Here's an analytical/critical thinking experiment : It would help if
the following were detailed out:
1. What misunderstandings are there in the analysis of the problem?
2. What conclusion has been arrived upon and how it's problematic,
what would be the consequences if that conclusion were put into
effect? Specify how the misunderstandings if any are leading to a
mis-conclusion?
3. In which stakeholders' interest is the advocacy being done in. Are
they meant to be stakeholders here to begin with, or are they just an
excuse? Are their interests being truly represented, and is the
advocated solution a true solution for them?
4. Which stakeholders' interests are being ignored?
5. Is there any common ground between the two stakeholders groups
mentioned, are there any similar goals, intentions or problems
affecting both?
6. Is there any genuine reason for the two stakeholder groups to be
pitted against each other?
7. Are there any background intentions behind what has been published,
any stakeholders who aren't being mentioned that would surreptitiously
benefit should the proposed changes be brought about? (example:
textbook publishers, private education industry, etc) Who gains if the
misunderstandings persist?
8. What is an alternative change to the status quo that rectifies
misunderstandings, if any, and serves the interests of both the
stakeholder groups mentioned
9. If the status quo is not to be changed and things are fine as they
are, then what are the clarifications that will clear away the
misunderstandings that led to a perception of a problem being there
and needing redress? Is there a motive for any stakeholder to maintain
the misunderstanding?
No comments:
Post a Comment