Earlier in my career of teaching critical thinking (CT), I would advise students to "do their research." I typically meant this in two ways. First, as these were often psychology students in a traditional university, chances were that they would actually, at some stage soon, conduct their own research – likely as part of an undergraduate project and, perhaps thereafter, a master’s or PhD level dissertation, or even a post-doctoral project. In addition to theory and history, we were teaching our students how to conduct research – correctly. So, my recommendation wasn’t a stretch. This is what we expected of them.

There are varying degrees of the extent to which research can be conducted. As in the case of our students, one can conduct actual research through collecting data, analysing it, and maybe even getting it published through the peer-review process (i.e., primary research). You could also read and review, say, 30 peer-reviewed journal articles on a topic and report back findings (such as through secondary research). Of course, some might just simply refer to the latter as a review of the research, as opposed to actual research, which is fair to an extent, I suppose; but what makes it stand out as a kind of "cut-off" for what constitutes research is that it requires a certain level of know-how with respect to conducting a literature review. Simply, there are right and wrong ways of doing it, and so, not just anyone can do it.

Be that as it may, anything less than a secondary review of the topic area is kind of a stretch in terms of "doing research." As per that last example, you could just read those papers to inform yourself about the topic – your purpose for doing so might be to help you make a decision (as opposed to writing a review and directly engaging the field). I would call that "educating oneself," definitely, but research, probably not (i.e., not without the forced effort to evaluate, such as through the act of writing about it as in the previous example). However, that’s not a criticism of the endeavour. Indeed, it represents the second way I would typically mean "doing your research" in class – "educating oneself" is definitely a requisite part of the critical thinking process.

Unfortunately, my use of "do your research" in this way now comes in a tongue-in-cheek kind of delivery, because the phrase has become something of a meme over the years – a battle cry for cynics who lack faith in those with expert knowledge. Sure, sometimes you should question authority and "experts," but if you have no research methodology training, how will you be able to conduct such "research" appropriately? For example, I often hear two ways of saying it: the more notable version refers to doing one’s own research. "Own" implies that the individual collected the data themselves, analysed them, and reported their findings. It also implies that this person knows how to collect data, conduct the appropriate analysis, and report on it. That’s hard enough to do on one’s "own" without sufficient training. But then, the body of training and knowledge needed to forge an opinion that’s on par with the level of a genuine expert (or experts) would take years, if not decades. "Do your own research" – as developing a stand-alone evidence base – is not really feasible.

On the other hand, do your research (without the "own") – the other way I sometimes hear it – can imply primary or secondary research, in which case, the latter might be a bit more doable, sure, but it’s still not easy. You still have to know how to conduct an unbiased literature review. One learns to do that over time, though; they don’t just read a few papers and call it quits or, worse, sit in front of a screen watching YouTube videos and think that’s sufficient, let alone believe that such videos represent a credible source. I mean, really, how many people who give such advice to the "sheeple" out there really know how to conduct research at any level?

Of course, I know I’m probably preaching to the choir here. I can’t imagine many people who advise others to "do their research" would actually read a blog like mine (unless… they believe what they’re doing is critical thinking!). But, I also recognise that many readers will not have a research background – and there’s nothing wrong with that at all. You don’t need a research background to think critically. However, it’s important that we recognise – myself included with respect to topic areas I know little about – that the best we often can do is read enough to inform ourselves about the topic in question. Watching five "documentaries" on YouTube is not going to cut it. The information you engage needs to be credible – and what is credible is the research conducted by the experts and published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals; not some website or random publication no one’s ever heard of outside of your "community."

As we discussed in another, recent post on this blog, there’s a good reason why we seek expert input. We rely on experts to conduct the research in the fields we cannot. If we want a credible evidence base from which to obtain information, we must engage the credible expert sources. That said, it’s up to that expert’s audience to evaluate the credibility of the "expertise." If you are sceptical of the expert, check their credentials and compare their advice to that of other experts in the field. However, don’t confuse your scepticism for justification to promote your own opinion on the matter as a perspective on par with what the research says, regardless of your familiarity with the research. Regardless of the wording, "doing your research" is not feasible for a vast majority of the population and I would typically be sceptical of anyone who says something along those lines, as it suggests to me that they don’t really know much about research themselves. However, recommendations for "educating yourself" is always sound advice. Just make sure you’re doing it from credible sources.

© Psychology Today