking and Emotional Intelligence
  • The Questioning Mind
  • Newton, Darwin, & Einstein
  • The Role of Socratic Questioning in Thinking, Teaching, & Learning
  • Complex Interdisciplinary Questions Exemplified: Ecological Sustainability
  • The Critical Mind is A Questioning Mind
  • Three Categories of Questions: Crucial Distinctions
  • A History of Freedom of Thought
  • Reading Backwards: Classic Books Online
  • The Center for Critical Thinking Community Online
  • Customized Webinars and Online Courses for Faculty
  • Certification in the Paul-Elder Approach to Critical Thinking
  • Consulting for Leaders and Key Personnel at Your Organization
  • K-12 Instruction
  • Higher Education
  • Business & Professional Groups
  • Build a Local Critical Thinking Town Hall
  • Critical Thinking Training for Law Enforcement
  • Online Courses for Instructors
  • Critical Thinking Therapy
  • Bring Critical Thinking Into Your Website's Discussion
  • The State of Critical Thinking Today
  • Professional Development Model for K-12
  • Professional Development Model - College and University
  • Workshop Descriptions
  • Mentor Program
  • Inservice Information Request Form
  • Institutions Using Our Approach to Critical Thinking
  • Upcoming Events in Critical Thinking
  • 44th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
  • Focal Session Descriptions
  • Daily Schedule
  • Call for Proposals
  • Presuppositions of the 44th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
  • Recommended Reading
  • Conference Archives
  • 43rd Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
  • Guest Presentation Program
  • Register as an Ambassador
  • Testimonials from Past Attendees
  • Thank You to Our Donors
  • Presuppositions of the Conference
  • 42nd Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
  • Overview of Sessions (Flyer)
  • Presuppositions of the Annual International Conference
  • Testimonials from Past Conferences
  • 41st Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
  • Recommended Publications
  • Dedication to Our Donors
  • 40th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
  • Session Descriptions
  • Testimonials from Prior Conferences
  • International Critical Thinking Manifesto
  • Scholarships Available
  • 39th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
  • Travel and Lodging Info
  • FAQ & General Announcements
  • Focal and Plenary Session Descriptions
  • Program and Proceedings of the 39th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
  • The Venue: KU Leuven
  • Call for Critical Thinking Ambassadors
  • Conference Background Information
  • 38th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
  • Call for Ambassadors for Critical Thinking
  • Conference Focal Session Descriptions
  • Conference Concurrent Session Descriptions
  • Conference Roundtable Discussions
  • Conference Announcements and FAQ
  • Conference Program and Proceedings
  • Conference Daily Schedule
  • Conference Hotel Information
  • Conference Academic Credit
  • Conference Presuppositions
  • What Participants Have Said About the Conference
  • 37th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking
  • Registration & Fees
  • FAQ and Announcements
  • Conference Presenters
  • 37th Conference Flyer
  • Program and Proceedings of the 37th Conference
  • 36th International Conference
  • Conference Sessions
  • Conference Flyer
  • Program and Proceedings
  • Academic Credit
  • 35th International Conference
  • Conference Session Descriptions
  • Available Online Sessions
  • Bertrand Russell Distinguished Scholar - Daniel Ellsberg
  • 35th International Conference Program
  • Concurrent Sessions
  • Posthumous Bertrand Russell Scholar
  • Hotel Information
  • Conference FAQs
  • Visiting UC Berkeley
  • 34th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
  • Bertrand Russell Distinguished Scholar - Ralph Nader
  • Conference Concurrent Presenters
  • Conference Program
  • Conference Theme
  • Roundtable Discussions
  • Flyer for Bulletin Boards
  • 33rd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
  • 33rd International Conference Program
  • 33rd International Conference Sessions
  • 33rd International Conference Presenters
  • The Bertrand Russell Distinguished Scholars Critical Thinking Conversations
  • 33rd International Conference - Fees & Registration
  • 33rd International Conference Concurrent Presenters
  • 33rd International Conference - Hotel Information
  • 33rd International Conference Flyer
  • 32nd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
  • 32nd Annual Conference Sessions
  • 32nd Annual Conference Presenter Information
  • 32nd Conference Program
  • The Bertrand Russell Distinguished Scholars Critical Thinking Lecture Series
  • 32nd Annual Conference Concurrent Presenters
  • 32nd Annual Conference Academic Credit
  • 31st INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
  • 31st Conference Sessions
  • Comments about previous conferences
  • Conference Hotel (2011)
  • 31st Concurrent Presenters
  • Registration Fees
  • 31st International Conference
  • 30th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CRITICAL THINKING
  • 30th International Conference Theme
  • 30th Conference Sessions
  • PreConference Sessions
  • 30th Concurrent Presenters
  • 30th Conference Presuppositions
  • Hilton Garden Inn
  • 29th International Conference
  • 29th Conference Theme
  • 29th Conference Sessions
  • 29th Preconference Sessions
  • 29th Conference Concurrent Sessions
  • 2008 International Conference on Critical Thinking
  • 2008 Preconference Sessions (28th Intl. Conference)
  • 2007 Conference on Critical Thinking (Main Page)
  • 2007 Conference Theme and sessions
  • 2007 Pre-Conference Workshops
  • 2006 Annual International Conference (archived)
  • 2006 International Conference Theme
  • 2005 International Conference (archived)
  • Prior Conference Programs (Pre 2000)
  • Workshop Archives
  • Spring 2022 Online Workshops
  • 2021 Online Workshops for Winter & Spring
  • 2019 Seminar for Military and Intelligence Trainers and Instructors
  • Transportation, Lodging, and Recreation
  • Seminar Flyer
  • 2013 Spring Workshops
  • Our Presenters
  • 2013 Spring Workshops - Hotel Information
  • 2013 Spring Workshops Flyer
  • 2013 Spring Workshops - Schedule
  • Spring Workshop 2012
  • 2012 Spring Workshop Strands
  • 2012 Spring Workshop Flier
  • 2011 Spring Workshop
  • Spring 2010 Workshop Strands
  • 2009 Spring Workshops on Critical Thinking
  • 2008 SPRING Workshops and Seminars on Critical Thinking
  • 2008 Ethical Reasoning Workshop
  • 2008 - On Richard Paul's Teaching Design
  • 2008 Engineering Reasoning Workshop
  • 2008 Academia sobre Formulando Preguntas Esenciales
  • Fellows Academy Archives
  • 2017 Fall International Fellows Academy
  • 4th International Fellows Academy - 2016
  • 3rd International Fellows Academy
  • 2nd International Fellows Academy
  • 1st International Fellows Academy
  • Academy Archives
  • October 2019 Critical Thinking Academy for Educators and Administrators
  • Transportation, Lodging, and Leisure
  • Advanced Seminar: Oxford Tutorial
  • Recreational Group Activities
  • Limited Scholarships Available
  • September 2019 Critical Thinking Educators and Administrators Academy
  • 2019 Critical Thinking Training for Trainers and Advanced Academy
  • Academy Flyer
  • Seattle, WA 2017 Spring Academy
  • San Diego, CA 2017 Spring Academy
  • 2016 Spring Academy -- Washington D.C.
  • 2016 Spring Academy -- Houston, TX
  • The 2nd International Academy on Critical Thinking (Oxford 2008)
  • 2007 National Academy on Critical Thinking Testing and Assessment
  • 2006 Cambridge Academy (archived)
  • 2006 Cambridge Academy Theme
  • 2006 Cambridge Academy Sessions
  • Accommodations at St. John's College
  • A Model for the National Assessment of Higher Order Thinking
  • International Critical Thinking Essay Test
  • Online Critical Thinking Basic Concepts Test
  • Online Critical Thinking Basic Concepts Sample Test
  • Consequential Validity: Using Assessment to Drive Instruction
  • News & Announcements
  • Newest Pages Added to CriticalThinking.Org
  • Critical Thinking Online Courses
  • Critical Thinking Blog
  • 2019 Blog Entries
  • 2020 Blog Entries
  • 2021 Blog Entries
  • 2022 Blog Entries
  • 2023 Blog Entries
  • Online Courses for Your Students
  • Webinar Q&A Sessions
  • 2023 Webinar Archives
  • 2022 Webinar Archives
  • 2021 Webinar Archive
  • 2020 Webinar Archive
  • Guided Study Groups
  • Critical Thinking Channel on YouTube
  • CT800: Spring 2024

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations.

Critical Thinking and Social Studies

by Mike Yell

                        The advance of knowledge has been achieved not because the mind is capable of memorizing what teachers say but because it can be disciplined to ask probing questions and pursue them in a reasoned, self-critical way. Scholars pursuing knowledge submit their thinking to rigorous discipline. 

~Richard Paul

One of the most used and highlighted books in my professional library is Critical Thinking: How to Prepare Students for a Rapidly Changing World by Richard Paul, an international leader in critical thinking movement. We often hear about the need for critical thinking, but we seldom hear sound definitions, or, in my opinion, see comprehensive models that we can apply to what we do in our classrooms. To my mind the works of Richard Paul, and his colleagues Linda Elder Gerald Nosich, and others at the Foundation for Critical Thinking put flesh on the bones of the concept of critical thinking; a concept all too rarely made substantive.

While there are many different approaches to, and definitions of, critical thinking, the Paul/Elder view is that critical thinking is the development of discipline organized thinking that monitors itself and is guided by intellectual standards . Further, they hold that reasoning must be at the heart of good teaching, sound learning, and preparation for college, career, and civic life. Rather than lectures, worksheets, and didactic instruction, it is through reasoning and thinking their way through the curriculum, that students really learn. This approach to critical thinking, I believe, puts this model of critical thinking head and shoulders above others.

To read the full article, join the   Center for Critical Thinking Community Online   – the world’s leading online community dedicated to teaching and advancing critical thinking. Featuring the world's largest library of critical thinking articles, videos, and books, as well as learning activities, study groups, and a social media component, this interactive learning platform is essential to anyone dedicated to developing as an effective reasoner in the classroom, in the professions, in business and government, and throughout personal life.  

Join the community and learn explicit tools of critical thinking.

  • Reference Manager
  • Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, critical thinking as a necessity for social science students capacity development: how it can be strengthened through project based learning at university.

critical thinking social scientists

  • 1 Department of Economics Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Tanjungpura, Pontianak, Indonesia
  • 2 Universitas Khairun, Ternate, Indonesia

Critical thinking is necessary for students because it empowers them to solve problems, especially during the learning stage and in real-life situations within society. Based on this fact, the present study proposes a citizenship project model that aims to enhance the Elementary School Teacher Education Study Program by emphasizing critical thinking among students during the teaching of Civic Education at universities in Indonesia. The research is of the experimental quasi-research type, which comprises two classes: an experimental class and a control class. Both the classes were conducted to compare the effectiveness of the proposed citizenship project learning model. The statistical package for the social sciences was used for data analysis. To attain the required results on the implementation of the citizenship project learning model, there were several stages, including problem identification, problem formulation, information gathering, documenting the process, showcasing the results, and reflective analysis of the model implementation process. The results have revealed a significant improvement in the critical thinking abilities of the students in the experimental class category compared to the control-class category. Thus, it is concluded that the adoption of a citizenship project learning model is appropriate for critical thinking skills' improvement of students taking up citizenship education study programs at universities.

Introduction

The development of critical thinking skills is very essential for every student of higher education today ( Kwangmuang et al., 2021 ). Globally, it has been found that 85% of teachers entail a belief that today's students have limited critical thinking abilities, mostly at the time of entry to university ( Jimenez et al., 2021 ). This development is coupled with the fact that, the world of present is facing rapid transformation in technology and scientific knowledge ( Kraus et al., 2021 ), something that is affecting people from all walks of life, including eroding their love for nationalism and affecting their attachment to nationalistic values ( Smith, 1983 ). This situation is also worsened by the existing learning models on citizenship ( Maitles, 2022 ), which are said to have not fully assisted students in developing critical thinking skills, thereby leading to difficulties in reasoning with the mindset of mature citizenry. This in turn affects their communication skills and leads to difficulties in responding to social phenomena that take place in society ( Castellano et al., 2017 ).

Because of the importance of critical thinking in solving problems related to students' learning, critical thinking cannot be separated from educational institutions ( Kim and Choi, 2018 ), especially from institutions of higher education ( Collier and Morgan, 2008 ), which are empowered to address challenges related to human resource development through the implementation of teaching and learning content. This development in turn influences students' change in mindset toward a positive direction by bringing about a change in their attitudes ( Sapriya, 2008 ). For this reason, when citizenship education is included in the realm of higher education it needs to contribute to the development of critical thinking skills as one of the compulsory subjects being taught to each student at any university in Indonesia, with the aim of achieving a 2045 Golden Indonesia ( Malihah, 2015 ). The main concern of such an educational course would be to create students who are able to instill a sense of nationalism and patriotism, as well as inculcate a sense of responsibility as future citizens who are competitive, intelligent, independent, and are able to defend their homeland, nation, and state ( Dirwan, 2018 ). Based on the above reasons, this paper focuses on the development of the critical thinking ability of student teachers by the lecturers of citizenship education by using a project-based citizenship learning model.

The concept of developing such critical thinking skills has paved the way for designing a Project Citizen model, which has been named a project-based citizenship learning model. This model has a twofold objective. Because it not only emphasizes the development of abilities in the form of mastery of skills alone, but more importantly, it emphasizes being critical in views and at decision-making, intellectually, and in character thinking ( CCE, 1998 ; Budimansyah, 2009 ; Nusarastriya et al., 2013 ; Falade et al., 2015 ; Adha et al., 2018 ) presented in practice through daily activities. To prepare students to realize the mastery of skills, such as critical thinking skills, positive mentality, and independent personality, a project-based citizenship learning model ( Adha et al., 2018 ) serves as an appropriate problem-based instructional treatment that can lead students to hone their critical thinking skills ( Brookfield, 2018 ).

The project citizen learning model is a strategy and art in the learning process to meet the learning objectives, especially students' critical thinking skills ( Susilawati, 2017 ). The Project Citizen model can develop students' abilities in terms of knowledge, skills, and civic character, as well as shape their democratic attitudes, and hence moral values ( Ching Te Lin et al., 2022 ). In addition, it can encourage student participation as citizens who are trained and prepared to learn to solve problems, both in the educational realms and government circles, as well as in society and family ( CCE, 1998 ; Budimansyah, 2009 ; Lukitoaji, 2017 ). The Project Citizen model can also encourage students acquire skillset such as intentional development through change. In fact, people can actively become involved in these changes, which may effectively take place on an ongoing basis ( Dharma and Siregar, 2015 ).

Therefore, the project citizenship model in Civic Education learning must be implemented because it is a major contributor to advancing students' critical thinking skills. This model works in such a way that it attracts or calls students to participate in dealing with social problems within a democratic and constitutional way of thinking in society through a Project Citizen-based learning process ( Budimansyah, 2009 ; Fry and Bentahar, 2013 ).

This research was conducted at Khairun Ternate University, a state university founded within the Province of North Maluku, Indonesia. Being one of the most favored universities in the region, its leadership ensures that the institution become a center of critical thinking and knowledge development, one of the soft skills required for national growth and development by shaping students and citizenship education students as future leaders. This study sought 1. To determine whether project-based citizenship education lectures can lead to improvement in critical thinking skills among students; 2. To examine students' critical thinking ability before taking up the study of Citizenship Education, we used a project-based citizenship learning model; and 3. To understand the difference in critical thinking ability between students who were taught using the project-based citizenship learning model and those who were taught using conventional models.

Basing on the above-mentioned aspects, this study sought to address and fill the gaps in students' thinking abilities, by sharpening their ways of looking at the varying citizenship challenges faced in the country. The author(s) implemented a project-based learning conceptual model, as it entailed the required aspects in improving students' thinking competences.

Literature review

Citizenship education as a compulsory subject at university.

The inclusion of subjects pertaining to Citizenship Education at all levels of education is required to sharpen and transform students into responsible stakeholders in nation building ( Gaynor, 2010 ; Kawalilak and Groen, 2019 ) of any given country. In Indonesia, Citizenship Education has of recent times attracted the attention of everyone by leading to varying discussions and policies ( Marsudi and Sunarso, 2019 ) on the program and steps for its implementation as a course or subject that promotes democratic values and shapes citizens into responsible persons who think positively and decide wisely.

Citizenship Education is also basically a vehicle for educating citizens to become democratic citizens ( Hahn, 1999 ). The implementation of this type of education program is carried out by carefully designing the material to be delivered from the curriculum so that it can be applied, assessed, and updated for the purposes of the community ( Callahan and Obenchain, 2013 ). This educational effort is believed to be an integral part of the process of transforming society in all aspects of life, whether social, political, economic, cultural, or spiritual.

By law, Citizenship Education is compulsory because it is enshrined in the Indonesian Constitution. According to Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System ( Nurdin, 2015 ), Citizenship Education explicitly refers to the task of education, whereby it should be able to determine the potential of students and be able to change their morals and character for the better ( Raihani, 2014 ). The law explicitly states that the task of education is to improve the behavior of educated people. Changes in behavior and character have the potential to advance the nation and the state at large. Therefore, education must aim to develop the potential for students to become faithful and obedient servants of God, be healthy, knowledgeable, and competent. These abilities must meet three domains: knowledge, affective, and psychomotor abilities.

Philosophical basis for citizenship education

Every science has a philosophical foundation as a scientific root that can be used as the basis of knowledge ( Ginzburg, 1934 ). Likewise, Citizenship Education too has its own foundation, ontologically, epistemologically, and axiologically ( Uljens and Ylimaki, 2017 ). As it is known that Citizenship Education (Civics) developed from the civic concept with a lexical basis based on the word used in ancient Rome, namely, Civicus ( Cresshore, 1986 ; Winataputra, 2001 ). At that time, Civicus had the meaning of citizens. This term has been adapted especially in Indonesia as a concept called “Citizenship Education.”

Citizenship Education has developed both scientifically and in curricular form, hence, it touches on the broader aspects of sociocultural activities with the nature and various kinds of studies and dimensions ( Cresshore, 1986 ). Furthermore, the epistemological study of Citizenship Education focuses on the topic of “citizenship transmission,” the essence of the first social science study to obtain knowledge believed to be a tradition of self-evident truth. When drawn into learning, Citizenship Education lies at the core of social studies learning ( Anderson et al., 1997 ), which includes studies of scientific disciplines both in practice and concepts called “social studies” ( Barr et al., 1978 ; Soemantri, 2011 ). As a cross-disciplinary study, Citizenship Education is substantially driven by various types of scholarships, including political, social, and humanities. Although integrated into various studies, Citizenship Education can be held in the school sector, universities, and communities ( Winataputra, 2001 ).

From the description given above, it can be interpreted that the inclusion of Citizenship Education as a scientific area of specialization determines the study of what, how, and for what knowledge is constructed. We have long recognized terms in the study of Educational Philosophy, which include perennialism, essentialism, progressivism, and reconstructionism ( Brameld, 1955 ). The four terms of Educational Philosophy are related to Citizenship Education, among which philosophically Civic Education (Civics) is based on the concept of “reconstructed philosophy of education” which has a suitability to fulfill scholarship in terms of “perennialism, essentialism, progressivism, reconstructionism” ( Winataputra, 2001 ). The philosophy of essentialism looks at educational needs, which is the result of a proof that has been tested and experienced. The foundation is taken through an eclectic state that is philosophically centered on sophisticated knowledge (ideas) and reality (real).

The linkage between these educational philosophies makes this philosophical view sociopolitical in line with the Indonesian human conception, which is still an ideal–conceptual profile that must be realized and fought for continuously ( Winataputra and Budimansyah, 2007 ). Citizenship Education is expected to have an effect on three roles, namely; first, in the role of a curriculum that has a planned concept for educational institutions, both legally at the level of the education unit and outside of official activities; second, having an engagement plan to play an active role in the community in the context of social and cultural interaction; and third, having a role in the treasures of scientific knowledge, both in the sector of concept studies, academic ideas, and studies that have certain objects, systems, and methods for science. Such a role when examined has aspects, namely, the first aspect, the most important aspect is the academic subject as content that brings changes from their learning experience, for example, the standard content of Citizenship Education subjects, which determine scientific studies and determine the development of the study; the second aspect, in terms of scientific studies carried out including classroom action research, so that teachers will always reflect in every lesson they do ( Winataputra, 2001 ).

Critical thinking skills' development through citizenship education

As it is known, critical thinking in solving problems and finding solutions is indispensable to the learning of Civic Education for students as prospective teachers ( Ige, 2019 ). Moreover, at this time, digital students are challenged with a lot of information that can trap them in the flow of incorrect information (hoax); therefore, students must be critical and selective to the information available. To break down the problem of students' critical thinking ability, certainly not apart from educational institutions, especially college institutions, which are the right institutions to address this challenge, namely applying learning through content and touching the realm of thinking skills ( Sapriya, 2008 ; Aboutorabi, 2015 ; Borden and Holthaus, 2018 ; Japar, 2018 ).

One of the supports in critical thinking is hunting assumptions, which is one of the indicators of critical thinking ability in the Brookfield assumption. Critical thinking explores alternatives to decisions, actions, and practices from views mastered in a variety of contexts, as well as engaging in experience and information ( Brookfield, 2012 ). In this case, students are required to master critical thinking, namely, hunting assumptions, checking assumptions, seeing things from different viewpoints, and taking informed actions ( Brookfield et al., 2019 ). These four aspects help them by serving as the bases for critical thinking in a learning process that focuses on uncovering and examining assumptions, exploring alternative perspectives, and taking information-based actions as a result ( Brookfield, 2019 ). Critical thinking is best experienced as a social learning process, which is important to the learning of Civic Education, which is oriented toward society. This critical thinking ability is also necessary for students to participate in political and community life ( Banks, 1985 ; Sapriya, 2008 ; Budimansyah and Karim, 2009 ; Setiawan, 2009 ; Wahab, 2011 ; Brookfield, 2012 ). At this critical thinking stage, students can think more systematically and critically, and have high sensitivity to cultural differences, as well as local, national, and global perspectives, with a future orientation ( Kalidjernih, 2009 ; Shaw, 2014 ; Lilley et al., 2017 ). One approach can be implemented through education, by honing critical thinking skills during the learning process, to gain a high learning experience to face social problems from various aspects ( Raiyn and Tilchin, 2017 ; Alkhateeb and Milhem, 2020 ).

From the various opinions given above, the ability to think critically of hunting assumptions is needed in the course of the Civic Education field covering many topics and problems ( Cohen, 2010 ). The implementation of a Project Citizen-based learning model as one of the powerful ways to build an understanding in Civic Education aims to provide learning that focuses on the ability of students to solve problems, so that this provision can benefit them while facing and solving various problems of life.

These abilities are manifested not only in the form of mastery of skills, but more importantly, also by the ability to think critically, mentally, and characteristically ( CCE, 1998 ; Budimansyah, 2009 ; Nusarastriya et al., 2013 ; Falade et al., 2015 ; Adha et al., 2018 ). To prepare students to realize the mastery of skills, critical thinking skills, and mental and independent character, the Project Citizen learning model is a problem-based instructional treatment that can lead students to cultivate their critical thinking skills.

The Project Citizen learning model is a strategy and art in the learning process so as to meet the learning objectives that need to be achieved, particularly as regards the critical thinking skills of students ( Susilawati, 2017 ). This is because the Project Citizen model is able to develop the knowledge, proficiency, and character of democratic civic that allows and encourages the participation of students as democratic citizens. The said model can also help in dealing with problems that can be learned and trained according to the situation of self-condition of the environment faced by anyone, as many things are learned in terms of education, government, society, and family ( CCE, 1998 ; Budimansyah, 2009 ; Warren et al., 2013 ; Lukitoaji, 2017 ; Bentahar and O'Brien, 2019 ). The Project Citizen model is also able to encourage the development of change in an intentional manner, so that actively and effectively, the change occurs continuously ( Dharma and Siregar, 2015 ; Marzuki and Basariah, 2017 ). Therefore, it is important to apply the Project Citizen model to the learning of Civic Education as a major contribution to advancing students' critical thinking skills. This is because the learning model of Project Citizen invites students to participate in dealing with social problems in democracies and constitutional ways of thinking in the community through a learning process based on the project citizenship ( Budimansyah, 2009 ; Anker et al., 2010 ; Fry and Bentahar, 2013 ; Romlah and Syobar, 2021 ).

Thus, the learning model of citizen project lecturers and students can reflect on the studies they found during the course of their studies. The study was conducted by each group that was formed at the beginning of the meeting. Finally, lecturers and students hold joint discussions in the classroom by presenting data and information to create alternative solutions to the urgent problems they had to solve.

Methodology

In this study, a quasi-experimental research method was used. A quasi-experimental research approach is mostly referred to as nonrandomized, pre-post-test intervening research design (Harris et al., 200), which is used across fields of study. In the case of this study, the researchers used control groups and experimental groups but did not randomly segregate (non-random assignment) the participants into the two groups ( Creswell, 2017 ).

In this study, researchers want to see and learn more about the new learning model; therefore, they use two different classes, namely control and experimentation, to compare the classes that use project citizens (experimental) with classes that use the old method ( Sukmadinata, 2005 ). From both classes, researchers can compare the effectiveness of the experimental class learning model with that of the control class model. In addition, researchers will also observe how the results of both experiment and control classes reached high values. The researchers' approach is quantitative. This approach was determined by the researchers because it aimed to statistically test and compare both control and experimental classes. Furthermore, this approach emphasized testing to see an average comparison of the two groups that were statistically the same at the beginning of treatment.

Object and area of the study

This study was conducted at Khairun University in North Maluku Province, Indonesia. The research subjects were undergraduate students of the Elementary School Teacher Education Program and were basically those attending Civic Education courses as their major field of study. The research population comprised of all elementary school teacher Education Study Program students in Semester III totaling 100 of them, consisting of two classes, experimental classes and control classes. Each class consisted of 50 student teachers. The experimental classes of 42 females and 8 male students were experimented with a project-based citizenship learning model. In the control class, there were 44 female students and 6 male students using a conventional learning approach.

Data collection techniques

Data collection comes in various forms ( Gray and Bounegru, 2019 ), which can be either qualitative or quantitative data, comprised of either structured or unstructured data collection instruments or tools ( Pitcher et al., 2022 ). Data in its raw form may have no meaning, but due to the setting up of research targets, most research data are given meaning through interpretation by the authors, just like how the authors used with this study.

This means that data collection can be carried out with the help of written tests ( Silvia and Cotter, 2021 ). So in regard to this research too, the data were obtained through written tests, because this is a way the research chose so as to determine the critical thinking abilities of students, for both the experimental and control classes, before or after the treatment, with the method that had been chosen. This test was administered to students in the form of a detailed questionnaire. The question instrument used in the implementation of this research was a written test sheet that was formulated previously through the validation process by the validator. The hypothesis in this study is H 0 : there is no difference in hunting assumption ability between the experimental and control classes. H 1 : There are significant differences in hunting assumption ability between control-class experiments.

Normality test

Parametric statistical analyses were used to compare the average experimental and control classes. In the early stages of the test, a prerequisite test was conducted using a normality test, with the following results:

Based on Table 1 , the Sig. = 0.200 in the experiment, where G is the group. = 0.200 in the control group. The score is Sig. = 0.200 > 0.05 in both groups. Thus, it can be concluded that normally distributed data displayed a level of significance of = 0.05. A homogeneity test was also performed. = 0.344. This score is >0.05, indicating that the data are homogeneous. After conducting a prerequisite test, a t -test was performed on the Sig results. (2-tailed) = 0.259, with a significance level of a = 0.05.

www.frontiersin.org

Table 1 . Normality test results.

The score indicates that there are no significant differences between the experimental and control groups, so both groups are eligible to be subject to research. The average similarity between two groups is a measure of the effectiveness of a citizen's project-learning model. There was a significant difference at the final measurement after the intervention.

The findings and discussion are the answers to the formulation of the problem, which is the main focus of this study. This section presents the results of this study. Before implementing the lecture process of learning using the project-based citizenship model, the students were first given an initial trial test to establish the extent of their ability to think critically. Based on the initial proficiency tests conducted, the students' ability to think critically revealed no limitations in ability. The results of the students' initial ability tests are illustrated in Table 2 .

www.frontiersin.org

Table 2 . Abilities of students thinking critically.

From the exposure in Table 2 , the basic ability score of critical thinking for both the control class and experimentation descriptively obtained an average similarity that is not much different from the ability of early critical thinking of the students.

Furthermore, the initial ability to hunt assumptions students also conducted different tests in experimental and control classes using the static test. This was done to determine the difference in students' initial critical thinking ability based on the classification of low, medium, and high categories. The test results are listed in Table 3 .

www.frontiersin.org

Table 3 . Classification of basic abilities of the students' critical thinking.

The results of the category wise classification test in Table 3 indicate that the initial ability to display critical thinking skills in the experimental and control classes did not show significant differences. This is illustrated in the classification of the ability based on low, medium, and high categories, which also show no significant differences.

Therefore, it is necessary to implement a learning model that can maximize the ability to think critically by the students, that is: through the Citizen Project model. The Citizen Project model was implemented during the 10 meetings. Step-by-step, learning is underway to implement the learning model. The implementation of this Citizen Project learning model achieved the criteria and gained success in the ability to hunt assumptions for students. This can be seen in the tables that describe in general the classification of the low, medium, and high categories. This exposure resulted from the implementation of the learning model project. An explanation citing the success of the citizenship project-based learning is presented in the following table.

Based on the normality test in Table 4 , it can be seen that the total score of overall hunting assumptions of students in both class control and class normal distributed experiments can be calculated and then a t -test conducted. The t -test results showed a sig. (2-tailed) = 0.00 at =0.05, which means that Ha1 is received. Thus, it can be concluded that there are significant differences in critical thinking abilities between the control classes and the experiments.

www.frontiersin.org

Table 4 . General differences in student critical thinking ability.

Then, based on the normality tests in low-category students, the total hunting assumptions were scored in a normally distributed experimental class. However, if the control class is not normally distributed, then a t -test cannot be done for the Mann–Whitney U test. The Mann–Whitney U test results obtained were sig. =0.00 at = 0.05, which means that the Ha1 is received. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in the hunting assumption ability of low-category students between experimental and control classes.

Then, for students in the moderate category based on the normality test given in the table, the total score of the hunting assumption's ability of moderate-category students either in the control group or in the normally distributed experimental group is calculated, and then a t- test conducted. The t -test results had a large score. (2-tailed) = 0.00 at =0.05, which means the Ha1 is received. Thus, it can be concluded that there are significant differences in hunting assumption capability in general for students in the moderate categories between the control classes and experiments.

For students in the high category based on the normality test for high-category students, the total hunting assumption's ability score in the normal distribution experiment class was reached but in the normal distribution control class, the t -test could not be performed for the Mann–Whitney U test. The Mann–Whitney U test results obtained were sig. =0.00 at = 0.05, which means that the Ha1 is received. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in the hunting assumption ability of high-category students between experimental and control classes.

There are also differences in the ability of students to hunt assumptions after the implementation of the Citizen Project model learning in the low, medium, and high categories. The results are outlined in Table 5 .

www.frontiersin.org

Table 5 . Student critical thinking ability based on classification.

Based on the normality test in Table 5 , we can see the total score of the critical thinking ability of all students in the normally distributed control group. However, if the experimental group is not normally distributed, then a t -test cannot be performed to test the Mann–Whitney U test results which were obtained as sig. =0.00 at = 0.05, which means that H 1 is received. Thus, it can be concluded that there was a significant difference in the ability of students' critical thinking between the experimental and control classes.

Then, based on the normality test on the ability of thinking critically among the students in the low category if the total critical thinking skills' ability score in the experimental class and control is not normally distributed, then t -test cannot be conducted to test the results of the Mann–Whitney U test in both the control and experimental classes. The Mann–Whitney U test results obtained were sig. = 0.00 at = 0.05, which means that H 1 is received.

Thus, it can be concluded that there was a significant difference in the ability of thinking critically among students in the low category between the experimental and control classes. Then, for the ability of critical thinking, students in the moderate category based on the normality test mentioned in the table can be seen to reach the total score of student critical thinking ability in both class control and class normally distributed experiments. The t -test results had a large score. (2-tailed) = 0.00 at = 0.05 which means that H 1 is received.

Thus, it can be concluded that there are significant differences in the ability of critical thinking of the students in the moderate category between the control classes and experiments.

For high-category students, based on normality tests on the ability of critical thinking of the students in the high-category score, the total critical thinking ability is normally distributed, in control classes. However, if the experimental class is not normally distributed, then a t- t est cannot be performed to test the Mann–Whitney U test results obtained. = 0.00 at = 0.05, which means that H 1 is received.

Thus, it can be concluded that there was a significant difference in students' critical thinking abilities in the high category between the experimental and control classes. To perceive the difference in the development of hunting assumption's ability to conduct an analysis of pre-test and post-test scores, the analysis included the examination of the magnitude of N-Gain in each class, both control and experimentation. The analysis was conducted on both categories based on initial ability.

Based on the table, we can see the difference in improved hunting assumptions between the control classes and experiments that are reviewed from the initial ability. If we analyze the groups based on indicators of critical thinking ability, we can see that in the control group, the improvement of critical thinking skills' ability is almost entirely in the low category, both in the subclass based on the initial ability and on the ability to critical thinking that students are in a low category.

In the experimental class, hunting assumptions increased in the moderate category. There was no increase in the low category, and it was placed in the ability to critical thinking of students. An increase in high-category critical thinking was also not seen. Furthermore, if we analyze the ability to critical thinking based on the initial ability, it can be seen that the control class shows an increase in the ability to critical thinking in the low category. In the experimental class, although the increase was not classified as high, in all classes, critical thinking showed an increase in the moderate category in the experimental class, which was significantly higher compared to the control class on improved critical thinking ability.

The ability to think critically by the students has an important element in assuming, identifying thinking critical skills, comparing critical thinking abilities based on students' opinions, and performing actions and movements to change old habits by promoting the application of new habits properly ( Brookfield, 2012 ). A study on the ability to think critically is intended to give students an understanding of building hypotheses or assumptions, seeing from data and facts to be identified, tracing figures and experts to compare, and making movements as a form of application of student work as their ability to critical thinking present day required life skill ( Brookfield, 2018 ; Gonzalez et al., 2022 ). Thus, the citizen project learning model is suitable for improving students' critical thinking skills through six learning steps. The six steps were identifying problems, formulating or selecting problems, collecting information or data, creating portfolio file documents, displaying studies, and reflecting on the findings discussed together ( Budimansyah, 2009 ; Dewey, 2021 ). The project citizen learning model is based on strategy “inquiry learning, discovery learning, problem-solving learning, research-oriented learning” (learning through research, learning to find/disclose, learning problem-solving, and learning-based research).

This model is packaged by Dewey, who is called a project citizen. This model is appropriate when applied to Citizenship Education to increase students' awareness and thinking ability, as well as to build smart and good citizen characters ( Budimansyah, 2008 ; Rafzan et al., 2020 ). Thus, through the process of learning the citizen project model, lectures have combined theoretical and practical studies that allow the readiness of students with their groups to undergo a mature process. In particular, Civic Education courses have a wide scope of studies, with a project citizen learning model able to train students to improve critical thinking skills, especially critical thinking hunting assumptions.

Project citizen-based learning in Civic Education courses to improve critical thinking skills and sharpens the argumentative way of reasoning among students, hence making them obtain good results. The results of the analysis of the influence of learning on the ability to critical thinking based on the learning model of project citizenship learning conclude that: the ability of students to think critically in the experimental class, in general, differs significantly compared to the control class; the ability to think critically of students in the low category in experimental class among students differed significantly compared to the control class; the critical thinking ability of students with moderate categories in experimental class differed significantly compared to the control class; and lastly, the critical thinking ability of students in the high category in experimental class was significantly higher compared to the control class.

Based on the statistical analysis of critical thinking assumptions' ability, it can be concluded that the understanding of the student's capacity to think critically through experimental classes, using project citizen-based learning models to ensure students learn from low to medium, and attain high critical thinking skills has been enhanced by learning steps that lead them to be more active and productive in understanding information and critical opinions. This means that there is uniformity in the acquisition of value in understanding students' opinion through critical arguments, which indicate that the citizen's project model can improve the critical thinking ability of students, gauged through exchange of opinions.

From the description given above, it appears that the learning model of a project-based citizenship education model has a significant impact on students' development of the critical thinking skills' ability. This is because the implementation of citizenship-based project learning provides learning steps based on experience. Such an experience can help students develop their knowledge, skills, and skills (civic knowledge, civic skills, and civic disposition) ( Fry and Bentahar, 2013 ; Fajri et al., 2018 ).

Conclusively, a project-based citizenship learning model, as a social learning model, has been found to be effective in developing critical thinking skills that impact on all students' competencies. Competency is the ability of students to conduct a given task independently based on the citizenship-based project learning model applied in the course of Civic Education to enhance students' abilities in problem-solving from concept to real-life realization stage ( Medina-Jerez et al., 2010 ; Mitchell et al., 2017 ; Yusof et al., 2019 ). In other words, the project-based model used in this research is expected to contribute to improved students' reasoning capacity while at school and in a real-life situation.

The result is in accordance with Brookfield's (2012 , 2018) opinion about the aims and objectives of the student's critical thinking ability, who states that social problems could be solved by making decisions based on hypotheses and critical thinking. Based on a deeper analysis and investigation of the research findings and discussion, the application of the project-based citizenship learning model in the Civics Education course was able to create an effective learning atmosphere in sharpening students' critical thinking skills and motivating them to be good and responsible human beings. This statement is in line with the objectives of the Civic Education course, which emphasizes the process of creating students who are intelligent, have good character and required morals in society ( Banks, 1985 ; Branson, 1994 ; Budimansyah and Suryadi, 2008 ; Budimansyah, 2009 ; Setiawan, 2009 ). Thus, the results of the study confirmed that the project-based citizenship learning model is not only a proof of the evidence of the improvement in students' critical thinking skills, but the study also notes that the learning model can as well be effective in helping students develop reasoning abilities and good critical thinking abilities which may also help them in solving various issues within society.

Facilitating the growth of critical thinking abilities of a student leads to critical reasoning, hence encouraging productive discussions, which in turn leads to acceptable criticisms and an open exchange of ideas among students to be easily understood, including those ideas based on assumptions and hypotheses. Based on the exposure of the results and discussion of research on the ability to hunt assumptions, students who were engaged in a project-based citizenship learning model obtained better scores for their critical thinking abilities. This implies that such students experience an improvement in their hunting assumption ability compared to students studying through conventional learning. Assembling a project citizen learning model in Civic Education courses can improve students' ability to hunt assumptions. Thus, it can be concluded that Civic Education courses with the application of the learning model project-based citizenship learning model can improve students' critical thinking skills.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

This study was funded by University Administration.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Aboutorabi, R. (2015). Heidegger, education, nation and race. Policy Fut. Educat. 13, 415–423. doi: 10.1177/1478210315571219

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adha, M. M., Yanzi, H., and Nurmalisa, Y. (2018). The improvement of student intelectual and participatory skill through project citizen model in civic education classroom. Int. J. Pedago. Soc. Stud. 3, 39–50.

Google Scholar

Alkhateeb, M. A., and Milhem, O. A. Q. B. (2020). Student's concepts of and approaches to learning and the relationships between them. Cakrawala Pendidikan 39, 620–632. doi: 10.21831/cp.v39i3.33277

Anderson, C., Avery, P. G., Pederson, P. V., Smith, E. S., and Sullivan, J. L. (1997). Divergent perspectives on citizenship education: A Q-method study and survey of social studies teachers. Am. Educ. Res. J. 34, 333–364. doi: 10.3102/00028312034002333

Anker, A. E., Feeley, T. H., and Kim, H. (2010). Examining the attitude-behavior relationship in prosocial donation domains. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1293–1324. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00619.x

Banks, J. A. (1985). Teaching Strategies for The Social Studies. Inquiry, Valuing, and Decision-Making. Longman.

Barr, R. D., Barth, J. L., and Shermis, S. S. (1978). The Nature of The Social Studies . Palm Spring: An ETS Pablication.

Bentahar, A., and O'Brien, J. L. (2019). Raising students' awareness of social justice through civic literacy. J. Soc. Stud. Educ. Res. 10, 193–218.

Borden, V. M. H., and Holthaus, G. C. (2018). Accounting for student success: academic and stakeholder perspectives that have shaped the discourse on student success in the United States. Int. J. Chin. Educ. 7, 150–173. doi: 10.1163/22125868-12340094

Brameld, T. (1955). Philosophies of Education in Cultural Perspective . New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Branson, M. S. (1994). What Does Research on Political Attitudes and Behavior Tell us about the Need for Improving Education for Democracy? A paper delivered to The International Conference on Education for Democracy Serra Retreat, Malibu, California, USA . Available online at: https://www.civiced.org/papers/attitudes.html

Brookfield, S. D. (2012). Teaching for Critical Thinking Tools and Techniques to Help Students Question Their Assumptions . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. D. (2018). Race, Teaching Racism, How to Help Students Unmask and Challenge . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Brookfield, S. D. (ed). (2019). Teaching Race: How to Help Students Unmask and Challenge Racism. Jossey-Bass. p. 338.

Brookfield, S. D., Rudolph, J., and Yeo, E. (2019). The power of critical teaching. An interview with Professor Stephen D. Brookfield. J. Appl. Learn. Teach. 2, 76–90. doi: 10.37074/jalt.2019.2.2.11

Budimansyah, D. (2008). Pendidikan Kesadaran Kewarganegaraan Multidimensional. Bandung: Genesindo.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Budimansyah, D. (2009). Inovasi Pembelajaran Project Citizen Portofolio. Program Stidi Pedidikan Kewarganegaraan, Sekolah Pascasarjana (Bandung) . Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Jl. Setiabudhi No. 299. Bandung: SPS; UPI.

Budimansyah, D., and Karim, S. (2009). PKn dan Masyarakat Multikultural. Program Studi Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia . Bandung: Aksara Press.

Budimansyah, D., and Suryadi, K. (2008). PKn dan Masyarakat Multikultural. Bandung: UPI Program Studi Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan. Bandung: Prodi PKn SPs UPI.

Callahan, R. M., and Obenchain, K. M. (2013). Bridging worlds in the social studies classroom:teachers' practices and latino immigrant youths' civic and political development. Sociol. Stud. Child. Youth 16, 97–123. doi: 10.1108/S1537-4661(2013)0000016009

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Castellano, J. F., Lightle, S., and Baker, B. (2017). A Strategy for Teaching Critical Thinking: The Sellmore Case. Accounting Faculty Publications . Available online at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/acc_fac_pub/73 (accessed October 20, 2022).

CCE (1998). We the People: Project Citizen, Teacher's Guide . Calabasas: CCE.

Ching Te Lin, C. T., Wang, L. Y., Yang, C. C., Anggara, A. A., and Chen, K. W. (2022). Personality traits and purchase motivation, purchase intention among fitness club members in taiwan: moderating role of emotional sensitivity. Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci . 20, 80–95. doi: 10.57239/PJLSS-2022-20.1.0010

Cohen, A. (2010). Canadian social studies 44(1) Cohen 17 a theoretical model of four conceptions of civic education. Can. Soc. Stud. 4, 17–28.

Collier, P. J., and Morgan, D. L. (2008). “Is that paper really due today?”: differences in first-generation and traditional college students' understandings of faculty expectations. Higher Educ. 55, 425–446. doi: 10.1007/s10734-007-9065-5

Cresshore. (1986). “Education” The Citizen and Civics . VII. p. 204.

Creswell, J. W. (2017). Research Design, Approach, Method, Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed (Edisi Ke 4). Learning Library. New York, NY: Sage Publications.

Dewey, J. (2021). “The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy: (1909),” in America's Public Philosopher: Essays on Social Justice, Economics, Education, and the Future of Democracy , eds E. T. Weber (Columbia University Press), 237–248.

Dharma, S., and Siregar, R. (2015). Internalisasi Karakter melalui Model Project Citizen pada Pembelajaran Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan. Jupiis: Jurnal Pendidikan Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial . doi: 10.24114/jupiis.v6i2.2293

Dirwan, A. (2018). Improving nationalism through civic education among indonesian students (July 31, 2018). OIDA Int. J. Sustain. Develop . 11, 43–58.

Fajri, M., Marfu'ah, N., and Artanti, L. O. (2018). Aktivitas Antifungi Daun Ketepeng Cina (Cassia Alata L.) Fraksi Etanol, N- heksan dan Kloroform Terhadap Jamur Microsporium canis. Pharmasipha 2, 1–8. doi: 10.21111/pharmasipha.v2i1.2134

Falade, D., Adedayo, A., and Adeniyi, B. (2015). Civic education in nigeria's one hundred years of existence: problems and prospects. J. Emerg. Trends Educ. Res. Policy Stud. 6, 113.

Fry, S. W., and Bentahar, A. (2013). Student attitudes towards and impressions of project citizen. J. Soc. Stud. Educ. Res . 4, 1–23. Available online at: https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=cifs_facpubs

Gaynor, N. (2010). Between citizenship and clientship: the politics of participatory governance in Malawi. J. South. Afr. Stud. 36, 801–816. doi: 10.1080/03057070.2010.527637

Ginzburg, B. (1934). Probability and the philosophical foundations of scientific knowledge. Philos. Rev. 43, 258–278. doi: 10.2307/2179702

Gonzalez, H. C., Hsiao, E.-L., Dees, D. C., Noviello, S. R., and Gerber, B. L. (2022). Promoting critical thinking through an evidence-based skills fair intervention. J. Res. Innov. Teachi. Learn. 15, 41–54. doi: 10.1108/JRIT-08-2020-0041

Gray, J., and Bounegru, L. (2019). “What a difference a dataset makes: Data journalism and/as data activism,” in Data in Society: Challenging Statistics in an Age of Globalisation, 1st Edn , eds J. Evans, S. Ruane, and H. Southall (Bristol University Press), 365–374. doi: 10.2307/j.ctvmd84wn.42

Hahn, C. L. (1999). Citizenship education: an empirical study of policy, practices and outcomes. Oxford Rev. Educ . 25, 231–250. doi: 10.1080/030549899104233

Ige, O. (2019). Using action learning, concept-mapping, and value clarification to improve students' attainment in ict concepts in social studies: the case of rural learning ecologies. J. Soc. Stud. Educ. Res. 10, 301–322. doi: 10.21125/inted.2018.0260

Japar, M. (2018). The improvement of Indonesia students ‘engagement in civic education through case-based learning'. J. Soc. Stud. Educ . Res . 9, 27–44.

Jimenez, J. M., Lopez, M., Castro, M. J., Martin-Gil, B., Cao, M. J., and Fernandez-Castro, M. (2021). Development of critical thinking skills of undergraduate students throughout the 4 years of nursing degree at a public university in Spain: a descriptive study. BMJ Open 11, e049950. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049950

Kalidjernih, F. K. (2009). Globalisasi dan Kewarganegaraan. Acta Civicus Jurnal Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan. 2.

Kawalilak, C., and Groen, J. (2019). Dialogue and reflection-perspectives from two adult educators. Reflect. Pract. 20, 777–789. doi: 10.1080/14623943.2019.168596

Kim, M., and Choi, D. (2018). Development of youth digital citizenship scale and implication for educational setting. J. Educ. Technol. Soc . 21, 155–171.

Kraus, S., Jones, P., Kailer, N., Weinmann, A., Chaparro-Banegas, N., and Roig-Tierno, N. (2021). Digital transformation: an overview of the current state of the art of research. SAGE Open . doi: 10.1177/21582440211047576

Kwangmuang, P., Jarutkamolpong, S., Sangboonraung, W., and Daungtod, S. (2021). The development of learning innovation to enhance higher order thinking skills for students in Thailand junior high schools. Heliyon 7, e07309. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07309

Lilley, K., Barker, M., and Harris, N. (2017). The global citizen conceptualized: accommodating ambiguity. J. Stud. Int. Edu. 21, 6–21. doi: 10.1177/1028315316637354

Lukitoaji, B. D. (2017). Pembinaan Civic Disposition Melalui Model Pembelajaran Project Citizen Dalam Mata Kuliah Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan 2 Untuk Menumbuhkan Nilai Moral Mahasiswa Prodi Pgsd Fkip Upy. Jurnal Moral Kemasyarakatan . doi: 10.21067/jmk.v2i2.2172

Maitles, H. (2022). What Type of Citizenship Education; What Type of Citizen? Available online at: https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/what-type-citizenship-education-what-type-citizen (accessed January 15, 2022).

Malihah, E. (2015). An ideal Indonesian in an increasingly competitive world: Personal character and values required to realise a projected 2045 Golden Indonesia. Citizsh. Soc. Econ. Educ . 14, 148–156. doi: 10.1177/2047173415597143

Marsudi, K., and Sunarso, S. (2019). Contents analysis of the pancasila education and citizenship students' book for high school curriculum 2013. KnE Social Sci. 3, 447–459. doi: 10.18502/kss.v3i17.4670

Marzuki and Basariah. (2017). The influence of problem-based learning and project citizen model in the civic education learning on student's critical thinking ability and self discipline. Cakrawala Pendidikan 3, 43.

Medina-Jerez, W., Bryant, C., and Green, C. (2010). Project citizen: students practice democratic principles while conducting community projects. Sci. Scope. 33, 71–75. Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43184007

Mitchell, N., Triska, M., Liberatore, A., Ashcroft, L., Weatherill, R., and Longnecker, N. (2017). Benefits and challenges of incorporating citizen science into university education. PLoS ONE 12, e0186285. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186285

Nurdin, E. S. (2015). The policies on civic education in developing national character in Indonesia. Int. Educ. Stud. doi: 10.5539/ies.v8n8p199

Nusarastriya, Y. H., Sapriya, W., and Budimansyah, D. (2013). Pengembangan berpikir kritis dalam pembelajaran pendidikan kewarganegaraan menggunakan project citizen. Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan 3, 444–449. doi: 10.21831/cp.v3i3.1631

Pitcher, B. D., Ravid, D. M., Mancarella, P. J., and Behrend, T. S. (2022). Social learning dynamics influence performance and career self-efficacy in career-oriented educational virtual environments. PLoS ONE. 17, e0273788. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273788

Rafzan, R., Lazzavietamsi, F. A., and Ito, A. I. (2020). Civic competence pembelajaran pendidikan kewarganegaraan di SMA Negeri 2 Sungai Penuh. Jurnal Rontal Keilmuan PKn 6, 1–2.

Raihani (2014). Creating a culture of religious tolerance in an Indonesian school. South East Asia Res . 22, 541–560. doi: 10.5367/sear.2014.0234

Raiyn, J., and Tilchin, O. (2017). A model for assessing the development of hot skills in students. Am. J. Educ. Res. 5, 184–188. doi: 10.12691/education-5-2-12

Romlah, O. Y., and Syobar, K. (2021). Project citizen model to develop student's pro-social awareness. Jurnal Civics 18, 127–137. doi: 10.21831/jc.v18i1.37982

Sapriya. (2008). Pendidikan IPS [Laboratorium PKn UPI (ed.)].

Setiawan, D. (2009). Paradigama pendidikan kewarganegaraan demokratis di Era Global. Acta Civicus. 2.

Shaw, R. D. (2014). How critical is critical thinking? Music Edu. J. 101, 65–70. doi: 10.1177/0027432114544376

Silvia, P. J., and Cotter, K. N. (2021). “Designing self-report surveys,” in Researching Daily Life: A Guide to Experience Sampling and Daily Diary Methods , eds P. J. Silvia and K. N. Cotter (American Psychological Association), 35–51. doi: 10.1037/0000236-003

Smith, A. D. (1983). Nationalism and classical social theory. Br. J. Sociol. 34, 19–38. doi: 10.2307/590606

Soemantri, B. (2011). “The Making of Innovative Human Resources”: Makalah Seminar” dalam rangka dies natalis UKSW ke 55 .

Sukmadinata (2005). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan . Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.

Susilawati, E. (2017). “Modeling learning strategy for students with competitive behavior and its impact on civic education learning achievement,” in Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICELTICs) , 841–848. Available online at: http://www.jurnal.unsyiah.ac.id

Uljens, M., and Ylimaki, R. M. (2017). “Non-affirmative theory of education as a foundation for curriculum studies, didaktik and educational leadership,” in Bridging Educational Leadership, Curriculum Theory and Didaktik. Educational Governance Research, Vol. 5 , eds M. Uljens and R. Ylimaki (Cham: Springer).

Wahab, A. A. (2011). Politik Pendidikan dan Pendidikan Politik: Model Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan Indonesia Menuju Warganegara Global, Pidato Pengukuhan Guru. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Warren, S. J., Wakefield, J. S., and Mills, L. A. (2013). “Learning and teaching as communicative actions: Transmedia storytelling,” in Cutting-Edge Technologies in Higher Education, Vol. 6 (Emerald Group Publishing Limited).

Winataputra, U. S. (2001). Jati diri Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan Sebagai Wahana Sistemik Pendidikan Demokrasi (Suatu Kajian Konseptual dan Konteks Pendidikan IPS). Disertasi (tidak dipublikasikan). Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Winataputra, U. S., and Budimansyah, D. (2007). Civic Education: Konteks Landasan, Bahan Ajar, dan Kultur Kelas . Bandung: Sekolah Pascasarjana.

Yusof, N. A., Kamaruddin, S., Bakar, F. D. A., Mahadi, N. M., and Murad, A. M. A. (2019). Structural and functional insights into TRiC chaperonin from a psychrophilic yeast, Glaciozyma antarctica. Cell Stress Chaperones. 24, 351–368.

Keywords: citizenship education, citizenship learning project model, critical thinking skills, elementary education, teacher preparation, university curriculum, university education

Citation: Witarsa and Muhammad S (2023) Critical thinking as a necessity for social science students capacity development: How it can be strengthened through project based learning at university. Front. Educ. 7:983292. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.983292

Received: 01 July 2022; Accepted: 26 September 2022; Published: 09 January 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Witarsa and Muhammad. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

This article is part of the Research Topic

Design, Implementation, Assessment, and Effectiveness of Hybrid Problem-Based Learning

Thinking critically on critical thinking: why scientists’ skills need to spread

critical thinking social scientists

Lecturer in Psychology, University of Tasmania

Disclosure statement

Rachel Grieve does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Tasmania provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

critical thinking social scientists

MATHS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION: We’ve asked our authors about the state of maths and science education in Australia and its future direction. Today, Rachel Grieve discusses why we need to spread science-specific skills into the wider curriculum.

When we think of science and maths, stereotypical visions of lab coats, test-tubes, and formulae often spring to mind.

But more important than these stereotypes are the methods that underpin the work scientists do – namely generating and systematically testing hypotheses. A key part of this is critical thinking.

It’s a skill that often feels in short supply these days, but you don’t necessarily need to study science or maths in order gain it. It’s time to take critical thinking out of the realm of maths and science and broaden it into students’ general education.

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is a reflective and analytical style of thinking, with its basis in logic, rationality, and synthesis. It means delving deeper and asking questions like: why is that so? Where is the evidence? How good is that evidence? Is this a good argument? Is it biased? Is it verifiable? What are the alternative explanations?

Critical thinking moves us beyond mere description and into the realms of scientific inference and reasoning. This is what enables discoveries to be made and innovations to be fostered.

For many scientists, critical thinking becomes (seemingly) intuitive, but like any skill set, critical thinking needs to be taught and cultivated. Unfortunately, educators are unable to deposit this information directly into their students’ heads. While the theory of critical thinking can be taught, critical thinking itself needs to be experienced first-hand.

So what does this mean for educators trying to incorporate critical thinking within their curricula? We can teach students the theoretical elements of critical thinking. Take for example working through [statistical problems](http://wdeneys.org/data/COGNIT_1695.pdf](http://wdeneys.org/data/COGNIT_1695.pdf) like this one:

In a 1,000-person study, four people said their favourite series was Star Trek and 996 said Days of Our Lives. Jeremy is a randomly chosen participant in this study, is 26, and is doing graduate studies in physics. He stays at home most of the time and likes to play videogames. What is most likely? a. Jeremy’s favourite series is Star Trek b. Jeremy’s favourite series is Days of Our Lives

Some critical thought applied to this problem allows us to know that Jeremy is most likely to prefer Days of Our Lives.

Can you teach it?

It’s well established that statistical training is associated with improved decision-making. But the idea of “teaching” critical thinking is itself an oxymoron: critical thinking can really only be learned through practice. Thus, it is not surprising that student engagement with the critical thinking process itself is what pays the dividends for students.

As such, educators try to connect students with the subject matter outside the lecture theatre or classroom. For example, problem based learning is now widely used in the health sciences, whereby students must figure out the key issues related to a case and direct their own learning to solve that problem. Problem based learning has clear parallels with real life practice for health professionals.

Critical thinking goes beyond what might be on the final exam and life-long learning becomes the key. This is a good thing, as practice helps to improve our ability to think critically over time .

Just for scientists?

For those engaging with science, learning the skills needed to be a critical consumer of information is invaluable. But should these skills remain in the domain of scientists? Clearly not: for those engaging with life, being a critical consumer of information is also invaluable, allowing informed judgement.

Being able to actively consider and evaluate information, identify biases, examine the logic of arguments, and tolerate ambiguity until the evidence is in would allow many people from all backgrounds to make better decisions. While these decisions can be trivial (does that miracle anti-wrinkle cream really do what it claims?), in many cases, reasoning and decision-making can have a substantial impact, with some decisions have life-altering effects. A timely case-in-point is immunisation.

Pushing critical thinking from the realms of science and maths into the broader curriculum may lead to far-reaching outcomes. With increasing access to information on the internet, giving individuals the skills to critically think about that information may have widespread benefit, both personally and socially.

The value of science education might not always be in the facts, but in the thinking.

This is the sixth part of our series Maths and Science Education .

  • Maths and science education

critical thinking social scientists

Research Assistant (AIM Clinic)

critical thinking social scientists

Visiting Professor - 2024-25 Australia-Korea Chair in Australian Studies at Seoul National University

critical thinking social scientists

Dean, School of Computer, Data and Mathematical Sciences

critical thinking social scientists

School of Social Sciences – Academic appointment opportunities

critical thinking social scientists

Union Organiser (part-time 0.8)

  • Online Degree Explore Bachelor’s & Master’s degrees
  • MasterTrack™ Earn credit towards a Master’s degree
  • University Certificates Advance your career with graduate-level learning
  • Top Courses
  • Join for Free

What Is Analytical Thinking and How Can You Improve Your Analytical Thinking Skills?

Learn why analytical thinking is important and how it differs from critical and creative thinking. Explore some good-paying jobs for analytical thinkers, and find out how you can improve your analytical thinking skills.

critical thinking social scientists

When processing a lot of information or facing challenging problems, it often helps to take an analytical approach. Analytical thinking helps you determine the validity of information and allows you to carefully consider problems and arrive at the best solutions.

What is analytical thinking? 

Analytical thinking involves using a systemic approach to make decisions or solve problems. Analytical thinkers can better understand information and come to a sensible conclusion by breaking it into parts. 

For instance, once analytical thinkers identify a problem, they typically gather more information, develop possible solutions, test them, and analyze which works best. Solving complex problems often requires analytical reasoning, which may involve:

Determining causation (if and how one event causes another)

Examining similarities, differences, and relationships

Predicting the next event by following a sequence

Recognizing patterns or trends

Using conditional and converse (if-then) statements 

Why is analytical thinking important?

In daily life, analytical thinking allows you to sift through a steady barrage of information from the news, social media, and accounts from friends and family to get to the truth. Analytical thinking also offers professional value. Employers look for candidates with good analytical skills to help solve problems and make sound decisions in the workplace. 

How is analytical thinking different from creative and critical thinking?

To better understand analytical thinking, it helps to learn how it's different from other types of thinking. For instance, when solving a problem, analytical thinkers take a methodical approach, breaking up information and analyzing each part until they form a conclusion. 

Creative thinkers take a less organized approach to problem-solving. They examine a problem from many angles and welcome new information to come up with a creative solution.  

Critical thinkers are open-minded and have superior evaluative skills. To develop a logical solution to a problem, a critical thinker studies evidence, asks questions, assesses other points of view, and explores any relative assumptions or biases. 

4 good-paying careers for analytical thinkers 

If you can think analytically, it can benefit you in a variety of careers. Explore four good-paying careers for analytical thinkers. 

1. Business analyst

Median annual US salary (BLS): $95,290 [ 1 ]

Job outlook: 10 percent job growth [ 1 ]

Job requirements: A business analyst often holds a bachelor's or master's degree in business administration . Skills that benefit a business analyst include analytical skills, communication, problem-solving, and time management. 

Tasks and responsibilities: As a business analyst, you'll gather information about a company by observing business practices and procedures, examining financial data, and conducting employee interviews. Then, you'll study and evaluate the information and make recommendations to help the company run more effectively.  

Read more: What Is a Business Analyst? Career Guide

2. Cybersecurity analyst

Median annual US salary (BLS): $112,000 [ 2 ]

Job outlook: 32 percent job growth [ 2 ]

Job requirements: A cybersecurity analyst often holds a bachelor's degree in cybersecurity or computer and information technology. Skills that benefit a cybersecurity analyst include analytical skills, attention to detail, communication, computer skills, and problem-solving.

Tasks and responsibilities: A cybersecurity analyst develops and monitors methods for safeguarding computer networks and systems within an organization. Additional tasks involve creating security standards and procedures, writing security reports, and providing tech support for employees installing or learning new security software.

3. Data scientist

Median annual US salary (BLS): $103,500 [ 3 ]

Job outlook: 35 percent job growth [ 3 ]

Job requirements: A data scientist usually holds a bachelor's degree but may hold a master's or PhD in data science, computer science, mathematics, or statistics. Skills that benefit a data scientist include analytical skills, logical reasoning, communication, computer skills, and proficiency in math.  

Tasks and responsibilities: A data scientist gathers, analyzes, and interprets data. Your additional duties in this role include presenting findings of data analysis and making recommendations based on findings. Types of industries that use data scientists include business, education, government, health care, and professional sports.

4. Financial analyst 

Median annual US salary (BLS): $96,220 [ 4 ]

Job outlook: 8 percent job growth [ 4 ]

Job requirements: A financial analyst commonly holds a bachelor's degree in finance, business, or a related field like accounting, economics, or statistics. Skills that benefit a financial analyst include analytical skills, attention to detail, communication, computer skills, decision-making, and proficiency in math. 

Tasks and responsibilities: Generally, a financial analyst offers guidance to individuals or businesses regarding finances and investments. Different types of financial analysts include financial risk analysts, fund managers, portfolio managers, and ratings analysts. 

Read more: What Is a Financial Analyst? (+ How to Become One)

Tips for improving your analytical thinking skills 

The ability to think analytically offers benefits in your professional and personal life. To improve your analytical thinking skills, go through some key steps when problem-solving or decision-making:

Do your research.

Gather information.

Think of several ideas or solutions.

Analyze your ideas or solutions and choose the best one.

Evaluate the success of the idea or solution. 

Consider these additional tips for becoming a more analytical thinker:

Take an analytics class or classes.

Boost analytical skills with riddles, crossword puzzles, jigsaw puzzles, or strategic board games like chess or checkers.

Enhance your ability to analyze a problem and break it into steps by taking a math class. Equations and world problems require careful examination, and you may have to engage in trial and error before solving them. 

Read books about data analytics or other types of analytics that interest you.

Network with analytics professionals.

Next steps on Coursera

To determine if you would enjoy a career in analytics, consider the Google Data Analytics Professional Certificate on Coursera. You'll have the opportunity to learn how to gather data, clean and organize it for analysis, and conduct analysis using various computer programs. 

When you finish this eight-course series, you may have as much knowledge as many junior-level data analysts. You'll also receive a Professional Certificate highlighting your data analytics expertise.

Article sources

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. " Occupational Outlook Handbook: Management Analysts , https://www.bls.gov/OOH/business-and-financial/management-analysts.htm?utm_source=fit/programs/8422/ms-information-technology-database-administration/classesutm_medium." Accessed February 23, 2024.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. " Occupational Outlook Handbook: Information Security Analysts , https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/information-security-analysts.htm." Accessed February 23, 2024.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. " Occupational Outlook Handbook: Data Scientists , https://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/data-scientists.htm." Accessed February 23, 2024.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. " Occupational Outlook Handbook: Financial Analysts , https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/financial-analysts.htm." Accessed February 23, 2024.

Keep reading

Coursera staff.

Editorial Team

Coursera’s editorial team is comprised of highly experienced professional editors, writers, and fact...

This content has been made available for informational purposes only. Learners are advised to conduct additional research to ensure that courses and other credentials pursued meet their personal, professional, and financial goals.

  • News & Insights
  • All News & Insights

Landmark study shows that ‘transcendent’ thinking may grow teens’ brains over time

CANDLE scientists find that adolescents who grapple with the bigger meaning of social situations experience greater brain growth, which predicts stronger identity development and life satisfaction years later.

Adolescent transcendent thinking study

Scientists at the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education’s Center for Affective Neuroscience, Development, Learning and Education (CANDLE) , have shown for the first time that a type of thinking, that has been described for over a century as a developmental milestone of adolescence, may grow teenagers’ brains over time. This kind of thinking, which the study’s authors call “transcendent,” moves beyond reacting to the concrete specifics of social situations to also consider the broader ethical, systems-level and personal implications at play. Engaging in this type of thinking involves analyzing situations for their deeper meaning, historical contexts, civic significance, and/or underlying ideas.

The research team, led by USC Rossier Professor Mary Helen Immordino-Yang , includes Rebecca J.M. Gotlieb , research scientist at UCLA, and Xiao-Fei Yang , assistant research professor at USC Rossier. The published study “Diverse adolescents’ transcendent thinking predicts young adult psychosocial outcomes via brain network development” is published in Nature Scientific Reports .

In previous studies, the authors had shown that when teens and adults think about issues and situations in a transcendent way, many brain systems coordinate their activity, among them two major networks important for psychological functioning: the executive control network and the default mode network. The executive control network is involved in managing focused and goal-directed thinking, while the default mode network is active during all kinds of thinking that transcends the “here and now,” such as when recalling personal experiences, imagining the future, feeling enduring emotions such as compassion, gratitude and admiration for virtue, daydreaming or thinking creatively.

The researchers privately interviewed 65, 14-18-year-old high school students about true stories of other teens from around the world and asked the students to explain how each story made them feel. The students then underwent fMRI brain scans that day and again two years later. The researchers followed up with the participants twice more over the next three years, as they moved into their early twenties.

What the researchers found is that all teens in the experiment talked at least some about the bigger picture—what lessons they took from a particularly poignant story, or how a story may have changed their perspective on something in their own life or the lives and futures of others. However, they found that while all of the participating teens could think transcendently, some did it far more than others. And that was what made the difference. The more a teen grappled with the bigger picture and tried to learn from the stories, the more that teen increased the coordination between brain networks over the next two years, regardless of their IQ or their socioeconomic status. This brain growth—not how a teen’s brain compared to other teens’ brains but how a teen’s brain compared to their own brain two years earlier—in turn predicted important developmental milestones, like identity development in the late teen years and life satisfaction in young adulthood, about five years later.

The findings reveal a novel predictor of brain development—transcendent thinking. The researchers believe transcendent thinking may grow the brain because it requires coordinating brain networks involved in effortful, focused thinking, like the executive control network, with those involved in internal reflection and free-form thinking, like the default mode network. These findings “have important implications for the design of middle and high schools, and potentially also for adolescent mental health,” lead researcher Immordino-Yang says. The findings suggest “the importance of attending to adolescents’ needs to engage with complex perspectives and emotions on the social and personal relevance of issues, such as through civically minded educational approaches,'' Immordino-Yang explains. Overall, Immordino-Yang underscores “the important role teens play in their own brain development through the meaning they make of the social world.”

Mary Helen  Immordino-Yang

Mary Helen Immordino-Yang

  • Fahmy and Donna Attallah Chair in Humanistic Psychology
  • Director, USC Center for Affective Neuroscience, Development, Learning and Education (candle.usc.edu)
  • Professor of Education, Psychology & Neuroscience
  • Brain & Creativity Institute; Rossier School of Education University of Southern California Member, U.S. National Academy of Education

Xiao-Fei  Yang

Xiao-Fei Yang

  • Assistant Research Professor; Scientific Director, Center for Affective Neuroscience, Development, Learning and Education (CANDLE)

Center for Affective Neuroscience, Development, Learning and Education

Article Type

Article topics, related news & insights.

March 14, 2024

Graphic with cover of Educational Researcher on the left and a portrait of Royel Johnson on the right.

New editorial team of Educational Researcher outlines vision

In the first issue published under the incoming editors, the group states their intent to make ER a home for ‘critical examinations of race, gender, social class, sexuality and disability.’

Featured Faculty

  • Royel M. Johnson, PhD

Research Conference 2024

Conference focuses on peer collaboration and advancing equity through higher education research

At annual Research for Impact Conference, over 250 attendees heard from over 80 presenters on research projects across the USC Rossier community.

  • Pedro Noguera
  • Gale M. Sinatra
  • Adrian H. Huerta
  • Artineh Samkian

March 8, 2024

HJ Spencer Grant

Huriya Jabbar earns grant to research housing instability and educational equity policies

Jabbar’s research proposal was one of 15 selected out of more than 400 submissions.

  • Huriya Jabbar
  • Fellowships
  • International Science Reserve (ISR)
  • Nutrition Science
  • Research & Policy Consulting Services 

Events Calendar

  • Upcoming Events
  • Past Events
  • Partners & Sponsors
  • Rent Our Space
  • On Demand & Past Event Highlights
  • Event Frequently Asked Questions

Your Member Benefit

Become a member today and get free access to select events, discount to all other events, and exclusive access to select event recordings.

Discounted events are just one of the many benefits of Academy Membership.

Thank you for subscribing!

We've sent you a confirmation email with credentials to manage your account.

Login for Access

Annals of The New York Academy of Sciences is hosted on the Wiley Online Library. Access to Annals is an Academy member benefit.

Members login here for access.

Not a member? Become a member today.

View this article abstract 

Advertisement

Advertisement

An empirical analysis of the relationship between nature of science and critical thinking through science definitions and thinking skills

  • Original Paper
  • Open access
  • Published: 08 December 2022
  • Volume 2 , article number  270 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

  • María Antonia Manassero-Mas   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7804-7779 1 &
  • Ángel Vázquez-Alonso   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5830-7062 2  

1949 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Critical thinking (CRT) skills transversally pervade education and nature of science (NOS) knowledge is a key component of science literacy. Some science education researchers advocate that CRT skills and NOS knowledge have a mutual impact and relationship. However, few research studies have undertaken the empirical confirmation of this relationship and most fail to match the two terms of the relationship adequately. This paper aims to test the relationship by applying correlation, regression and ANOVA procedures to the students’ answers to two tests that measure thinking skills and science definitions. The results partly confirm the hypothesised relationship, which displays some complex features: on the one hand, the relationship is positive and significant for the NOS variables that express adequate ideas about science. However, it is non-significant when the NOS variables depict misinformed ideas about science. Furthermore, the comparison of the two student cohorts reveals that two years of science instruction do not seem to contribute to advancing students’ NOS conceptions. Finally, some interpretations and consequences of these results for scientific literacy, teaching NOS (paying attention both to informed and misinformed ideas), for connecting NOS with general epistemic knowledge, and assessing CRT skills are discussed.

Similar content being viewed by others

critical thinking social scientists

Philosophical Inquiry and Critical Thinking in Primary and Secondary Science Education

critical thinking social scientists

Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education

Antonio García-Carmona

critical thinking social scientists

Using Socioscientific Issues to Promote the Critical Thinking Skills of Year 10 Science Students in Diverse School Contexts

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Among other objectives, school science education perennially aims to improve scientific literacy for all, which involves being useful and functional for making adequate and sound personal and social daily life decisions. An essential component of scientific literacy is the knowledge “about” science, that is, knowledge about how science works and validates its knowledge and intervenes in the world (along with technology). This study focuses on the knowledge about science, which is often referred to in the literature as nature of science (NOS), scientific practice, ideas about science, etc., in turn, related to a continuous innovative teaching tradition (Vesterinen et al., 2014 ; Khishfe, 2012 ; Lederman, 2007 ; Matthews, 2012 ; McComas, 1996 ; Olson, 2018 ; among others).

On the other hand, some international reports and experts state that critical thinking (CRT) skills are key and transversal competencies for all educational levels, subjects and jobs in the 21st century. For instance, the European Union ( 2014 ) proposes seven key competencies that require developing a set of transversal skills, namely CRT, creativity, initiative, problem-solving, risk assessment, decision-making, communication and constructive management of emotions. In the same vein, the National Research Council ( 2012 ) proposes the transferable knowledge and skills for life and work, which explicitly details the following skills: argumentation, problem-solving, decision-making, analysis, interpretation, creativity, and others. In short, these and many other proposals converge in pointing out that teaching students to think and educating in CRT skills is an innovative and significant challenge for 21st century education and, of course, for science education. The CRT construct has been widely developed within psychological research. Yet, the field is complex, and terminologically bewildering (i.e., higher-order skills, cognitive skills, thinking skills, CRT, and other terms are used interchangeably), and some controversies are still unresolved. For instance, scholars do not agree on a common definition of CRT, and the most appropriate set of skills and dispositions to depict CRT is also disputed. As the differences among scholars still persist, the term CRT will be adopted hereafter to generally describe the variety of higher-order thinking skills that are usually associated in the CRT literature.

Further, some science education research currently suggests connections between NOS and CRT, arguing that CRT skills and NOS knowledge are related. Some claim that thinking skills are key to learning NOS (Erduran & Kaya, 2018 ; Ford & Yore, 2014 ; García-Mila & Andersen, 2008 ; Simonneaux, 2014 ), and specifically, that argumentation skills may enhance NOS understanding (Khishfe et al., 2017 ). In contrast, as argumentation skills are a key competence for the construction and validation of scientific knowledge, other studies claim that NOS knowledge (i.e., understanding the differences between data and claims) is also key to learning CRT skills such as argumentation (Allchin & Zemplén, 2020 ; Greene et al., 2016 ; Settlage & Southerland, 2020 ). Both directions of this intuitive relationship between CRT skills and NOS are fruitful ways to enhance scientific literacy and general learning. Hence, this study aims to empirically explore the NOS-CRT relationship, as the prior literature is somewhat mystifying and its contributions are limited, as will be shown below.

Theoretical contextualization

This study copes with two different, vast and rich realms of research, namely NOS and CRT, and their theoretical frameworks: the interdisciplinary context of philosophy, sociology, and history of science and science education for NOS; and psychology and general education for CRT skills. Both frameworks are summarized below to meet the journal space limitations.

Under the NOS label, science education has developed a fertile and vast realm of “knowledge about scientific knowledge and knowing”, which is obviously a particular case of human thinking, and probably the most developed to date. NOS represents the meta-cognitive, multifaceted and dynamic knowledge about what science is and how science works as a social way of knowing and explaining the natural world (knowledge construction and validation). This knowledge has been interdisciplinarily elaborated from history, philosophy, sociology of science and technology, and other disciplines. Scholars raised many and varied NOS issues (Matthews, 2012 ), which are relevant to scientific research and widely surpass the reduced consensus view (Lederman, 2007 ). Despite NOS complexity, it has been systematized across two broad dimensions: epistemological and social (Erduran & Dagher, 2014 ; Manassero-Mass & Vazquez-Alonso, 2019 ). The epistemological dimension refers to the principles and values underlying knowledge construction and validation, which are often described as the scientific method, empirical basis, observation, data and inference, tentativeness, theory and law, creativity, subjectivity, demarcation, and many others. The social dimension refers to the social construction of scientific knowledge and its social impact. It often deals with the scientific community and institutions, social influences, and general science-technology-society interactions (peer evaluation, communication, gender, innovation, development, funding, technology, psychology, etc.).

From its beginning, NOS research agrees that students (and teachers) hold inadequate and misinformed beliefs on NOS issues across different educational levels and contexts. Further, researchers agree that effective NOS teaching requires explicit and reflective methods to overcome the many learning barriers (Bennássarr et al., 2010 ; García et al., 2011 ; Cofré et al., 2019 ; Deng et al., 2011 ). These barriers relate to the basic processes of gathering (observation) and elaborating (analysis) data, decision-making in science, and specifically, the inability to differentiate facts and explanations and adequately coordinate evidence, justifications, arguments and conclusions; the lack of elementary meta-cognitive and self-regulation skills (i.e., the quick jump to conclusions as self-evident); the introduction of personal opinions, inferences, and reinterpretations and the dismissal of the counter-arguments or evidence that may contradict personal ideas (García-Mila & Andersen, 2008 ; McDonald & McRobbie, 2012 ).

As these barriers point directly to the general abilities involved in thinking (observation, analysis, answering questions, solving problems, decision-making and the like), researchers attribute those difficulties to the lack of the cognitive skills involved in the adequate management of the barriers, whose higher-order cognitive nature corresponds to many CRT skills (Kolstø, 2001 ; Zeidler et al., 2002 ). Thus, the solutions to overcome the barriers imply mastering the CRT skills, and, consequently, achieving successful NOS learning (Ford & Yore, 2014 ; McDonald & McRobbie, 2012 ; Simonneaux, 2014 ). Erduran and Kaya ( 2018 ) argue that the perennial aim of developing students’ and teachers’ NOS epistemic insights still remains a challenge for science education, despite decades of NOS research, due to the many aspects involved. They conclude that NOS knowledge critically demands higher-order cognitive skills. The paragraphs below elaborate on these higher-order cognitive skills or CRT skills.

Critical thinking

As previously stated, the CRT field shows many differences in scholarly knowledge on the conceptualization and composition of CRT. Ennis’ ( 1996 ) simple definition of CRT as reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do is likely the most celebrated definition among many others. A Delphi panel of experts defined CRT as an intentional and self-regulated judgment, which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation and inference, as well as the explanation of the evidentiary, conceptual, methodological, criterial or contextual considerations on which that judgment is based (American Psychological Association 1990 ).

However, the varied set of skills associated with CRT is controversial (Fisher, 2009 ). For instance, Ennis ( 2019 ) developed an extensive conception of CRT through a broad set of dispositions and abilities. Similarly, Madison ( 2004 ) proposed an extensive and comprehensive list of skills (Table 1 ).

The development of CRT tests has contributed to clarifying the relevance of the many CRT skills, as the test’s functionality requires concentrating on a few skills. For instance, Halpern’s ( 2010 ) questionnaire assesses, through everyday situations, problem-solving, verbal reasoning, probability and uncertainty, hypothesis-testing, argument analysis and decision-making. Watson and Glaser’s ( 2002 ) instrument assesses deduction, recognition of assumptions, interpretation, inference, and evaluation of arguments. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test assesses analysis, evaluation, inference, deduction and induction (Facione et al., 1998 ). It is also worth mentioning that most CRT tests target adults, although the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests (Ennis & Millman, 2005 ) were developed for a variety of young people and address several CRT skills (X test, induction, deduction, credibility, and identification of assumptions; Class Test, classical logical reasoning from premises to conclusion, etc.). The large number of CRT skills led scholars to perform efforts of synthesis and refinement that are summarized through some exemplary proposals (Table 1 ).

The CRT psychological framework presented above places the complex set of skills within the high-level cognitive constructs whose practice involves a self-directed, self-disciplined, self-supervised, and self-corrective way of thinking that presupposes conscious mastery of skills and conformity with rigorous quality standards. In addition to skills, CRT also involves effective communication and attitudinal commitment to intellectual standards to overcome the natural tendencies to fallacy and bias (self-centeredness and socio-centrism).

Science education and thinking skills

CRT skills mirror the scientific reasoning skills of scientific practice, and vice versa, based on their similar contents. This intuitive resemblance may launch expectations of their mutual relationship. Science education research has increased attention to CRT skills as promotors of meaningful learning, especially when involving NOS and understanding of socio-scientific issues (Vieira et al., 2011 ; Torres & Solbes, 2016 ; Vázquez-Alonso & Manassero-Mas, 2018 ; Yacoubian & Khishfe, 2018 , among others). Furthermore, Yacoubian ( 2015 ) elaborated several reasons to consider CRT a fundamental pillar for NOS learning.

Some authors stress the convergence between science and CRT based on the word critical , as thinking and science are both critical. Critical approaches have always been considered consubstantial to science (and likely a key factor of its success), as their range spreads from specific critical social issues (i.e., scientific controversies, social acceptance of scientific knowledge, social coping with a virus pandemic) to the socially organized scepticism of science (i.e., peer evaluation, scientific communication). The latter is considered a universal value of scientific practice to guarantee the validity of knowledge (Merton, 1968 ; Osborne, 2014 ). In the context of CRT research, the term critical involves normative ways to ensure the quality of good thinking, such as open-minded abilities and a disposition for relentless scrutiny of ideas, criteria for evaluating the goodness of thinking, adherence to the norms, standards of excellence, and avoidance of errors and fallacies (traits of poor thinking). These obviously also apply to scientific knowledge through peer evaluation practice, which represents a superlative form of good normative thinking (Bailin, 2002 ; Paul & Elder, 2008 ).

Another important feature of the convergence of CRT and science is the broad set of common skills sharing the same semantic content in both fields, despite that their names may seem different. Induction, deduction, abduction, and, in general, all kinds of argumentation skills, as well as problem-solving and decision-making, exemplify key tools of scientific practice to validate and defend ideas and develop controversies, discussions, and debates. Concurrently, they, too, are CRT skills (Sprod, 2014 ; Vieira et al., 2011 ; Yacoubian & Kishfe, 2018 ). In addition, Santos’ ( 2017 ) review suggests the following tentative list of skills: observation, exploration, research, problem-solving, decision-making, information-gathering, critical questions, reliable knowledge-building, evaluation, rigorous checks, acceptance and rejection of hypotheses, clarification of meanings, and true conclusions. Beyond skill names and focusing on their semantic content, (Manassero-Mas & Vázquez-Alonso, 2020a ) developed a deeper analysis of the skills usually attributed to scientific thinking and critical thinking, concluding that their constituent skills are deeply intertwined and much more coincident than different. This suggests that scientific and critical thinking may be considered equivalent concepts across the many shared skills they put into practice. However, equivalence does not mean identity, as important differences may still exist. For instance, the evaluation and judgment of ideas involved in organized scientific skepticism (i.e., peer evaluation) are much more demanding and deeper in scientific practice than in daily life thinking realms.

In sum, research on the CRT and NOS constructs is plural, as they draw from two different fields and traditions, general education and cognitive psychology, and science education, respectively. However, CRT and NOS share many skills, processes, and thinking strategies, as they both pursue the same general goal, namely, to establish the true value of knowledge claims. These shared features provide further reasons to investigate the possible relationships between NOS and CRT skills.

Research involving nature of science and thinking skills

The research involving both constructs is heterogeneous, as the operationalisations and methods are quite varied, given the pluralized nature of NOS and thinking. For example, Yang and Tsai ( 2012 ) reviewed 37 empirical studies on the relationship between personal epistemologies and science learning, concluding that research was heterogeneous along different NOS orientations: applications of Kuhn’s ( 2012 ) evolutionary epistemic categories, use of general epistemic knowledge categories, studies on epistemological beliefs about science (empiricism, tentativeness, etc.), and applications of other epistemic frameworks. The studies dealing with the epistemological beliefs about science were a minority. Another example of heterogeneity comes from Koray and Köksal’s ( 2009 ) study about the effect of laboratory instruction versus traditional teaching on creativity and logical thinking in prospective primary school teachers, where the laboratory group showed a significant effect in comparison to the traditional group. However, the NOS contents involved in laboratory instruction are still unclear. Dowd et al. ( 2018 ) examined the relationship between written scientific reasoning and eight specific CRT skills, finding that only three aspects of reasoning were significantly related to one skill (inference) and negatively to argument.

A series of studies suggest implicit relationships between NOS and thinking skills. Yang and Tsai ( 2010 ) interviewed sixth-graders to examine two uncertain science-related issues, finding that children who developed more complex (multiplistic) NOS knowledge displayed better reflective thinking and coordination of theory and evidence. Dogan et al. ( 2020 ) compared the impact of two epistemic-based methodologies (problem-based and history of science) on the creativity skills of prospective primary school teachers, finding that the problem-solving approach was more effective in increasing students’ creative thinking. Khishfe ( 2012 ) and Khishfe et al. ( 2017 ) found no differences in decision-making and argumentation in socio-scientific issues regarding NOS knowledge, but more participants in the treatment groups referred their post-decision-making factors to NOS than the other groups. Other studies found relationships between NOS understanding and variables that do not match CRT skills precisely. For instance, Bogdan ( 2020 ) found that inference and tentativeness relate to attitudes toward the role of science in social progress, but creativity does not, and the same applies to the acceptance of the evolution theory (Cofré et al., 2017 ; Sinatra et al., 2003 ).

Another set of studies comes from science education research on argumentation, which is based on the rationale that argumentation is a key scientific skill for validating knowledge in scientific practice. Thus, reasoning skills should be related to NOS understanding. Students who viewed science as dynamic and changeable were likely to develop more complex arguments (Stathopoulou & Vosnidou, 2007 ). In a floatation experience, Zeineddin and Abd-El-Khalick ( 2010 ) found that the stronger the epistemic commitments, the greater the quality of the scientific reasoning produced by the individuals. Accordingly, the term epistemic cognition of scientific argumentation has been coined, although specific research on argumentation and epistemic cognition is still relatively scarce (He et al., 2020 ).

Weinstock’s ( 2006 ) review suggested that people’s argumentation skills develop in proportion to their epistemic development, which Noroozi ( 2016 ) also confirmed. Further, Mason and Scirica ( 2006 ) studied the contribution of general epistemological comprehension to argumentation skills in two readings, finding that participants at the highest level of epistemic comprehension (evaluative) generated better quality arguments than participants at the previous multiplistic stage (Kuhn, 2012 ). In addition, the review of Rapanta et al. ( 2013 ) on argumentative competence proposed a three-dimensional hierarchical framework, where the highest level is epistemological (the ability to evaluate the relevance, sufficiency, and acceptability of arguments). Again, Henderson et al. ( 2018 ) discussed the key challenges of argumentation research and pointed to students’ shifting epistemologies about what might count as a claim or evidence or what might make an argument persuasive or convincing, as well as developing valid and reliable assessments of argumentation. On the contrary, Yang et al. ( 2019 ) found no significant associations between general epistemic knowledge and the performance of scientific reasoning in a controversial case with undergraduates.

From science education, González‐Howard and McNeill ( 2020 ) analysed middle-school classroom interactions in critique argumentation when an epistemic agency is incorporated, indicating that the development of students’ epistemic agency shows multiple and conflating approaches to address the tensions inherent to critiquing practices and to fostering equitable learning environments. This idea is further developed in the special section on epistemic tools of Science Education (2020), which highlights the continual need to accommodate and adapt the epistemic tools and agencies of scientific practices within classrooms while taking into account teaching, engineering, sustainability, equity and justice (González‐Howard & McNeill, 2020 ; Settlage & Southerland, 2020 ).

Finally, some of the above-mentioned research used a noteworthy concept of epistemic knowledge (EK) as “knowledge about knowledge and knowing” (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 ), which has been developed in mainstream general education research and involves some meta-cognitions about human knowledge that research has largely connected to general learning and CRT skills (Greene et al., 2016 ). Obviously, EK and NOS knowledge share many common aspects (epistemic), suggesting a considerable overlap between them. However, it is noteworthy that NOS research is oriented toward CRT skills impacting NOS learning, while EK research orientates toward EK impacting CRT skills and general learning.

Regarding the Likert formats for research tools, test makers are concerned about the control of response biases that cause a lack of true reflection on the statement content and may damage the fidelity of data and correlations. Respondents’ tendency to agree with statements (acquiescence bias) is widespread. Further, neutrality bias and polarity bias reflect respondents’ propensity to choose fixed score points of the scale, either the midpoints (neutrality) or the extreme scores (polarity), either extreme high scores (positive bias) or extreme low scores (negative bias). To mitigate biases, experts recommend avoiding the exclusive use of positively worded statements within the instruments and combining positive and reversed items. This recommendation has been implemented here using three categories for NOS phrases that operationalize positive, intermediate and reversed statements (Vázquezr et al., 2006 ; Kreitchmann et al., 2019 ; Suárez-Alvarez et al., 2018 ; Vergara & Balluerka, 2000 ). However, the use of varied styles for phrases harms the instrument’s reliability and validity, and reliability is underestimated (Suárez-Alvarez et al., 2018 ).

All in all, the theoretical framework is twofold: CRT and NOS research. The above-mentioned research shares the hypothesis that the relationship between NOS and CRT skills matters. However, it displays a broad heterogeneity of research methods, variables, instruments and mixed results on the NOS-CRT relationship that do not allow a common methodological standpoint. Further, mainstream research focuses on college students and argumentation skills. In this regard, this study aims to empirically research the NOS-CRT relationship by applying standardized assessment tools for both constructs. This promotes comparability among researchers and provides quick diagnostic tools for teachers. Secondly, this study addresses younger students, which involves the creation of NOS and CRT tools adapted to young participants, for which some test validity and reliability data are provided. The research questions within this framework are: Do NOS knowledge and CRT skills correlate? What are the traits and limits conditions of this relationship, if any?

Materials and methods

The data gathering took place in Spain in the year 2018. At this time, the enacted school curriculum missed the international standards and specific curriculum proposals about CRT and NOS issues, so NOS issues could be implicitly related to some curricular contents about scientific research. Despite this lack of curricular emphasis, the principals of the participant Spanish schools expressed interest in diagnosing students’ thinking skills and NOS knowledge and agreed with the authors on the specific CRT and NOS-skills to be tested. As the Spanish school curriculum does not emphasize CRT and NOS issues, the students are expected to be equally trained, and this context conditioned the design of tentative tests through simple contents and an open-ended format, as they are cheap and easy to administer and interpret.

Participants

The participant schools (17) included some public (4) and state-funded private schools (13) that spread across mixed socio-cultural contexts and large, medium, and small Spanish townships. The participant students were tested in their natural school classes (29) of the two target grades. The valid convenience samples are two cohorts of students, each representing students of 6 th grade of Primary Education (PE6) ( n  = 434; 54.8% girls and 45.2% boys; mean age 11.3 years) and 8th grade of Secondary Compulsory Education (SCE8) ( n  = 347; 48.5% girls and 51.5% boys; mean age 13.3 years). In Spain, 6 th grade is the last year of the primary stage (11–12-year-old students), and the 8 th grade is the second year of the lower secondary compulsory stage (13–14-year-old students).

Instruments

Two assessment tools were tailored by researchers (a CRT skill test and a NOS scenario) to operationalise CRT and NOS to empirically check their relationships. As the Spanish school curriculum lacks CRT standards, the specific thinking skills that represent the CRT construct were agreed upon between principals and researchers. The design of the tool to assess NOS knowledge took into account that NOS was not explicitly taught in Spanish schools. Both tools were designed to match the schools’ interests and the students’ developmental level; the latter particularly led to choosing a simple NOS issue (definition of science) to match the primary students’ capabilities better.

Thinking challenge tests

Two CRT thinking skill test were developed for the two participant cohorts (PE6 and SCE8). The design aligns with the tradition of most CRT standardised tests that concentrate assessment on a few selected thinking skills (i.e., Ennis & Millman, 2005 ; Halpern, 2010 ). The test for the 6th-graders (PE6) assesses five skills: prediction, comparison and contrast, classification, problem-solving and logical reasoning. The test for the 8th-graders (SCE8) assesses causal explanation, decision-making, parts-all relationships, sequence and logical reasoning.

As most CRT tests are designed for adults, many tests and item pools were reviewed to select suitable items for younger students. The selection criteria were the fit of the items’ cognitive demand with students’ age, the addressed skill and the motivational challenge for students. Moreover, items must be readable, understandable, adequate, and interesting for the participant students. Then, two 45-item and 38-item tests were agreed on and piloted. Their results are described elsewhere (Manassero-Mas & Vázquez-Alonso, 2020b ). The items were examined by the authors according to their reliability, correlation and factor analysis to eliminate unfair items. Again, the former criteria were used to add new items to conform the two new 35-item Thinking Challenge Tests (TCT) to assess the CRT skills of this study.

The items of the first two skills were drawn from the Cornell (Nicoma) test, which evaluates four CRT skills through the information provided by a fictional story about some explorers of the Nicoma planet and asks questions about the story. Some items from prediction and comparison skills were drawn for the 6th-grade TCT (PE6), and some items from causal explanation and decision-making skills were drawn for the 8th-grade TCT (SCE8). The two TCT include three additional items on logical reasoning that were selected from the 78-item Class-Reasoning Cornell Test (Ennis & Millman, 2005 ). One item was also drawn from the 25-situation Halpern CRT test (Halpern, 2010 ) for the problem-solving skill of the PE6 test. The authors adapted the remaining figurative items (Table 2 ) to enhance students’ challenge, understanding, and motivation and make the TCT free of school knowledge (Appendix).

Overall, the TCT items pose authentic culture-free challenges, as their contents and cognitive demands are not related to or anchored in any prior school curricular knowledge, especially language and mathematics. Therefore, the TCT are intended to assess culture-free thinking skills.

The item formats involve multiple-choice and Likert scales with appropriate ranges and rubrics that facilitate quick and objective scoring and the elaboration of increasing adjustment between items’ cognitive demand and their corresponding skill, thereby leading to further revision based on validity and reliability improvement. This format also allows setting standardised baselines for hypothesis-testing through comparisons of research, educational programs, and teaching methodologies.

Nature of science assessment

A scenario on science definitions is used to assess the participants’ NOS understanding because this simple issue may better fit the lack of explicit NOS teaching and the developmental stage of the young students, especially the youngest 6th-graders. The scenario provides nine phrases that convey an epistemic, plural and varied range of science definitions, and respondents rate their agreement-disagreement with the phrases on a 9-point Likert scale (1 =  strongly disagree , 9 =  strongly agree ) to allow better nuancing of their NOS beliefs and avoid psychometric objections to the scale intervals. The scenario is drawn from the “Views on Science-Technology-Society” (VOSTS) pool that Aikenhead and Ryan ( 1992 ) developed empirically by synthesizing many students’ interviews and open answers into some scenarios, written in simple, understandable, and non-technical language. They consider that VOSTS items have intrinsic validity due to their empirical development, as the scenario phrases come from students, not from researchers or a particular philosophy, thus avoiding the immaculate perception bias and ensuring students’ understanding. Lederman et al. ( 1998 ) also consider VOSTS a valid and reliable tool for investigating NOS conceptions. Manassero et al. ( 2003 ) adapted the scenarios into the Spanish language and contexts, and developed a multiple-rating assessment rubric, based on the phrase scaling achieved through expert judges’ consensus. The rubric assigns indices whose empirical reliability has been presented elsewhere (Vázquezr et al., 2006 ; Bennássar et al., 2010 ).

The students completed the two tests through digital devices led by their teachers within their natural school classroom groups during 2018–19. To enhance students’ effort and motivation, the applications were infused into curricular learning activities, where students were encouraged to ask about problems and difficulties. During applications students did not ask questions to teacher that may reflect some difficulty to understand the tests. The database was processed with SPSS 25 and Factor program (Baglin, 2014 ) for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis through polychoric correlations and Robust Unweighted Least Squares (RULS) method that lessen conditions on the score distribution of variables. Effect size statistics use a cut-off point ( d  = 0.30) to discriminate relevant differences.

There was no time limit for students to complete the tests, and the applications took between 25 and 50 min. Correct answers score one point, incorrect answers zero points, and no random corrections were applied. The skill scores were computed by adding the scores of the items that belong to each skill, which are independent. The addition of the five skill scores makes up a test score (thinking total) that estimates students’ global CRT competence and is dependent on the skill scores (Table 2 ).

The different types of validity maintain a reciprocal influence and represent the various parts of a whole, so they are not mutually independent. The Thinking Challenge tests’ validity relies on the quality of the CRT pools and tests examined by the authors, their agreement to choose the items that best matched the criteria, and the reviewed pilot results (Manassero-Mas & Vázquez-Alonso, 2020b ). The Factor program computes several reliability statistics (Cronbach alpha, EAP, Omega, etc.).

Nature of science scenario

The nine phrases describe different science definitions, and students rated each one on a 1–9 agreement scale. According to the experts’ current views on NOS, a panel of qualified judges reached a 2/3-consensus to categorize each phrase within a 3-level scheme (Adequate, Plausible, Naive), which has been widely used in NOS assessment (Khishfe, 2012 ; Liang et al., 2008 ; Rubba et al., 1996 ). The scheme means the phrases express informed (Adequate), partially informed (Plausible), or uninformed (Naive) NOS knowledge (see Appendix). According to this scheme, an evaluation rubric transforms the students’ direct ratings (1–9) into an index [− 1 to + 1], which is proportionally higher when the person agrees with an Adequate phrase, partially agrees with a Plausible phrase, or disagrees with a Naive phrase. All the rubric indices balance positive and negative scores, which are symmetrical for Adequate and Naïve phrases, but plausible indices are somewhat loaded toward agreement, as higher agreement would be expected. The index unifies the NOS measurements to make them homogeneous (positive indices mean informed conceptions), invariant (measurement independent of scenario/phrase/category), and standardised (all measures within the same interval [− 1, + 1]). The index proportionally values the adjustment of students’ NOS knowledge to the current views of science: the higher (or lower) the index, the better (or worse) informed is their NOS knowledge (Vázquezr et al., 2006 ).

Three category variables (Adequate, Plausible, and Naïve) are computed by averaging their phrase indices, which are mutually independent. The average of the three category variables computes a global NOS index representing the student’s overall NOS knowledge (Global). The use of three categories aligns with test makers’ recommendations to avoid using only positively worded phrases in order to elude the acquiescence bias, which harms reliability and validity (Suárez-Alvarez et al., 2018 ).

The links between thinking skills and NOS are empirically explored through correlational methods and one-way ANOVA procedures of the variables of the Thinking Challenge test and science definitions.

The results include the descriptive statistics of the target variables, twelve thinking variables (five skills plus thinking total for each group) and four variables of the science definitions (adequate, plausible, naive, and global), the analysis of the correlations, a linear regression analysis among these variables, and a comparison of thinking skills between NOS categorical groups through a one-way ANOVA.

Descriptive statistics

Most mean thinking variables scores fell near the midpoint of the scale range. Four skills (classification, problem-solving, causal explanation and sequence) scored above the midpoints of their ranges, whereas two variables (logical reasoning and decision) scored slightly below their midpoints. Overall, these results indicate the medium difficulty of the tests for the students, neither easy nor difficult, which means the CRT tests can be acceptable to assess young students’ thinking skills (Table 3 ).

The EAP reliability indices of classification, problem-solving, sequence, parts (mainly figurative items) and thinking scales were excellent, good for the remaining scales, but poor for logical reasoning. Low reliability indicates a need for item revision and limited applicability (i.e., inappropriate for individual diagnosis), but is insufficient to reject the test in research purposes (U.S. Department of Labor, 1999 ). As test reliability critically depends on the number of items, increasing the length of logical reasoning over its three current items will improve its reliability.

The descriptive results for the direct scores of the NOS variables (Table 4 ) showed a biased pattern toward agreement (average phrases between 4.9 and 7.4), which suggests some acquiescence bias in spite of presenting varied phrases. The average indices obtained positive scores for the adequate category, slightly negative ones for the naïve category, and close-to-zero for the plausible phrases (the effect size of the differences concerning a zero score was low). The overall weighted average index for the whole sample (global variable) was close-to-zero and slightly positive, meaning that the students’ overall epistemic conception of science definition was not significantly informed. The overall average index of Adequate phrases obtained the highest positive score for both samples of students, which means that most students agreed with the Adequate phrases (expressing informed beliefs about science). In contrast, the Naïve overall average index obtained the lowest negative mean score, indicating that the students agreed instead of disagreeing with phrases expressing uninformed views about science. The Plausible variable (phrases expressing partially informed beliefs, neither adequate nor naive) obtained a close-to-zero average score, meaning that the students’ beliefs about these variables were far from informed. Overall, the students presented slightly informed views on Adequate phrases, close-to-zero average indices scores (not informed views) for Plausible phrases and slightly uninformed views on Naive statements.

Polychoric correlations among NOS direct scores computed through Factor attained good scores on all NOS items, indicating a unidimensional structure (but Phrase I). The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) applied to phrase scores displayed a dominant eigenvalue, whose general factor had acceptable loadings for all phrases (only phrase I had low loading). The unidimensional model obtained fair statistics in the confirmatory factor analysis. These results suggest one general factor underlying students’ scores and justify a global score representing the variance of all the NOS phrases. The expected a posteriori (EAP) reliability scores for the entire NOS scale were good (Table 4 ).

The comparison of NOS scores between primary and secondary grades highlights that the four NOS variable scores on science definitions were significantly equal for both cohorts of students, despite the two years separation. So, the educational impact of the two-year period on NOS seems almost null, given the close-to-zero differences in science definitions. This result could be expected, as NOS is not explicitly planned in Spanish science curricula and is not usually taught in the classroom.

Both cohorts answered the same anchoring CRT item (see Appendix), whose correct answer rate (27% primary; 33% secondary) suggests a slight improvement in CRT skills that sharply contrasts with the former NOS comparison. Summing up, despite that CRT and NOS have not been taught to Spanish students, developmental learning may increase CRT skills but not improve NOS knowledge. This reinforces the claim for explicit and reflective teaching of NOS, as implicit developmental maturation alone seems ineffective.

Correlations between nature of science and thinking skills

The empirical analysis of the hypothesised relationships between thinking skills and NOS epistemic variables (Adequate, Plausible, Naive) was performed through correlational methods (Pearson’s bivariate correlation coefficients and linear regression analysis) and one-way analysis of variance.

The Pearson correlation coefficients revealed a pattern of the relationships between NOS and thinking skills (Table 5 ): all thinking skills positively correlated with the Adequate variable, and most were significant, except for prediction and logical reasoning in EP6, which were non-significant. However, the correlations with the Naive and Plausible variables were overall non-significant. However, there were some exceptions: first, the Plausible/problem-solving correlation in EP6 was significant (and negative); second, the correlations between Naïve and logical reasoning (positive in EP6) and also between decision-making, logical reasoning and the thinking total score (negative in SCE8) were significant.

Thus, the noteworthy pattern for the NOS-CRT relationship showed that the Adequate variable positively correlated with all the thinking variables and was mostly statistically significant (83%); the highest positive correlations corresponded to problem-solving (EP6), sequence and parts-all (ES8), and the thinking total skills for both groups ( p  < 0.01). This pattern means that students with higher (lower) thinking skill scores expressed higher (lower) agreement with Adequate phrases.

The correlation pattern between thinking skills and the Plausible and Naive variables was mainly non-significant (75%). Only two correlations were significant in the EP6 group; the Plausible-problem-solving correlation was negative (higher scorers on problem-solving did not recognize the intermediate value of Plausible science definitions), whereas the Naïve-logical reasoning correlation was positive (higher scorers on logical reasoning tended to disagree with Naive science definitions). Three Naïve correlations were significant and negative in the secondary group (SCE8): parts-all, logical reasoning skills and thinking total.

Overall, the positive and significant correlation pattern of the Adequate variable was stronger than the mainly non-significant and somewhat negative Naive and Plausible correlation pattern.

Linear regression analysis between nature of science and thinking skills

Regression analysis (RA) compares the power of a set of variables to predict a dependent variable and the common variance. Two linear regression analyses were carried out to test the mutual contribution of the CRT and NOS variables. The first RA uses the NOS variables (Adequate, Plausible, Naive and Global) as the dependent variables, and the five independent thinking skills as predictors (Table 6 ). The second RA (Table 7 ) reversed the roles of the variables, thus establishing the thinking skills as the dependent variables and the three independent NOS variables (Adequate, Plausible and Naive) as the predictors. Collinearity tests were negative for all RAs through tolerance, variance inflation factor and condition index statistics.

The first RA (Table 6 ) showed that the NOS Adequate variable achieved the highest proportion of common variance with thinking skill predictors at both educational levels (4.2% in PE6 and 9.2% in SCE8), whereas the other two NOS variables achieved much lower levels of explained variance. In PE6, the most significant predictor skill of NOS was problem-solving, whereas the other predictor skills did not reach statistical significance in any case. In SCE8, the most significant predictors were three skills (sequencing, reasoning, and parts-all), whereas the remaining skills did not reach statistical significance (the predictors of the Plausible variable were negative).

The second RA (Table 7 ) showed that the Adequate variable achieved the greatest predictive power, as most thinking skills displayed statistically significant standardised beta coefficients at the two educational levels, while Plausible and Naïve variables had a much lower predictive power, and Plausible standardised coefficients were non-significant for any skill predictor. The common variance displayed a similar amount to the first analysis; the thinking total variable displayed the largest variance at both educational levels (4.8% PE6; 9.6% SCE8), and the problem-solving skills at PE6 (5.3%) and parts-all at SCE8 (7.1%).

In summary, the Adequate variable and the classification and problem-solving skills (PE6) and sequencing and parts-all skills (SCE8) were the variables that presented the largest standardised coefficients and statistical significance regarding the research question raised in this study about the positive relationship between NOS and thinking skills.

Analysis of variance between nature of science and thinking skills

Further exploration of the NOS-skills relationship was conducted through one-way between-groups analysis of variance. According to performance on the Adequate, Plausible and Naive variables, the participants were allocated to four percentile groups (low group: 0–25%; medium–low: 25–50%; medium–high: 50–75%; high: 75–100%), which made up the independent variable of the ANOVA for testing the differences in thinking skills (dependent variable) among these four groups.

The Adequate groups yielded a statistically significant main effect for the thinking total in primary [ F (3, 429) = 7.745, p  = 0.000] and secondary education [ F (3, 343) = 2.607, p  = 0.052]. The effect size of the differences in the thinking total scores between the high and low groups was large for the primary ( d  = 0.69) and secondary ( d  = 0.86) cohorts. Furthermore, comparison, classification, and problem-solving skills also replicated this pattern of large differences between high-low groups that supports the NOS/CRT positive relationship. However, prediction ( p  = 0.069) and logical reasoning ( p  = 0.504) did not display differences among the Adequate groups.

Post-hoc comparisons (Scheffé test) showed that the low group achieved significantly lower scores than the other three Adequate groups. The Adequate low group scores on thinking total, comparison, classification, and problem-solving skills were significantly lower than the scores of the other three groups, whereas the differences among the Adequate groups on prediction and logical reasoning scores were non-significant.

The main effect of the Plausible groups on the thinking total variable did not reach statistical significance for the primary F (3, 430) = 1.805, p = 0.145] and secondary groups [ F (3, 343) = 2.607, p  = 0.052]. The effect size was small ( d  = − 0.31 primary; d  = − 0.32 secondary) and negative (the thinking total mean score of the low group was higher than that of the high group). Post-hoc comparisons (Scheffé test) confirmed the trend, as they did not yield significant differences among the Plausible groups, although the mean score of the Plausible high group was lower than the other three groups. Exceptionally, problem-solving skill (primary) displayed a statistically significant difference between the Plausible high group (the lowest mean score) and the remaining three groups.

The main effect of Naive groups on the thinking total variable did not reach statistical significance [ F (3, 430) = 1.075, p  = 0.367 primary; F (3, 343) = 1.642, p  = 0.179 secondary] and the effect size of the differences was small ( d  = 0.32 primary; d  = − 0.31 secondary). The opposite direction of the differences in primary (positive) and secondary education (negative) is noteworthy, as it means that the highest mean score corresponded to the Naive high group in primary (positive) or the Naive low group in secondary (negative). Post-hoc comparisons (Scheffé test) showed that there were no significant differences among the Naive groups. However, the league table of groups across the Naive groups revealed differences between primary and secondary cohorts. Overall, the primary Naive groups followed the pattern of the Adequate variable (the low group displayed the lowest score), whereas the secondary Naive groups followed the pattern of the Plausible variable (the high group tended to display the lowest score).

The empirical findings of this study quantify through correlations some significant and positive relationships between thinking skills and NOS beliefs about science definitions, as the main answer to the research question. However, the analysis shows a complex pattern of the relationship, which depends on the kind of the NOS variable under consideration: the NOS Adequate variable, which represents phrases expressing informed views on science, is positively and significantly related to most thinking skills, whereas the uninformed Naive and intermediate Plausible variables show a lower predictive power of thinking skills. Summing up, the positive significant CRT-NOS relationship is not displayed by all NOS variables, as it is limited to those NOS variables that express an Adequate view of science, while the other NOS variables do not significantly correlate with CRT skills.

The implications of this study for research are twofold. On the one hand, the variables of this study specifically operationalise the two constructs under investigation, namely, CRT skills and NOS knowledge, which has been a challenge throughout their mixed operationalisation in the reviewed research. On the other hand, via Pearson correlations and regression analysis, this study quantifies the amount of the common variance between specific CRT skills and specific NOS knowledge, which is significant in many cases. Both contributions improve the features of previous studies, as most of them investigated the relationship from varied methodological frameworks: some reported group comparison, fewer analysed correlations, and most of the latter used a diversity of variables, which often did not match either CRT skills or NOS variables. For instance, Vieira et al. ( 2011 ) correlated thinking skills with science literacy (not NOS) and reported Pearson correlations that were lower than the correlations obtained herein, even though they used a smaller sample, which favours higher correlations.

The findings reveal the complexity of the NOS-CRT relationship, which limits the positive and relevant relationship to the NOS Adequate variables about science definitions, but not to the Plausible or Naive conceptualizations, which mainly display non-significant and somewhat negative correlations. The positive relationship between thinking and Adequate science definitions is a remarkable finding, which empirically supports the hypothesis that better thinking skills involve better NOS knowledge and confirms the concomitant intuitions and claims of some studies about the importance of thinking skills for learning NOS epistemic topics (Erduran & Kaya, 2018 ; Ford & Yore, 2014 ; Simonneaux, 2014 ; Torres & Solbes, 2016 ; Yacoubian, 2015 ). The findings also contribute to establishing the limit of the significant relationship, which applies when the NOS is conveyed by informed statements (Adequate phrases) and does not apply for non-adequate NOS statements, which are a minority in the face of most NOS literature, which conveys informed statements on NOS (Cofré et al., 2019 ).

The implications of the collateral finding on the lack of differences in science definitions between primary and secondary cohorts deserve further comments. Obviously, the finding confirms that two educational years have a scarce impact on improving Spanish students’ understanding of science definitions; that is, NOS teaching seems ineffective and stagnated, probably due to poor curriculum development and the lack of teacher training and educational resources. Besides, the students’ higher performance on adequate phrases than on plausible and naïve phrases also suggests that Spanish students may achieve some mild knowledge about the informed traits of science because they are implicitly displayed in teaching, textbooks and media. However, plausible and naïve knowledge is not usually available from those sources, as it requires explicit and reflective teaching, which Spanish students usually lack. Both findings suggest the need for further attention to misinformed NOS knowledge to invigorate explicit and reflective NOS teaching (Cofré et al., 2019 ; McDonald & McRobbie, 2012 ).

The unexpected non-significant/negative relationships between thinking and Plausible and Naive variables may need some elaboration due to the complexity of students’ NOS conceptions. For instance, Bennássar et al. ( 2010 ) described the students’ inconsistent agreements when rating opposite statements. Bogdan ( 2020 ) found that epistemic conceptions of science creativity did not relate to attitudes to science, and Khishfe ( 2012 ) reported complex relationships between epistemic aspects of science and decision-making about genetically modified organisms or the acceptance of the evolution theory (Cofré et al., 2017 ; Sinatra, et al., 2003 ). Thus, a tentative interpretation of those paradoxical relationships is elaborated.

Higher-thinking-skill students might develop better quality reflections that elicit more confident and higher scores on NOS phrases than lower-thinking-skill students. The latter tend toward less confident and low-quality reflection, which may elicit intermediate, less polarized scores. On average, this differential pattern explains the complex pattern of relationships between CRT and NOS variables. For the Adequate phrases (where the rubric assigns the best indices to the highest scores), higher-thinking students will achieve higher NOS indices than lower-thinking students, explaining the observed positive CRT-NOS correlations in the Adequate variables and the ANOVA results. On the other hand, when Naive and, especially, Plausible phrases are involved (which obtain their highest indices at low and intermediate scores, respectively), the differential response pattern would lead the lower-thinking students to achieve higher NOS indices than the higher-thinking students, thus shifting to the observed non-significant or negative correlations for Naive and Plausible phrases. In short, unconfident/confident and lower/higher quality reflection on NOS knowledge of the lower-/higher-thinking students would explain the shift from the positive and significant relationship of CRT-Adequate phrases to the non-significant correlations of Plausible and Naive phrases. This interpretation agrees with the striking finding of O’Brien et al. ( 2021 ) about a similar unexpected higher adherence to pseudoscientific claims in students with higher trust in science, which the authors attributed to the acritical acceptation of any scientific contents. Similarly, mastery of CRT skills is a desirable learning outcome, but it may make master students vulnerable to positive polarization in science definitions. However, further research is needed to confirm the non-significant correlations and the interpretation of the differential response pattern.

As the previous reference suggests, the findings about the complex CRT-NOS relationship connect with some pending controversies about NOS teaching, namely, the marginalized attention paid to misinformed ideas or myths about science, in favour of the informed ideas, which reveal implicit and non-reflective NOS teaching, as obviously misinformed ideas contribute to triggering more reflection than informed ideas (Acevedo et al., 2007 ; McComas, 1996 ). The effect of this under-exposure is students’ under-training about misinformed NOS ideas, which may act as obstacles to authentic NOS epistemic learning, explaining the differences presented herein. The remedy to this situation and the unconfident bias may lie in devoting more time and explicit attention to uninformed or incomplete NOS claims through reflective teaching.

This study is determined and limited by the contextual conditions of its correlational methodology. First, the research question implied measurements of thinking skills and NOS knowledge; second, the young participants (12–14-year-olds) required measurement tools appropriate to this age; third, the thinking skill tests had to match the thinking skills demanded by the participant school; fourth, the selected NOS tool was conditioned by the students’ age and the lack of appropriate NOS assessment tools. Thus, further suggestions to overcome these limitations are focused on expanding empirical support for the NOS-CRT relationship. On the one hand, some new NOS issues, such as additional epistemological and social aspects of science, should be explored to extend the representativeness of NOS knowledge. Similar reflections apply to including new skills to expand the scope of the CRT tool. Furthermore, the number of items of the logical reasoning scale should be increased to improve its reliability. Overall, the perennial debate between open-ended and closed formats is also noteworthy for future research, as quantitative methods could be complemented with qualitative methods (such as students’ interviews and the like).

Finally, the main educational implication of this study is that students may need to master some competence in CRT skills to learn NOS knowledge or general epistemic knowledge. Conversely, mastery of CRT skills may foster learning NOS knowledge. Although this study focuses on epistemic NOS knowledge drawn from science education, educational research has parallelly elaborated the epistemic knowledge (EK) construct for general education (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 ), which opens further prospective research developments for NOS comprehension and CRT skills. On the one hand, the study of the NOS-EK relationship may shed light on convergent epistemic teaching and learning, both in science and in general education. On the other hand, the importance of CRT skills for NOS, and vice versa, may help coordinate teaching NOS-EK issues (Erduran & Kaya, 2018 ; Ford & Yore, 2014 ; McDonald & McRobbie, 2012 ; Simonneaux, 2014 ). This joint prospective of NOS-EK elaboration may also provide new answers to two aspects: the mutual connections between CRT skills and NOS-EK issues and the EK assessment tools that may also contribute to advancing the evaluation of CRT skills and NOS.

Data availability

The Spanish State Research Agency and the University of the Balearic Islands hold the property of all data and materials of this study, which may be available under reasonable request to them.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Acevedo JA, Vázquez A, Manassero MA, Acevedo P (2007) Consensus on the nature of science: epistemological aspects. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias 4:202–225. http://www.apac-eureka.org/revista/Larevista.htm

Aikenhead GS, Ryan AG (1992) The development of a new instrument: “Views on Science-Technology-Society” (VOSTS). Sci Educ 76:477–491

Article   Google Scholar  

Allchin D, Zemplén GÁ (2020) Finding the place of argumentation in science education: Epistemics and whole science. Sci Educ 104(5):907–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21589

American Psychological Association (1990) Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Executive Summary “The Delphi Report”. www.insightassessment.com/dex.html

Baglin J (2014) Improving your exploratory factor analysis for ordinal data: a demonstration using factor. Pract Assess Res Eval 19(5):2

Google Scholar  

Bailin S (2002) Critical thinking and science education. Sci Educ 11:361–375

Bennássar A, Vázquez A, Manassero MA, García-Carmona A (Coor.). (2010) Ciencia, tecnología y sociedad en Iberoamérica [Science, technology society in Latin America]. Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos. http://www.oei.es/salactsi/DOCUMENTO5vf.pdf

Bogdan R (2020) Understanding of epistemic aspects of NOS and appreciation of its social dimension. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 17, Article 2303. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2020.v17.i2.2303

Cofré H, Cuevas E, Becerra B (2017) The relationship between biology teachers’ understanding of the NOS and the understanding and acceptance of the theory of evolution. Int J Sci Educ 39:2243–2260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1373410

Cofré H, Nuñez P, Santibáñez D, Pavez JM, Valencia M, Vergara C (2019) A critical review of students’ and teachers’ understandings of NOS. Sci Educ 28:205–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00051-3

Deng F, Chen D-T, Tsai C-C, Chai C-S (2011) Students’ views of the NOS: a critical review of research. Sci Educ 95:961–999

Dogan N, Manassero MA, Vázquez A (2020) Creative thinking in prospective science teachers: effects of problem and history of science based learning, 48. https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num48-10926

Dowd JE, Thompson RJ Jr, Schiff LA, Reynolds JA (2018) Understanding the complex relationship between critical thinking and science reasoning among undergraduate thesis writers. CBE Life Sci Educ. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-03-0052

Ennis RH (1996) Critical thinking. Prentice, Hoboken

Ennis RH, Millman J (2005) Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X. The Critical Thinking Company.

Ennis, R. H. (2019). Long definition of critical thinking . http://criticalthinking.net/definition/long-definition-of-critical-thinking/

Erduran S, y Dagher, Z. R. (eds) (2014) Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education. Scientific Knowledge, Practices and Other Family Categories. Springer, Dordrecht

Erduran S, Kaya E (2018) Drawing nature of science in pre-service science teacher education: epistemic insight through visual representations. Res Sci Educ 48(6):1133–1149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9773-0

European Union (2014). Key competence development in school education in Europe. KeyCoNet’s review of the literature: A summary . http://keyconet.eun.org

Facione PA, Facione RN, Blohm SW, Howard K, Giancarlo CAF (1998) California Critical Thinking Skills Test: Manual (Revised). California Academic Press, California

Fisher A (2009) Critical thinking An introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Fisher A (2021) What critical thinking is. In: Blair JA (ed) Studies in critical thinking, 2nd edn. University of Windsor, Canada, pp 7–26

Ford CL, Yore LD (2014) Toward convergence of critical thinking, metacognition, and reflection: Illustrations from natural and social sciences, teacher education, and classroom practice. In: Zohar A, Dori YJ (eds) Metacognition in science education. Springer, Berlin, pp 251–271

García-Mila M, Andersen C (2008) Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In: Erduran S, Jiménez-Aleixandre MP (eds) Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer, Berlin, pp 29–45

García-Carmona A, Vázquez A, Manassero MA (2011) Current status and perspectives on teaching the nature of science: a review of teachers’ beliefs obstacles. Enseñanza de las Ciencias 28:403–412

González-Howard M, McNeill KL (2020) Acting with epistemic agency: characterizing student critique during argumentation discussions. Sci Educ 104:953–982

Greene JA, Sandoval WA, Bråten I (2016) Handbook of epistemic cognition. Routledge, London

Book   Google Scholar  

Halpern DF (2010) Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment. Schuhfried, Modling

He X, Deng Y, Saisai Y, Wang H (2020) The influence of context on the large-scale assessment of high school students’ epistemic cognition of scientific argumentation. Sci Educ 29:7–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00088-4

Henderson JB, McNeill KL, Gonzalez-Howard M, Close K, Evans M (2018) Key challenges and future directions for educational research on scientific argumentation. J Res Sci Teach 55(1):5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21412

Hofer BK, Pintrich PR (1997) The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Rev Educ Res 67:88–140. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088

Khishfe R (2012) Nature of science and decision-making. Int J Sci Educ 34:67–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.559490

Khishfe R, Alshaya FS, BouJaoude S, Mansour N, Alrudiyan KI (2017) Students’ understandings of nature of science and their arguments in the context of four socio-scientific issues. Int J Sci Educ 39:299–334

Kolstø SD (2001) Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socio-scientific issues. Sci Educ 85:291–310

Koray Ö, Köksal MS (2009) The effect of creative and critical thinking based laboratory applications on creative logical thinking abilities of prospective teachers. Asia-Pacific Forum Sci Learn Teach 10, Article 2. https://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/download/v10_issue1_files/koksal.pdf

Kreitchmann RS, Abad FJ, Ponsoda V, Nieto MD, Morillo D (2019) Controlling for response biases in self-report scales: Forced-choice vs psychometric modeling of Likert items. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02309

Kuhn D (2012) Enseñar a pensar [Education for thinking]. Amorrortu, Argentina

Lederman NG (2007) Nature of science: past, present, and future. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, USA, pp 831–879

Lederman NG, Wade PD, Bell RL (1998) Assessing understanding of the NOS: A historical perspective. In: McComas WF (ed) The NOS in science education: Rationales and strategies. Kluwer, Netherland, pp 331–350

Liang LL, Chen S, Chen X, Kaya ON, Adams AD, Macklin M, Ebenezer J (2008) Assessing preservice elementary teachers’ views on the nature of scientific knowledge: a dual-response instrument. Asia- Pacific Forum Sci Learn Teach 9(1). http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v9_issue1/liang/index.htm

Madison, J. (2004). James Madison Critical Thinking Course . The Critical Thinking Co. https://www.criticalthinking.com/james-madison-critical-thinking-course.html

Manassero MA, Vázquez A, Acevedo JA (2003) Cuestionario de opiniones sobre ciencia, tecnologia y sociedad (COCTS) [Questionnaire of opinions on science, technology and society]. Educational Testing Service. https://store.ets.org/store/ets/en_US/pd/ThemeID.12805600/productID.39407800

Manassero-Mas MA, Vázquez-Alonso A (2019) Conceptualization and taxonomy to structure knowledge about science. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias 16(3):3104. http://www.10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2019.v16.i3.3104

Manassero-Mas M, Vázquez-Alonso Á (2020a) Scientific thinking and critical thinking: transversal competences for learning. Indag Didact 12(4):401–420. https://doi.org/10.34624/id.v12i4.21808

Manassero-Mas MA, Vásquez-Alonso Á (2020b) Assessment of critical thinking skills: validation of free-culture tools. Tecné, Epistemé y Didaxis, 47:15–32. https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num47-9801

Mason L, Scirica F (2006) Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learn Instr 16:492–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.007

Matthews MR (2012) Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In: Khine MS (ed) Advances in nature of science research Concepts and methodologies. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–26

Chapter   Google Scholar  

McComas WF (1996) Ten myths of science: reexamining what we think we know about the NOS. Sch Sci Math 96:10–16

McDonald CV, McRobbie CJ (2012) Utilising argumentation to teach NOS. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG, McRobbie CJ (eds) Second international handbook of science education. Springer, Berlin, pp 969–986

Merton RK (1968) Social theory and social structure. Simon and Schuster, Newyork

National Research Council (2012) Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press, USA

Noroozi O (2016) Considering students’ epistemic beliefs to facilitate their argumentative discourse and attitudinal change with a digital dialogue game. Innov Educ Teach Int 55(3):357–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1208112

O’Brien TC, Palmer R, Albarracin D (2021) Misplaced trust: When trust in science fosters belief in pseudoscience and the benefits of critical evaluation. J Exp Soc Psychol 96:104184. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JESP.2021.104184

Olson JK (2018) The inclusion of the NOS in nine recent international science education standards documents. Sci Educ 27:637–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9993-8

Osborne J (2014) Teaching critical thinking? new directions in science education. Sch Sci Rev 95:53–62

Paul R, Elder L (2008) The miniature guide to critical thinking: concepts and tools (5th ed.). Foundation for Critical Thinking Press

Rapanta C, Garcia-Mila M, Gilabert S (2013) What is meant by argumentative competence? an integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Rev Educ Res 83:483–520

Rubba PA, Schoneweg CS, Harkness WL (1996) A new scoring procedure for the views on science-technology-society instrument. Int J Sci Educ 18(4):387–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180401

Santos LF (2017) The role of critical thinking in science education. J Educ Pract 8:159–173

Settlage J, Southerland SA (2020) Epistemic tools for science classrooms: the continual need to accommodate and adapt. Sci Educ 103(4):1112–1119. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21510

Simonneaux L (2014) From promoting the techno-sciences to activism – A variety of objectives involved in the teaching of SSIS. In: Bencze L, Alsop S (eds) Activist science and technology education. Springer, Berlin, pp 99–112

Sinatra GM, Southerland SA, McConaughy F, Demastes JW (2003) Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. J Res Sci Teach 40:510–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10087

Sprod T (2014) Philosophical Inquiry and Critical Thinking in Science Education. In: Matthews MR (ed) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Springer, Berlin, pp 1531–1564

Stathopoulou C, Vosnidou S (2007) Conceptual change in physics and physics-related epistemological beliefs: A relationship under scrutiny. In: Vosnidou S, Baltas A, Vamvakoussi X (eds) Re-framing the problem of conceptual change in learning and instruction. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 145–163

Suárez-Alvarez J, Pedrosa I, Lozano LM, García-Cueto E, Cuesta M, Muñiz J (2018) Using reversed items in likert scales: a questionable practice. Psicothema 30:149–158. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.33

Torres N, Solbes J (2016) Contributions of a teaching intervention using socio-scientific issues to develop critical thinking. Enseñanza De Las Ciencias 34:43–65. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.1638

U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration (1999). Understanding test quality-concepts of reliability and validity . https://hr-guide.com/Testing_and_Assessment/Reliability_and_Validity.htm

Vázquez-Alonso Á, Manassero-Mas MA (2018) Beyond science understanding: science education to develop thinking. Revista Electrónica de Enseñanza de las Ciencias 17:309–336. http://www.saum.uvigo.es/reec

Vázquez A, Manassero MA, Acevedo JA (2006) An analysis of complex multiple-choice science-technology-society items: Methodological development and preliminary results. Sci Educ 90: 681–706

Vergara AI, Balluerka N (2000) Methodology in cross-cultural research: current perspectives. Psicothema 12:557–562

Vesterinen VM, Manassero-Mas MA, Vázquez-Alonso Á (2014) History, philosophy, and sociology of science and science-technology-society traditions in science education: continuities and discontinuities. In Matthews MR (ed) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (pp 1895–1925). Springer

Vieira RM, Tenreiro-Vieira C, Martins IP (2011) Critical thinking: Conceptual clarification and its importance in science education. Sci Educ Int 22:43–54

Watson G, Glaser EM (2002) Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal-II Form E. Pearson, London

Weinstock MP (2006) Psychological research and the epistemological approach to argumentation. Informal Logic 26:103–120

Yacoubian HA (2015) A framework for guiding future citizens to think critically about NOS and socioscientific issues. Can J Sci Math Technol Educ 15:248–260

Yacoubian HA, Khishfe R (2018) Argumentation, critical thinking, NOS and socioscientific issues: a dialogue between two researchers. Int J Sci Educ 40:796–807

Yang FY, Tsai CC (2010) Reasoning on the science-related uncertain issues and epistemological perspectives among children. Instr Sci 38:325–354

Yang FY, Tsai CC (2012) Personal epistemology and science learning: A review of studies. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG, McRobbie CJ (eds) Second international handbook of science education. Springer, Berlin, pp 259–280

Yang F-Y, Bhagat KK, Cheng C-H (2019) Associations of epistemic beliefs in science and scientific reasoning in university students from Taiwan and India. Int J Sci Educ 41:1347–1365. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1606960

Zeidler DL, Walker KA, Ackett WA, Simmons ML (2002) Tangled up in views: beliefs in the NOS and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Sci Educ 86:343–367

Zeineddin A, Abd-El-Khalick F (2010) Scientific reasoning and epistemological commitments: coordination of theory and evidence among college science students. J Res Sci Teach 47:1064–1093. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20368

Download references

Acknowledgments

Grant EDU2015-64642-R of the Spanish State Research Agency and the European Regional Development Fund, European Union.

Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. This study is part of a research project funded by Grant No EDU2015-64642-R of the Spanish State Research Agency and the European Regional Development Fund, European Union.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Spain

María Antonia Manassero-Mas

Centre for Postgraduate Studies, University of the Balearic Islands, Edificio Guillem Cifre de Colonya, Carretera de Valldemossa, Km. 7.5, 07122, Palma, Spain

Ángel Vázquez-Alonso

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors declare their contribution to this study, their agreement with the content, their explicit consent to submit and that they obtained consent from the responsible authorities at the organization where the work has been carried out before the work was submitted. All authors contributed to the study conception and design, material preparation, data collection and analysis of the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ángel Vázquez-Alonso .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no conflicts of interest or competing interests to declare regarding this article.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Ethics Committee of the University of the Balearic Islands approved the whole research project. Participants’informed consent was deemed not necessary because only the participants’ teachers developed the tasks involved in the study as ordinary learning classroom tasks, without any intervention of researchers. This manuscript is original, has not been published elsewhere and has not been submitted simultaneously to any other journal for consideration.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Manassero-Mas, M.A., Vázquez-Alonso, Á. An empirical analysis of the relationship between nature of science and critical thinking through science definitions and thinking skills. SN Soc Sci 2 , 270 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00546-x

Download citation

Received : 11 December 2021

Accepted : 10 October 2022

Published : 08 December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00546-x

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

  • Nature of science
  • Critical thinking skills
  • Scientific literacy
  • Assessment of thinking skills
  • Epistemic assessment
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

IMAGES

  1. Critical Thinking in Your Social Studies Lessons

    critical thinking social scientists

  2. Critical And Creative Thinking Skills For Social Scientists

    critical thinking social scientists

  3. 6 Main Types of Critical Thinking Skills (With Examples)

    critical thinking social scientists

  4. Critical Thinking in Social Work Education: A Delphi Study of Faculty

    critical thinking social scientists

  5. What is Critical Thinking?

    critical thinking social scientists

  6. Scientists Best Apply Critical Thinking in Their Work Through

    critical thinking social scientists

VIDEO

  1. Critical Thinking

  2. Critical thinking

  3. Webinar

  4. Critical thinking

  5. critical thinking

  6. Critical Thinking

COMMENTS

  1. Critical social thinking: A conceptual model and insights for training

    Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4 (1), 23-26. Crossref. ISI. ... Critical social thinking and response training (Critical START): A conceptual framework for a critical social thinking training program (ARI Research Report). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

  2. Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and

    This framework makes clear that science reasoning and critical-thinking skills play key roles in major learning outcomes; for example, "understanding the process of science" requires students to engage in (and be metacognitive about) scientific reasoning, and having the "ability to interpret data" requires critical-thinking skills.

  3. Critical Theory in Social Research: A Theoretical and ...

    Critical theory is an episteme of the deconstruction of knowledge that occupies a unique place in the philosophy of social sciences for its distinctive aims, methods, theories, and forms of explanation (Bohman, 2013; Thompson, 2017).With its distinctiveness, critical theory is supposed to be constructions of the basic principles which do not represent social order in the fixed form, rather it ...

  4. Bridging critical thinking and transformative learning: The role of

    In recent decades, approaches to critical thinking have generally taken a practical turn, pivoting away from more abstract accounts - such as emphasizing the logical relations that hold between statements (Ennis, 1964) - and moving toward an emphasis on belief and action.According to the definition that Robert Ennis (2018) has been advocating for the last few decades, critical thinking is ...

  5. Is That True?: Critical Thinking for Sociologists on JSTOR

    The social sciences seek to apply these scientific standards to understanding human behavior. This means that for sociologists and other social scientists, critical thinking centers on evaluating evidence and the resulting explanations about how people behave. Social science begins with trying to recognize patterns in social life.

  6. 1.1: Critical Thinking Defined

    Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and socioicentrism."

  7. Science and the Spectrum of Critical Thinking

    Both the scientific method and critical thinking are applications of logic and related forms of rationality that date to the Ancient Greeks. The full spectrum of critical/rational thinking includes logic, informal logic, and systemic or analytic thinking. This common core is shared by the natural sciences and other domains of inquiry share, and ...

  8. 12

    The idea of a critical social science is, at best, unclear and, at worst, invested in a variety of outdated philosophical commitments of the early Frankfurt School. As Axel Honneth says in his contribution to this volume, many of the original ideas of this school seem, at least at first glance, to be "antiquated, dusty, and irretrievably lost ...

  9. Critical thinking in social contexts: A trajectory analysis of states

    The study's results are presented in Table 1, Table 2 and Fig. 1, Fig. 2.The study extracted 1805 standards' benchmark and the results show the distributions of the benchmarks in states' K-5 social studies standards representing various levels of critical thinking in social contexts (Table 2), the trends in critical thinking in social contexts across grade levels, and the point estimate ...

  10. Critical Social Science and Critical Theory

    The Frankfurt School of critical theory is widely considered to have begun in the 1930s at the Institute for Social Research (Bohman, 2005).The school was influenced by a number of generations of critical scholars, beginning with Max Horkheimer (1895-1973) and including Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), Theodor Adorno (1903-1969), and stretching to the present day through Jurgen Habermas ...

  11. Citizen science as a relevant approach to the challenges of ...

    Humanities and Social Sciences Communications - Citizen science as a relevant approach to the challenges of complex thinking development in higher education: mapping and bibliometric analysis Skip ...

  12. SOC 305: Critical Thinking in Social Science (Lugo)

    Back Matter. SOC 305: Critical Thinking in Social Science (Lugo) is shared under a not declared license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts. This textbook is for a course that examines the definitional and contextual nature of social issues. It develops a critical thinking approach which integrates interdisciplinary ...

  13. Critical Theory (Frankfurt School)

    The critique of traditional social science was further developed by Adorno and Habermas in the so-called positivism dispute in German sociology (Adorno et al. 1969, Wellmer 1969) and Horkheimer's model of critical theory continues to inform discussions about how social critique might be carried out today in a variety of contexts (Outlaw 2005 ...

  14. 1.2: Critical Thinking Skills

    Critical Thinkers are independent Thinkers. They have the confidence to state their opinions and point of view to others who might disagree. They use the skills of critical thinking to support their positions and make their arguments. Critical thinkers seek a "dialogical" approach to the process of argument. "Dialogical" thinkers ...

  15. Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and

    1) provides a bridge to prior work suggesting that engagement in science writing enhances critical thinking and 2) serves as a foundational step for subsequently determining whether instruction focused explicitly on developing critical-thinking skills (particularly inference) can actually improve students' scientific reasoning in their writing.

  16. Critical Thinking and Social Studies

    Critical Thinking and the Social Studies Teacher. The advance of knowledge has been achieved not because the mind is capable of memorizing what teachers say but because it can be disciplined to ask probing questions and pursue them in a reasoned, self-critical way. Scholars pursuing knowledge submit their thinking to rigorous discipline. One of ...

  17. Frontiers

    Critical thinking is a necessity to students, because it empowers them in solving problems, especially during learning and also in the real-life situation within society. ... Citation: Witarsa and Muhammad S (2023) Critical thinking as a necessity for social science students capacity development: How it can be strengthened through project based ...

  18. Improving Social Studies Students' Critical Thinking

    Social studies is defined by the American National Council for Social Studies as "the integrated study of the social sciences and humanities to promote civic competence" (NCSS 1994).The subject of social studies typically involves the integration of a range of topics including history, geography, political science and sociology with the primary aim of equipping students with the knowledge ...

  19. PDF How to Teach Critical-thinking in social studies education: An

    views on promoting critical-thinking have shown more commonality than divergence. Conclusion: The result of this study revealed that the use of classroom discussions, writing activities, and questions should be utilized more in social studies classrooms to promote critical-thinking. However, more studies are needed to examine the effects of ...

  20. Thinking critically on critical thinking: why scientists' skills need

    For many scientists, critical thinking becomes (seemingly) intuitive, but like any skill set, critical thinking needs to be taught and cultivated. Unfortunately, educators are unable to deposit ...

  21. Teaching critical thinking in the social sciences

    Teaching critical thinking in the social sciences. Curd Lynn H. Knight, Curd Lynn H. Knight. Carol Lynn H. Knight is professor of history at Tidewater Community College, Chesapeake, Virginia. ... The time has come to consider practical strategies for incorporating the teaching of thinking skills into social science courses in community colleges ...

  22. What Is Analytical Thinking and How Can You Improve Your ...

    Learn why analytical thinking is important and how it differs from critical and creative thinking. Explore some good-paying jobs for analytical thinkers, and find out how you can improve your analytical thinking skills. ... social media, and accounts from friends and family to get to the truth. Analytical thinking also offers professional value ...

  23. Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education

    For many years, cognitive science has been interested in studying what scientific thinking is and how it can be taught in order to improve students' science learning (Klarh et al., 2019; Zimmerman & Klarh, 2018).To this end, Kuhn et al. propose taking a characterization of science as argument (Kuhn, 1993; Kuhn et al., 2008).They argue that this is a suitable way of linking the activity of ...

  24. Landmark study shows that 'transcendent' thinking may grow teens

    Scientists at the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education's Center for Affective Neuroscience, Development, Learning and Education (CANDLE), have shown for the first time that a type of thinking, that has been described for over a century as a developmental milestone of adolescence, may grow teenagers' brains over time. This kind of thinking, which the study's ...

  25. Home

    Home | The New York Academy of Sciences

  26. An empirical analysis of the relationship between nature of science and

    Critical thinking (CRT) skills transversally pervade education and nature of science (NOS) knowledge is a key component of science literacy. Some science education researchers advocate that CRT skills and NOS knowledge have a mutual impact and relationship. However, few research studies have undertaken the empirical confirmation of this relationship and most fail to match the two terms of the ...

  27. "Hot hand": The controversy that shouldn't be. And thinking more about

    And thinking more about what makes something into a controversy: " Joshua on March 15, 2024 12:19 PM at 12:19 pm said: I think it's entirely reasonable to question whether a player being "in the zone" actually translates into a statically obvious ability for them to shoot better than they do on average.