Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rasw20
Australian Social Work
ISSN: 0312-407X (Print) 1447-0748 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rasw20
Reflective Practice, Reflexivity, and Critical
Reflection in Social Work Education in Australia
Lynelle Watts
To cite this article: Lynelle Watts (2019) Reflective Practice, Reflexivity, and Critical
Reflection in Social Work Education in Australia, Australian Social Work, 72:1, 8-20, DOI:
10.1080/0312407X.2018.1521856
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2018.1521856
Published online: 29 Oct 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 12713
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 17 View citing articles
Reflective Practice, Reflexivity, and Critical Reflection in Social
Work Education in Australia
Lynelle Watts
School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University, Bunbury, Western Australia, Australia
ABSTRACT
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.

. 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.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 1 March 2017
Accepted 27 June 2018
KEYWORDS
Reflective Practice; Critical
Reflection; Reflexivity;
Australian Social Work
Education
Reflective practice, reflexivity, and critical reflection are considered core aspects of contemporary Australian social work practice (Australian Association of Social Workers,
2010). These are all concepts utilised by educators (Pawar & Anscombe, 2015; Pease,
Goldingay, Hosken, & Nipperess, 2016) to describe processes of attention to practice, learning, and the examination of experience and context. Each concept has a different meaning
depending on the particular focus and a lack of consensus persists. This can result in considerable confusion for students and educators in understanding what is required in learning and teaching reflective practice. It was my experience of working as a lecturer and field
educator that provided the initial impetus for conducting this research.
The aim of my research was to examine the ways in which reflective practice is understood in the discipline of social work within Australia. The intention of the study was to
engage in a problematisation of reflective practice; the purpose of which is “not to argue
© 2018 Australian Association of Social Workers
CONTACT Lynelle Watts [email protected] Edith Cowan University, 585 Robertson Drive, Bunbury, WA 6231,
Australia
AUSTRALIAN SOCIAL WORK
2019, VOL. 72, NO. 1, 8–20
https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2018.1521856
pro or con a specific position, but [instead] to inquire into the terms of reference within
which an issue is cast … ” (Bacchi, 2012, p. 1). My aim was to begin a process of thinking
differently about reflective practice.
The literature on reflective practice is extensive. This paper will focus on reflective practice as it merged into Australian social work education and its subsequent iteration within
models of critical reflection. Reflexivity emerged as a related concept and so is also
included in the discussion. Hence, this paper considers reflective practice, reflexivity,
and critical reflection as separate but related concepts that emerged as part of a reflective
learning movement within higher education and taken up by social work educators.
The main research question of the study was: In what ways can reflective practice be
understood in social work education and practice in Australia? I focused on reflective
practice initially because there appeared to be more models for undergraduate students
outlined in the literature. Three sub-research questions developed different lines of
inquiry for this topic in order to bring both breadth and depth to the study. These are
(1) What was my experience of teaching and learning reflective practice?
(2) How did reflective practice emerge in social work education in Australia?
(3) How is reflective practice utilised in learning, teaching, and practicing social work?
A different research method was employed to investigate each subquestion. This paper
does not present the empirical data of each study but instead proposes a range of clarifying
definitions for reflective practice, reflexivity, and critical reflection based on the outcomes
of the study. This research contributes to social work knowledge about reflective practice,
reflexivity, and critical reflection by adding to the conceptual clarity of these concepts for
social work education and practice.
Literature Review
Using reflection for learning in higher education is often attributed to the work of John
Dewey (Boud & Walker, 1998). Dewey was important to the reflective learning movement
that emerged within social work internationally in the late 1980s. Ixer (1999, p. 514)
suggests that education circles “used the concept of reflection to spearhead a revolution
in adult learning”. The connection of reflective practice to professional learning was crystallised by the work of Donald Schon (1983, 1987). Reflective practice developed into a
prerequisite for professional training and became accepted wisdom in professions such
as education, nursing, and social work (Boud & Walker, 1998).
Researchers in social work, in Australia, and internationally, adopted the basic premises
of Schon’s reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action schemas (Fook, 1996a; Redmond,
2004; Ruch, 2002). Even so, social work scholars went beyond adopting the basic premises
of Schon’s model. They also elaborated the model with a specific social work focus on the
conditions in which practice occurs, including structural and organisational elements and
a focus on power relations (Fook, 1996a; Redmond, 2004; Ruch, 2000, 2002). The addition
of theoretical material resulted in the elaboration of reflective practice models to models of
critical reflection in Australian social work education (Watts, 2015a).
Criticisms emerged early about a number of the premises underlying Schon’s model.
Two significant critiques emerged in education and social work (Eraut, 1995; Ixer,
AUSTRALIAN SOCIAL WORK 9
1999, 2011). Criticisms focused on the contrast of professional practice against a purely
technical rationality. This contrast results in “a continuing emphasis on professional
artistry and interest in practical innovations [which] leads to an emphasis on
problem-solving and reframing” (Eraut, 1995, p. 12). Thus, despite Schon’s claims
that he had developed an epistemology of practice, Eraut (1995, p. 12) suggests that
Schon’s model remains one of “professional creativity” ungrounded in any analysis
of real-world professional practice. This distance from actual practice is an issue
that Ixer (1999) pointed out when he cautioned colleagues about the wholesale adoption of reflective practice within social work. Ixer was concerned at its use in assessment of practicum students without more empirical evaluation of its efficacy. Eraut
(1995) too pointed out that there may be differences between reflective behaviour
that occurs within a practice setting versus that demonstrated within a university
context. Ixer (1999, p. 519) suggested that social work is a special case in this
regard due to the need for social workers to engage in “internal processing (cognition),
so that external processing in the form of judgement, followed by decision making
(action), can be combined in a speedy response.” The time to reflect, the propensity
to engage in it outside assessment and placement obligations, and the “impact of
post-qualification routinization of professional work” are important limits also not canvassed within the Schon model (Eraut, 1995, p. 18).
The first reflective practice model emerged in Australian social work through the work
of Jan Fook (1996a). Fook’s reflective practice approach adapted Schon’s model through
the addition of a critical theoretical framework drawn from her earlier work on radical
casework (Fook, 1990). Further elaborations of the model occurred with the inclusion
of postmodern theory providing an explicit focus on the deconstruction of language
and power (Fook, 1999). Hence, while the model began as a way to consider researcher
reflexivity (Fook, 1996b), it was later elaborated as a form of pedagogical practice for
use with practitioners (Fook, 1999, 2012; Fook & Gardner, 2007).
These models have not substantially addressed the criticisms levelled at Schon’s
theory and in addition to this criticism, there are two other grounds for caution with
regard to the current critical reflection models. The first is the level of social theory
included but not adequately explicated. There is little acknowledgement of the
different levels of social theory at work in the model. Some aspects touch on
metatheoretical issues concerned with epistemology, while other aspects draw on
social theory via Giddens, Habermas, Derrida, and Foucault with little explanation
that these theorists are doing different critical work (Vandenberghe, 2017). Further,
some critical reflection models use two forms of poststructural theory: Derridean deconstruction and Foucauldian power analysis (Fook, 2002). Both involve quite specific ways
of approaching the task of discourse analysis but this is not addressed beyond a focus
on language and power.
Secondly, reflexivity is not accounted for adequately within the models. There are many
definitions of the concept because it is contested in social theory (Archer, 2010; Lynch,
2000). D’Cruz, Gillingham, and Melendez (2007) demonstrate there are a number of
different interpretations operating within social work generally and this confusion persists
within various models. Reflexivity is discussed below. Indeed, this inquiry began from my
own “felt difficulty” (Dewey, 1933) based on teaching reflective practice in both field education and as a lecturer.
10 L. WATTS
Methodology
This research utilised a reflexive methodology situated within a social constructionist epistemology (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009; Crotty, 1998). The study was qualitative as the aim
was to understand reflective practice in the Australian social work discipline. Reflexive
methodology synthesises insights from other methodologies such as grounded theory,
phenomenology, critical theory, post-structuralism and feminism for the purposes of
increasing researcher reflexivity in social research. There are four aspects: interaction
with empirical materials; interpretation; critical interpretation; and reflection on text production (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009). The design of any research using this methodology
must attend to these aspects. The methodology was primarily chosen for its flexibility with
regard to methods. The levels of interpretation, aspects, foci, and the research methods
chosen for attention to each level is shown in Table 1.
Each line of inquiry contributed to the whole study (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009; BenAri & Enosh, 2011). Table 2 outlines these aspects in addition to the research questions,
assumptions about ontology, epistemology, methodology, subjects, agents, and subjectivity, data collected, utilised, and produced, kinds of analysis, and methods. Also included
are the penultimate conclusions, limitations, and implications from each line of inquiry.
The analysis of each study was utilised to inform the subsequent line of inquiry resulting
in a historical understanding of reflective practice, reflexivity, and critical reflection, their
position within the Australian social work community, and their transformation over
time. As outlined in Table 2, 14 semistructured interviews were undertaken with students
(4), practitioners (5) and educators (5). Participants were asked questions about how they
had learned reflective practice, how they engaged in it, and what the purpose of it was to
social work practice and education. Data from the interviews were analysed using thematic
analysis. I present a brief discussion of the study outcomes below as background to my proposal for conceptual clarification of reflective practice, reflexivity, and critical reflection.
Problematising Reflective Practice, Reflexivity, and Critical Reflection
The autoethnographic inquiry established that there were definite Australian disciplinary
boundaries around what knowledge should be included in understanding reflective practice as a capability (Watts, 2015a). This disciplinary literature assumes a specific epistemological (constructivist) stance towards knowledge and capability. This stance precludes
Table 1 Reflexive Methodology*
Level of
interpretation Aspect Focus Research method
1 Interaction with empirical
material
Accounts in interviews, observations
of situations and other empirical
materials
Foucauldian discourse analysis
(archaeology); interviews
2 Interpretation
(understanding)
Underlying meanings Autoethnography
3 Critical interpretation Ideology, power, social reproduction Archaeological analytic,
interviews
4 Reflection on text
production and language
use
Own text, claims to authority,
selectivity of the voices
represented in the text
Reflective exegeses;
autoethnography
*Note: Adapted from Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2009, p. 114
AUSTRALIAN SOCIAL WORK 11
Table 2 Outline of the Whole Study
Aspect
Study 1:
Autoethnography
Study 2:
Archaeological
analytic
Study 3: Interpretive
inquiry Whole study
Research
question
What was my
experience of
teaching and learning
reflective practice?
How did reflective
practice emerge in
social work
education in
Australia?
How is reflective
practice utilised in
learning, teaching,
and practicing social
work?
In what ways can
reflective practice be
understood in social
work education and
practice in Australia?
Ontology Critical realist Critical realist (see AlAmoudi, 2007)
Critical realist Critical realist
Epistemology Weak social
constructionism
Weak social
constructionism
Weak social
constructionism
Weak social
constructionism
Methodology Reflexive Reflexive Reflexive Reflexive
Subjects The subject is the
person creating the
narrative. Assumes
little distance
between the self and
the narrative the self
creates about their
experience (Ellis &
Bochner, 2000).
An archaeological
analytic uses a
method for
bracketing the
notion of the
subject combined
with a critique of
the humanist
project (Allen, 2011).
Without this
bracketing an
archive does not
appear and the
analytic does not
proceed. It requires
a specific operation
of thought.
Subjects can, through
guided
conversations, give
an account of their
experiences and the
meanings they
attach to them.
Reflective practice may
be studied within a
discursive field that
includes practices,
mechanisms,
meanings, and
subjects. Methods
should be aimed at
different aspects of
this field.
Assumptions
about
agency and
subjectivity
Agents are active
subjects who have
reflexive capabilities
that produce
knowledge.
Involves the
suspension of a
focus on human
agents as the sole
creators of historical
conditions. Focus is
on the discourses,
practices, and
materials that create
historical conditions.
Agents have reflexive
capabilities that
produce knowledge.
Agents can act and
interpret the world,
structures and
discourses impact on
agents and can be
generative. Reflexive
capabilities mediate
this relation (Archer,
2003). Allen (2011)
suggested techniques
of the self can be seen
as a form of criticalreflexivity, although
this is a particular
reading of Foucault’s
(later) work.
Focus Culture and society
through the
reflections of an agent
or agents (Anderson,
2006; Ellis & Bochner,
2000).
Traces discontinuities
in a practical field in
order to outline the
emergence of a
discursive formation
without attributing
it to a single mind,
thought, or subject
(Foucault, 1972).
Builds understanding
of the experience of
participants about a
particular practice.
Problematising
reflective practice to
examine its “natural”
status. Building an
understanding of its
value, use, and limits
for teaching and
learning in
professional social
work practice.
Data Researcher-produced
vignettes for analysis.
Vignettes were
produced through
engagement with a
corpus of documents
The “archive” emerges
through a process of
suspending a range
of unities that seat
knowledge within
human agents. This
Fourteen participants
were recruited to
take part in the
study. Transcripts of
14 qualitative
interviews with
Interpretive reflections
(7) on the interaction
and findings of all
three inquiries aimed
at making a
conclusion about the
(Continued)
12 L. WATTS
Table 2 Continued
Aspect
Study 1:
Autoethnography
Study 2:
Archaeological
analytic
Study 3: Interpretive
inquiry Whole study
(published and grey
literature such as
conference
proceedings, indexes,
webpages) and
author-produced
materials such as
class-notes, journals
(audio and written).
archive included 69
published peer
reviewed accounts,
grey literature,
models, and training
documents. Two
sets of unit plans
from two different
universities in
Australia produced
1996–2003. None of
these documents
was produced by
the researcher.
social work (5)
practitioners (all
female); (4) students
(three female); and
(5) educators (all
female). Three
different recruitment
strategies were
employed. These are
discussed in detail in
Watts (2015b). The
samples were
purposive and were
chosen based on
recruiting informants
who could be said to
hold the subject
positions (student,
educators,
practitioners)
implicated in the
dispersion of
reflective practice.
research question.
These were produced
by the researcher as
part of addressing the
level four of a
reflexive
methodology within
the study as a whole –
these were
interpretations as
reflections on text
production and
language use; claims
to authority; selectivity
of voices represented in
the text (Alvesson &
Sköldberg, 2009).
Data analysis
reasoning
Abduction – moving
between data and
theory (Morgan, 2007,
p. 71)
Abduction Abduction Abduction
Method An interpretative
process working
between vignettes
and relevant bodies of
knowledge (theory)
resulted in four main
themes: an absence of
development and
cognitive theories in
reflective practice
accounts for social
work; the need for
explicit scaffolding
and instruction for
learners; a conflation
between critical
thinking and critical
reflection, particularly
in Australian social
work; and the
centrality of illstructured problems
for developing
reflective practice
skills.
Archaeology involves
suspending
researcher
judgement in order
to clear a space in
which an archive of
documents is
analysed for
discursive objects,
events, concepts,
and strategies. In
this case the analytic
involved mapping
the serious speech
acts (statements)
through a number
of different
documents (see
data, this table). The
process identified
the sites where
reflective practice
emerged in
Australian social
work, how it was
dispersed, those
most authorised to
speak about it, for
example social work
educators with
strong connections
to practice. The
The interviews were
analysed using three
phases of coding.
The first phase
utilised a process of
open coding. This
formed the basis for
the subsequent
stages. The second
coding process
considered the
political-practicalmoral expressions
and coded for values,
beliefs, and attitudes.
The third stage
returned to the
original open codes
and conducted a
process of domain
analysis using four
semantic
relationships in the
accounts. These were
means-end, rationale,
location-for-action
and function. Seven
themes relating to
values, beliefs, and
attitudes emerged:
knowing yourself;
empathy;
The themes and
findings from each
study were analysed
in relation to the main
question of the study
with the conclusion
that there were four
main ways in which
reflective practice is
understood (See
below).
(Continued)
AUSTRALIAN SOCIAL WORK 13
Table 2 Continued
Aspect
Study 1:
Autoethnography
Study 2:
Archaeological
analytic
Study 3: Interpretive
inquiry Whole study
analytic also located
existing bodies of
knowledge onto
which reflective
practice was grafted
as it emerged –
social work
methods;
psychodynamic and
humanist
psychology; and
critical social theory.
The subject
positions revealed in
this stage informed
the recruitment of
participants for the
interviews.
accountability; critical
thinking and
learning; practice
wisdom;
professionalism and
construction of
knowledge. Twelve
themes resulted
from the domain
analysis: (means–
end) learning from
practice, thinking
differently, knowing
yourself,
accountability;
(rationale) improving
practice, ensuring
ethical behaviour,
generating new
practices, managing
yourself; (location)
with others, alone;
and (functions –
method of
communication)
talking.
Ethics Ethics approval was
granted by the
University Human
Research Ethics
committee. The
researcher utilised the
10 guidelines for
ethical
autoethnography
suggested by Tolich
(2010).
Ethics approval was
granted by the
University Human
Research Ethics
committee. This
study utilised public
domain information.
Ethics approval was
granted by the
University Human
Research Ethics
committee. Special
inclusion criteria
pertained to
students to address
the issue of unequal
relationships.
Ethics approval was
granted by the
University Human
Research Ethics
committee. The
researcher utilised
Tracy’s (2010) big tent
criteria to produce a
study which
represented the
findings accurately
and fairly.
Limitations Method cannot be
generalised due to its
highly subjective
focus. May be
dependent on the
competence,
creativity, professional
socialisation, and
interpretive faculties
of the researcher and
thus the account is
partial.
Method does not
address the identity
aspects of human
knowledge
production; focus is
dependent on the
ability of the
researcher to
engage in
systematic
operations of
thought and
application of
specific analytic
tools not easily
replicated from
study to study.
Sample may have been
limited by the
recruitment
strategies. Students
had not undertaken
a field placement but
had been engaged in
human services
practice.
While the study meets
the criteria for quality
in qualitative inquiry
(Tracy, 2010) the
overall findings could
be considered
evocative as a form of
problematisation,
rather than
generalisable.
Penultimate
conclusions
Learning to use
individual capability
of reflexivity for
professional purposes
Reflective practice
emerged in
Australian social
work education at
Reflective practice is
highly valued by
students,
practitioners and
Reflective practice in
Australian social work
education may
(Continued)
14 L. WATTS
much engagement with aspects of social science (cognitive psychology, neuropsychology)
based on more objectivist epistemologies. It is these other sciences that provide insights
into the basic neural architecture from which underlying reflective capabilities emerge.
The use of constructivist methods enjoys a strong disciplinary consensus in Australia.
In Australian social work education there is some conflation between content knowledge,
pedagogical knowledge, and curricula knowledge. This conflation of knowledge means
that constructivist methods appropriate to social scientific inquiry are often transplanted
to pedagogical instruction leaving students to create their own understandings of complex
concepts without much instruction into foundational and historical content. My study
Table 2 Continued
Aspect
Study 1:
Autoethnography
Study 2:
Archaeological
analytic
Study 3: Interpretive
inquiry Whole study
requires careful
curriculum
development to
ensure adequate
scaffolding before
field placement.
the same time as
the conditions of
higher education
became more
uncertain. There is a
dominant model of
critical reflection in
operation within
Australian social
work education.
Critical reflective
practice (Fook &
Gardner, 2007) is an
Australian adaption
of Schon’s (1993)
model combined
with critical and
postmodern
theories.
Philosophically
critical reflection can
take many forms, all
of which require
different operations
of thought would
benefit from clear(er)
instruction in social
theory.
educators, however,
its use is shaped by
the context and
purpose for using the
capability.
There were
differences between
educators,
practitioners, and
students in their
language about
reflective practice.
Students and
practitioners were
more likely to use
the term reflection or
reflective practice.
Educators tended to
discuss the practice
as critical reflection
or reflexivity.
variously be viewed
as:
. A capability;
. A form of critical
thinking;
. A discipline response
to the changing
contexts of social
work practice; and,
. A way of
understanding and
theorising from
practice.
Clarifying the definitions
is possible using the
findings of this research
and other informing
bodies of knowledge.
Implications Curriculum
development should
include scaffolding
the development of
individual student
reflexivity and
orientate this towards
professional activity
by scaffolding across
the whole curriculum.
There is a wider
repertoire of critical
reflection available
to social work
educators, students,
and practitioners
than is currently
taught in Australian
social work
education.
Reflective practice and
critical reflection are
important to the
development of
professional
judgement, practice
improvement, and
the self-care of social
workers.
Social work education
would benefit from
the adoption of a
standard definition for
reflexivity, reflective
practice, and critical
reflection. This would
assist educators in
planning curricula for
field education and
professional practice
in a more systematic
way. It may also
expand the repertoire
of critical reflection
available to educators,
practitioners, and
students.
AUSTRALIAN SOCIAL WORK 15
demonstrated that this conflation contributes to the lack of a clear definition for reflective
practice, reflexivity, and critical reflection.
Related to this is the history of the concepts from the archaeological inquiry. The
archaeology traced the transformation of relevant concepts, modes of instruction, important agents, and sites of dispersal into the current “givens” of reflective practice (Watts,
2015b). Concepts such as problem-solving and being critical were transformed into reflective practice and critical reflection respectively. Earlier ideas about “self-awareness”
became linked to a new term: reflexivity.
Problem-solving, as a social work activity, became caught up in debates about language use
in the 1990s resulting in the term falling out of favour. Reflective practice emerged as a portmanteau term able to describe practice as a form of professional artistry but without the
baggage associated with problem-solving casework, critiqued for pathologising service-users.
The concept critical emerged as a positivity (Graham, 2011) that incorporates diverse perspectives, drawn from various bodies of knowledge including conflict sociology, social theory, philosophy, and history that describe and critique the social. As this concept gathered momentum
across the postmodern heyday of the 1990s in Australian social work (Pease & Fook, 1999), it
was increasingly tied to reflective practice. Critical reflection emerged, achieving the status of a
dominant term to describe problem-solving combined with a theoretical focus on conflict
in the social environment. Critical reflection incorporates radical, structural and criticalpostmodern elements (Fook, 2002). Given this, undertaking processes of critical reflection
requires considerable content knowledge of social theory in addition to the practical skills in
problem-solving.
Reflexivity has enjoyed less disciplinary development. Nevertheless, it emerged in
research methods, and then in social theory, and has since been variously adopted. In
research methods it contributed to a widespread critique of positivist methods (Alvesson
& Skoldberg, 2009; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). The archaeology and qualitative interviews
confirmed the conceptual dominance of sociologist Anthony Giddens’ notion of reflexivity
within social theory (D’Cruz et al., 2007). The archaeology enabled the tracing of informing bodies of knowledge. There were two main informing bodies of knowledge. The first
was any existing social work practice methods that use “introspection” or the “use of self”.
The second is sociology, particularly sociology that describes conflict and social change
(Watts, 2015b). The next section outlines my proposal for clarification of these concepts
linked to these findings from the whole study.
Concept Clarification
Reflexivity as a Capability
Acknowledging the status of sociology within Australian social work and the findings from
D’Cruz et al. (2007), my recommendation is to adopt the definition of reflexivity proposed
by Archer (2003, 2007). Reflexivity is, by this definition:
The regular exercise of the mental ability, shared by all normal people, to consider themselves
in relation to their (social) contexts and vice versa. (Donati & Archer, 2015, p. 62)
Archer (2007, p. 5) suggests that the “ … subjective powers of reflexivity mediate the
role that objective structural or cultural powers play in influencing social action and are
thus indispensable to explaining social outcomes.” This definition encompasses both
16 L. WATTS
the introspection capability that Archer (2007) refers to as internal conversation, and the
acknowledgment that this internal conversation is social and action-orientated and thus
linked to the exercise of human agency (Wiley, 2010).
Reflexivity, in Archer’s (2007, p. 63) explanation, is a “personal emergent property
(PEP)” of individuals. PEPs enable people to assess the conditions in which they find
themselves, develop plans, initiate ideas, control feelings, assess their own performance,
and develop and pursue ultimate concerns (Archer, 2003). This personal capability is
the capability being leveraged by social work education for professional practice. Adopting
Archer’s definition of reflexivity would link two key aspects important to Australian social
work – the focus on social worker self-awareness and the need to go beyond individual
work to account for the impact of structure and culture.
Reflective Practice – Reflexivity for Professional Purposes
The benefit of adopting Archer’s definition of reflexivity is that it provides clarity about how
reflective practice involves the use of the reflexive capabilities of social workers
for professional purposes. Thus reflective practice can be clarified as being: The reflexive
capability of social workers in service to the aims and goals of professional practice.
Note, this definition does not include the introduction of particular social theory, rather
the purpose is to clarify what students and practitioners are actually doing when they use
their reflexive capabilities for professional purposes. This conception of the activity of
reflective practice can be utilised within a wider framework of critical reflection. It can
also be taught through instructional models and methods as a practical professional
activity and these can be evaluated.
The use of social worker reflexivity is thus aimed at problem-solving, building understanding from, and about, practice situations, the use of self, and, for improving and learning from practice. This accords well with how practitioners and students already describe
the use of reflective practice based on the qualitative interviews undertaken here.
Critical Reflection as Different Kinds of Thinking
My final proposal is to consider critical reflection as a different kind of activity again, one
that involves learning diverse ways of theorising and thinking in order to reflect differently
on social conditions. To learn these distinctive ways of thinking involves engagement with
different kinds of social theory and orientations to knowledge and reality. Thus, critical
reflection can be viewed as forms of systematic reflection. Critical reflection is broader
than either reflexivity or reflective practice due to connections to wider currents of
social and philosophical thought. This places the social work concerns about social
justice, inequality, human flourishing and need within an existing philosophical tradition
of critical reflection. Thus, teaching critical reflection involves learning aspects of these
philosophical traditions as orientations to thinking.
Philosopher James Tully (1989, p. 198, emphasis added) suggests that “[T]he reflexive
concepts of deconstruction, evaluation, explanation, genealogy, interpretation, interrogation, justification, representation, survey, validation, verification, and so on have distinctive grammars and complex historical genealogies as established practices or languages–
games of critical reflection.” If these forms of critical reflection have distinct grammars,
AUSTRALIAN SOCIAL WORK 17
practices, and language games, it follows that they should be taught as distinctive forms of
critical reflection. Not all of Tully’s suggested kinds of critical reflection are likely to find
purchase in Australian social work education due to prevailing community norms regarding knowledge. Nevertheless, this study suggested there are approximately eight different
forms of critical reflection variously called on within Australian social work. These are critique, explanation, interpretation, two distinct forms of problematisation, archaeology,
genealogy, and deconstruction (see further, Hodgson & Watts, 2017).
It emerged from the study that Australian social work relies primarily on three different
forms of philosophical critical reflection. These are critique, interpretation, and explanation. Critique refers to “Comparison between an end (the ideal) and the present condition (the real)” (Hodgson & Watts, 2017, p. 238). Interpretation is “[A]n activity of
thinking we engage in when we do not already understand a circumstance or practice,
or if an already held interpretation is now in some doubt.” (Hodgson & Watts, 2017,
p. 238). Lastly, explanation means “to account for phenomena in detail including the
relationships between them” (Hodgson & Watts, 2017). Each of these forms have
different aims and are often associated with different bodies of knowledge or processes.
Critique remains important to social work values as it centres on human rights and
social justice. It is also a central part of a complex social work pedagogy that may be
traced back to early histories of the profession in working with poverty and other forms
of disenfranchisement (Chambon, Johnstone, & Winckler, 2011; Chenoweth &
McAuliffe, 2015; Shaw, 2015). My study showed that critique was also highly valued in
the accounts from students and practitioners. However, its most developed articulation
was found among social work educators in the sample. For educators, connecting critical
reflection to this longer tradition offers an extensive corpus of potential theoretical and
philosophical resources with which to instruct students. Further research is needed to consider instructional pedagogy within social work for engaging students in the different
operations of thought and aims of specific forms of critical reflection.
Conclusion
Researching how reflective practice is understood in Australian social work education and
practice demonstrated the need for clarification of the key terms associated with reflective
practice. These concepts are historical, capable of transformation and clarification as
important understandings within our discipline. The proposals here are rooted in a
deep respect for the existing affiliations to core values and knowledge in the disciplinary
community of Australian social work. The proposed clarifications should be debated and
explored in further research for their efficacy for teaching and learning.
Acknowledgements
The ideas in this paper were presented at the 2016 ANZSWWER Symposium at James Cook University, Townsville. The paper has benefited greatly from this and other collegial feedback.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
18 L. WATTS
ORCID
Lynelle Watts http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5886-5889
References
Al-Amoudi, I. (2007). Redrawing Foucault’s social ontology. Organization, 14(4), 543–563.
Allen, A. (2011). Foucault and the politics of our selves. History of the Human Sciences, 24(4), 43–
59. doi:10.1177/0952695111411623
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research
(2nd ed). London: SAGE.
Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373–
395. doi:10.1177/0891241605280449
Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Archer, M. S. (2007). Making our way through the world: Human reflexivity and social mobility.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M. S. (2010). Routine, reflexivity, and realism. Sociological Theory, 28(3), 272–303.
Australian Association of Social Workers. (2010). AASW: Code of ethics. Canberra: Author.
Bacchi, C. (2012). Why study problematizations? Making politics visible. Open Journal of Political
Science, 2, 1–8. doi:10.4236/ojps.2012.21001
Ben-Ari, A., & Enosh, G. (2011). Processes of reflectivity: Knowledge construction in qualitative
research. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 10(2), 152–171. doi:10.1177/
1473325010369024
Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: The challenge of
context. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 191–206. doi:10.1080/03075079812331380384
Chambon, A., Johnstone, M., & Winckler, J. (2011). The material presence of early social work: The
practice of the archive. British Journal of Social Work, 41(4), 625–644. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq139
Chenoweth, L., & McAuliffe, D. (2015). The road to social work and human service practice.
London: Cengage.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perpectives in the research
process. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
D’Cruz, H., Gillingham, P., & Melendez, S. (2007). Reflexivity, its meanings and relevance for social
work: A critical review of the literature. British Journal of Social Work, 37, 73–90. doi:10.1093/
bjsw/bcl001
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative
process. Boston: D. C. Heath and company.
Donati, P., & Archer, M. S. (2015). The relational subject. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as
subject. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp. 733–767). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Eraut, M. (1995). Schon schock: A case for refraining reflection in action. Teachers and Teaching, 1
(1), 9–22.
Fook, J. (1990). Radical social casework: Linking theory and practice. In R. Thorpe, & J. Petruchenia
(Eds.), Social change and social welfare practice (pp. 20–47). Marrickville: Hale & Iremonger.
Fook, J. (1996a). The reflective researcher: Developing a reflective approach to practice. In J. Fook
(Ed.), The reflective researcher: Social workers’ theories of practice research (pp. 1–10). St
Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
Fook, J. (1996b). The reflective researcher: Social workers’ theories of practice research. St Leonards:
Allen & Unwin.
Fook, J. (1999). Critical reflectivity in education and practice. In B. Pease, & J. Fook (Eds.), Transforming
social work practice: Postmodern critical perspectives (pp. 195–210). St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
AUSTRALIAN SOCIAL WORK 19
Fook, J. (2002). Social work: Critical theory and practice. London: SAGE.
Fook, J. (2012). Critical reflection in context: Contemporary perspectives. In J. Fook, & F. Gardner
(Eds.), Critical reflection in context applications in health and social care (pp. 1–12). New York:
Routledge.
Fook, J., & Gardner, F. (2007). Practising critical reflection: A resource handbook. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.
Graham, L. J. (2011). The product of text and “other” statements: Discourse analysis and the critical
use of Foucault. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(6), 663–674. doi:10.111/j.1469.5812.
2010.00698.x
Hodgson, D., & Watts, L. (2017). Key concepts and theory in social work. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ixer, G. (1999). There’s no such thing as reflection. British Journal of Social Work, 29(4), 513–527.
doi:10.1093/bjsw/29.4.513
Ixer, G. (2011). “There’s no such thing as reflection” ten years on. Journal of Practice Teaching &
Learning, 10(1), 75–93. doi:10.1921/ 146066910X570285
Lynch, M. (2000). Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge.
Theory, Culture & Society, 17(26), 26–54. doi:10.1177/02632760022051202
Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of
combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1),
48–76. doi:10.1177/2345678906292462
Pawar, M., & Anscombe, B. (2015). Reflective social work practice: Thinking, doing and being. Port
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Pease, B., & Fook, J. (1999). Transforming social work practice. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
Pease, B., Goldingay, S., Hosken, N., & Nipperess, S. (2016). Doing critical social work:
Transforming practices for social justice. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Redmond, B. (2004). Reflection in action: Developing reflective practice in health and social services.
Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Ruch, G. (2000). Self and social work: Towards an integrated model of learning. Journal of Social
Work Practice, 14(2), 99–112. doi:10.1080/02650530020020500
Ruch, G. (2002). From triangle to spiral: Reflective practice in social work education, practice and
research. Social Work Education, 21(2), 199–216. doi:10.1080/02615470220126435
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic
Books.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and
learning in the professions (1st ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shaw, I. F. (2015). The archaeology of research practices: A social work case. Qualitative Inquiry, 21
(1), 36–49. doi:10.1177/1077800414542691
Tolich, M. (2010). A critique of current practice: Ten foundational guidelines for autoethnographers. Qualitative Health Research, 20(12), 1599–1610. doi:10.1177/1049732310376076
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research.
Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. doi:10.1177/1077800410383121
Tully, J. (1989). Wittgenstein and political philosophy: Understanding practices of critical reflection. Political Theory, 17(2), 172–204.
Vandenberghe, F. (2017). Interview with Professor Frederic Vandenberghe on “Theory in Sociology”
[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = upL_2l4pBYw.
Watts, L. (2015a). An autoethnographic exploration of learning and teaching reflective practice.
Social Work Education, 34(4), 363–376. doi:10.1080/02615479.2015.1016903
Watts, L. (2015b). Thinking differently about reflective practice in social work education in Australia
(Doctoral Dissertation), Edith Cowan University, Bunbury. Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/
theses/1758
Wiley, N. (2010). Inner speech and agency. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Conversations about reflexivity
(pp. 17–38). Abingdon: Routledge.
20 L. WATTS