Applying Critical Reflective Practice: Developing the Reflexive Practitioner Research Project
Part A: Research Aim(s) and Literature Review (25 marks): Within this, you are expected to consider:
– Aim and context of the research
To give this research focus you have to choose one of the following aims:
- Research Aim 1: To make sense of emotions and feelings
- Research Aim 2: To increase self-awareness
- Research Aim 3: To understand and make sense of triggers
The context of the research is either:
- Professional Identity or
- Professional Self Image
– Theoretical Direction for research
Discuss the theoretical approach to reflection in terms of diagnostic or expressive or a combination and this relates to the research aim chosen.
– Bibliography (not counted in word count)
Part B: Reflections on Research Methods and Data Analysis (25 Marks): critical evaluation and justification for the research method and data analysis approach for this project. Within this you are expected to consider.
– Research Methodology (action research; reflexivity; arts based; auto-ethnographic practices; reflexive dialogic action research)
– Diagnostic approach (why? In the form of active imagination) or Expressive approach (how? In the form of artistic imagination)
– Method including analysis of personal data (using either a Gibbs cycle or a Gardner Cycle or a JOHARI window)
– Personal cultural texts as personal data (a justification of at least 2 personal cultural texts as personal data for your research to allow for triangulation).
– Critical evaluation of research design
– Bibliography (not counted in word count)
Personal Cultural Texts as Personal Data are categorized as follows.
– Learning diagnostics (e.g., Learning styles questionnaires; team role questionnaires)
– Self-awareness diagnostics (e.g., personality tests and profiles; Emotional Intelligence Surveys; Social Intelligence Surveys; Testimonies; Values inventory)
– Poetics and Creative expressions (e.g., poetry; lyrics; proverbs; religious quotations; drawings; photographs)
Part C: The Reflexive Practitioner Storyboard (50 Marks): this is the presentation of the analysed personal data in the form of a ‘storyboard’. The storyboard can be presented as either (choose 1 only).
– 1500-word Critical Incident Analysis
– 1500-word Creative Writing Collage
– Video reflection
– Audio reflection
– List of Sources which have been used to create the storyboard (not counted in word count)
Solution
Research Context 1: Formal Professional Identity as defined by the behavior and or values framework of either CIPD or ACCA or CMI or CIM
Part A: Research Aims & Literature Review
The aim of this research is “to make sense of emotions and feelings that influence the development of one’s professional identity”. The purpose of the research is to develop an understanding of the emotional demands and its influence on professional identities. The research has explored observing the effects of pressures and rewards and the influence of emotional labour on the professional identity of managers (Khapova et al., 2007).
Nearly 100 years ago, the concept of how we think was articulated by John Dewy in a book. Dewy identified several types of thoughts from imagination and belief to a stream of consciousness. However, he was most interested in reflection. As per Dewey, Reflection is a systematic, disciplined and rigorous way of thinking having roots in scientific inquiry. He thinks reflection as a meaning-making process which brings a learner from one experience to another with an in-depth understanding of the connections of ideas and experiences. As per Dewey, Reflection happens in communities in societies during the interaction of individuals with one another. The process of reflection needs attitudes which value the intellectual and personal growth of individuals oneself and others as well (Rodgers, 2002).
As per Dewey.
Reflection involved the sequence and consequence of ideas in a consecutive ordering that determines the upcoming as a proper outcome while also each leans back on the predecessors (Dewey, 1910).
As per the scholar Schon.
Reflection (in action) is critical practice or immediate thinking which helps in reshaping what one is doing while he or she is doing it. The Reflection (on the action), on the contrary, is the making sense of the action after the event happened (Schon, 1983).
As per Schon, Reflective Practice is the capacity of an individual to reflect on the action to engage in a system of continuous learning which is one of the most important characteristics of professional practice (Schon, 1983). Bolton explained that paying critical attention to theories and practical values that help in everyday decisions and actions by examination of practice reflectively leads to developmental insight (Bolton, 2010).
Organizational Change is an important part of the globalised workforce’s lives in today’s world. The modern economy faces rapid changes in their environment like never. It has led the market to have more opportunities for producing more challenges as well. The change process demands commitment and effort from employees and management regardless of the actual content of the change. The globalisation has brought the discussion in human resource managers that on what areas the company should build its competitive advantage in such a fast-changing environment (Houdek, 2017). Even if the organisational change offers several benefits in the form of new opportunities, new capabilities, innovative thinking, and positive, creative culture, it has its downfalls as well. Change is opposed at its first instant. Restructuring or merging has always been a hard thing for employees stimulating stress and uncertainty in employees resulting in lower productivity (Caza and Creary, 2016). Furthermore, loss of attachment to the newly changed organisation can be a demotivating factor as well. The morale of the staff can decline as a result. However, it is still inevitable, and thus management should well equip itself to manage it better (Lewis, 2011).
Critical reflection is a process which as per Gardner affirms values and shows what is meaningful in practice. It shows that the expectations of the company are higher than the personal values of employees. As per the application of the self-affirming theory, the issue thus results in showing whether the employee is capable of adapting to the working environment or would leave the job. Critical reflection is a process which can be utilised in the professional’s groups for staff development, supervision and postgraduate programs as well (Gardner, 2007). The two-stage process starts with the presentation of the theoretical perspectives for providing understanding within the group which is done to deconstruct the assumptions and values in the critical incident of each person. The framework is based on reflective questions which would help in the identification of embedded values that affect professional identity. The second step of the values articulation is to know how these can operate in practice while seeking change at the organisational or individual level. It shows how the employees are motivated to stay at a job while it also reminds them of why they want to work in the organisation and what pressures and rewards influence them — the theory aids in the raising of self-awareness of the employees however it is hard to implement in the organisation (Gardner, 2007).
The Gibbs Reflective cycle is another model which is commonly used for reflection by professionals. The author shows how description, analysis, its evaluation, help the professional to make sense of its emotions and experiences and examine the practice. Reflection in itself is not enough; it has to be used in practice for learning and allowing the reflective process to improve the practice. Gibbs encouraged formulating an action plan. The reflective practitioner would be then enabled to practice and see what can be changed in future as it is developed (Gibbs, 1988).
Part B: Reflections on Research Methods & Data Analysis
Belbin team roles are one of the methods to know the role one has on a team. Everyone has something to contribute to in a team. While some have major roles, others have minor roles, Belbin is not only about teamwork, but it is also about raising awareness of self-reflection and increasing understanding of ourselves to better help in work and organisations. Belbin measures the behaviour to identify the best attributes in us to promote our strengths and also manage any potential shortfalls. As per Meredith Belbin, the tendency of individuals to contribute, behave and interrelate in a particular way is defined as the team role. By identifying the team role, an individual may better use its strengths and manage its weaknesses — the identification of team roles aid in building better work relationships, with the higher productive team and increases self-awareness and individual personal effectiveness (Rus et al., 2013).
The test of Belbin was taken by me to know my managerial strengths and weaknesses and my team role. The results show that the nine-team roles which are shown by Belbin are in the following percentage in me; with a total of 100 points for the nine roles. A maximum of 25 points can be appointed to one role.
(Test.Com, 2018)
The above figure shows the roles as explained in detail later. The test considers innovator as the major team role for me with 16% points. The innovator is the role which is the creative generator of the team. The strong imaginative skills and the originality help me in being an innovator: the preference of being independent and the approach of working on tasks in a scientific way aids in it. This role is important in knowing how the team approaches tasks and solves major problems. Secondly, the driver is the second highest point for my personality in a team role. The driver is the energetic and ambitious one in the team, which may sometimes appear as impulsive and impatient. The strong motivator capabilities and the ability to challenge others are important attributes in this role. Other than this, the Executive and Analysts team role is also in highlight with an expert team role as well (Test.Com, 2018).
VARK Questionnaire is a learning preference identifier tool which helps in the identification of the learning preferences of each. The Questionnaire was developed in 1998 by Lincoln which is based on three principles. Firstly, everyone can teach academic issues, however everyone has its learning style. Secondly, the motivation of the learner is increased if various learning styles are utilised. Lastly, educational concepts are learned via the use of different perceptions and senses. The four sensory modes through which individuals acquire knowledge are vision, reading/writing, auditory, and kinesthetic. Or in other words, learners can learn from projection, experience, contemplation, and accomplishment (Banghart, 2013).
The VARK instrument is used for the response and interaction to the learning environment for the students. It classifies students or learners in four categories. Visuals are the learners who prefer best through observation, like visual presentations, diagrams, figures, and act with other associated matters. The Auditory group is the one who learns best when there are listening and have given verbal instructions. The reading/writing group, similarly, has the best learning ability through the use of taking notes, reading, and writing the texts. Lastly, the kinesthetic group learns best but doing the demonstrations, practices, gaming experience and by physical manipulation of the process (Peyman et al., 2014). My scores for the VARK Questionnaire were.
Visual: 4
Aural: 7
Read/Write: 8
Kinesthetic: 7
The test result suggested that I have a multimodal learning preference. The multimodal learning preference includes the Reading, writing group at most, with Practical learning style and Auditory learning style following it. All in all, the learning preference is a combination of all the sensory uses of the learning tools. It shows I would be better with the use of all senses in learning to use it better (Vark-Learn, 2018).
Part C: The Reflexive Practitioner Storyboard
Critical Incident 1:
Last Month, I and my group fellows took over a practical course which involved identifying several objects in several of the baskets. The activity kicked off, and the group realised that there were so many people, and all were hoarding over the baskets which were making the activity messy, and there was no constructive interaction among the group fellows, and furthermore, the communication was more related to going space to each other. After realising, I took the initiative and offered to solve this problem. Even before solving this problem, I had to make them first see that there is a problem here which needs sorting out. After some time, when I communicated successfully with my group on identifying the problem, which some of them did not accept as a problem and considered more it as me showing my authoritative skills, I managed to make them allow me to solve it. However, first after conveying the realisation that we have a problem here, I asked for their opinions on if anyone knows how to solve it. Some of the members put forward some suggestions while others encouraged to just go with the flow. The suggestions were not as effective as the one I had in mind. I put forward my solution of placing the baskets in four points in the room which would be placed at a definite distance from one another. Further, I suggested that we can establish a system of the route from going from 1 basket to another. We can also set a timer for 10 seconds over each basket in which each of the group fellows can look into the basket and identify its objects. The solution proposed by me was by far the best one, and my group mates approved of it. We decided on four points, and they established a route to go from one basket to another. Then we started all the students to line up randomly. We placed timers with 10 seconds on each booth. After going into two cycles, we get to a better system of turning on and restarting the timer each time one student leaves the booth for another. After establishing the whole system, we educated our group fellows on how this will work. Then I also asked if anyone had any queries or questions. To their complete satisfaction, we started the activity. The first two circles were difficult with people pushing the ones before them after the timer restarts. The timer was also restarted by the one leaving the booth, which was seen as the best choice after going through some struggles where the mismatch between the timers allowed some problems. All in all, the critical incident showed how my behaviour showed innovative skills, driver of the group and being the expert in the group as well. My innovative skills helped me to come up with a creative solution for the problem which was not being solved by my group mates. Furthermore, my role as the driver of the group helped me in motivating group mates to voice their opinions and help in making the system better. I also appreciated their input, which helped me motivate them. Moreover, the team role of driver and innovator helped me achieve the best results for my group as I played to my strengths.
Critical Incident 2:
During my last summer, I worked as an intern in a small company. The company was working as a training organisation by giving services like on the job training and workshops for universities and colleges. I was working there at a time when the company was undergoing a major scholarship program. The company had established a program in which the enrolled students had participated, and they had given exams to pass the scholarship program. The program only took five candidates for the scholarship while the total candidates were eighteen. I and another intern in the supervision of a manager were given the task of looking at the exams, qualifications for scholarships, personal history, academic history, and personality of the candidates and to offer a summarised analysis which would rank them in order of their position. I was given 8 of the candidates to analyse. These candidates regularly visited our office and met their managers to make good acquaintances. Before the task was given to me, I came across two friends who were included in my list of candidates. One of these named John misbehaved with me on two occasions. First, I was late for the office and when I ran towards the lift of the building so that I could get in fast before it shuts down, John purposefully shut the door and made the lift go. The smirk on his face is well remembered by me. Then on another occasion, I left the seat of my workstation on the call of the manager while John was standing outside the room, smoking. When I came back, my file on my desk had a leftover burnt cigarette all over it. I had to re-print that report page to my manager as it burnt a hole in it. These two occasions caused me to be judgmental when giving him the ranks. At first, I did not know how to put it in a file that he is not a good person. However, he had a very good reputation in the office, everyone liked him, and he scored well enough on the exam as well. He was particularly one of the five candidates who was assured that he would be given a scholarship no matter what. However, his attitude towards me clouded my judgment, and I just could not let him pass that rank. So, I ranked him lower based on his personal history. The results when shown to the manager caused much of his attention towards me. He could not apprehend the reason why John could be given any lower ranks. I explained to him that his personal history is not of good reputation. He asked me about it which led me to tell him he is a bully. He said I could not rank him lower only because I think he is a bully; He asked me to provide proof, which I did not have. So naturally, I had to rank him up again. To my good fortune, John did not get to know all the details of his evaluation, and of course, he never suspected he could be deranked.
This incident showed me how my perspective does not make me eligible to pass judgment on someone’s reputation. It also showed me how I could not use my own experiences in formal managerial positions for formal evaluations. The scholarships did not ask for any individual reputation. Thus, I should not have considered it as a factor. Furthermore, my analysis got weakened because of the biases that I came across regarding my own experience with the person.
Another part of this incident was when I lower ranked another person who was punished in his class. While I was looking for any flaws in any of his qualifications and his personal history, I found that he was punished by his schoolteacher quite aggressively. Using this as my proof, I deranked him. The results came out, and he was very disappointed. That person later became my friend, and when I asked about the punishment, he told me it was a whole class thing. They all got punished for someone else faults. From that day onwards I felt really bad for my misjudgment. As I had provided proof, my manager accepted my ranks and disqualified him even with his superb qualification in exam marks. The later revelation showed me that I could be so wrong about someone. My emotions clouded my judgment, and the results were therefore not accurate.
Conclusion:
The research shows how emotions can influence in the form of various modes on the professional identity of a person. The use of Gibbs Stages, VARK questionnaire, and Belbin test helped in identifying the learning preferences, the stages of analysis of a situation, and the team role for me. The results showed me how I could use reflection and self-awareness in realising my strengths and my weaknesses. The realisation would benefit me in better managing my emotions and its influence on my professional identity. The use of the combination of sensory learning preferences would enable me to participate in managerial work better and to understand my team role better as well. The team role of innovator, the driver, and expert is also identified by me who shows how I can contribute to the team by using my strengths and can better help the team by not exposing my weaknesses in the team role. The research showed how several situations ask for various strategies to be implemented, and how different personalities with different emotions can react to it. Thus, self-reflection can help us in managing it.
References:
Banghart, S.G. (2013) Exploring Professional Identity, 1 June, [Online], Available: https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com.pk/&httpsredir=1&article=1016&context=cmnt [6 December 2018].
Bolton, G. (2010) Reflective Practice, Writing and Professional Development, SAGE Publications.
Caza, B.B. and Creary, S.J. (2016) The Construction of Professional Identity, 1 Janaury, [Online], Available: https://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1875&context=articles [6 December 2018].
Dewey, J. (1910) ‘The Problem of Training Thought’, in How We Think.
Gardner, F. (2007) Practising Critical Reflection: A Resource Handbook: A Handbook, McGraw Hill Education.
Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by Doing: a guide to teaching and learning methods, Futher Education Unit.
Houdek, P. (2017) ‘Professional Identity and Dishonest Behavior’, Society, vol. 54, no. 3, May, pp. 253-260.
Khapova, S.N., Arthur, M.B., Wilderom, C.P.M. and Svensson, J.S. (2007) ‘Professional identity as the key to career change intention’, Career Development International, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 584-595.
Lewis, L. (2011) Organizational Change: Creating Change Through Strategic Communication, John Wiley & Sons.
Peyman, H., Sadeghifar, J., Khajavikhan, J., Yasemi, M., Rasool, M., Yaghoubi, Y.M., Nahal, M.M.H. and Karim, H. (2014) ‘Using VARK Approach for Assessing Preferred Learning Styles of First Year Medical Sciences Students: A Survey from Iran’, Journal of Clinical & Diagnotic Research, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 1-4.
Rodgers, C. (2002) ‘Defining Reflection: Another Look at John Dewey and Reflective Thinking’, Teachers College Record, vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 842-866.
Rus, C.L., Tomsa, A.R., Rebega, O.L. and Apostol, L. (2013) ‘Teachers’ Professional Identity: A Content Analysis’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 78, no. 2013, pp. 315-319.
Schon, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books Inc.
Test.Com (2018) Your team roles, [Online], Available: https://www.123test.com/team-roles-test/id=0VBZYSIFHU1B&version= [1 December 2018].
Vark-Learn (2018) The VARK Questionnaire, [Online], Available: http://vark-learn.com/the-vark-questionnaire/?p=results [1 December 2018].
