Reflection, Critical Reflection and Reflexivity

Reflection and reflexivity are concepts central to qualitative research methodology and the AR process, but Finlay (2008) asserts that reflection, critical reflection and reflexivity “are often confused and wrongly assumed to be interchangeable” (p. 6).Finlay and Gough (2003) suggest these concepts form a continuum. Reflection, defined as thinking about something after the event, comes at one end, and reflexivity involving continuing self-awareness at the opposite end, while critical reflection lies somewhere in between. Nevertheless, Finlay considers the terminology contested and suggests that it can be applied in myriad ways.Given this ambiguity I considered the differing concepts.

Page | 69 Although Finlay acknowledges that reflexivity can be full of “muddy ambiguity and multiple trails” (2002, p. 212), it is generally agreed that both reflective and, reflexive processes have the potentiality to enable new understanding to emerge. Sandelowski and Barroso (2002) consider reflexivity to be “a hallmark of excellent qualitative research” (p. 222) that can be understood as a process of continual reflection involving the examination of assumptions and preconceptions as well as theconscious scrutiny of research methodology. The implication is that reflection is considered an immediate activity and reflexivity a later stage of the process. However, “in practice these activities may be blurred” (Dallos and Stedmon, 2009, p. 6) or even contradictory.Thompson and Pascal (2012) argue that “reflexivity is a key part of making sure that reflective practice is critically reflective practice” (p. 319). Research undertaken by Lambert et al. (2010) examined the concept of reflexivity within midwifery and their findings suggest that “reflective practice encourages the process of reflexivity” (p. 325). Reflexivity and reflection can be understood as far from straightforward concepts. Not only is the terminology used synonymously but there appears to be no consensus or clear definitions.

The term ‘reflection’ comes from Latin roots, meaning ‘back’ and flectere meaning ‘to bend’ (Dallos and Stedmon, 2009, p. 1). Therefore, taken literally, to be reflexive means to bend back upon oneself, which would require researchers to become contortionists. Mead (1934) proposes that reflectivity involves “the turning back of the experience of the individual upon himself” (p. 134). From this perspective reflexivity can be understood as a process that encourages self-awareness and seeing oneself differently. Thus, it could be argued that reflexivity involves self-analysis and the ability to revisit and reflect on actions and come to a better self-understanding.

Sometimes the reflexive process seems to require individuals to bend inwards as opposed to backwards. For example, the heuristic approach suggests self- researchers turn their gaze inward and engage in “indwelling” (Moustakas, 1990, p. 24) and from this viewpoint the reflexive process involves introspection. Meanwhile Sandelowski and Barroso (2002) assert that a researcher needs to be able to bend in all directions. They suggest that to be reflexive “implies the ability to reflect inward toward oneself as an inquirer;

Page | 70 outward to the cultural, historical, linguistic, political, and other forces that shape everything about inquiry; and, in between researcher and participant to the social interaction they share” (p. 222). This implies that the act of reflexivity involves the ability to dig below the surface and reflect on the wider social context as well as the interactions with research participants. Smyth (1992) comments that “…reflection can mean all things to all people” (p. 285). I postulate that different stages of the research process call for different reflexive approaches and that these were vital to the research journey. My experience was that I had to bend every which way and introspection involving critical examination and deep conscious thought felt very different from the self- awareness that stems from intuitive tacit reflection undertaken as an education practitioner or during AR cycles.

4.4. 2 Reflective Practice

The term ‘reflective practice’ has multiple connotations, but the expectation is that teachers in the UK will be reflective practitioners. Reflective practice is widely endorsed, and it is an explicit goal of initial teacher training and a professional standard.Larrivee suggested that a critical stance is essential:

Unless teachers develop the practice of critical reflection, they stay trapped in unexamined judgments, interpretations, assumptions, and expectations. Approaching teaching as a reflective practitioner involves fusing personal beliefs and values into a professional identity. (2000, p. 293)

Some years ago, Dewey (1933) defined reflection as “active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (p. 118). For Dewey, reflective thinking moves away from routine thinking towards reflective action and his ideas provided a basis for the concept of “reflective practice” as part of professional development. Schön’s (1983) seminal work identified ways in which professionals could become aware of their implicit knowledge and learn from their experience. Crucially, Schön made the distinction between two types of reflection: reflection-on-action (after-the-event thinking) and reflection-in-action (thinking while doing). For Schön, reflection is an interactive and interpretative process and reflection-in-action is the core of “professional artistry” where teachers draw on both practical experience and theory as they think on their feet, improvise and act both intuitively and creatively. Schön believed that as professionals become more expert in their

Page | 71 practice both reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action allows teachers to revise, modify and refine their expertise. Schön’s work has drawn criticism and Ekebergh (2007) argues that it is not possible to distance oneself and reflect in the moment because to achieve real self-reflection you must stand back and reflect retrospectively.

Although in practice the division between reflection-in-action and reflection-on- action may not be straightforward, I believe it is possible to reflect in the moment. Schön (1983) provides the example of jazz musicians who reflect-in- action on the music they are jointly making and on their individual contributions to this “through a feel for music” (p. 56). My own example comes from a drama lesson in which a pupil produced an unexpected action and I intuitively changed the direction and focus of the lesson to incorporate the pupil’s idea. This lesson was observed, and the feedback commended my ability to be ‘flexible’ and ‘creative’. Drama teachers need to be able to adjust their practice and incorporate the unexpected in order to facilitate improved teaching and learning. Schön describes the musicians’ reflection-in-action as a reflective conversation. I confess that I do often have a running inner dialogue when I am teaching drama because the lessons have a habit of deviating from a lesson plan. This ability to reflect instinctively and adapt while teaching is difficult to articulate but is part of the tacit understanding of the expert practitioner. Schön asserts that there are two meanings of artistry; one being intuitive knowing, the other ‘reflection-in-action’ on intuitive knowing. This is reflection that enables immediate decision-making based on individual interpretation of the situation. Therefore, I brought to the research process my practitioner knowledge and this implicit, tacit understanding was incorporated in the AR cycles to support new insight and to interpret the voices of pupils identified with CMN.