Introduction

This chapter explores evidence on the extent to which cognitive and affective elements of critical thought, self-reflection and related actions currently shape, or do not shape, leadership influence and decision-making in higher education institutions, systems and policymaking in global contexts. It explores the ways in which higher education leadership in different national situations at variable levels engages with or ignores the transformational potential of challenging, rigorous analysis and self-regulatory criticality. Shattock’s views on critical thinking in research-intensive cultures (2017) are a useful counterpoint to global pressures on state-driven, managerial, massified and marketised higher education (Tapper and Palfreyman, 2000). Barnett’s (1997) views on critical thinking as ‘critical being’, combining cognitive skills with ‘critical self-reflection’ and ‘critical action’, are discussed. The chapter sets the scene for the next two introductory chapters and the international case studies in Part Two.