Becoming a Reflective Practitioner. Группа авторов
transformation:
The process of becoming critically aware of how and why the structure of psycho‐cultural assumptions has come to constrain the way we see ourselves and our relationships, reconstituting this structure to permit a more inclusive and discriminating integration of experience and acting upon these new understandings.
Mezirow’s focus on understanding assumptions takes reflection into what is generally regarded as a ‘critical’ domain. The focus on emancipatory action is to rewrite one’s own and collective assumptions to govern a more satisfactory state of affairs, however, that might be framed. Not easy stuff for the humble practitioner to grasp as Smith (2011, p. 212) acknowledges:
Despite widespread and long standing commitment to the notion of critical reflection across the health and social care professions, it can be difficult to assimilate into teaching because the language is complex, and the same terminology is used in different ways in different contexts so carries different nuances.
Balancing the Winds
The above theories all stem from a rational Western cognitive tradition reflected in the words, ideas, and language used. Put another way, they all come from one direction or wind. My exploration of Buddhism and Native American lore gave me wider perspectives and different winds (Johns 2005). It is not enough to ‘know’ reflection. It is deeper than that – it is about developing mindfulness and wisdom, something beyond rational thinking that is not easily defined. Goldstein (2002, p. 89) notes:
Mindfulness is the quality of mind that notices what is present without judgment, without interference. It is like a mirror that clearly reflects what comes before it.
Thus mindfulness is a heightened state of awareness. It is being aware moment by moment of things and the world around us, of our body, our feelings and thoughts, and ourselves in relationship with others. Wheatley and Kellner‐Rogers (1996, p. 26) write:
The more present and aware we are as individuals and as organisations, the more choices we create. As awareness increases, we can engage with more possibilities. We are no longer held prisoner by habits, unexamined thoughts, or information we effuse to look at.
Miller offers a vivid description of being mindful of the world around him (1964, p. 27):
Nothing was too petty to escape my attention, seeing the everyday things in this new light I was transfixed. The moment you give close attention to anything, even a blade of grass, it becomes mysterious, awesome, indescribably magnified world in itself.
Through paying attention to their experiences and reflection, practitioners naturally become more aware of themselves and their practice. Reflection is a way to connect with all things, gain respect and inner strength, and realise one’s vision as reflected in the idea of bimadisiwin. Jones and Jones (1996, p. 47) write:
Bimadisiwin is a conscious decision to become. It is time to think about what you want to be. The dance cannot be danced until you envision the dance, rehearse its movements and understand your part. It is demanding for every step needs an effort in becoming one with the vision. It takes discipline, hard work and time. It is freeing, for it frees the spirit. It releases you to become as you believe you must.
Such words stir the imagination. Bimadisiwin is reflection. It is a ritual dance of becoming.
Listen to the drum!Believe in the vision of youPractice the visionBecome the vision
Spectrum of Reflective Practices
Reflective practices span a number of approaches (Figure 1.1) characterised by three developing themes:
From doing reflection towards being reflective.
From a technical rational to a professional artistry perspective.
An increasing criticality.
FIGURE 1.1 Typology of reflective practices.
Doing reflection reflects an epistemological approach, as if reflection is a tool or device. Being reflective reflects an ontological approach concerned more with ‘who I am’ rather than ‘what I do’. It is pertinent to note that all the theories I briefly noted all focus on reflection, not reflective practice. Bulman et al. (2012), in their investigation of student and teacher perspectives on reflective practice, revealed that a focus on being rather than doing was significant. The ontological approach subsumes the epistemological, as if the way we think about and do things must involve us who are to think about things in the first place. Doing reflection reflects a technical rational approach, whereas being reflective reflects a professional artistry approach. Criticality reflects the depth of inquiry into the background that frames experience.
Reflection‐on‐experience
When people refer to reflection, they usually refer to reflection‐on‐experience. Indeed, most theories of reflection are based on this idea of looking back on an experience after the event with learning intent.
Reflection‐in‐action
Schön (1983, 1987) distinguished reflection‐on‐action with reflection‐in‐action as a way of thinking about a situation whilst engaged within it, in order to reframe it as necessary to overcome some impediment. The practitioner naturally adjusts to minor interruptions within the smooth flow of experience because the body has embodied knowing. However, the practitioner is sometimes faced with situations that require the practitioner to stop and reframe the situation in order to proceed. This requires a shift in thinking and contemplating new ways of responding. As such, it is problem solving yet recognising that old ways of thinking are inadequate. Reflection is the practitioner’s unique encounter and conversation with a situation through which, as Schön (1983, p. 163) puts it, ‘he shapes it and makes himself part of it’.
Schön (1987) drew on exemplars from music and architecture, situations of engagement with inanimate forms. His example of counselling is taken from the classroom not from clinical practice. The classroom is a much easier place to freeze and reframe situations in contrast with a clinical practice grounded within the unfolding human encounter. It is easy to misunderstand reflection‐in‐action as merely thinking about something whilst doing it.
Schön (1983) responded to the idea that reflection interferes with action. He acknowledges the difficulty of ‘being in the firing line’ when the practitioner must respond quickly and intuitively. However, I make a distinction between cognitive thinking and embodied thinking based on the body’s tacit knowing. Hence the quick intuitive response is an example of embodied thinking – the body knows how to respond. Subsequent reflection on the experience, as with all reflection on experience, feeds tacit knowing and the intuitive response even if the practitioner does not recognise it as such. As Schön concluded (1983, p. 281), ‘there is nothing in reflection, then, which leads necessarily to paralysis of action’. Perhaps when reflection has not been embodied, as for novice reflective practitioners, an attempt to reflect‐in‐action can seem to interfere with action as if cognitive thinking gets in the way of intuitive thinking and response.
The Internal Supervisor
Casement (1985) coined the expression the ‘internal supervisor’ as a continuous dialogue the practitioner has with themself in response to the unfolding situation – ‘what is going on here’, ‘how am I responding’, etc. The practitioner is also mindful of intent