ABSTRACT
Many books include suggestions for further learning at the end of each chapter. With this volume, we decided not to disturb the reflective flow, and the personal nature of the accounts by doing this. Instead, we have presented a collection of resources that we have developed over the years of facilitating critical reflection workshops and university-based courses. Since there are common themes, which link the chapters, we also felt it was more fitting to include further resources in a more collective way rather than to risk repeating ideas across the chapters. The resources presented here are intended to be applicable across a range of different teaching settings and may be adjusted to various learning contexts. For example, they could be used as facilitator reference material, provided as handouts or worksheets for participants, or reformatted into PowerPoint slides. We hope you find them useful. Exercise in developing critically reflective questions
Many students and educators wishing to use the critical reflection model used by the contributors in this volume have requested that a list of reflective questions be provided. We tend to resist this request, for several reasons.
First, we have found that once someone truly understands the theoretical lenses, which inform this approach, they are able to have a much better grasp of the process and are then also able to generate appropriate questions.
Secondly, questions to help participants delve beneath the surface of their stories, to uncover hidden deeper assumptions, must generally be asked in relation to the specific story of the experience being reflected upon. It is vitally important that people assisting someone to reflect develop the skills of listening, especially trying to listen underneath a story, to what is not expressed in so many words. If they just have in mind specific questions to ask, without thinking through how their question is relevant to what a person is saying, this can impede deep listening.
Thirdly, the theoretical frameworks, which we outlined at the beginning of the book, are intended to provide a broad framework for questions. However, we have found that wording and framing these against the context of a story a person is trying to reflect upon can be quite difficult. Part of the skill of critically reflecting is being able to think through in more detail how the theories can inform analysis and questioning. This needs to be learnt over time. It is perhaps less well learnt if prescribed questions are provided beforehand.
It is also important to remember that critically reflective questions are designed to foster two-way dialogue and should not seem like one-way interrogation. The flow is better if the reflective questions asked are clearly related to the responses given.
In the following list, we give an example of an exercise for developing critically reflective questions, which we have used in workshop training. The main aim of this exercise is two-fold:
First, it aims to help people think through how to ask questions, which exemplify the principles of critical acceptance.
Second, it aims to help people practise how to ask questions, which are relatively clear, so it is an exercise in good communication.
Broadly, the exercise consists first with telling the story of a brief critical incident and then the workshop participants are asked to observe five different questions and to think about/discuss them to rank them in order of least reflective to most reflective.
Step 1. First, we remind participants of some general principles, which guide the type of questions that might assist a person to reflect (we are indebted to participants in the London Critical Reflection Network for helping to formulate the questions in this way). These have been adapted from the points regarding the ethical learning climate of ‘critical acceptance’.
For convenience, the points about an ethical learning climate are summarised in the following list. An ethical learning climate of critical acceptance (please see Chapter 1 for the full description of this learning climate) involves the following:
Seeking deeper understanding through creating a safe space for enabling dialogue
Acceptance, NOT affirmation
Learning, not therapy, and right to draw limits
Trust and respect
Focus on the how/why of story construction
Multiple and different perspectives
Responsibility and agency, not blame
General principles to guide questioning (based on principles of an ethical learning climate) are discussed. When doing this exercise, participants can be asked to try and think of examples of each of the types of questions before exploring the offered possibilities together.
Questions, which do not imply judgement (an implication that the questioner dis/approves of what was done). The questions should be open and clearly convey that the intention is not to lead the person down a particular path of thinking, e.g. ‘I’d like to hear more about why you think you did/thought that’, NOT ‘I don’t think you should have done that’ or ‘I don’t think that’s what I would have done’.
Questions, which leave room for disagreement and for openness, that is, questions, which might be transparent about the questioner’s viewpoint but convey the message that, nevertheless, the questioner is genuinely interested in hearing the person’s own perspective or interpretation, e.g. ‘I think that if I’d been in the situation I might have thought. . .But I’m genuinely interested to hear if this is what you thought, or was it something quite different?’
Curiosity questions, that is, questions, which invite the person to speak more about what the experience meant/means with the sole intention of trying to understand the meaning of the person’s experience in more depth, e.g. ‘I’m curious about what made you think that. . .can you say a bit more about this?’
‘Reflexive’ questions, that is, questions, which ask the person to reflect on who they are and how their own social position affects their perspective on their story, e.g. ‘I wonder how the other people in the story perceived you and how this might have influenced the way they acted?’, ‘I wonder how you being a man/woman/young person/social worker influenced what happened?’, ‘What were you (or they) assuming about each of these types of people, which you think influenced what happened?’, or ‘What about your current location now do you think might be affecting how you are making sense of the memory and retelling of the situation?’.
‘Directed feeling’ questions, that is, questions, which ask about a feeling but also try to connect it with an underlying idea or assumption, e.g. ‘You seem to be feeling frustrated/out of your depth/vulnerable, and I wonder what you were assuming about yourself/other people, which made you feel this?’
Questions, which focus on the person’s thinking, not making judgements or evaluations of other people in the story, e.g. ‘Although you are implying that your supervisor did the wrong thing, I wonder what this says about your assumptions about supervision?’.
Questions, which help the person to focus on their thinking, not necessarily what they should have done or could do better, e.g. ‘I am aware that you feel you should not have done what you did, but rather than dwell on that, I wonder what you are assuming about yourself and what you should be capable of or what good work is?’.
Step 2. Secondly, we give a brief verbal presentation of an example of a critical incident. Here we provide an example incident from Jan’s experience.
Context. This happened some years ago when I was starting a new job. I worked for a partnership between three organisations. About two months into the job, the first meeting to decide next year’s strategy was held. There were 16 people present. All were senior managers in their organisations. My role was as an employee of the partnership to develop partnership projects.
Why critical for me? This sort of thing happens a lot, and I feel quite frustrated and annoyed at what seems like a waste of time!
The incident. Part way into the meeting, I couldn’t follow what was happening. It did not seem like we were making decisions or following an agenda, and I couldn’t see a strategic plan emerging. People were speaking and not necessarily referring to what each other was saying, and there was a negative tone despite the positive things being said. I stopped speaking/contributing. I left the meeting really frustrated, as it felt like a waste of a day.
Step 3. Ask the group to read the following questions (which are examples of what different groups, at different times, have asked to help me reflect on my critical incident) and, individually (or in pairs), try to rank them from the least to the most reflective.
What were you expecting to happen?
What do you believe is the purpose of meetings?
Why didn’t you speak up?
Were you adequately prepared for the meeting?
Was the person chairing the meeting doing a good job?
Step 4. Go around the group and ask the individuals (or pairs) for their rankings, and discuss their reasons for ranking in the way they have. It might be easier to discuss each question in turn, and how different people have ranked it and why. Refer back to the principles in step 1 where necessary. Where possible, if the group decides a question is not very reflective, ask them to try different ways of making it more reflective.
For example, question no. 5 is not very reflective in that it shifts the gaze from the thinking of the person reflecting to making judgements of someone else (the chair of the meeting). Ask the group, ‘How might this question be made more reflective?’ or, ‘How might you turn the focus back onto the person’s thinking?’
Ask them to be as concrete as possible. For example, ‘I wonder why you were assuming that the chair was not doing a good job? What would a good job have looked like?’
If helpful, you can make imaginary answers to the different questions to illustrate what each question might elicit.
Critical reflection ‘cheat sheet’: Pointers for facilitatorsThis is a summary of the stages of the critical reflection process and can be helpful for facilitators (especially new ones) as a checklist about the practical aspects of the process. It is important that facilitators try to model a critically accepting culture as much as possible. Sometimes it may be helpful for the facilitator to volunteer to present their own critical incident first and allow the group to ‘practise’ on them.
PreparationChoose a critical incident (an incident [not a situation, issue, or case], which happened to you that you feel was significant to your professional learning and which you would like to learn from).
Write up to a ONE-page description covering the following:
Why the incident was critical
Background/context of the incident
The actual incident
The incident should be a ‘raw’ description (not analysis or reflection) as much as possible and should be as concrete and brief as possible. Remember to respect confidentiality and to choose something you are prepared to discuss in the group. If need be, you may change major identifying details in order to respect confidentiality.
Stage 1 critical reflectionPresent the incident to the group (either verbally and/or in writing).
The group begins discussion (assisting the person to reflect on their incident) by:
Asking if there are any questions, which simply clarify the ‘facts’ of the critical incident (these are not questions which invite reflection but which are just about ensuring that members of the group are clear about what the incident is)
Clarifying why the incident was chosen and is critical to the person (if this is not clear)
The group starts the critical reflection process:
Begin the questions to help reflection (remember that the goal of this stage is to unearth fundamental assumptions – i.e. to try to get to the crux of the matter for the person). Remember the climate of ‘critical acceptance’ – a nonjudgemental atmosphere, which enables the person to feel free to put a range of assumptions/perspectives/interpretations ‘on the table’ for their own examination.
Spend about half an hour or as long as it takes for the person to feel they have become aware of fundamental assumptions (this usually entails some change of thinking or new awareness) or feel that they have gotten to the crux of the meaning of the situation for them.
Questions, which may help early on:
‘Where does that come from?’
‘Did you have any strong feelings (and what were they about)?’
‘What was that about for you?’
‘I wonder why you thought/interpreted. . .and not. . .?’
‘I wonder why you chose to do. . .and not. . .?’
‘What perspectives are missing from your account?’
‘Do any assumptions about power/gender/class/culture have anything to do with the heart of the matter for you?’
End the process:
After about half an hour, check in with the person by asking such questions as:
‘Where has that gone for you?’
‘Do you feel like this has gone anywhere for you?’
‘Do you feel it has unearthed some fundamental assumptions that you would like to think about some more?’
‘Do you feel you have gotten to the crux of the matter?’
‘What would you say are the main assumptions, which have been unearthed for you?’
You may need to assist them to articulate some of the assumptions.
Then ask the person what they will be taking away to reflect further on, for further Stage 2 reflection later.
If the person still feels they are unsure about what has come out for them, the group may want to help by going back over some of the assumptions, which were raised, and helping the person to review if they think any of these are fundamental.
The aim at the end of Stage 1 is ideally for the person to feel that they have gotten to the crux of the matter and, at least, unearthed something they were not aware of before that will help them now think about what they have learnt/might want to change.
Stage 2 critical reflectionThe overall aim of Stage 2 is to help the person repackage/relabel their learning as a new principle/guideline for action (‘theory of practice’). In this sense, they are now trying to label the crux of how they want to both ‘see and do’ this aspect of their practice.
Before a Stage 2 presentation, they should think about the following:
What was/were my main assumption/s (from Stage 1, although these might have changed after further reflection)?
How does my thinking need to change (as a result of becoming aware of these assumptions)?
How does my practice need to change as a result of this changed thinking? (‘What might I do differently if I found myself in the same situation [as my critical incident] again?’)
How would I label my new ‘theory of practice’ (guideline/principle for action)?
The person presents their preliminary thoughts to the group and the group assists them to respond to these questions. It is important to connect the responses to these questions with the reflections from Stage 1 (even if it is just to be aware of how the reflections might have moved further on). It is also important to use the person’s own terms or language as much as possible for the new theory of practice.
It is important to pay attention to group size.
The ideal size for a critical reflection group is about five to six. If there are more than ten people, it may be useful to divide the group into two so that half the group engages in the reflection and half the group act as observers. You may ask one of the observers to act as a notetaker for the person reflecting (making note of the main questions asked and the main responses given). These should be given to the person reflecting for help when they are preparing their Stage 2 reflection.
Possible critically reflective questions, which can be asked using different theoretical frameworks Questions from a reflective practice frameworkWhat are my implicit assumptions and how do they differ from my explicit ones?
How can I use this awareness to change my practice? (Stage 2 question)
Examples: What fundamental values or beliefs are implied? What am I assuming about the nature of people, society, power, and conflict? What hidden ideas underlie what I did? Was I attempting to practise from a particular practice theory, which let me down? How did I fill the gap left in my theory to practise transmission with a gut instinct, creativity, or implicit knowledge? Did my profession’s code of ethics influence my practice or did they not offer guidance? If not, how did I manage? If I was ‘flying by the seat of my pants’, what helped get me off the ground?
Questions from a reflexivity frameworkHow do I influence what I see?
How does what I am looking for influence what I find?
Examples: Where do my assumptions come from? How does who I am affect socially what I see? How do my emotions affect my knowledge? What ‘blind spots’ do I have? How does who I am and how I behave affect other people’s interpretations of me? If I was older or younger or a different gender, what might have been different?
Questions from a post-structural and postmodern narrative practice frameworkHow does how I speak (my language) construct what I see?
What social discourses are influencing my understanding and retelling of the incident?
Examples: What words or terms do I use? Why have I chosen these? What language patterns do I use? What binaries exist? Have I used any polarised thinking? What other perspectives am I leaving out? Why did I choose to interpret it this way (and not other ways?) Where might I have been influenced to think in that way? Are there any other elements or events that occurred that I particularly chose not to mention that might offer other ways of thinking about it?
Questions from a critical perspectives frameworkWhat has this got to do with power? How do I participate in power? What are the connections between my personal experience and my social context? And how can I change my practice with this awareness?
What were the broader social structures of power in play? Who else had access to power and how did they use their power?
Examples: Do I have any self-defeating beliefs? Do I see myself as powerless? How do I see other people’s power? How do I understand responsibility? What do I believe about how organisational and personal power is connected? Is anyone using resistance as a method of attempting to resist someone else’s use of power?
Questions from a spirituality or meaning frameworkWhat is the significance or deeper meaning of this experience to me?
How does it connect to my past experiences as well as my hopes and plans for the future?
Examples: Where does this come from? What is it about for me? What is coming out about my fundamental values? What would I ideally like to happen? Are there any other experiences that would suggest a pattern and particular commitments in my work or life more generally? What motivates me to continue to be committed to this work? Does this feel meaningful?
For a university setting: Clarifying what makes this <italic>critical r</italic>eflection (usually using PowerPoint slides)Begin by reviewing the two main strands of reflection:
Analytic philosophy – closely related to empiricism – we must be rational and think logically – catch faulty logic – scientific experimentation.
Pragmatism – an analysis of experience – always open to revising assumptions – the reflective cycle – always ‘fiddling/experimenting’ on practice but most importantly: ‘Pragmatism is defined by its “calling into question any form of dogmatism” and its belief in a form of fallibilism, in which “every claim is open to revision”’ (Brookfield, 2016, p. 15).
Simple reflection loopThis photo by unknown author is licensed under CC BY-NC (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0)
https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781351033305/4c33ae19-a488-424a-954f-e4ef9f400c00/content/fig14_1.tif" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"/>Most students will be familiar with this form of reflection loop based on improving practice, but this does not incorporate Critical Social Theory.
Reflection and critical reflection often ‘conflated’
Reflection and ‘use of self’ are not the same thing, but you do use ‘your self’ in reflection and critical reflection
Reflection is not necessarily critical – could just be about improving practice effectiveness or making the agency more efficient
‘Critical’ isn’t just ‘deeper’ or ‘more profound’ or ‘negative’, on the other hand
Critical Social Theory adds ‘critical’ to the reflection loop:
The need to examine power and control, influenced by the Frankfurt School (Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas).
Examine the minutiae of practice to find the embedded and unjust dominant ideologies and the ‘struggles between unequal interests and groups that exist within the wider world’.
Although seeming very ‘open’ (although not by everyone!), Western societies are full of economic inequity and various ‘isms’.
Dominant ideology convinces us this state of affairs/inequalities is normal and continues to reproduce these ways of being.
We can’t change this state of affairs without first understanding it.
I will often include a PowerPoint slide, which pictures someone looking into a mirror to represent ‘reflection’, and then compare this with a picture of someone standing in a hall of mirrors. Critical reflection of practice is more like a hall of mirrors allowing students to examine themselves from all kinds of angels. However, it can also be confusing and disconcerting.
The importance of understanding hegemony
An important concept for Critical Reflection and Social Work as a whole
Gramsci’s concept, which describes the manner in which people who are subjugated by dominant ideologies ‘buy into’ the status quo. . .and make them seem normal/just the way things are
Examples
Discourses that romanticise abuse
Discourses of ‘vocation’ and ‘perfectionism’
Individualism within discourses of ‘self-care’
The difference between domination and hegemony:
Certain understandings might shift over time from being imposed to being ingrained in taken-for-granted discourses and practices.
From domination to hegemony https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781351033305/4c33ae19-a488-424a-954f-e4ef9f400c00/content/fig14_2.tif" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"/> Considerations for a university courseThere are pros and cons for both assigning students to working groups or having students develop their own groups. Consider carefully, which path to follow, and be clear to students as to why you have chosen the one you have.
Review ‘critical acceptance’ as a group requirement but also acknowledge stages of group work and the impossibility to guarantee a smooth process throughout.
Describe one of your own incidents to the class as a whole and have the class attempt to develop questions to ask you prior to the groups beginning the process themselves. It is also possible to interview one of the students in front of the whole class as to his or her incident to role model the process before they start it themselves. This can be done before Stage 1 and again before Stage 2.
Groups will be working on their own without a facilitator for much of the time if you need to divide your class into anywhere between four and six groups. Always bring the groups back together to debrief after working together. This will be especially important for those groups you have been unable to assist during that week’s class.
Some students benefit from incorporating arts-based approaches to expressing their reactions to both Stage 1 and 2.
