Management Learning Copyright 2000 Sage Publications London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi Vol.

31(2): 219237

John Mingers
Warwick University, UK

What is it to be Critical?
Teaching a Critical Approach to Management Undergraduates
Abstract Developing our students abilities to be critical is important but what does it mean to be critical? Is it just the cognitive skills of critical thinking or should it involve more radical re-examination of management knowledge and practice from a Foucauldian or Habermasian perspective? This article addresses the issue of what it is to be critical by reecting on the development of an innovative core course for nal year management students concerned with critical management issues. The rst section outlines the specic educational context and the structure of the course as a whole. Then the article explains the underlying theoretical framework that was developed which identied four aspects of being criticalscepticism towards rhetoric, tradition, authority, and objectivity. The teaching material associated with this part of the course is discussed next. This looks at two real situations, one the debacle of the Taurus stock exchange system, and the other an ongoing legal case concerning racial discrimination that is being documented on the web. The article concludes with a more theoretical discussion of the relation between this particular course and critical management more generally.
It is not practicing criticism either to validate the status quo or to join up with a priestly caste of acolytes and dogmatic metaphysicians . . . [t]he realities of power and authority as well as the resistances offered by men, women, and social movements to institutions, authorities, and orthodoxiesare the realities that . . . should be taken account of by criticism and the critical consciousness. (Said, 1983: 5)

The eld of management as an academic subject is very broad, covering many disciplines, taking place in many different organizational settings, and ranging from pure research into management practices to what is simply training for management. The corresponding academic literature is full of theoretical debate, empirical studies, and practical guidance for effective management. It lacks, however, much by way of considered reection about the practice of management education itself. By that I mean the theoretical and practical bases of our pedagogical activity. This article makes a contribution by addressing the question of what we might mean by a critical approach to management education. It does this by reecting on a specic and
13505076[200006]31:2; 219237; 013147

220

Management Learning 31(2)

practical examplethe development of an interdisciplinary, core course for nal year undergraduates on a range of management degrees at Warwick Business School (WBS). At the undergraduate level, WBS1 has three major BSc programmes Management Sciences, Accounting and Finance, and International Businessas well as numerous joint degrees with other departments. Traditionally the major programmes had emphasized disciplinary-based core courses in the rst two years while in the third (and nal) year students choose a range of electives. This meant that in the nal year there was no common core course for all students on a programme, nor was there much inter-disciplinary teaching throughout the three years. A major review identied these issues and proposed the development of a compulsory core course across all three programmes (nearly 200 students). The specication of the new course was ambitious in that it should involve all the disciplines in an integrated manner, be academically rigorous and at the same time be participative and based on student-centred learning, and should develop the students practical skills in presentations, report-writing and group work. A group of academics from across the School produced an initial proposal specifying a framework for how the course would operate, and the core idea that it should be about developing in the students a critical approach to management. A title was agreed Critical Issues in Managementbut just what the term critical connoted to the different people involved is very much the subject of this article. Once accepted by the university, the rather bare proposal was passed on to the staff who would actually esh out and teach the course in its rst year, some of whom had also worked on the initial proposal. The article begins with a general discussion of the nature of critical management education and the difculties and contradictions inherent in developing such courses within the current academic environment. The next section describes the development of an underlying framework, four aspects of critique, to support the course. This was necessary because there are many possible interpretations of the term criticalcritical thinking, critical issues, critical theory, critical systems, critical management studieseach of which stems from a particular milieu and carries its own disciplinary and political connotations. The framework, drawing on a range of sources including Habermas and Foucault, identies four different aspects of being criticalscepticism towards rhetoric, tradition, authority, and objectivity. Then the course itself is described in more detail, including an illustration of the framework applied to a case study. Finally, the success of the course is evaluated after its rst year of operation.

Critical Management Education

In order to contextualize the course, it is useful to outline what might be meant by critical management education in general. Perhaps the most fundamental questions concern the relationship between management education and other arenas of management such as management practice, management research, the experience of living in/with organizations, and the critical and emancipatory potential. Grey and French (1996) argue that management, in a wide sense, has become of central importance to the world and its societies, and it therefore must become the subject

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

221

of critical evaluation. Management education and research are crucial for the development and reproduction of management practices and so must also come under scrutiny. The prevailing view within business schools and management departments is the utilitarian one that management education is primarily concerned with enhancing managerial effectiveness. Grey and French contrast this managerialist view with a critical view that we should decouple management education from management activity in order that the claims and practices of management can be called into question. One should be able to study management as a practice without it being training for management, in the same way that one can study politics without being trained to be a politician. In this view, higher education should withdraw from management training all together. A variant of this might be that both should exist within academe but develop in separate ways, with particular institutions clearly specializing in one or the other (Thomas, 1997). An alternative view, discussed below, is that a new perspective on management education should be developed, based on a more critical evaluation of its role and importance within society as a whole. Moving down to the level of individual courses, Grey and French (1996) suggest that most of them embody a positivist stance, assuming that there is a given and unquestionable body of valid knowledge that must be presented and then mastered by the student. The teaching approach is largely didactic and, although this is now changing towards more student-centred methods that stress practicality, role-playing, participation and so on, this is still within a context that does not problematize knowledge itself. In contrast, Grey et al. suggest that a critical approach should start with the students own lived experiencesnot to make the transmission of knowledge more effective, but to provide a basis for a critical reection on experience as a means of subverting such knowledge (Grey, Knights and Willmott, 1996: 100). The point here is to raise very fundamental questions about the status and validity of management theory and the extent to which it privileges only one, primarily functionalist, view of knowledge. Grey et al. recognize the problems of this approach, both practical and theoretical. Practically, there is the inevitable tension of teaching a critical course within a context of degree programmes that are largely positivist in the above sense. This is exacerbated by the current political and economic climate (in the UK anyway) of reduced funding, students incurring more and more debt, greater emphasis on relevance (to industry), practicality and skills, and increasing measurement of university performance by crude indicators. Theoretically, there is the almost inherent contradiction that we are encouraging students to question the validity of knowledge and authority and yet by that very choice imposing our visions upon them. Willmott (1997) has made a strong case for a particular form of critical management called critical action learning. This combines the practical stance of action learning (Revans, 1982) with the more sociological viewpoint of critical theory. Action learning moves from the traditional perspective that education is the de-contextualized transmission of abstract and universal knowledge and expertise, to the view that learning should be a process of self-development, in which knowledge is acquired through its relevance to the real-life engagements and struggles of the learner. Critical action learning allies to this the recognition that individual experiences and learning always occur within institutional and social contexts, and that these both engender and constrain through relations of power and signication.

222

Management Learning 31(2)

Where does our Critical Issues in Management (CIM) course stand with respect to these distinctions? First, it is clear that it actually embodies within it the central dichotomy between utilitarian and critical management education. Is it primarily concerned with problematizing management knowledge or with improving the effectiveness of our students in their management careers? The answer is that it tries, perhaps unsuccessfully, to do both. This is partly because of its institutional context. Warwick Business School, like most university management departments, is both a business school concerned with effective management and a centre for research into management. Individual members of faculty may be more committed to one aspect than the other, but often have to embrace bothfor instance, teaching on an MA in Critical Management and an MBAsimply because of the demands of the job. CIM is the construction of a wide circle of staff and so inevitably incorporates a range of disciplinary and political views. Indeed, it could be argued that to some extent there is a deliberate vagueness in its specication so as to allow all those involved to feel comfortable. It has been put across to students mainly in effectiveness termsthat critical questioning will lead to better management decisionsbut it is hoped that as they progress through the course they will themselves question this rationale more. To what extent does this tension and ambiguity undermine the claim that the course is an example of critical pedagogy? There are several possible responses. The most obvious is perhaps that smuggling in critical ideas is the best that can be managed in the current circumstances. Any attempt at raising the students critical awareness is better than none. A more deliberative response is to see it as a Trojan horse strategy, disguising a subversive critical intent within a course apparently concerned with management effectiveness. A third, and in some ways attractive, approach is to argue against the supposed contradiction between the utilitarian and critical models. Does the course have to be either one or the other? The assumption is that either one adopts the presuppositions of management as conventionally dened (and thus supports the status quo), or one must be antagonistic toward all management as an activity. Should we not instead move beyond a critique of management toward developing a critical practice of managinga qualitatively different form of management: one that is more democratically accountable to those whose lives are affected in so many ways by management decisions (Alvesson and Willmott, 1996: 40). This might involve focusing attention away from management as a class-based hierarchy towards managing as an activity that we all do, in our personal and occupational lives, and that is done to us. Seen in this light, the course could be a rst step toward synthesizing the often competing demands of morality (our duties and responsibilities towards others), ethics (our concern with our own worth and self-identity), and pragmatics (the need to be effective in our activities) (Habermas, 1992, 1993b; Mingers, 1997). The second issue is the extent to which CIM could claim to be critical in problematizing the status of knowledge. Chia and Morgan, in a rather abstract and theoretical work, argued that education should develop the philosopher-manager, the critical thinking manager who persists in the vigilant deconstruction or de-signing of hitherto self-evident social and management concepts and categories (Chia and Morgan, 1996: 41). Here, I would argue that the course certainly aims at this within the inevitable practical constraints outlined above. It is clearly addressed within the four aspects of being critical (discussed in more detail below) in terms of the critiques of authority and objectivity. The critique of authority denies the hegemony of a

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

223

single legitimate viewpoint or interest, promoting instead the acceptance of a plurality of positions. The critique of objectivity denies the assumption of pure, value-free knowledge and introduces the Foucauldian notion of power/knowledge. Both of these theoretical ideas are developed practically in various case studies. Whether it is wholly successful in actually generating a high degree of reexivity and scepticism in the students will be discussed in a later section. And, if it does, it is not clear how both students and staff will react to the self-referential contradiction of using our authority to require them to be sceptical of authority. The third issue concerns questions of contradictions in the teaching approach. For example, we are essentially forcing the students to participate in seminars by using assessment rather than allowing their participation to be given freely. We have to accept that this is less than ideal, a justication being that it supports the wider benet of having a non-lecture, student-based course. We hope the material will be interesting enough for the students to want to participate, but this may well be an area for future developments. Our experience so far, as might be expected, suggests that those students in a seminar who are giving presentations do engage very successfully with the material but those who are not tend to opt out. In a way we are placing the students in a very contradictory positionexpecting them to become critical but at the same time to adhere to our rules. A related issue is the extent to which we, the (older) lecturers, can understand the experiences and reality of present-day students. We choose and present material that appeals to us, assuming it will work equally well for them. However, Spaul (1997) reports that students are much more motivated by examples close to their own experience (rather than business cases), and are more interested in computer, video, and graphical material than traditional texts, for example making a video rather than writing an essay for assessment. A similar point is made by Thompson and McGivern (1996) who use a wide range of narrative literature to stimulate reection and interest in the students. A more generalized version of this problem is the extent to which our version of being critical is itself biased, representing a particular rationalistic, universalistic and gendered view. This is an important debate concerning the nature of rationality itself that cannot be pursued in detail here except to note that such criticisms have already been registered within Habermasian critical theory itself (Benhabib, 1992; Habermas, 1994; Young, 1990), sparked in part by clashes with the Foucauldian perspective.

What is a Critical Approach? A Framework for Critical Learning

This section moves to the more specic design of the course itself, and in particular the development of an underlying framework encompassing different aspects of being critical. The group of people developing the course were generally senior academics but of a fairly disparate natureprofessors of Finance, Strategic Marketing, Industrial Relations, and Local Government; lecturers and senior lecturers from Accounting, Operational Research, Information Systems; and a senior researcher in Corporate Governance. As might be expected, such a group embodied a very wide range of intellectual and ideological positions, and discussions were wide-ranging but seldom acrimonious. The practical details of the course (described below) were agreed relatively quickly. What was not so clear, however, was the core intellectual

224

Management Learning 31(2)

foundation of the coursewhat was meant by a critical approach? Here a variety of views were held. Certainly, as the title implied, there was the idea of critical, as in crucial or vital, issues facing management and organizations in the future. There was also a commitment to critical thinking as in the ability to evaluate the validity and strength of arguments and proposals. But beyond this there was the idea of adopting a critical stance towards the accepted, managerialist, assumptions underpinning most management education and thereby problematizing the status of management knowledge. It was also felt important to raise issues such as the nature and effects of power in organizations; the relationship of organizations to local communities and to the environment; issues of race, culture and gender; and ethics and responsibility. It was this questionwhat is the nature of a critical approach?that became the subject of the rst session of the course, and of this article. There are many strands of thought in both the social and philosophical literature that can be labelled critical. These include: 1. what is termed critical thinking (Chaffee, 1997; Hughes, 1996; McPeck, 1981; Paul, 1990; Ruggiero, 1988; Weast, 1996), that is, developing the discipline of being sceptical or questioning about statements, propositions or information; 2. critical social theory as in the Frankfurt School and more particularly the work of Habermas (1978, 1984, 1993a; Harnden, 1996) that is critical of the prevailing structures, values, and rationalities in society; 3. two strands of thought within the management literature that draw especially on Habermascritical management studies (Alvesson and Willmott, 1992, 1996; French and Grey, 1996), and critical systems thinking (Flood and Jackson, 1991; Flood and Romm, 1996; Jackson, 1991a, 1991b; Mingers, 1984, 1992, 1997; Mingers and Gill, 1997); and 4. the work of Foucault, especially on power and its relationship to knowledge (Foucault, 1980, 1982). These all related to or exemplied the different aspects of being critical that were expressed within the group. The problem from a pedagogic point of view was how to present these different, and quite sophisticated, notions in a way that would be meaningful to our particular students in the context of this course. The main constraints were, rst, that many of the students, especially those from the Accounting and Finance course, would have no background in social science or organizational behaviour at all. Second, being undergraduates almost none would have experience of real-world organizational work and many would have been taught a very rationalistic and abstract view of decision-making. Third, there were to be no lectures and so any material assigned to the students would have to be intelligible in its own right. And fourth, that this was to be the rst session of the course and so could assume no prior material. The main conclusions were that a fairly simplistic framework would need to be developed to relate these different aspects together; that the reading material would need to be both straightforward and interesting; that some practical activity to allow the students to apply the material would be necessary; and that the students would have to become aware of the messy nature of real-world decision-making to motivate their participation in the course. The rest of this section explains the response to these concerns.

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

225

Four Aspects of Being Critical In everyday language, being critical means nding fault and being negative about something. It can often be quite destructive rather than constructive, and is often done with a particular antagonistic motive or attitude. In developing a critical approach in the course, we were concerned that it should not be purely destructive; that it should be rigorous and structured; and that it should generate insights that are valuable in taking practical action. What all of the different aspects of being critical mentioned above seemed to share was not taking things for granted, not just accepting how the situation seemed or was portrayed but questioning or evaluating such claims before deciding or acting. This may seem quite simple or straightforward but, if done seriously, rigorously, and radically it can lead to far-reaching and unsettling conclusions. Four different dimensions of questioning or scepticism were identied. The rationale for these was based, by analogy, on Habermas (1979, 1984) theory of communicative action, and (1992, 1993a) discourse ethics, and in particular his theory of the validity claims of speech acts. Habermas argues that any communicative utterance aimed at generating understanding and agreement implicitly raises four validity claimsthat it is comprehensible, that it is factually correct or in principle possible (truth), that it is acceptable normatively (rightness), and that it is meant sincerely (truthfulness). In our situation we are concerned with a wider range than simply speech actsfor example, plans, proposals, actions, and designs; and they may well not be communicative (i.e. oriented towards understanding) but may well be strategic (oriented towards getting ones way). In an analogous manner, we can say that proposals for action involve implicit assumptions or validity claims that should be questioned. First, the logical soundness of the argument and its manner of expression (rhetoric); second, the taken-for-granted assumptions about factual matters and acceptable social practices and values (tradition); third, assumptions made about legitimacy and whose views should be privileged (authority); and fourth, assumptions concerning the validity of knowledge and information (objectivity). These four aspects of a critical approach are further developed below, and are illustrated by one of the course case studies in a later section. (i) Critical thinkingthe critique of rhetoric The rst sense that is considered is that known as critical thinking.2 At the simplest level this concerns being able to evaluate whether peoples arguments and propositions are sound in a logical sense (Hughes, 1996). Do the conclusions follow from the premises? Are the premises themselves justiable? Is language being used in a fair way, or is it deliberately emotive or misleading? This might appear to be a simple technical skill concerned with the logical analysis of language, but in real situations it can become extremely difcult to fully understand what is meant or claimed by some assertion, or to discover whether particular claims are or are not valid. Critical thinking can be dened more widely (McPeck, 1981) to involve a scepticism or suspension of belief towards particular statements, information, or norms. To think critically is not purely abstract but is always about some particular problem or domain. It therefore requires knowledge and skills specic to the problem or disciplinary domain although Paul (1990) argues that critical thinking is a general skill rather than being domain specic. It should also be reective scepticismbeing

226

Management Learning 31(2)

aware of its purpose (why am I adopting this particular attitude?) and being capable of offering alternatives. This aspect of being critical could be called the critique of rhetoric as it is particularly concerned with the use of language.3 (ii) Being sceptical of conventional wisdomthe critique of tradition The other senses of the term critical that we will consider are really developments of this sceptical attitude, taking less for granted and questioning deeper and more fundamental assumptions that we usually make. One of the most common assumptions we meet in organizations (and society more generally) is that of tradition or customthe takenfor-granted way we do things around here. Organizations and parts of organizations develop particular cultures and particular practices. These may have originated for good reasons, or simply by chance, but they tend to become accepted and, indeed, unseen. However, they may well not be the most appropriate way of doing things, either because the situation has changed, or because in fact they never were, or because they deny or contradict moral values such as sexism, racism or environmentalism. It is often not so much the long-standing practices or traditions of an organization, but assumptions that relate to a particular project or plan. These can be seen as boundary judgements (Ulrich, 1991), often set by technical experts or powerful groups, that limit (perhaps implicitly) what may be debated or challenged. Questioning such practices or judgements can often provoke strong reaction and the weight of tradition and authority may well be used to support them. Trying to change them can be extremely difcult as it will inevitably change the status quo and upset established patterns of power and authority. This can be called the critique of tradition. (iii) Being sceptical of one dominant viewthe critique of authority Another, deeper, assumption is that there should be just one right or dominant view as opposed to a plurality of different but valid perspectives. For students this is particularly difcult to accept since much of their education so far will have been aimed at teaching the correct answer, on the assumption that there is one. They will not have been encouraged to question the validity of their teachers. However, by this stage in their nal year, they should be appreciating that there are genuine disagreements and unresolved issues even within academic disciplines. The situation in the organizational world, which does not split itself into well-dened disciplines and problems, can be highly complex with many different stakeholders involved. These interest groups will all have different experiences of the situation, different relationships to it, and stand to benet or lose in different ways. Recognizing that there is a multiplicity of perspectives, questioning the dominant view or privileged position, and trying to see the world through anothers eyes (Checkland and Scholes, 1990; Churchman, 1968) could be called the critique of authority. (iv) Being sceptical of information and knowledgethe critique of objectivity The nal level to be considered is questioning the validity of the knowledge and information that is available, and recognizing that it is never value-free and objective. At the simplest level students have to see that even seemingly objective facts such as quantitative data do not simply occur but are the result of particular processes involving a whole variety of people, operations, and decisions/choices. Which factors are

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

227

recorded and which are not? How are they recorded or measuredthere are usually several possibilities? Can important factors be measured at all or do we have to use some surrogate? Do the non-quantiable judgmental factors get given their due weight (Mingers, 1989)? Even when some data have been produced, they only become usable as information when someone interprets them from their point of view and for their particular purposes. A simple table of data embodies many assumptions and has as many interpretations as there are readers. At a broader level it can be argued that information and knowledge always reect or are shaped by the structures of power and interest within a situation (Foucault, 1980, 1988). Which problems are raised and which are not? Which decisions get taken and which are always put off ? To what extent are particular interest groups able to promote or suppress certain information, or shape the agendas of discussions and meetings? This aspect of critical thinking can be called the critique of objectivity as it calls into question the whole idea of there being objective, value-free knowledge. This framework was eshed out for students with readings. A set of very basic ones were handed out (see Table 1) and references were given to the literature for the students to follow up if interested. It was also pointed out to students that being overly critical in a real situation could be dangerousit needed a health warning: 1. Criticism can very easily be negative and destructive. Constantly pointing out the problems with particular proposals, especially if this is done in an unpleasant way, can have a wholly unhelpful effect both for the problem and for yourself. Criticism should always try to be constructive and you should aim to put forward your own positive proposals that can, in their turn, be criticized by others. 2. People generally nd it hard to receive criticismit is threatening and demoralizing. This is especially true when younger and possibly newer people criticize
Table 1 Four aspects of being critical, and associated reading

Topic Introduction Critique of rhetoric (critical thinking) Critique of tradition

Calls into question

Readings included Alvesson and Willmott (1996, ch. 1)

The language used, the form Hughes (1996, chs 1, 13, 14) of argument, the validity of the premises and assumptions The taken-for-granted, traditional ways of doing things One dominant or privileged position. Accepts a plurality of viewpoints The idea of objective, value-free, disinterested knowledge. Recognizes that information and knowledge are partial and power-based Goldratt and Cox (1993: 1247) Churchman (1968, ch. 14)

Critique of authority

Critique of objectivity

Mingers (1989) Foucault (1982)

228

Management Learning 31(2)

those who are more established. It can lead to unpleasantness and unpopularity. Be sensitive and try to criticize the proposals and ideas rather than the individuals. 3. Finally, if you seriously challenge the existing power structures do not be surprised if they ght back. Think carefully of your own position.

An Overview of the Course and its Materials

The main pedagogic aims of the course, apart from the critical content discussed above, were that it should be inter-disciplinary, should be based on participative, student-centred learning, and should develop practical skills such as presentations and different forms of writing. The framework of the course was clear in principle but was very complex in its logistical details. There were to be no lectures at all on the course (apart from an introduction) but only fortnightly, two-hour seminars (10 in all across two terms) at which the students would give individual and group presentations on a case study, and participate in discussions led by the tutor. There would be roughly 20 students to a seminar group and these would be split into ve subgroups, two of which would present each week. Each student would also review a book from a list of books that the staff felt were important for management students to be aware of. The review would be presented orally and in writing. The assessment for each student would consist of four written-up case studies, the book review, and a mark allocated by the tutor for classroom performance and participation throughout the year. Different staff members would contribute their own case studies that would then be taught by all members of the group. The cases were not to be too tied in to a particular disciplinary background but should explore the different facets of the course and allow an inter-disciplinary approach (see Table 2 for a list of the 10 sessions). The nal session was to be different in that the case study was the CIM course itself. The students were required to present a critical evaluation of the course with argued recommendations for practical improvements in both the short and long term. The results of this review are discussed later in the article.
Table 2 Outline of the sessions and case studies

Session 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Topic/case study Introduction to critical thinking: Decision Steel Critical thinking: The Taurus Debacle Soft systems: Middleton Mutual Sexual harassment: The Harassing Client The power of numbers: Waterford Glass Irrationality at work: Managing to Survive Corporate citizenship: Closing a PlantBP at Baglan Bay Social reporting: The Triple Bottom Line Sources of corporate success: The Honda Effect Ethical responsibilities: Whistleblowing in the Civil Service Critical review of the CIM course

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

229

Case Study for the Critical Approach Session This section considers the choice of case study for the rst, What is a Critical Approach? session, and illustrates the four critiques framework outlined above. It was felt that, initially, the students needed a practical activity and exposure to realistic decision behaviour. For the latter, the best idea seemed to be a video of a real situation, and the well-known Decision Steel was used. This was one of a series of three made in the late 1970s. It is excellent for the purpose and although it is rather old there does not appear to be anything similar made more recently. The students were shown a short version of the video and asked to identify examples of the four aspects of the critical approach. Several possibilities were considered for the case study that the students would make presentations on. Two were recent examples of major information systems failures that had received much publicity, at least in the UKthe London Ambulance Dispatch System, LASCAD, (Beynon-Davies, 1995)4 and the London Stock Exchange settlement system, Taurus, (Drummond, 1996a, 1996b). A third was a description of the involvement of large-scale OR models in the public enquiry about the Sizewell B nuclear power station (Ormerod, 1997). The fourth was more unconventional. It was an ongoing (in 1997) case in which a well-known information systems lecturer in the US (Ojelanki Ngwenyana) was suing his university for racial discrimination after not receiving tenure. He had established a web site5 and was making available all the information about the case, including both legal submissions and documentation from within the university. In the event, the Taurus case was considered the most relevant and comprehensive. This was a massive project, initiated by the London Stock Exchange, to computerize the whole of its trading and settlements, something that had previously been done entirely manually. Not only was it to be the rst computer system, but it also involved a complete redesign of the way that stock trading was carried out, with major implications for a whole range of public and private institutions. In the event, Taurus was an enormous, costly, public disaster that caused much anguish both personal and corporate. Unfortunately, it is only one of several, equally high-prole, IT projects that have been major failures in recent years. The most serious probably was the London Ambulance Dispatch project that broke down when it was rst put into service, possibly causing several deaths. Others include the Wessex Regional Health IS, the Conrm travel industry reservation system, and the Mandata public service information system. One of the common features of all these experiences is a dislocation between the technical rationality driving the development and design, and the social and political realities of the surrounding context. In some examples the technologists have pushed forward with unrealistic promises of what can be delivered; in others (e.g. Taurus) the political drivers have forced unrealistic demands on the technology. But perhaps in all of them a greater degree of critical questioning and scrutiny at an early stage may have mitigated the extent of the calamity. One reason why the case history was chosen is the availability of information. Drummond made an extensive study of Taurus, including many interviews with participants. This is fully written up in a book (Drummond, 1996a) that describes the project from different parties perspectives and contains a listing of the extensive press coverage that was given throughout the project. But for students a short version is available in a paper (Drummond, 1996b). They were encouraged to look up some

230

Management Learning 31(2)

of the newspaper articles as well. The students were asked to use the case to illustrate the different types of critical thinking that could be applied to this situation. Illustrations of what they came up with are given below. Critique of tradition or conventional wisdom In many ways this is a theme that runs throughout the case. By tradition I do not necessarily mean long-standing historical arrangements but simply the accepted, taken- for-granted assumptions and ways of doing things that arise in any organizational group or project. Here, the main assumption is that the project as a whole cannot be questioned. Nobody ever says why are we doing this, or is the whole thing really feasible?. Even when Peter Rawlins (the Chief Executive) does begin to question he is over-ruled. The prevailing orthodoxy becomes embodied in the institutions and procedures and becomes a given context or boundary within which everything else proceeds. Each new problem is treated incrementally, as something to be dealt with, often by quite different groups, and no one really puts together the political aspirations with the technical realities. Critique of authority: there are many interests and stakeholders This case is a classic example of a situation involving many different parties with divergent and sometimes conicting viewpoints and interests. The students should identify as many of these as they can, try to articulate what the project looks like from that particular perspective (both from what is said in the case and from common-sense), and highlight the possible conicts and alliances between these varied stakeholders. The Stock Exchange whose project it is and who have put up lots of money. They face a loss of power post-Big Bang and see the project as necessary for their survival, and as enabling them to control the settlements business. In this they are in conict with their members, the brokers. Retail stock brokers who have traditionally carried out this function. They feel threatened by the loss of the traditional system and are having to spend a lot of money to come into the new one. Listed companies, pension funds etc. will be the major institutional customers of the system but they are not convinced that it will work properly and feel left out of the decision-making process. They try to sabotage the project. Individual personal investors are completely ignored by the initial design but it is important to the government that they be safeguarded. The government/DTI are very interested in the long-term future of London as a nance centre, and the reputation of the UK, but do not want a system that causes a problem for the small shareholder, i.e. the voters. The Bank of England shares the governments desire that London be seen as the nancial capital of the world and is part of a pressure group of international banks. It also has ultimate responsibility for regulating the stock market. The technical team are having to work under enormous pressure to come up with a solution to what may, in fact, be technically infeasible. They are being battered by varied and constantly changing requirements, and an over-ambitious timetable. They are having to deal with the constraints of a ready-made package that may not be suitable. They are highly dedicated and committed (often working 80 hours per week) to the project.

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

231

Peter Rawlins, Chief Executive, should theoretically be in a position to overview the whole mess but in practice has even more pressing problems initially, overseeing a major re-structuring of the Stock Exchange as a whole. Several other interested groups and individuals including Watson, the project director; the Taurus monitoring group; the producers of the Vista software; and various consultancies such as Coopers and Lybrand who had their reputations to maintain. Critique of objectivity and power The case history (in the article) is written at quite a high level of generality without much detail but even so there are several instances in the case of concern about the validity of information and of the explicit and implicit exercise of power. The case supports quite well the Foucauldian view of power as ever present and in action, shaping and modulating the unfolding events without it being knowingly exercised by some controlling subject. It also lends itself to analysis in terms of actor-network theory (Callon, 1986; Law, 1986, 1992). Some clear examples of power are: The decision not to go for a central register because the Stock Exchange could not impose its will on the industry. The adoption of a very complex design to try to meet the many conicting interests. The inuence of the international banks in preventing the project as a whole being questioned. The fear of upsetting the apple cart by questioning the project so that such issues were never even raised. The resistance to the project by stock brokers and clearing banks that led them to enlist the help of the government in imposing constraints on the project. The development of the project in the rst place as a way of securing the loss of inuence of the Stock Exchange. One can also see some evidence of the unreliability of available information. There was much, supposedly objective, quantitative information that seemed to show that everything was all right, yet the gut feelings of several people were that there were major problems. Whether the information was deliberately distorted or just did not capture the important qualitative aspects of the situation is not clear, but what is clear is that the gut feelings were right and the gures wrong.

Evaluation and Review of the CIM Course

This section provides an evaluation of the course after its rst complete year. There are two sources for the reviewan informal discussion in the seminar groups after a few weeks of the course, and an analysis of the students written evaluation produced after the nal session of the course. Informal Reactions Considerable concern over the rather diffuse nature of the course in comparison with other more traditional ones. This was expressed as we want lectures so we

232

Management Learning 31(2)

know what we have to do! Clearly it is very much a part of the philosophy of the course to try to develop in students an ability to take responsibility for their own learning, and to be able to tolerate the ambiguity of a course without tight boundaries and a formal exam. Understandable concern about being assessed on presentations and classroom performance. Training in presentation skills has been provided, and students recognize its value, but inevitably presenting orally is partly personality based, and puts overseas students at a potential disadvantage. The question of assessing classroom discussion is more problematic and there was considerable debate about this in the development team. It is difcult to do equitably, is highly subjective, favours those who say a lot even if it is of little value, and disadvantages those who come from cultures that do not encourage participation. Nevertheless, contribution and participation are so central to this course that it was felt that it must be assessed. Surprisingly perhaps, the idea of doing book reviews worried a number of students. Even after being given guidance many were uncertain of how to do one and doubted its relevance. Yet after the event almost all students found the book they reviewed valuable as did other members of the seminar group. With regard to the specic material on a critical approach, the theoretical framework was found to be relatively clear, and it was generally applied successfully to the Taurus case. Some students found the case rather complex for the start of the course but at least that may make them aware of real-life complexity. Analysis of Students Critical Reviews In all, 30 students submitted this assessment and as they had a choice of four out of 10 it was relatively unpopular. Also, as the report counted toward the overall mark, the sample may be biased towards those who felt positively about the course. The overall reaction among those who submitted was extremely positive towards the objectives and style of the course. Only three (10 percent) could be said to have had a negative reaction. Examples of some comments are:
It did a good job. . . . The course was the highlight at interviews. . . . It went a long way to achieving its objectives. (#9532168) It has undoubtedly been very successful and has comfortably achieved all of its outlined objectives. (#9539325) I can honestly say that CIM has been one of the most interesting and benecial courses I have taken at Warwick. (#9434460)

Virtually everyone agreed with the objectives of the course (to be discussed further below), and felt that the course had generally been successful in achieving them. The main thrust of the responses was to point out many difculties in the delivery of the course (recognizing that it was the rst year) and to make practical suggestions for changes. Some problems (and solutions) were agreed on by most people, while others generated opposing views. The most frequently mentioned concerns are shown in Table 3. The most common was that the 20 percent assessment weighting for classroom participation was too little. Given the emphasis that we put on presentations and participation, and the time the students spent on it, the general suggestion was that it should count for

Mingers: What is it to be Critical? Table 3 Most frequently mentioned concerns

233

Concern/suggestion 20% for participation too little Lecturers to give better feedback on presentations Have groups present different perspectives on the case Enforce strict time limits on presentations Some books too technical/textbookish Enforce more participation in the discussion Change group membership during the year Too wide size variations in books Give summaries of books at start Have outside lecturers (e.g. from companies) Provide more input on the critical approach and ethics

Number 26 18 15 14 12 11 10 10 9 8 8

40 percent. There is in fact a structural problem with this suggestion as the university regulations limit the amount of non-written and group-based assessment. I will briey describe the other concerns that were mentioned: The feedback given by tutors on presentations was felt to be poor and inconsistent. Some suggestions were: use standard forms (these were available but not used); have meetings after the session; get student feedback (perhaps anonymously on forms); video some. There was general agreement that seminars were more interesting when different perspectives were presented by the two groups, or different questions were addressed. Role-playing was advocated by a number of students. Having different cases each week was also mentioned. Time limits for presentations should be strictly enforced both to give time for discussion and as a necessary skill. It was felt that it was necessary to enforce more participation by non-presenting students. Some suggestions were: going round the table; requiring non-presenting groups to respond to the talks; getting students to chair the discussion; having smaller discussion groups that then came together. There were various problems with the range of books for review. Particularly, that some were too technical or textbookish, and there was too great a range of sizes making it unfair. Summaries of the books should be provided and the students asked to concentrate on reviewing rather than summarizing. The group work was seen as very important but it was felt that groups should not be self-selected, but rather constructed so as to encompass a range of backgrounds and abilities. It was also felt that the membership should be changed after a term. There was a demand for more lecture input, for example people from companies to discuss real-life problematic situations; inputs on specic areas such as ethics or law or soft systems methodology; and more on what was meant by a critical approach at the beginning, especially in terms of how to tackle a case study. While all the above are sensible suggestions reecting the students experience of the course, of greater concern for the overall aims of the course was that virtually all the students failed to be genuinely critical. They simply accepted the course objectives as given and then reviewed the delivery of the course. This raises some important points. There were in fact two quite different interpretations of the objectives made by students, and indeed different sources for them. One interpretation claimed the main

234

Management Learning 31(2)

purpose of the course was to improve the employability of students by giving them practical skills. Reference was made to an article about the course published in a Business School newsletter that certainly gave this emphasis. The majority of students, however, saw it as a combination of critical thinking and practical skills, and referenced the ve objectives given in the rst course hand-out. This demonstrates both the differences of viewpoint among the staff on the course, and the extent to which the course itself embodies the somewhat contradictory aims of developing practical (and marketable) skills, and developing potentially subversive critical abilities. It also demonstrates the way that students can inevitably (and from their viewpoint legitimately) subvert the intentions of the educators and in a rather ironic way realize the underlying aims of the course. More seriously, the unthinking acceptance of the course objectives is a sign that, at a deeper level, the course was not wholly successful. There were many fundamental issues that could have been raisedabout the nature of the course; the underlying rationale; the views of different stakeholders (students, different members of staff, employers etc.); possible conicts between the various objectives; the potentially contradictory nature of the course itself (authority ordering them to question authority etc.) and so on. That none of the students chose to do this or, perhaps worse, either did not feel they were allowed to, or even did not conceive of doing it, is testimony to the difculty of fostering a genuinely critical attitude. Whether this is primarily a failure of the delivery of this particular course, or whether it is a sign of more deep-seated social or psychological constraints will be better answered after several more years of development.

Conclusions
The CIM course has been a learning experience as much for the academics involved as for the students. Given its innovatory nature, and its complexity, I feel that the rst year has been a qualied success. There are many lessons we have learnt, about both the practicalities of its delivery and its underlying rationale, so that we will be able to make it more effective in future years. Whether we will be able to develop the degree of critical and reective practice in the students that we hope for through this single course is a matter for the future.

Notes
I would like to acknowledge the other members of staff involved in designing this course: John Benington, Paul Edwards, Anthony Lawton, Brendan McSweeney, Chris Marsden, Yasmin Merali, Tony Steele, Robin Wensley. 1. WBS has around 112 full lecturing staff organized into ve disciplinary groupings accounting and nance, operational research and systems, marketing and strategic management, industrial relations and organizational behaviour, and production and service management. 2. There are several institutions concerned explicitly with promoting critical thinking. The Foundation for Critical Thinking, Santa Rosa, California maintains resources and produces videos; and a web site has an annotated bibliography:

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

235

http://www.montclair.edu/Pages/CRC/Bibliographies/CriticalThinking.html. It is an important area within education, especially schools, and in psychology. 3. The term critique is taken to mean a particular critical appraisal or evaluation of some problem or situation; rhetoric is used in its general sense of the effective use of language. 4. There is an interesting analysis of this case through the framework of Cleggs (1989) circuits of power model in Introna (1997). 5. The web address is: http://www.okn.com/

References
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (eds) (1992) Critical Management Studies. London: Sage Publications. Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1996) Making Sense of Management: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage Publications. Benhabib, S. (1992) Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Beynon-Davies, P. (1995) Information Systems Failure: The Case of the London Ambulance Services Computer Aided Despatch Project, European Journal of Information Systems 4: 17184. Callon, M. (1986) Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay, in J. Law (ed.) Power, Action and Beliefa New Sociology of Knowledge, pp. 196233. London: Routledge. Chaffee, J. (1997) Thinking Critically. New York: Houghton Mifin. Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester: Wiley. Chia, R. and Morgan, S. (1996) Educating the Philosopher-Manager: De-signing the Times, Management Learning 27(1): 3764. Churchman, C. W. (1968) The Systems Approach. New York: Dell Publishing. Clegg, S. (1989) Frameworks of Power. London: Sage Publications. Drummond, H. (1996a) Escalation in Decision-Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Drummond, H. (1996b) The Politics of Risk: Trials and Tribulations of the Taurus Project, Journal of Information Technology 11: 34757. Flood, R. and Jackson, M. (1991) Creative Problem Solving. London: Wiley. Flood, R. and Romm, N. (eds) (1996) Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research and Practice. New York: Plenum Press. Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 19721977. Brighton: Harvester Press. Foucault, M. (1982) Afterword: The Subject and Power, in H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds) Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, pp. 20826. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1988) Truth, Power, Self: An Interview with Michel Foucault, in L. Martin, H. Gutman and P. Hutton (eds) Technologies of the Self: An Interview with Michel Foucault, pp. 915. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. French, R. and Grey, C. (eds) (1996) Rethinking Management Education. London: Sage Publications. Goldratt, E. and Cox, J. (1993) The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement. Aldershot: Gower. Grey, C. and French, R. (1996) Rethinking Management Education: An Introduction, in R. French and C. Grey (eds) Rethinking Management Education. London: Sage Publications. Grey, C., Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (1996) Is a Critical Pedagogy of Management Possible?, in R. French and C. Grey (eds) Rethinking Management Education. London: Sage Publications.

236

Management Learning 31(2)

Habermas, J. (1978) Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann. Habermas, J. (1979) Communication and the Evolution of Society. London: Heinemann. Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. London: Heinemann. Habermas, J. (1992) Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Programme of Philosophical Justication, in J. Habermas (ed.) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, pp. 43115. Cambridge: Polity Press. Habermas, J. (1993a) Justication and Application. Cambridge: Polity Press. Habermas, J. (1993b) On the Pragmatic, the Ethical, and the Moral Employments of Practical Reason, in J. Habermas (ed.) Justication and Application, pp. 117. Cambridge: Polity Press. Habermas, J. (1994) What Theories Can Accomplishand What they Cant, in M. Haller (ed.) The Past as Future: Jurgen Habermas Interviewed by Michael Haller, pp. 99120. Cambridge: Polity Press. Harnden, J. (1996) Enlightenment, Empowerment and Emancipation: The Case for Critical Pedagogy in Nurse Education, Nurse Education Today 16: 327. Hughes, W. (1996) Critical Thinking. Ontario: Broadview Press. Introna, L. (1997) Management, Information and Power. London: Macmillan. Jackson, M. (1991a) The Origins and Nature of Critical Systems Thinking, Systems Practice 4(2): 13149. Jackson, M. (1991b) Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences. New York: Plenum Press. Law, J. (1986) Power, Action and Beliefa New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge. Law, J. (1992) Notes on the Theory of Actor-networks: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity, Systems Practice 5(4): 37993. McPeck, J. (1981) Critical Thinking and Education. Oxford: Martin Robertson. Mingers, J. (1984) Subjectivism and Soft Systems Methodologya Critique, Journal of Systems Analysis 11: 85103. Mingers, J. (1989) Problems of Measurement, in M. Jackson, P. Keys and S. Cropper (eds) Operational Research and the Social Sciences, pp. 4717. New York: Plenum Press. Mingers, J. (1992) Recent Developments in Critical Management Science, Journal of the Operational Research Society 43(1): 110. Mingers, J. (1997) Towards Critical Pluralism, in J. Mingers and A. Gill (eds) Multimethodology: Theory and Practice of Combining Management Science Methodologies, pp. 40740. Chichester: Wiley. Mingers, J. and Gill, A. (eds) (1997) Multimethodology: Theory and Practice of Combining Management Science Methodologies. Chichester: Wiley. Ormerod, R. (1997) OR Models Assist the Sizewell B Public Enquiry: The NCBs Use of Linear Programming, OR Insight 10(3): 28. Paul, R. (1990) Critical Thinking. Santa Rosa: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Revans, R. (ed.) (1982) The Origins and Growth of Action Learning. Bromley: Chartwell-Bratt. Ruggiero, V. (1988) Teaching Thinking Across the Curriculum. New York: Harper & Row. Said, E. (1983) The World, the Text, and the Critic. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Spaul, M. (1997) Exploring Our Common Future, in F. Stowell, R. Ison, R. Armson, J. Holloway and S. McRobb (eds) Systems for Sustainability: People, Organizations, and Environments, pp. 36772. New York: Plenum. Thomas, A. (1997) The Coming Crisis of Western Management Education, Systems Practice 10(6): 681701. Thompson, J. and McGivern, J. (1996) Parody, Process and Practice: Perspectives for Management Education, Management Learning 27(1): 2135. Ulrich, W. (1991) Critical Heuristics of Social Systems Design, in R. Flood and M. Jackson (eds) Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings, pp. 10315. Chichester: Wiley.

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

237

Weast, D. (1996) Alternative Teaching Strategies: The Case for Critical Thinking, Teaching Sociology 24: 18994. Willmott, H. (1997) Critical Management Learning, in J. Burgoyne and M. Reynolds (eds) Management Learning: Integrating Perspectives in Theory and Practice, pp. 16176. London: Sage Publications. Young, I. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Contact Address
John Mingers is at Warwick Business School, Warwick University, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. [email: j.mingers@warwick.ac.uk]