Cross-Culture and Critical Thinking

In the article “Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Critical Thinking,” written by Sheryl Jenkins, the idea of critical thinking between Thailand and the United States is explored thoroughly; both through research and experimentation. The experiment involved questioning both American and Thai men and women who were somehow involved in the nursing field. Each scholar had acquired a bachelor’s degree at a minimum and a Ph.D. at a maximum. The outcomes found were typical of what could be assumed from the literature on the subject but were only confirmed by research.

It was briefly acknowledged that nursing students aren’t necessarily using critical thinking tactics. The hope that this study would bring attention to that fact is also mentioned and asserted that it should remain a major focus in this field of research. It was found that once nurses were exposed to other cultural claims about critical thinking, the ability to become more open-minded was implemented throughout both cultures. Other factors that were found were the fact that nurses with more experience were better at critical thinking than those who did not have experience.

The article made it easy to understand the similarities of each culture when it came to critical thinking and effective nursing. Both Thailand participants and the U.S. participants agreed on the essentials of critical thinking. Claiming ideas such as being able to absorb nursing information from numerous sources and articulating it, considering the big picture, and being able to evaluate situations using thought processes and actions to solve the problem at hand were all common aspects of critical thinking between cultures. As Pless and Clayton (1993) agree “No one would deny the fact that nurses must have a solid knowledge base in addition to demonstrating an ability to think critically” (p. 425). However, there was no separation between critical thinking and nursing knowledge. When the differences were examined, they were sometimes major. The Thai people believed that critical thinking should be applied throughout life and not just in a person’s occupation, in this case, nursing. These participants also believed that a person’s ability to think critically could be based on how happy the student was. Americans, on the other hand, did not believe these ideas, they used motivation as the main characteristic of critical thinking as well as the ability to make decisions.

The conclusion for the article was that critical thinking should have a definitive definition when it comes to cross-cultural nursing. Both the U.S. and Thailand participants agreed upon the fact that a shared definition would be beneficial in both cultures. Jenkins (2009) claimed that it would “promote unity for nursing” (p. 272). The only downfall considered was that if a definition was created, it could potentially ruin nursing students' abilities to be open-minded because of the boundaries set for them.

The strengths of this article certainly lay in the research aspect of the experiment. The interviewing process allowed for great detail and more of an explanation through the quotes that were applied in the text. They were able to give in-depth details that helped better explain the outcomes. Although common factors were not brought up, they certainly would have been beneficial. Ideas such as Lipson (1999) suggests should be “Culturally compatible, culturally appropriate, culturally sensitive, culturally responsive, culturally informed, and culturally congruent care” (p. 6). There was no bias throughout the article which allowed the reader to make their own generalizations. The opinion of the author did not appear throughout the text unless to express surprise about the results of the experiment. There did not seem to be a target audience unless the text was meant to be written for nursing students or those who are involved in the health field. Though exceptionally written, a few weaknesses were detected. One weakness was the repetition throughout the article. It explained many points over and over which was unnecessary for the points being made, as well as the quality of the evidence. Though many references were used, it was only through interviews and no statistical evidence that one could derive any type of conclusion from the article. Perhaps if major factors such as language barriers were examined, it could make for a more informative essay. Donnelly (2000) suggests “Culture, health, and communication, with language barriers a significant factor in predicting the outcomes of care” (p. 119). These types of factors cannot be ignored and should be some of the most prominent problems being investigated. Overall the article was well articulated and certainly gave a great description of the conclusions that were withdrawn.

References

Donnelly, P. (2000). Ethics and cross-cultural nursing. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 11(2), 119-126.

Jenkins, S.D. (2009). Cross-cultural perspectives on critical thinking. Journal of Nursing Education, 50(5), 268-274.

Lipson, J. (1999). Cross-cultural nursing: The cultural perspective. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 10(1), 6.

Pless, B., & Clayton, G. (1993). Clarifying the concept of critical thinking in nursing. J Nurse Education, 32(9), 425-428.