Patricia Kitchener's Reflective Judgment Model

Epistemological and Intellectual Development is very interesting because this when an individual starts to make judgements based on their belief and opinions. Many theorist and researchers have offered their view and model on how an individual goes about answering ill-structured problems. Patricia King and Karen Kitchener have both offered that their Reflective Judgement Model best defines what happens with an individual as they development arguments to answer ill-structured problems. Their model can be tied to Marcia’s Ego Identity Statuses theory in their similarity. In the end, the Reflective Judgment Model should be used to better understand and support colleges students in the journey to become competent adults in their future.
Before
developing the Reflective Judgement Model, Patricia King and Karen Kitchener have always had an interest in ethics and social development. Kitchener had written and researched on ethics of therapist and client dual relationships can lead to disaster in articles like Dual Role Relationships: What Makes Them So Problematic? And Introduction to Special Feature. In these articles, Kitchener explains that it is not only unethical for a therapist to engage in sexual relationships with their clients, but that there is role conflict that occurs with therapist and the client when they have sexual relations. On the other hand, King looked at how social and cognitive development models could be revised and better applied. In King’s article, The Stage Sequence Concept in Cognitive and Social Development, King concludes that measures of cognitive and social development is the result of the combinations of behaviors rather than the strength of on distinct behavior.
Patricia King and Karen Kitchener developed the Reflective Judgement Model for how people develop arguments and form judgements, specifically ill-structured problems.
Ill-structured problems being complex and controversial problems that are perplexing and for which a solution cannot be known with completeness, certainty, or correctness.This theory was a revision and expansion on William Perry’s Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development (1968). In Perry’s theory, there are nine positions that a person moves through developing during transition, but the is no age range attached to each position. Most researchers group these positions into stages. The first stage is dualism, where an individual believes that there is only one answer and that knowledge comes from authority without questioning the information being received. The second stage is multiplicity, here the person begins to have thoughts and behaviors that do not match and that all opinions are equally valid, regardless if it comes from authority. The third stage is relativism, where an individual believes that not all opinions are valid and that those opinions must have evidence to support them. If the evidence is valid to the individual, they may adopt the opinion themselves. The fourth stage is commitment in relativism, here the person realizes that they must have stances on issues and understand the context of having those stances. Perry’s theory inspired King and Kitchener to expand on Perry’s final stage
“commitment in relativism”, which would result in their Reflective Judgement Model.
The Reflective Judgement Model is a developmental progression of seven stages and those stages are grouped into three levels.
The first level is pre-reflective thinking. In this level (stages 1, 2, and 3), individuals believe that there is one answer for every question and knowledge comes from authority figures or from personal observation. The second level is quasi-reflective thinking. In this level (stages 4 and 5), individuals recognize that uncertainty is part of the process of obtaining knowledge and see some situations as problematic. In addition, individuals believe that everyone has an opinion and that those are all valid because no one really has all the answers. The third level is reflective thinking. Here in this level (stages 6 and 7), individuals are able to have judgements and have valid arguments about ill-structured
problems.
When looking at the stages of the Reflective Judgement Model it easier to see why certain stages are grouped together and the progression an individual goes through to make judgement calls on difficult issues. In stage 1, the person assumes knowledge is absolute and concrete and justifies it with actually witnessing it. In stage 2, the individual thinks that knowledge is absolute and concrete or that it can be obtain in the future. They conclude this because the knowledge is acquired by authority. In stage 3, the person is believes that knowledge is absolute or temporary not obtainable. The difference between stages 2 and 3 is the justification of the knowledge. In areas where concrete answers exist, they are justified by authority figures. In areas where concrete answers do not exist, they are justified by personal opinions because the link between evidence and beliefs is unclear. In stage 4, the individual understands knowledge is not concrete or absolute because of situation variables such as data lost over time. The justification behind this opinions are backed by reasons and evidence, but the opinion and choice of evidence are based of preference. In stage 5, the person considers knowledge to be biased and circumstantial because it is filtered by a person’s view, ergo interpretations, not knowledge can be known. The justification is that every person’s opinion is valid because it based on different evidence. In stage 6, the individual believes that knowledge comes from individual conclusions on ill-structured problems based on a collection of different evidence. The justification comes from weight different opinion and basing off the evidence, whether the opinion is valid. In stage 7, the person believes that knowledge is the product of legitimate probing in which solutions to ill-structured problems are established. The justification comes from having beliefs that are rationalized and conclusions about ill-structured problems are defended.