BHL

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=crep20

Reflective Practice International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives

ISSN: 1462-3943 (Print) 1470-1103 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crep20

Developing critically reflective practice

Neil Thompson & Jan Pascal

To cite this article: Neil Thompson & Jan Pascal (2012) Developing critically reflective practice, Reflective Practice, 13:2, 311-325, DOI: 10.1080/14623943.2012.657795

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2012.657795

Published online: 22 Feb 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 84673

View related articles

Citing articles: 74 View citing articles

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 has been 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 in relation 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 sociological elements. 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. In this 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 of integrating theory and practice (Thompson, 2000), but the theory base underpinning it has remained relatively underdeveloped in relation to the relative importance and popularity of the subject matter. That is, while there has been much discussion about theoretical concerns in relation to reflective practice, there remains considerable scope for developing a more sophisticated understanding of the subject. For example, we continue to have only a beginning understanding of what actually happens when knowledge 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 work in this field). A further irony is that the theory underpinning reflective practice is often 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. For example, one of the present authors has, as an external examiner, encountered a large number of portfolios submitted for a professional educational award in which, under the 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 to draw out learning or new knowledge from the experience.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Reflective Practice Vol. 13, No. 2, April 2012, 311–325

ISSN 1462-3943 print/ISSN 1470-1103 online � 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2012.657795 http://www.tandfonline.com

Fook, White, and Gardner (2006) also show concern about the prevalence of superficial 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 to an underlying construction of them as essentially practices which are developed in the ‘doing’ of them rather than their more formal theorization. Such thinking would of course be consistent in some ways with the approaches themselves, but to privilege ‘practical theory’ over that derived from other means is not necessarily consistent with all 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, and a 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 key elements of what has now come to be a traditional understanding of reflective prac- tice; and (2) proposing the development and consolidation of a more sociologically informed critically reflective practice. Much of the literature on reflective practice focuses on actual examples of reflection (see, for example, Causarano, 2011; Edwards, Cleland, Bailey, McLachlan, & McVey, 2004), which are valuable contributions to our understanding, but which need to be complemented by further theory 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 of Schön. 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 – for so much of the largely unsophisticated practice that is so commonly found. We then move on to consider significant gaps in the theory base relating to reflective practice and sketch out how these can begin to be filled, especially by taking account of the sociological dimensions of learning and professional practice. This latter element is helpful 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 reflective learning. We shall explore each of these in turn.

The critique of technical rationality

The influential work of Donald Schön (1983, 1987, 1992) established an approach to both direct practice and professional development which has featured extensively in 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

evidence that reflective practice issues are also featuring significantly in relation to management 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 adopted the 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 to apply natural science methods, principles and assumptions to human affairs and social 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 Positivism was 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 of technical rationality when they argue that, if followed rigidly, technical rationality ‘reduces practitioners to the level of technicians whose only role is to implement the 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 professional practitioners, by relegating them to the status of unthinking followers of instructions and procedures. This is a far cry from the complexities (the ‘swampy lowlands’) of actual practice.

The technical rationality model also fails to recognise how understanding is developed 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 practice wisdom depends upon highly developed intuition which may be difficult to articulate but can be demonstrated through practice. On the basis of this reconstructed episte- mology of practice, reflective learning offers an approach to education which operates through an understanding of professional knowledge as primarily developed through practice 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 the practice 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 a scientific ‘technical fix’ approach to practice.

The artistry of professional practice

In place of the rigidity of technical rationality, reflective practice proposes a more fluid approach in which there is a greater emphasis on integrating theory and

Reflective Practice 313

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 in place of the traditional approach of applying theory to practice, as if theory (in the guise of technical rationality) holds the answers to the questions that practice situations generate.

It can also be seen that Lewin’s work has been influential in the development of reflective practice in terms of the move away from a positivist approach of applying (relatively certain, scientifically developed) knowledge to relatively well-defined practice 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 social change. This was in contrast to more quantitative research methodologies of the time (Zuber-Skerritt, 1992). Lewin’s social and relationship focus is integral to professional social work and echoes social constructionist models (Mullaly, 2002). (p. 72)

Similarly, Back (2007) warns of the ‘conceit’ of science in expecting to be able to develop ‘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, in which 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 of practice’ (Schön, 1983). Professional practice is not a technical process of applying (scientifically derived) solutions to practice problems. More realistically, it is a matter of wrestling with the complexities of both theory and practice, using professional 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 and seeks to integrate these – to open a dialogue between theory and practice. It seeks to move away from the traditional idea of classroom-based learning, being applied to 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 Dewey who wrote of ‘a dialectical process of learning that transformed observation and reflection into action’ (Pascal & Brown, 2009, p. 72).

Active learning

Reflective learning seeks to validate the knowledge, skills and experience used in practice, and recognises these elements as valuable components in learning. Practitioners are seen as active participants in learning, rather than empty vessels to be filled by the ‘expert’ trainer. This is an important issue in terms of developing

314 N. Thompson and J. Pascal

confidence in learning. It is also important in building on Freire’s (1972a) critique of the ‘banking’ conception of learning – that is, the rejection of the idea that learners are empty vessels waiting to be filled up by the depositing of knowledge within 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 that Schön’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 and would not challenge this in any way (Fitzgerald, 1994). In this respect, Schön’s work can be seen to lack a critical dimension.

Challenging dogma

Reflective learning provides a foundation for challenging dogma and prejudice (see the discussion of criticality below). In this regard, White (2006) refers to the work of 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 varnish waterproof 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) aptly stated:

Our educational theoretical frameworks support the inherent notions that seek to empower (Freire, 1972[a]) our students to engage with the complex discourses of social 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, experience and 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-day practices that are presented as ‘reflective’, but which often show little evidence of analysis or understanding; and second, theoretical discussions of reflective practice often lack intellectual sophistication. The former can partly be explained by the fact that reflective practice has acquired ‘buzzword’ status, a situation which frequently results in oversimplified practices that bear little relation to the thinking they claim to be based on (see Thompson, 2007, for a discussion of how this has occurred in relation to empowerment). The latter can partly be explained by the fact that the emphasis in recent years on postmodernist and post-structuralist thinking has con- siderably muddied the waters in relation to theory development, in so far as the rejection of ‘metanarratives’ has devalued the role of theory in connecting disparate

Reflective Practice 315

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 that there is a need for a considerable rapprochement between reflective practice as a set of actual professional activities and reflective practice as a sophisticated theoretical understanding of day-to-day practice. Our comments here are intended to take us some way in that direction. We shall outline five aspects that we see as priorities for development: 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, Fook et al. (2006) point out that Schön’s work was criticised for being atheoretical and apolitical as long ago as 1988 (Smyth, 1988). This is another way in which his work failed to be sufficiently critical.

• His ideas have often been oversimplified in being translated into practice. For example, as Thompson and Thompson (2008) indicate, a number of myths and misunderstandings have grown up around reflective practice, including the 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, to recognise that reflective practice is not simply thinking about practice in a general, loosely defined way.

One of the flaws in Schön’s approach is that he does not take account of the importance 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 we engage 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’. Our professional knowledge base has become so ingrained in most cases that when we reflect in action, we are often drawing on that knowledge base, perhaps without even realising that we are doing so. As Rolfe et al. (2001) comment:

reflection-in-action involves two separate and distinct components. Firstly, there is the turning of thought back on action, so that unlike Benner’s intuitive expert, the advanced practitioner is thinking about what she is doing as she does it. But Schön also described the turning of thought back on the ‘knowing which is implicit in action’ In other words, the advanced practitioner is not only conscious of what she is doing but also of how she is doing it, of the practical knowledge that underpins her practice. (p. 128)

• Reflection-on-action. This involves taking the opportunity to draw on the professional knowledge base more explicitly. This can be used to: (1) develop our understanding further; and (2) test and develop the knowledge base.

316 N. Thompson and J. Pascal

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 important that we add this as an extra element. It refers to the process of planning, thinking ahead 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 time resources available to us. Benner, Hooper-Kyriakidis, & Stannard (1999), writing from a nursing perspective, comment on the importance of this type of ‘forethought’:

The most effective clinical forethought is based both on scientific understanding and experiential learning of clinical trajectories. Clinical forethought does not have to be precisely correct to be a useful basis for thinking-in-action; it only needs to be in the right direction or region of the problem and capable of being confirmed or disconfirmed by 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 unexpected direction. Rigid adherence to what one has anticipated and planned for is a source of error 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 elements of meaning making, a process that can be seen to be at the heart of the ‘reflective conversation with the situation’ of which Schön (1983) spoke. Schön’s work can therefore be seen to be an oversimplification of the complex hermeneutical pro- cesses involved in reflective practice. Kearney (2004) helps us to understand the significance 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 and to use them correctly in context as “knowing how to go on” (1953, para 154), seeing this as involving a relational-responsive approach in which we act not only out of our own 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”, succeeding not in the sense applicable to theories worked out beforehand, but in terms of “certain practical uses of language, at crucial points within the ongoing conduct of practice, by those 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 can at least see how the idea of ‘social poetics’ can be a helpful one in understanding the ‘artistry’ of professional practice. The approach of Jones and Joss (1995) has much in common with this notion of ‘social poetics’, as they are concerned to emphasise the centrality of developing negotiated and shared meanings as part of a joint 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 back by being trapped within a framework of meaning that restricts them – self-limiting understandings of the situations they find themselves in and their role within it. He sees reflective practice as having the potential to help emancipate people from such perspectives, to enable them to develop new, empowering meanings.

This, in turn, has much in common with narrative therapy, an approach to the helping 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 replace a self-limiting or disempowering narrative that has been shaped by experiences of

Reflective Practice 317

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 in this direction.

Beyond traditional learning

Much of the literature relating to developing reflective learning and practice takes as its starting point formal educational settings. For example, Taylor (1996) pro- vides a helpful and insightful discussion of how educational programmes can move away from long-established didactic methods towards educational practices geared more towards the facilitation of learning and personal and professional develop- ment. However, it is important to note that Vince (1996) is critical on three counts of what have now become traditional approaches to experiential learning:

First, I believe there has been an overemphasis on individual experience and that this has 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 of learning from experience, as a result of the difficulty of managing and working with the emotions involved in learning and change. Third, existing models are inadequate for dealing with the social power relations of … learning, and how power relations within and outside learning groups contribute to the social construction of individual and 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 a great 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 there is clearly much to be gained in terms of seeking to integrate some of Freire’s insights into social inequalities with the more psychologically orientated work of learning theorists and much of the reflective practice literature. This introduces a sociological dimension to our consideration of reflective practice. A key part of this is a recognition of the importance of the social context (Fook et al. 2000). As Thompson and Pascal (2011) argue:

Human existence is fundamentally social. Social issues should therefore not be seen as merely 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 as not 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 emotional demands 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 emotional dimension can be a major factor (Griseri, 1998; Thompson, 2011).

318 N. Thompson and J. Pascal

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 discouraging learners from discussing certain issues or from expressing their feelings about aspects of their work or their organisation. The abuse or misuse of power is, of course, also a major factor in discrimination and oppression which, in turn, can and surely 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 is therefore important to clarify what each of these two terms means within the overall theory base of reflective practice. Taken literally, reflective refers to the process of thinking about the work we undertake – that is, we reflect on our actions either at the time (reflection-in-action) or at a suitable opportunity thereafter (reflection- on-action). In this regard, the hallmark of reflective practice is informed practice. It refers to forms of practice that transcend routine or habitualised actions that contain little thought or analysis (Argyris & Schön, 1974). A key principle of reflective practice 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 – in effect – bypasses our critical intellectual faculties, in the sense that we miss the opportunity to use our understanding and powers of analysis (Thompson & Thompson, 2008). It thus fails to draw on the benefits that can be derived from both 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 of reflection 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 a strong danger that our uncritical, ill-thought-through actions may run counter to our values. If practice has become so ingrained in a non-reflective way, we may not even notice that what we are doing contradicts our values. It is partly for this reason 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 a form of practice that looks back on itself, that is premised on self-analysis in order to 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 are opportunities for learning and development being generated. The work of Fook and Askeland (2006) is important here:

Reflexivity can simply be defined as an ability to recognize our own influence – and the influence of our social and cultural contexts on research, the type of knowledge we create, and the way we create it (Fook 1999b). In this sense, then, it is about factoring ourselves as players into the situations we practice in. (p. 45)

Reflexivity is a key part of making sure that reflective practice is critically reflective practice.

Reflective Practice 319

We would wish to argue that a well-developed approach to reflective practice would incorporate both these elements, both the traditional notion of reflection as an analytical process and reflexive approaches with their emphasis on the mirroring of practice, and thereby undertaking a self-analysis.

Time considerations

A further important aspect of the theory base is the demands of practice in terms of the use of time. A commonly heard retort from practitioners to proposals that they should 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 goal to aim for. However, such an approach can be seen as short-sighted, in so far as it fails to recognise an important principle of reflective practice that we would wish to propose, 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 point when they argue that:

One of the most damaging myths of current working practice is that people are more efficient if their work is paced to ensure they are always busy. In reality, people are most efficient and effective when they are able to vary routines between concentrated task activities, play and opportunities to reflect. Reflective space and reflective dialogue are essential for both individuals and teams. Reflective space is an opportu- nity for discovery through dialogue. For an individual this involves asking questions of oneself to achieve the level of understanding of an issue, often from different perspectives, that opens the door to insights. From such insights come new tactics, greater self-awareness and greater ability to manage oneself and others, and the establishment of clearer priorities. (p. 104)

It is therefore important that theoretical approaches to reflective practice incorporate this 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 level of 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 adopting a 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 managers and other leaders to develop and sustain working cultures and procedures that are supportive of critically reflective practice. Issitt (2000) comments on the signifi- cance of the organisational context in stating that: ‘the time that is required for reflection is not available in the current market-orientated world of human service work’ (p. 126). However, our experience is that it is not so much a shortage of time per 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 reflective practice, in so far as an emphasis on management control (for example, through tar- get setting) at the expense of professional autonomy creates a working environment inimical to reflective learning. We would agree that managerialism is indeed a threat

320 N. Thompson and J. Pascal

to reflective practice, but would want to take the analysis a step further. We would argue that the major growth of interest in reflective practice in recent years can be seen 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 in systems premised on close managerial control), in the same way that the significant growth 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 question that the way we are doing things and thinking about things at present, it will not occur to 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 an important 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 not take the world for granted and does not automatically accept the world as it is. Reflective practice contributes to critical, transforming practice. … Critical practice involves reflectiveness but transcends it. (p. 87)

Thompson and Thompson (2008) write of two dimensions of criticality: depth and breadth. 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 are being drawn upon. The latter refers to the broader sociological context and includes such 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 the subtleties involved.

Murray and Kujundzic (2005) comment on the ‘depth’ aspect when they argue that:

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, our politicians and our scientists tell us, but surely not merely on the basis of their telling us. They may be wrong, after all, however well-intentioned. This is the appeal of being autonomous. 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 does not take situations at face value, but rather adopts a questioning approach – one that helps practitioners to move beyond taken-for-granted assumptions that may well be informed by prejudice and discriminatory discourses. It enables us to identify any ideological basis to our practice and to the situations we are engaging with as part of that practice.

Reflective Practice 321

From the ‘breadth’ point of view, Brechin, Brown, and Eby (2000) help us to understand the importance of adopting a wider sociological lens when they comment to the effect that:

The term “critical” is used to conceptualise practice as an open-minded, reflexive process, built on a sound skills and knowledge base, but taking account of different perspectives, experiences, assumptions and power relations. Critical practice draws on an awareness of wider ethical dilemmas, strategic issues, policy frameworks and socio-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 sense of identifying any underlying rationale at a narrow, individualistic level (as used by authors such as Atkins, 2004, and Cottrell, 2005), but also about critical analysis at a broader socio-political level that takes account of cultural and structural factors that are so important in shaping professional practice and the social and political circumstances 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 in terms of rationale, assumptions and values owes much to the broader social context and the discourses that operate within it. Critically reflective practice therefore needs to take account of the breadth and depth aspects, as well as the vitally important interrelationships between the two.

Conclusion

What has become established as ‘traditional’ reflective practice, as popularised through 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 that provides 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

This adds up to quite a significant challenge but, given the value of critically reflective practice and the dangers of an uncritical, non-reflective approach, we should see this as a worthwhile investment of our time, effort and energy.

In discussing postmodernist perspectives, Payne (1998) makes the important point 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 up to some of the complexities of that social world and our part in it, and should not be used to justify adopting an approach which is not open to new ideas, new perspectives or new challenges. The aim must be the integration of theory and practice, rather than the use of one as a weapon against the other. Critically reflective practice provides us with a foundation for doing this.

Notes on contributors Dr Neil Thompson is an independent author, trainer and consultant who has written extensively about human relations and well-being issues. His recent books include Grief and its Challenges and The People Solutions Sourcebook 2e (both published by Palgrave Macmillan, 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 phenomenological ways 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. In C. 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 of Occupational Learning, 2(2), 21–32.

Benner, P., Hooper-Kyriakidis, P., & Stannard, D. (1999). Clinical wisdom and interventions in 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

Causarano, A. (2011). Becoming a special education teacher: Journey or maze? Reflective Practice. 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 construction of 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: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.

Fook, J., Ryan, M., & Hawkins, L. (2000). Professional expertise: Practice, theory and education 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 reflection in 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: Jessica Kingsley.

Kearney, J. (2004). ‘Knowing how to go on’: Towards situated practice and emergent theory in 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 on the legacy of Donald Schön. Reflective Practice. International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 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: Open University Press.

Mullaly, B. (2002). Challenging oppression: A critical social work approach. Ontario: Oxford University Press.

324 N. Thompson and J. Pascal

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: professional development to improve student learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Palmer, A., Burns, S., & Bulman, C. (1994). Reflective practice in nursing: The growth of the professional practitioner. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Pascal, J., & Brown, G. (2009). Ontology, epistemology and methodology for teaching research methods. In M. Garner, C. Wagner, & B. Kawulich (Eds.), Teaching research methods 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 (2nd ed.). 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 and Transformations, 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 Work Monographs.

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