Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the dynamics of critical thinking (CT) in contrast with Six Sigma and the “5 Whys” approach that is used by many managers to conduct “Root cause analysis” in business process improvements.

The research integrates principles of traditional literature review with a reflective inquiry of a practitioner.

Six Sigma and its “5 Whys” methodology is insufficient in root cause analysis unless coupled with CT. The paper demonstrates that some extraordinary business successes were achieved by CT, while catastrophic failures were often the result of selective biases, rigid thinking, and/or tendencies to deal with steps of processes, isolated processes, and/or independent situations. Consequently, the paper identifies a new domain that can be added to training in Six Sigma and 5 Whys.

The study does not address specific ways to integrate CT into Six Sigma, 5 Whys, and/or root cause analysis in business process improvement initiatives. Future research is needed in this area.

The paper explores a new perspective to convalescing Six Sigma and 5 Whys methods. It provides a specific example and suggestions to help practitioners avoid faulty conclusions, while conducting investigations to improve business processes. It also opens the door for encompassing aspects of CT in Six Sigma training. As such, it benefits both practitioners and academics.

Examines the coherentist project for educational administration of professors Colin Evers and Gabriele Lakomski from a critical and pragmatic perspective. It is argued that Evers and Lakomski really have three projects going: the first project seeks to ground coherence as a solution to the problems of educational administration research upon the history of educational administration inquiry philosophies since the Second World War. The second project attempts to justify the worth of coherency as a research philosophy upon purely logical grounds. A third, and most recent, (practical) project draws upon evidence from leadership practice to prove coherentism’s usefulness for school administration. Concludes that, rather than supporting their post‐positivist philosophic underpinnings, Evers and Lakomski’s third project finds them moving toward a raw pragmatism. Also concludes that coherentism is best redescribed from a pragmatic aesthetic perspective, a point of view that provides a potentially more meaningful way of understanding the relationship of coherentist theorizing and leadership action in contemporary schooling.

This chapter discusses the coupling of High Impact Educational Practices with an Active Learning pedagogical approach applied within an introductory undergraduate Visual Communication course (VC1). The course involves several high impact educational practices, such as collaborative assignments, community-based learning, and ePortfolios as reflective tools. VC1 is also open across the School of Art, Design, and Media and accordingly attracts a diverse, multicultural cohort. This heterogeneity provided an ideal circumstance to encourage the exploration of differing cultural perspectives, life experiences, and worldviews and, subsequently, an opportunity for students to better connect with the subject matter on an intercultural level. While the entire course successfully implemented several high impact practices (HIP), this chapter aims to provide a concise overview of these methods before differing to a more microanalysis; focusing on an integrated, preventing visual plagiarism workshop, which leveraged global knowledge, active learning, and collaborative discourse to facilitate improved academic integrity among the student body. The workshop engaged students by posing ethically driven questions through active learning exercises, such as case study discussions and reflective making activities, to open dialogues and encourage debate on various, and often opposing, ethical perspectives. The overarching objective of this workshop was for students to develop best practice ethical frameworks to subsequently inform and underpin their creative practice, both within higher education and in a professional industry context.

Transcription is an integral component to qualitative research, and as such, the ways that researchers discuss transcription in the literature matter. Scholarly discussions on the “how” and “why” of transcription not only shape discourse within interview data-based fields; they inform the ways that researchers understand the roles and ramifications of transcribing. This study aims to provide a comprehensive literature review of articles on transcription published in qualitative methods journals over the past 25 years, offering implications for research practice and pedagogy.

The literature review asked: How do qualitative researchers discuss transcription/transcribing? The authors first reviewed how transcription was discussed in the literature in qualitative studies in the social sciences broadly. Based on the findings, the authors then conducted a comprehensive literature review in 14 qualitative methods journals.

The authors found that overall, authors discussed transcription either as a technical tool or as a complex, researcher-constructed process. Specifically, utilitarian discussions of transcription emphasized transcription accuracy and efficiency, while theoretical discussions of transcription emphasized a continuously analytic and researcher-constructed process.

This study offers a comprehensive overview of the past 25 years of articles published on transcription. The authors conclude with a discussion of articles that bridge the theoretical and utilitarian discussions, as well as considerations for using transcription as a pedagogical tool for teaching qualitative research methods.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical reflection on ideas that have been published in the Journal of Educational Administration over the last 50 years that present perspectives on the nature of educational administration and its various aspects, that are alternatives to the mainstream systems‐scientific view of educational administration.

The paper employs a standard analytic philosophy methodology with a focus on argument structures found in epistemology. The approach is to argue that the content and structure of administrative theories is shaped significantly by background epistemologies that determine the nature and justification of administrative knowledge

Epistemologies for both the traditional systems‐science approach to educational administration and a range of alternatives are identified and specified, and the most characteristic features of these approaches that follow from their epistemologies are described. The paper permits inferences about theory choice, and what approach is best, based on a discussion of the merits of the different epistemologies.

The principal value of the paper is to classify and demonstrate the most general features of the arguments that have been behind the large‐scale theoretical differences in the field of educational administration.

Poetic inquiry is an approach that promotes alternate perspectives about what research means and speaks to more diverse audiences than traditional forms of research. Across academia, there is increasing attention to decolonising research. This reflects a shift towards research methods that recognise, acknowledge and appreciate diverse ways of knowing, being and doing. The purpose of this paper is to explore the different ways in which poetic inquiry communicates parallax to further decolonise knowledge production and dissemination and centre First Nations’ ways of knowing, being and doing.

This manuscript presents two First Nations’ perspectives on a methodological approach that is decolonial and aligns with Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing. In trying to frame this diversity through Indigenous standpoint theory (Foley, 2003), the authors present two First Nation’s women's autoethnographic perspectives through standpoint and poetics on the role of poetic inquiry and parallax in public pedagogy and decolonising research (Fredericks et al., 2019; Moreton-Robinson, 2000).

The key to understanding poetic inquiry is parallax, the shift in an object, perspective or thinking that comes with a change in the observer's position or perspective. Challenging dominant research paradigms is essential for the continued evolution of research methodologies and to challenge the legacy that researchers have left in colonised countries. The poetic is often invisible/unrecognised in the broader Indigenist research agenda; however, it is a powerful tool in decolonial research in the way it disrupts core assumptions about and within research and can effectively engage with those paradoxes that decolonising research tends to uncover.

Poetic inquiry is not readily accepted in academia; however, it is a medium that is well suited to communicating diverse ways of knowing and has a history of being embraced by First Nations peoples in Australia. Embracing poetic inquiry in qualitative research offers a unique approach to decolonising knowledge and making space for Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing.

Poetic inquiry offers a unique approach to centring First Nations voices, perspectives and experiences to reduce hegemonic assumptions in qualitative research.

Writing about poetic inquiry and decolonisation from a First Nations’ perspective using poetry is a novel and nuanced approach to discussions around First Nations ways of knowing, being and doing.