Becoming a Reflective Practitioner. Группа авторов

Century Business, London.

      50 50. Smith, E (2011) Teaching critical reflection. Teaching in Higher Education 16(2): 211–223.

      51 51. Smyth, W.J. (1987). A Rationale for Teachers’ Critical Pedagogy, Melbourne: Deakin University Press.

      52 52. Smyth, J (1992) Teachers’ work and the politics of reflection. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 267–300.

      53 53. Street A (1992) Inside Nursing: A Critical Ethnography of Clinical Nursing. State University of New York Press, Albany.

      54 54. Visinstainer M (1986) The nature of knowledge and theory in nursing. Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship 18; 32–38.

      55 55. Wheatley M and Kellner‐Rogers M (1996) A Simpler Way. Berrett‐Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.

      56 56. Woolf, V (1945) A Room of One’s Own. Penguin Books, London.

CHAPTER 2 The Six Dialogical Movements

      Christopher Johns

Learning through reflection is structured through six dialogical movements set within the hermeneutic spiral of interpretation (Table 2.1). The first movement involves the practitioner paying active attention to and writing a description of a particular experience. The second movement is reflecting on the text of the particular experience with the aim of gaining tentative insight. Insights change the practitioner in some way through understanding, feelings, and actions towards realising their vision as a lived reality.

      The third and fourth movements invite the practitioner to dialogue with theory and guide to challenge and deepen their tentative insights. The fifth movement involves constructing a reflexive narrative to communicate insights. The sixth movement is a dialogue with the narrative’s audience.

The Hermeneutic Spiral

      Hermeneutics is the interpretation of the text (Gadamer 1975), the text being the practitioner’s description of the experience. The practitioner dialogues with this text to find meaning and gain insight towards self‐realisation (usually expressed as realising a vision of self and practice). Insights inform subsequent experiences within a reflexive deepening of personal knowing that can be communicated as an unfolding reflexive narrative.

      Imagine throwing a stone into a pool. It makes a splash and sends out ripples over the whole surface of the pool. The pool represents the whole of one’s understanding and informs the splash whilst at the same time the splash provides new information to deepen the whole pool’s understanding in an ever increasing deepening of understanding. Whilst this reflexive learning process may seem complex at first glance, I shall review it as one movement at a time commencing with the idea of dialogue and bringing the mind home.

Dialogue

      Dialogue is the core of reflective learning. Dialogue comes from the Greek word dialogos – ‘meaning flowing among and through us, out of which may emerge some new understanding’ (Bohm 1996, p. 6).

TABLE 2.1 The Six Dialogical Movements of Reflective Learning Within the Hermeneutic Spiral

Dialogue with self as a descriptive spontaneous account paying attention to detail of the situation (produce a story text);

Dialogue with the story text as a systematic process of reflection to gain insight (produce a reflective text);

Dialogue between tentative insights and other sources of knowing to position insights within the wider community of knowing;

Dialogue with guide(s) and peers to challenge and deepen insights (co‐creating meaning);

Dialogue with the insights to weave a coherent and reflexive narrative text that plots the unfolding journey of being and becoming;

Dialogue between the narrative text and its audience as social action towards creating a better world.

Isaacs (1993, p. 25) describes dialogue as:

      a discipline of collective thinking and inquiry, a process for transforming the quality of conversation and, in particular, the thinking that lies beneath it… a movement towards creating a field of genuine meeting and inquiry where people can allow a free flow of meaning and vigorous exploration of the collective background of their thought, their personal pre‐dispositions, the nature of their shared attention, and the rigid features of their individual and collective assumptions. As people learn to perceive, inquire into, and allow transformation of the nature and shape of these fields, and the patterns of individual thinking and acting that inform them, they may discover entirely new levels of insight and forge substantive and, at times, dramatic changes in behaviour. As this happens, whole new possibilities for coordinated action develop.

      Dialogue is not a natural form of communication, especially within organisations.

      Isaacs notes (1993, p. 24):

      Most forms of organisational conversation, particularly around tough, complex, or challenging issues lapse into debate (the root of which means ‘to beat down’). In debate one side wins and another loses; both parties maintain their certainties, and both suppress deeper inquiry. Debate reflects patterns of power relationships and rivalry, where people jostle for control typified by people lining up to get their point across and win the argument. Very little genuine listening takes. People partially listen to what they want to hear, seeking feedback to reinforce their position rather than be open to new possibility through dialogue.

Six Rules of Dialogue

      It is significant that practitioners and guides become skilful in dialogue. Bohm discerned six rules of dialogue:

      1 Commitment to work with others towards consensus for a better world

      2 Awareness and suspension of one’s own assumptions and prejudices

      3 Proprioception of thinking

      4 To be open to possibility and free from attachment to ideas

      5 To listen with engagement and respect

      6 To have a mutual appreciation of dialogue

      Dialogue can be with oneself or within groups of people. It always moves towards consensus for a better world. The emphasis on moving towards acknowledges a letting go of attachment to old ideas. The idea of a better world suggests all action is moral, social action towards this end. To dialogue, people must not only know and suspend their assumptions and opinions but also be aware of the thinking that gave rise to these assumptions in the first place. Where do they arise from? How tenacious do we cling to them? Why do we cling to them? This requires proprioception of thinking, an awareness of where the mind is at the moment. Within the dialogical process, there is a shift from problem‐solving towards acknowledging and resolving paradox that requires thinking about the way people think about things. If we use the same thinking that caused the problem to try and solve the problem, we fail. Hence we need to change the way we think to view the problem differently. As Bohm (1996, p. 25) writes:

      We could say that practically all the problems of the human race are due to the fact that thought is not proprioceptive. Thought is constantly creating problems that way and then trying to solve them. But as it tries to solve them it makes it worse because it doesn’t notice that it’s creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates – because it’s not proprioceptive of what it’s doing.