A LITTLE SOMETHING FOR LATER MAYBE....

I have just posted this comment on First Class, but wanted to record it in my learning diary just in case I want to refer back to it later.....


What is reflection? Is it appreciative inquiry, action learning, clinical enquiry and so on? To me it seems all of these, but is influenced by whom one reads. It strikes me that it is not any one thing, but a collection of actions embracing areas such as:

• the method in action as opposed to about action
• a combined as well as a self-monitoring process
• a cycle of actions (and sometimes more which can operate concurrently)
• meta learning
• premise reflection
• analysis
• problem solving


Gibbs is one of the few individuals who also takes feelings into his theory of reflective practice. While Bolton advocates writing as a way of observing what we are thinking about a task and our reaction to it. I have certainly found this true having observed it myself in my Blog leading me to conjecture whether I need to decide now which cycle to use, or could I switch between them, using what I think is the best format. Logically I feel that one would have to make a preferred choice and keep to it initially, but because reflective practice is all about reviewing and changing things for a better outcome, then the end of a cycle may be a good time to review whether the cycle in use was best for the objective and myself.

We then have to consider how we get the best from our reflective practice by use of :

• rigour
• goals clearly set
• objectivity
• who determines the method to be used
• who the beneficiaries are

Schon offers 'frame analysis' (framing and re-framing) as a method of reflective practice. By this he means that practitioners set the issue out in a particular way, thus framing the area being observed; becoming aware of this they then consider alternatives. To me the word 'frame' immediately conjures up constraint and, by going on to consider alternatives, interprets into 'thinking outside the box' .

We also are required to take into account dynamics, both inter-level and political. Inter-level, since it can involve groups and the echelon of an organisation. While politics is critical as people individually, or within groups and departments can manipulate a situation to improve their position of gain advantage.

What I am having a problem with is seeing how epistemology and ontology fit into the different types of research method which validate evidence thereby making it scientific. The only analogy I can bring to mind is that of the creation of the world where one person believes God to be the creator and another who believes in the Big Bang theory, so is the former ontology and the latter epistemology? Since this view dictates the way in which people research it clearly is an important part to understand, and if anyone has any other way of explaining it to me I should be glad. Or perhaps I am just getting too caught up with words?

Enough for now I think, but I shall be interested to read responses.