Critical and Systems Thinking

Welcome to this module on Critical and Systems Thinking. This module is designed to equip you with essential skills for tackling complex, interdisciplinary challenges in the field of public health.

Throughout this module, you'll follow the journey of Dr. Maya Chen, a promising epidemiologist who finds herself at the center of a perplexing public health mystery. Dr. Chen has just arrived in the town of Nexus, where an unusual outbreak has local health officials baffled. As we accompany Dr. Chen on her investigation, we'll explore crucial concepts in critical and systems thinking that she employs to unravel the complex web of factors contributing to the town's health crisis.

This competency-based module is structured to enhance your ability to think critically across disciplines, apply systems thinking to public health challenges, and integrate knowledge from various fields to solve complex problems. The skills you'll develop align with the interdisciplinary competencies increasingly demanded in modern public health practice.

There are four key lessons in this module, each building upon the last to develop your critical and systems thinking skills in an interdisciplinary context. Every chapter of Dr. Chen's investigation corresponds to a lesson, demonstrating real-world applications of the concepts you'll be learning. Here are the lessons we'll cover:

• Lesson 1: Foundations of Critical Thinking
• Lesson 2: Argumentation and Reasoning Across Disciplines
• Lesson 3: Introduction to Systems Thinking
• Lesson 4: Integrating Critical and Systems Thinking in Interdisciplinary Contexts

As you progress through each lesson and uncover Dr. Chen's approach to the investigation, you'll gain insights into how integrating critical and systems thinking can lead to innovative solutions for complex public health challenges. By the end of the module, you'll be well-equipped to apply these crucial skills to your own work in public health and related fields.

There are different types of resources prepared for you in this module. Below is a description of all the resources. The list is presented in the recommended order for your exploration before taking the lesson quiz:

• Lesson Summaries - these documents contain detailed information to help you achieve the lesson objectives. There is a list of open-access resources at the end of every lesson summary; you can visit those resources if you are interested in learning more about a particular topic.
• Micro-Learning - each lesson contains one micro-learning sub-lesson. Micro-learning provides an interactive experience with active learning strategies as we try to facilitate varying learning styles.
• Study Guides- these documents are more concise than lesson summaries. You can use them to quickly browse topics, or, to refresh your mind about the content covered. They also contain practice questions.
• Flashcards - these are hosted on the Quizlet platform. Flashcards allow for active recall during studying. The platform is also interactive and provides games and quizzes for you to continue your learning.
• Tutor Bot - the tutor bot is trained using materials and resources specific to this module. You can chat with the tutor bot if you need help in understanding material or if you want more practice. The tutor bot can explain topics, prepare quizzes, activities and much more to enhance your learning experience!
• Branching Logic Scenarios - these are interactive activities where the flow of a presented situation depends on your choices. Each decision you make leads to different outcomes, allowing you to explore various consequences and paths within the scenario. We encourage you to repeat these activities, selecting different options each time to allow yourself to benefit from all of the materials.
  

This lesson aims to define critical thinking, identify key components of critical thinking, and recognize common logical fallacies. These skills are crucial due to the complex challenges confronted in public health, such as information overload, the spread of misinformation, and the need for evidence-based decision-making. Critical thinking is essential in this context as it enables public health professionals to navigate the vast amount of information available, distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources, and make informed decisions that can impact population health (Facione, 2020). The ability to identify key components of critical thinking, such as analysis, interpretation, and evaluation, allows practitioners to approach public health problems systematically and effectively (Paul & Elder, 2019).

These critical thinking skills contribute significantly to effective practice in public health. For instance, the ability to define critical thinking helps professionals understand the importance of objective analysis and rational decision-making in addressing health disparities and developing interventions. Identifying key components of critical thinking enables public health practitioners to break down complex health issues into manageable parts, interpret epidemiological data accurately, and evaluate the effectiveness of health programs (Gambrill, 2012). Recognizing common logical fallacies is particularly important in public health, where decisions can have far-reaching consequences. It helps professionals avoid errors in reasoning that could lead to ineffective policies or misallocation of resources. For example, being able to identify a hasty generalization fallacy can prevent the implementation of a health intervention based on limited or non-representative data (Kahneman, 2011).

The implications of lacking these critical thinking skills in public health can be severe. Without a clear understanding of critical thinking and its components, public health professionals may struggle to analyze complex health data effectively or make evidence-based decisions. This could lead to misinterpretation of research findings, potentially resulting in ineffective or even harmful health interventions. The inability to recognize logical fallacies could make practitioners susceptible to misleading arguments or flawed reasoning, potentially compromising the integrity of public health policies and programs. As Glanz et al. (2015) argue, strong critical thinking skills are fundamental to the practice of evidence-based public health, and their absence can significantly undermine the field's ability to address pressing health challenges effectively. Therefore, it is crucial for public health professionals to consistently apply these critical thinking skills in their practice, ensuring that decisions and interventions are based on sound reasoning and robust evidence.

References:

• Facione, P. A. (2020). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment.
• Gambrill, E. (2012). Critical thinking in clinical practice: Improving the quality of judgments and decisions. John Wiley & Sons.
• Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K. (Eds.). (2015). Health behaviour: Theory, research, and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2019). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Rowman & Littlefield.

Dr. Maya Chen, an epidemiologist with a background in environmental science, found herself facing a perplexing situation. A small town was experiencing an unusual outbreak of a mysterious illness, and the local interdisciplinary health task force was stumped. As Maya arrived to investigate, she realized that experts from various fields were divided on the cause. Environmental scientists blamed a new factory's emissions, hydrologists pointed to changes in the water supply, and sociologists insisted on examining community behaviors. The town's residents added their own theories, ranging from government conspiracies to supernatural causes. Maya knew she needed to approach this problem by integrating insights from multiple disciplines, but the conflicting information and emotional responses were overwhelming. She wondered how she could cut through the noise and get to the heart of the matter while respecting each field's perspective.

If you need extra help along the way or want to practice more, please feel free to use the free Tutor Bot for this course. Before interacting with the Tutor Bot, you must create an account with OpenAI. 

Click here to start this lesson

The main skills to be covered in this course are understanding the structure of arguments in various academic and professional fields, applying argumentation concepts to complex problems that span multiple disciplines, and evaluating the strength and validity of interdisciplinary arguments in public health and related contexts. These skills are crucial due to the complex challenges confronted in public health, such as addressing global pandemics, tackling health disparities, and developing effective health policies. In an increasingly interconnected world, public health issues often require insights from multiple disciplines, making the ability to construct and evaluate interdisciplinary arguments essential (Brownson et al., 2017). Understanding argument structures across fields allows public health professionals to effectively communicate with experts from diverse backgrounds while applying argumentation concepts to complex problems enables them to develop comprehensive solutions that consider multiple perspectives.

These skills contribute significantly to effective practice in public health. Understanding argument structures helps professionals critically analyze research from various fields, ensuring that evidence-based decisions are made with a full appreciation of the strengths and limitations of different disciplinary approaches. For example, when addressing the social determinants of health, practitioners must be able to interpret and synthesize arguments from fields such as epidemiology, sociology, and economics (Marmot & Allen, 2014). Applying argumentation concepts to complex problems enables public health professionals to develop more robust and holistic interventions. For instance, in tackling obesity, professionals might construct arguments that integrate insights from nutrition science, behavioral psychology, and urban planning to propose comprehensive community-based interventions. The ability to evaluate interdisciplinary arguments is particularly crucial in public health policy-making, where decisions often have far-reaching consequences. This skill allows professionals to critically assess proposed interventions, considering their potential effectiveness and unintended consequences across multiple domains (Gostin & Wiley, 2016).

The implications of lacking these skills in public health can be severe. Without the ability to understand and construct interdisciplinary arguments, public health professionals may develop narrow, ineffective interventions that fail to address the complex, multifaceted nature of health issues. For example, a study by Giles-Corti et al. (2015) demonstrated that interventions addressing physical activity were more effective when they incorporated arguments and evidence from urban planning, transportation, and public health, highlighting the importance of interdisciplinary approaches. Moreover, the inability to evaluate interdisciplinary arguments critically can lead to the implementation of policies based on flawed reasoning or insufficient evidence. This can result in wasted resources and potentially harmful outcomes. A case in point is the initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic in some countries, where a lack of integration between public health, economic, and social arguments led to suboptimal policy decisions (Van Bavel et al., 2020). Therefore, it is imperative for public health professionals to consistently apply these argumentation and reasoning skills across disciplines, ensuring that their interventions and policies are based on comprehensive, well-reasoned arguments that consider the full complexity of public health challenges.

References:

• Brownson, R. C., Baker, E. A., Deshpande, A. D., & Gillespie, K. N. (2017). Evidence-based public health. Oxford University Press.
• Giles-Corti, B., Sallis, J. F., Sugiyama, T., Frank, L. D., Lowe, M., & Owen, N. (2015). Translating active living research into policy and practice: One important pathway to chronic disease prevention. Journal of Public Health Policy, 36(2), 231-243.
• Gostin, L. O., & Wiley, L. F. (2016). Public health law: Power, duty, restraint. University of California Press.
• Marmot, M., & Allen, J. J. (2014). Social determinants of health equity. American Journal of Public Health, 104(S4), S517-S519.
• Van Bavel, J. J., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., ... & Willer, R. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 460-471.

As Dr. Chen delved deeper into the investigation, she found herself at the center of a complex web of interdisciplinary connections. The outbreak seemed to have links to environmental factors, socioeconomic conditions, local industrial practices, and even urban planning decisions made decades ago. Maya organized a series of meetings that brought together environmental scientists, sociologists, industrial hygienists, urban planners, and public health experts. Each group presented compelling arguments from their own field of expertise, using discipline-specific jargon and methodologies. The challenge of synthesizing these diverse perspectives and evaluating the strength of each argument across disciplinary boundaries was daunting. Maya struggled to find a common ground that would allow these experts to communicate effectively and build on each other's insights. She knew she needed to develop a framework for interdisciplinary argumentation to bridge these different fields and get a clearer, holistic picture of the situation.

If you need extra help along the way or want to practice more, please feel free to use the free Tutor Bot for this course. Before interacting with the Tutor Bot, you must create an account with OpenAI. 

Click here to start this lesson

This lesson covers defining systems thinking and its relevance to public health, identifying key concepts in systems theory, and understanding the differences between linear and systems thinking. These skills are crucial due to the complex challenges confronted in public health, such as managing global pandemics, addressing health disparities, and developing sustainable health policies. Systems thinking provides a framework for comprehending the intricate web of factors influencing public health outcomes, enabling professionals to design more effective interventions (Leischow & Milstein, 2006). For instance, in addressing the obesity epidemic, systems thinking allows practitioners to consider not only individual behaviors but also societal, environmental, and policy factors that contribute to the problem.

These skills contribute significantly to effective practice in public health. Defining systems thinking and understanding its relevance helps professionals adopt a holistic perspective when analyzing health issues. For example, in tackling the opioid crisis, systems thinking encourages consideration of healthcare practices, socioeconomic factors, and regulatory frameworks simultaneously (Wakeland et al., 2013). Identifying key concepts in systems theory, such as feedback loops and emergence, enables practitioners to anticipate unintended consequences of interventions and design more comprehensive strategies. Understanding the differences between linear and systems thinking is particularly crucial in public health policy development. While linear thinking might lead to single-focus interventions, systems thinking promotes multi-faceted approaches that address various leverage points within the health system (Rutter et al., 2017).

The implications of lacking these skills in public health can be severe. Without systems thinking capabilities, professionals may develop narrow, ineffective interventions that fail to address the root causes of health issues. For instance, a study by Carey et al. (2015) demonstrated that linear approaches to chronic disease management often lead to short-term improvements but fail to create sustainable change. Moreover, the inability to recognize complex system dynamics can result in unintended negative consequences of well-intentioned interventions. Sterman (2006) provides evidence that linear thinking in tobacco control policies inadvertently led to increased smoking rates in some populations due to overlooked feedback mechanisms. Therefore, it is imperative for public health professionals to consistently apply systems thinking skills in their practice, ensuring that their interventions and policies are based on a comprehensive understanding of the complex, interconnected factors influencing population health.

References:

• Carey, G., Malbon, E., Carey, N., Joyce, A., Crammond, B., & Carey, A. (2015). Systems science and systems thinking for public health: a systematic review of the field. BMJ Open, 5(12), e009002.
• Leischow, S. J., & Milstein, B. (2006). Systems thinking and modeling for public health practice. American Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 403-405.
• Rutter, H., Savona, N., Glonti, K., Bibby, J., Cummins, S., Finegood, D. T., ... & White, M. (2017). The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. The Lancet, 390(10112), 2602-2604.
• Sterman, J. D. (2006). Learning from evidence in a complex world. American Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 505-514.
• Wakeland, W., Nielsen, A., & Geissert, P. (2013). Dynamic model of nonmedical opioid use trajectories and potential policy interventions. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 39(1), 1-11.

As the investigation progressed, Dr. Chen began to feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of interdisciplinary factors at play. The more she learned, the more she realized how interconnected everything was across different fields of study. Industrial practices were affecting the environment, which in turn was impacting public health. Socioeconomic factors studied by sociologists influenced people's exposure to potential hazards, while local politics complicated efforts to address the issues, adding a political science dimension to the problem. Urban planning decisions made years ago were now affecting current health outcomes, bringing a historical perspective into play. Maya drew countless diagrams, trying to map out cause-and-effect relationships across disciplines, but she kept hitting dead ends. She sensed that there was a bigger, interdisciplinary picture she was missing, a way to view all these elements from various fields as part of a larger, integrated whole rather than isolated pieces of the puzzle.

If you need extra help along the way or want to practice more, please feel free to use the free Tutor Bot for this course. Before interacting with the Tutor Bot, you must create an account with OpenAI. 

Click here to start this lesson

This lesson aims to teach you about combining critical thinking and systems thinking approaches across different academic and professional domains, applying integrated thinking to complex issues that intersect multiple disciplines, and developing strategies for addressing multifaceted problems that require interdisciplinary collaboration. These skills are crucial due to the complex challenges confronted in public health and related fields, such as addressing global pandemics, climate change impacts on health, and persistent health disparities. The integration of critical and systems thinking is essential in this context as it enables professionals to analyze complex problems holistically while maintaining rigorous evaluation of evidence and assumptions (Trochim et al., 2006). For instance, in addressing the global challenge of antibiotic resistance, these integrated skills allow for a comprehensive understanding of the issue across medical, agricultural, environmental, and social domains.

These skills contribute significantly to effective practice in public health and interdisciplinary contexts. Combining critical and systems thinking approaches helps professionals develop more comprehensive and effective interventions. For example, in tackling obesity, an integrated approach would critically evaluate the evidence behind various interventions while also mapping out how these interventions might interact with food industries, education systems, and healthcare structures (Rutter et al., 2017). Applying integrated thinking to complex issues allows for the synthesis of insights from multiple disciplines, leading to more innovative and sustainable solutions. This is particularly evident in addressing urban food security, where insights from public health, urban planning, agriculture, and social sciences must be integrated to develop effective strategies (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 2000). Developing strategies for interdisciplinary collaboration is crucial for implementing these integrated approaches, ensuring that diverse expertise is effectively leveraged to address multifaceted problems.

The implications of lacking these skills in public health and related fields can be severe. Without the ability to integrate critical and systems thinking across disciplines, professionals may develop narrow, ineffective interventions that fail to address the root causes of complex health issues. For instance, a study by Carey et al. (2015) demonstrated that linear, non-systemic approaches to chronic disease management often lead to short-term improvements but fail to create sustainable change. Moreover, the inability to apply integrated thinking to complex issues can result in overlooked interconnections and unintended consequences. Sterman (2006) provides evidence that siloed thinking in tobacco control policies inadvertently led to increased smoking rates in some populations due to overlooked feedback mechanisms. The lack of effective strategies for interdisciplinary collaboration can lead to fragmented efforts and missed opportunities for synergistic solutions. Therefore, it is imperative for professionals in public health and related fields to consistently apply these integrated thinking and collaboration skills, ensuring that their interventions and policies are based on a comprehensive understanding of complex, interdisciplinary challenges.

References:

• Carey, G., Malbon, E., Carey, N., Joyce, A., Crammond, B., & Carey, A. (2015). Systems science and systems thinking for public health: a systematic review of the field. BMJ Open, 5(12), e009002.
• Pothukuchi, K., & Kaufman, J. L. (2000). The food system: A stranger to the planning field. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(2), 113-124.
• Rutter, H., Savona, N., Glonti, K., Bibby, J., Cummins, S., Finegood, D. T., ... & White, M. (2017). The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. The Lancet, 390(10112), 2602-2604.
• Sterman, J. D. (2006). Learning from evidence in a complex world. American Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 505-514.
• Trochim, W. M., Cabrera, D. A., Milstein, B., Gallagher, R. S., & Leischow, S. J. (2006). Practical challenges of systems thinking and modeling in public health. American Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 538-546.

With a comprehensive interdisciplinary systems model in place and a strong foundation in critical thinking, Dr. Chen felt she was on the verge of a breakthrough. However, she now faced the challenge of integrating these approaches across the various disciplines involved in the investigation in a way that would lead to actionable solutions. Environmental scientists were focused on ecological impacts, medical professionals were concerned with immediate health interventions, economists worried about potential industry regulations, and local officials were anxious about social and political repercussions. Maya needed to find a way to bring these diverse perspectives together, using both critical and systems thinking to create a comprehensive, interdisciplinary solution that would be understood and accepted by all stakeholders. She knew that addressing this complex issue would require not just understanding each discipline's perspective, but also fostering true collaboration across fields to create a solution greater than the sum of its parts.

If you need extra help along the way or want to practice more, please feel free to use the free Tutor Bot for this course. Before interacting with the Tutor Bot, you must create an account with OpenAI. 

Click here to start this lesson

Click here to start the final examination.

In this section, the student provide feedback about this course to help make NextGenU.org better. Once evaluations are completed, the certificate of completion will be available for download.

Click here to provide feedback.