interpretation of what reflection means, and this interpretation is used as the basis for trumpeting the virtues of reflection in a way that makes it sound as virtuous as motherhood.
Smyth’s words are both salutary and provocative. They remind us to be careful about grasping reflection in any casual or authoritative way. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary 3e defines ‘reflect’ as:
throw back heat, light, sound without absorbing it,
(of a mirror or shiny surface) show an image of,
represent in a realistic or appropriate way,
bring about a good or bad impression of someone or something (on),
think deeply or carefully about.
Hence reflection can be viewed as a mirror to see images or impressions of self thrown back in the context of the particular situation. It is thinking deeply about the way the practitioner responded and reasons for that response in light of what they were trying to achieve. It is self‐judgmental – did I do good or bad? It is a wake up call because so much of practice is non‐reflective, merely a matter of habit and automatic response.
Next time you are at work, ask yourself some questions.
‘Why am I responding as I am?’
‘Am I being effective?’
‘Could I respond in different, perhaps more effective ways?’
‘Am I responding in tune with my vision of practice?’
Sensible questions the responsible practitioner should naturally ponder as they go about their practice and to reflect on later. These questions open the doorway to self‐inquiry. As a consequence, the practitioner becomes more sensitive to their practice. They step along the reflective road.
A Brief View of Reflective Theories
Imagine the practitioner’s cry – ‘tell me what reflection is so I can do it!’ However, it is not as simple as that. It is more complex than simply applying a technique, although on the surface, it might seem that a prescription is just what is required. Indeed, many practitioners and educators may misguidedly view it as such. If so, reflection becomes a task to be done rather than something meaningful and transformative.
When I first explored reflective theories, I discovered the work of Schön (1983, 1987), Boud et al. (1985), Boyd and Fales (1983), Gibbs (1988), and Mezirow (1981). It is not my intention to review these theories in any depth. The reader is directed to the primary sources to explore these theorists more deeply and explore more recent ideas.
All models of reflection should be viewed through a sceptical lens. Rather like the skilled craftsman, the practitioner will choose the tool that is most helpful. Models are not prescriptions for reflection. They must always be viewed as a heuristic, as a means to an end. In a technical rational society, reflective models are likely to be grasped as authoritative. The risk, from this perspective, is that practitioners will fit their experience to the model of reflection rather than use the model creatively to guide them to gain insight. It is easy to get wrapped up in the technology of reflection, especially in a learning culture dominated by technical rationality. It is a Western technological addiction (Rinpoche 1992).
Boyd and Fales (1983)
These authors write: ‘We define reflection as the process of creating and clarifying the meaning of experience (present or past) in terms of self (self in relation to self and self in relation to the world). The outcome of the process is changed conceptual perspective. The experience that is explored and examined to create meaning focuses around or embodies a concern of central importance to the self’. (p. 101)
From their research with counsellors, they extrapolate reflection through six components (p. 106):
1 A sense of inner discomfort.
2 Identification or clarification of the concern.
3 Openness to new information from internal and external sources, with ability to observe and take in from a variety of perspectives, and a setting aside of an immediate need for closure.
4 Resolution, expressed as ‘integration’, ‘coming together’, ‘acceptance of reality’, and ‘creative synthesis’.
5 Establishing a continuity of self with past, present, and future.
6 Deciding whether to act on the outcome of the reflective process.
In relation to stage 6, they note ‘the new insight or changed perspective is analyzed in terms of its operational feasibility involving the practitioner’s sense of rightness, values and potential acceptance by others’. (p. 112).
I generally agree that reflection is triggered by ‘inner discomfort’ for practitioners when first engaging reflection. However, as the practitioner becomes more mindful, then all experience, not just ‘inner discomfort’ becomes available for reflection. I equate the idea of changed conceptual perspective with insight (see Chapters 4 and 5).
Boud et al. (1985)
These authors posit reflection as moving through three key stages:
returning to experience
attending to feelingsutilising positive feelingsremoving obstructing feelings
re‐evaluating experiencere‐examining experience in the light of the learner’s intentassociating new knowledge with that which is already possessedintegrating this new knowledge into the learner’s conceptual frameworkappropriation of this knowledge into the learner’s repertoire of behaviour
Appropriation is akin to gaining insight; that the practitioner has changed through the reflective process, that when faced with a similar situation, they will respond differently. This differs from Boyd and Fales’s approach in that the practitioner makes a choice whether to respond differently in light of learning. Boyd and Fales (1983, p. 112) write: ‘The need to test one’s self‐changes [insights] against the mirror of others is an essential component of all growth’. These words emphasise that all individual learning must be set within its context.
Gibbs (1988)
Gibbs offers a practical reflective circle moving through six stages suggesting that each stage is important to inform the next stage ultimately resulting in an action plan for responding in future similar situations.
1 Description (of the situation).
2 Feelings (what were you thinking and feeling).
3 Evaluation (what was good and bad about the experience).
4 Analysis (what sense can you make of the situation).
5 Conclusion (what else could you have done).
6 Action plan (if it arose again what would you do).
Mezirow (1981)
Mezirow viewed reflection as a process leading to emancipatory action. He posited a depth of reflection through seven levels of reflectivity spanning from consciousness, the way we might think about something, to critical consciousness where we pay attention and scrutinise our thinking processes. Thinking is inherently problematic. Hence our thinking is a focus for reflection. Hence I need to think differently to perceive the situation differently, and in doing so, to unearth those assumptions that govern thinking. If reflection is viewed merely as problem solving, and we used the same thinking to solve the problem that caused the problem, then we wouldn’t get very far. Our solutions