Laird R. O. Edman
40
known. Thus beliefs are justified within particular contexts via the rules for inquiry within
that context, and specific beliefs are assumed to be related to specific contexts and must be
balanced against other interpretations of the available evidence. A stage 5 thinker may
assert “I know there is strong evidence for global warming, but other people have evidence
arguing against it too. Since different people have different rules of evidence, no one can
really say who is right or wrong. It’s all just a matter of perspective.”
Quasi-reflective thinkers (especially stage 4 thinkers) may see education as a game in
which, to get a good grade, one must figure out what each professor “wants.” The job of
students, then, is to play along and start sounding like the professor, since each person has
their own idiosyncratic worldview. Or students may see some disciplines as “scientific”
and thus capable of providing clear truth and other disciplines as “subjective” and thus
filled only with individualistic interpretations of evidence and “mere” opinion. Students in
these stages tend to use a “makes sense” epistemology and have trouble accurately critiqu-
ing bad thinking in themselves or others. They are willing to acknowledge bad thinking
exists, however, and understand critiques of thinking much better than students in earlier
stages. Quasi-reflective thinkers see the need to learn how to be critical thinkers; however,
they may latch onto the skills of critical thinking to defend their own prereflective beliefs
and to dismantle arguments they find disturbing. Learning how to use their thinking skills
to reconsider their own beliefs is very challenging for these students.
Reflective thinking. Stage 6 and 7 thinkers, reflective thinkers, comfortably and consist-
ently use evidence and reason to support judgments. Context is important to such think-
ers and they acknowledge the tentative nature of most conclusions; however, they also
recognize that coherence, consistency, and evidence across contexts do allow one to make
strong conclusions and committed judgments. Such thinkers are willing to reevaluate con-
clusions and knowledge claims in the light of new evidence.
Stage 6 thinkers tend to justify beliefs by comparing evidence and opinion from a vari-
ety of sources and different perspectives across contexts. Solutions are constructed and
evaluated by the weight of the evidence and the usefulness of the solution. Stage 7 thinkers
understand even more clearly the probabilistic nature of solutions to ill-structured prob-
lems. The adequacy of solutions is evaluated in the light of what is most reasonable or
probable using the currently available evidence, perspectives, and tools of inquiry. When
new evidence or arguments arise, conclusions must be reevaluated. Beliefs are justified by
examining the weight of the evidence; the explanatory power of the various interpreta-
tions; contextual, historical, and methodological considerations; the consequences of
alternative conclusions; and the way in which these factors interrelate. In understanding
the probabilistic nature of the decision process, reflective thinkers acknowledge they may
be wrong, yet attempt to reason to conclusions that are the most complete, plausible, and
compelling that the context and available evidence allows. A stage 7 thinker may say,
“While there is a case to be made against global climate change, the evidence for it seems
to cut across many contexts, disciplines, and research paradigms, and the majority of
people who have expertise in the appropriate arenas support the theory. Unless stronger
evidence arises against the theory, I have to assume it is correct.”
The distressing, although perhaps not surprising, news for college and university educa-
tors is that while the average college student begins college around stage 3, he or she ends
college around stage 4. This may be why the descriptions of stage 6 and 7 thinkers do not