The ProQuest and Google Scholar databases were explored for literature relevant to the research problem. Box 1 sets out the keywords and Boolean operators used for this study.

All the selected literature was critically analysed to determine the gaps as well as inconsistencies relating to the delineation of the concept of integrated thinking. This was done by identifying the justification, analysis, methodology, findings, conclusions and interpretation of each study (Schirmer 2018). A diverse range of worldwide literature was chosen and studied, with consideration given to publications from authoritative institutions and authors recognised as experts in their fields. In order to acquire a worldwide view on the topic, the authors rather studied literature from a global viewpoint of just a single geographic perspective. Preference was given to peer-reviewed journal articles. Originally, approximately 110 sources were consulted, but based on the above inclusion criteria and preferences, some sources were excluded in this study. Ultimately, 69 sources were selected to write up this study. The sources selected to perform this study include journal articles (both peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed) (45), Doctoral theses (2), books (6), documents published on websites (13) and conference proceedings (3). The study was conducted during the period June 2022–May 2023 in South Africa.

The main objective of this article is to delineate integrated thinking from critical thinking, systems thinking and design thinking in order to gain a clear understanding of what exactly integrated thinking is. All sources were examined in order to identify the unique characteristics of each thinking model. These characteristics were then compared across the different thinking models examined in order to identify patterns and differences. In this process, the similarities and differences between the different thinking models became clear.

Once the first three steps of the Framework Sequence were completed, the literature review (which follows in the next section) was written.

This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.

The IIRC (2020), and other global professional bodies, such as SAICA (2021b), refer to the term ‘integrated thinking’. However, the term ‘integrated thinking’ is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘integrative thinking’. There seems to be uncertainty about which concept arises first in the human mind and from an organisational perspective: integrated thinking or integrative thinking (McGuigan et al. 2020). Recent literature published in 2020 argues that integrative thinking arises in an individual, which then leads to the possibility of integrated thinking taking place within an organisation (McGuigan et al. 2020). This implies that before integrated thinking can develop within an organisation, integrative thinking abilities must first be developed within the individuals in the organisation. Integrative thinking necessitates an individual’s conscious and continual growth of their ability to manage complexity, adaptability and open-mindedness in order to cognitively process the world around them (Miller 1981). Research on the development of integrative thinking in fields other than accounting during higher education seems to prefer the term integrative thinking over integrated thinking (Kallio 2011; Lattemann & Fritz 2014; O’Keefe et al. 2021; Ortega, Lagoudas & Froyd 2017). This confirms the views of McGuigan et al. (2020) as these articles refer to the development of integrative thought within an individual. However, in order to avoid confusion, this article will consistently refer to the term integrated thinking as opposed to integrative thinking as this is the preferred term for the professional accounting bodies IIRC, IFAC and SAICA.

The concept of integrated thinking is still vague and only gained popularity as a research topic in recent years (Adams 2017; Busco et al. 2021; Ecim & Maroun 2022; Maroun et al. 2022; McGuigan et al. 2020). Decision-making is inherently an ambiguous process and not all problems merit the use of integrated thinking; it is usually applied when solving complex and/or ill-structured problems (Martin & Austen 1999). Integrated thinking is described as an art that involves a creative process and emphasises that it is not an algorithm or formula (Martin & Austen 1999). Integrated thinkers manage tension while embracing complexity, tolerating uncertainty and producing innovative solutions to issues (Martin & Austin 1999).

Although there is no central definition for integrated thinking (Lattemann & Fritz 2014), research by academics and institutions in the field of integrated thinking has provided some definitions for integrated thinking that include:

Despite the fact that there is no central definition to describe integrated thinking (as described in the previous section), the IOWA State Department of Education developed an ‘Integrated Thinking Model’ to assist in further understanding the concept of integrated thinking. According to this model, integrated thinking is a combination of basic thinking, creative thinking and critical thinking (Burklund et al. 1989:16). Figure 1 visually illustrates the interconnectivity between the diverse types of thinking, and it is clear that Integrated thinking is the culmination of integrating all three types of thinking. The thinking types are described as follows (Burklund et al. 1989):

Critical thinking, integrated thinking, design thinking and systems thinking are often likened to each other. Whilst there are similarities, there most definitely are also differences. The next two sections list the differences and similarities between integrated thinking and other types of thinking in the pursuit of delineating the parameters of integrated thinking.

Roger Martin, a previous Dean of the Rotman School of Business at the University of Toronto, published several books relating to integrated thinking and is well known for his work on integrated thinking (Martin 2007, 2009; Martin & Austen 1999). Martin believes that critical thinking is based on choosing the better of several options (Wallace 2011). Martin (Wallace 2011) strongly believes that once you have taught your students critical thinking, they will not necessarily be able to think in an integrated manner and meaningfully across disciplines. According to Martin (Wallace 2011), the ability to teach integrated thinking is a separate science. Boix Mansilla (2016) makes a strong point that interdisciplinary synthesis requires intentional instruction, it is not just an add-on or a process that simply happens on its own.

Graham Douglas (2006) agrees with the views of Martin and states that each individual has a critical mind and an integrated mind and believes that the critical mind is merely a component of an integrated mind. This choice of wording suggests that the integrated mind goes beyond the critical mind. In training individuals to think critically, reasoning is dehumanised, and individuals are taught to think ‘inside the box’ (Douglas 2006:5). This type of thinking cannot deal with the increasingly interdependent world in which humans function and it is crucial to, in addition to teaching critical thinking, teach individuals to think in an integrated manner (Douglas 2006). Based on the views of Martin and Douglas discussed earlier, it is the authors’ conclusion that integrated thinking is the pinnacle of higher-order thinking skills. In order to understand the difference between integrated thinking and critical thinking, it is important to revisit Bloom’s Taxonomy, as revised in 2001 (Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart 2014). Bloom’s Taxonomy is a multi-tiered approach for categorising thought, based on six cognitive levels of complexity (Forehand 2005). The taxonomy is hierarchical, with higher levels subsuming lower levels (Forehand 2005). A student who is able to create is thus also able to evaluate, but a student who is able to evaluate cannot necessarily create. From this perspective, a student who is able to think in an integrated manner can thus also think critically. But a student who can think critically is not necessarily able to think in an integrated manner.

In order to differentiate integrated thinking from critical thinking, it is important to understand exactly what critical thinking entails. Once a thorough understanding of critical thinking is established, the differences between critical thinking and integrated thinking can be determined. Critical thinking involves the application of cognitive abilities that are intentional, motivated and goal-directed to make decisions and find solutions to issues (Halpern 2013). Critical thinking is a metacognitive process that increases the chances of generating a rational conclusion to an argument or solution to a problem through purposeful, reflective judgement (McGuigan & Kern 2016). The teaching of critical thinking skills still receives a lot of attention in the educational arena as it allows students to go beyond the simple retention of information (Terblanche 2018).

Critical thinking equips the individual to gain a more complicated understanding of the information provided (Fogarty 2010). Critical thinking involves application, analysis and evaluation of an issue presented. In none of the definitions of critical thinking by three well-known researchers, Ennis (1985), Paul (1992) and Halpern (2013), the concept of creativity is stated. Thus, critical thinking involves higher-order thinking skills, but not necessarily the ability to create (and be creative). In the literature relating to integrated thinking, there is a significant link between integrated thinking and the ability to be creative (Chang et al. 2015, Martin 2009; McGuigan & Kern 2016; McGuigan et al. 2020; Miller 1981; Oliver, Vesty & Brooks 2016; Sill 1996; Syolendra & Laksono 2019; Wang & Ruhe 2007). The decision-making approach to complex issues in an integrated manner is based on finding new, creative solutions rather than simply choosing the best solution from a list of alternatives (Martin 2009). The ability to create and be creative is seen as the pinnacle of Bloom’s Taxonomy (refer to Figure 2).

In the interest of clearly demarcating the concept of integrated thinking, it is important to analyse the similarities and differences between integrated thinking, design thinking and systems thinking. The literature underpinning the definition, use, tenets and visual representation of each thought process was analysed and is summarised in Table 1. As can be seen from Table 1, each of the types of thinking analysed has a few definitions that have developed over time and lack a central definition, which makes the analysis of the differences and similarities between them difficult. The lines between the different thinking methods seem blurred. Systems thinking is sometimes described as a component of design thinking (Long 2012) and other times as separate but related to design thinking (Patel & Khanjan 2017) and sometimes they are regarded as not related at all (Greene, Gonzalez & Papalambros 2017). Integrated thinking is thought to have its theoretical roots in soft systems thinking and is akin to a systems thinking perspective (Oliver et al. 2016). On the other hand, integrated thinking is also described as the thinking method that design thinkers use (Dunne, Martin & Rotman 2006). As can be seen from this discussion, the lines between integrated thinking, systems thinking and design thinking are extremely blurred.

From the literature summarised above in Table 1, the following conclusions can be made: