Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 10 March 2013, At: 12:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Reflective Practice: International andMultidisciplinary PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crep20
Developing critically reflective practiceNeil Thompson a & Jan Pascal ba Avenue Consulting Ltd, 1 Worcester Road, Bangor on Dee,Wrexham, LL13 0JB, Wales, UKb La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, AustraliaVersion of record first published: 22 Feb 2012.
To cite this article: Neil Thompson & Jan Pascal (2012): Developing critically reflective practice,Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 13:2, 311-325
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2012.657795
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Developing critically reflective practice
Neil Thompsona* and Jan Pascalb
aAvenue Consulting Ltd, 1 Worcester Road, Bangor on Dee, Wrexham, LL13 0JB, Wales,UK; bLa Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
(Received 31 October 2011; final version received 9 December 2011)
Reflective practice has become an influential concept in various forms of profes-sional education, for example, in nursing and social work. However, there hasbeen a common tendency for it to be oversimplified in practice, and, further-more, dominant understandings of reflective practice can themselves be criti-cised for lacking theoretical sophistication in some respects – particularly inrelation to the social and political dimensions of learning and professional prac-tice. This paper therefore seeks to clarify the theoretical underpinnings of reflec-tive practice and to propose developments in relation to the missing sociologicalelements. It briefly reviews current dominant understandings of reflective prac-tice before proposing developments in the theory base to make it more theoreti-cally sophisticated in general and more sociologically informed in particular. Inthis way, the foundations for a critically reflective practice are sketched out.
Keywords: beyond Schön; sociology; critically reflective practice
Introduction
There is considerable irony in the fact that reflective practice involves the notion ofintegrating theory and practice (Thompson, 2000), but the theory base underpinningit has remained relatively underdeveloped in relation to the relative importance andpopularity of the subject matter. That is, while there has been much discussion abouttheoretical concerns in relation to reflective practice, there remains considerable scopefor developing a more sophisticated understanding of the subject. For example, wecontinue to have only a beginning understanding of what actually happens whenknowledge is integrated into practice in a meaningful way or how knowledge is gen-erated from practice (see Fook, Ryan, & Hawkins, 2000, for a discussion of the workin this field). A further irony is that the theory underpinning reflective practice isoften not integrated with practice, in so far as there is evidence of considerable confu-sion among a large number of practitioners about what reflective practice entails. Forexample, one of the present authors has, as an external examiner, encountered a largenumber of portfolios submitted for a professional educational award in which, underthe heading of ‘evidence of reflective practice’, there was simply a superficial discus-sion of having paused for thought from time to time – with no indication of analysis,no links to an underlying professional knowledge base and no hint of being able todraw out learning or new knowledge from the experience.
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Reflective PracticeVol. 13, No. 2, April 2012, 311–325
ISSN 1462-3943 print/ISSN 1470-1103 online� 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2012.657795http://www.tandfonline.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
12:
58 1
0 M
arch
201
3
Fook, White, and Gardner (2006) also show concern about the prevalence ofsuperficial understandings of reflective practice when they state that:
It is interesting that popular and perhaps relatively uninformed understandings of reflec-tive practice and critical reflection have such sway in the field. Perhaps this points toan underlying construction of them as essentially practices which are developed in the‘doing’ of them rather than their more formal theorization. Such thinking would ofcourse be consistent in some ways with the approaches themselves, but to privilege‘practical theory’ over that derived from other means is not necessarily consistent withall conceptualizations of reflective practice and critical reflection. (pp. 5–6)
As we shall see below, such simplistic understandings are a far cry from the sophis-tication of genuinely reflective practice.
Given both the relatively underdeveloped nature of reflective practice theory, anda common tendency to misread that theory, there is considerable scope for develop-ing the theory base and improving its implementation in practice. This paper is there-fore a contribution to helping us move in that direction by (1) reviewing some keyelements of what has now come to be a traditional understanding of reflective prac-tice; and (2) proposing the development and consolidation of a more sociologicallyinformed critically reflective practice. Much of the literature on reflective practicefocuses on actual examples of reflection (see, for example, Causarano, 2011;Edwards, Cleland, Bailey, McLachlan, & McVey, 2004), which are valuablecontributions to our understanding, but which need to be complemented by furthertheory development (Thompson & Pascal, 2011).
We begin by exploring what is involved in what has now come to be the estab-lished ‘traditional’ form of reflective practice that draws heavily on the work ofSchön. It is this form of reflective practice that can be seen as the foundation –albeit in a diluted version that does little justice to its theoretical foundations – forso much of the largely unsophisticated practice that is so commonly found. We thenmove on to consider significant gaps in the theory base relating to reflective practiceand sketch out how these can begin to be filled, especially by taking account of thesociological dimensions of learning and professional practice. This latter element ishelpful in assisting us to understand what is meant by critically reflective practice.
Reflective practice: the beginnings of a theory base
What has now become established as the traditional basis of understanding under-pinning reflective practice can be summarised under three main headings: the cri-tique of technical rationality; the artistry of professional practice; and reflectivelearning. We shall explore each of these in turn.
The critique of technical rationality
The influential work of Donald Schön (1983, 1987, 1992) established an approachto both direct practice and professional development which has featured extensivelyin nurse education for many years (Jasper, 2003; Palmer, Burns, & Bulman, 1994;Taylor, 2006) as well as the education field (Brookfield, 1995, Osterman &Kottkamp, 2004), and has now established itself in social work and social care(Gould & Taylor, 1996; Lovelock, Lyons, & Powell, 2004; Thompson, 2006;Thompson & Bates, 1996; Thompson & Thompson, 2008). There is now increasing
312 N. Thompson and J. Pascal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
12:
58 1
0 M
arch
201
3
evidence that reflective practice issues are also featuring significantly in relation tomanagement and organisation theory (Bates, 2004; Reynolds & Vince, 2004).Reflective practice involves moving away from traditional approaches to learning,with their emphasis on ‘technical rationality’. Schön and those who have adoptedthe mantle of reflective practice are critical of misguided attempts to apply engineer-ing-type problem-solving approaches to human relations and ‘people problems’ –just as many social scientists have been critical of positivism and its attempts toapply natural science methods, principles and assumptions to human affairs andsocial issues (Smith, 1998). Schön (1983) comments as follows:
Technical Rationality is the Positivist epistemology of practice. It became institutional-ized in the modern university, founded in the late nineteenth century when Positivismwas at its height, and in the professional schools which secured their place in the uni-versity in the early decades of the twentieth century. (p. 31)
In a similar vein, Rolfe, Freshwater and Jasper (2001) share Schön’s mistrust oftechnical rationality when they argue that, if followed rigidly, technical rationality‘reduces practitioners to the level of technicians whose only role is to implementthe research findings and theoretical models of the scientists, researchers and theore-ticians’ (p. 7). This not only takes away the ‘artistry’ involved in professional prac-tice (see below), but also dehumanises and, in effect, demeans professionalpractitioners, by relegating them to the status of unthinking followers of instructionsand procedures. This is a far cry from the complexities (the ‘swampy lowlands’) ofactual practice.
The technical rationality model also fails to recognise how understanding isdeveloped from the integration of theory and practice, rather than the simple appli-cation of ‘scientific’ knowledge to the practice field (Kinsella, 2010). Gould (1996)offers helpful comment when he argues that:
There is considerable empirical evidence, based on research into a variety of occupa-tions, suggesting that expertise does not derive from the application of rules or proce-dures applied deductively from positivist research. Instead, it is argued that practicewisdom depends upon highly developed intuition which may be difficult to articulatebut can be demonstrated through practice. On the basis of this reconstructed episte-mology of practice, reflective learning offers an approach to education which operatesthrough an understanding of professional knowledge as primarily developed throughpractice and the systematic analysis of experience. (p. 1)
This perspective fits well with Thompson’s (2010) notion of ‘theorising practice’ –that is, the process of beginning with practice and drawing on a professional knowl-edge (and value) base to make sense of it in order to be able to engage with thepractice challenges involved. This is proposed as an alternative to technical rational-ity – that is, the process of beginning with theory and trying to ‘apply’ it to prac-tice. Practice, it can be argued, is more a matter of art or craft than science –drawing on formal knowledge as and when appropriate, but not being wedded to ascientific ‘technical fix’ approach to practice.
The artistry of professional practice
In place of the rigidity of technical rationality, reflective practice proposes a morefluid approach in which there is a greater emphasis on integrating theory and
Reflective Practice 313
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
12:
58 1
0 M
arch
201
3
practice (as evidenced in the development of the notion of the ‘knowledgeable doer’in nurse education). This involves tailoring theoretical and research-based knowl-edge (what Schön refers to as the ‘high ground’) to fit the circumstances encoun-tered in specific practice situations (‘the swampy lowlands’). This is proposed inplace of the traditional approach of applying theory to practice, as if theory (in theguise of technical rationality) holds the answers to the questions that practicesituations generate.
It can also be seen that Lewin’s work has been influential in the development ofreflective practice in terms of the move away from a positivist approach of applying(relatively certain, scientifically developed) knowledge to relatively well-definedpractice situations. As Pascal and Brown (2009) explain:
Lewin’s experiential phenomenology was developed as a method of observing behav-iour, experience and action within social contexts. Lewin’s action research and field-work highlighted the integration of theory and practice and the implications for socialchange. This was in contrast to more quantitative research methodologies of the time(Zuber-Skerritt, 1992). Lewin’s social and relationship focus is integral to professionalsocial work and echoes social constructionist models (Mullaly, 2002). (p. 72)
Similarly, Back (2007) warns of the ‘conceit’ of science in expecting to be able todevelop ‘the whole truth’ and legislate for solutions to society’s problems. Reflec-tive practice offers a perspective more firmly rooted in the realities of practice, inwhich the ‘high ground’ of the professional knowledge base offers helpful insights,but not simple or direct lines of action for dealing with the ‘swampy lowlands ofpractice’ (Schön, 1983). Professional practice is not a technical process of applying(scientifically derived) solutions to practice problems. More realistically, it is amatter of wrestling with the complexities of both theory and practice, usingprofessional artistry to move forward as effectively as possible.
Reflection and learning
Reflective practice is closely related to the idea of learning from experience. Reflec-tive learning can be characterised by the following four sets of factors:
Blending theory and practice
Reflective learning incorporates both theoretical and practical themes and issues andseeks to integrate these – to open a dialogue between theory and practice. It seeksto move away from the traditional idea of classroom-based learning, being appliedto practice as if there is a one-way relationship between theory and practice,between knowing and doing. This movement owes much to the work of Deweywho wrote of ‘a dialectical process of learning that transformed observation andreflection into action’ (Pascal & Brown, 2009, p. 72).
Active learning
Reflective learning seeks to validate the knowledge, skills and experience used inpractice, and recognises these elements as valuable components in learning.Practitioners are seen as active participants in learning, rather than empty vessels tobe filled by the ‘expert’ trainer. This is an important issue in terms of developing
314 N. Thompson and J. Pascal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
12:
58 1
0 M
arch
201
3
confidence in learning. It is also important in building on Freire’s (1972a) critiqueof the ‘banking’ conception of learning – that is, the rejection of the idea thatlearners are empty vessels waiting to be filled up by the depositing of knowledgewithin them.
Participative learning
The ‘curriculum’ for learning is determined jointly rather than decided by the trai-ner or by an educational body (Knowles, 1984). However, it should be noted thatSchön’s work did not incorporate this element – he took it for granted that profes-sionals would undertake their learning in relation to the prescribed curriculum andwould not challenge this in any way (Fitzgerald, 1994). In this respect, Schön’swork can be seen to lack a critical dimension.
Challenging dogma
Reflective learning provides a foundation for challenging dogma and prejudice (seethe discussion of criticality below). In this regard, White (2006) refers to the workof Dewey (1910, p. 177) who notes that:
Genuine ignorance is profitable because it is likely to be accompanied by humility,curiosity, and open mindedness; whereas ability to repeat catch-phrases, cant terms,familiar propositions, gives the conceit of learning and coats the mind with varnishwaterproof to new ideas. (p. 38)
Reflective learning involves developing and consolidating such an open-minded,inquiring approach to professional practice. As Pascal and Brown (2009) aptlystated:
Our educational theoretical frameworks support the inherent notions that seek toempower (Freire, 1972[a]) our students to engage with the complex discourses ofsocial research (Secret et al., 2003). Thus, drawing upon the principles of Lewin,Kolb, Dewey and Fook, we aim to educate our students in the observation, experienceand action cycle of research. As social work educators we emphasise the social con-struction of social problems and demonstrate a commitment to reflective practice,enacted through the design of curriculum and teaching material. (p. 73)
Developing the theory base
The point was made earlier that there is a considerable irony in the fact that first,reflective practice, as an approach that emphasises the importance of integrating the-ory and practice (knowing and doing), has come to be characterised by day-to-daypractices that are presented as ‘reflective’, but which often show little evidence ofanalysis or understanding; and second, theoretical discussions of reflective practiceoften lack intellectual sophistication. The former can partly be explained by the factthat reflective practice has acquired ‘buzzword’ status, a situation which frequentlyresults in oversimplified practices that bear little relation to the thinking they claimto be based on (see Thompson, 2007, for a discussion of how this has occurred inrelation to empowerment). The latter can partly be explained by the fact that theemphasis in recent years on postmodernist and post-structuralist thinking has con-siderably muddied the waters in relation to theory development, in so far as therejection of ‘metanarratives’ has devalued the role of theory in connecting disparate
Reflective Practice 315
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
12:
58 1
0 M
arch
201
3
elements of understanding into a coherent whole (see Sibeon, 2004; and/or Thomp-son, 2010, for a discussion of this).
However we may attempt to explain these developments, the fact remains thatthere is a need for a considerable rapprochement between reflective practice as a setof actual professional activities and reflective practice as a sophisticated theoreticalunderstanding of day-to-day practice. Our comments here are intended to take ussome way in that direction. We shall outline five aspects that we see as priorities fordevelopment: transcending Schön’s limitations; transcending the limitations of tradi-tional approaches to learning; clarifying the relationship between reflection and reflex-ivity; addressing time constraint issues; and developing critically reflective practice.
Beyond Schön
Schön’s work has clearly played an important part in developing reflective practice.However, difficulties have arisen because:
• Schön’s work can be seen to be flawed in some ways. For example, Fooket al. (2006) point out that Schön’s work was criticised for being atheoreticaland apolitical as long ago as 1988 (Smyth, 1988). This is another way inwhich his work failed to be sufficiently critical.
• His ideas have often been oversimplified in being translated into practice. Forexample, as Thompson and Thompson (2008) indicate, a number of mythsand misunderstandings have grown up around reflective practice, includingthe tendency to take reflective practice too literally – that is, to see it as sim-ply a matter of pausing for thought. It is important to go beyond literalism, torecognise that reflective practice is not simply thinking about practice in ageneral, loosely defined way.
One of the flaws in Schön’s approach is that he does not take account of theimportance of forethought, or the need for planning. According to Schön (1983),reflective practice involves:
• Reflection-in-action. This involves tacitly drawing on a knowledge base as weengage with practice tasks. It is a matter of ‘thinking on our feet’, but recognis-ing that this is not just random thought or so-called ‘common sense’. Ourprofessional knowledge base has become so ingrained in most cases that whenwe reflect in action, we are often drawing on that knowledge base, perhapswithout even realising that we are doing so. As Rolfe et al. (2001) comment:
reflection-in-action involves two separate and distinct components. Firstly, there isthe turning of thought back on action, so that unlike Benner’s intuitive expert, theadvanced practitioner is thinking about what she is doing as she does it. But Schönalso described the turning of thought back on the ‘knowing which is implicit inaction’ In other words, the advanced practitioner is not only conscious of what sheis doing but also of how she is doing it, of the practical knowledge that underpinsher practice. (p. 128)
• Reflection-on-action. This involves taking the opportunity to draw on theprofessional knowledge base more explicitly. This can be used to: (1) developour understanding further; and (2) test and develop the knowledge base.
316 N. Thompson and J. Pascal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
12:
58 1
0 M
arch
201
3
However, what this model neglects is what we shall refer to as reflection-for-action.This is an aspect of reflective practice that Schön did not discuss, but it is importantthat we add this as an extra element. It refers to the process of planning, thinkingahead about what is to come, so that we can draw on our experience (and the profes-sional knowledge base implicit within it) in order to make the best use of the timeresources available to us. Benner, Hooper-Kyriakidis, & Stannard (1999), writingfrom a nursing perspective, comment on the importance of this type of ‘forethought’:
The most effective clinical forethought is based both on scientific understanding andexperiential learning of clinical trajectories. Clinical forethought does not have to beprecisely correct to be a useful basis for thinking-in-action; it only needs to be in theright direction or region of the problem and capable of being confirmed or disconfirmedby the actual evolving situation. Clinical forethought works best when it is held tenta-tively and when it flexibly changes if the patient’s condition unfolds in an unexpecteddirection. Rigid adherence to what one has anticipated and planned for is a source oferror in this habit of thought because it prevents seeing the unexpected. (p. 65)
Another significant gap in Schön’s work is the neglect of the significance of lan-guage, meaning and narrative. His writings do not address these important elementsof meaning making, a process that can be seen to be at the heart of the ‘reflectiveconversation with the situation’ of which Schön (1983) spoke. Schön’s work cantherefore be seen to be an oversimplification of the complex hermeneutical pro-cesses involved in reflective practice. Kearney (2004) helps us to understand thesignificance of this when he talks about the importance of ‘knowing how to go on’:
Wittgenstein described our everyday ability to understand the meanings of words andto use them correctly in context as “knowing how to go on” (1953, para 154), seeingthis as involving a relational-responsive approach in which we act not only out of ourown experiences and ideas but also respond in a moral way to the actions of others.In similar vein, John Shotter describes such practices as a “social poetics”, succeedingnot in the sense applicable to theories worked out beforehand, but in terms of “certainpractical uses of language, at crucial points within the ongoing conduct of practice, bythose involved in it” (Shotter & Katz, 1996, p. 213). (pp. 163–164)
Space does not permit a detailed analysis of these important issues here, but we canat least see how the idea of ‘social poetics’ can be a helpful one in understandingthe ‘artistry’ of professional practice. The approach of Jones and Joss (1995) hasmuch in common with this notion of ‘social poetics’, as they are concerned toemphasise the centrality of developing negotiated and shared meanings as part of ajoint process of responding to uncertainty (see also Shotter, 2008).
Mezirow (1983), in his important work on perspective transformation, also com-ments on the significance of meaning. He believes that people are often held backby being trapped within a framework of meaning that restricts them – self-limitingunderstandings of the situations they find themselves in and their role within it. Hesees reflective practice as having the potential to help emancipate people from suchperspectives, to enable them to develop new, empowering meanings.
This, in turn, has much in common with narrative therapy, an approach to thehelping professions that emphasises the importance and value of helping people to‘co-construct’ a new, empowering narrative (that is, a story or framework of mean-ing that helps us make sense of our identity and our wider circumstances) to replacea self-limiting or disempowering narrative that has been shaped by experiences of
Reflective Practice 317
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
12:
58 1
0 M
arch
201
3
discrimination and oppression (Crossley, 2000; Payne, 2006). While Schön’s cri-tique of positivistic epistemology is consistent with postmodernist and post-structur-alist concerns with language, meaning and narrative, his work did not develop inthis direction.
Beyond traditional learning
Much of the literature relating to developing reflective learning and practice takesas its starting point formal educational settings. For example, Taylor (1996) pro-vides a helpful and insightful discussion of how educational programmes can moveaway from long-established didactic methods towards educational practices gearedmore towards the facilitation of learning and personal and professional develop-ment. However, it is important to note that Vince (1996) is critical on three countsof what have now become traditional approaches to experiential learning:
First, I believe there has been an overemphasis on individual experience and that thishas led to an insufficient analysis of the social and political context of that experience.Second, there has been an overemphasis on the rational and intellectual aspects oflearning from experience, as a result of the difficulty of managing and working withthe emotions involved in learning and change. Third, existing models are inadequatefor dealing with the social power relations of … learning, and how power relationswithin and outside learning groups contribute to the social construction of individualand group identity. (p. 28)
It is worth considering these three criticisms in turn.
Focusing on the individual: atomism
An overemphasis on individual experience is perhaps a general characteristic of agreat deal of the literature relating to adult learning and professional development.The work of Freire (1972a, 1972b) is a notable exception to this tendency and thereis clearly much to be gained in terms of seeking to integrate some of Freire’sinsights into social inequalities with the more psychologically orientated work oflearning theorists and much of the reflective practice literature. This introduces asociological dimension to our consideration of reflective practice. A key part of thisis a recognition of the importance of the social context (Fook et al. 2000). AsThompson and Pascal (2011) argue:
Human existence is fundamentally social. Social issues should therefore not be seen asmerely a backdrop or a set of minor contextual features. The social context is a pri-mary feature of human reality. There is therefore a need to see personal reflection asnot only an interpersonal matter, but also as part of the broader context of cultural for-mations and structural relations. (pp. 16–17)
Neglecting the emotional dimension
The neglect of the emotional dimension of learning is, of course, particularly signif-icant in the context of many forms of professional practice, given the emotionaldemands of the challenges involved. It also has to be acknowledged that, as learn-ing in relation to discrimination and oppression generally involves a degree of‘unlearning’ and abandoning previously held beliefs and values, the emotionaldimension can be a major factor (Griseri, 1998; Thompson, 2011).
318 N. Thompson and J. Pascal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
12:
58 1
0 M
arch
201
3
The neglect of power
Power relations are embedded within discourses, and, of course, educational dis-courses are no exception to this. Such power relations can be seen to inhibit learn-ing at times (Archer, 2007; Brookfield, 2005), for example, by discouraginglearners from discussing certain issues or from expressing their feelings aboutaspects of their work or their organisation. The abuse or misuse of power is, ofcourse, also a major factor in discrimination and oppression which, in turn, can andsurely do act as barriers to learning and professional development (Thompson,2007).
Reflective vs. reflexive
The terms ‘reflective’ and ‘reflexive practice’ are often used interchangeably. It istherefore important to clarify what each of these two terms means within the overalltheory base of reflective practice. Taken literally, reflective refers to the process ofthinking about the work we undertake – that is, we reflect on our actions either atthe time (reflection-in-action) or at a suitable opportunity thereafter (reflection-on-action). In this regard, the hallmark of reflective practice is informed practice. Itrefers to forms of practice that transcend routine or habitualised actions that containlittle thought or analysis (Argyris & Schön, 1974). A key principle of reflectivepractice in this connection is the value that can be brought by drawing on our criti-cal faculties to make sure that practice does not become so mechanical, that it – ineffect – bypasses our critical intellectual faculties, in the sense that we miss theopportunity to use our understanding and powers of analysis (Thompson &Thompson, 2008). It thus fails to draw on the benefits that can be derived fromboth our knowledge base and our analytical skills. An important part of this is rec-ognising that routinised forms of practice that do not incorporate an element ofreflection not only bypass our mental capabilities, but also bypass our value base,in the sense that, if we are reacting to situations in a non-reflective way, there is astrong danger that our uncritical, ill-thought-through actions may run counter to ourvalues. If practice has become so ingrained in a non-reflective way, we may noteven notice that what we are doing contradicts our values. It is partly for thisreason that reflective practice needs to be critically reflective practice.
The term ‘reflexive’ relates to another meaning of the word reflection – that is,not simply to think, but to reflect as a mirror does. Reflexive practice is therefore aform of practice that looks back on itself, that is premised on self-analysis in orderto make sure that: (1) the professional knowledge base is being used to the full; (2)our actions are consistent with the professional value base; and (3) there areopportunities for learning and development being generated. The work of Fook andAskeland (2006) is important here:
Reflexivity can simply be defined as an ability to recognize our own influence – andthe influence of our social and cultural contexts on research, the type of knowledgewe create, and the way we create it (Fook 1999b). In this sense, then, it is aboutfactoring ourselves as players into the situations we practice in. (p. 45)
Reflexivity is a key part of making sure that reflective practice is critically reflectivepractice.
Reflective Practice 319
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
12:
58 1
0 M
arch
201
3
We would wish to argue that a well-developed approach to reflective practicewould incorporate both these elements, both the traditional notion of reflection asan analytical process and reflexive approaches with their emphasis on the mirroringof practice, and thereby undertaking a self-analysis.
Time considerations
A further important aspect of the theory base is the demands of practice in terms ofthe use of time. A commonly heard retort from practitioners to proposals that theyshould make more use of reflective practice is that they do not have time for reflec-tion, that they are so busy and under pressure that reflection is an unrealistic goalto aim for. However, such an approach can be seen as short-sighted, in so far as itfails to recognise an important principle of reflective practice that we would wish topropose, namely that the busier we are, the more reflective we need to be. That is,the more pressure we are under, the clearer we need to be about what we are doing,why we are doing it, what knowledge is available to help us do it to best effect,and so on. In this regard, Clutterbuck and Hirst (2003) make an important pointwhen they argue that:
One of the most damaging myths of current working practice is that people are moreefficient if their work is paced to ensure they are always busy. In reality, people aremost efficient and effective when they are able to vary routines between concentratedtask activities, play and opportunities to reflect. Reflective space and reflectivedialogue are essential for both individuals and teams. Reflective space is an opportu-nity for discovery through dialogue. For an individual this involves asking questionsof oneself to achieve the level of understanding of an issue, often from differentperspectives, that opens the door to insights. From such insights come new tactics,greater self-awareness and greater ability to manage oneself and others, and theestablishment of clearer priorities. (p. 104)
It is therefore important that theoretical approaches to reflective practice incorporatethis pragmatic element of the use of time. Without this, there is a danger that reflec-tive practice will – and here again there is a significant irony – remain at the levelof a theoretical idea far removed from the busy realities of practice. Furthermore,without this space for reflection, there will be no scope for critically reflective prac-tice.
Returning to our earlier comments about ‘atomism’ and the dangers of adoptinga narrow, individualistic perspective, it is important to recognise that the time impli-cations also apply to the wider organisation. There is clearly a duty upon managersand other leaders to develop and sustain working cultures and procedures that aresupportive of critically reflective practice. Issitt (2000) comments on the signifi-cance of the organisational context in stating that: ‘the time that is required forreflection is not available in the current market-orientated world of human servicework’ (p. 126). However, our experience is that it is not so much a shortage of timeper se in any objective sense, but rather a culture that does not prioritise reflection– in effect, a managerialist culture. Such managerialism, with its inherent atomism,is also antithetical to critical approaches to practice.
Indeed, Baldwin (2004) identifies managerialism as a major threat to reflectivepractice, in so far as an emphasis on management control (for example, through tar-get setting) at the expense of professional autonomy creates a working environmentinimical to reflective learning. We would agree that managerialism is indeed a threat
320 N. Thompson and J. Pascal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
12:
58 1
0 M
arch
201
3
to reflective practice, but would want to take the analysis a step further. We wouldargue that the major growth of interest in reflective practice in recent years can beseen as in large part as a reaction against managerialism as a result of the dissatis-factions it has given rise to (not least the lack of trust and respect implicit insystems premised on close managerial control), in the same way that the significantgrowth of interest in leadership can be seen as reaction against the restrictions,inflexibility, ineffectiveness and dehumanisation of managerialist discourses (Gilbert,2005).
Developing critically reflective practice
Christenson (2001) makes the important point that:
Any society that values creativity also needs to enable criticism. If we cannot questionthat the way we are doing things and thinking about things at present, it will not occurto us that they could be thought of or done differently. (p. 37)
This helps us to understand that a critical approach to professional practice is animportant part of promoting creativity and preventing stagnation. This is, of course,entirely consistent with reflective practice, although, as Adams (2002) points out,the two do not always go together:
Critical practice is not just reflective practice, because the critical practitioner does nottake the world for granted and does not automatically accept the world as it is.Reflective practice contributes to critical, transforming practice. … Critical practiceinvolves reflectiveness but transcends it. (p. 87)
Thompson and Thompson (2008) write of two dimensions of criticality: depth andbreadth. The former refers to being able to look beneath the surface of a situation,to see what assumptions are being made, what thoughts, feelings and values arebeing drawn upon. The latter refers to the broader sociological context and includessuch factors as power relations, discrimination and oppression. The two aspects,depth and breadth, can be seen to interact to produce a complex set of circum-stances that requires us to engage our critical faculties if we are to do justice to thesubtleties involved.
Murray and Kujundzic (2005) comment on the ‘depth’ aspect when they arguethat:
Critical thinking has practical relevance; it can increase our intellectual independence,increase our tolerance for different points of view, and free us from the snares of dog-matism. We may agree with what our parents, our pastors, our friends, our teachers, ourpoliticians and our scientists tell us, but surely not merely on the basis of their tellingus. They may be wrong, after all, however well-intentioned. This is the appeal of beingautonomous. Critical Thinking invites us to call the bluff of accepted dogmas. (p. 4)
From the ‘depth’ point of view, a critical perspective can be seen as one that doesnot take situations at face value, but rather adopts a questioning approach – one thathelps practitioners to move beyond taken-for-granted assumptions that may well beinformed by prejudice and discriminatory discourses. It enables us to identify anyideological basis to our practice and to the situations we are engaging with as partof that practice.
Reflective Practice 321
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
12:
58 1
0 M
arch
201
3
From the ‘breadth’ point of view, Brechin, Brown, and Eby (2000) help us tounderstand the importance of adopting a wider sociological lens when theycomment to the effect that:
The term “critical” is used to conceptualise practice as an open-minded, reflexiveprocess, built on a sound skills and knowledge base, but taking account of differentperspectives, experiences, assumptions and power relations. Critical practice draws onan awareness of wider ethical dilemmas, strategic issues, policy frameworks andsocio-political contexts. It acknowledges that there may be no straightforward ‘right’answers and that powerful, established voices will often hold sway over newer,alternative ways of seeing things. (p. xi)
This passage indicates that criticality is not only about critical thinking in the senseof identifying any underlying rationale at a narrow, individualistic level (as used byauthors such as Atkins, 2004, and Cottrell, 2005), but also about critical analysis ata broader socio-political level that takes account of cultural and structural factorsthat are so important in shaping professional practice and the social and politicalcircumstances in which such practice occurs – see Thompson, 2011, for a discus-sion of PCS analysis which highlights the significant interplay of personal, cultural(or discursive) and structural factors. For professional practice to be emancipatory,it needs to be genuinely critical in both senses of the term – in depth and breadth.
Of course, sociology teaches us that what happens at an individual level interms of rationale, assumptions and values owes much to the broader social contextand the discourses that operate within it. Critically reflective practice thereforeneeds to take account of the breadth and depth aspects, as well as the vitallyimportant interrelationships between the two.
Conclusion
What has become established as ‘traditional’ reflective practice, as popularisedthrough the work of Schön and others, offers the potential for mindful,well-informed practice and for reflective learning. However, we can now see that,despite the strengths of this approach, we need to go beyond its limitations to estab-lish more firmly a more sociologically informed critically reflective practice thatprovides a basis for emancipatory practice. We need to:
• Incorporate issues of forethought or planning: reflection-for-practice;• Take greater account of the central role of language, meaning and narrative as
key elements in the process of meaning making;• Go beyond individualism or ‘atomism’ to appreciate the significance of the
wider social context;• Take greater account of the emotional dimension of reflection;• Incorporate a greater understanding of the important role of power;• Be clear about the differences between reflection and reflexivity and under-
stand the relationship between the two;• Take account of time considerations, at both individual and organisational
levels; and, crucially:• Develop a critical approach that addresses the depth and breadth aspects of
criticality and the interrelationships between the two.
322 N. Thompson and J. Pascal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
12:
58 1
0 M
arch
201
3
This adds up to quite a significant challenge but, given the value of criticallyreflective practice and the dangers of an uncritical, non-reflective approach, weshould see this as a worthwhile investment of our time, effort and energy.
In discussing postmodernist perspectives, Payne (1998) makes the importantpoint that:
We should never use theory to pigeon-hole and restrict the infinite variety of human-ity. Instead, theory should be a guide to be used together with clients to explore,understand and transform the social world in which we live together. (p. 136)
To this, we would wish to add that practice should not be used to avoid facing upto some of the complexities of that social world and our part in it, and should notbe used to justify adopting an approach which is not open to new ideas, newperspectives or new challenges. The aim must be the integration of theory andpractice, rather than the use of one as a weapon against the other. Criticallyreflective practice provides us with a foundation for doing this.
Notes on contributorsDr Neil Thompson is an independent author, trainer and consultant who has writtenextensively about human relations and well-being issues. His recent books include Grief andits Challenges and The People Solutions Sourcebook 2e (both published by PalgraveMacmillan, 2012). His website and blog are at www.neilthompson.info.
Dr Jan Pascal is a senior lecturer and researcher in the La Trobe Rural Health School,School of Public Health. Jan’s areas of research include existential and phenomenologicalways of seeing the world; lived experience, cancer and survivorhood; illness and well-being;and space, place and identity.
References
Adams, R. (2002). Developing critical practice in social work. In R. Adams, L. Dominelli,& M. Payne (Eds.), Critical practice in social work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Archer, L. (2007). Diversity, equality and higher education: A critical reflection on the ab/uses of equity discourse with widening participation. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(5), 635–653.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness.Washington, DC: Jossey-Bass.
Atkins, S. (2004). Developing underlying skills in the move towards reflective practice. InC. Bulman & S. Schutz (Eds.), Reflective practice in nursing (3rd ed.). Oxford:Blackwell.
Back, L. (2007). The art of listening. Oxford: Berg.Baldwin, M. (2004). Critical reflection: opportunities and threats to professional learning and
service development in social work organizations. In N. Gould & M. Baldwin (Eds.),Social work, critical reflection and the learning organization. Aldershot: Arena.
Bates, J. (2004). Promoting learning through reflective practice. British Journal ofOccupational Learning, 2(2), 21–32.
Benner, P., Hooper-Kyriakidis, P., & Stannard, D. (1999). Clinical wisdom and interventionsin critical care: A thinking-in-action approach. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
Brechin, A., Brown, H., & Eby, M.A. (2000). Introduction. In A. Brechin, H. Brown, & M.A. Eby (Eds.), Critical practice in health and social care. London: Sage.
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. (2005). The power of critical theory for adult learning and teaching. Maiden-head: Open University Press.
Reflective Practice 323
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
12:
58 1
0 M
arch
201
3
Causarano, A. (2011). Becoming a special education teacher: Journey or maze? ReflectivePractice. International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 12(4), 547–556.
Christenson, T. (2001). Wonder and critical reflection: An invitation to philosophy. London:Prentice-Hall International.
Clutterbuck, D., & Hirst, S. (2003). Talking business: Making communication work. London:Butterworth-Heinemann.
Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical thinking skills: Developing effective analysis and argument.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Crossley, M.L. (2000). Introducing narrative psychology: Self, trauma and the constructionof meaning. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: DC Heath.Edwards, R.M., Cleland, J., Bailey, K., McLachlan, S., & McVey, L-M. (2009). Pharmacist
prescribers’ reflections of developing their consultation skills. Reflective Practice.International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 10(4), 437–450.
Fitzgerald, M. (1994). Theories of reflection for learning. In A. Palmer, S. Burns, &C. Bulman (Eds.), Reflective practice in nursing: The growth of the professional practi-tioner. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fook, J. (1999b). Reflexivity as method. In J. Daley, A. Kellahear, & E. Willis (Eds.),Annual review of health social sciences, 9 (pp. 11–20).
Fook, J., & Askeland, G.A. (2006). The ‘critical’ in critical reflection. In S. White, J. Fook,& F. Gardner (Eds.), Critical reflection in health and social care. Maidenhead: OpenUniversity Press/McGraw-Hill Education.
Fook, J., Ryan, M., & Hawkins, L. (2000). Professional expertise: Practice, theory andeducation for working in uncertainty. London: Whiting and Birch.
Fook, J., White, S., & Gardner, F. (2006). Critical reflection: A review of contemporary liter-ature and understandings. In S. White, J. Fook, & F. Gardner (Eds.), Critical reflectionin health and social care. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.
Freire, P. (1972a). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Freire, P. (1972b). Cultural action for freedom. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Gilbert, P. (2005). Leadership: Being effective and remaining human. Lyme Regis: Russell
House Publishing.Gould, N. (1996). Introduction: Social work education and the ‘crisis of the professions’. In
N. Gould & I. Taylor (Eds.), Reflective learning for social work. Aldershot: Arena.Gould, N., & Taylor, I. (Eds.), (1996). Reflective learning for social work. Aldershot: Arena.Griseri, P. (1998). Managing values: Ethical change in organisations. Basingstoke:
Macmillan.Issitt, M. (2000). Critical professionals and reflective practice. The experience of women
practitioners in health, welfare and education. In J. Batsleer & B. Humphries (Eds.),Welfare, exclusion and political agency. London: Routledge.
Jasper, M. (2003). Beginning reflective practice. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.Jones, S., & Joss, R. (1995). Models of professionalism. In M. Yelloly & M. Henkel (Eds.),
Learning and teaching in social work: Towards reflective practice. London: JessicaKingsley.
Kearney, J. (2004). ‘Knowing how to go on’: Towards situated practice and emergent theoryin social work. In R. Lovelock, K. Lyons, & J. Powell (Eds.), Reflecting on social work– discipline and profession. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Kinsella, E.A. (2010). The art of reflective practice in health and social care: Reflections onthe legacy of Donald Schön. Reflective Practice. International and MultidisciplinaryPerspectives, 11(4), 565–575.
Knowles, M.S. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.). Houston: Gulf.Lovelock, R., Lyons, K., & Powell, J. (Eds.), (2004). Reflecting on social work – discipline
and profession. Aldershot: Ashgate.Mezirow, J. (1983). A critical theory of adult learning and education. In M. Tight (Ed.),
Education for adults, Vol. 1, Adult learning and education. Milton Keynes: OpenUniversity Press.
Mullaly, B. (2002). Challenging oppression: A critical social work approach. Ontario:Oxford University Press.
324 N. Thompson and J. Pascal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
12:
58 1
0 M
arch
201
3
Murray, M., & Kujundzic, N. (2005). Critical reflection: A textbook for critical thinking.London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Osterman, K., & Kottkamp, R.B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators: professionaldevelopment to improve student learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Palmer, A., Burns, S., & Bulman, C. (1994). Reflective practice in nursing: The growth ofthe professional practitioner. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pascal, J., & Brown, G. (2009). Ontology, epistemology and methodology for teachingresearch methods. In M. Garner, C. Wagner, & B. Kawulich (Eds.), Teaching researchmethods in the social sciences. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Payne, M. (1998). Social work theories and reflective practice. In R. Adams, L. Dominelli, & M.Payne (Eds.), Social work: Themes, issues and critical debates. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Payne, M. (2006). Narrative therapy (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Reynolds, M., & Vince, R. (2004). Organising reflection. Aldershot: Ashgate.Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D., & Jasper, M. (2001). Critical reflection for nursing and the help-
ing professions: A user guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Schön, D. (1992). The crisis of professional knowledge and the pursuit of an epistemology
of practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 6(1), 49–63.Secret, M., Ford, J., & Rompf, E.L. (2003). Undergraduate research courses: A closer look
reveals complex social work student attitudes. Journal of Social Work Education, 39(3),411–423.
Shotter, J. (2008). Conversational realities revisited: Life, language, body and world (2nded.). Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute Publications.
Shotter, J., & Katz, A. (1996). Articulating a practice from within the practice itself:Establishing formative dialogues by the use of a ‘social poetics. Concepts andTransformations, 1(2–3), 213–237.
Sibeon, R. (2004). Rethinking social theory. London: Sage.Smith, M.J. (1998). Social science in question. London: Sage.Smyth, J. (1988). Deliberating upon reflection in action as a critical form of professional
education. Studies in Continuing Education, 10(2), 164–171.Taylor, I. (1996). Facilitating reflective learning. In N. Gould & I. Taylor (Eds.), Reflective
learning for social work. Aldershot: Arena.Taylor, B.J. (2006). Reflective practice: A guide for nurses and midwives (2nd ed.).
Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.Thompson, N. (2000). Theory and practice in the human services (2nd ed.). Buckingham:
Open University Press.Thompson, N. (2006). Promoting workplace learning. Bristol: The Policy Press.Thompson, N. (2007). Power and empowerment. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.Thompson, N. (2010). Theorizing Social Work Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Thompson, N. (2011). Promoting equality: Working with diversity and difference (3rd ed.).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Thompson, N., & Bates, J. (1996). Learning from other disciplines: Lessons from nurse
education and management theory. Norwich: University of East Anglia Social WorkMonographs.
Thompson, N., & Pascal, J. (2011). Reflective practice. An existentialist perspective. Reflec-tive practice, 12(1), 15–26.
Thompson, S., & Thompson, N. (2008). The critically reflective practitioner. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Vince, R. (1996). Managing change: Reflections on equality and management learning.Bristol: The Policy Press.
White, S. (2006). The reflexive practitioner as ‘trickster’. In S. White, J. Fook, & F. Gardner(Eds.), Critical reflection in health and social care. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Professional development in higher education. London: Kogan Page.
Reflective Practice 325
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
12:
58 1
0 M
arch
201
3
