This book review is published in
International Journal of General Systems, vol. 37, no. 2, April 2008, 135-138.

THE NATURE OF INTELLECTUAL STYLES, by Li-Fang Zhang and
Robert J. Sternberg, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey and London, United Kingdom, 2006, xii +235 pages, ISBN 0-8058-5288-3 (pbk).

Introduction
Numerous reasons exist for dealing with intellectual styles in a journal on general systems, indeed in any professional journal. Psychologists study ‘cognitive systems’ (strongly controlled by personality) with ‘intellectual-style’ research examining preferred ways of thinking, problem solving, decision-making, teaching/instructing and learning. Mismatching style with these activities can be disastrous as many catastrophes illustrate. The more we understand about these styles the better our professional and private approaches in the context of job performance, social behavior, interpersonal interaction, communication, sense of morality, emotional well-being, etc. Be convinced: see Table 8.1 for ‘nine intellectual style models’ comprising ‘32 individual thinking styles’, matched through ‘key characteristics’ with practical applications! Caveat: intellectual style research assumes a liberal democracy exists and ‘intellectual style’ is a generic/collective term for a longer list of specific styles, such as analytic, cognitive, perceptual, thinking, executive, holistic, intuitive, non-verbal, learning, mind, and numerous other styles mentioned in the book.

Contents
The book deals with the following: the Preface and Introduction is followed by Part I. The Field of Intellectual Styles: Chapter 2. Surveying the field. Part II. Ch. 3. Styles research; student oriented; Ch.4. … teacher oriented; Ch.5. … applications in non-academic settings. Part III. Empirical Studies: Integrative Models and the Theory of Mental Self-Government. Ch. 6. Existing models of styles; Ch. 7. Theory of mental self-government; Part IV. Intellectual Styles: Reconceptualization and Application. Ch. 8. A threefold model; Ch.9. Conclusions and future directions. Finally, there are references to many (30 pages) important publications, and the authors and subjects indexes, both well-done.


Coverage: merely examples
The two authors provide a comprehensive panoramic review of much of the earlier and recent information of the field of intellectual styles through comparatively/contrastively describing, analyzing, and integrating the major theoretical works, as practically tested in various domains. Clearly deliberated are the origins, historical development (including roller-coaster phenomena of ignoring and recent resurrection), major conceptual constructs/models of different theorists. Three major empirical controversial issues are dealt with continually throughout the book (p.2): namely, ‘styles as traits vs. states; diverse styles as different constructs vs. similar constructs merely with different labels; and integrated models of styles, but no unification framework found as yet.’ The book also deals with various other major controversies (p. 3): ‘all intellectual styles have conceptual underpinnings characterized by high vs. low degree of structure, cognitive simplicity vs. complexity, conformity vs. unconformity, authority vs. autonomy, group-based vs. individualistic’ – using a bipolar-like continuum. Major arguments are presented – each addressing in several part of the book the controversial issues: ‘style values (e.g. better vs. worse or as equal in merit), style malleability, and style overlap (i.e. many labels given), 54 style dimensions and interrelationships of styles identified/classified (p. 5) on both the conceptual vs. empirical level.’
Individual models, based on empirical research, provide an excellent overview of: foundations and trends, investigative challenges, style overlaps, various reciprocal influences and controls (e.g. personality traits, academic performance, socialization, behaviors), among others. As to applications described: influences on instructors’ intellectual styles, styles and psychological well-being, teaching behavior, teacher/student match/mismatch; and much more.
Somewhat deeper descriptions and discussions deal with numerous models of cognitive processes and styles, comparing/contrasting four integrative models, and the need for a new integrative model (provided by the authors). This is succeeded by the hypothesis and its assessment of mental self-government research findings. Finally, the proposed requirement for reconceptualization and application of intellectual styles’ hypothesis are dealt with in a threefold model’s construction, and involved criteria-for-inclusion, measurements and empirical evidence.
The numerous types of complexities identified and dealt with by the ongoing research into intellectual styles are obvious throughout the book: no-one can use merely ‘common sense’ in attempts to find the most appropriate style for particular situations, although we ‘got by’ so far, it seems! One exemplar of complexity: three types of style values have been investigated: Type I, being more positive, more adaptive; type II, more negative, less adaptive; and type III, being value-differentiated, i.e. either positive or negative as they posses characteristics of both types I and II depending on task, situation, etc. [i.e. being field- (discipline-) dependent vs. field-independent]. Many addtional complexities are highlighted throughout the book.
The long list of references clearly indicates that the field of intellectual styles has been comprehensively covered. Yet, certain overlapping schools of thought were ignored – e.g. see Gardner (1991, 1993, and his many earlier and more recent publications) and other researchers.

Style of presentation
This book offers an exemplary style because all chapters have either a ‘summary’ or a ‘conclusions and future research’ section. Transitional or connective statements are liberally used throughout the book to proffer a logical direction of where the authors are cognitively coming from and proceeding towards. There are no woolly constructs to baffle the reader to force him/her to reread, in contrast to some ‘philosophy’ book I have reviewed (i.e. seemingly ‘esoteric books’ only because of the highfalutin, pompous, bombastic style of English used). The present book prefers crisp, lucid, short, clearly phrased sentences. Yet, motivation is required to wade through the wealth of information.
The reader must expect some psychological, philosophical, and related terminologies with which they may not be acquainted, but the descriptions and discussions are definitely not of the esoteric genre! Yet, perhaps a Glossary would have been helpful (e.g. both ‘wholistic’ and ‘holistic’ are used many times, though in different contexts: what are the differences?).
The preface and Chapter 1. Introduction is commendable first reading. The Subject Index and Contents are likewise appealing inasmuch as many subheadings are neatly dividing the chapters into short well-constructed sections, thus allowing a quick overview of the topics. This latter approach is particularly highly recommended inasmuch as I have been criticizing the cumbersome style of many books.
There is one aspect of presentation which I recommend for the second edition: much information could be presented more eye-pleasingly (also good for quickly finding data) by employing lists or tables (by either using bullets, numbers or letters), as exemplified by the numbered lists on pages137 and 148. For instance, the text-information on pages 66, 95, 147, 172, and 176 could benefit from this logical approach, because why repeat ‘it may depend …’ four times (page 66), and the ‘first, second, third, fourth’ on page 95 is preferred as a list. The data from several schools of thought and from many scholars could have been delivered in comparative/contrastive-style tables, as beautifully exemplified by five tables and two figures.

Applicability and readership
Authors emphasis: the book should appeal to those engaged in teaching, students, learning, and, of course, research -- separate chapters are devoted to these. Even students’ teacher evaluations are dealt with; extrapolate to the adult working setting! The chapter dealing with non-academic applications of the style research result, like all others, is chiefly based on a review of the published literature. I feel the latter could have been broader in analysis: many unmentioned professions working in any scientific and technological theoretical (abstract, conceptual) and applied/practical (e.g. vocational, engineering, mathematicians, medical, etc.) knowledge domain could have been mentioned (although some have been just too-briefly so). Anyone, especially, leaders (educate the blind leading the blind!), managers, planners, instructors, psychologists, sociologists, counselors, teachers (reconsider the ‘student-self-esteem’ excuses) … will enhance their work and private life! The more intellectually demanding, the more we must know about ‘thinking styles’!

Broader context: suggestion
Future research ought to demonstrate that intellectual styles must be of interest to those engaged in disciplines or knowledge domains far beyond those highlighted by the two authors. For example, anyone engaged in research in the scientific and technological domains, as well as in the humanities (using this generic/collective term to comprise all other domains), absolutely can benefit from considering in planning and implementing research programs the characteristics of the 32 ‘intellectual styles’ of their staff! Note also that many available books on creativity, discovery, serendipity, rhetoric/argumentation, fallacious thinking, etc., have not been mentioned

References

● GARDNER, H. 1991. The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach (New York: Basic Books, HarperCollins Publishers).
● GARDNER. H., 1993. Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice (New York: Basic Books, HarperCollins, Publishers.

Karl H. Wolf, Emeritus Professor of Geology