IB520-99 ONLINE/EMERGING MARKETS
ASSIGNMENTS SPRING 2020
General Guidelines
• Use the Critical Guidelines
• Answer all questions related to the assignment
• Length: ten pages
• Reference at least five sources
• Samsung (Korea)
• Use the online rankings: Global Edge http://globaledge.msu.edu/ Country Commercial Guides: www.buyusainfo.net
• Paper must be based on your assigned region Korea
Assignment 3
Analyze the internationalization process of an Emerging Market Multinational Enterprises. Pay attention to the following: industry in which company competes, motivations for internationalization, selection of foreign markets, choice of entry mode, and performance. Select a company (Samsung) of your choice from an emerging market (Korea). Discuss the internationalization of your case study.
Recommended Books on Emerging Markets
• Dolfsma, W., G. Duysters, and I. Costa. 2009. Multinationals and Emerging Markets. Cheltenham, UK; Edward Elgan.
• Gutpa, A.K and H. Wang. 2009. Getting China and India right. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Jansson, H. 2007. International Business Marketing in Emerging Country Markets. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgan
• Jannson, H. 2007. International Business Strategy in Emerging Country Markets. Cheltenhem, UK: Edward Elgan
• Rai, V. and W.L. Simon. 2008. Think India. New York: Penguin
• Sauvant, K.P. (Editor). 2008. The Rise of Transnational Corporations from Emerging Markets. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgan.
Recommended Journals
• International Journal of Emerging Markets
• Harvard Business Review
Critical Thinking: An Explication
CTTF
While it is unlikely that any one single definition will capture what everyone calls “critical thinking”, we will attempt to provide an explication of ‘critical thinking’. Our explication will be an attempt to provide Pittsburg State University a practical and precise account of ‘critical thinking’ so as to ensure the best for our students. The need for this explication is for assessing our students’ performance to strengthen their critical thinking skills.
§1 The Basis of the Explication
Critical thinking (henceforth, CT) is to be identified with abilities and activities. In perhaps its simplest form, CT is analyzing what is said, assessing what is said, acquiring evidence for claims when it is needed, combining information in a coherent way, identifying mistakes in reasoning, questioning things that do not make sense, and making decisions based upon the best information and arguments available. While this account is too vague to guide measurement, it reflects the spirit of that with which we are looking. CT is a tool. It is a tool that is essential for inquiry.
Rather than explicating CT as a set of mental states or character traits, we propose to identify CT as the process of reasoning rooted in a skill set. This skill set is a set of cognitive skills. This set represent those features which students should develop from CT instruction. The cognitive skills represent the core set of skills needed in order to think critically. These skills are the ones needed in every area of life and does not rely on any domain-specific knowledge. While most domain-specific instruction does use these cognitive skills, CT instruction focuses upon these skills themselves and not any specific domain.
§2 Cognitive Skills
We identify six CT cognitive skill categories. For each cognitive skill category, we will identify those skills which characterize that category. The six categories are:
1. Interpretation
2. Analysis
3. Evaluation
4. Inference
5. Explanation
6. Self-Regulation
It must be understood that these are general categories of skills and should not be looked at as if they represent singular skills. Furthermore, categories 1-5 represent for us clear measurable skills while category 6 represents an essential skill in CT, but one which cannot be measured in the same way. Self-regulation would require that the instruction be part of the development of the student’s reasoning/project. While it is not in principle impossible to measure, it would require a more direct method. We will now explicate each.
§2.1 Interpretation
Interpretation is the specifying of the meaning of experiences, judgments, conventions, data, situations, procedures, criteria, rules, or beliefs. This can be sub-divided into:
• Categorization
o The apprehension of and formulation of categories, distinctions, or frameworks.
• Identification of Significance
o The detection, identification, and description of content including, but not exclusively to, informational, intentional, affective, normative, inferential, etc.
• Clarification of Meaning
o The reconstruction of content to make explicit through paraphrasing, stipulation, description, analogy, etc.
§2.2 Analysis
Analysis is the identification of the actual and intentional inferential relationships between the elements of lines of reasoning. This can be sub-divided into:
• Examination of Ideas
o Activities include determination of the roles of expressions used, definition of terms, conceptual comparison, identification of issues/problems and their component parts.
• Detection of Arguments
o The identification of the statements which are to function as premises and those which are conclusions.
• Analyzing Arguments
o The ability to differentiate implicit and explicit premises, conclusions, structure of arguments, type of argument being used, and the validity and soundness, or strength or weakness of arguments.
§2.3 Evaluation
Evaluation is the assessment of the credence of statements or the logical strength of arguments. This can be sub-divided in two ways:
• Assessment of Claims
o Assessment of the warrant as a source of information.
o Assessment of the contextual relevance of the information.
o Assessment of the confidence level able to be attached to the information.
o Assessment of the truth or falsity of the claim.
• Assessment of Arguments
o Determination as to whether the argument is inductive, deductive, or abductive.
o Assessment of the truth of the premises.
o Assessment of the type of argument and the inferences being made in terms of validity, soundness, and/or strength.
o Assessment of any formal or informal fallacies in the argument.
§2.4 Inference
Inference refers to the ability to identify the elements needed and to draw reasonable conclusions. This can be sub-divided into:
• Evidential Inquiry
o Judgment of informational relevancy.
o Identification of premises which require further support and the development of a strategy to acquire that support.
• Identification of Alternatives
o Formulation of multiple strategies for problem solving.
o The projection of alternative hypotheses.
o The identification of presuppositions and the possible consequences of a line of reasoning.
• Drawing Conclusions
o Given a set of premises and their support, to draw forth with proper logical strength (given the type of argument it is) the conclusion which is entailed.
§2.5 Explanation
We take explanation to be the statement of the results of one’s reasoning. This may also include the justification of considerations that went into the reasoning. This can be sub-divided into:
• Statement of Results
o The accurate production of the results of one’s reasoning.
• Justification of Procedures
o The presentation of the methodological, conceptual, evidential, criteriological, and contextual considerations in the reasoning.
• Presentation of Arguments
o The ability to give reasons for one’s reasoning and why others are to accept that reasoning.
o This may also include responding to possible objections to that reasoning.
§2.6 Self-Regulation
Self-regulation refers to the ability to monitor one’s own cognitive activity. This self-monitoring includes, but is not limited to, the ability to correct one’s previous mistaken reasoning, evaluation of one’s own inferences, and the reformulation of the reasoning in light of new information. This can be sub-divided into:
• Self-Examination
o Reflection on the cognitive skills used, the methods one used, and the application of the previous elements of critical thinking in one’s reasoning.
o Reflection on one’s own beliefs and reasons for holding those beliefs and reasons.
o Identification of one’s own epistemic deficiencies.
o Identification of one’s own biases, prejudices, emotions, etc which may affect reasoning.
o Reflection on the motivation, intentions, and interests underlying the reasoning.
o Reflection as to whether critical thinking was necessary to the issue.
• Self-Correction
o The ability to correct any errors or deficiencies in one’s reasoning.
o The ability to design ways of correcting those errors or deficiencies.