CRITICAL REFLECTION ON PRACTICE

Critical Reflection on Practice

Critical Reflection on Practice

Although it is vital to allow our data to speak for itself, and not to impose a theoretical framework on it, it is equally important to articulate the 'theoretical lenses' through which we have examined our material. Before discussing our data, we will sketch in some theoretical concepts, drawn from sociology and education that was found relevant.

The Territory of Criticality

Barnett's (1997) work was our starting point; his text on higher education sets out to articulate what ideally might be expected of a person graduating from a three-year undergraduate degree, and his matrix, embodying his conceptualisation of 'critical being', has continued to frame our thinking (p. 103).

This framework places three forms of criticality—critical reason, critical self-reflection and critical action—within the respective 'domains' of knowledge, the self and the world. It then maps each form of criticality at each of four 'levels'. This conceptualisation is broader than 'critical thinking' alone, and its inclusion of self-reflection and action in the world fits comfortably with common understandings of the nature of social work education.

It is important to note that Barnett's framework is not a developmental model, in which students progress smoothly 'up' the levels or, in disciplines like social work, across the three domains. It should be seen rather as a territorial map which students move around, and may be found in different parts of the framework at different times, reflecting their current learning needs and abilities. This article will consider how our data from social work student placements relates to the framework, and in particular how students move around the territorial map and the interconnections that are made.

Relationships between Formal Knowledge, the Self and Action

It is important to understand the relationship between Barnett's three domains in relation to social work practice. Reflection, and reflection leading to action, are clearly strong elements in the dynamic, iterative process of making links across the domains. Barnett's work articulates the notion of graduates as 'critical beings' who are active across all the domains, preferably at the higher levels. Reflection connects the domains together. In contrast, other advocates of reflective practice reject formal theory (e.g. Freire, 1972). Approaches advocating metacompetence (getting things done with maximum efficiency) and societal reflection (solving social problems) entail effort in the domain of action, with minimal reflection.

The relationships between formal theory, professional practice and reflection are both complex and value-laden. Barnett comments that self-reflection is seen as residing in the concrete practices of professional life. Indeed, it is constitutive of professionalism, as Schon's (1987) notion of reflection-in-action indicates: a continual interrogation and imaginative reconstruction of one's actions as they are unfolding. … The professional world is a multiple world, full of alternative possibilities of strategy, action and communication. It is reflection-in-action that brings order into this potential chaos and determines the course of action (p. 97).

With others, Barnett argues that Schon privileges practice over theory. There is not space here to do more than note that advocates of reflective practice span a wide range ...