Developing Critical Awareness among MBA Students

Research Proposal

(Researching Higher Education, MA LTHE)

Lez Rayman-Bacchus

March 7, 2004

INTRODUCTION

This proposal describes an action research project on helping students develop critical
awareness that is planned to take place in semester B, 2003-04. Following a statement of
research aim, the rationale for carrying out this research is presented, drawing on
personal experience within the context of one HE institution, London Metropolitan
University. This is complemented by highlighting recent political policies and social
debates within and around Higher Education, wherein there is an emphasis on developing
independent and life-long learners. One of the capabilities presumed to be necessary (but
not sufficient) for becoming an independent learner is the capacity for critical thinking.
This is followed by a selective review of ideas about the nature of critical thinking, extant

pedagogical frameworks and the extent to which they are likely to encourage critical
thinking. The review also highlights a few contributing factors shaping student
development: student motivation, how they approach study, their social and cultural
background, and the assessment strategy to which they are subjected. This discussion is
followed by a description of the research design and its justification. Critical theory is
presented as a major influence on the chosen approach of action research. Some ethical
issues are raised.

1
Research aim
To assess and develop ways of fostering critical awareness among postgraduate students
on MBA and Masters Management Programmes.

Research objectives
To assess how far the expectations of students new to strategic management knowledge
are framed by a managerialist (normative) paradigm.

To develop the conditions for fostering greater critical awareness, with particular
reference to teaching, learning and assessment strategies.

To assess the limits to developing critically aware students, with particular reference to
institutional constraints and student learning approaches and motivations.

To contribute to curriculum design and development that seek to foster a more critical
perspective among students of strategic management.

RATIONALE

The desire to pursue this research is prompted by a number of factors. One such factor
concerns an apparent discord between the aspirations of HE Institutions (HEIs) and HE
students. There is general agreement within HE, and between HE, industry and
government that one of the central roles of HE is to produce members of society able to
contribute to the nation’s economic development. Students too enter HE with career
aspirations often predicated on expectations of long-term financial success. However,
herein lies a paradox. While the above institutions believe that independent learners and
critical thinking is key to the nation’s economic development, my experience of teaching
on Masters level programmes suggests that students neither understand nor wish to make
what they see as a burdensome investment in learning processes with no obvious return.
This research seeks to reconcile this tension so that students value the intellectual
investment while at the same time meeting the institutional aims. A more detailed

2
examination of this and other factors can be found in Developing Critical Awareness

among MBA Students, TPLT essay.

There is a large body of literature connected with critical thinking, concerning for
example the question of what constitutes critical thinking. There is also much debate
about the factors affecting how students learn, including the role of different pedagogical
frameworks, student motivation and their social and cultural antecedents. The reader is
encouraged to see Developing Critical Awareness among MBA Students, TPLT essay, for
a selected review of this literature. THIS HIGHLIGHTED SECTION REFERS TO MY
SEPARATE LITERATURE REVIEW. FOR YOUR ASSESSMENT [RESEARCH
PROPOSAL] YOU SHOULD PUT YOUR LITERATURE REVIEW HERE/BELOW.
LITERATURE REVIEW

[…]

RESEARCH DESIGN

This section addresses my epistemological view, describes the consequent research

approach (action research) and methods of data collection. Issues of reliability, validity
and ethics are also raised.

Epistemological position

This project falls within the research tradition or paradigm of critical theory. In order to
understand this claim, it is necessary to reflect on the nature of knowledge, which in turn
raises the question of what this tradition does not represent. Positivism is the dominant
paradigm in most corners of society, wherein knowledge is regarded as objective,
measurable, comprising law like relationships. This is a deterministic world, where all
human action is conditioned by environmental providence. Born of the enlightenment,
this paradigm represents three hundred years of scientific and technological progress,

3
based on rational analysis and the deductive logic of the scientific method. Tyler’s (cited

in Cohen et al., 2000) conception of educational curricula clearly captures these

characteristics. He suggests that first educational aims must be established, then
educational experiences created and organized to meet these aims. How well the aims
have been achieved should then be measured. From this perspective the curricula
contains a body of knowledge that is to be delivered to passive students. Further, the
transfer of such knowledge (and more so the acquisition of competences) can also be
made more efficient and measurable by modularization. The practice of mainstream
management education clearly reflects this view of curricula. However implicit in this
view is a political neutrality and managerialist ideology representing the shared interests
and beliefs of the dominant groups within society. Habermas (1972) in his critique of the
relationship between knowledge and political interests, criticised positivism’s hold over
society, manifest as the inequality of power whereby dominant groups retain the status
quo through ‘instrumental reasoning’.

In contrast to the positivist tradition, the interpretive view of reality regards knowledge as
subjective and socially constructed. Where the positivist world is deterministic, the
interpretivist world is voluntaristic. Humans are free to shape their environment as they
wish. From within this tradition the role of the researcher is to seek out the meanings that
individuals attribute to their experiences. Critical theory shares the interpretive
perspective on the subjectivity of knowledge, but goes further to suggest that what counts
as knowledge is defined by social interests. This means that educational curricula must be
regarded as constituted of partisan knowledge, reflecting the dominant managerialist
ideology. As Cohen et al. (2000: 33) says ‘the curriculum is ideologically contestable
terrain’. Just as the dominant ideology is regarded as having a political agenda
(maintenance of the status quo through intellectual enslavement) so too critical theory,

4
after Habermas, has a political agenda. That agenda is aspirational, seeking the

emancipation of individuals and society.

A critical pedagogy could be criticised for seeking to substitute one set of power relations
(capitalist managerialism) for its own (some form of social equality). It can further be
criticised for holding a naive and utopian assessment of the possibilities. In particular,
there can be no separation of facts and values, knowledge and interests. From this, one
could argue that there can be no equality, only differing levels of inequality within
different forms of theoretical equality. Nevertheless, this project, through a small-scale
intervention, is attempting to contribute to an emancipatory programme by helping
management students become critically aware of the tensions within theories of strategy
and of the managerialist character of mainstream management knowledge. Raising
awareness of inequalities need not lead to a pejorative assessment of the status quo,
though clearly this is likely. Drawing inspiration from the interpretivist tradition, which

sees individuals and groups as free to create their environment, such awareness can also
foster innovation in ideas and practice within organisations and institutions.

Research approach

Given the epistemological position presented above, an action research approach is self-

selecting. In particular, one interpretation of action research, what Cohen et al. (2000)
calls critical action, would emphasise empowering individual students and groups to take
responsibility for their own learning and development, starting with an appreciation of
their own ‘psychic prisons’ (Morgan, 1986). Action research seems an ideal framework
for carrying out a disciplined intervention in the class room. For this project this means
first, at the start of the module assessing student expectations for their programme of
study and their motivations and aspirations for their future. Second, through executing a
small-scale intervention this project aims to raise student awareness of (if not transform)

5
their assumptions about the certainty of strategy knowledge and their approach to

assessing the value of such knowledge. This will involve evaluation of ideas taking place
in two stages: during the first weeks of the module there will be an assessment of
competing theories of strategy from within the managerialist ethic. Later in the module,
students will be encouraged to examine the managerialist ethic.

Third, at the end of the module this project will evaluate the extent to which student
assumptions and intellectual approaches have changed. These steps seem faithful to the
four stage model of emancipatory action research cited by Cohen et al. (2000: 236). First
plan the intervention, second implement it, third observe or monitor the intervention,
fourth evaluate the success of the intervention against the plan.

In attempting to shift student attitudes and values, the action research framework will also
enable me to improve my own practice as tutor, through studying, reflecting and
evaluating my own practice. The intention then is to use action research in order to effect

both critical action and at the same time provide a model of reflective practice, although
according to Cohen et al. (2000: 231) these two approaches represent distinct ‘camps’. In
the context of this project, these two camps are interdependent. Any evaluation would
have to consider not just the effect of the intervention on student learning, but the
researcher should also reflect on the form and content of the intervention itself, and
whether it might be made more effective and how.

Importantly this project straddles the debate about whether action research is, or should
be, a group or individual activity. The critical action view expects participatory
democracy, with the tutor facilitating the raising of issues and guiding the formulation of
knowledge. Since, as tutor, I am defining and providing a solution to a problem (a need
for students to develop a critical perspective), this action research is ‘individualistic’

6
(Cohen et al.). However, there is also a strong group element, with the tutor helping the

group to collaborate in taking ownership of their own learning.

Although this project has an emancipatory agenda, this does not mean that all voices are
equal. The definition of problem and solution is not determined by any democratic
process within the classroom. First, students look to the tutor for leadership, whom they
regard as a figure of authority and a subject expert. Second, as noted above, the tutor
defines the problem, and in this case, its solution. Third, the tutor controls the teaching
and learning environment and the assessment process.

Methods of data collection and analysis

A number of instruments are proposed: Nominal Group Technique, diary, and a

taxonomy for evaluating student written work, such as Structure of Observed Learning
Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy. Nominal Group Technique will be used at the beginning of
the module to gather student expectations of the strategic management module and why
they are studying the MBA. This technique enables the voice of individuals to be heard
alongside a group response. Cohen et al. (2000: 238) outlines a four stage process
beginning with individuals registering their own views. Group discussion, clarification of
meaning and negotiation then leads to a collective view, organised into clusters and

prioritised. This technique will be repeated at the end of the module. Comparison of the
two sets of data will shed light on the extent of change in attitudes among students.

The tutor will keep a diary, each week recording the progress of the module and
reflecting on that progress. The diary will capture the nature of any intervention, student
engagement with and response to the intervention, and the tutor’s assessment of the
intervention and of student reaction.

7
As already noted, how students approach study influences their learning. That learning

can be assessed and influenced through their written submissions. Regardless of study
programme, student development is commonly assessed through their written work. In
this project students will carry out small written exercises in class. They will receive
feedback on the quality of this work, using a template provided by the tutor. In addition,
the formal assessment arrangements include the submission of an essay on a prescribed
topic. Students will be asked to submit a draft essay part way through the module (week
9), and the final report at the end of the module (week 13). Essays will be examined at
both draft and final stages, in order to judge the extent to which student learning has
developed using a taxonomy of learning. The taxonomy will cover learning along a
spectrum from reproducing knowledge, through to evaluation of that knowledge. Various
taxonomies of levels of learning achievement have been developed, including Biggs’s
SOLO, Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy, Kember’s measure of reflective and critical
thinking, Eraut’s six types of knowledge and others {see Chan et al., (2002), and Brown

et al. (1997), for brief reviews of these}. These taxonomies have particular emphases, but
Bloom’s and Kember’s seem especially relevant to this study. Bloom suggests six
categories of learning. At the lowest level is knowledge, followed by categories
representing increasing sophistication of learning, moving through comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis then evaluation. Kember’s taxonomy seems to resonate
with that of Bloom though the emphasis is on reflection: habitual action, thoughtful
action, reflection then critical reflection.

Assessing research quality

Of particular concern here is that the chosen methods of data collection be valid, reliable
and carried out ethically.

8
Reliability and validity. Triangulation of methods will enhance both validity and

reliability. The use of a diary to record tutor interventions, student action and tutor
interpretation over the prolonged period of a semester should help assess the consistency
of findings from the Nominal Group Technique (to be used at both beginning and end of
the module). Documenting the process (the diary) will also help replicability.
Successfully establishing consistency should also contribute to the credibility (internal
validity) of the findings. There are two separate groups which allows some comparison of
development. Consideration had been given to using one group as a control group (formal
lectures, no group activities) but this would have been more problematical than useful.
The two groups do communicate. Furthermore, there is little doubt that student

perspectives will change over the course of the module. The question is how much and in
what ways.

Is this action research project generalisable? Close reading of Cohen et al. (2000: 109),

suggests that there is a lack of consensus about what (external) generalisability means for
naturalistic research. This difficulty is surely amplified where the research project is
driven by an explicit political agenda, such as in action research. If generalisability rests
on ‘comparability’ and ‘transferability’ then there is much scope for testing the findings
of this project with different student groups and different subject groups, within HE
settings.

Ethics. In the interests of brevity I do not propose to rehearse the arguments for an ethical
approach to research in education. At the root of much of the debates about ethical
educational research is a tension between the researcher’s freedom to pursue knowledge
and understanding, and his or her obligation not to cause harm to the subjects of their
study (Cohen et al., 2000). Suffice to say that in carrying out this research I intend to
respect the rights of those involved as subjects in the project. The target students for this

9
project have already been asked whether they have any objection to being part of a

project aimed at helping them become more critically aware. No one has dissented.
Confidentiality will be protected and no deception is planned.

While there is a clear difference between ethical and unethical choices, in some
circumstances such distinctions are problematical. In the case of this study, the intention
is to create some level of change in students’ approaches to learning. One may ask
whether the students want such change and whether they are reluctant participants to the
project. The justification for this project rests on two factors. The first begins with the
observation that students voluntarily enter HE. They enter for a variety of reasons, but
typically in pursuit of knowledge they hope will enhance their career prospects. In this
students are submitting themselves to a process they hope will change their life chances.
They cannot know how they will be changed, this being the product of the unique
experience of each student as they progress. For some students the form of change

expected can be an extremely difficult experience, for example international students

from parts of Asia. I aim to be sensitive to the extent to which these students are prepared
and able to take a journey down the critical road.

The second factor is an explict aim of HE. As noted elsewhere (TPLT), students are
expected to develop the capability to critically evaluate ideas and arguments within their
area of study. This action research is not seeking to produce revolutionaries, though this
outcome cannot be ruled out. Instead the focus is on making students conscious of the
intellectual constructs that underpin the knowledge they seek. Although this will be done
within the confines of Strategic Management, past experience shows that where students
experience value in the approach, they are likely to apply the approach to other areas of
their lives. Where this happens students are embracing a change of attitudes. Even

without the experience of this project, student attitudes would change through their
experience of HE.

10
NEXT STEPS

The Strategic Management student groups of semester two (2003/04) have agreed to
participate. The curriculum has been modified to enable an examination of principles
(content issues), and the teaching process is set to enable evaluation and debate, both oral

and written. While a general framework for guiding content and process issues has been
developed, the detail is being left to unfold as the semester progresses. The setting of
examination questions for this module is one factor outwith the control of this project.

However ways of minimising the effects of this are being considered.

Work Plan

[Put here your timetable of what you will do and when, up to the submission date]

Eg:

1. Confirm/refine Aim and objectives, by end April

2. Begin Lit review [reading around topic], mid February
3. Complete Lit Review, early May
4. Initial contact target with organisation(s), by end March
5. Finalise Research Design, mid March
6. etc
7. Submit complete, bound dissertation, target date

Suggest you could present this in the form of a Gantt chart, which will highlight how
some of these activities in your timetable (inevitably) overlap.

11
REFERENCES
(TPLT and RHE)
Biggs J (1987), Student Approaches to Learning and Studying, Australian Council for Educational
Research, Victoria.
Brookfield SD (1987), Developing Critical Thinking, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Brown G, Bull J and Pendlebury M (1997), Assessing Student Learning, London: Routledge.
Brunner JS (1966), Towards a Theory of Instruction, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Chalmers D and Fuller R (1996), Teaching for Learning at University, London: Kogan Page.
Chan CC, Tsui MS and Chan MYC (2002), ‘Applying the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes
(SOLO) Taxonomy on Student’s Learning Outcomes: an empirical study’, Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, Vol 27 (6): 509-527.
Chan V. (2001), ‘Readiness for learner autonomy: what do our learners tell us?’, Teaching in Higher
Education, Vol. 6 (4): 505-518.
Cohen L, Lawrence M and Morrison K (2000), Research Methods in Education, London: Routledge
Falmer.
Currie G and Knights D (2003), ‘Reflecting on a critical pedagogy in MBA education’, Management
Learning, Vol 34(1): 27-49.
Curzon-Hobson A (2003), ‘Higher learning and the critical stance’, Studies in Higher Education, Vol 28
(2): 201-212.
CVCP DfEE (1998), Skills development in Higher Education short report, Committee of Vice-Chancellors
and Principals, London.
Ennis RH (1987), ‘A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities’, in Baron J and Sternberg R
(eds.), Teaching thinking skills: theory and practice, New York: Freeman.
Forman J. and Johnston T. (1999), ‘Key aspects of teaching and learning in business and management
studies’, in Fry H, Ketteridge S, and Marshall S (eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher
education, Glasgow: Kogan Page.
Grey C (1996), ‘Introduction’ (to Special Edition on Critique and Renewal in Management Education),
Management Learning, Vol 26(1): 7-20.
Habermas J (1972), Knowledge and Human Interests, (trans J. Shapiro) London: Heinemann.
Hager P, Sleet R and Kaye M (1994), ‘The relation between critical thinking abilities and student study
strategies’, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol 13 (2): 179-188.
Higher Education for the 21st century (1998), Government response to the Dearing Report.
Jones A and Jones D (1996), ‘Student orientations to independent learning’, Higher Education Research
and Development, Vol. 15(2): 83-96.
Kolb DA (1984), Experiential Learning, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Marton F (1975), ‘On non-verbatim learning – 1: level of processing and level of outcome’, Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, Vol 16: 273-279.
Marton F and Säljö R (1976), ‘On qualitative differences in learning: Outcomes and processes’, British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 46: 4-11.
Marton F and Säljö R (1984), Approaches to learning, in The Experiences of Learning, Marton F, Hounsell
D and Entwistle N (eds.), Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
‘Master of Business Administration Programmes’, University of North London Postgraduate Awards
Scheme, Student Handbook, 2001/2.
Mezirow J (1991), Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Morgan G. (1986), Images of Organization, London: Sage.
NCIHE (1997) (Dearing Report) Higher Education in the Learning Society, National Committee of Inquiry
into Higher Education, London: HMSO.

12
Noble M (1999), ‘Teaching and learning for employability’ in Fry H, Ketteridge S, and Marshall S (eds.), A
handbook for teaching and learning in higher education, Glasgow: Kogan Page.
Perry C (1995), ‘Exploring MBA students’ preferences for experiential learning’, Higher Education
Research and Development, Vol 14 (1):107-119.
Piaget J (1950), The Psychology of Intelligence, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pintrich PR and Garcia T (1991), Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the classroom, in Advances
in Motivation and Achievement, Maehr M and Pintrich PR (eds.), Vol 7: 371-402.
Ramsden, P (1988) (ed.), Improving Student Learning, London: Kogan Page.
Reynolds M (1999), ‘Grasping the nettle: possibilities and pitfalls of a critical management pedagogy’,
British Journal of Management, Vol 10 (2): 171-184.
‘Subject Benchmarks for Masters Awards in Business and Management’, QAA Postgraduate Subject
Benchmarks, www.the-abs.org.uk, 18 Mar., 2002).
Wallace J. (1999), ‘Supporting and guiding students’ in Fry H, Ketteridge S, and Marshall S (eds.), A
handbook for teaching and learning in higher education, Glasgow: Kogan Page.
Watkins D and Hattie J (1985), ‘A longitudinal study to the approaches to learning of Australian tertiary
students’, Human Learning, Vol 4: 127-141.

13