Critical thinking involves learning how to apply experienced-based, team-based, and formal problem-solving methods to situations as they arise. When applied to homeland security, critical thinking means that intelligence and law enforcement personnel should develop multiple solutions to problems by questioning and challenging their strengths and decision-making practices (Safi & Burrell, 2007). Also, clear communication is so important for effective practice and management in homeland security. Many of the skills you learn as you become a more critical thinker will improve the quality of your communication (Browne & Keeley, 2011).
Sources
Safi, A., and Burell, D., (2007). Developing Critical Thinking Leadership Skills in Homeland Security Professionals, Law Enforcement Agents and Intelligence Analysts. Homeland Defense Journal.
Browne, M. N., and Keeley, S. M., (2018). Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking – 12th Edition. New York, NY: Pearson
In this activity, pick a recent controversial topic related to homeland security from the mainstream media. Then use the following checklist to examine the issue raised in the news/article to demonstrate your critical thinking skills and effective communication. In 400-600 words, respond to the 11 critical thinking questions in the following document by referring to related resources in the module.
Question Checklist for Critical Thinking
1. What are the issue and the conclusion?
2. What are the reasons?
3. Which words or phrases are ambiguous?
4. What are the value conflicts and assumptions?
5. What are the descriiptive assumptions?
6. Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?
7. How good is the evidence?
8. Are there rival causes?
9. Are the statistics deceptive?
10. What significant information is omitted?
11. What reasonable conclusions are possible?
Optional
You may also use the following questions to help assess the various kinds of evidence.
Intuition
Does the intuition have any other kind of evidential support?
Authority
How much expertise or training does the authority have on this particular subject?
Was the authority in a position to have especially good access to pertinent facts?
Is there good reason to believe that the authority is relatively free of distorting influences?
Has the authority developed a reputation for frequently making dependable claims?
Have we been able to rely on this authority in the past?
Personal testimony
What biases or interests might be affecting the person’s testimony?
Does the person have any expertise to assist his or her judgment?
How do the person’s value assumptions affect his or her testimony?
Whose personal testimony might be helpful in assessing this person’s testimony?
What information has been left out in this personal testimony?
(Browne & Keeley, 2011)