Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cswe20
Social Work Education
The International Journal
ISSN: 0261-5479 (Print) 1470-1227 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cswe20
Challenges of Critical Reflection: ‘Nothing
Ventured, Nothing Gained’
Jan Fook & Gurid Aga Askeland
To cite this article: Jan Fook & Gurid Aga Askeland (2007) Challenges of Critical Reflection:
‘Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained’, Social Work Education, 26:5, 520-533, DOI:
10.1080/02615470601118662
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470601118662
Published online: 02 Jul 2007.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 17374
View related articles
Citing articles: 30 View citing articles
Challenges of Critical Reflection:
‘Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained’
Jan Fook & Gurid Aga Askeland
This paper arises from the experiences of the authors in providing critical reflection
training to social workers and health professionals. It examines the cultural challenges
involved in undertaking critical reflection, and how such challenges may contribute to
learning. We examine the nature of some of these risks and what might be at stake, and
how we as educators might manage these in the interests of better learning. First we
discuss the concept of critical reflection and the particular approach we take. We then
analyse the nature of some of the risks involved by examining the cultural challenges that
are at stake. Lastly we posit some strategies to reduce risk and maximise learning.
We outline three major types of cultural assumptions which are challenged by critical
reflection. These include assumptions regarding interpersonal communication and
dialogue, professional helping and workplace cultures, and regarding knowledge,
learning, research and the place of emotions. The implications of these challenges
include: the appropriateness of critical reflection for all types of learners; the need for
emotional preparation for the critical reflection process; the need to emphasise the
professional learning purposes; the need to clarify the use of self-disclosure; and the need
to set up an appropriate alternative cultural environment for the purpose of critical
reflection.
Keywords: Critical Reflection; Critical Incident; Self Disclosure; Professional Growth;
Social Change; Learning from Practice; Anti-Reflective Cultures; Interpersonal Cultures;
Professional Helping Cultures; Knowledge and Learning Cultures
Introduction and Background
The concerns of this paper arise directly out of our experiences, separately and
together, in teaching critical reflection, and in particular, what to make of, and how
Correspondence to: Gurid Aga Askeland, Associate Professor, Diakonhjemmet University College, Department of
Social Work, Post Box 184, Vinderen, 0319 Oslo, Norway. Email: [email protected]
Jan Fook, University of Southampton, UK; Gurid Aga Askeland, Diakonhjemmet University College, Oslo, Norway.
Social Work Education
Vol. 26, No. 5, August 2007, pp. 520–533
ISSN 0261-5479 print/1470-1227 online # 2007 The Board of Social Work Education
DOI: 10.1080/02615470601118662
to deal with, the threats and challenges posed by the process for learners. Our
approach to teaching critical reflection involves a small group of learners using a
piece of professional practice experience as material to be reflected upon with
assistance from peers. Participants are asked to describe a ‘critical incident’, defined
as an incident significant to their professional practice (Fook et al., 2000; Fook,
2004a). Despite the fact that ‘significant’ may be interpreted as either negative or
positive, the overwhelming majority of participants often raise incidents which were
traumatic, and become distressed in the discussion of these, or they may disclose later
that the discussion raised related, but more personal, traumatic experiences. In some
cases, participants may feel an unwanted pressure to disclose incompetence, rather
than a more positive opportunity to learn from their experience. Sometimes
participants express the desire to ‘protect’ others from strong feelings, and the risk of
challenge, which might be evoked by the critical reflection process.
Yet despite these misgivings, participants often report transformative changes as a
result of undertaking the critical reflection process (Fook, 2004b, 2004c; Fook &
Askeland, 2006). Therefore we believe it is important to consider more deeply the
nature of the threats or risks involved in critical reflection in order to preserve the
opportunity for deep learning. In particular, we want to examine how our analysis
and understanding of the nature of these risks might allow us to harness the power of
critical reflection for more effective learning.
If we understand critical reflection as involving the unearthing of deeper
assumptions (Mezirow, 2000), then we would argue that this unearthing also
involves identifying previously unquestioned cultural norms. To make matters more
complicated, these norms are often associated with several different cultures, or subcultures, which form part of the, often unquestioned, context in which it is practised.
The challenge of confronting more culturally embedded ideas constitutes one of
the major challenges of critical reflection. We have termed it a challenge because we
see it as a ‘double-edged sword’: it can be a very potent way of confronting ‘sticking
points’ or previously unresolvable dilemmas; but its effectiveness may be limited
because of the misunderstanding, resistance and anxiety which can result when deepseated assumptions are questioned. To ‘venture’ involves risks, but with the potential
for great gain. And it is a gain which may not be easily achieved in other ways.
In this paper therefore our main concern is to examine the nature of some of these
risks and what might be at stake, and how we as educators might manage these in the
interests of better learning. We have organised the paper in the following way: first we
discuss the concept of critical reflection and the particular approach we take. We then
analyse the nature of some of the risks involved by examining the cultural challenges
that are at stake. Lastly we posit some strategies to reduce risk and maximise learning.
Our Model of Critical Reflection
Our model is based on the idea that critical reflection involves the identification of
deep-seated assumptions, but with the primary purpose of bringing about some
improvements in professional practice (Fook & Askeland, 2006; Fook, in press).
Social Work Education 521
What makes such reflection critical is the focus on power (Brookfield, 1995, p. 8)
which allows the reflective process to be transformative, especially when linked with
the basic ideas of critical theory (Fook, 2002, pp. 40–41). In this latter sense, critical
reflection must incorporate an understanding of personal experiences within social,
cultural and structural contexts. Ultimately, through critical reflection on deep
assumptions, especially about the social world and the individual person’s connection
with it, a person should be able to become more empowered in acting within and
upon her or his social world.
Our process of critical reflection involves small peer groups of participants, usually
social work students or social work or health professionals. In the group the
participants assist each other to reflect on an example of their professional practice
experience. These examples are normally ‘critical incidents’: a specific and concrete
example of some piece of practice which was significant for the participant (Fook
et al., 2000; Thomas, 2004). The participants’ descriptions of these incidents are then
used as material for reflection. Participants act as peer reflectors, assisting each other
to critically reflect using a set of guidelines and questions designed to help unearth
more deeply held assumptions. These questions are loosely based on the work of
Schon (1983, 1987); the notion of reflexivity (Taylor & White, 2000); some
postmodern and deconstructive thinking and critical social theory (see Fook, 2004a
for further discussion).
The Cultural Challenge
What do we mean by culture? In simple terms, we are referring to the embedded, and
often implicit or tacit beliefs about what is normal or acceptable behaviour or ideas in
our reference groups. Assumptions about these may of course vary in type and depth.
More superficial assumptions might include, for example, beliefs about proper
customs, whereas deeper assumptions might include, for example, those about what
constitutes legitimate knowledge.
A culture may be shared by a group as large as a nation, a profession or as small as
a family or group of friends. It refers to the thinking and behaviour which is takenfor-granted yet which often defines a group. It is perhaps becoming more commonly
recognised that culture, as a description of the way people group and identify
themselves, is becoming an accepted way of understanding workplace dynamics
(Solomon, 1999; Aadland, 1994).
Our model of critical reflection aims to challenge cultures, that is, the preconceived
ideas which are embedded in practices, in order to examine and change them if
they do not fit with the stated ideals of individual professionals. We believe that
professionals should be able to interpret and understand themselves and the implicit
ideas in their reactions and actions. It therefore may become threatening when
underlying assumptions which they have not been aware of, and which may have
remained hidden for many different reasons, become highlighted through critical
reflection. Because the influence of many different levels and types of cultural
522 J. Fook & G. A. Askeland
groupings may be operating in any one practice situation, this means that there are
many different ways in which critical reflection can be experienced as challenging.
In the next section of the paper, we will outline some of the cultures we believe are
more likely to be operating in social work educational and supervision settings. We
discuss three main types of cultures which are challenged by a critical reflection
approach.
Cultural Norms Regarding Interpersonal Relating
Critical reflection seems to challenge norms regarding acceptable forms of
interpersonal relating, especially regarding personal privacy. For example, it may
be a cultural norm in some countries to preserve a public face by pretending a
situation is fine even when the person feels it might not be. We may assume that to
admit mistakes and insufficiencies can make us vulnerable as it can be used against
us. It therefore also makes us reluctant to interfere in other people’s lives, even if we
might suspect there is something wrong. This can apply to both our private lives and
work related situations.
Brookfield (1995) notes the influence of some cultures regarding interpersonal
relating, especially with regard to teaching settings. He discusses three types of these
cultures which can mitigate against critical reflection: the cultures of silence,
individualism and secrecy. We discuss more details of these cultures in relation to
educational cultures further on, but at this point it is useful to note that these three
‘anti-reflective’ cultures may have implications for what people assume to be
acceptable norms for communicating with other professionals in a group situation.
Thus in our experience the critical reflection questioning process can often be
experienced as too intrusive, too personal or too confronting, and the process is
sometimes labelled as ‘bombarding’ or ‘interrogation’ because of its concreteness and
directness. It appears to contravene unspoken cultures around what is regarded as
polite public behaviour with regard to more personal topics.
It is also relevant to note that silence and speaking might have different meanings
in various countries, and therefore have to be interpreted in its cultural context. For
example, for Japanese people silence may imply truthfulness, social discretion,
embarrassment or defiance as well as a way of gaining social acceptance or to avoid
penalty. Even when asked a question, they may prefer to remain silent until they have
heard others’ opinions. For Chinese people silence may indicate politeness to the
speaker or reflection and assessment of the situation (Askeland & Payne, 2002).
Of course, one of the more obvious norms operating here is the desire to protect
oneself from criticism or negative judgment or disapproval. It is often assumed that
airing doubts and vulnerabilities may leave a person open to misuse or exploitation.
Professional Helping Cultures and Workplace Culture
We often become aware that a culture is being challenged when participants express
extreme discomfort either when their practice, or that of others, is closely scrutinised.
Social Work Education 523
On many occasions, they speak about wanting to ‘support’, ‘take care of’ or ‘protect’
the person who is critically reflecting on their work, and often continue to be
concerned about this, even when the person who is reflecting says they are not
uncomfortable, or chooses to continue.
Many of these challenges to professional helping cultures can be seen as stemming
from the perhaps more traditional ‘therapeutic’ traditions of some professions, which
is contrasted with the more ‘educational’ orientation of critical reflection. One
common example of this is questioning the acceptability of asking ‘why’ questions.
Many participants express reluctance to word questions in this way, stating that as
social workers or therapists they were taught never to ask them (see i.e. Hepworth
et al., 2002; Compton et al., 2005; Berg, 1994; Ivey, 1994). It may be that in more
counselling-oriented cultures, ‘why’ questions are associated with the objectivity of
positivism and are therefore disapproved of, and may be considered to provoke
defence. Yet in the process of critical reflection, these very questions may be
fundamental to bringing about some deep-seated changes. According to Brookfield &
Preskill (1999, p. 90) ‘Questions that provoke students to explore cause-and-effect
linkages are fundamental to developing critical thought’.
In fact, the tensions experienced by the perceived differences between therapy and
education/supervision, appear to be integral to the challenge of critical reflection for
many participants; yet mutual interaction between the social professionals, the people
they assist and their contexts are integral to professional practice. It is therefore
inevitable that personal issues will be involved in the normal professional role,
whether it is therapeutic, educational or supervisory in its primary function.
Following are five different types of professional cultures (or aspects of cultures),
and one workplace culture, which, from our experience, appear to be challenged by
the critical reflection process.
i. Professional Relations Influenced by Cultural Norms in the Society
Similar norms regarding interpersonal relating and dialogue may exist in both society
at large and in particular professional cultures, albeit perhaps for different reasons.
For example, in social work and some counselling professions, where interpersonal
micro-skills have been learnt, there may be an implicit value placed on empathic
listening styles as opposed to direct questioning which is seen as more confronting.
This may be reinforced by micro-skills textbooks which tend to place the learning
of listening skills before skills of questioning or confronting, which are hardly
mentioned if at all (Johnson & Yanca, 2004; Shulman, 1999; Kokkinn, 2005; Aamodt,
1997; Berg, 1994; Ivey, 1994; Ohnstad, 1993). Hepworth et al. (2002) is a rare
exception as they discuss in detail when confrontation of clients will be relevant.
Shulman (1999) claims that social workers fear confronting colleagues about
their practice. It is a paradox also that counsellors and social workers may ask clients
for more sensitive information than would be acceptable to ask friends and
colleagues.
524 J. Fook & G. A. Askeland
ii. Assumptions Relating to the Construction of ‘Client’ Identity
Practitioners in the helping professions often work with people who are disadvantaged
or vulnerable in some way, usually for the purpose of assistance, support, treatment or
therapy in various forms. In social work, this is usually associated, both in Australia and
Norway, with a strong social justice orientation, and of course, in most Westernised
countries as well, a strong therapeutic tradition. This may lead to workers constructing
particular identities for ‘clients’ (Fook, 2002, p. 79) which may involve assuming that
they will be victims (Moffat, 1999), relatively powerless, have rights to assistance, and
perhaps have difficult or anti-social behaviour tolerated because of their disadvantaged
position and yet, should be treated as equals and empowered. This thinking is
supported by codes of ethics which reinforce the ideas of acceptance and nonjudgmentality (IFSW/IASSW Ethical Document, 2004). Even though colleagues are
obviously not clients, in our experience such assumptions often carry over into the
culture of the way professional colleagues relate to each other.
iii. A ‘Task-focused’ Orientation
In our experience with critical reflection groups, participants often demonstrate a
need or a desire to provide an immediate solution, or actions to ‘fix’ a situation. They
will often try to suggest ‘answers’ to a problem situation, and seem uncomfortable
with allowing a person to ‘sit with’ or simply experience a difficulty or tension. In a
busy everyday work situation, many professionals say they are not used to having
time to reflect—this may contribute to a culture which helps them avoid the
discomfort of close scrutiny of their performance.
iv. A Culture of ‘Objectivity’
This influence of assumptions about objectivity in professional practice is often
unearthed when people reflect on specific instances of their work. Perhaps this is related
to a pervading underlying therapeutic tradition. We have found that from the practices
discussed in our critical reflection groups, this often translates into avoiding what
is considered personal. This is often characterised as value judgments, emotional
reactions, or individual experiences and background. Indeed, such aspects of practice
are often discounted as ‘unprofessional’ and many workers experience dilemmas in
feeling that they are not able to integrate personal attributes into professional practice
(Fook, 2004c). These kinds of assumptions obviously require questioning in order for
people to learn from their personal, and often emotional, experience. This point is
reinforced by Stuart (2001, p. 174) who says that in critical reflection it is difficult to
distinguish between the ‘self as me’ and the ‘self as a professional’.
v. Self-disclosure
Self-disclosure, and some hidden assumptions about its use and validity, has
also proved to be a difficult issue. Social workers’, counsellors’ and therapists’
Social Work Education 525
self-disclosure has been frequently discussed in the professional literature (see i.e.
Maram & Rice, 2002; Trotter, 1999; Wubbolding & Brickell, 1999; Kadushin, 1990;
Johnson, 1990; Hepworth et al., 2002). The idea of disclosure itself has been referred
to as an ideology (Hepworth et al., 2002). Wubbolding & Brickell point out that
much counselling literature cautions against self-disclosure as contravening
professional behaviour. Nevertheless, it is also accepted that self-disclosure may
convey profound empathy and bring about significant change (Wubbolding &
Brickell, 1999; Webb, 1996). Self-disclosure may have two different meanings; to
share the therapist’s, social worker’s or facilitator’s feelings and reactions in the
shared situation or to reveal one’s own experiences (Reid, 1997; Johnson, 1990). It is
particularly the latter which is discouraged, emphasising the danger of the
professional becoming the focus which can be distractive and confusing to the other
party (Maram & Rice, 2002). The professional literature emphasises that the
therapist, social worker or facilitator should never become the focus of the group. Yet
this is exactly what the intention is when a facilitator models critical reflection by
presenting his/her critical incident to the participants of a group. In this sense, the
critical reflection process directly contradicts strongly held beliefs about the uses of
self-disclosure.
vi. The Procedural Culture of the Workplace
Current workplace cultures work against critical reflection as they become more and
more procedure and regulation based. The demand from the environment is that
‘Students must be ready for, not critical of, practice’ (Preston-Shoot, 2000, p. 88).
Reflection about the work of social workers is not encouraged, as managers’ main
concerns are whether they follow procedures. Yet, it can be argued that social workers
are faced with many uncertain and complex situations that are emotionally
provoking and therefore cannot be handled by simply following procedures (Ruch,
2002; Fook et al., 2000; Fook, 2007). Tension between bureaucratic routines and
professional demands often causes anxiety. Therefore the more social work is
conducted according to procedures, rules and risk assessments, the more it will
reinforce the anxiety about not performing correctly. Ruch (2002, p. 202) claims that
anxiety is the most common obstacle to reflection. In this sense then, current
workplace cultures might not only directly discourage reflection, but they may also
create conditions which make it more difficult. Thus workers who try to be critically
reflective without a congruent workplace environment may feel that they are
committing ‘cultural suicide’ (Brookfield, 1994, pp. 208–209) in being cut off, or
marginalised from the mainstream culture in which they must operate and which has
sustained them.
Knowledge and Learning Culture
In this section we discuss the culture of assumptions which underpins what we deem
to be appropriate or legitimate knowledge and the processes by which this is derived.
526 J. Fook & G. A. Askeland
Our model of critical reflection is based upon assumptions in two key areas:
regarding the nature of knowledge, learning and research; and the place of the
personal and the emotional in learning.
In a traditional hierarchy of knowledge, technical knowledge, and knowledge
gained through formal education, is most highly regarded. We are socialised to
believe that intellectual knowledge has the highest value. Schon (1987) might term
this knowledge ‘technical-rationality’. The skills which are gained through action,
such as manual and perceptual skills, or through socialisation, such as cultural skills,
are less highly regarded (Collins, 1990). This means, of course, that it is the
knowledge gained through everyday experience which is placed at the bottom of
the hierarchy. The culture of critical reflection constitutes a direct challenge to this
hierarchy as it in fact privileges concrete experience, and the innate ability of the
person, as sources of knowledge.
In our model of critical reflection we assume that knowledge is at least partly
created by people, through interaction and dialogue in a social and political context.
Individual people are in this sense also researchers of their professional practice, in
that they must collect and process knowledge in order to act in a meaningful way
within their contexts. The role of personal and emotional experience is therefore as
important in framing knowledge, as are cognitive abilities and behaviours, since the
whole person is the research instrument. This means that personal and emotional
experiences are crucial as food for learning and change in critical reflection. Yet to
draw on personal experiences in order to gain general knowledge is not traditionally
acknowledged as scientifically acceptable. Further, it is not recognised that what new
knowledge we are able to take into possession depends on our personal experiences,
opinions, values, and emotions.
Much of the literature on learning and critical reflection, and transformational
learning (Brookfield, 2001, p. 142) notes that the emotional element is crucial and
regarded as a necessary adjunct for critical reflection. This may take the form of first
empathically recognising that the emotional experience is a necessary condition for
developing a more connected knowing (Mezirow, 2000, p. 14). Alternatively it may
simply involve using the emotions as an impetus to drive change (Wong et al., 2002;
Taylor, 2001, p. 305).
In an academic setting, these assumptions about knowledge seriously challenge
more traditional ideas about learning. The educational experience is often implicitly
constructed as objective, theoretical, rational, competitive, adversarial, and
individualistic. The learning processes therefore, are often opposingly constructed
as less valued, or not legitimate. This is indeed the case for the learning from critical
reflection which often involves personal experience disclosure, in supportive group
environments, incorporating the emotions and encouraging divergent and ambiguous thinking.
In the traditional classroom a rational and intellectual approach to teaching and
learning often dominates. Very seldom are emotions revealed. Educational culture is
often also competitive. Students are encouraged to demonstrate only their best
Social Work Education 527
abilities and are indeed assessed on these, and it is therefore embarrassing or
foolhardy to reveal incompetence or ignorance. This also applies to educators.
Critical reflection, however, relies on being open to consciously or unconsciously
disclosing to others what is not understood in order to learn from it. To thrive,
critical reflection therefore requires quite a different climate from the generally
accepted educational culture.
Brookfield (1995) notes three types of related cultures, which we mentioned briefly
earlier, which operate in educational settings and which can militate against critical
reflection: the cultures of silence, individualism and secrecy. These three cultures are
inter-related to some extent.
The culture of silence refers to the assumption that teaching is a private activity,
and the resulting lack of open talk about the experience, the ups and downs and
meaning of teaching. The culture of individualism is that which works against
collaborative activities and assumes that all can be solved through the heroic efforts of
individuals. The culture of secrecy is that which works against self-disclosure, and
punishes mistakes or shortcomings. These three cultures seem to operate in social
work education settings.
Another learning culture which may be challenged by critical reflection is that of
the ‘argument culture’ (Tannen, 1998). This is an adversarial culture which
conditions us to believe that the ‘truth’ can be arrived at only through debate or
‘fight’ between opposing sides. This involves believing that there are only two sides,
and one must be dominant in order to settle differences. This sort of culture tends
to oversimplify complexities and to emphasise differences. It militates against
understanding of differences and arriving at consensus positions. In this type of
culture, a critical reflection approach, which values multiple perspectives, appreciating different viewpoints, and the holding of contradictions, may pose a serious threat
to what may feel like the certainty involved in more adversarial ways of knowing.
Brookfield notes a similar phenomenon to the above, which he terms ‘lost innocence’ (1994, pp. 209–210). This is sometimes experienced by adult educators in critical
reflection, when ‘an intellectual appreciation of the importance of contextuality and
ambiguity comes to exist alongside an emotional craving for revealed truth’ (p. 210).
He quotes More (1974, p. 69) referring to the experience of critical reflection as
involving ‘the agonizing grief of colluding in the death of someone who he knows was
himself’ (Brookfield, 1994, p. 210). This captures very neatly the experience of challenge
and change involved in the critical reflection process.
Implications of These Challenges
The approach to the critical reflection process that we use clearly poses a series of
challenges to deeply held assumptions which are in turn embedded in a number of
cultures in which we operate. We have outlined three major types of cultural
assumptions which we have experienced as being challenged by critical reflection.
These include, firstly, assumptions regarding interpersonal communication and
dialogue, incorporating norms around personal privacy and confrontation by
528 J. Fook & G. A. Askeland
non-direct questioning. Secondly, professional helping and workplace cultures,
including a value on listening rather than confrontation, constructions of clients as
‘victims’, a ‘task’ or ‘solution’-focused approach, objectivity, avoidance of
professional self-disclosure, and a procedure-focused workplace. Lastly, assumptions
regarding knowledge, learning, research and the place of emotions, including a value
on rational and theoretically generalisable knowledge; a competitive educational
culture; educational cultures of silence, individualism and secrecy; an argument
culture; and the silencing of the emotions.
Whilst we would argue that the process of critical reflection can and must involve
change, and therefore some degree of challenge to dearly held cultural norms, a major
question remains as to how to maximise the learning whilst at the same time
minimising the risk involved. As Brookfield so aptly points out, there is a ‘dark side’
to critical reflection (1994). How do we use our knowledge of the dark side, or the
down side of the critical reflection experience to inform our better practice as critical
reflectors and as educators?
In addressing these questions, let us examine some of the main issues which arise
from the foregoing discussion.
Clearly there are many different questions raised by the potential cultural
challenges inherent in the practice of critical reflection. In our own practice we have
been led to question whether critical reflection is equally appropriate for all types of
learners, or whether individual and cultural differences might in some cases preclude
significant learning from critical reflection. Maybe there is more need to understand
the role of difference in learning from critical reflection. Cranton (2000) provides
some helpful discussion on the implications of different learning and cognitive styles
for critical reflection. As well it may be that some cultural groups (for example men)
are more comfortable with technical rationality, so more time may need to be taken
in preparing the educational culture for such groups.
There may be a need to consider the different emotional experiences of individual
participants: some may experience it as potentially damaging. Therefore there is a
need to adequately prepare learners for the challenges of critical reflection. For
example, much of the literature on critical reflection, which is primarily developed in
Western English speaking countries, and transformational learning to which it is
related (Mezirow, 2000, p. 11), acknowledges the need for a type of personal or
emotional maturity in order to engage in critical reflection.
Another important implication is the need to make clear the purposes of critical
reflection—in our case it is specifically for professional learning rather than a more
generalised emotional or personal therapy. In this sense, emotional or personal
aspects would only be addressed in so far as they affected professional practice, and
only then with as much informed consent of the participants as possible. Brookfield
makes a similar point about ensuring the informed consent of participants when he
discusses the ‘dark side’ of critical reflection—he suggests:
Full disclosure—the attempt by educators to make as clear as possible to learners
the qualities, risks and likely consequences of the experience they are about to
Social Work Education 529
undergo—is a condition of authenticity in any educational encounter, but it is
particularly important in education for critical reflection. (Brookfield, 1994, p. 215)
An additional clear implication of our foregoing discussion is the need to clarify
the use of disclosure. In critical reflection the purpose of disclosure by the facilitator
is to build a trusting learning atmosphere and test out and show the participants that
it is safe to take a risk. The timing of the professional’s self-disclosure is crucial
here (Maram & Rice, 2002). The professional person’s self-disclosure gives the
participants an opportunity to practise and become comfortable with asking
reflective questions. However, the presentation has to strike a balance between an
involvement in working out the incident which genuinely concerns the facilitator,
and not unduly raising the anxiety of participants by presenting an overwhelming
story that might become too difficult for them to handle. The facilitator’s
presentation and critical reflection will be crucial and influence the climate for the
participants’ willingness or ability to self-disclose. It is expected that the participants’
sharing will follow the facilitator’s example (Kadushin, 1990). In this sense, the
facilitator is modelling appropriate self-disclosure—one which balances risk taken
with potential learning to be gained.
In connection with the idea of appropriate self-disclosure, it may be helpful to
make a distinction between what is meant by ‘personal’ and ‘private’. While
‘personal’ is related to the person’s abilities, characteristics and qualities, ‘private’ is
connected to situations and contexts (Leenderts, 1997). This helps us define the limits
for what to share. Without this distinction exposing personal vulnerabilities may be
experienced as going against professional and organisational culture. In these
instances, even though participants might have a personal predilection to acknowledging vulnerabilities, they choose to be defensive because of their workplace culture.
However, as critical incidents are linked to specific situations and contexts, they
might touch private areas as a basis and condition for new learning about their own
performance and the social and political context in which it took place.
Lastly, it appears crucial that since critical reflection involves challenging some
fairly fundamental cultures, an appropriate alternative culture is set up for the
process to occur. Establishing a culture for critical reflection is therefore one of the
major requirements for a successful learning experience. Indeed we would argue that
critical reflection is as much about establishing an enabling culture as it is about using
effective techniques. When starting a critical reflection group, a new culture has to be
established which takes into account that a common ‘fear-of-group’ (Shulman, 1999)
might be reinforced by a fear of being judged by colleagues.
Mezirow has termed this type of climate ‘reflective discourse’ which includes access
to accurate information, freedom from coercion, an ability to weigh evidence and
assess arguments objectively as well as openness to other perspectives and new ideas.
Elsewhere this has been termed ‘critical acceptance’ (Fook et al., 2000) referring to a
type of climate in which it is safe to challenge old ideas and try new ones. We should
point out that we are in the main referring to the micro-climate which an educator
can relatively easily establish within the confines of an educational programme or
530 J. Fook & G. A. Askeland
group. There may, of course, be different issues involved in establishing such a
culture in a broader workplace environment.
This climate would include principles of creating a trusting environment which
minimises the risk involved in self-disclosure and maximises the encouragement to
be open to new and different perspectives. This may comprise a commitment to
confidentiality and to non-judgment of perspectives and practices. A climate for
challenge in this sense does not imply criticism or judgment, but rather an
opportunity to examine different perspectives in a non-threatening environment.
Such a climate should enable responsibility or an increased sense of personal agency,
as opposed to a feeling of blame. Critical reflection should thus provide an
environment in which people can see increased opportunities for personal action, as
opposed to feeling restricted by their past inadequacies.
Conclusion
The approach to the critical reflection process that we use clearly poses a series of
challenges to deeply held assumptions which are in turn embedded in a number of
cultures in which we operate. We have outlined three major types of cultural
assumptions which are challenged by critical reflection. These include assumptions
regarding interpersonal communication and dialogue, professional helping and
workplace cultures, and regarding knowledge, learning, research and the place of
emotions. The implications of these challenges included: the appropriateness of
critical reflection for all types of learners; the need for emotional preparation for the
critical reflection process; the need to emphasise the professional learning purposes;
the need to clarify the use of self-disclosure; and the need to set up an appropriate
alternative cultural environment for the purpose of critical reflection.
In closing we would like to emphasise that in our model the purposes of critical
reflection are professional growth and social change. Furthermore to enable this
process it is helpful for the facilitator to familiarise the participants with the three
cultures that we have discussed, and how they might inhibit critical reflection. This
will lay the groundwork for establishing the appropriate cultural climate in the group.
References
Aadland, E. (1994) Kultur i helse-, sosial- og utdanningsinstitusjonar, Samlaget, Oslo.
Aamodt, L. G. (1997) Den gode relasjonen—støtte, omsorg eller anerkjennelse?, AdNotam, Gyldendal,
Oslo.
Askeland, G. A. & Payne, M. (2002) ‘Globalisation, universal knowledge, distance learning and
post-colonial social work education: the need for cultural and linguistic diversity’, Conference
International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW), Montpellier, July.
Berg, I. K. (1994) Familjebehandling. Løsningsfokuserat arbete med utsatta familjer, Mareld,
Stockholm.
Brookfield, S. (1994) ‘Tales from the dark side: a phenomenography of adult critical reflection’,
International Journal of Lifelong Education, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 203–216.
Brookfield, S. (1995) Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.
Brookfield, S. (2001) ‘Transformative learning as ideology critique’, in Learning as Transformation,
eds J. Mezirow & Assoc., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 125–149.
Social Work Education 531
Brookfield, S. D. & Preskill, S. (1999) Discussion as a Way of Teaching, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Collins, H. (1990) Artificial Experts, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Compton, B. R., Cournoyer, B. & Gallaway, B. (2005) Social Work Processes, Thomson, Southbank,
Australia.
Cranton, P. (2000) ‘Individual differences and transformative learning’, in Learning as
Transformation, eds J. Mezirow & Assoc., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 181–204.
Fook, J. (2002) Social Work: Critical Theory and Practice, Sage, London.
Fook, J. (2004a) ‘Critical reflection and transformative possibilities’, in Social Work in a Corporate
Era, eds L. Davies & P. Leonard, Ashgate, Avebury.
Fook, J. (2004b) ‘Critical reflection and organisational learning and change: a case study’, in Social
Work, Critical Reflection and the Learning Organisation, eds N. Gould & M. Baldwin, Ashgate,
Aldershot, pp. 57–73.
Fook, J. (2004c) ‘Social work and civil society: reclaiming links between the social and the personal’,
paper presented at the International Association of Schools of Social Work Conference,
Adelaide, October.
Fook, J. (2007) ‘Uncertainty: the defining characteristic of social work?’, in Social Work: A
Companion for learning, eds K. Postle & M. Lymbery, Sage, London.
Fook, J. (in press) ‘Reflective practice and critical reflection’, in Handbook of Theory for Practice
Teachers: A New Updated Edition, ed. J. Lishman, Jessica Kingsley, London.
Fook, J. & Askeland, G. (2006) ‘The ‘‘critical’’ in critical reflection’, in Critical Reflection in Health
and Welfare, eds S. White, J. Fook & F. Gardner, Open University Press, Maidenhead.
Fook, J., Ryan, M. & Hawkins, L. (2000) Professional Expertise: Practice, Theory and Education for
Working in Uncertainty, Whiting & Birch, London.
Hepworth, D. H., Rooney, R. H. & Larsen, J. A. (2002) Direct Social Work Practice. Theories and
Skills, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.
IFSW/IASSW Ethical Document (2004) accepted at the General Assembleys, Adelaide, Australia,
October. Available at: http://www.ifsw.org/GM-2004/GM-Ethics.html.
Ivey, A. (1994) Intentional Interviewing and Counseling, 3rd edn, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.
Johnson, D. (1990) Reaching Out. Interpersonal Effectiveness and Self-actualization, 3rd edn,
Prentice Hall, Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ.
Johnson, L. & Yanka, S. (2004) Social Work Practice: A Generalist Approach, Allyn and Bacon,
Boston, MA.
Kadushin, A. (1990) The Social Work Interview. A Guide for Human Service Professionals, 3rd edn,
Columbia University Press, New York.
Kokkinn, J. (2005) Profesjonelt sosialt arbeid, 2nd edn, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
Leenderts, T. Aa. (1997) Person og profesjon. Om menneskesyn og livsverdier i offentlig omsorg, 2nd
edn, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
Maram, M. & Rice, S. (2002) ‘To share or not to share: dilemmas of facilitators who share the
problem of group members’, Groupwork, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 6–33.
Mezirow, J. (2000) ‘Learning to think like an adult’, in Learning as Transformation, eds J. Mezirow
& Assoc., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 3–34.
Moffatt, K. (1999) ‘Surveillance and government of the welfare recipient’, in Reading Foucault for
Social Work, eds A. Chambon, A. Irving & L. Epstein, Columbia University Press, New York,
pp. 319–345.
More, W. S. (1974) Emotions and Adult Learning, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Ohnstad, A. (1993) Den gode samtalen, Samlaget, Oslo.
Preston-Shoot, M. (2000) ‘Stumbling towards oblivion or discovering new horizons? Observations
on the relationship between social work education and practice’, Journal of Social Work
Practice, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 87–98.
Reid, K. (1997) Social Work Practice with Groups: A Clinical Perspective, 2nd edn, Brooks/Cole
Publishing, Pacific Grove, CA.
Ruch, G. (2002) ‘From triangle to spiral: reflective practice on social work education, practice and
research’, Social Work Education, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 199–216.
Schon, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Schon, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
532 J. Fook & G. A. Askeland
Shulman, L. (1999) The Skills of Helping Individuals, Families and Groups, 4th edn, F.E. Peacock
Publishers, Inc., Itasca, IL.
Solomon, N. (1999) ‘Culture and difference in workplace learning’, in Boud, D. & Stuart, C.C.
(2001) ‘The reflective journeys of a midwifery tutor and her students’, Reflective Practice,
vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 171–184.
Tannen, D. (1998) The Argument Culture, Random House, New York.
Taylor, C. & White, S. (2000) Practising Reflexivity in Health and Welfare, Open University Press,
Birmingham.
Taylor, E. W. (2001) ‘Analyzing research on transformative learning theory’, in Learning as
Transformation, eds J. Mezirow & Assoc., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 285–328.
Thomas, J. (2004) ‘Using ‘‘critical incident analysis’’ to promote critical reflection and holistic
assessment’, in Social Work, Critical Reflection and the Learning Organisation, eds N. Gould &
M. Baldwin, Ashgate, Avebury, pp. 101–116.
Trotter, Chris (1999) Working with Involuntary Clients, Allan & Unwin, St. Leonards.
Webb, G. (1996) Understanding Staff Development, Society for Research into Higher Education &
Open University Press, Buckingham.
Wong, M. W. L., Kember, D., Wong, F. K. Y. & Loke, A. Y. (2002) ‘The affective dimension of
reflection’, in Guided Reflection: Advancing Practice, ed. C. Johns, Blackwell Science, Oxford,
pp. 139–151.
Wubbolding, R. & Brickell, J. (1999) Counselling with Reality Therapy, Speechmark Publishing Ltd,
Bicester.
Accepted March 2005
Social Work Education 533