Practising Critical Reflection-A Resource Handbook Assessment

PART I 

The Theory and Contexts of Critical Reflection

1 The context for professionals 

This chapter provides the context for using critical reflection in organizations through identifying the: 

• common issues faced by those working in human service organizations, including 

– a sense of powerlessness linked to uncertainty 

– fear of risk 

– increased complexity 

• organizational responses to these, which create further stress, including 

– pressure to work to rules and procedures 

– generating paperwork 

– focus on the parts rather than the whole 

– focus on outcomes. 

It also identifies the resulting issues for practitioners: 

• the tensions between value-based professional practice and economically and technically focused organizations, and 
• the need to find ways to continually develop knowledge and practice that fit with this changing and complex context. 

Finally, it begins to explore how critical reflection is relevant and helpful in managing these issues, and the implications for practice. 

Why are participants interested in critical reflection? Often, they say that they are wrestling with how to manage the experience of working in human service organizations. Many find their direct work relatively manageable, but struggle more with the nature of the organization they work in. Some say they need new ways of making sense of practice; their current theory base is not adequate for processing the dilemmas and issues they face. In critical reflection workshops, we begin by setting the context for critical reflection with a brief exploration of current issues for workers and human service organizations. Participants generally contribute specific examples from their own practice, which deepens this exploration. 

This chapter reflects this beginning and provides a more detailed outline of what participants perceive as current issues. Some of these reflect broader social issues, particularly a pervading sense of uncertainty and concern about risk, which is manifested in specific ways in organizations. Some issues identi fied by participants are about how human service organizations respond to these – by, for example, generating rules and procedures to minimize or con tain risk or a focus on narrow service delivery. These issues can be expressed in various ways and we have used the language of workshop participants to name them here. 

A sense of powerlessness: uncertainty and human service organizations 

Feeling powerless is one of the issues most frequently mentioned by partici pants. This often seems to connect with a sense of uncertainty and unpredict ability. A common example from participants is ‘managers make decisions on your behalf that you haven’t been consulted about and aren’t happy with’. Beck (1992: 33) talks about uncertainty generating a sense of powerlessness combined with a lack of personal responsibility. Participants identify with this, suggesting that a sense of uncertainty permeates practice so that they assume change is not possible even within their sphere of influence. For some workers, this view is strengthened by the political nature of working in human services organizations: a change in policy or a restructure is likely to be dic tated by political change rather than client-centred initiatives. This feels too distant for workers to influence and they can then feel they are passive recipients of new directions. 

To some extent, participants see a degree of uncertainty as desirable, they affirm this as part of their work; they have often chosen to work in people related jobs because they can expect unpredictability. However, this was previously within a context of greater certainty: professionals had a greater sense of confidence about their professional status, had long-term job stability and expected to be supported in decisions they had made (Beck 1992). They felt more able to influence what was happening around them. 

Perhaps more importantly, participants suggest there was more shared understanding of ‘how things worked’ or what was important. Pellizoni (2003) uses the term ‘radical uncertainty’ to identify situations where knowledge may be interpreted in different ways in relation to problems whose underlying premises are not clearly identified. Participants say they may perceive what is important in a situation in fundamentally different ways from a colleague or manager. Related to this, Barnett uses the term ‘supercomplexity’, where workers and organizations have to deal with what they experience as conflict ing frameworks – for example, a counsellor might also be a coordinator of services, a doctor expected to offer counselling (Barnett 1999). Again this con tributes a sense of uncertainty: what will I be expected to do next? Who will be directing me and will I be able to influence them? 

Myra had been working as a child protection worker for 12 months. Somewhat to her surprise, she found her work with clients very satisfying. However, she described herself as increasingly disillusioned with the organization and its lack of responsiveness to clients and to herself as a worker. She and her partner were on a tight budget and it took six months before she was being paid the level agreed at her interview. This fitted with her experience of seeking resources for clients, and trying to assert the need for change meant she was seen as a troublemaker. She had decided that she was powerless in the organization; she would just focus on her work with clients and survive as best she could. The critical reflection process enabled her to affirm her values of high-quality services for clients and to start to seek ways she could bring about change. 

Fear of risk 

How risk is experienced varies for participants, but again is a major theme. This is often related to fear of the consequences of making the ‘wrong’ deci sion (Banks 2002; Gibbs 2002) or of allowing something to ‘go wrong’. There is a ‘ubiquity of risk awareness and risk management in the life of mod ern organizations and in the consciousness of workers and managers alike’ (Cooper and Darlington 2004). Workers talk about risk assessment in relation to client work, supervisors about risk in terms of workers’ actions; the organ ization is likely to have a risk management plan aimed at preventing any thing going wrong. This partly comes from fear of negative media coverage (Taylor and White 2000: 3); as one participant said, ‘How do you stop your self from feeling guilty at not doing something because of fear of negative publicity?’ 

The pressure – both internal and external – to be a perfect worker is another aspect participants identify as part of risk. Participants often have high expectations, matching those of the organization. They are reluctant to risk ‘failure’. This focus on risk and expectations of perfection creates particu lar problems for them in their organization. This desire to always have things 

go well is an unrealistic expectation in what Schon (1983) called the ‘messy swamps’ of practice. This is partly about looking for the ‘right answer’ rather than acknowledging that in professional work there are no absolutely right answers. 

It also results from a sense of confusion between what Banks calls the ‘technical rational’ and ‘moral’ realms; for example, when an action is seen as right when the outcome is right – which can be clear only in hindsight (Banks 2001). For workers this creates a sense of incongruence between their core values and their actions. Are they judged to be ‘good’ practitioners only when their actions fit desired outcomes in spite of working in a complex and highly uncertain environment? This links to another question often raised by participants: Will I be supported? What will happen to me if things do go wrong? 

Mark talked about an incident where he had visited a client for the first time after a worker left. On the way, he thought about how the previous worker described the client: her aggressive, possibly dangerous, attitude; her resentment of social workers and unwillingness to cooperate. When he arrived, Mark was alarmed by his cold and formal approach to the client, who did react negatively. He tried to retrieve the situation by explaining more about what the organization could offer but, in the end, it was clear that it was too late. Mark was concerned that he had created the situation he wanted to avoid because of his fear of what might happen. 

Increased complexity 

Participants often talk about the increasingly complex work they are expected to undertake. This is often for structural rather than organizational reasons: 

• family structures are now more complicated, with blended families of many different kinds 
• more individuals with disabilities are now supported in families and/ or communities 
• greater migration and movement of refugees means greater variety of cultural backgrounds 
• clients more often express anger and a sense of alienation from society in reaction to social exclusion 
• complex and rapidly changing service systems are often challenging for workers and clients alike to understand. 

While complexity and diversity can be, and generally are, also perceived posi tively, they present challenges to organizations and to workers. Participants say they do not always feel adequately trained to deal with this, particularly in a context of uncertainty and fear of risk. 

Organizational responses to uncertainty, risk and complexity 

How, then, do organizations and individuals respond to this context? Parti cipants suggest that organizational responses fall into four categories, as described below. 

Working to rules and procedures 

Participants suggest that their organizations often respond to issues of uncer tainty and risk by trying to create certainty in the form of rules and pro cedures. The current focus on managerialism requires this to some degree: workers are expected to work in regulated ways in order to maximize effi ciency and ensure uniform and measurable outcomes, to manage the ‘messy and complicated business’ of practice (Taylor and White 2000). Participants have mixed feelings about this: some, particularly new workers, seek clear answers and direction, they would prefer to be told what to do; others see increased numbers of policy and procedure manuals as a way of man aging the anxiety generated by human service work, a way of trying to increase predictability in a situation where this is not really possible. The response to child deaths, for example, is often to develop more policies and guidelines to control worker behaviour and so reduce risk (Gibbs 2002). Participants more often say, however, that this reinforces their feeling deval ued, and their professional judgement or discretion is lessened, some would say minimized. 

Generating paperwork 

Another example of organizational response that affects participants is the amount of paperwork generated. In some organizations, they suggest, it can feel as if the focus is on getting the paperwork done rather than focusing on the clients. Jones (2001: 553), for example, in talking about social workers employed by government departments in Britain, says that ‘the contact [with clients] is more fleeting, more regulated and governed by the demands of the forms which now shape much of the intervention’. One of the main reasons people gave for leaving the public service in Britain was the ‘sense of being overwhelmed by bureaucracy and paperwork’ (Firth 2005). Participants confirm that this again reinforces their feeling devalued as professionals, and contributes to a sense of powerlessness. 

Focus on the parts rather than the whole: narrowing or limiting service delivery 

Participants suggest that organizations and their funding bodies also aim to control work and increase accountability by breaking it into what are seen as defined and manageable work areas. Participants experience this as frustrating; there is pressure to work in narrowly focused service delivery – working with an aspect of a person and their situation rather than being able to work in a more holistic way (Gardner 2006). Workers often comment on the impact of ‘silos’: government departments, each concentrating on its mandated area rather than having a broader awareness and ability to work with the inter action between departments. Within organizations, services are often delivered according to narrow funding guidelines so that the focus is on a target prob lem, rather than an individual or family as a whole. Examples participants give are prolific: a practitioner might be frustrated by the standardized and limited number of sessions allowed for a client with major sexual abuse issues; a policy maker at having to focus on funding support packages for people with dis abilities when housing is clearly a major issue. This connects with the fourth response, a focus on outcomes. 

Focus on outcomes 

The focus on outcomes at the expense of processes is also a current issue for participants. Their organizations generally talk about this in terms of account ability: demonstrating to funding bodies that the work they have contracted for has been done. One of the issues that participants have with this is that it is easier for organizations to measure quantity rather than quality – how many families have been seen, rather than exploring the quality and complexity of the interaction. It also does not take into account some of the less definable aspects of work in human service organizations or whether the organization is working in the most effective way. For example, it may be relatively slow to build a working relationship with a sexually abused adolescent new to counselling compared with an older woman who has previously experienced counselling and is clear about what she wants to work on. The expectations in terms of time allowed and outcomes may be the same. 

A typical dilemma for organizations was experienced at Agency X, which pro vided alcohol and drug counselling services. Agency workers had identified a lack of housing services in their area, which had a major impact on their clients’ ability to remain in control of their alcohol and drug use. Two of the workers wanted to have time allocated to them to carry out a research project to demonstrate the need for housing, which could be used to lobby for funding. The manager and management committee refused the request on the basis that the funding agreement required the agency to see a certain number of clients a year, so all workers needed to remain casework focused. 

Where does this leave professionals in organizations? 

Participants find these organizational responses often create other tensions for them. The rules and procedures simply don’t work for all clients; given the complexity of work, participants need to be able to generate creative possi bilities not encouraged in their workplace. Past training has not necessarily provided participants with the processes to recognize and value their own knowledge-making and to generate other ways of operating. 

Participants see two main issues for themselves in managing these issues as professionals in their organizations. 

1. There is a tension between value-based professional practice and eco nomically and technically focused organizations. Participants see a major dilemma in their ability to express their values as professionals in organizations, saying, for example, ‘What do I believe is the right way to go here? If the decision was mine what would I do?’ Often, it feels as if their own and their organization’s priorities are different, and this creates conflict for them. 
2. There is a need for ways to continually develop knowledge and prac tice that fit with this changing and complex context. Participants have often found that past formal or informal training has not helped them manage the uncertainty and complexity of their current work environment. As Jones (2001) found, the sense of constant change can in turn be stressful and contribute to high turnover. Participants suggest a need for processes that enable them to engage with and manage these issues constructively. 

The place of critical reflection 

Much has been written about uncertainty and risk in our current culture as well as in organizational life. This suggests workers have to constantly adapt to changing conditions, developing knowledge that is seen as useful and rele vant, making and remaking themselves in response to uncertainty (Giddens 1991; Ferguson 2001). The sense of dealing with uncertainty, risk and com plexity also permeates recent writing about organizations. The development of the notion of ‘the learning organization’ or ‘organizational learning’ is one response to this (Gould and Baldwin 2004). This approach emphasizes the need for workers and organizations to be learning continuously in order to manage change effectively. The learning organization can also provide oppor tunities for workers to name current stresses, to explore how they fit with core values and the implications for practice. 

Critical reflection provides both theory and processes to enable this making and remaking of knowledge to happen. Participants acknowledge that critical reflection provides a framework that enables them to manage these issues more effectively. How this happens will be covered in more detail in the rest of the book, but we will look at it, in brief, now. 

First, participants find that critical reflection provides a way of ‘standing back’ and seeing the issues from a different perspective. They say the theory of critical reflection as well as the process, makes it possible for them to articulate and analyse these issues, particularly identifying what they have assumed about how things are and how they could be. For example, the process encour ages participants to name the influence of uncertainty and the complexities of power, including their own assumptions about the place of power, and to see other possible perspectives. 

Second, participants articulate the value of knowledge generated from their own experience as practitioners, as well as knowledge from formal or informal training, and how either or both can help generate new knowledge or theory. This validates practitioners’ theory-building and provides a process that can be used in practice. 

Third, as a result of this exploration, participants are able to be more active in their organizations, expressing their values and challenging organiza tional expectations with a view to more creative, satisfying and effective practice. 

Chapter summary 

Professionals currently work in a social environment that is preoccupied with uncertainty, risk and complexity. These permeate human service organizations and are expressed in how professionals relate both to the internal world of the organization and the external world of clients and communities. Organizations often seek to contain uncertainty and risk, and manage complexity by emphasiz ing rules, increasing paperwork, narrowing service delivery and focusing on outcomes. As a result, practitioners can feel their professional practice is com promised: they are less able to express their professional values. They may also feel that they lack the capacity to manage these challenges and need new frame works and processes that develop their ability to work creatively with these issues. The chapters that follow explore how critical reflection can provide a way of recognizing and engaging with these issues. 

2 Clarifying our approach to critical reflection 

The purpose of this chapter is to outline our own approach in broad and preliminary terms. (In this book’s accompanying website – www.openup.co.uk/ fook&gardner – we have included more detail about how our approach fits within other disciplines, uses and models of crit ical reflection; this material will be of particular interest to educators and researchers who wish to develop their own models further.) We hope that readers will be able to fully understand our perspective, but also take their own discerning stance on it, depending on their own perspectives, needs and contexts. 

Why do we need to spend substantial time clarifying our approach to critical reflection? Let’s begin to answer that by asking another question: is there anyone who isn’t critically reflective? At the beginning of our critical reflection programmes we often ask whether there is anyone present who doesn’t critically reflect. Funnily enough, we have yet to see a hand go up in answer to this question! Yet we don’t seem to have any trouble attracting people to participate in critical reflection training, wanting to find out more about it. It seems that the conundrum of critical reflection is that everyone thinks it should be done, but when it comes down to the detail, many people are not sure specifically what is involved. There is a worrying gap between our theory and practice if you like: in theory we think critical reflection is a good idea, but we do not always support this with the necessary practices. We have indeed heard it said that, although many professional courses require students to be reflective, there is often no literature provided on the topic, or no specific segment of the course that focuses on what is involved. In addition, specific assessment criteria are not always spelt out (Fisher 2003). This can lead to an understandable scepticism about whether reflection actually exists (Ixer 1999). This sort of situation is supported by Issit (1999), who noted that people who say they are critically reflective often haven’t read anything recently about it. 

On another note, there also seems to be a strong belief that there is no need to spell out the detail of the theory, since everyone knows that critical reflection is just a practice! Another comment we have heard is that everyone

Knows how to critically reflect, and we all do it, so why do we need to provide specific programmes in it? 

These sorts of comments set the scene for what is both so simple and yet so complex about critical reflection. It is bound up in our very assumptions about who we are, and how we ought to be as intelligent human beings. And of course there is a range of perspectives on these issues, including a huge array of ‘common sense’ and popular views (Moon 1999). On one level, of course, reflection may simply be seen as ‘thinking’, and may be something that most people feel they do naturally. Yet there are so many different perspectives often assumed in our understanding of what ‘thinking’ and ‘natural’ is, that it makes it difficult to sort through what it is, how it might be used and how it is understood. Our own experience, which largely involved developing a practical model for critical reflection before reading and researching in great detail, is also an example of some of the culture that perhaps surrounds critical reflection. There is perhaps a certain safety and comfort in the focus on doing. 

In some ways the literature on critical reflection does not help. There is a huge range of literature. It spans many broad fields that do and don’t overlap, such as education, professional learning and organizational learning. It also spans different disciplines, which again may or may not overlap, such as social theory (Giddens 1992), management, health professions, social work, allied health, law (Fook et al. 2006), economics (Fisher 2003) and industrial relations (Cressey 2006). In addition, to complicate matters, there is a host of related ideas, such as reflective practice (Argyris and Schon 1974; Schon 1983), reflex ivity (Taylor and White 2000), action research/learning, experiential learning (Kolb 1974), transformational learning (Mezirow and associates 1990), notions of criticality, critical/emancipatory education and productive reflection (Boud et al. 2006). There are also varying views on the origin of the idea, some going back as far as early educationalists such as Socrates and Dewey (1933) and others emphasizing more recent professional learning traditions (Argyris and Schon 1974). Still others are more founded on critical theorists such as Habermas (1984, 1987). Although speaking about ‘productive reflection’, Cressey (2006: 54) sums up the complexity of the situation, which can also be applied to critical reflection nicely: 

the notion of productive reflection has no central academic core in a singular disciplinary approach but takes a position which crosses accepted academic boundaries. Because of this it is an unsettling con cept and the journey leads writers into unfamiliar territories whose correspondence may not at first glance seem obvious. However the growing importance of the issue does seem to be manifest and comes from an observation that similar long term trends or phenomena are being observed from the very different areas.

It is this capacity to unsettle, to challenge taken-for-granted disciplinary boundaries, however, that is also the gift of critical reflection. It is potentially an inclusive idea, able to be understood and applied flexibly to suit differing situations, purposes and learners. It is adaptable to different teaching styles and cultural perspectives, and can assist in pointing up alternative meanings not readily apparent through more conventional thinking processes. There is mileage therefore in detailing what is involved, while recognizing that any one representation of critical reflection will represent only one perspective on it. 

Developing our approach to critical reflection 

We start with a broad-brushstroke picture of our approach to critical reflec tion, and in subsequent sections of the chapter will provide more detail. Overall our approach is founded on an understanding of the individual in society, and how the surfacing of assumptions held by individual people about their social worlds may ultimately lead to a capacity to change the ways people act in relation to their social contexts. Critical reflection, from our perspective, is therefore a process (and theory) for unearthing individually held social assumptions in order to make changes in the social world. In our approach, then, reflection is more than simply thinking about experience. It involves a deeper look at the premises on which thinking, actions and emotions are based. It is critical when connections are made between these assumptions and the social world as a basis for changed actions. 

Let us look at the three main features of this approach: 

1. the understanding of the individual in a social context 2. the linking of the theory and practice of critical reflection in the model 
2. the importance of linking changed awareness with changed actions. 

The individual in their social context: linking individual and society 

Our approach is grounded first and foremost in the idea that individual people are social beings whose personal characteristics are formed and reformed in interaction with (and within) different aspects and layers of their social worlds. In this sense, individual people are microcosms of their social environ ments. Very often, however, these social influences are masked as purely personal features of individual people. This means that people’s understand ing of themselves as social beings, made in relation to social contexts, is therefore hidden. Critical reflection as we understand it is therefore a process for unearthing these social aspects of individual lives. In order to do this effect ively, the process needs to include an appreciation of social influences on personal experiences, and how and why these may become and remain hid den. We will discuss the theory of this in much more detail in the next chapter. 

A critical reflection process in the main, then, focuses on the sorts of assumptions people make that reflect their social worlds – that is, its primary focus is on the level at which the individual and society interact (as evi denced in the sorts of assumptions people make). The process is designed to create an environment in which people are enabled to unsettle the major assumptions on which their practice is based, making connections between these assumptions and their beliefs about their social world. Obviously there may be many different sorts of assumptions that fit these categories, so the ways in which the connections between the individual and their social environments are understood and theorized is crucial. Again, we will detail this further on. 

Both a theory and a practice process 

The second major feature of our approach is that we have developed both a theoretical approach to critical reflection and a practical process for how it may be done. This is important to us, given that many of the criticisms of critical reflection centre on the idea that it does not necessarily lead to any practical changes, or that it is easy to support in theory, but much harder to do. In our approach we very much try to model the idea that if there is a clear theoretical framework, there should also be some clear indications for changed practices that logically follow. Our model therefore consists of some relatively complex theory around different understandings of the ways in which indi viduals interact with their social worlds, which we then develop into specific methods for reflecting upon the concrete practice experiences of individual professionals. 

Linking awareness and action 

The last major characteristic of our approach is that we emphasize the imme diate connections between the changed awarenesses of assumptions unearthed through the reflective process, and the changed practices that suggest them selves on the basis of these changed awarenesses. In other words, our model is very much one of learning how to develop actions from awareness, and to keep dynamically connecting them. In our experience it is this aspect that participants often find most difficult, and it is often all too easy to find the experience of reflecting so emotionally and intellectually satisfying that it is tempting to leave the process on that high note. Although these changed practices cannot all necessarily be trialled within our formal programmes, in our model we try to set up as many of the other necessary conditions as possible, to enable the indicated changes to be practised in the relevant context. 

In summarized terms, then, critical reflection for us is a process of unset tling individual assumptions to bring about social changes. The assumptions may be individually held (and of course may be collectively common as well) but will involve some assumptions about social influences on personal lives. When these are shaken up and examined, they may be remade in ways that lead to changes in the way the individual person practises in, and in relation to, their social contexts. 

Summary: critical reflection 

‘unsettling individual assumptions to bring about social changes’ 

Emphasizes that: 

• reflection is deeper than popular notions of ‘thinking’ 
• critical reflection is based on an understanding of the individual in social context and links between individual and society 
• critical reflection is both a theory and a practice 
• critical reflection links changed awareness with changed action. 

Unsettling individual assumptions to bring about social changes: details of the approach 

In this section we describe in more detail what is involved with different aspects of the critical reflection process. We cover: 

• details of the process 
• the broad theoretical framework for understanding the individual in their social context 
• the purposes of critical reflection 
• the professional settings of our model of critical reflection. 

The process: unsettling assumptions 

What does ‘unsettling individual assumptions’ mean? 

We have chosen the term ‘unsettle’ deliberately as it implies a ‘shaking up’ of assumptions. The image that comes to mind is of dice being thrown, with little ability to predict how and even when they will fall, and what face will show. The process is one of shaking up assumptions in order to deliberately surface those that may be hidden for a variety of reasons. The term ‘unsettle’ is also deliberate as it does not necessarily imply a predetermined framework for evaluating or even placing in a hierarchy the more hidden assumptions that emerge. In this sense, it is important that the assumptions be unsettled in a way that is in fact experienced as unsettling for the individual participant involved. In other words, there needs to be a degree of discomfort or unease in order to motivate learning. How the process is facilitated, and the learning environment created, are therefore both crucial. These aspects are vital to our model of critical reflection, and indeed incorporate the important values dimension of our model. We will spend a great deal of the later part of this book discussing the process of critical reflection, the facilitation involved, and the learning culture that is created. 

When we speak of individual assumptions, we are referring primarily to assumptions that are held, in the first instance, by individual participants in our programmes. This does not mean that other people in the group may not also hold these assumptions (in fact, in our experience, this is more likely than not). However, our initial focus is on individual practice experience and the assumptions embedded in that. Our beginning point is deliberately the indi vidual, since we are trying to draw out connections between individual experi ence and social life. Often it becomes apparent of course how these are social, when it is easy to see parallels between the assumptions of different individual participants. At later points in our programme we draw connections bet ween individually held assumptions that may be common to the group or the broader context. 

When we speak of assumptions, we are also referring to what we regard as the more fundamental assumptions. These often remain hidden since they are taken for granted, assumed to hold either within a broader social or national culture, or within a more specific professional or organizational subculture. The process of facilitation, the learning environment (and of course the theoretical framework) are also vital in influencing how, and what type of, fundamental assumptions are unearthed. We understand that fundamental assumptions may express themselves in a variety of forms: as beliefs, ideas, values and even theories, which may be explicit (or implicit) to varying degrees. 

The theoretical framework: the individual in their social context 

When we speak of the theoretical framework here, we mean the framework of beliefs and ideas that underpins our understanding of the links between individually held assumptions and the social world. We are not in the main referring to the wealth of literature and research around learning, or group facilitation for learning. We will refer to aspects of these latter practical theories when we discuss details of the process in later chapters of the book. 

Our primary theoretical framework is made up of different types of theories, which seek to explain the various cultural, economic, interactional, structural, historical and political influences in individual lives. Our frame work draws primarily on critical social science perspectives, in that we believe the relationship between individual and society to be essentially political – that is, to do with the operation of power in creating and recreating social beings, and in resisting (and transforming) this process. From this point of view, fundamental assumptions tend to be those that are socially dominant – that is, they function to maintain existing power arrangements, and this function may or may not be masked. Nevertheless, we also believe that experi ence must be approached holistically, and from the perspective of the person whose experience it is. Therefore, we recognize that we need to draw on a range of frameworks that might make this experience meaningful for differ ent individuals in different and similar social contexts. These theories might therefore include: 

• theories that focus on the connections between power and knowledge • an understanding of emotions, and how they are created in social and political contexts 
• an appreciation of how the social structure and hierarchy is internal ized through ideology and discourse 
• a focus on how individuals make meaning of their social worlds • theories of how specific work cultures are interpreted and maintained by individuals. 

In short, our interest is in how individuals participate in their social worlds. Our focus is the intersection of the macro and micro worlds, and in particular how these are played out at micro level. We are therefore interested in the person as individual social agent, both influenced by, but also with the capacity to influence, their social environment. 

We therefore incorporate specific concepts like: 

• power and its various theorizations 
• different ways of knowing 
• the self, identity and how difference is created 
• the role of language and discourse 
• how different cultures and subcultures are made and maintained • the making of meaning. 

In the next chapter we will discuss these in more detail through reference to the relevant literature, and later in the book we will also present this material in the way we would present it to a group of interprofessional participants in one of our critical reflection programmes. 

The purpose: bringing about social changes 

The idea of ‘change’ here is both broad and specific. We are specifically using our model of critical reflection to make changes in professional practice, so it is primarily a model for professional learning and development. However, the idea of change is broad in that we are open to what the changes might entail. We are assuming that an initial unearthing of hidden assumptions will provide the opportunity to scrutinize them. This evaluation can lead in many ways: from a simple reaffirmation of them, through a modification, reframing, improvement or drastic reworking. All are changes in one sense. In our experi ence, since the assumptions unearthed are generally fundamentally important ones, then even a reaffirmation of them can be experienced as a significant change for some participants. Sometimes the change may not be a change of assumption so much as a change in the way it is seen (perhaps a reaffirmation or a different perspective). This, however, often leads to changes in the options for enacting this assumption in practice. 

For example, when I [Jan] critically reflect on my experience in a programme, I unearth ‘social justice’ as a prime value of mine. I choose not to change this, as it is a fundamental value I like. However, what changes for me is that I realize I tend to see it in very dichotomous terms (people are either ‘for’ or ‘against’ social justice, there is no middle ground – colleagues are either ‘enemies’ or ‘allies’ (Fook 2000)). This often means that when I ‘practise’ social justice, I tend to polarize everyone else involved, and take the moral high ground. This does not give me many options for action, and tends to end in stalemate. 

The above mentioned article (Fook 2000) is included on this book’s accompanying website (www.openup.co.uk/fook&gardner). 

Broadly, the change process, in critical terms, is often experienced as ‘liberat ing’ in the words of some participants. They are referring here to the experi ence of being freed from socially restricting beliefs, beliefs that often in turn restricted their ways of being and acting. In critical social science terms, the change is therefore one that involves more individual choice because they are freed from the hidden power of socially imposed views (Fook and Askeland, in press). Later in the book we will describe and analyse in more detail some of the changes participants claim they have made. 

The purpose of our critical reflection model is primarily to lead to changed (improved) professional practice by allowing scrutiny of assumptions and improved capacity to enact desired assumptions. The process may of course be used in many different ways, however, since this specific type of change may be associated with other types of changes as well. For instance, aside from experiencing a type of social liberation, many participants report a great sense of personal development, and are keen to enact changes in their personal lives. Similar outcomes are an important part of other research processes, in that it is the underlying practice theory (assumptions) that are often being unearthed and articulated. Similarly, the change process can also involve a type of ethnography, an unearthing of professional or work cultural beliefs and practices, which might hitherto have remained hidden. 

The settings: professional development 

As we have made clear, our perspective is that of professional educators; the main purpose of our critical reflection programmes is therefore professional development. However, this may take a wide variety of forms. We work primar ily as educators of individual learners who seek development on a voluntary basis. Our model has therefore primarily been used in universities as part of formal undergraduate or postgraduate professional education award pro grammes or in short continuing education courses. However, we find that there is a call to undertake and use our programme in a variety of other ways. Sometimes the model requires modification to suit these different settings, sometimes it does not. Our model has been used in many specific workplaces at the request of both managers and employees in the following ways: for professional supervision; practice research; practice review; organizational review; team building; learning from error; as part of a broader package to stimulate organizational learning. 

Now that we have developed our approach in more detail, it can be summarized in the following way: critical reflection involves the unsettling and examination of fundamental (socially dominant and hidden) individually held assumptions about the social world, in order to enable a reworking of these, and associated actions, for changed professional practice. 

On the website that accompanies this book – www.openup.co.uk/fook- &gardner – (in the section entitled ‘How does our approach relate to other perspectives on critical reflection?’) we discuss in more detail: 

• the different fields and disciplines involved (ranging from education and adult education, through management and workplace learning, to professional development); while many interests in the different fields overlap, each also has its particular focus 
• related areas and associated terms, including 

– reflection and reflective practice 

– other areas of research and education, like action learning and discourse analysis 

– other terms, like criticality and consciousness-raising 

• other models and theories, including 

– reflective practice and the work of Schon 

– learning from experience models 

– transformative learning 

– the work of Brookfield. 

Chapter summary 

Critical reflection involves the unsettling and examination of fundamental (socially dominant and often hidden) individually held assumptions about the social world, in order to enable a reworking of these, and associated actions, for changed professional practice. 

There are four aspects to this: 

1. the process – unsettling and examining fundamental assumptions using a facilitated process in a safe learning environment 
2. the theoretical framework – the individual in their social context 3. the purpose – bringing about social changes 
3. the settings – professional development. 

3 The theoretical frameworks underlying critical reflection 

This chapter covers the theoretical traditions that inform our model: 

• reflective practice 
• the concept of reflexivity 
• postmodernism and deconstruction 
• critical social theory. 

In order to: 

• appreciate the contribution of different theoretical traditions • equip readers with the tools to further develop their own theoretical understandings 
• develop a further appreciation of how theory links with practice. 

In Chapter 2, we presented the broad framework of our model of critical reflec tion. In this chapter we flesh out in more detail the theoretical traditions that underlie and help to frame our model. These frameworks relate both to the learning process involved in the unsettling of assumptions to change practice, as well as to an understanding of the connections between individual lives and social worlds. They include: the reflective approach to theory and practice; the concept of reflexivity; postmodernism and deconstruction; and critical social theory. These frameworks overlap on certain key points, yet they also each make a unique contribution to our understanding of critical reflection. We have therefore chosen to deal with each in some detail, as we believe it is important for people undertaking critical reflection to have an appreciation of the different theoretical traditions. With a reasonable understanding of the differences, similarities and complementarities of these traditions, we are partly hoping to equip critical reflective learners with some of the tools todevelop their own theoretical understandings, and partly also to develop an appreciation of how theory links with practice. 

Since our perspective is primarily one of educators for professional practice development, we take as our starting point for the process the reflective approach to theory and practice, partly based on the reflective practice framework of Argyris and Schon (1974) and Schon (1983, 1987). This provides a clear framework for understanding the links between theory and practice in professional work, as well as a framework for reworking these links. 

We use the concept of reflexivity for two reasons. First, it is often inter twined in the literature with the notions of reflection, self-reflection and crit ical reflection (D’Cruz et al. 2007). Second, it provides an excellent framework for understanding the influences of the self in social context, especially the links between the different types of knowledge-making and ‘research’ needed for everyday practice. 

Postmodernism and deconstruction are included for several reasons. First, they provide a very useful link between our understandings of power and language, and their operations in everyday experience. Second, they provide a useful perspective for looking again at our assumptions about knowledge and how it is made. This is especially useful in critiquing professional knowledge and its epistemological bases. 

Finally, we discuss critical social theory and the basic premises of these approaches, which have a bearing on our beliefs about how individuals are socially created, particularly through the internalization of socially dominant thinking. These approaches also hold valuable ideals regarding the importance of the dynamic interaction between social and individual lives, as well as values regarding communication and dialogue, and how individual and social actions might be linked. 

Summary: the four theoretical traditions underpinning critical reflection 

1. The reflective approach to theory and practice 
2. Reflexivity 
3. Postmodernism and deconstruction 
4. Critical social theory 

The reflective approach to theory and practice 

Reflective practice as an idea builds on the notion of reflection on experience, and applies it specifically to learning in the field of professional practice. As such it is specifically a model for reflecting on practice experience in a way that allows its examination and improvement. Not all reflection therefore takes a reflective practice framework. In the professions, the idea of reflective practice is often credited initially to Argyris and Schon (1974), and later to Donald Schon (1983, 1987). These works form much of the initial basis for subsequent later writings in the professional learning traditions, such as nursing (e.g. Taylor 2000, Rolfe et al. 2001). 

The starting point for reflective practice for Schon (1987) is the crisis in confidence in professional knowledge. This crisis results from the idea that the ‘high ground’ of theorizing about professionalism does not always match the ‘swampy lowlands’ of actual practice. The problem is that professional know ledge on the high ground can be researched and taught more easily, but it is the messy work in the swamps that defies easy solution. Schon’s model is therefore based on an alternative understanding of professional knowledge. It acknowledges that there are different types of professional knowledge. ‘Knowing that’, or what we might normally understand as ‘facts’ or general theories, is what conventionally has been taught to qualifying professionals. However, the ‘knowing how’, or the application of ‘knowing that’, is much more difficult to teach outside the actual contexts where the ‘knowing how’ is practised. Reflection in action is needed in order to convert ‘facts’ into useable knowledge. Schon therefore posited that what is needed in professional know ledge are both ‘technical rationality’ (rules) and professional artistry (reflection in action). Part of the crisis for professionals arises from the fact that, very often, the ‘theory’ or rules espoused (‘espoused theory’) by practitioners are quite different from the ‘theory’ or assumptions (‘theory in use’) embedded in the actual practices of professionals. This is often because the ‘rules’ are limited in their applicability to specific situations, and because individual practi tioners are not always aware of the myriad of different rules that might be needed to inform any one set of actions in a changing situation. They there fore need to reflect on the general rules in order to practise relevantly in any specific context. These general rules can be unearthed through a process of ‘reflection on action’. 

Reflective practice therefore is an approach designed to assist professionals to become aware of the ‘theory’ or assumptions involved in their practice, with the purpose of closing the gap between what is espoused and what is enacted. Ultimately this should contribute to improving both, as it may be used to scrutinize both practices and embedded theories. However, a process of reflec tive practice may also serve to help improve practice, by helping to develop practice theory, through a process of articulating the underlying principles upon which practice is based. In this sense, too, reflective practice can be seen as a process of researching practice theory, by developing it directly from concrete practice. 

Because this reflective type of approach to practice recognizes the importance of mining the theory implicit in actual actions, it represents a rather non-traditional view of the relationship between theory and practice. There are several key features of the reflective approach (Fook 1996). First, in trad itional views, we tend to apply generalized theory to specific practices in a rather top-down, deductive, sort of manner. The reflective approach places equal importance on knowledge formed in an inductive manner, in which a broader theory might in fact be developed from specific experiences, allowing for theory development and creation. This might be seen as a more ‘bottom up’ approach, in which existing theories are modified, and in which new theories may also be devised. 

Second, what thus becomes important in a reflective approach are aspects of practice that may not formerly have been valued in more traditional views. Phenomena like intuition and artistry become a logical focus for better under standing how professionals operate, and as a site for the enactment of practice theory. Intuition may be important in recognizing important factors and prioritizing them, or in making connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena. It becomes important to value intuitive moments in order to pinpoint the assumptions that may be involved and to subject them to scru tiny (Adams 2002). Artistry may be involved in the creative way different elements of professional knowledge may be combined to suit a unique situ ation, or in the way new methods may be created to address a new problem or context (Higgs and Titchen 2001; Froggett 2006). 

This points to the third characteristic of a reflective approach, which is the importance of context. Given that professional artistry involves the application of prior knowledge and skills in particular contexts, there needs to be a readiness to respond to what might be new or different about these contexts. Not only might this involve the creation of new knowledge, but also an openness to new contexts, and the new and different perspectives that might be operating in those contexts. An emphasis on context therefore also includes a recognition of the importance of different perspectives in that context. 

Lastly, an awareness of different perspectives carries with it an emphasis on a holistic approach. If different perspectives are taken into account, then there needs to be an appreciation of how these different perspectives interplay and relate. Situations and experiences need also to be understood as a whole. This particularly includes the role of emotions as a point of learning in experi ence (Fook 1999a). In this sense, the reflective approach tends to focus on the whole experience and the many dimensions involved: cognitive elements; feeling elements; meanings and interpretations from different perspectives. We will discuss this aspect in some detail later in the book. 

A reflective approach therefore questions some of the taken-for-granted assumptions about knowledge that we might associate with more ‘scientific’, ‘positivist’ or ‘technical-rational’ paradigms. Such paradigms tend to break professional knowledge into specialist domains, and to produce generalizable knowledge based on empirically observable phenomena only. This tends to legitimize only knowledge created through empirically researched means, and therefore, by association, only the knowledge of researchers who use these methods. A reflective approach, however, affirms the importance of other ways of knowing, particularly personal experience and the interpretations this might entail. Experiential and participatory research methods are therefore also important. The traditional distinctions between ‘knowing and doing’, ‘values and facts’, ‘subjectivity and objectivity’, ‘art and science’ are blurred. What becomes more important is a holistic understanding of the complexity of experience, and the sorts of knowledge that support relevant practice in complex and unpredictable situations. 

How is this approach relevant to critical reflection? 

The reflective approach, most importantly, supplies the framework for a basic way of understanding the process of critical reflection – as searching for the assumptions implicit in actual practice. This then enables a clear comparison with the more stated or explicit assumptions that practitioners often believe themselves to be enacting, prior to a process of reflection. The comparison of implicit and explicit assumptions provides a crucial starting point from which to examine both sets of assumptions further, and of course some sets of options about how the discrepancies might be addressed. In this way the reflective approach provides a framework for practice evaluation, by examin ing it for contradictions and discrepancies. We see this understanding of the process as only a starting point, however, since it is preliminary to assume that the gap might be addressed only through the changing of the theory or the practice. In fact, discrepancies can be addressed in a myriad of ways, and not necessarily only through a resolution of the discrepancy. For instance, it may also be a viable option to live with and accept the discrepancy; and of course discrepancies are only one of the features that might contribute to ineffective or undesirable practices. This outline of the process therefore needs to be built upon through the use of other frameworks (which we will discuss further on). 

A second way in which the reflective approach informs critical reflection is related to the value placed on holistic practitioner experience, especially the more hidden aspects, which are difficult to articulate and measure. Critical reflection in this sense may be seen as a way of researching these more complex aspects of experience, which are difficult to access in other ways. 

Third, because the knowledge created by practitioners in the actual pro cess of practice is valued, this effectively provides another way of creating practice theory. The critical reflection process, from this point of view, may be seen as a way of researching and developing practice theory. In this sense practitioners become researchers of their own practice, and creators of practice theory, when they engage in critical reflection. This effectively blurs the boundaries between practitioners and researchers, and accords some responsi bility directly to practitioners for more systematic and transparent research of their practice. 

Summary: the reflective approach 

A model for improving practice by reflecting directly on experience, it involves: 

• a ‘bottom-up’ understanding of theory and practice – theory as also embedded in practice 
• exposing problematic gaps between espoused and enacted theory 
• closing the gap, which may improve practice 
• placing a value on intuition, artistry and creativity 
• a contextual, holistic and experiential approach. 

It is useful: 

• in searching for discrepancies between implicit and explicit assumptions 
• as a starting point for evaluating practice 
• for articulating the holistic and complex nature of practice 
• for researching the unarticulatable – hidden and difficult to measure practice 
• in developing practice theory and creating practice knowledge. 

Reflexivity 

The idea of reflexivity comes from different traditions again, and is often associated with social science research (Marcus 1994) in fields like anthropol ogy (for example, Rosaldo 1993). In these fields it was especially important to recognize the influence of self on research, as the anthropologist was often a participant-observer in trying to document the culture (often foreign to the researcher) of a particular group. It has been developed more recently in the health and human service professions (e.g. Taylor and White 2000), presum ably because of the concern with managing ‘objectivity’, and the recognition that, in many of these occupations, use of self is integral to practice (Kondrat 1999; Ruch 2002). 

Reflexivity – a ‘turning back on itself’ (Steier 1991) – has been defined in various ways. White (2002: 10) emphasizes the ability to look both inwards and outwards to recognize the connections with social and cultural understandings. Our understanding is a little broader in that we see it as involving the ability to recognize that all aspects of ourselves (including physical and bodily aspects) and our contexts influence the way we research (or create knowledge) (Fook 1999b). When we refer to ‘research’ here, our understanding is also broad. We are referring to all the different ways in which we create knowledge – this occurs in more or less formal and systematic ways (depending on the situ ation), yet is used daily, and often in unarticulated ways, to make sense of immediate surroundings. In this sense, research, or knowledge creation, is integral to the daily business of living, and therefore to the daily business of professional practice. 

Therefore, in order to be reflexive, we need to be aware of the many and varied ways in which we might create, or at least influence, the type of knowl edge we use. How do we actually participate in the creation of our own knowledge? In this sense, the idea of reflexivity alerts us to the fact that knowl edge does not necessarily exist in some independent form, separate from our experiences and own sense of who we are. We are often responsible for inter preting, selecting, prioritizing, sometimes seeing and not seeing, and using knowledge in particular ways that are to do with a myriad of things about ourselves and our social and historical situations. 

There are four important aspects of knowledge that point to ways in which we might participate in its creation: 

1. knowledge is both embodied and social (as well as emotionally and intellectually influenced) 
2. knowledge is subjectively mediated 
3. there is a reactivity element (the tools used to discover knowledge influence what is found) 
4. knowledge is created interactively (influenced by the specific situa tion). 

First, knowledge is embodied and social in nature – it is mediated by who we are physically and socially, and by the consequent lenses through which we experience our world. So our physical and bodily state of being, and our social positions, will influence how we interpret and select information, and indeed how we are socially interpreted and interacted with by others. Often whether we are tired, or ill, will make a difference to our temperament, of course, but also to what we see as important at the time, and what we therefore factor in, or out, about our situation. Not only will I have more patience if I am not tired, but also this may mean I will listen more intently to what a complainant has to say, and perhaps interpret it less negatively. Our age makes a difference to our perspectives, both for physical and social reasons. Not only am I a different person (bodily) at a different age, but I also have different social statuses at different ages. Also I may see situations differently depending on the amount of experience I have had with those situations, and obviously this will vary according to my social status and age. These factors work on social levels as well, of course. Social cultures and groups are also embodied – that is, they have a physical presence, context and manifestation that influences the ways knowledge is made and communicated. Being reflexive from this point of view will involve an understanding of how physical and social contexts influence what knowledge is created and how. 

In broad terms, this leads to the second major way in which reflexivity is important. If knowledge is both embodied and social in nature, this means that knowledge is also mediated by our own subjectivity – our particular being, embodiment, experience and social position will influence what phenomena we see and how we see them. The point being made here is that, while know ledge may have an objective aspect (i.e. have some existence outside our individual perceptions), it may at the same time be subjectively created or modified. Knowledge of ourselves as particular individuals, as social, cultural, psychological and embodied beings, therefore, is important in understanding and evaluating the sorts of knowledge we use and hold. For example, if a family member of mine dies, I will most likely experience some type of bereavement. There will be some knowledge about this that has some credence outside my own experience – for example, the legal requirements for inter ment, social expectations of relatives, financial arrangements for the deceased, and professional knowledge about grief. Nevertheless, my own experience of the death will be determined by my interpretation of, and reaction to, all of the above. And my own interpretations and reactions may lead me to create my own set of knowledges about the death. These will in part depend on my previous experiences of death, my experience and relationship with the deceased, my professional background and expertise, my social and financial position, and so on. Being reflexive by taking into account subjectivity will involve a knowledge of who I am as a whole being (social, emotional, physical, cultural, economic, political) and understanding the effects this has on the knowledge I perceive and create. 

Third, there is a reactivity element in reflexivity. This involves understand ing that the knowledge or information we obtain or take in about a particular situation is at least partly determined by the kinds of tools and process we use to determine it. This is often a clearer issue for those of us engaged in formal and systematic research, but much harder to see of course in the kinds of everyday research we engage in, in order to make meaning of current contexts as a guide to action. Consider, for example, what different kinds of informa tion you might elicit from someone if you met them at a party, as opposed to interviewed them for a job. Or what you might find out if you simply observed someone while they were unaware of your observation, as opposed to watching them on television as part of a Big Brother-type programme. The setting, and the method we use for gaining information, will have a direct effect on what we find out, and of course ultimately on the assessment we make of that person. So our own beliefs about what constitutes legitimate knowledge and its legitimate creation, and the types of methods we should and do use, will influence what we find out. Being reflexive from this perspec tive therefore means being aware of what methods we are using, the setting and purpose of the information being gathered, the effects this has on the information obtained, and, of course, making an assessment about whether they are mutually appropriate. 

Lastly, knowledge is also interactional – it is shaped by historical and struc tural contexts, and is made in a dynamic and political process. In this sense, what counts as knowledge is not a purely objective phenomenon, but is a result of a number of factors. It is normally forged through the broader social processes at play. For example, what items make it onto the evening television news provides a good illustration of the dynamics of how knowledge becomes recognized as important, and moreover is recorded as historically important. There is presumably an interplay of perspectives operating, such as what is deemed newsworthy (sensational; backing up popular trends; fitting with a current political struggle; potentially attracts dollars; is of interest to the sta tion owner). As another example, our views about particular wars (who were victims and who were perpetrators; what acts are deemed justifiable) are irrevocably shaped by the information that is available to us at the time. Being reflexive from this perspective means understanding how any knowledge may in fact represent only limited perspectives, from a particular point in time or a particular standpoint. This means being open to the possibility of other perspectives. 

How does the idea of reflexivity apply directly to our understanding of critical reflection? 

We might see reflexivity as one way of being critically reflective. Being aware of ourselves as researchers who participate in the selecting and creating of our own knowledge means that we can become aware of the tools we might use to create that knowledge, the assumptions that underlie our choice of tools, and how who we are as tools ourselves (as social, cultural, physical, emotional and political beings) mediates what we see or remember. This in turn helps us directly connect who we are as individuals with our social and historical con texts. In this sense, critical reflection becomes a way of researching the knowl edge inherent in our practice, and connecting this knowledge (and ourselves) with our broader social contexts. With an understanding of reflexivity, we become more aware of ourselves as researchers, creating knowledge directly from practice experience. We focus particularly therefore on our assumptions about knowledge, its different forms, its role, what is important and how it is created. 

Summary: reflexivity 

Reflexivity is the ability to recognize that all aspects of ourselves and our contexts influence the way we research (or create knowledge). 

Knowledge creation is embodied, social, reactive and interactional. Reflexivity is useful in critical reflection for: 

• awareness of ourselves as researchers creating knowledge directly from practice experience 
• focus on assumptions about knowledge and its creation. 

Postmodernism and deconstruction 

The influence of postmodern thinking brings with it particular ways of think ing that to some degree transcend yet complement those associated with reflexivity. For the purposes of this chapter we also include poststructural thinking, in that there are common threads that are useful to our under standing of critical reflection (Fook 1999a). 

By postmodern thinking we are referring simply to the questioning of ‘modernist’ (or linear and unified) thinking (Parton 1994). In modernist think ing, the ‘linear’ idea is that knowledge must be arrived at in a progressive way, with the successive accumulation of better knowledge through subsequent research efforts. It is ‘unified’ in that it is assumed to be non-conflictual, in the sense that all later versions of knowledge are by definition better, merely a clearer and better representation of the one ‘truth’. Thus it is assumed that there is only one right way of seeing, which can be arrived at in a progressive and cumulative way (that is, later knowledge builds on earlier knowledge). 

In this way, postmodern thinking alerts us to the relationship between knowledge and power (an analysis useful in critical reflection), for in order to arrive at the ‘one truth’, many conflicting perspectives may need to be ignored. Focusing on what is accepted as the ‘one truth’, or dominant dis course or perspective, is useful as a concept for understanding the operation of power through the language we use, and what we accept as truth. By pointing up the role of dominant discourses in creating what is perceived as legitimate knowledge (and therefore highlighting the operation of power) postmodern thinking sheds light on where power rests and how it is maintained by focusing on how certain thinking, and its association with certain groups, might function to strengthen the position of those groups in relation to others (Healy 2000; Fook 2002). 

Poststructuralists alert us to the role of language in forming our knowledge and therefore dominant discourses (Weedon 1987). The way we speak about things, what we choose to label or name (and what is not labelled as a corol lary), and the relationships we imply through the language we use, all have a role in marking what is legitimate and what is thus powerful. The language we use, and the discourse we imply or support, therefore become useful pointers in tracing the influences of power in our own practice and experience (White 2006). 

In particular, the tendency to construct binary opposites is an important element in language-making (Berlin 1990). A binary opposite is a paired cat egory of phenomena that is: total (encompasses all of the population); mutu ally exclusive (involves forced choice categories – an element can be a member of only one or other category, not both or neither); binary (only two); and oppositional (usually conceptualized as contradictory or opposite to each other, and the second part of the binary is usually defined in terms of the other, so is by definition inferior). It often underlies how we make difference, and is therefore a crucial part of identity-making and, by implication, inclu sion and exclusion. A basic example to which postmodern feminists alerted us long ago is the splitting of the whole human population into ‘male’ and ‘female’ categories. For instance, we often attribute inferiority to the second part of a binary category (e.g. ‘female’ is inferior to ‘male’ by definition) and indeed the second part of the binary is often defined in terms of the first (e.g. females are defined as ‘not male’). Thereby the first category in the binary opposite retains primacy, and is regarded as the norm. 

The idea of deconstruction is important in relation to postmodern and poststructural thinking, as both focus on the ways in which knowledge (and power) is constructed through language: the specific terminology we use, the categories we create; and the patterns and ways of talking (discourses) we sup port. This gives us a framework for deconstructing our thinking – that is, it gives us a framework for unpicking the ways in which power operates through our language use and the way we frame our meanings (and by implication our practices based on it). 

It is useful to discuss the concept of power here, and to analyse it as a dominant discourse. In modernist ways of thinking, power is seen as a com modity, a type of material entity that can be traded or given. It is seen as structural, as owned by someone (usually a person with a higher position in the social structure). This means that it is easy to create any two binary categor ies: those who are powerful, as opposed to those who are powerless. Yet ironic ally, empowerment, taken from this perspective, may often be experienced as disempowering (Fook 2002: 51). This is because it is usually the dominant group ‘doing’ the empowering to a more disadvantaged group. This is empow erment from the perspective of the dominant group, perpetuating the domi nant discourse of power, and empowering others in its likeness. This type of understanding of power of course appears to privilege structural power, and ignores the other perspectives, especially the perspectives of those who lack structural power. In fact these groups may have different types of power, and may pride themselves on this. For example, non-Anglo people may not neces sarily wish to be regarded as ‘white’. Their ‘non-white’ identity may be import ant to them – an important source of power, in fact. This is one of the issues involved of course in identity politics – the battle over the right to construct one’s own identity (Fook 2002). 

Deconstructing the modernist idea of power is useful in critical reflection, as it directly addresses one of the main sets of assumptions that underpins the way power is currently maintained. Many postmodern writers (e.g. Brookfield 2001) use the work of Foucault to rework the idea of power. In this view power is exercised, rather than possessed, and can take many forms. It is not finite, but can be created. The focus is on how it operates, rather than its static existence. It may operate in many different ways – positively, negatively and in contradictory ways at the same time (depending on the perspectives involved). For example, a professional counsellor seeking to empower a client may try to involve them in making decisions about the sort of therapy they would like, and resist giving direct advice. The counsellor may view this as giving the client some of her power. However, the client may feel that she has paid a substantial fee for the therapist’s services, and therefore that she is not ‘getting her money’s worth’ because she is not getting direct and clear advice. She may also feel the counsellor is patronizing, because the counsellor is maintaining her own superior position by not committing to her own opinion on the client’s situation. What is intended as empowering is not experienced in this way because of the differing sets of assumptions about the counselling. 

In broad terms, then, both postmodern and poststructural thinking rec ognize that knowledge (and power) can be socially constructed. By assuming that any particular knowledge is linear and unified, we can unwittingly sup port a dominant power base, and unwittingly participate in preserving these power relations through the very language we use to speak about our world. Thus postmodern thinking opens up an awareness of the possibilities for contradiction, change and conflict in thinking, by recognizing that many dif ferent experiences can be legitimate, and providing the basis from which to question accepted dominant ways of thinking. Deconstruction, then, simply involves using this type of analysis to become aware of the discourses that unwittingly shape our thinking and actions. Thus the idea of deconstruction provides a useful framework for uncovering the more hidden assumptions we ascribe to, and the powerful ways in which they operate. 

From a postmodern and poststructural angle, then, critical reflection can be aided by deconstructing our thinking in order to expose how we participate in constructing power. This opens the way for us to explore conflicts and contradictions that may previously have been silenced, and to question how that silencing has operated in a powerful way. For example, often asking why a particular way of seeing is dominant in our practice, or why we have ignored or not even been aware of other perspectives, is useful in pointing out which dominant discourses we might unwittingly have subscribed to. 

Another way in which deconstruction is useful is in helping to explore difficulties in practice that are brought about because of perceived (binary) dilemmas or tensions, such as where we have reached an impasse in practice because we believe there is a fundamental dilemma or conflict involved. For example, professionals often conceptualize a basic dilemma in their work as being between ‘care’ and ‘control’, or about ‘values-based practice’ versus ‘outcome-driven practice’, as if the two categories are mutually exclusive. Postmodern thinking can lead us to question these divisions, to formulate perhaps more complex ways of working, which may include third or fourth options beyond the binary categorization. 

The deconstruction of binaries is also useful in analysing the construction of identities. It can assist us in pinpointing how and why we categorize, par ticularly the way we categorize ourselves in relation to others. This type of awareness is pertinent in the fields of international and cross-cultural work (Fook 2004b) and of course in race relations and disability (Fook 2004c) – in short, in any area where our understanding of the work involves categorizing the populations we work with as in some way different to a more mainstream ‘norm’. However, more generally, it is useful in understanding the construc tion of professional identities, and relating these to discourses in relation to one’s biography, the workplace and the broader culture. (Please refer at this point to the book’s accompanying website – www.openup.co.uk/fook& gardner – and to Lynne Allan’s student assignment, included in the resource materials, where Lynne very usefully discusses questions about her own pro fessional identity and its impact on her practice. The paper by Jan Fook, entitled ‘The lone crusader: constructing enemies and allies in the workplace’, also available on the website, illustrates this issue too.) 

Deconstruction and related discourse analysis (Ellerman 1998) are there fore useful to our model of critical reflection in that they provide a framework for unearthing how our particular assumptions underpin particular construc tions (of ourselves, of others, of knowledge, of power, of practice), which in turn help construct or maintain particular power relations in particular situ ations. In this way they provide a means of analysis that connects us directly as individuals with prevailing power situations. 

However, what postmodern and poststructural thinking lack in their con tribution to critical reflection is details about the evaluative aspects – how do we determine which forms of power actually preserve or challenge domin ation, and how we might change this, need further explication. For this we need to turn to critical social theory. 

Summary: postmodernism and deconstruction 

Postmodern thinking is a questioning of linear (progressive) and unified (‘one truth’) thinking. 

Deconstruction involves understanding: 

• the role of dominant discourses in connecting power and knowledge • the role of binary thinking in constructing difference 
• the silencing of multiple and marginal perspectives. 

Deconstruction is useful in critical reflection in helping unearth how we partici pate in constructing power by participating in dominant discourses: 

• constructions (and categorizations) of our own identities and how we make difference in others 
• constructions of binary ‘dilemmas’ in practice 
• what perspectives we leave out. 

Critical social theory 

There are aspects of the work of many different theorists that share some commonalities with this category (e.g. Marx, Marcuse and Habermas (see Agger 1998)). For our purposes here, we focus on the five common themes of critical social theory; these have been paraphrased and summarized from Fook (2002) and Agger (1998) as follows: first, the recognition that power is both personal and structural; second, that individuals can participate in their own domination; third, social change is both personal and collective; fourth, knowledge is both empirical and constructed; and last, the importance of communication and dialogue. 

First, critical social theory recognizes that power, or domination, is both personally experienced and structurally created. Therefore any understanding of the operation of power in critical reflection needs to incorporate an under standing of how the personal and structural levels of power interact. For example, how do individuals interpret structural power and how it operates in their lives? How have individuals acted upon the operation of structural power? What is the person’s structural position and how has this influenced their view of themselves? In a sense this point also involves recognizing that structural and personal levels interact in any one person’s experience of power. 

Second, therefore, individuals can participate in their own domination, by holding self-defeating beliefs about their place in the social structure, their own power and possibilities for change. The concepts of ideology and false consciousness are important here. Ideology is a term that refers to an idea that has political or social functions, aside from whether or not it is valid. In other words, its truth or falsity is less an issue than the effects it produces. Sometimes these may appear to have little directly to do with the content of the idea itself. For example, many of us like to believe that we work from a participatory framework, and hence often dislike colleagues who we perceive to be unlike us, as undemocratic. (Refer at this point to the paper ‘The lone crusader: construct ing enemies and allies in the workplace’, which is included on the website that accompanies this book: www.openup.co.uk/fook&gardner.) This belief in ourselves may or may not be true (depending of course on what circumstances we are talking about and what colleagues we are talking about). However, that is not the main issue. What is important is that this belief in ourselves might mask a need to see ourselves as participatory, which might then blind us to recognizing instances in which our behaviour is not experienced as demo cratic by others. This belief in ourselves as participatory therefore has ideo logical functions. 

Alternatively, we may subscribe to the view that professionals are ethical and objective, which of course may or may not be true. Holding this view, however, makes us feel that whatever we do is right, and in the best interests of our clients (which may or may not be true!). This masks the possibility that sometimes we may act for our own gain, or out of our own interests, and may unwittingly disadvantage service users as a result. Holding this particular ideology of professionalism can in fact work against the very view it appears to uphold. From an ideological standpoint, critical reflection involves under standing the ideological functions of personally held beliefs, in order to assess whether these functions run counter to the fundamental intentions or values of the person. 

Third, if effective social change is to be achieved it must occur on both personal and collective levels. One does not preclude the other, but the two are intertwined. Social changes involve personal changes, and vice versa. In this sense, then, it becomes important for the individual person to be able to rec ognize how their own personal changes are linked with changes on broader levels. This may be important in providing a sense of agency (a sense of the ability to actually effect direct change) and also an accessible site for change. One of the difficulties for many people in making a structural analysis is that it then seems that, logically, the site for change becomes something much big ger than themselves, the implication being that acting alone is not feasible. However, if we see the two levels as intertwined, this also means that indi vidual people themselves can become a site for social change. (Please refer at this point to the film, mentioned on the book’s accompanying website – www.openup.co.uk/fook&gardner, of a discussion between Jan Fook, Gail Baikie and Caroline Campbell, where we talk about the individual as a site for social change.) It also means that social changes need to be experienced at personal levels in order to be meaningful. The concept of ideology above provides a useful starting point for making social changes at individual levels. 

Fourth, recognizing the interplay of social and personal realms involves a recognition that knowledge often has an empirical reality, but the way that knowledge is used and interpreted may be constructed (socially and person ally). In this sense, critical social theorists differ from pure constructivists in that they do not solely emphasize the socially constructed nature of know ledge. Instead they emphasize the interaction between empirical reality and members of society. What therefore becomes important is not whether or not knowledge has an empirical reality, but how this reality is interpreted and used in the social world. This view effectively leaves room for different views of ‘reality’, and therefore is important to critical reflection in that it is inclusive of different perspectives. 

Finally, therefore, in bringing about social and personal changes, com munication and dialogue are important so that new shared understandings can be created. In this sense critical social theorists place importance on the way different meanings and practices are created in social relationships, since there needs to be some dynamic negotiation of mutual understandings in order for effective practices to be carried out. Therefore the environments in which mutual dialogue can be fostered become important (Habermas 1984, 1987). 

What is the contribution of critical social theory to our model of critical reflection? 

First, there is a direct analytical and dynamic link between the individual and society, both in the experience of power and domination, but also in the need for change at both levels. This provides a theoretical framework for under standing how individuals can both influence, and be influenced by, their social contexts, and can participate in the changes that should result from this understanding. 

Second, the concept of ideology provides an invaluable framework for focusing on individually held assumptions that may work in powerful ways on a personal and social level. The operation of ideology in everyday experience provides a clear site for critical reflection (Brookfield 2000). 

Third, critical social theory alerts us to the sorts of conditions that are needed in order to foster environments that are conducive to critical awareness and dialogue. 

In broad terms, then, critical social theory provides a broader framework for understanding what critical reflection can and should help achieve. In this sense also, critical social theory provides an important values dimension to critical reflection. From this point of view, an overarching purpose of critical reflection is to create a socially just environment that is both equitable and democratic. By making connections between the personal and structural, and emphasizing the importance of communication, critical social theory points to how a critical reflection process might help us build bridges between our own experience and that of others to bring about desired social changes. As Mezirow points out: ‘precipitating and fostering critically self-reflective learning means a deliberate effort to foster resistance to technicist assump tions, to thoughtlessness, to conformity, to impermeable meaning perspec tives, to fear of change, to ethnocentric and class bias, and to egocentric values’ (1991: 360). 

In broad practical terms, a critical perspective on critical reflection simply involves the idea that when dominant social understandings or assumptions are exposed (through a reflective process) for the political (or ideological) func tions that they perform (i.e. that they exist for political reasons in supporting the status quo, apart from whatever inherent truth they might have), the indi vidual who holds those assumptions is given a choice. Once these hidden ideas are exposed people who hold them are thus given the power to change them (Fook and Askeland, in press) and the guidance to change them in ways that may overturn previous inequitable arrangements. 

Summary: critical social theory 

Five key points: 

1. domination is both personal and structural 
2. individuals participate in their own domination 
3. emphasizes both personal and collective social change 
4. knowledge is empirical and constructed 
5. the importance of communication. 

Useful for critical reflection: 

• provides a framework for understanding links between the individual and society 
• shows how dominant power works in individual lives 
• links personal and collective processes 
• provides a framework for unsettling dominant assumptions and their operation in everyday practice 
• provides a framework to free individuals from the restrictions of domin ant thinking, providing choice of thinking and actions. 

Chapter summary 

In this chapter we have outlined four different theoretical frameworks that under lie critical reflection and help us understand the relationship between individual practices and social contexts. These understandings help us more effectively unsettle the dominant assumptions involved in connecting individual experi ences with the major beliefs that are behind many social arrangements. It is important to appreciate these theoretical frameworks in some depth, as they alert us to the many different ways our fundamental assumptions can remain hidden, and can function in social ways, despite our awareness or intentions. In Chapter 6 we will ‘translate’ these frameworks into more specific questions and ways of interrogating our practices in order to reveal these hidden assumptions. 

PART II 

The Process of Critical Reflection

4 The critical reflection model and process 

This chapter aims to: 

• provide a broad overview of the design of our critical reflection model, including 

– the design of the model 

– the specific principles that inform it 

– the features of the design that are based on these principles (i.e. the specific purpose, structure, content and process) 

• explore what you need to consider in starting critical reflection, particularly using this model; more specifically 

– the influence of organizational context 

– how to promote critical reflection 

– participation issues – voluntary or involuntary 

– composition of critical reflection groups 

– practical issues in planning workshops. 

Introduction 

In the foregoing chapters we have outlined the broad theory behind our model of critical reflection, and the issues that need to be considered and addressed before establishing a critical reflection programme. This chapter divides into two sections: first we present a broad overview of the design of our model, and second we explore what you need to consider in introducing critical reflection into your organization. In subsequent chapters we describe the detail of spe cific aspects of the design. This chapter also serves to outline the ‘blueprint’ of the model, if you like. Understanding the blueprint and the thinking behind it will allow readers to modify or change the blueprint in particular ways, which we will also discuss in this chapter. The blueprint model we present here ideally involves a small group of voluntary participants, who either all come from the organization that has sponsored the programme, or are individuals from various organizations who have chosen to participate in the programme, which is being run independently of their employing organization. There may of course be many variations on these two options and these will be considered here and in subsequent chapters. 

Overview of the model 

What is the broad design for our model of critical reflection? 

In concrete terms the model involves small groups of critical reflective learners, in which group members assist each individual participant in turn to reflect on specific examples of their practice experiences. This process is structured in two main stages. The first focuses on unsettling the fundamental assumptions that are implicit in their account of their practice experience; the second focuses on how their practice (and the way they understand or conceptualize it) might change as a result of the new awarenesses they have arrived at from the first stage of reflections. The process is managed by a group facilitator, who also introduces the model before the first stage begins. The whole process is undertaken within a trusting and collegiate climate. 

The membership of the small groups is ideally voluntary, and members have chosen to participate on some kind of informed basis (see below). The ideal maximum is around eight participants, but of course numbers can be varied. Although there are two main stages of reflection, the first is normally preceded by an introductory session, which aims to introduce the model and establish the appropriate group culture. There are, then, usually three sessions in total: an introductory session, followed by stages 1 and 2 of the model. The sessions are normally held about one week apart. In most of the groups we have run, we allow about three hours for the introductory session, and approximately six hours for each of the subsequent sessions. This means that, in a group with eight participants, each will have approximately 30 minutes to present their material for reflection. Each reflection presentation is therefore quite brief, so the process needs to be facilitated in a focused way in order to create an open climate, but at the same time to develop alternative perspec tives that are meaningful for each participant. While there is a basic structure, the process is open-ended, the guiding principle being to unearth assumptions that are meaningful to the participant. 

The main principles of the model and their rationale 

Small facilitated groups are our preferred way of working because: • they allow learning through dialogue and some focus on the communicative process, which is a key principle underlying the idea of critical reflection 

• they allow enough space for individual reflection, but also provide for the input of multiple perspectives and, additionally, the opportunity for further identification of collective and social thinking, and the links between this and individual experience 
• the size of the groups can vary – we find that the model may be conducted with as few as three group members (including the facilita tor) up to as many as twelve; normally, however, each participant needs at least 20–30 minutes to present and reflect on their critical incident, so this factor will guide the size of the group and available time; the model can also be used between two people in supervision, for example, or critical friends (see Chapter 9), or by individuals on their own as part of self-reflection. 

The direct involvement of each individual participant is important. In our model our preferred option is that each group member (including the facilitator) actually presents some concrete practice experience for reflection. There are several reasons for this. 

• We find that the learning that can be gained from actually undertak ing a reflection on one’s own experience is different from (and add itional to) the learning gained from assisting in reflecting on other people’s experience. In order for people to maximize their learning about critical reflection it is important for them to learn from both perspectives, as both a reflector on their own and other people’s experiences. 
• This is also an important aspect of establishing the appropriate group climate. The culture is usually more participatory if everyone has a similar role. If everyone knows they will be having a turn in exposing their practice and becoming vulnerable to the group, this sets up a more democratic climate. For example, we often find that people who are aware that they will also be in the ‘hot seat’ will take more care to temper their questions, and will be more sensitive to different per spectives, and the perspectives of the person currently in the hot seat. 
• The facilitator modelling the process with their own material at the beginning of the programme contributes to this participatory cli mate by modelling participation. This also allows modelling of the appropriate types of responses to critical reflective questioning. 
• We would suggest varying this only if just a short training programme is possible, so that a selected proportion of participants can pre sent their material. These are usually ‘volunteers’, who have been approached beforehand to agree to present their material, although often we have called for volunteers on the day. The advantage is that more people may be exposed to the process, but the disadvantages are many: the risk that the model will not be understood or experienced in depth; the associated risk that the model or process will be mis understood; the risk of not creating the necessary trusting environ ment; the added anxiety for those presenting. All in all, a shortened model is probably recommended only when the advantages of including a larger number of participants outweigh the risks involved. 

Using critical reflective questioning is important. By critical reflective questions, we mean questions that are clearly derived from our specific ways of theo rizing critical reflection. We deliberately devise sets of example questions from the different theoretical traditions of critical reflection and model these to participants (there are examples in Chapter 5). The aim here is twofold: 

1. to model the direct connections between the theory of critical reflec tion and the practice of it 
2. to assist participants to experience the direct links between the theory and practice of critical reflection. 

What is critical here is to use language, and word questions, according to the group and individual participants involved. The main principle at work here is to find a language for wording the questions that is meaningful to the person reflecting. In this sense, the facilitator (and group members with the facilita tor’s assistance) is trying to communicate the questions in ways that help the person reflecting to see other perspectives in looking for assumptions. 

Unsettling the fundamental assumptions that are implicit: we deliberately choose terms like ‘unsettle’ for the following reasons. 

• We are emphasizing that the process aims primarily to ‘shake up’ thinking, but that this does not necessarily provide ready-made solu tions. In fact we emphasize that the process is not about finding a solution; primarily we are aiming to create a climate (and process) that might assist a person to be open about exposing their funda mental assumptions, and then open to finding new ways of thinking and acting that incorporate whatever changes are brought about through the process. 
• The model is process focused, with the outcome being open. In this sense it is not more process than outcome focused, but the outcome desired is open-ended. The model is therefore deliberately designed as a particular communicative process without foreclosing on what the particular outcomes might be for each participant. It is important that the process instead creates an open climate so that possible changes might be as open, flexible and non-predetermined as possible. This principle is important if participants are to be as creative as possible in finding new ways of working. 

• We are focusing directly on assumptions that are fundamental and implicit. What these are must necessarily be open, since their relative meaning will depend on what theoretical perspective is taken. And since, ultimately, we are trying to develop an understanding of fun damental assumptions that will be useful to the person in question, then it is important that the process we construct is able to be inclu sive of many different perspectives. The assumptions unearthed do need to be implicit, rather than those that are within easy reach of the current explicit awareness of the presenter. In our experience, not a great deal that is new is learnt if easily stated assumptions are focused on. In some ways this can be an inhibitor to learning, as the learner is often motivated to defend assumptions that are more explicit. In a sense these are often the more desired assumptions, so the person may have a vested interest in preserving them. Our focus therefore is deliberately on that which is implied rather than stated. It is the focus on the taken for granted that contributes to the power of the learning in critical reflection. 
• The degree to which the thinking is hidden will vary, as of course will what participants choose to focus on as fundamental to them. This may vary from thinking that is hidden because it is part of the taken-for-granted cultural and social environment, to thinking that is hidden because it is associated with past, often painful, personal experiences. Of course the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but some participants may feel more comfortable about discussing different things in a group environment. Each facilitator (and group and individual participant) will to some extent need to make their own decisions. 

The use of examples of specific and concrete practice experience. We insist on using practice experience that is described in both concrete and specific terms. This material can be accessed, through observation, case files, reports, and so on. However, for the purposes of focused small group dialogue, we find that the more concrete and brief the account of practice is, the better we are able to focus and delve into it in some depth. Therefore usually we ask people to bring a written description of a critical incident – that is, of something that happened that was important to them (see Chapter 5). For our purposes here, what we are emphasizing is the need for some raw material for reflection. A description of a concrete critical incident is useful as this raw material for the following reasons. 

• It is grounded directly in practice, and therefore provides a concrete example that is also able to be readily used in group discussion. This is easier for the group to access than, for example, direct observations of practice, case files, and so on. 
• Because it is concrete, it is easier for people to imagine how they might change concrete practices on the basis of their reflection. • The more ‘raw’ it is – that is, the closer it is to the person’s own version of the experience – the better. The less the person has theorized, analysed or reflected upon the material, the easier it is to pinpoint assumptions that are more specific to the individual. With material that has already been analysed, often the assumptions that are implicit are those the person believes are the ‘right’ ones, so that what then becomes unearthed in the process is simply the person’s view of what is ‘right’. This can mean that a more limited analysis of assumptions is unearthed. 
• Focusing as directly as possible on ‘raw’ experience also allows people to engage with the process of learning directly from their own experi ence. In this sense we are trying to create a model of learning that can easily be replicated by individual practitioners in everyday situations. However, it is useful to note that, often, material that is less directly related to personal practice experience can also be used well for self reflection. For example, Lehmann (2003) uses fictional stories for reflection. The advantage of using material that is slightly removed from personal experience is that it is less threatening, so may be more relevant in groups where there has been less voluntary choice about participation, or where less prior information has been available to participants. Alternatively, this may be relevant as an approach for people who are less used to reflecting. 
• The critical incident format can also be used quite flexibly to fit the interests of a particular group as discussed in the case below. 

I [Jan] was once asked to conduct a critical reflection workshop for social workers in a large, very bureaucratic government organization. Although they wanted to learn about critical reflection, they also wanted to think through one of the dilemmas they experienced as professionals: how to maintain a professional role under pressure to act merely as bureaucrats. Since this was their own stated issue, we used the normal critical reflection model, but participants brought to the workshop specific critical incidents that encapsulated this dilemma for them. This meant we could draw out both personal and common assumptions, which gave a basis from which to draw up alternative ways of thinking and acting for both individuals and the whole group. 

Devising new practices and approaches to practice. We have deliberately separated the first stage of ‘unsettling assumptions’ from the second stage of developing changed practices for several pertinent reasons. 

• We find that many professional practice cultures tend to value finding solutions, rather than necessarily focusing on developing new analy ses (Fook and Askeland, in press). A clear distinction between the two stages allows practitioners to develop a clearer sense of how analysis and action might be linked, and also how they might learn to develop action directly from their own analysis. 
• We deliberately speak about changing practices or approaches to prac tice, as it is an important part of our model that participants recognize that a middle stage of reflection may involve changing assumptions about practice, as well as changing the actual practices themselves. 

A trusting and collegiate climate: the climate and culture of the critical reflection process are probably as important as the techniques and tools used. We will write at some length about the details of this culture later, but it is an import ant part of the design of our model that the culture that encourages reflection is articulated and agreed to by all participants. This culture shares elements of the communicative spaces spoken about by Habermas (1984, 1987), but also includes important elements that acknowledge the experience of reflecting, and the potential pain, risk and vulnerability involved. Clearly this is easier to achieve in some settings than others. However, at this point, the most import ant issue to bear in mind is deciding how much the climate can be established and maintained as a microclimate, within a broader macroclimate, which may or may not be supportive. We will discuss this in more detail in subsequent chapters. 

Facilitated by a group facilitator. The actual facilitation of critical reflection is integral to the process. While this obviously includes the expertise (skills and knowledge) of the facilitator, the broader role of the facilitator in estab lishing and maintaining the critical reflection culture is in some ways more important. Again this is an aspect we will discuss in some detail in later sections, but we emphasize here the need for facilitation by someone who understands the group culture that needs to be created and can model this well themselves. While all group members participate as equals, the facilita tor has particular responsibility for ensuring that the appropriate culture is maintained and that the critical reflection process stays focused and works well for each individual. The facilitator must possess skills but also a parti cular value system, and be able to enact this in order for the process to work effectively. Having a facilitator also ensures that there is input inde pendent of the specific workplaces of the participants. (Refer to the article ‘Facilitator in focus’ in the online resource materials at www.openup.co.uk/ fook&gardner.) 

However, if these above principles can be ensured in the group without the presence of an independent facilitator, then there is no reason it cannot be conducted without one. For instance, following the process of critical reflec 

Summary: the design of the critical reflection model 

• Small groups 
• Focus on each individual participant in turn 
• Using critical reflective questioning 
• To unsettle the fundamental assumptions that are implicit 
• Using examples of specific and concrete practice experiences 
• To devise new practices and approaches to practice 
• In a trusting and collegiate climate 
• Facilitated by a group facilitator 

The main principles of the model 

• The importance of dialogue and a communicative process for learning • Participatory and democratic values 
• A focus on the interactions between individual and society – individual reflection in the social context, as well as reflection that includes both individual and social responsibility 
• The importance of context, culture and climate in supporting reflection – tools and techniques are seen as a way to create the appropriate cultures, not necessarily as the main defining features of critical reflection • Process and outcome are intertwined 
• The importance of developing a culture that supports a process that allows open-ended outcomes 
• The importance of making and maintaining direct connections between theory and practice 
• An inclusive approach to outcomes and theories – a recognition of the importance of multiple and diverse perspectives 
• A commitment to focusing on the hidden and the taken for granted • The importance in learning of personal experience – direct, specific and concrete – taken from one’s own perspective 
• The importance of the individual participant’s perspective – in presenting the initial account of practice, in focusing on meaningful assumptions and changed practices and approachestion, especially using the critical reflective questions, the session should have an inbuilt mechanism to enable independent and new perspectives. If the model is understood properly, then it should be relatively easy to stay focused on the process. For instance, group members might take it in turns to act in the role of facilitator, or choose as a facilitator one of their members who is more experienced with the model. 

The main features of the model and process 

The purpose of critical reflection 

The broad purpose of the model is broadly to unsettle the fundamental (and dominant) thinking implicit in professional practices, in order to see other ways of practising. The thinking that is unearthed and the other ways of prac tising that might be developed are open-ended; they must simply be meaning ful or significant to the participant. This model may be used in a number of specific ways, which may or may not be combined. 

• To develop professional practice theory: in the process of unsettling thinking, the fundamental assumptions about practice are unearthed. This practice theory is then able to be reworked once it becomes avail able for scrutiny. 
• To research professional practice: the process of unsettling thinking unearths fundamental assumptions about practice and how these are linked with actual practices. This effectively yields data about practice that were formerly hidden, so enabling practice theory and models to be better articulated. In this sense, the critical reflection process might be seen as a type of deconstructive research conducted on accounts of practice. 
• To evaluate professional practice: the process of unearthing implicit assumptions allows a comparison with desired thinking and actions, so pinpointing changes that may need to be made. 
• To change professional practice: from a critical perspective the process of unsettling assumptions reveals those that are socially dominant, and may in fact function to be restrictive of practice. The critical reflec tion process therefore allows practitioners to remake their practice in more freeing ways. 
• To learn directly from professional practice experience: the process models a method that individual practitioners may replicate in their daily practice. By developing the habit of regularly unsettling the assumptions involved in significant experiences, practitioners can actually become involved on a regular basis in better articulating, developing and researching their own practice. 

The structure and content of the process 

The process is broadly divided into three sessions each separated by about a week. 

1. Introductory session (half a day): includes an introduction to the theory and process (includes culture) of critical reflection, and a modelling of the process by the facilitator. 
2. Stage 1 critical reflection: unsettling the assumptions of each partici pant in turn, through reflection on a specific critical incident presented by each. 
3. Stage 2 reflection: presentations by each participant in turn, which focus on changed thinking (from stage 1), and the implications for practice. 

The process is focused but open. It is facilitated in small groups in which all members assist each other to reflect. The culture of the group is important in sustaining the appropriate process. The process is structured (i.e. it follows the above structure and purpose) but is open-ended in that the main focus is to be open about what assumptions are unearthed and what practices may result. The main principle here is that whatever is focused on is of meaning to the individual participant. 

Starting the critical reflection process 

Depending on what you want to do, and your own knowledge and experience of critical reflection, there are a range of questions to consider. How will you negotiate having critical reflection? What form will it take? Are others already interested in critical reflection or do you need to convince them that it will be a valuable activity, worth allocating time, funding and energy to? If you are planning a workshop, will you be running it yourself or finding a facilitator? Do you want to have a critical reflection workshop in your organization or across organizations? Who will be involved? Is this for a group of practitioners or for people training in a particular field? A range of questions needs to be considered about participation and practical issues: there are questions about who will attend; will workers at different levels of organizations or training be able to participate in the same group, for example; will attendance be manda tory or voluntary? 

The contexts of critical reflection 

Before we consider these questions it is important to think about the organiza tional context. The culture of some organizations is more encouraging of practising reflectively than others (Reynolds and Vince 2004). Some organiza tions expect a certain level of openness, willingness to share values and assumptions and in-depth discussion about practice; others focus more on achieving tasks and outcomes and expect adherence to established procedures. Some organizations already use the language of some form of reflective prac tice and build reflection into supervision; others are not familiar with the language or concepts, and may not initially see how these are relevant. Critical reflection can work effectively across a wide range of organizations, but it is important to think about how best to ‘promote’ it for a particular context or across several contexts. 

Before you start suggesting critical reflection, then, it is useful to think about the organizations that might be involved. How do they operate? What are the norms and expectations about how practice is explored? What experi ence have workers had with critical reflection? How would workers react to the idea of using critical reflection in supervision? How might managers react to the implications of a critical reflection framework for analysing practice? We are suggesting here that it is helpful to start with experiencing critical reflection in a group setting such as a workshop. What, then, might be the reactions to suggesting a critical reflection workshop? What is possible in terms of funding? How are resources allocated for training? 

Promoting critical reflection 

Probably the most effective way of promoting critical reflection is having workers who have experienced it generate enthusiasm. It may be that you or someone in your organization has been to a workshop or has explored crit ical reflection as part of undergraduate or postgraduate study. Our experi ence has been that having someone able to speak from direct experience of critical reflection is often more powerful than providing information in other ways. However, it is important to think about who speaks and how. Is the person who can talk from their own experience someone who is respected in their own and other organizations, or is their support likely to be counterproductive? Participants say that if they are aiming to convince managers and those who control the training budget they need to think about strategies like providing information about outcomes for participants (see Chapter 8 and the online resources at www.openup.co.uk/fook&gard ner), or at least illuminating examples about how critical reflection works in practice. 

Having a critical reflection workshop is often an effective way to introduce this subject. This might be, to give some examples: 

• within an organization 
• offered to a set of organizations in a particular geographic area
• for a number of organizations with a shared field or practice or interest for interested individuals within many organizations. 

Running a workshop means that there are a number of people who have experienced critical reflection at the same time. Participants say that this can create momentum to implement critical reflection in other ways; participants support each other to maintain the learning from the workshops and to implement this either in their own organization or across organizations, through supervision (see Chapter 9), research and evaluation (Chapter 10) or direct practice (Chapter 11). 

Generally, we have found that the next most usual and effective way to promote critical reflection workshops is to make information available, so that all staff and/or possible participants are clear about: 

• the purpose of the workshop 
• how it operates 
• what will be covered 
• what is expected of participants 
• the usual outcomes for the participants 
• what previous participants have seen as the benefits and uses of critical reflection. 

Ideally, this information is provided at a briefing session where the facilitator of critical reflection workshops presents the information to all potential parti cipants. This means that possible participants can also gain a sense of the facilitator and how they operate. For some people this is important; they can see from the briefing session that critical reflection can be challenging and they want to feel that they can trust the facilitator to maintain a positive culture in the workshop. 

Where this is not possible, it is helpful to think about other ways the information can be distributed. Sometimes, the facilitator might meet with a small group or the staff member organizing the workshop and they will then pass the information on to possible participants. Alternatively, written infor mation can be sent out to all possible participants either directly from the facilitator or from the person within the organization who is arranging the process. Articles about critical reflection can be made available to give a clear idea of the process. 

Participation issues: voluntary and involuntary 

This is one of the contentious issues in setting up critical reflection: should participation be voluntary and, if so, how do you ensure that it is? In many ways, our preference is for voluntary participation. Critical reflection, as we are outlining it here, does require at least a minimum amount of self-disclosure. There are questions about how ethical it is to expect this if people have no choice about participating (Brookfield 1995). There is no choice, for example, about sharing an incident from practice and engaging in discussion with a workshop group. This expectation is clearly stated from the beginning and demonstrated in the first session. Although participants can decide not to answer specific questions about their incident, there is a group expectation that everyone will share to a reasonable degree. Because of this, the group process is likely to be more effective with willing participants. Critical reflec tion can also be at least unsettling, ‘as troubling and unrestful as unquestion ing lack of change can be boring’ (Bolton 2001: 51). For some people, it can raise painful issues (Brookfield 1994; Duke and Copp 1994) as we will discuss later, and this also supports critical reflection being voluntary. 

However, this issue is more complex than it might appear. The apparently clear binary between voluntary and involuntary is not always so in practice. Workers may come to a workshop, for example, partly because they were told it was compulsory, but become interested in and committed to the process after the first session. For some, even though they resent the involuntary expectation, they may also have become interested because of feedback from other workers. In some pressured work environments, workers have said they were pleased the workshops were involuntary: they were able to come only because the workshop had been deemed compulsory by senior management and was therefore given priority reluctantly by middle managers. In other situations, a team may decide, it seems voluntarily, to have a workshop together, but some team members may feel somewhat pressured by others to agree. 

In agency Y, all staff had been told that they would be expected to attend a critical reflection workshop over the next six months. When the facilitator arrived for the fourth set of workshops, the first two participants (who were early) were discussing this and expressing their frustration about it. As the other participants arrived, this issue continued to be explored. It soon became clear that there were mixed views: two people were angry on principle – they didn’t think this training should be compulsory; another pointed out that other training was and nobody objected; a fourth said she would never get to training unless it was compulsory and a fifth that the issue was about confidentiality more than choice. Finally, I [Fiona] as the facilitator asked what the group wanted to do, did they want to proceed with this training or not? All then agreed that they had heard about the training from other people and thought it sounded great, so the workshop got under way. 

Suppose a team decides that as a group they would like to participate in a critical reflection workshop partly as a team-building exercise and partly because they think it would give them a shared language and understanding of useful theory, and as a way of moving to group supervision using critical reflection. However, one of the team members may feel less comfortable about the expectations of the group, but not feel able to say so and simply not arrive on the first day. What does the team and the facilitator then do? Do they respect the right of the person not to participate or do they require that they attend the next session. What does this mean for other participants and the group dynamic? 

It can be more helpful to think about this issue as a continuum of voluntary–involuntary. There is more choice than there may initially appear. Obviously, participants decide on their own incident, for example, which means that they can choose what at least appears to be a relatively ‘safe’ inci dent if they want to, an incident from a past workplace or with colleagues who are no longer part of the work environment. They can also choose how to respond, how open to be and what questions they will respond to. Ultimately, and this is made clear in discussion about the group climate (see Chapter 5), they can choose to end the process. Our experience is that for the majority of participants the process is positive and so even involuntary participation becomes increasingly voluntary. 

Group composition 

The question of choice is further complicated by the question of who is in the group. Some participants would say that they will accept an involuntary group if they like all the people in it! The question of group composition needs to be thought about in terms of organizational and inter-organizational contexts. In organizations where there is a lot of conflict between individuals and/or teams there are more likely to be issues about who is in the same critical reflection group. This raises the issue of whether people need to know beforehand who else will be in the group and what this means in terms of confidentiality. Part of the question here is about how participants can feel free to explore; Brookfield (2005: 354) talks about the need for people to have ‘momentary separation from the demands and patterns of everyday life [that] allows them to view society in a newly critical way’. For some people, this is better achieved by being separate from supervisors, for others by mixing with those from other organizations. 

A mix of levels? 

This raises the question of whether participants should be from the same level if they are all from the same organization or whether there will be a mix of team leaders/managers and workers on the ground. Again, there are no defini tive answers. On the one hand, we have had experience with some workshops where the issue of who is in the group does not seem to matter. For example, one group had three people from the same organization at different levels of the hierarchy – a base-grade worker, her supervisor and then her supervisor’s supervisor. All three agreed that being in the same workshop helped deepen their understanding of each other’s perspective. On the other hand, and prob ably more frequently, workers and supervisors are reluctant to be in the same group, feeling that they will not be able to speak as openly. There are issues of power and control here: workers may fear that, consciously or unconsciously, their supervisors will be negatively influenced by what they say. Supervisors may fear their authority will be eroded if they are perceived as less than perfect. Some of the underlying assumptions here can usefully be challenged in work shops, provided participants feel safe to do so. Often it is helpful to ask organ izations to think this through for themselves beforehand, and to help them by providing guidelines for doing so. 

Jacquie, a supervisor of a residential care team, went to a critical reflection work shop with her team. She chose an incident from a previous position where she had felt undermined as a supervisor because she hadn’t prevented a traumatic inci dent for a worker. As the group helped her look at her underlying assumptions, she realized that she took for granted that supervisors should be perfect, never make mistakes, and always be available and supportive to staff. She could see how unhelpful this was and started to explore new assumptions: supervisors are also human, can learn from mistakes, and need to be realistic about what they can and can’t do. One of her team members commented: ‘I know you are still talking about that other job, but it would be great if you could bring those new assump tions here too – we would feel like we were relating to a real person, not a perfectionist.’ 

Should there be a mix of professional background or practice focus? In some ways it can seem easier to use critical reflection with people from similar professional backgrounds. They will be more likely to have a common language and theory base, and will be familiar with the kind of work each other is likely to do, especially if they come from the same organization. Similarly, having a mix of workers from the same organization can provide a common starting point: a policy development worker and a residential care worker may choose to present very similar incidents in terms of working in a large bureaucratic organization. 

However, there are also advantages to having mixed professional groups; participants are more likely to question each other’s assumptions about how things are done because they come from a different perspective. This can also demonstrate how critical reflection can be used across different professional work areas as well as different work domains. Some writers would suggest that there are many similarities between professionals anyway – for example, that professionals are aiming to translate a body of theory into practice in a service orientated way (Higgs and Titchen 2001). Looking at key assumptions and val ues in critical reflection workshops certainly seems to elicit common themes across professional groups. Such groups are also likely to come from a mixture of organizational backgrounds. This can also provide different perspectives to prompt useful questioning of assumptions. 

Mike, a social worker, and Dave, a teacher, were intrigued by each other’s assumptions about what was important about their work. Mike assumed that he needed to understand each person’s individual perspective in a given situation; Dave assumed that his first priority needed to be establishing discipline in a class. As they each explored their incident it became clear that they had more in com mon than first appeared: both saw their work as a balancing act between the needs of individuals and their context – whether that was a family, class or com munity. What was stressful about their work was recognizing different needs and not being able to fulfil them. 

Inside or outside organizations? 

Workshops can be run inside organizations – with teams or a mix of partici pants from across the organizations – or from outside organizations, probably with a mixture of people who don’t know each other. Again there are advan tages and disadvantages in each case. Feedback about running workshops with a mixture of participants from different organizations is often positive: parti cipants say they feel more able to speak freely about their incident, their reac tions and their organization to ‘outsiders’. This is partly because there is no history, no other agendas, no need to think about the impact on current relationships. Hearing about how other organizations are both similar to and different from their own gives new perspectives on organizational life and possible reactions to it. 

Kate and Jennifer work in different organizations. Kate was surprised to hear how similar Jennifer’s incident was to her own; when she heard it she commented, ‘You could have written that incident for me.’ Both talked about how a specific inflexible organizational policy had unexpected and negative consequences for them. Realizing that this was not something that happened only in her own organization changed Kate’s feelings about working there; she had been thinking about leaving, but decided that she should stay and work on changing the policy. 

Other participants, though, have valued having the workshop in their organ ization. They felt that there was much of the culture of organizational life that was understood that would have needed more explanation for people outside the organization. In some groups in large organizations, participants have come from many different sections and didn’t know each other beforehand. The workshops then provided a way of networking, forging new links, and some people continued to meet afterwards. Some preferred knowing other participants, felt safer with people they had already established relationships with and so more able to speak honestly about their incident. They also felt that as a group exploring the same organization as the context for their inci dents they were building a common picture about what needed to change and how they could support each other to do that. 

Practical issues in planning workshops 

Facilitation 

Who will facilitate the workshop is a central question. As we identified earlier in the chapter, having good facilitation is central to the success of workshops. Related to this is having someone who is seen as a ‘safe’ facilitator, who can be trusted by the group. In some ways having an outside facilitator is easier: there are no complications about lines of authority; facilitation is perceived in a more neutral way. On the other hand, an inside facilitator understands how the organization operates and is likely to be familiar to participants (Askeland 2003). 

How much funding you need will depend on how you are planning to run the workshop. Outside facilitators may charge a fee for running workshops, which may or may not be negotiable; and of course services may be negotiated in kind. Particularly in rural areas, there may be extra charges for travel and/or accommodation. Alternatively, if staff are travelling to the facilitator, there will be costs for them of travel and/or accommodation, and these may be a major factor in the financial viability of conducting the workshop. 

Think creatively about cost 

Having an outside facilitator may seem expensive, but if you divide the amount charged by the number of staff at the workshop it is likely to be reasonable. This is especially so if the facilitator travels to the staff rather than the other way round. If you are in a small organization and can’t afford the cost, think about sharing the workshop with another organization. Alter natively, see the workshop as a community development initiative and offer places to a number of organizations. 

Other costs are those that would need to be considered for any workshop: catering, venue, advertising, and printing of resource materials. 

Group size 

As suggested earlier in the chapter, our preference is for a group of about eight participants; the maximum group size should be ten, and our ideal would be between six and eight. This is small enough for the group to develop a sense of trust and ‘knowing’ each other relatively quickly (Brown 1994). It also allows enough time for each person to explore their incident. The group is big enough for diversity; participants hear a range of incidents and see how the process can be applied to each one. This also means participants have enough experience or practice working with the process to develop confidence in being able to use the process on their own, in supervision or in teams. 

However, this also depends on the organization and the needs of the par ticipants. Some organizations want a workshop for a particular team, which could be as small as three participants. While three may seem very small, participants say that the relative lack of variety is balanced with intensity: time to explore each incident in more depth. The issue of size relates very much to time. 

Time and timing 

Organizational context is critical here too in considering the timing of work shops; there is no point, for example, planning to run groups in a child protec tion setting on court days. Most organizations seem to have particular days when staff are more likely to be able to attend workshops. Some have times of year that are better than others: school holidays, for example, tend not to work as well because more people are on leave and those left have to cover for them. 

We have tried various ways of structuring workshops. Our preferred way was outlined earlier – three sessions over three weeks. Having said that, we have also had positive feedback on quite different timings, including the following. 

• Having the three sessions a month instead of a week apart: for some workplaces a weekly workshop is seen as impossible given workloads, and monthly is more realistic. In such cases, it helps to start the work shops by checking where people are, what they remember, what feels distant, reminding participants about the purpose of this particular workshop. 
• Running the three sessions together in a two-day workshop with a very long first day: again this was done to fit a particular organiza tional context. It did mean that participants were asked to read material beforehand and to come with an incident already prepared. Some people commented that they might have chosen a different incident if they had seen how the process worked first. Some com mented that they liked the intensity of the process; others would have liked more time for reflection. 
• Having five half-day sessions over two to three months: this means that contact is being maintained reasonably frequently. The partici pants’ presentations are spread over two sessions rather than one. This is easier to fit in for busy organizations – half a day in training feels more manageable. 

David’s incident focused on an argument with a colleague who David thought wasn’t advocating sufficiently for clients needing services. The group had asked him whether he had an assumption that his way was always right and so didn’t ask his colleague why he was acting as he was. David reacted angrily, disagreeing with this, but arrived at the second session saying that he had realized that he did operate like that and it caused problems in many areas of his life. Having the time between sessions helped him calm down and think more about his reaction. He had also talked to the colleague in question and found that the colleague’s assumption was that being less pushy got better results. David wanted to use the workshop to look at his own assumptions more and to think about his actions. 

Venue 

One of the main questions here is where to locate workshops: in the organiza tion requesting the workshop or at a separate venue? There are advantages in having a neutral venue: workers comment that this helps them leave work behind and concentrate on the workshop. Some organizations can find a rela tively neutral venue that is still part of their own facilities, such as a conference room at a different location, for example, or a training room in a residential facility. 

Organizations often prefer to have the workshops in their workplace because of cost – not having to pay for another venue and because the percep tion is that it is easier for workers to go to their usual workplace. Depending on the organizational context, there may also be a feeling that it is useful to be able to access workers. This, of course, is one of the disadvantages of running workshops in organizations. Workers can easily return to their desks during a tea break or lunch and get distracted from the workshop, possibly even getting caught up in a crisis and not returning. 

A child protection team decided to hold a critical reflection workshop on a Friday in the conference room, located next door to their offices. During the lunch break, several of the team members discovered that their colleagues were feeling very pressured about placing several children in care for the weekend. One 

decided to stay and help, the other two returned to the workshop but were clearly distracted. This was raised and the workers articulated their assumptions: first, that training was a luxury compared to dealing with the important work on the ground and, second, that a good worker would put supporting stressed colleagues first. The group worked together to critically reflect on these issues, and decided they needed new assumptions, but found it hard to let go of their immediate concern about their colleagues. 

We have facilitated workshops next to a pool at a conference, in a small win dowless room in the middle of a four-storey building, in conference rooms and tea rooms. Clearly, critical reflection workshops can be run almost anywhere. Ideally, though, such workshops need the same basic conditions that any group work requires; given that the sessions may last a whole day and can be relatively intense, it is more important than with usual learning groups that the environment be comfortable (with access to refreshments and facilities), well ventilated and pleasant, allowing enough room for participants to sit in a circle or to see each other easily and thus encourage equal participation. 

Chapter summary 

This chapter provides a broad overview of the design of the model. The essential aim of the model is to unsettle the fundamental (and dominant) thinking implicit in professional practices, in order to see other ways of practising. What is unearthed and the other ways of practising will vary depending on what is meaningful or significant to the participants. 

Generally the process in this model is to work in facilitated small groups of up to eight members in three sessions separated by roughly a week. 

1. Introductory session (half a day): includes an introduction to the theory and process (including culture) of critical reflection, and a modelling of the process by the facilitator. 
2. Stage 1 critical reflection: unsettling the assumptions of each participant in turn, through reflection on a specific critical incident presented by each. 3. Stage 2 reflection: presentations by each participant in turn, which focus on changed thinking (from stage 1) and the implications for practice. 

The culture of the group is vital in sustaining a focused but open process, where all members assist each other to reflect. Because of this, context is important in setting up training in critical reflection. In thinking about initiating a critical reflec tion process, it is useful to explore the advantages and disadvantages of working within an organization, across organizations or outside organizations. Group composition and choice about attending, for example, are important issues to consider. Planning carefully, taking into account the dynamics of power and relationships, makes for more effective workshops. The venue, timing, times of workshops and choice of facilitator will all impact on workshops. 

5 The introductory session 

In this chapter we aim to describe in detail the content covered in the intro ductory session, as well as relevant issues that may need to be addressed. We follow the structure in which the topics would normally be covered in the session. We begin with group introductions; this is followed by the introduc tion to the critical reflection model (definitions, purposes, theory, process and culture); next we discuss the facilitator’s modelling of the process and hand ling of issues that arise; and we finish with suggestions for how to link this session with the next one. 

Sample programmes for the introductory session are included in the online resource materials on the website that accompanies this book (www. openup.co.uk/fook&gardner). 

Group introductions 

It may seem self-evident, even banal, to point out that good groups begin with adequate introductions (Brown 1994; Northen and Kurland 2001) but we find it is particularly important with critical reflection groups to ensure that intro ductions of members are done in a way that is relevant to the purpose and culture of the group. We usually allow a couple of minutes’ self-introduction by each participant (including the facilitator). In general, we like to offer an opportunity for people to introduce themselves in the terms of their own choosing – this helps to establish a culture that values and legitimates people’s own perspectives. However, we have found that, for a group like this it is also helpful to include something more specific regarding critical reflection. The introduction of each person therefore usually includes: 

• name, organization, description of position or work role, profession or discipline background 
• why they want to participate in a critical reflection group
• their prior experience or understanding of critical reflection. 

Obviously the introductions may vary a little depending on whether or not members come from the same organization, but it is usually worthwhile to have some reasonably extensive formal introduction period, whether or not members already know each other. This acts as a way of establishing a relatively equal and neutral footing for the new group. 

The input about why people want to participate in the group offers useful stimulus material that the facilitator can pick up on to address issues around the purposes of the specific group, and how people’s expectations may or may not be addressed. For example, group members will sometimes say they do not know what to expect or are apprehensive, or, as has happened to us often enough, that they are here because they were told they had to come! These introductions provide an excellent and focused opportunity to set a climate of openness, to address anxieties or misapprehensions, and to maximize the par ticipatory input of group members. For example, for people who feel they are involuntary members, it might be useful to focus on what they think they might get out of the group despite this, or how any defensive or negative attitudes as a result of this might be addressed – for example, ‘What would be your preferred way of learning?’, ‘How might you gain some of those benefits from this group?’ 

The input regarding prior experience provides a platform from which to address people’s prior conceptions of critical reflection, and to undertake some preliminary discussion of how the model being presented may or may not differ from it. For example, we often find that many social workers and nurses have been taught reflective practice approaches, and say that they are there fore familiar with critical reflection. We might then point out that, while there are some important similarities between critical reflection and reflective prac tice, there are also some important differences. What we are trying to do here is lay the groundwork for all participants to be open to some new learning, whether or not they have prior experience of critical reflection. We might also invite those who have had prior experience to comment in an ongoing way on how that experience compares with the model we’ll be using in the group, so that we might all learn from the comparisons. In this sense we are trying to value prior experience, but also carve out a legitimate place for new learning as well. 

Obviously, in addition to the above, the points raised by participants in introducing themselves provide good reference points for later discussion, and enable the facilitator to draw individual participants directly into more generalized discussion. For instance, we may often refer to earlier comments made by participants as a way of comparing a later point with earlier thinking. For example, if someone had stated at the beginning of the group that they felt anxious, we might refer back to this later on when