Reflective Practice,Reflexivity, and Critical Reflection in Social Work Education in Australia

Reflective practice, reflexivity, and critical reflection are now widely accepted as important in contemporary social work practice. Despite this, there remain differences in how the terms are discussed within the literature. This results in confusion in how students are instructed about reflective practice, reflexivity, and critical reflection. This paper presents a proposal for clarifying these concepts based on the results from an interpretive study of reflective practice in social work education and practice in Australia. The study utilised three different methods: autoethnography, an archaeological analytic, and qualitative interviews. It found that reflective practice is understood as a capability, a form of critical thinking, a discipline response to a changing sector, and a way of theorising from practice. Conceptual clarifications of reflective practice, reflexivity, and critical reflection are presented.

IMPLICATIONS

• There is a need for clarification about the meaning of reflective practice, reflexivity, and critical reflection within social work.

• Findings from a qualitative study on the meaning and use of reflective practice in Australian social work education may provide conceptual clarification of these terms.

     

Transitions to Systemic Practice for a Clinical Psychology Trainee

This article provides an individual perspective on encounters with systemic and family therapy ideas during the transition from university training to professional practice as a Clinical Psychology Registrar. Clinical psychology training provides a solid grounding in individually focussed, cognitive and behavioural models of psychotherapy. What may be less developed on entry to practice are the knowledge, procedural skills and reflective competencies needed to understand and respond to challenges in family‐based therapy and in working within complex caregiving systems. Systemic ideas can provide important resources for facilitating these transitions. Trainees may need support not only in gaining knowledge of family therapy models, but also in making a challenging ‘epistemological shift’ (Cullin, 2014) from internalised models of psychopathology to systemic ways of thinking about problems and change. Systemic concepts and support in developing a position of ‘hospitality’ (Larner, 2003) towards competing therapeutic models can also help the trainee be more effective in complex caregiving environments. This article provides examples from my learning as well as reflections on what may help trainees make the transition to professional practice and make use of systemic ideas.     

How can We Enhance Productivity in Social Work? Dynamically Reflective Structures,Dialogic Leadership and the Development of Transformative Expertise

This article examines how to enhance the ability of managers to promote productivity through reflective structures and appreciatively evaluative dialogues based on front-line expertise and knowledge in social work practice. In order to discuss these ideas, we review the ideas of dialogical leadership and reflective structures, and the concept of productivity in relation to reassessing social work core tasks and the work-related well-being of social workers. We will present and reflect on our experiences and ideas generated from research that developed reflective tools, known as the Mirror method, for peer evaluation and practice development in social work. The Mirror method is designed as a tool for leaders and managers to enhance, through trialogic processes and structures, both the well-being of employees at the individual level and the productivity of social work and learning for transformation at the organizational level.     

‘Stumbling through’? Relationship-based social work practice in austere times

In recent times relationship-based practice has become a familiar term in social work practice and education. Despite its widespread adoption, how relationship-based practice is understood varies widely. Drawing on contemporary conceptualisations of the child and family and individuals as psychosocial subjects experiencing social suffering, this paper explores how current social work practice can be understood in the context of neoliberalism and austerity. Setting these ideas in an historical context helps to inform our understanding as to why social work seems to be the focus of sustained political discontent and scrutiny, making it difficult to retain a balanced relationship-based professional stance. Contemporary responses to the current challenges of everyday practice are outlined and the contribution of psychodynamic and systemic ideas to promoting relationship-based practice is explored. The paper concludes by considering how the concept of social systems as defences against anxiety can inform our understanding of the resistance amongst practitioners to relationship-based practice and emphasises the importance of reflective spaces and places for developing and maintaining integrated, mature relational approaches to practice which impact on practice at both the individual casework and social structural level.     

The influence of the Milan approach—Part 2. The legacy of Boscolo and Cecchin and their Paduan connection: A conversation with Andrea Mosconi

The Milan approach, pioneered by Selvini-Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin, and Prata, has significantly contributed to the field of psychotherapy, particularly in the realm of systemic and family psychotherapy. While rooted in systemic principles and concepts, over time the original Milan group demonstrated differences in their clinical orientations and practices which led to their regrouping into two teams. The paper explores the divergences in their views and directions on family dynamics and the role of symptoms within the system. It delves into the influence of Boscolo and Cecchin, two of the ‘Milan Four’ on the Centro Padovano di Terapia della Famiglia. Drawing from a conversation with Andrea Mosconi, a mentee and collaborator of Boscolo and Cecchin, the paper examines the reconfiguration of the original ‘Milan Four’ team and its impact on their clinical approach. Key Milan principles and concepts such as hypothesising, circularity, and neutrality are examined with particular emphasis on the work of Boscolo and Cecchin's systemic work. These principles, intertwined and interconnected, provide a fertile ground for the construction of multiple hypotheses and circular questioning. The paper also highlights the concept of reflexivity, which originates from Bateson's work and plays a crucial role in family relations and communication while explaining the birthplace of paradox taking place when two levels of meaning are ‘confused.’ The Milan approach continues to be highly regarded, as its early concepts and ideas have evolved and left a lasting impact on the field of family therapy. By reflecting on the distinct contributions of Boscolo and Cecchin, and using examples, Mosconi offers valuable insights into the rich legacy and ongoing relevance of the Milan approach to contemporary therapeutic practice.     

Is There a Place for Biopsychosocial Formulation in a Systemic Practice?

There is a long history of literature concerning integrative practice and how a systemic practice can fit with other models of therapy Much of this literature has focused on establishing a space for systemic therapy within the dominant medical paradigm, and exploring how the medical model can be enhanced by systemic ideas. The outcome has been better practice, especially in child and adolescent mental health. Interestingly, however, there has been less discussion of the converse: the family therapy literature has rarely considered whether or not systemic practice itself can be enhanced by ideas from the dominant medical model. This article proposes that a biopsychosocial formulation can enhance systemic practice by: (I) holding clinicians accountable for their thinking; (2) facilitating a rigour and attention to detail that may prove useful when therapy falters; (3) opening up other possibilities for intervention; and (4) providing a way to engage with the dominant medical paradigm and support clients in negotiating their way through this system. Potential problems nevertheless arise when integrating a biopsychosocial formulation into a systemic framework. This article identifies these problems and presents ideas for how they can be managed in practice.     

On reflection: is reflexivity necessarily beneficial in intercultural education? 1

This article explores how the concept of reflexivity is used in intercultural education. Reflexivity is often presented as a key learning goal in acquiring intercultural competence (ICC). Yet, reflexivity can be defined in different ways, and take different forms across time and space, depending on the concepts of selfhood that prevail and how notions of difference are constructed. First, I discuss how the dominant usages of reflexivity in intercultural education reflect and reproduce a Cartesian view of the self that shapes how ICC is conceptualized and taught. I discuss three assumptions that this view produces: that the self is accessible and transcendable, that reflexivity is universal across space and time, and that the self can act as its own remedial change agent or ‘inner consultant.’ I argue that because reflexivity is understood in many different ways, attention to definition is crucial, both in designing learning objectives in intercultural education and in devising ways to attain them. Greater attention is also needed in intercultural education to the ways in which selfhood, and hence also reflexivity and constructions of difference, differ across space and time.     

Reflexivity in the Research Process: Psychoanalytic Observations

This paper highlights what psychoanalysis can add to discussions of reflexivity, by specifically describing how reflexivity is conceptualized and fostered on psychoanalytic observation methods courses at the Tavistock Clinic, London. It is demonstrated that this psychological form of reflexivity is relevant to empirical and conceptual work and shown that it shares interesting parallels with debates about reflexivity in social research methods, while also being able to contribute to discussions of what constitutes reflexivity and what kinds of methods course might facilitate it. Reflexivity is often discussed in relation to a researcher’s empirical work, but this paper argues that reflexivity is equally needed in relation to the academic context in which most research and learning takes place. This paper demonstrates how psychoanalytic approaches to learning stimulate a reflexive relation to empirical and conceptual work and it provides examples of reflexivity from a two‐year infant observation and a research project on romantic love (involving conceptual and biographical research).     

Situated (un-)learning in software design: a deconstructive approach

Constructive technology assessment aims at anticipating societal impacts of technological innovations and suggests incorporating reflexivity and social learning into technology development. Social learning involves fostering the ability of diverse social actors to cultivate sociotechnical critical skills, thus allowing technological and social change to be governed with consideration for social values and diverging interests. Based on this demand, our paper presents a discourse-theoretical, interventionist approach to software design introducing deconstruction and (un-)learning as reflective practices to guide development processes. Inspired by Donna Haraway’s focus on power relations in technoscience culture, our approach—called ‘deconstructive design’—traces how structures such as in/formal hierarchies and discursive hegemonies affect the development processes and design decisions of teams or communities of practices. The underlying deconstructivist methodology refers to practice-based concepts of situated learning. Thus, it locates a potential for value-based intervention at the micro/meso-level of everyday work practices.     

The concept of reflection: is it skill based or values?

Reflection, reflectivity, reflective practice, reflective praxis and critical reflection are all dialogical terms used interchangeably to mean different things. It is timely to take time out and pause on this important concept to consider the wider implications of its use. Whatever reflection is, we know there are difficulties in identifying this complex idea writers, practitioners and scholars constantly engage with reflection in new debates about ‘how to do it better’ assuming the ‘it’ is something assessed and understood. More worryingly a student’s ability to reflect is assessed assuming the idea of reflective practice is a measureable phenomenon. Some have identified problems of assessing reflection. There is limited empirical evidence of what is reflection. In the substantial literature on reflection we have failed to ask the question – ‘What is reflection it if doesn’t exist that I might be able to perform it better and others can measure?’ The problem of reflection is more complicated when presenting reflective performance through language, which will also be explored. This article presents a challenge to contemporary ideas of the way in which reflection is conceptualised and understood. The article concludes with insights and a way forward for a new argument on reflection and how it might be linked to virtue ethics rather than it being viewed as a skill that can be taught.     

Separately Together: Working Reflexively as a Team

Discussions of reflexivity tend to ignore issues of practice, and those addressing practice are likely to presume a sole researcher. In this paper, we respond to the need for attention to reflexive practice in qualitative research teams. Drawing on our experience of working ‘separately together’, we identify reflexivity as an embedded feature of team-based research. We discuss how reflexivity can be used as a collective interpretive resource in the construction of the research subject/object, and we highlight reflexive possibilities unique to team-based research. We include in the article a presentation of the orientations and research practices that supported our reflexive teamwork.     

Systemic Therapists' Experience of Powerlessness

In this article we explore and discuss the relevance of the concept of powerlessness in systemic practice. The views and concerns of systemic trainees' groups are compared with those of experienced therapists'. We interviewed 12 experienced systemic therapists and investigated what made them feel powerless and how they dealt with it. Extracts from interviews are quoted and summarised in the text. We argue that therapists' powerlessness is a marginalised subject in the systemic approach and that open discussion about the topic would enhance therapists' self‐reflexivity and contribute to a fuller understanding of the part that power and powerlessness play in the therapeutic relationship. We consider the place of gender, culture and wider sociopolitical contexts in the experience of therapists' powerlessness. Finally we discuss the implications of our findings for systemic therapy, training and supervision.     

Research and theory building functions of heuristic case practice

Existing concepts of reflexive and reflective practice are used in this paper to examine the interventive and modelling research functions embedded in case practice. The sequential steps involved in these embedded research functions are compared to those identified in qualitative research methodology and the two models developed by Norma Lang. This paper integrates the research steps involved in both reflexive and reflective practice into a single model of two loops, one truncated and one extended. The six sequential research steps involved in the truncated cycle of reflexive practice are defined as observing, describing, abstracting, generalising, assimilating and acting. The 10 sequential steps involved in the full reflective cycle are defined as observing, describing, abstracting, generalising, categorising, ordering, contextualising, modelling, accommodating and acting. The practical expression of these steps in the field within the processes of critical incident learning and critical mass learning is then discussed.     

Integrating Reflective Practice in Family Therapy Supervision

This paper discusses how to integrate reflective practice in the family therapy supervisory relationship. This enables family therapists to think creatively, be insightful, and develop a range of perspectives regarding systemic formulation and practice. It encourages review of the past and promotes understanding in the present with the aim to improve therapists work with families in the future. Reflective practice encourages independent thinking and learning and helps therapists to develop a systemic process of critical enquiry to investigate and critique their own practice. It encourages therapists to be self‐reflective and develop confidence to think hypothetically regarding change. This allows them to pose questions for exploration, construct a new lens to conceptualise therapy and the therapeutic relationship and develop awareness of the personal as well as the professional self.     

Key Systemic Ideas as Seen Through the Eyes of First‐Year Trainees

This article offers an introduction to key systemic ideas as seen through the eyes of first‐year trainees in a postgraduate systemic therapy course. Our aim is to present these ideas in user‐friendly, accessible language, with examples to illustrate their use. The article is organised around three main themes: how a family system gets organised; how systemic work helps to effect change in families; and how a systemic therapist creates a context for change. Ideas covered include circular patterns, processes and questions, feedback loops, the importance of context, the interdependence of meaning and action, taking a meta‐perspective, systemic hypothesising, neutrality, curiosity, second‐order change, use of language and the position of the therapist. The article may be of particular interest to those who are new to systemic ideas, as well as for those involved in providing training in systemic practice.     

Reflections at the Waterhole: Black Professionals Researching Together

This paper tells the story of how I came to understanding my practice and my research by means of a metaphor, that of the waterhole. I demonstrate how the ideas contained below have great resonances with the concept of practice nearness. In the process I recount the story of my reflective practices and my research with other black professionals to inquire into our experiences in white organisations and to give voice to our lived experiences.     

Research encounters,reflexivity and supervision

Reflexivity in qualitative and ethnographic social science research can provide a rich source of data, especially regarding the affective, performative and relational aspects of interviews with research subjects. This paper explores by means of three case examples different ways of accessing and using such reflexivity. The examples are drawn from an empirical psycho-social study into the identity transitions of first-time mothers in an inner-city multicultural environment. Fieldnotes and supervision were used to engage with researcher subjectivity, to enhance the productive use of reflexivity and to address the emotional work of research. The methodology of the supervision was psychoanalytic, in its use of a boundaried frame and of psychoanalytic forms of noticing oneself, of staying engaged emotionally as well as creating a reflective distance. The examples illustrate how this can enhance the knowledge gained about the research subjects.     

Men Discussing Women and Women Discussing Men: Reflexivity,Transformation and Gendered Practice in the Context of Nursing Care

This article explores gender reflexivity through the accounts of men discussing women and of women discussing men as professional nurses. Drawing on data from an Australian‐based study, and with an orientation to gender as practice, it investigates the skills and aptitudes that each is seen to bring to the job, how men and women view the other's performance as caregivers and the experiences and challenges of working with the other group. Previous work has suggested there is a link between reflexivity and transformation as individuals self‐consciously shape identities and as they reflect critically on their social conditions. The results from this study question the nature and extent of these transformative powers and suggest different levels of reflexivity based on the extent to which individuals challenge gender norms. These levels are linked to experiences of dissonance as men and women work with each other in a ‘feminized’ context of nursing care.