Reflective Writing - Categorising Reflection and Reflective Practice

CATEGORISING REFLECTION AND REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

In this document you can find short inputs about different views on reflection and reflective practice, followed by a categorisation of reflection from Jay and Johnson (2002).

Donald Schön’s (1983) book, The Reflective Practitioner challenged practitioners to engage in reflection to develop professional excellence. He considered that professional practice consisted not just of the acquisition and practice of knowledge and skills (what he called ‘technical rationality’) but also the use of reflection both on and in practice in order to develop “artistry” in what we do. Schon distinguished between reflection-on-action, which is usually retrospective and focused on looking back on an experience, from reflection-in-action which can occur during the experience, and involves questioning the assumptions we make, and thinking critically about the ‘thinking that got us to this point.’ Schön’s argument, since taken up by others (e.g. Fish and Coles, 1998), was as follows: Professional practice is complex, unpredictable and messy. In order to cope, professionals have to be able to do more than follow set procedures. They draw on both practical experience and theory as they think on their feet and improvise. They act both intuitively and creatively. Both reflection in and on action allows them to revise, modify and refine their expertise.

Jack Mezirow (1991, p99) claims that reflection is the “central dynamic in intentional learning, problem solving and validity testing through rational discourse”. He is also, along with others, known for his theory of learning for transformation, or transformative learning as it is sometimes called. This is the process of "perspective transformation", with three dimensions:

psychological (changes in understanding of the self)
convictional (revision of belief systems)
behavioral (changes in lifestyle)

Perspective transformation leading to transformative learning occurs less frequently then other forms of reflection. Dewey (1933), Brookfield (1987) and Mezirow (1991) believe that it results from a state of ‘perplexity’, ‘inner discomforts or a ‘disorienting dilemma.’ Such triggers may be significant, involving life and career changing events, or may be less significant but still of concern, such as the unexpected death of a patient, or a critical incident, or may even be set up by a colleague or educator with the intention of stimulating learning.

An important part of transformative learning is for individuals to change their frames of reference by critically reflecting on their assumptions and beliefs and consciously making and implementing plans that bring about new ways of defining their worlds. This can be psychologically challenging.

Transformational reflection can be perspectival or experiential and Mezirow claims that intentional learning involves one or more of the following three processes:

Explication of meaning from an experience
Reinterpretation of that meaning
Application of it through thoughtful action

In order to stimulate transformational reflection Mezirow calls for the practice of ‘problem posing’ – that is the process where we make our taken-for-granted situations, assumptions, values, beliefs and views and make them problematic – we raise questions as to their validity. This is similar in nature to the process of double loop learning (see below) in that we question the very bases upon which we operate. It is only by doing this, claims Mezirow, that we can transform our perspectives, and therefore our practices. This involves critical ‘self-spectatorship’ (Bolton 2000) – a process whereby we remove ourselves from the action and critique not just what we do, but why we do it that way.

The focus on practice is reflected in Boud, Cressey and Dougherty’s work on ‘Productive Reflection’ (2006) which is characterised by:

an organisation rather than an individual intent;
a collective rather than an individual orientation;
contextualisation, connecting learning and work;
links between knowing and producing;
involvement of multiple stakeholders and connections;
a generative rather than an instrumental focus;
a developmental character;
an open, unpredictable and dynamic process.

Boud suggests that reflection should be located in the context of practice. He argues that much of what had been of value in reflection had been lost, either through misunderstandings about the process, or through a more instrumental desire to create set ways of doing things. This leads to uncritical application of models and other formulas for reflection, exhibiting a more technical approach and following a more transmission view of learning.

Jay and Johnson (2002) developed a typology of reflection involving three intertwined dimensions:

Dimension of reflection:	Reflector considers:
Descriptive	What is happening? Is this working and for whom? How am I feeling? What do I not understand?
Comparative	How do/would others involved describe what is happening here? How does research help my understanding here? How can I improve what is not working?
Critical	What are the implications of this matter when viewed from alternative perspectives? Given these alternative perspectives, my values and ethics, what is the best way forward? What does this say about the moral and political dimension of my workplace? How does this reflective process inform and renew my perspective?