EDDX901: DOCTOR OF EDUCATION COURSEWORK
Coordinator: PROFESSOR KWOK-WING LAI
ASSIGNMENT 2: AN ESSAY ON THE THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF
REFLECTIVE AND RESEARCH PRACTITIONERS
Name: Merrolee Penman
1
Occupational therapists are “concerned with promoting health and well being”
(World Federation of Occupational Therapy, 2004, para. 1). Reflection and research
are considered to be some of the most important tools in the occupational therapy
toolbox. However, while occupational therapists can articulate the value of reflection,
they are less confident about using research findings to guide their practice, let alone
being a researcher (Forsyth, Mann, & Kielhofner, 2005; Taylor, 2007).
In Aotearoa/New Zealand, all entry-level practitioners are expected to be
competent in reflective practice, to understand the research process, and contribute to
the occupational therapy body of knowledge (Occupational Therapy Board of New
Zealand [OTBNZ], 2000). While the OTBNZ lists these competencies separately, in
this essay it will be argued that the research and reflective processes are so similar,
that practitioners should consider the role of reflective and researching practitioner as
one and the same. Integrating the roles into one, is a potential solution to address the
increased theory-practice divide identified by leaders in the profession (Forsyth et al.,
2005; Peloquin & Abreu, 1996).
Research, as defined in the field of healthcare, is “a systematic and principled
way of obtaining evidence (data, information) for solving health care problems”
(Polgar & Thomas, 2000, p. 3). Occupational therapy research informs the knowledge
base practitioners use to solve the myriad complex and social situations faced daily
(Kielhofner, 2006). To provide what is needed for effective problem solving, Higgs,
Andresen and Fish (2004) argue that occupational therapy practitioners, educators and
researchers share a professional responsibility to use the essential skills of reflection,
theorising and researching in order to make explicit practice knowledge; appraise
knowledge use; and continually improve practice knowledge for the use of all.
2
Reflection at it’s simplest is ‘thinking’ (Cross et al., 2006) or making visible,
what is invisible (de Cossart & Fish, 2005). Most agree that reflection is thinking with
a purpose, a systematic process of linking ideas in order to solve a problem (Hatton &
Smith, 1995), “analys[ing] the self in relation to what has happened or is happening
and mak[ing] judgements regarding this” (Driscoll, 2007, p. 29). The levels to which
this analysis occurs can vary, according to Valli (1997) who identified five types of
reflection. These include technical (matching performance against external
guidelines); reflection-in and on-action (basing decisions on unique situations);
deliberative reflection (comparing personal viewpoints with research findings);
personalistic reflection (being guided by one’s inner voice and the voices of others);
and critical reflection (considering the social, moral and political issues). Using any
one of these types of reflection, the practitioner is “seeking to uncover rigorously and
understand and articulate the relationship between one’s visions, values and beliefs,
and one’s thought, knowledge and action, in reference to specific examples of one’s
own practice” (de Cossart & Fish, 2005, p. 75), thus delving deeply to understand
what informs their decision making.
While Dewey and Habermas are acknowledged as the modern day fathers of
reflection (de Cossart & Fish, 2005; Hatton & Smith, 1995), Schön is known for
further developing Dewey’s ideas (Dahlgren, Richardson, & Kalman, 2004; Hatton &
Smith, 1995; Jay, 2004; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 2001). Schön (1983) coined the
terms reflection-in and on-action, to describe the cycles of acting and thinking that
professionals use to develop tacit or practice knowledge (Driscoll, 2007; Fleming &
Mattingly, 1994). Reflection-in-action is the “conscious thinking and modification”
(Hatton & Smith, 1995, p. 34) that occurs in the here-and-now as the therapist ‘thinks
on their feet’, while reflection-on-action (Bolton, 2005; Driscoll, 2007; Jay, 2004)
3
occurs after the event; the pausing to see how it went-to ask what went well, what
didn’t and what could be changed for next time” (Jay, 2004, p. 12)
Reflection can also be future-oriented. Termed as either reflection-beforeaction, (Driscoll, 2007), reflection for action (Killion and Todnem as cited in Jay,
2004), preparatory reflection (Cowan as cited in Cross et al., 2006) or anticipatory
action (Loughran, 1996), the purpose is “not so much to revisit the past or to become
aware of the metacognitive process one is experiencing … but to guide future action
(the more practical purpose)” (Jay, 2004, p. 13). The concept of future-oriented
reflection does not appear to be as well developed as Schön’s (1983) cycles of
reflection. The reasons for this are not clear, but it may be that forward planning is
considered less an aspect of reflection and more a skill in planning, with the
practitioner drawing from the learning they have gained through the cycles of
reflection-in-action or reflection-on-action. Schön’s cycles have attracted some
critique (Dahlgren et al., 2004) but are still considered “seminal for those who educate
professionals in the practice setting” (de Cossart & Fish, 2005, p. 80)
Irrespective of the models utilised, there is some agreement as to the practices
of reflective practitioners. Reflective practitioners systematically investigate their
experiences seeking answers to complex issues (de Cossart & Fish, 2005) arising out
of day-to-day practice. Reflective practitioners are attentive not only to situations that
occur in their practice, but also to the idiosyncrasies, asking ‘what didn’t I pay
attention to at the time that I should have?’(Bolton, 2005; Dahlgren et al., 2004). In
being this attentive, the reflective practitioner is self-evaluative and critical (Dahlgren
et al., 2004; de Cossart & Fish, 2005; Wlodarsky & Walters, 2006), using the route of
4
spirited enquiry (Bolton, 2005) to make explicit, then appraise and further develop
their practice knowledge (Higgs et al., 2004).
Learning gained through the reflective process can be pragmatic, as in the
practitioner identifying actions that they may use in the next problematic situation.
However, when a practitioner critically reflects (Valli, 1997), alignment between
current practice and espoused values is tested (Duggan, 2005) with deeper
understanding of the personal and professional self the result (de Cossart & Fish,
2005; Duggan, 2005; Johansson & Bjorklund, 2005). Outcomes of engaging in
reflection include the development of soft skills such as emotional intelligence, selfregulation, and therapeutic use of self (Zimmerman, Bryam Hanson, Stube, Jedlicka,
& Fox, 2007), with Kinsella (2001) stating that reflection is effective for the
development and enhancement of professional practice.
In summary, engaging in reflection is “at the heart of what it means to be
professional” (Goodson, 2003, p. 129), ensuring that practitioner decision-making is
not ruled by tradition, authority or circumstance, but is informed by a person’s
professional knowledge base (Parsons & Brown, 2002; Zeichner & Tabachnick,
2001). This professional knowledge base is created through blending three types of
knowledge – propositional, generated through research and scholarship; personal,
generated through life experiences; and professional craft, generated through
professional experience (Titchen, McGinley, & McCormack, 2004). While reflection
is considered essential in the creation of professional craft and personal knowledges,
others (Higgs et al., 2004; Kinsella, 2001) believe that the reflective process is also
integral to the creation of propositional, or the theoretical knowledge that is “created
to explain, explore or extend practice” (Higgs et al., 2004, p. 52).
5
Traditionally, academics have been held responsible for the creation and
dissemination of propositional knowledge, which practitioners were expected to
absorb and then apply (Fox, Martin, & Green, 2007; Hargreaves, 2007; Robinson &
Lai, 2006; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). These two roles, one to create, and the other to
apply, have prevailed in the occupational therapy profession. Recently, Kielhofner
(2005b), a leading occupational therapy researcher and academic has challenged this
duality, drawing the profession’s attention to the notion of a scholarship of practice.
This approach assumes that there is value in practitioners, the ‘knowledge users’,
partnering with the scholars and researchers, the ‘knowledge creators’, to
collaboratively advance the profession’s propositional knowledge. The effectiveness
of this approach in occupational therapy is still under investigation; therefore attention
is directed towards the educational literature for the second part of this essay which
focuses on the value of and importance of ‘knowledge users’ also being researching
practitioners.
In education, a researching practitioner is a teacher who systematically
examines their practices, investigating the assumptions on which their practice is
constructed (Fox et al., 2007; Garbett, 2004). Middlewood, Coleman and Lumby
(1999) suggest that the changes that occur through the research process are
transformative for all involved, as new understandings are reached. While researching
practitioners can legitimately use a range of methodologies, specific traditions have
arisen out of the researching practitioner literature.
Zeichner and Noffke (2001) outline five major research traditions (cooperative
action research, teacher-as-researcher/participatory action research, teacher researcher
movement, self-study research, participatory research) that have informed the design
6
and implementation of practitioner research. Action research provided the base from
which, over the last 50-60 years (Parsons & Brown, 2002), the other four traditions
have developed. In each tradition, the action orientation (solving issues arising from
practice) (Parsons & Brown, 2002), and practice focus (Fox et al., 2007) is aimed at
improving educational practices, through the development of context-specific
solutions (Dadds, 1998; Robinson & Lai, 2006; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). The
implementers of the research can be individual practitioners (academic or teacher), or
collaborative groups consisting of teachers and academics (Dadds, 1998; Zeichner &
Noffke, 2001). Regardless of who is involved, a cyclic or linear systematic process is
used.
Another aim of practitioner research is the creation of change through the
collective actions of concerned practitioners, in relation to larger social or political
issues. In addition, Robinson and Lai (2006) suggest that practitioner research is a
form of effective professional development, the learning from which provides a strong
foundation to ensure that improvements in teaching and learning made, are
sustainable.
Although positive outcomes of practitioner research are evident, there has been
much debate in the educational literature as to whether practitioners have the ability to
undertake research, and more importantly whether the findings presented are even
valid (Clayton et al., 2008; Dadds, 1998; Middlewood et al., 1999). Despite these
criticisms, practitioner research is growing, albeit slowly (Hancock, 2001). Some of
the barriers to whole-scale adoption include working conditions that leave little time
to plan and implement research, and a mismatch between traditional research
methodologies and the questions teachers are interested in researching (Hancock).
7
The slow uptake of research by educational practitioners is surprising, given
that the practices of research practitioners appear very similar to that of reflective
practitioners. In both roles, the practitioner, motivated by the desire to find answers to
their questions, engages in spirited enquiry, alone or with others, which ultimately
leads to professional and personal learning (Dadds, 1998; Parsons & Brown, 2002). In
reviewing their practice, reflective practitioners and researching practitioners are selfevaluative and critical, using reflection to develop in-depth understandings that
promote or generate changes at the individual, school or wider community level.
There seems to be little that distinguishes the practices of the reflective
practitioner and the researching practitioner. Perhaps the key difference is in the
responsibility of the researcher to share their findings with a wider audience than just
the individuals, or groups involved in the research. However, it is also argued that
reflective practitioners should also share the outcomes of their reflections with a wider
audience. Certainly this is the point made by Higgs and her colleagues (2004), who
argue convincingly that reflective practice is essential in the production of
professional knowledge, and that the creation of professional knowledge is something
all practitioners should aspire to, not left to the scientists or scholars of the profession.
Robinson and Lai (2006) caution against the allocation of research to academics
only, suggesting this is one reason for the theory-practice divide identified in the
literature. Instead, they argue that the roles overlap, with an educator being both a
reflective and researching practitioner. This view is also supported by Campbell,
McNamara and Gilroy (2004) who suggest that the reflective practitioner is a
“researcher, researching their everyday practice as they practise” (p. 10), with
8
Roulston, Legette, Deloach and Pitman (2005) and Fox et al. (2007) arguing that
critical reflection is an integral part of the research process undertaken by researchers.
Therefore, while the topics of reflective practitioner and researching practitioner
are often introduced and discussed separately in textbooks, it would seem there is
much to gain in combining the roles. The evidence would suggest that educators can,
and should be reflective researching practitioners. In combining the roles, individuals
will be excellent practitioners, knowledgeable about the processes they use to further
their personal and professional craft knowledge, and confident researchers able to
meet their professional responsibilities of building, testing and disseminating of the
profession’s propositional knowledge (Higgs et al., 2004).
Drawing from perspectives offered by a range of health and educational
scholars, the argument is made in this essay, that an occupational therapist can be both
a reflective practitioner and a researching practitioner, with Fox et al (2007)
maintaining that “it is through practitioners researching their own practice, their own
service and their own profession, that positive change will happen in the public
services” (p. 201).
Kielhofner and colleagues (Hammel, Finlayson, Kielhofner, Helfrich, &
Peterson, 2001) believe that the route to developing practitioner researchers is through
a scholarship of practice. Introduced in 2001 at the University of Illinois at Chicago,
the first example of a scholarship of practice included only academics and their
students, with local occupational therapists having a secondary, or much lesser role of
data collectors and/or providers of intervention services (Hammel et al.). The power
to shape the research lay with the academics and scholars (Kielhofner, 2005a). Over
the next four years, the premises of the scholarship of practice were further explored
9
and by 2005, the early power imbalance had been addressed with clear direction as to
the essential nature of power sharing between the academic/scholar and the
practitioner (Forsyth et al., 2005; Kielhofner, 2005a, 2005b). Kielhofner (2005b)
states, “those who ultimately … use the knowledge must be partners in its generation”
(p. 10).
The year 2005 saw the publication of nine articles in a focused issue of
Occupational Therapy in Healthcare. The authors of these nine articles all used
scholarship of practice, as proposed by Kielhofner and his colleagues, to address
specific practice questions, using one of the traditions of action research (Zeichner &
Noffke, 2001). Combined together, the evidence from all nine articles suggests that
the scholarship of practice appeared to be an effective way of developing the
knowledge and skills of both researcher and practitioner. Through their involvement
in a scholarship of practice, occupational therapists thought more deeply about
practice issues using deliberative, personalistic and critical reflection (Valli, 1997)
and were more confident to use their research knowledge and skills (Finlayson,
Shevil, Mathiowetz, & Matuska, 2005; Forsyth et al., 2005; Kielhofner et al., 2006).
The outcomes of the collaborative projects have led to the development of clinically
useful outcome measures (Forsyth et al., 2005), or clinically useful interventions
(Finlayson et al., 2005). Transformation and empowerment of both
academics/scholars and occupational therapists was also evident (Kielhofner et al.,
2006). The scholarship of practice framework appears to be a promising mechanism
for not only assisting to bridge the theory-practice divide, but for also ensuring that
members of the profession not only see themselves as excellent reflectors, but also
confident researching practitioners.
10
To conclude, occupational therapists are required to be competent reflectors,
and consumers/producers of research, however in Aotearoa/New Zealand, these
competencies are separated. This poses a substantial risk, as the occupational therapist
continues to develop their skills in reflection and reading research, but often leaves
research to the researchers. This essay argues that there is much value for the
practitioner and ultimately the clients they serve, by integrating these roles. Higgs et
al’s (2004) vision that all will share the responsibility of reflecting, theorising and
researching in order to make explicit their practice knowledge is achievable through
Kielhofner and colleagues (Hammel et al., 2001) scholarship of practice. However, to
achieve what these two visionaries have proposed will require those who have
remained separate, to come together in a spirit of collaboration. It is only when this
has occurred, and when practitioners and academics have created together, that
occupational therapists will be able to legitimately claim the role of reflective
researching practitioner.
11
References
Bolton, G. (2005). Reflective practice. Writing and professional development.
London: Sage Publications.
Campbell, A., McNamara, O., & Gilroy, P. (2004). Practitioner research and
professional development in education. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Clayton, S., O'Brien, M., Burton, D., Campbell, A., Qualter, A., & Varga-Atkins, T.
(2008). 'I know it's not proper research, but...': How professionals'
understandings of research can frustrate its potential for CPD. Educational
Action Research, 16(1), 73-84.
Cross, V., Moore, A., Morris, J., Caladine, l., Hilton, R., & Bristow, H. (2006). The
practice-based educator. A reflective tool for CPD and accreditation.
Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Dadds, M. (1998). Supporting practitioner research: a challenge. Educational Action
Research, 6(1), 39 - 52.
Dahlgren, M. A., Richardson, B., & Kalman, H. (2004). Redefining the reflective
practitioner. In J. Higgs, B. Richardson & M. A. Dahlgren (Eds.), Developing
practice knowledge for health professionals (pp. 15-34). Edinburgh:
Butterworth Heinemann.
de Cossart, L., & Fish, D. (2005). Cultivating a thinking surgeon. New perspectives
on clinical teaching, learning and assessment. Harley, Shrewsbury: tfm
Publishing.
Driscoll, J. (2007). Practicing clinical supervision. A reflective approach for
healthcare professionals. Edinburgh: Balliere Tindall Elsevier.
Duggan, R. (2005). Reflection as a means to foster client-centred practice. Canadian
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72(2), 103-112.
Finlayson, M., Shevil, E., Mathiowetz, V., & Matuska, K. (2005). Reflections of
occupational therapists working as members of a research team. Australian
Occupational Therapy Journal, 52(2), 101-108.
Fleming, M. H., & Mattingly, C. (1994). Giving language to practice. In C. Mattingly
& M. H. Fleming (Eds.), Clinical reasoning: Forms of inquiry in a therapeutic
practice (pp. 3-21). Philadelphia: F.A. Davis.
Forsyth, K., Mann, L. S., & Kielhofner, G. (2005). Scholarship of practice: making
occupation-focused, theory-driven, evidence-based practice a reality. British
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(6), 260-268.
Fox, M., Martin, P., & Green, G. (2007). Doing practitioner research. London: Sage
Publications.
12
Garbett, R. (2004). The role of practitioners in developing professional knowledge
and practice. In J. Higgs, B. Richardson & M. A. Dahlgren (Eds.), Developing
practice knowledge for health professionals (pp. 165180). Edinburgh:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Goodson, I. F. (2003). Professional knowledge, professional lives. Studies in
education and change. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Hammel, J., Finlayson, M., Kielhofner, G., Helfrich, C. A., & Peterson, E. (2001).
Educating scholars of practice: an approach to preparing tomorrow's
researchers. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 15(1/2), 157-176.
Hancock, R. (2001). Why are class teachers reluctant to become researchers? In J.
Soler, A. Craft & H. Burgess (Eds.), Teacher development. Exploring our own
practice (pp. 119-132). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Hargreaves, D. H. (2007). Teaching as a research-based profession: possibilities and
prospects (The Teacher Training Agency Lecture 1996). In M. Hammersley
(Ed.), Educational research and evidence-based practice (pp. 3-17). Los
Angeles: Sage.
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition
and implementation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(1), 44-49.
Higgs, J., Andresen, L., & Fish, D. (2004). Practice knowledge - its nature, sources
and contexts. In J. Higgs, B. Richardson & M. A. Dahlgren (Eds.), Developing
practice knoweldge for health professionals (pp. 51-70). Edinburgh:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Jay, J. K. (2004). Quality teaching. Reflection as the heart of practice. Oxford:
Scarecrow Press.
Johansson, A., & Bjorklund, A. (2005). Uniting theory and practice in occupational
therapy students' clinical examinations: a pilot study. Practice Development in
Health Care, 4(2), 96-107.
Kielhofner, G. (2005a). Research concepts in clinical scholarship. Scholarship and
practice: bridging the divide. American Journal of Occupational Therapy,
59(2), 231-239.
Kielhofner, G. (2005b). A Scholarship of Practice Creating Discourse Between
Theory, Research and Practice. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 19, 716.
Kielhofner, G. (2006). The necessity of research in a profession. In G. Kielhofner
(Ed.), Research in occupational therapy. Methods of inquiry for enhancing
practice (pp. 1-9). Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co.
13
Kielhofner, G., Castle, L., Dubouloz, C.-J., Egan, M., Forsyth, K., Melton, J., et al.
(2006). Participatory research for the development and evaluation of
occupatioanl therapy: Researcher-practitioner collaboration. In G. Kielhofner
(Ed.), Research in occupational therapy. Methods of inquiry for enhancing
practice (Vol. 643-655). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
Kinsella, E. A. (2001). Reflections on... Reflections on reflective practice. The
Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(3), 195.
Loughran, J. J. (1996). Developing reflective practice: learning about teaching and
learning through modelling. London: Falmer Press.
Middlewood, D., Coleman, M., & Lumby, J. (1999). Practitioner research in
education: Making a difference. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Occupational Therapy Board of New Zealand. (2000). Competencies for registration
as an occupational therapist. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
Parsons, R. D., & Brown, K. S. (2002). Teacher as reflective practitioner and action
researcher. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Peloquin, S. M., & Abreu, B. C. (1996). The issue is. The academic and clinical
worlds: shall we make meaningful connections? American Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 50(7), 588-591.
Polgar, S., & Thomas, S. A. (2000). Introduction to research in the health sciences.
Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
Robinson, V., & Lai, M. K. (2006). Practitioner research for educators. A guide to
improving classrooms and schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Roulston, K., Legette, R., Deloach, M., & Pitman, C. B. (2005). What is 'research' for
teacher-researchers? Educational Action Research, 13(2), 169-190.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action.
New York: Basic Books.
Taylor, M. C. (2007). Evidence-based practice for occupational therapists. Oxford,
England: Blackwell Publishing.
Titchen, A., McGinley, M., & McCormack, B. (2004). Blending self-knowledge and
professional knowledge in person-centred care. In J. Higgs, B. Richardson &
M. A. Dahlgren (Eds.), Developing practice knowledge for health
professionals (pp. 107-126). Edinburgh: Butterworh Heinemann.
Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of teacher. PJE. Peabody
Journal of Education, 72(1), 67.
14
Wlodarsky, R. L., & Walters, H. D. (2006). The reflective practitioner in higher
education: The nature and characteristics of reflective practice among teacher
education faculty [Electronic Version]. National Forum of Teacher Education
Journal 16, 1-16. Retrieved 4 April 2008 from
http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Wlodarsk
y%20Rachel%20L%20The%20Reflectve%20Practitioner%20in%20Higher%
20Education.pdf.
World Federation of Occupational Therapy. (2004). What is occupational therapy?
Retrieved 5 April 2008, from http://wfot.org.au/information.asp
Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner Research. In V. Richardson
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 298-330). Washington, DC:
AERA.
Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (2001). Reflections on reflective teaching. In J.
Soler, A. Craft & H. Burgess (Eds.), Teacher Development. Exploring our
own practice (pp. 72-87). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Zimmerman, S. S., Bryam Hanson, D. J., Stube, J. E., Jedlicka, J. S., & Fox, L.
(2007). Using the power of student reflection to enhance professional
development [Electronic Version]. The Internet Journal of Allied Health
Sciences and Practice, 5, 1-7. Retrieved 20 March 2007 from
http://ijahsp.nova.edu/articles/vol5num2/zimmerman.htm.
15