In a recent forum about research, a small group discussed critical thinking/theory in relation to a review that a colleague was developing as regards to grief (a very current topic!).
There was some confusion as to what we mean by critical thinking/theory. As researchers reviewing evidence, I think we mean critical thinking as an application of schemes to test the validity of findings – we are criticising the quality of the methods of a study. Critical theory on the other hand comes from Marxism and is concerned with power and ideologies that maintain power. As such these studies might seek to uncover oppressive systems and how they work by examining patterns in empirical data.
Usually these systems are invisible so how might we study them in the context of systematic reviews, with its emphasis on objectively verifiable data? And why might it be important to do so?
A critical realist would reply that these invisible forces cause patterns and effects in the observable world and so a full explanation of what we see empirically would necessarily include some consideration of these forces. So a simple example would be a relationship that ends in divorce to the surprise of friends. The couple may be outwardly happy but underneath both partners might be deeply unhappy and reluctant to share their troubles with others. These feelings, invisible to others, have a shattered the relationship with material/empirical consequences for both individuals.
This example is on the individual level but will have implications for the children, if there are any, and housing arrangements and perhaps have knock on health effects. We might ask how our institutions deal with divorced people. Do we hold moral views (ideologies) about marriage failure that might prevent extending help or resources to these people, or such a failure might be considered shameful so prevent help seeking by the couple? How we think about marriage will impact on institutions in ways that we could observe.
To consider invisible forces, I find it useful to draw on the theoretical or critical literature, because researchers more informed and skilled than me have thought about the issues in fields of study I am unfamiliar with and some have identified the institutional forces that affect our empirical observations. Using empirical (that is, observational studies such as experiments) work, I can try and build on their reflections. So for example I have been considering issues of help seeking for female victims of domestic abuse. It appears incredibly difficult for them to ask for help from their networks – if they have any – without losing their dignity and a sense of control over their lives.
These studies brought me to the notion of interdependence as discussed in the literature about the campaigns of the disabled. How do other groups ask for help? As far as I can see the causal forces are linked to capitalism which seems to characterise the healthy adult as independent and if you ask for help, you can easily be treated as a dependent child (or a scrounger) and thus lose your dignity, your sense of personal responsibility and your right to make decisions about your life.
Our conversation about grief suggested to me that the concerns of business might be behind the pathologisation of those going through the grief process. Not only has the inability of people to get health support from their insurers in the US reframed grief as a mental illness, but the reluctance to offer compassionate leave to low income earners, meaning they are forced back to work before they are ready. Grief appears to be a luxury for high income groups. So, as critical researchers, we might examine grief in these frames, as illness and luxury.
Walking whilst ill 