RAVEN is a tool for critical thinking in which you evaluate your sources for credibility. Using RAVEN will result in stronger arguments and well-researched articles.
First we will go over exactly what RAVEN is, including questions you can ask for each letter and good and bad examples of RAVEN. Then we will talk about why critical thinking itself is important. Finally, we will talk about it is important to evaluate sources before you being brainstorming your argument and again as you add sources. Continue reading this guide to understand how and why you should implement RAVEN in your research and writing.
What is RAVEN?
RAVEN is an acronym used in critical thinking. RAVEN stands for reputation, ability to observe, vested interests, expertise, and neutrality. When doing research, it is important to evaluate who is presenting the information and why.
You can use RAVEN to decide if the information you are looking at is credible, or worthy of confidence and belief. If the source is credible, it can be used in your research. If you decide if there is fault within the work or author, you can discuss this or discard it entirely.
R – Reputation
In the academic and scientific world, reputation is incredibly important. If an author has a poor reputation, their work will not be taken seriously. This extends beyond the author; What is the reputation of the publication the article is in? You wouldn’t necessarily trust an article on evolution from Christianity Today. What about the sources cited? Evaluate these three on their merits: author, publication, and sources.
Good and Bad Example
Good – An article on chimpanzee behavior written by Jane Goodall, the English primatologist who spent 50 years working with chimpanzees.
Bad – A blog post on chimpanzee family relationships written by Shelby Anderson, a popular blogger who visits zoos in her state and considers herself an expert.
Questions you can ask to discern reputation
Has the author’s works been consistent?
Has their work in the past been honest and trustworthy?
If they are inconsistent, what changed? Did they learn something new over a period of time? Or do they rug sweep they previous ideas?
Is the author or publication in a position of authority?
A – Ability to observe
You should consider whether the author had the ability to observe what they are arguing. If they observing from far away or after the fact, there position may be skewed. Someone reporting on issues with little to no first-hand knowledge limits the credibility of their work.
Good and Bad Example
Good – Candy Lewis, a reporter at a news conference, reporting on what is said.
Bad – Dale King, reporter watching the speech across the country, reporting what is said.
Questions you can ask to discern the ability to observe
Do they have experience or have they extensively studied the material that is presented?
Are they or have them been at the place or event they are writing about?
Are they using second-hand information?
Do they have access to reliable evidence?
V – Vested interest
Vested interest comes into play when the individual has a specific reason for presenting information in a certain manner. An example of this would be a stockholder writing a favorable piece on the company they are involved in. Someone with a vested interest in one narrative cannot be considered trustworthy.
There is a converse to this. Sometimes when an insider posts something negative on things they are associated with, there word is taken as true. An example of this is when an employee talks negatively about their company or employer. You should evaluate such reports carefully.
Good and Bad Example
Good – James Andrews, a university researcher, publishing a study that suggests the benefits of using oil.
Bad – Devon Energy, an oil company publishing a study on the benefits of using oil.
Questions you can ask to discern vested interest
Could the source be lying or trying to cover something up?
Is there a possible reason that they would lie?
Do they have a personal stake in the event or topic they are writing about?
Will they gain anything by telling the truth (or lying)?
Why are they sharing this information?
E – Expertise
You should carefully evaluate the knowledge that the author has on the subject they are writing.
This differs from reputation in that reputation talks about how reliable they are and expertise is about how much knowledge they have on a particular subject. You should also take this into careful consideration with vested interests. Doctors are knowledgeable on medicine, but they can receive money from pharmaceutical companies if they endorse drugs.
Good and Bad Example
Good – Peter Holland, a university professor, talking about recent clothing trends for autumn.
Bad – Allure, a fashion magazine, talking about recent clothing trends for autumn.
Questions you can ask to discern expertise
Are they writing about issues or events that they know very well?
Do they appear unsure of the facts?
Does the author have specialized knowledge on the event or topic?
Is the author an expert in their field and is their field related to this topic?
N – Neutrality
Credible articles will come from neutral individuals. Neutrality deals with individual bias. True neutrality is the author or publication not being aligned with or supporting any side or position in what they are reporting.
Good and Bad Example
Good – Sarah Collins, a member of the jury, arguing that the defendant is innocent.
Bad – Brett Williams, the defendant’s lawyer, arguing before court that the defendant is innocent.
Questions you can ask to discern neutrality
Do they appear to support a particular view?
Are they trying to communicate facts instead of opinions?
Are they pushing a particular agenda?
Does the author or writing have bias in it?
Why is critical thinking (and RAVEN) important?
Critical thinking, and by extension RAVEN, is important because it helps you make judgements of different sources of information when you are doing research. This allows you form your own arguments with solid information.
Critical thinking strives for a rational and objective approach. It also aids you in being self-aware of biases that you may have, as well as the bias that sources you are reviewing may have. Critical thinking helps you hone your skills of reasoning, evaluation, problem solving, decisions, and analyzing.
Why is it important to evaluate sources?
There are several benefits to evaluating sources. In the end, you will have better researched and more informed arguments if you evaluate sources with RAVEN. By evaluating sources you are able to:
- Find relevant information about your topic
- Ensure that the sources you use are reliable and of good quality
- Seek out experts who share their unbiased views, opinions, and research
- Remove unreliable, outdated, biased, or incorrect information
- Ensure you are receiving the information you need
You don’t want to submit subpar arguments. By vetting your sources against RAVEN before you use them in your research and argument, you are ensuring that quality and credible work is being used.
In order to truly benefit from RAVEN, you should practice this when you are brainstorming your argument. As you write your argument out, you should also use RAVEN for any additional sources you are considering using.
Conclusion
We have now went over what RAVEN is when it comes to critical thinking and vetting your sources. We also went over why it is important to use critical thinking and to evaluate your sources. You are on your way to writing well-informed articles.
