Critical thinking for programme staff

What is critical thinking in programme work?

Critical thinking is a set of habits for checking whether your conclusion is supported. It matters because programme staff decide on partial information. A needs assessment may cover three villages out of thirty. A phone report may come from one source. A donor may want a decision this week.

OCHA's Information Management Toolbox describes analysis as a path from facts to meaning. Analysts describe the data, compare it, make arguments from evidence and logic, and then draw conclusions. It adds that they must recognise unsupported assumptions and consider alternative explanations. Programme staff can follow the same path.

How do I separate facts from assumptions?

An assumption is a statement treated as true without being tested. Assumptions are normal. A problem starts when nobody knows they are there. A technical note from ACAPS (the Assessment Capacities Project) on scientific thinking in humanitarian analysis asks: what do we know for sure, and what is based on assumption? It also warns about loaded questions, which cannot be answered without accepting something the question assumes.

Use this short list before you write a conclusion:

1. Write your conclusion in one sentence.
2. List the facts that support it, with the source of each.
3. List the assumptions that must be true for it to hold.
4. Mark each assumption as solid, uncertain or unsupported.
5. For uncertain ones, decide how to check them, or say clearly that they are unchecked.

How do I judge a source?

ACAPS guidance on cognitive biases lists questions to ask about each source. Check the source's technical expertise, its track record, its possible motive for bias, and how close it is to the original event. Then check the data: is it accurate, recent, complete and consistent with other sources?

If you cannot compare sources, say so in your report. Our article on data quality checks covers numbers in more detail.

Which biases affect programme decisions?

The OCHA toolbox groups biases into three types: selection, social and process. Here are examples that appear in programme teams.

• Confirmation bias: you notice the facts that match your first idea and skip the others.
• Groupthink: a team agrees quickly because the senior person spoke first.
• Anchoring: the first number you see shapes every later estimate.
• Overconfidence: you feel sure because you know the area well.

ACAPS notes that biases are normal, automatic and cannot be switched off. Its advice is practical: know how they work and use structured techniques to reduce harm.

What structured techniques can a team use?

Two techniques from the ACAPS and OCHA material are easy to use.

Key assumptions check. Write down the assumptions behind your plan. Challenge each one: why must it be true, and does it stay true in all conditions? Ask the simple who, what, when, where, why and how questions. Then sort them into solid, correct with caveats, and questionable.

Devil's advocacy. One person builds the best case for the opposite view. The team then tests whether its main assumptions still hold.

Try them in a 30-minute meeting before a major plan change. Name a different devil's advocate each time, so it does not become one person's role.

How do I show my confidence in a report?

Do not hide uncertainty, and do not exaggerate it. Use clear words:

• "We know that…" for confirmed facts with a source.
• "We believe that…" for reasoned conclusions with some gaps.
• "We do not know…" for gaps, and what you will do about them.

This builds trust with donors and partners. It also protects communities from decisions based on weak evidence. Tools like root cause diagrams help you test your reasoning further.

What mistakes should I avoid?

• Treating one visit or story as the whole picture. Ask what the sample was.
• Asking only people who agree with you. Seek a different view.
• Skipping the "so what". A fact is useful only when linked to a decision.
• Hiding doubts. Say what you are unsure about.

How EMPO can help

EMPO is a trusted, Myanmar-based training and consultancy provider and one of the country's leading names in practical NGO training, with 1,200+ people trained and 15 partner organisations. We run MEAL and project management training for NGO and CSO staff from our base in Yangon, online or in person, in English and Burmese. Training includes practical work on data, analysis and reporting. See our training services or contact us to plan a session for your team.

Sources

• Analysis in Humanitarian Setting — OCHA Information Management Toolbox, 2021
• Cognitive Biases — ACAPS technical brief, 2016