How the STEM Controversy Points to a Tougher Issue in Strategy

A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education illustrates a critical issue in strategy formation for schools (or, really, for any type of organization): the difficulty of collecting valid, accurate and useful information about the current and likely future environments. Michael Anft, the article's author, pokes holes in the notion that the United States suffers from a deficit of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) graduates and thus will be increasingly unable to innovate in the future as it has done in the past. Anft's piece is in stark contrast to numerous claims by others that North America is losing the STEM race to East and South Asian countries; claims that are foundational to many independent schools' attempts at bolstering STEM capacity.Setting aside for this post the question of who is correct, the question this situation begs is how administrators and board members can know that the environmental data and analysis underpinning strategy is sound. When credible scholars are on both sides of an issue that is seemingly answerable with evidence, it calls into question whether any data can ever be interpreted independently of political or economic agendas. Best, assuming "truth" is elusive, to at least understand how these forces impinge on our view of reality.