Ahead: From English. Forward, in front, the ability to see beyond.

The growing pursuit of improving the well-being of individuals immersed in various processes within socio-health environments highlights the need to reconsider how we carry out a conscious and quality architecture.

However, the question arises of how to achieve this, in what way, and under what guidelines.

In a world saturated with information and various sources to access it, we often come across documents that use terms like “duty,” “obligation,” and “commitment” to prescribe a specific design. This may sound almost dogmatic (teaching, not preaching).

The challenge arises when we face complex situations that prevent us from fulfilling those duties. Sometimes, regulations prevail; other times, specific client needs or economic limitations come into play. Faced with this reality, it is likely to experience unpleasant sensations such as frustration or limitations in action. However, it is through the flexibility of our thinking and approaches that we can generate questions, navigate “crises,” and seek alternative perspectives. This fosters debate, the exchange of ideas among colleagues, and the creation of new approaches, allowing us to address biases and make our work more objective and far-reaching.

In this context, we propose introducing the concept of “critical thinking” [1] [2] [3] and appreciating its positive contribution to the design processes. According to Jacques Boisvert[4], in his book “Formation of Critical Thinking: Theory and Practice” (2004), it operates in three ways: as a thinking strategy, as a research method, and as a process.

Likewise, critical thinking involves an awareness to contrast social, political, ethical, and personal reality. In a way, it represents a commitment to “the other” and society by adopting a transformative action stance at an individual and social level (Lipman 1987).

This ability to analyze, understand, compare, classify, synthesize, solve problems, make decisions, form concepts, use creative thinking, plan, and evaluate, among other things, allows us to be more objective about reality and prioritize within projects.[5] [6]

As J. Albisua et al express in the paper “Critical Thinking from the Perspective of University Teachers”[7], the key “does not lie in being right but in considering all possibilities and relying on reason more than emotion, avoiding letting our biases skew our decisions (Kurland 2005).”

–

–

–

References

[1] Armas, M. A., & Saavedra, M. M. (2007). Styles of thinking, types of leadership, and educational styles in university teachers. Trujillo Psychology Journal, 9, 81-91.

[2] Martín García, Victor, and Barrientos Bradasic, Oscar. (2009). “The domains of critical thinking: a reading from the theory of education.” University of Salamanca, Spain.

[3] Naessens, H. (2015). Comparison between two authors of critical thinking: Jacques Boisvert and Richard Paul-Linda Elder.

[4] Boisvert, Jacques. (2004). Formation of Critical Thinking: Theory and Practice. Ed: Fondo de la cultura económica. Mexico.

[5] López Jara, D. C., Sánchez Perdomo, L. P., & Herrera Sánchez, S. (2018). Critical thinking and cognitive skills: a documentary analysis in the Latin American educational context.

[6] Journal article. University of the Basque Country – “Critical thinking: practices and employment.”

[7] Bezanilla-Albisua, M. J., Poblete-Ruiz, M., Fernández-Nogueira, D., Arranz-Turnes, S., & Campo-Carrasco, L. (2018). Critical thinking from the perspective of university teachers. Pedagogical Studies (Valdivia), 44(1), 89-113.