There is currently considerable interest in the generic attributes of graduates (Jones 2009), particularly critical thinking, and considerable discussion about the precise meaning of the term (Barrie 2006, Jones 2007). There has, however, been relatively little investigation into the relationship between disciplines or subject areas and the concept of critical thinking (Jones 2007, 2009) and how it is realised and recognised through curriculum and pedagogy (Jones 2009, Maton 2009). Given the changed cultural context for universities where there is an increasing emphasis on the ability of universities to clarify the nature of the education they provide and the contribution of their graduates to society, it is important that they can describe the quality of their graduates in ways that are meaningful to a wide range of stakeholders, including employers, professional groups and policy makers (Barrie 2006). Within this changed context there is a clear recognition of the centrality of critical thinking in order to enable proactive participation in the knowledge economy. Competition in this domain is considerable and in these difficult economic circumstances not all nations are equally positioned to avail of the positive opportunities of this new world order. According to the World Knowledge Competitiveness Index, compiled by the Centre for International Competitiveness, Ireland’s knowledge performance is roughly in the middle – approximately halfway between Latvia and Sweden. As a small, open economy on the margins of Europe this position may not provide a secure enough basis to guarantee our future economic growth. This research seeks to examine the contribution that the university experience makes to the development of criticality among students. Three key principals underpin this work. Firstly in order to avoid decontextualising attributes such as critical thinking, it is important that they are understood within specific disciplinary or subject contexts. Secondly the research will examine the extent to which academics have a shared understanding of the concept and of the teaching and learning strategies that support its acquisition. Finally this study will examine what is expected of students in relation to critical thinking in the forms and models of assessment designed to determine the degree to which it has been acquired.

The study is a multi-method qualitative study, involving in-depth, semi-structured interviewing (Fontana & Frey 2003) together with documentary analysis (Prior 2003). Analysis and interpretation will be informed by the work of Silverman (2003) on interview, narrative and content analysis, Prior (2003) on documentary analysis and Attrride-Stirling (2001) on thematic network analysis. The sample comprises 10-15 Heads of School or their nominees, 20-30 Module Co-ordinators, 20-30 Module Descriptors Forms derived from the university curriculum management system, associated supporting materials and related assessment tasks, 60-90 de-identified student assessments. Although small-scale qualitative studies can make no claim to generalisability, the sample is composed in such a way that a wide range of disciplinary and subject areas are represented. The overall design of each research unit is such that it provides depth of perspective by examining curriculum/module design, implementation, impact and outcome.

The research will provide an insight into the understandings and realisation of critical thinking in university. It will provide a challenge to some elements of practice that focus on the rhetoric of criticality. This research will provide an insight into academics’ understanding of critical thinking as a generic graduate attribute and detailing the manner in which critical thinking is positioned and developed within the context of different discipline or subject area. This research will then provide an analysis of how individual academics and curriculum design and structures perspectives on critical thinking are realised in curriculum implementation and assessment. This will provide a necessary exploration of the problematic of devising suitable methodologies and teaching protocols to enrich the quality of student learning with respect to this attribute. Key recommendations are identified for (a) module design and structure, (b) teaching and learning and (c)assessment.