II. Quasi-Reflective Thinking (Levels 4 and 5)

Individuals who reason in the middle levels of Reflective Judgment recognize that knowledge claims about ill-structured problems contain elements of uncertainty; thus, there is an understanding that some situations are truly problematic. The difficulty is in understanding how judgments ought to be made in light of this uncertainty. Often, individuals believe that while judgments ought to be based on evidence, valuation is individualistic and idiosyncratic. While they can acknowledge differences between well- and ill-structured problems, they are often at a loss when asked to solve ill-structured problems because they don't know how to deal with the inherent ambiguity of such problems. As such, individuals appear to believe that opinions about the topics of the Reflective Judgment interview are justified by:

  1. Making a judgment about the issue and then finding facts which support this conclusion.
  2. By looking at all the conflicting evidence available and making a decision based on intuition, "gut instinct" or what "feels right."
  3. By choosing a given discipline or perspective on the topic and justifying a position based on the "rules of the game" for that discipline. (Level 5).

A. Summary of Individual Levels

    Table 2: Stages 4-5

Stage

Summary

View of Knowledge

Concept of Justification

Typical

Statement

Stage 4

Evidence is now seen as important to the construction of knowledge claims, along with the acknowledgment that a belief cannot be known with absolute certainty for pragmatic reasons. thus, knowledge claims are idiosyncratic to the individual.

Knowledge is uncertain and knowledge claims are idiosyncratic to the individual because of situational variables (e.g., incorrect reporting of data, data lost over time, or disparities in access to information; these factors dictate that any knowledge claim contains an element of uncertainty.

Since there is no source of certainty for one's beliefs, beliefs are justified by giving reasons that are often idiosyncratic, such as choosing evidence that fits an established belief.

"I'd be more including to believe evolution if they had proof. It's just like the pyramids: I don't think we'll ever know. Who are you going to ask? No one was there."

Stage 5

Types of evidence are differentiated within perspectives (e.g., historical or scientific evidence). Further, different rules of inquiry across perspectives or disciplines are recognized. Quality of evidence is also evaluated as strong/weak, relevant/irrelevant, etc. Evidence is not an end in itself, but is used to construct interpretations.

Knowledge is seen as contextual and subjective. Since it is filtered through a person's perceptions and criteria for judgment, only interpretations of evidence may be known.

Beliefs are justified within a particular context using the rules of inquiry for that contest, with the understanding that justification is context-specific or that beliefs are balanced against each other. Each approach has the effect of complicating and delaying judgments.

"People think differently and so they attack the problem differently. Other theories could be as true as my own, but based on different evidence."