Search results

“The unexamined life is not worth living,” said Socrates. That is, without critically inquiring into the knowledge of life, which is well-being and valuable, life is not worth living. Critical thinking questions existing theories and their unexamined and obsessive assumptions and generalizations, constraints, and the so-called “best” practices of the prevailing system of management and tries to replace them with more valid assumptions and generalizations that uphold the dignity, uniqueness, and inalienable rights of every individual and the community. In our diverse and pluralistic cultural environment, the promise of a truly generative dialogue among occidental (western) and oriental (eastern) cultures and civilizations holds great hope for the future. Critical thinking can facilitate this dialogue such that all of us have a meaningful place in this universe. In this chapter, we explore introductory working definitions of critical thinking so that we can early enough understand its demanding domains, moral calls, and ramifications in its current critical applications. Specifically, in Part I, we examine the structured layers of our thinking and reasoning to dismantle them progressively, and in Part II, in support of our claims, we explore complexity and chaos theories as a new resource for critical thinking.

In this chapter, we introduce the history of critical thinking briefly, starting from Socrates to contemporary contributions. Based on this history, we derive several modules for training in critical thinking via practical exercises in critical thinking. Three classic critical thinking models are introduced: Socratic questioning method, Cartesian doubting method, and Baconian empirical method. We discuss their potential for critical thinking as foundational methods. The material in this chapter is distributed in three parts. In Part I, we provide a brief history of critical thinking. In Part II, we design models of critical thinking based on its classic history. In Part III, we list some models of critical thinking based on its history, from the Renaissance period to the current times. In the last section, we also discuss critical thinking in the context of business ethics, by delineating its normative domain, assessing its characteristics, and reviewing its processes.

Being the most powerful creatures on the planet, we humans should carefully consider our beliefs for the simple reason that the way in which we think influences our behaviors; this in turn can either transform the world or negatively affect the world. Our mores, paradigms, and worldviews translate into behaviors (e.g., factory farming for meat production and consumption) that in turn modify the environment. In general, much of our thinking system is backed up by some concept, theory, paradigm, or ideology. Our thinking systems generate our belief systems of goals and mission statements; our belief systems, in turn, determine our behavior systems (e.g., our strategies, choices, commissions, omissions as implementation systems); our behavior systems determine our impact systems (e.g., impact on us, our families and neighborhoods, our cities and villages, our state and our country, our globe and sometimes our cosmos). Thus, our behavior systems eventually impact our thinking systems, which we started with, thus completing a circular or spiral loop. This chapter examines the thinking–beliefs–behaviors–impact loop, exploring its internal and external dynamics and validities. Specifically, in Part I, we examine the structure of our belief systems in business; in Part II, we explore the power of our structured belief systems in business; in Part III, we apply critical thinking that systematically questions and seeks to redesign our presumed thinking and belief systems.

In Chapter 1, we critically reviewed the foundations of the free enterprise capital system (FECS), which has been successful primarily because of its wealth and asset accumulation potentiality and actuality. In this chapter, we critically argue that this capacity has been grounded upon the profit maximization (PM) theories, models, and paradigms of FECS. The intent of this chapter is not anti-PM. The PM models of FECS have worked and performed well for more than 200 years of the economic history of the United States and other developed countries, and this phenomenon is celebrated and featured as “market performativity.” However, market performativity has not truly benefitted the poor and the marginalized; on the contrary, market performativity has wittingly or unwittingly created gaping inequalities of wealth, income, opportunity, and prosperity. Critical thinking does not combat PM but challenges it with alternative models of profit sharing that promote social wealth, social welfare, social progress, and opportunity for all, which we explore here. Economic development without social progress breeds economic inequality and social injustice. Economic development alone is not enough; we should create a new paradigm in which economic development is the servant of social progress, not vice versa. Such a paradigm shift involves integrating the creativity and innovativity of market performativity and the goals and drives of social performativity together with PM, that is, from market performativity to social performativity.

There is an urgent need to develop climate-smart agrosystems capable of mitigating climate change and adapting to its effects. Conventional agricultural practices prevail in Mauritius, whereby synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides are used. It should be noted that Mauritius remains a net-food importing developing country of staple food such as cereals and products, roots and tubers, pulses, oil crops, vegetables, fruits and meat (FAO, 2011). In Mauritius, the agricultural sector faces extreme weather conditions like drought or heavy rainfall. Moreover, to increase the crop yields, farmers tend to use 2.5 times the prescribed amount of fertilizers in their fields. These excess fertilizers are washed away during heavy rainfall and contaminate lakes and river waters. By using smart irrigation and fertilization system, a better management of soil water reserves for improved agricultural production can be implemented. Soil Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium (NPK) content, humidity, pH, conductivity and moisture data can be monitored through the cloud platform. The data will be processed at the level of the cloud and an appropriate mix of NPK and irrigation will be used to optimise the growth of the crops. Machine learning algorithms will be used for the control of the land drainage, fertilization and irrigation systems and real time data will be available through a mobile application for the whole system. This will contribute towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): 2 (Zero Hunger), 11 (Sustainable cities and communities), 12 (Responsible consumption and production) and 15 (Life on Land). With this project, the yield of crops will be boosted, thus reducing the hunger rate (SDG 2). On top of that, this will encourage farmers to collect the waters and reduce fertilizer consumption thereafter sustaining the quality of the soil on which they are cultivating the crops, thereby increasing their yields (SDG 15).

John Kenneth Galbraith’s social balance theory is an important theme in many of his books, particularly The Affluent Society, The New Industrial State, and Economics and the Public Purpose. Galbraith’s social balance theory states that forces driving private consumption in an industrial society will outpace the development and provision of public goods and services with consequences on the well-being of society (Stanfield, 1996, p. 49). The theory leads to several questions: (1) What is the specific relationship between private and public goods and consumption? (2) What is optimized with social balancing? (3) Does the relationship between private and public goods change over time? and (4) How do we evaluate the types of public goods we need? This chapter explores these questions and examines the type of public goods we need today to serve our communities better. For example, police presence and activities in many minority communities are now viewed negatively, as evidenced by the “defund the police” movement. Conversely, some have advocated for greater public spending on community mental health programs and new initiatives to deal with racism in communities.

This chapter focuses on critical thinking as a new, powerful, and specialized tool and technique for understanding and analyzing the subtle operations of the free enterprise capitalist market system and its ethics and morality. Everything in the world of consumers and market enterprise systems are determined by our supply–demand system that in turn are determined by our presumed limitless production–distribution and consumption (LDPC) systems. From a critical thinking viewpoint, we study the free enterprise capitalist system (FECS) as a dynamic, interconnected organic system and not as a discrete or compartmentalized body of disaggregate parts. Systems thinking with critical thinking calls for a shift of our mindset from seeing just parts to seeing the whole reality in its structured dynamic unity; both mandate that we see ourselves as active participators or partners of FECS and not as mere cogs in its wheels or as mere factors of its production processes. Critical thinking seeks to identify the “structures” that underlie complex situations in FECS with those that bring about high- versus low-leveraged changes in various versions of capitalism. Specifically, this chapter applies critical thinking to FECS as defined by its founder, Adam Smith, in 1776 to its fundamental and structural assumptions, and as supported or critiqued by serious scholars such as Karl Marx, Maynard Keynes, C. K. Prahalad and Allen Hammond (inclusive capitalism), John Mackey and Rajendra Sisodia (conscious capitalism), and others.

We revisit the problem of redesigning the Master in Business Administration (MBA) program, curriculum, and pedagogy, focusing on understanding and seeking to tame its “wicked problems,” as an intrinsic part and challenge of the MBA program venture, and to render it more realistic and relevant to address major problems and their consequences. We briefly review the theory of wicked problems and methods of dealing with their consequences from multiple perspectives. Most characterization of problems classifies them as simple (problems that have known formulations and solutions), complex (where formulations are known but not their resolutions), unstructured problems (where formulations are unknown, but solutions are estimated), and “wicked” (where both problem formulations and their resolutions are unknown but eventually partially tamable). Uncertainty, unpredictability, randomness, and ambiguity increase from simple to complex to unstructured to wicked problems. A redesigned MBA program should therefore address them effectively through the four semesters in two years. Most of these problems are real and affect life and economies, and hence, business schools cannot but incorporate them into their critical, ethical, and moral thinking.

Without the contribution of the higher education (HE) sector, none of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are achievable. Through research, teaching, and community engagement, universities globally make vital contributions towards Agenda 30. Through partnerships, their impact is enhanced – university networks are key to facilitating collaboration. The Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) is a global university network encompassing more than 500 universities. ACU spans five continents with membership representative of the full diversity of the Commonwealth. University networks such as this demonstrate that bringing institutions together enhances their ability to tackle global challenges. University networks are vital vehicles for knowledge sharing and best practice. ACU members in low- to middle-income countries face systematic biases that need significant support for disparities to decrease. The ACU provides a platform for all its members, including in the global South, to have their voices heard and affect policy-makers at the most prominent forums, including the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), the Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers (CCEM), and the Conference of the Parties (COP). The ACU implements initiatives that build capacity. Examples include Climate Impacts Research Capacity and Leadership Enhancement (CIRCLE), which supports researchers and institutions across Africa to produce internationally peer reviewed research into the climate change; and Partnership for Enhanced and Blended Learning (PEBL), which works with universities in Africa to enhance access to quality education through blended learning. These projects rank alongside similar initiatives that leverage networks to deliver outcomes that would not otherwise be possible. Without networks such as these, the great potential of universities to tackle the SDGs will likely not be realised.