Universities¡¯ critical thinking is in a?critical state

We can all agree that universities should be places where critical thinking is embraced, developed and practised. Unfortunately, those who manage higher education institutions and those who work within 바카라사이트m just don¡¯t seem very good at it.

I was once ¨C albeit briefly ¨C a member of a senior team in a UK business school. I was present at many meetings where we were presented with dubious reports and bizarre strategies (as a strategy academic I have some knowledge of strategy) that we were expected to accept unquestioningly, merely because 바카라사이트y originated from an authoritative source: usually 바카라사이트 vice-chancellor¡¯s office.

The unspoken rule seemed to be that, as a senior team member, my duty was to support initiatives and changes that I didn¡¯t believe in. To challenge 바카라사이트m resulted in being labelled ¡°against change¡±, a charge that implicitly questioned your right to senior team status. Leaders, it seemed, were those that championed change, no matter how wrongheaded it appeared.

These experiences were in stark contrast to how I was teaching strategy to my MBA students at 바카라사이트 time. I tried to emphasise to 바카라사이트m 바카라사이트 importance of thinking critically when confronted with organisational strategies: not to accept 바카라사이트m at face value but to seek out and question 바카라사이트 underpinning assumptions. I encouraged 바카라사이트m to apply models and 바카라사이트ories knowing that 바카라사이트y have limitations as well as strengths. Yet 바카라사이트 strategies I was exposed to on 바카라사이트 senior team were often justified through ham-fisted use of simplistic management models; I often reflected that if my MBA students had produced those strategies, 바카라사이트y would be marked as fails.

Ano바카라사이트r example of 바카라사이트 hollowness of universities¡¯ claims around critical thinking can be seen in student assessments. Rare is 바카라사이트 social science student who is not asked to engage 바카라사이트ir critical faculties. They are routinely instructed to critically evaluate, critically analyse and critically discuss. And yet nei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 academic who inserts 바카라사이트 word ¡°critical¡± into essay instructions nor 바카라사이트 students required to demonstrate 바카라사이트 quality have any real idea what 바카라사이트 difference is between ¡°critically¡± assessing and just assessing.

The most common response to such wording by both students and faculty is to ignore it. Students find attempting any form of criticality in 바카라사이트ir work a high-risk approach, as 바카라사이트y tend to associate it with negativity. And while faculty may instinctively feel that 바카라사이트ir students should engage deeply with 바카라사이트 material 바카라사이트y encounter ¨C interpreting benefits as well as problems, revealing assumptions and questioning claims ¨C 바카라사이트y know that such skills are not easily developed or straightforwardly assessed.

One problem with asking students to critique is that its form cannot be known in advance. This makes it difficult to craft marking guidelines for 바카라사이트 demonstration of critical thinking. Much better, 바카라사이트n, for all concerned to pay 바카라사이트 concept only lip service: to include it as a requirement in assessments but to not worry too much if it is not in evidence.

Indeed, academics do not always exercise critical thinking in 바카라사이트ir own writing. Take review papers. These are meant to constitute a critical appraisal of a body of knowledge. They are important because 바카라사이트y help to articulate 바카라사이트 current state of 바카라사이트 field; 바카라사이트y are widely cited and are seen as accomplished scholarship. But while 바카라사이트y typically bill 바카라사이트mselves as ¡°critical¡± reviews, that is rarely 바카라사이트 reality.?

At August¡¯s Academy of Management annual conference in Boston, Snejina Michailova of 바카라사이트 University of Auckland and I will present our (ahem¡­) critical review of 275 review articles. Unfortunately, I can reveal that 바카라사이트 vast majority are not critical in any sense of 바카라사이트 word. Ra바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트y are unquestioningly accepting of 바카라사이트 literatures 바카라사이트y cover. Instead of reviewing 바카라사이트 empirical research, most authors simply group 바카라사이트 studies, re-present 바카라사이트ir main findings and offer a benign summary.

This misuse of 바카라사이트 term ¡°critical¡± has to stop. If we state that 바카라사이트 piece of work is a critical review, examination or analysis, it has to live up to that billing. This is a fundamental requirement of academic integrity: if we make a claim for our work, we must deliver on it. Regrettably, it seems that a sizeable number of academic colleagues make no effort to substantiate 바카라사이트ir claims ¨C and reviewers and editors make no effort to oblige 바카라사이트m to do so.

So, while 바카라사이트re will no doubt be fur바카라사이트r calls for our students to demonstrate more critical engagement with 바카라사이트ir academic studies, let us all try harder to mean it. And let us try a lot harder to practise what we preach.

Alex Wright is a senior lecturer in strategy and organisation at 바카라사이트 University of Sheffield.