Although Schön’s premise of ‘reflection-in-action’ and ‘reflection-on-action’ has been very influential, especially in education (Boud, 2010), it is the subject of considerable criticism. Eraut suggests ‘reflection-in-action’ is no more than the ability to make speedy responses when faced with challenging incidents. Others criticise Schön for his lack of consideration for what they term as ‘reflection-for-action’, suggesting Schön’s theory does not encourage the practitioner to contemplate future incidents. This looking to the future is according to Thompson &Thompson on (2008) is necessary for future planning.
This is supported by Wilson (2008) who states:
“…he would appear to have given less consideration to how humans reflect and contemplate on how things might be in the future and how these possibilities might be achieved”.
It is suggested we are perhaps ‘too close’ (Wilson, 2008) to the situation to fully appreciate the ‘hidden or submerged knowledge’. Wilson goes on to suggest the demands and increasing workloads of professionals leaves little time for reflection on past activity. As a consequence this lack of ‘reflection-for-action’ reduces the opportunity for learning and development of performance. Greenwood (1993) on the other hand, suggests Schön’s model is unsound because it does not recognise the thinking required before action. However, this ‘reflection-before-action’ may bring into question Schön’s premise about intuitive action.
Others have criticised Schön for his exclusive focus on the individual and excluding important factors such as wider social implications and the many political issues at play in the workplace and beyond. This is perhaps supported by Brookfield (1995) who states:
“Reflection in and of itself is not enough; it must always be linked to how the World can be changed”.
Next week we will explore Brookfield’s theory about critical thinking.
collabor8blog 