PROCESO METODOLÓGICO
Paso 1: Establecimiento del grupo
who, in contrast to the conceptual writings on how to link theory and practice,
undertook research to explore how practitioners actually did this. While not looking specifically at social work, he drew attention to a process of reflection-in-action, in which practitioners consider their engagement in an activity and continually refine it in the light of their reviews. He identified that practitioners used theories not in a techno- rationalist manner of modernism, but via a process of reflection-in-action, modifying their practice as their understanding of a situation took shape. He also noted some inconsistencies between the theory espoused by practitioners and that actually employed (Schön, 1991). Schön’s work underscored Carew’s (1987) previous suggestion, by examining what professionals did in actuality. Schön’s work had a profound influence on social work, and has been developed markedly since it was completed.
Ruch (2000, p. 100) considered that reflective learning is located in an individual and holistic understanding of education process. The concept of reflection was taken up in the social work literature, and D’Cruz, Gillingham and Melendez (2007) found multiple meanings and variations emerging in the use of this concept. Askeland and Fook (2009) described reflection simply as learning from experience, with a focus on professional practice, together with recognition of the emotional impact of a situation and an endeavour to make meaning of an experience. Wilson (2013) saw reflection as a competing paradigm to functionalism and techno-rationalist approaches (p. 156), which seeks to identify inconsistencies in practices, to enable a practitioner to construct their own meaning of a social phenomenon, and via this process, take critical control over more intuitive parts of their expertise (Eraut, 1994).
Wilson (2013) considered that Schön’s (19837) formulation of the reflective practitioner as someone who is self-aware and able to both reflect and prepare for action by using a process of self-evaluation and critical analysis as having obvious appeal in the field of social work, in which each practice situation is unique and routine formulaic prescriptions for intervention and complex decision making will not suffice (p. 156).
Personal and structural power are viewed as interconnected through language, so a practitioner can start their analysis from either the personal or the structural, moving between the two. However, as Askeland and Fook (2009) pointed out, it is possible to think critically without being reflexive, and indeed, the reverse is also true. They seek to bring these two dimensions of reflection—reflexivity and criticality— together in the construct of critical reflection.
Brookfield (2009) argued that the emergence of critical reflection is based on three assumptions in what he calls a seemingly open western society: that the current social arrangement is a natural state of affairs, and so, inevitable; that a dominant
ideology is inherently manipulative; and that ideology consists of a set of values or beliefs which are seen as inherently self-evident and morally desirable (p. 299).
Critical reflection has a diversity of meanings in the literature (Askeland & Fook, 2009, p. 289; D’Cruz et al., 2007; Ruch, 2000), but common elements can be identified. Fook, who has led the way in Australian education in theorising and
developing critical reflection (Bay, 2011, p. 746), described critical reflection as a skill, as a process for working with uncertainty, to analyse and change practice, and as a theoretical approach (Fook & Gardner, 2007); it is used not as an end in itself, but to aid service users (p. 7). Fook’s approach uses critical social theory, informed by
postmodernism and poststructuralism, to make links between personal and structural power (Fook & Gardner, 2007).
Critical reflection has been identified as a useful process for making the link between theories and practices more explicit, and as a result, more accessible to the user (Noble, 2001, p. 349). Morley (2008, p. 746) argued that it can make the connection between theories and practices accessible for critical interrogation and for critiquing power relationships at play on various levels in the context of practice. Critical reflection upends traditional hierarchies implicit in the modernist view of the
theory/practice link (D’Cruz et al., 2007, p. 157). It can foster the creation of new and alternative knowledges and of knowledge making by practitioners which then becomes transferable to different contexts. Teater (2011) described it as a means of linking general theory to a specific practice situation.
Fook (2002c) spoke of critical reflection as a means of questioning how knowledge is generated and how such activities are influenced by power relations; to compliment formal theories. While it concerns reflection on past action (Morley, 2008), it strives to do this from a particular perspective. The aim of critical reflection is to
unsettle and change dominant and taken-for-granted thinking and social arrangements by questioning power relationships, their operations and underlying assumptions (Morley, 2004), and taking a critical stance towards these practices. Emphasis is placed on identifying and dissolving binaries (Ruch, 2009), which restrict knowledges and limit choices. It aims to uncover the assumptions on which they are based—be they implicit, hidden or hegemonic (those assumptions which Brookfield (2009) viewed as accepted as being in a person’s best interests, when in fact, they are working against them). Critical reflection involves ethical and moral criticism and judgement (Yip, 2006), and requires the ability to conceptualise and analyse relationships, together with a willingness to examine the assumptions underpinning own practice (Savaya &
Gardner, 2012).
The skill of critical reflection lies in analysing the language used both to uphold arrangements and continue them. This analysis can reveal how discourse both shapes and re-enacts power relationships, by revealing the underlying construction. All theories are products of a similar social context, and knowledges when expressed are encoded and thus performative. Language re-enacts rather than simply describing social
construction, rendering language the potential site of disruption. Critical reflection does not rest with analysis, but moves to agency through a process of reconstruction (Swan, 2008). The process is described by Fook (2002a) as one of critical deconstruction, resistance, challenge and critical reconstruction. Savaya and Gardner (2012, p. 146) noted that critical reflection is increasingly employed across the helping professions to promote active exploration of practice issues and to improve skills.
While the literature on the linkages between theory and practice presents an expansive picture of contestation and debate, the AASW leaves open the perspectives which may be taken on teaching about theories and their connections to practices.
Educators hold multiple strands of knowledges and practices with which they seek to promote transformative learning in the formation process of professional education (Horsburgh, 2010).
There are a number of areas in which critical reflection can contribute to social work education. It can provide students with an opportunity to voice concerns about practice (Foote, 2013), to aid them link private concerns and structural problems and to ground their learning in specific occurrences. Noble (2001, p. 349) viewed the
emergence of a critical reflective paradigm in social work education as increasingly regarded as an important way of exploring the relationship between theory and practice in social work activity. It also assists students to recognise an alternative way of
developing knowledge and theories (Fook, 2002c).
Some writers claim that critical reflection has the potential to transform a student’s perspective. Transformative learning has been described by Mezirow (2003) as learning which transforms problematic frames of reference—sets of fixed
assumptions and expectations (habits of mind, meaning perspectives and mindsets)—to render them more inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective and emotionally able to change (p. 58). Boud (1993) considered that critical reflection builds on student
experiences, and works well within problem-based and holistic approaches to learning. Mezirow (2003) added that this process strives to develop autonomous thinking by challenging points of view and habitual ways of thinking. Morley (2008) supported this position, arguing for the importance of teaching critical reflection as a part of social work practice in an increasingly conformist and regressive social context. Brookfield (2009) suggested that for transformative learning to occur, educators need to place critical reflection at the centre of practitioner development.
Students do not enter social work education theory free. They are a product of their social context, and their thinking is likely to be influenced by this same context, which may at times promote the very inequality, social exclusion and poverty which social workers seek to ameliorate. For this reason, students need to learn not only which theories they may be using, but also where they have derived their theories from, the unacknowledged assumptions which support these theories and how to bring them under critical control. Critical reflection has constituted a significant if contested strand in teaching and practice of the helping professions. Bay (2011) discussed using critical reflection as a way to recognise one’s own and others’ frames of reference, to reveal dominant discourses in taken-for-granted views of social issues.
However, teaching critical reflection poses problems which do not emerge in more didactic approaches to education. Much learning is predicated on the student demonstrating their understanding of a topic, whereas critical reflection often begins from uncertainty or a concern. To foster critical reflection, educators need to provide a supportive environment in which to explore mistakes and to manage those aspects of the learning situation which hinder reflection or make it unsafe. Because it deals with beliefs and not knowing, engaging in critical reflection requires a level of self-exposure not customary in the classroom.
2.10 Summary
In summary, this chapter discussed the literature available to social work
educators in universities to teach students about integrating theory and practice. It noted how vast and contested this literature is, particularly since the emergence of post
critiques into social work, and regarding the way the link between theory and practice has been traditionally viewed. It noted the different epistemologies underpinning the perspectives and drew attention to the need to contextualise theories for social work
practice. It concluded with a discussion of the implications for social work education. As part of the education process, responsibility for the task of assisting students to link this body of knowledge with social work practice is handed to practitioners in the field. The thesis now turns to the literature available to Field Educators on teaching students to integrate theory and practice in field education.