American political scientist Robert Putnam wasn't the first person to recognize that social capital - the relationships between people that allow communities to function well - is the grease that oils the wheels of society. But by publishing Bowling Alone, he moved the debate from one primarily concerned with family and individual relationships one that studied the social capital generated by people's engagement with the civic life. Putnam drew heavily on the critical thinking skill of interpretation in shaping his work. He took fresh looks at the meaning of evidence that other scholars had made too many assumptions about, and was scrupulous in clarifying what his evidence was really saying. He found that strong social capital has the power to boost health, lower unemployment, and improve life in major ways. As such, any decrease in civic engagement could create serious consequences for society. Putnam's interpretation of these issues led him to the understanding that if America is to thrive, its citizens must connect.

American political scientist Robert Putnam wasn’t the first person to recognize that social capital – the relationships between people that allow communities to function well – is the grease that oils the wheels of society. But by publishing Bowling Alone, he moved the debate from one primarily concerned with family and individual relationships one that studied the social capital generated by people’s engagement with the civic life.

Putnam drew heavily on the critical thinking skill of interpretation in shaping his work. He took fresh looks at the meaning of evidence that other scholars had made too many assumptions about, and was scrupulous in clarifying what his evidence was really saying. He found that strong social capital has the power to boost health, lower unemployment, and improve life in major ways. As such, any decrease in civic engagement could create serious consequences for society.

Putnam’s interpretation of these issues led him to the understanding that if America is to thrive, its citizens must connect.

Alexis de Tocqueville’s 1838 Democracy in America is a classic of political theory – and of the problem-solving skills central to putting forward political ideas.

Problem-solving has several aspects: identifying problems, finding methodologies to deal with them, and applying the right criteria to work out how to solve them. Indeed, offering solutions is only the last stage in a developed process of problem solving. For Tocqueville, the problem at hand was how best to run a democratic state. In the early 19th century, it seemed clear that Europe was headed in the direction of democracy, but in the wake of the French Revolution, it was unclear how to avoid the many pitfalls on that road.

Tocqueville therefore turned to America, then point the most established democracy in the world, to investigate the institutions that allowed it to run as a successful state – allowing people their say while preventing both the possible “tyranny of the majority” and the uncontrolled growth of government. Tocqueville’s careful analysis of the strengths of American democracy was then applied to the problems of instituting democracy in France, providing a range of solutions that proved deeply influential in European political thought.

There are few better examples of analysis – the critical thinking skill of understanding how an argument is built – than Robert Dahl’s Democracy and its Critics. In this work, the American political theorist closely analyzes the democratic political system and then evaluates whether the arguments that are in favor of it are, in fact, rigorous. Dahl sets out to describe democracy’s merits and problems, asking if it really is the worthwhile political system we believe it to be. Knowing that the idea of democracy is now almost universally popular, his detailed analysis leads him to look at a number of regimes that claim to be democratic but do not, in truth, practice democracy. But Dahl is not only interested in uncovering uncomfortable truths. He goes further and creates a set of standards by which we can all decide whether a country really is democratic. Dahl’s analysis of the evidence leads him to conclude that the following criteria must be met for a regime to be considered truly democratic: elected officials control policy-making; there are free and fair elections of officials; everyone must have a right to vote; everyone has the right to run for office; there is freedom of speech; alternative information is available; and people can form free, independent political groups.