Social workers’ use of critical reflection

Abstract

Summary

This article explores critical reflection as practiced by social workers in the context of their personal and professional privilege. It was found that social workers in direct practice were not invested in critical reflection about oppressive discourses in their consciousness when interacting with clients. Rather, critical reflection often happened in times of crises or when social workers encountered difficult client situations. Using the phenomenological methodology of Van Manen and the social constructionist perspective, I present and discuss the findings of a qualitative study of semi-structured interviews with 20 social workers in direct practice.

Findings

Data analysis indicated that critical reflection is not a priority for direct practice social workers in the context of privilege. Three themes are identified: (1) No time for reflection, (2) Fear of reflection, and (3) Too much reflection. Nevertheless, social workers were still able to reflect alone, with colleagues and with supervisors, and they outlined the benefits of reflection.

Applications

Social work agencies should provide infrastructure for reflection, create an atmosphere for workers to freely discuss challenges and difficulties, and reduce their fear of reprisals from management. This article broadens the idea of phenomenological reflection by Van Manen.

Keywords

Social work critical reflection critical social work best practice anti-oppressive practice managerialism

Introduction

Reflection is one of the most fundamental needs of social work practitioners. Indeed, most social work codes of ethics tout the importance of reflection in the education and practice of social workers (Australian Association of Social Workers, 2003; British Association of Social Workers, 2014; Canadian Association of Social Workers, 2005), yet there is no formal mechanism to ensure that it happens in practice. Reflection goes beyond thinking. Where thinking may be a review of decisions, actions, or experiences, reflection is a deeper and more thorough examination of all these. Critical reflection involves “the use of reflective abilities with respect to power and its complex expressions” in the relationship and interaction between the worker and client (Ferguson, 2018, p. 3). For instance, there could be imbalances of power between worker and client based on their social identities in terms of race, class, gender, sex, sexual orientation, and ability—on which privilege is predicated. Privilege is also based on the hierarchical position of the social worker and the power inherent in their practicing agencies (Baines, 2000). In this way, the social worker holds privilege over clients as they have the power to determine a variety of things, including, but not limited to service delivery and provision, access to certain resources and advocacy efforts. Critical reflection is important in order to ensure that power is used as ethically as possible and to eliminate or minimize the possibility of harm and oppression (Ferguson, 2018; Mullaly & West, 2018). Critical reflection requires the social worker to be self-aware and self-critical, to recognize and analyze what they think and do in practice, and to learn from experience (Howe, 2009; Kondrat, 1999).

While it is essential to good social work practice, little research exists to track the process of reflection in practice. This article seeks to contribute by reviewing findings from a research study exploring the experiences of privilege by direct practice social workers in Canada. It adds to the literature of critical reflection in the context of privilege. It also has a significant implication for phenomenological reflection, which is a reflection on everyday life (Van Manen, 1997).

Critical reflection and privilege

In the social science and social work literature, privilege is largely understood as an unearned asset or status that is based on social identities, which translates into advantages, opportunities, benefits, or access to societal resources for those to whom it is assigned (Anderson & Middleton, 2011; Ferber, 2010; Greene, 2010; Mullaly, 2010; Mullaly & West, 2018). Most writings on privilege suggested the need for critical reflection, reflexivity, and critical consciousness—all terms used interchangeably—as the strategy for social workers to address privilege and improve professional practice (D’Cruz et al., 2007; Freire, 1968/1970; Middleton et al., 2009; Yip, 2006). Critical reflection involves having an understanding of one’s personal location or placement in society, the role of personal bias in practice, cognition and emotion, and the practitioner’s action and power in knowledge creation (Anderson & Middleton, 2011; D’Cruz et al., 2007). Noble and Sullivan (2009) stated that social workers use reflective practice methods to examine their practice in order to adjust to the complexities of clients’ realities and presenting problems, while Fook (2002) suggested that reflective practice implies that practitioners are open to new ideas and are both willing and able to develop creative responses to these ideas.

During the process of critical reflection, professionals engage in a process of critical self-evaluation, self-dialogue, and self-analysis about how their own practice, values, feelings, personality, interests, preferences, backgrounds, and experiences are shaped by external social, political, cultural, and service contexts, and the impact of all these on clients (Noble & Sullivan, 2009; Yip, 2006). As Pewewardy (2004) summarized it, critical reflection is a deliberate analysis of experiences that may lead social workers to a consciousness that deepens their understanding and choices about future thoughts and behaviors, especially as it relates to the exercise of privilege.

Implicit in the literature on social workers’ privilege is the idea that all social workers are placed higher in the hierarchy of societal privilege relative to their clients who are mostly disadvantaged and oppressed. The title of a social worker itself is earned after years of higher education; a privilege not afforded to many. As such, the critical theory perspective has focused on uncovering power dynamics and the disruption of social, economic, or cultural dominance by one group over another (Brookfield, 2009). But it is important to note that this assumption may not be necessarily true as social workers come from all walks of life, and, therefore, may reflect a wide variety of social and economic standings. Nevertheless, under the critical perspective, practitioners are urged to acknowledge where they are complicit in the perpetuation of oppression and work towards social change through a “process of reflection and refraction” (Jones, 2010, p. 123). In fact, Mullaly (2002) perceived reflection as a continuous internal dialogue that should critique oppressive discourses rooted in one’s consciousness. In that vein, Curry-Stevens (2010) proposed that social workers should reflect on the relations of dominance in the profession and society. Likewise, Nicotera and Kang (2009) suggested that critical consciousness can lead to a challenge of oppression and social injustice. Vodde (2001) asked social work educators to go beyond their personal comfort in order to sensitize their students to issues of power and oppression as well as their experiences with status differences and participation in oppressive systems. Freire (1968/1970) held that the conscientization that could result from a process of critical reflection may lead to societal transformation.

Reflection on personal and professional identities has also been recommended so that practitioners will be more self-aware. For instance, Greene (2010) suggested that social workers should acknowledge the different types of privilege they bring to their daily work and how these privileges impact their professional worldviews and social work outcomes. He encouraged social workers to reflect on their professional expertise as well as their privilege of higher education, employment in a skilled profession, and their ability to financially provide for their families, all of which Lopez (2010) called middle class luxuries. Perhaps not reckoning that clients may also have middle class luxuries, Segal et al. (2010) advised that social workers should reflect on their middle-class identity which may confer racial and economic privileges on them.

Notwithstanding this bias reflection is still regarded as a tool of awareness. Middleton et al. (2009) provided narratives to illustrate how they became aware of their privileges through reflection. Similarly, Ferber (2010) explored her own personal experience as a professional and what it meant to be an ally in order to undermine or disrupt privilege daily. For Mullaly and West (2018), awareness is a strategy for anti-privilege practice at the personal level. Greene (2010) and Lopez (2010) went further by suggesting that social workers should go beyond awareness to question their personal biases and professional values and examine the complexity of working in agencies or institutionalized settings.

Under the social constructionist perspective which is the framework for this study, privilege is not static, and neither are the social identities in which privilege is implanted. Though individuals may belong to different social categories, with all categories interacting in and producing a complex array of experiences, it is through these social processes or interactions, consisting of legal and political, socio-economic and religious institutions, that meanings are assigned to differences (Anderson & Middleton, 2011; Roediger, 2005). The social constructionist perspective recognizes that individuals can construct or create their own experiences within social structures or societal arrangements, in which case the act and art of critical reflection will vary depending on contexts (Brookfield, 2009; Gergen & Gergen, 2003). This complex interaction of identities and contexts informed the idea of using intersectionality as a tool for critical reflection (Mattsson, 2014). To illustrate, Jones (2010) wrote about how to deconstruct privilege through intersectional reflexivity, which means that people must become aware of and acknowledge their intersecting and overlapping identities, whether privileged or marginalized. As a personal example, he expressed that his marginal identity as queer did not exist separately from his privileged identity as a White man, so he has been utilizing his White privilege, male privilege, ability privilege, and other social circumstances that he did not earn or have control over, to fight against sexism, racism, the medical model of disability, as well as to critique heteronormativity, which is the idea that sexual attraction to people of opposite sex is the only normal mode or expression of sexual orientation. Furthermore, Jones (2010) warned against bracketing off or separating personal lives from interpersonal relationships and hoped that practitioners could “peel off their layers of privilege” and engage in alliances with the oppressed (p. 23).

An argument could be made that no one can attain an ultimate level of consciousness regarding their privileged identity no matter how much they engaged in critical reflection (Watt, 2007). Ixer (1999) even insisted that “there’s no such thing as reflection” (p. 513) because reflection, allegedly, has no adequate theory. Ixer further explained that different paradigms of epistemology have offered varying understandings of the concept, making a discussion of reflection complicated. Nevertheless, a counter-argument could be made that a lack of theory or the existence of diverse ways of understanding should not nullify the need for reflection; rather, it should draw more attention to the need to provide a framework for the practice of reflection especially by social workers.

Though there have been many writings on critical reflection, there is less research on how social workers reflect in practice especially in the context of their personal and professional privilege (Ferguson, 2018). The research question posed to participants in this study was: As a social worker, how does your critical reflection on power and privilege enhance your practice, if at all? The probes or sub-questions included:

How do you find opportunities to reflect on issues of power and privilege?

Do you reflect with colleagues, on your own, or in staff or agency meetings?

If there is no opportunity for reflection, why or why not?

If there is opportunity for reflection, what does the conversation sound like?

What is the current dialogue with colleagues about critical reflection?

Methods

To explore the research questions, the hermeneutic phenomenology of Van Manen (1997) was used to describe, interpret, and analyze the phenomenon of privilege as experienced by 20 social workers in various areas of direct social work practice in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. Hermeneutic phenomenology is concerned with the meanings that individuals attach to their lived experiences. This methodology enabled an understanding of the commonalities, differences, and nuances in participants’ views.

Data collection and analysis

Data were collected through purposive sampling of participants based on demographic and professional characteristics (Creswell, 1998). Demographics included age, race, sex, sexual orientation, gender, and religion; while level of education, years of experience, context of practice, and practice approaches constituted professional characteristics. The snowball sampling method was employed by asking initial participants to recommend others who were different from them in terms of gender, sexuality, race, practice settings, and theoretical orientations (Patton, 2002).

Participant demographics

Most participants of the study identified as female (n = 13) and seven were male. Most identified as White (n = 14) and racial diversity included Indigenous (n = 1), Black (n = 3), South Asian (n = 1), and Latino (n = 1). Most self-described as Christians (n = 15), while the rest were Atheist (n = 1), Jewish (n = 1) or Spiritualist (n = 1) and two reported no religious affiliation. Participants’ ages ranged from 25 to 60 years (M = 37.5), and years of practice experience from 1 to 30 years (M = 9.5). Majority of participants were legally married (n = 13) while some were in common law relationships (n = 2). One participant was divorced and four were never married. All 20 participants identified as heterosexual. Most participants (n = 18) had a master’s degree in social work, and two held a Bachelor of Social Work degree in addition to other certificates. Participants’ work settings included: youth justice system (n = 4), hospital—specifically adult mental health and discharge planning departments (n =4), child welfare (n = 3), youth mental health (n = 3), private practice (n = 3), addictions (n = 1), advising at the university level (n = 1), and Indigenous and housing services (n = 1). After the study received institutional ethics clearance, all participants were contacted by email. They each received a $20 gift card in appreciation of their participation in the study (Largent et al., 2012).

Data collection

The semi-structured interview method was used to obtain in-depth descriptions of the personal and professional experiences of participants (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Interviews ranged from 51 to 115 minutes (M: 71 minutes). Probes were also used to clarify both the questions and the participants’ answers. Interview questions were developed from literature and practice wisdom (Koro-Ljungberg, 2008) and conducted face-to-face with participants in their offices where confidentiality was assured. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim (Enosh et al., 2008). All participants’ names were anonymized.

Data analysis

Open coding was used to compile information from the transcripts (Creswell, 1998; Saldana, 2013) and the codes were arranged by using a qualitative data analysis software, Nvivo 11. This software aided an easy retrieval of data as well as the performance of within-case and across-case analysis of codes (Creswell, 1998). Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phases of thematic analysis were used to develop themes. After becoming familiar with the data, initial codes were generated from the observation of emerging patterns in the data. These codes were stored in nodes for easy retrieval in the software. Next, these codes were collated into potential categories and subcategories on which interpretations were made. Then, the themes were reviewed to determine if categories could be broken down further or merged. Narratives were then developed for the themes and a report was produced to represent participants’ lived experience. These themes were sent to all participants for member checking. Two participants could not be reached as their emails bounced back. Thirteen participants responded to confirm the themes. There were no objections regarding the interpretation of themes and findings.

Maintaining credibility and trustworthiness

To ensure that the research was credible, the transcripts of the interviews and themes were sent to participants for review as well as to check for accuracy and resonance of themes to their experiences. Some researchers also checked the progression and appropriateness of the codes, categories, themes, and findings of the study to assess them for consistency and trustworthiness (Lietz et al., 2006). To ensure transferability, which is the ability of readers to relate the findings to their own situations, sufficient contextual and demographic information was provided, along with thick description of participants’ narrative (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

To ensure that the study was dependable and confirmable, an audit trail, a chronological record of the research process and activities that reviewers could examine was maintained (Shenton, 2004). Findings of the study were also presented at two international conferences, first at the Canadian Association for Social Work Education conference in Canada, and the Global Partnership for Transformative Social Work gathering (GPTSW) in the USA, where participants related to many aspects of the study. This article illustrates the findings on critical reflection in the context of social workers’ privilege.

Findings

The findings on the use and importance of critical reflection regarding privilege in social work practice were mixed. While recognizing the value of reflection in social work practice, participants in this study reported that reflection on power and privilege was not a priority for them in their daily practice, unless they encountered difficult client situations. Several participants remarked that they did not think of privilege or reflection until they received the request to participate in this study. Others contended that there was no time for reflection because of their busy daily schedule. Yet others argued that social workers may be reflecting too much in comparison to other helping professionals. Participants also shared the various ways by which they reflected when they did, including reflecting alone, reflecting with colleagues, supervisors, and clients. Furthermore, participants identified some of the benefits of reflection. The following narratives demonstrate participants’ differing viewpoints regarding reflection.

When critical reflection is not a priority

Some of the phrases used by participants to underscore the fact that they did not reflect on the concept of power and privilege included “no, rarely,” “not at all,” and “not a lot.” Five participants admitted that they started reflecting on power and privilege only after receiving the request to participate in the study. Two said they had not even thought about it while one said it was not necessary. This was an indication that some social workers did not make it a priority to reflect on their power and privilege within the context of their practice, and some reasons were adduced for this. The quotes used below are selected examples of the pattern in participants’ responses.

No time for reflection

Thirteen participants proposed that the primary reasons for the lack of reflection were limited time and extensive caseloads. For instance, one social worker in private practice who described himself as a “pretty reflective person” confessed,

I work alone here . . . my practice is hugely busy . . . and I tend to, kind of, move from one client situation to the next, and by the end of the week sometimes . . . on Friday night, I’m asking ‘What happened this week? (P1)

This viewpoint was echoed by seven participants with busy schedules and long waitlists, who revealed that depending on their contexts of practice, social workers only have just enough time to interact with one client before moving on to the next client or crisis. They shared a feeling that their professional time was not their own, but rather organized by their agency’s policies and procedures, leaving little room to design space for critical reflection. Besides, they reflected when problematic situations arose with clients or in the workplace. Moreover, in some agencies, reflection appeared as program review or service planning, in which case social workers would consider the effectiveness of their jobs much more than their power and privilege in relation to their clients.

Fear of reflection

Some participants also identified fear as a reason for why reflecting on power and privilege was not a priority for many social workers. Five participants argued that since social workers are trained to help clients, they focus on their clients’ challenges rather than on themselves. They explained that their privilege and power potentially affect their interactions and relationship with clients as well as their organizational practice in terms of record keeping and provision of resources. All their efforts were reportedly geared towards meeting clients’ needs within the confines of their organizations. A male participant who worked in addiction services submitted that he was too busy “looking” at his clients and fearful to look at himself. He referred to reflection as being difficult and problematic and feared that it would remove him his primary focus and the essence of his employment. The metaphor for reflection was described as “putting a mirror in front of myself” (P2). The fear associated with putting that mirror on the social worker was related to how hard it was to display or release emotions, whether it was happiness, sadness, or disappointment. There was a need to constantly keep oneself in check and not exhibit these emotions to clients or co-workers because they might be considered unprofessional.

According to three participants, the fear of reflection was also related to the workplace. They explained that when questions arose relating to the position and processes of social work practice in particular agencies, finding answers to those questions could create “more work” for them. Attempting to answer may also incur the wrath of supervisors or management, thereby putting the social worker’s position or employment in the agency at risk. For one respondent who worked in a hospital setting, there was a constant “fear of repercussions from management” (P3). Though he personally admitted that reflection was valuable, he maintained that it was always not valuable.

Too much reflection

Twelve participants wondered if social workers reflected too much on their power and privilege in comparison to other helping professionals, like nurses and psychologists. It appeared that the continuous aspect of critical reflection made it exhausting to workers. Two participants, especially, pointed out that because reflection is a major component of social work training, they had their fair share of reflection exercises as students. They claimed that they did not know if other professionals reflect on their power and privilege as social worker do. Three of them added that they did so much reflection and journaling during their training that they were tired of all the required processing by the end of their social work education. However, during the interview, one participant who had practiced social work for five years in various units of a hospital admitted that she was beginning to realize that critical reflection is more important at this stage of her career and she would do more reflection on power and privilege.

It is also worth noting that even after providing various reasons for why critical reflection was not ordinarily a priority, 14 participants went on to explain how they reflected on privilege and power especially after encountering “difficult” or challenging clients and situations. Some clients have challenged social workers’ sense of power and position. They have also challenged agency policies, procedures, and practices, especially regarding eligibility for services and the resources provided. Yet, others have challenged the inadequate number of therapeutic sessions available to meet clients’ needs. Some clients have also challenged the scheduling of their appointments for therapy.

How social workers reflected

Participants reported diverse ways of reflecting on power and privilege. Most of them revealed that they reflected alone, while some reflected with colleagues, supervisors, and clients. Yet many participants combined these separate ways of reflection on their practice without preferring one way to another. The following examples describe each of these methods.

Reflecting alone

Eight participants reported reflecting alone because they worked alone either in their social work agencies or private practices. Their responses highlighted their self-reflection as introspection, a process one explained as “go(ing) into yourself and saying ‘Oh, did I do something really wrong?’” (P4). Likewise, a participant who worked in youth mental health, explained that she reflected alone most times because there were no other social workers around, which “resulted in isolation” (P5). Though she was working in an agency, her practice was essentially individualized. She explained that she made her own assumptions about clients, wrote recommendations and reports, and did not debrief or reflect with anyone else or solicit for other workers’ opinions because she trusted her own instinct, and there had been no complaints by clients or the organization.

Twelve participants also revealed that they reflected alone through documentation and journaling. Through this process, they were able to spill their thoughts on the page in order to clarify them, sort through their emotions, and catalogue their successes, failures, questions and insights. They reported that journaling facilitated their personal and professional growth as it helped them to improve their focus and be honest with themselves.

Reflecting with colleagues

Ten participants reflected with their colleagues both formally in group settings, and informally as casual one-on-one interactions. Group settings included group meetings, peer supervision and consultation, case conferences, and special committees. One participant reflected on power and privilege as part of an anti-oppressive practice committee at work, where they engaged in reflective and critical writings about their interactions with clients and families, while another talked about experiencing a “huge free flow of ideas” in peer supervision as colleagues discussed what could be done to improve client interactions (P6). Furthermore, three participants in private practice reportedly found opportunities sometimes for peer consultation and reflection.

Moreover, participants suggested that informal reflection through individual casual interactions included having a few chosen and trusted colleagues with whom one could vent. One participant reported enjoying “reciprocity and interaction” with some colleagues who understood and would provide her with uncensored input. Four others regarded their spouses and friends who work in other social service agencies as colleagues with whom they reflected while respecting client confidentiality.

Reflecting with supervisor

Some participants reflected with supervisors mostly at scheduled supervisory meetings. However, 11 participants reported that reflection with supervisors did not happen as regularly or as proactively as they would prefer. Some of them disclosed that even when scheduled, it was often rescheduled or cancelled. Other participants revealed that supervisors were usually “too busy” even when available; as such, social workers were left to figure out their own paths. They noted, however, that supervisors were usually available during crises.

Four participants who were supervisors in their workplaces pointed out that student supervision had become an integral part of their opportunity for critical reflection. They revealed that social work students in placement often asked questions regarding values, biases, ethics, skills, intervention processes, client backgrounds, and practice dilemmas, which would literally propel reflection with them.

Lastly, four participants also highlighted that they engaged in reflection with their clients as an evaluation of service. This would usually be at the end or termination stage of therapy. They revealed that their agencies have standardized process and forms for this evaluation. They also admitted that though power and privilege had never been the focus of this particular exercise, the feedback of clients may indicate some issues to consider or areas of improvement for the social worker and the agency as a whole.

Benefits of reflection

Several participants outlined the benefits of reflection. For them, reflection increased awareness, promoted empathy and humility, de-stressed the practitioner, and enhanced practice. With respect to awareness, participants reported that through critical reflection, they were able to recognize and understand more about their social identities, as well as their professional power, relative to their clients’.

Second, with respect to the promotion of empathy and humility, some participants claimed that reflection enabled them to consider the unique challenges of their clients and examine, reduce, and resolve barriers between themselves and their clients. Reflection also made them more sensitive and responsive to their clients and colleagues. Another dimension to humility brought up by participants was the possibility of being dismissed from their jobs if they did not perform their duties effectively. They admitted to reflecting often about how they could ethically fulfill all their social work obligations regarding clients.

Third, with respect to reflection as a stress buster, some participants who worked with clients in complex traumatic situations claimed that taking some time to reflect helped them to prevent some physical and psychological implications of stress. They reiterated that reflection enables social workers to debrief and release their own emotions, instead of internalizing stress. Lastly, participants reported that reflection enhanced social work practice by enabling social workers to be more effective in identifying and implementing successful interventions. Some of them disclosed that they used reflection to guide their practice and work through their self-doubt.

For most participants, there were no specific times set aside for reflection. However, reflection occurred with all participants and in all agencies during crisis moments. Many participants suggested that social workers should have an open dialogue about power and privilege and social work agencies should endeavor to incorporate reflection into their weekly schedule.

Discussion

Contrary to literature, this study found that social workers in direct practice were not invested in critical reflection about oppressive discourses when interacting with clients, and neither were they involved in outlining their complicity in the dynamics of oppression (Curry-Stevens, 2010; Jones, 2010). Rather, they were trying to actively listen to clients’ stories in order to forge plans of care that would be appropriate in resolving clients’ challenges. Nevertheless, critical reflection often happened in times of crisis, or when participants encountered difficult client situations. This difficulty may not necessarily be related to the intersecting identities of workers and clients or the collaboration of social workers with societal power structures but with the complexity of client problems, attitudes, disposition, and challenges. However, consistent with the literature, it was obvious that participants understood their structured position of power (Baines, 2000; Mullaly & West, 2018), though there was no indication that they challenged the status-quo at work or in the wider society. Instead, they worked within and around the system in ways that benefited their clients.

In this study, critical reflection was not a priority for participants because they were too busy with the daily demands of their jobs. This finding supports Thompson and Pascal (2012) who also noted the paucity of time for reflection and how practitioners have regarded reflection as an unrealistic goal within the managerialist culture of most human service organizations. However, social workers must recognize that one makes time for things they deem important, especially as participants also acknowledged that a lack of reflection poses a threat to professional autonomy in the working environment. Social workers should entertain the idea that even in a market-oriented neoliberal world, critical reflection is good practice, and that the ability to reflect can be perceived as a protest or reaction to managerialism.

Interestingly, some participants connected fear with reflection, and a White male hospital social worker mentioned the fear of repercussions from management as the primary reason for not reflecting on his work and privilege. Perhaps the fear here relates to this participant’s focus on keeping his job or professional status. This revealed that possibilities exist for someone with “interlocking structural privilege” (Tisdell, 1995, p. 46) in terms of race, gender, and class to be afraid and unable to exercise privilege to challenge the status-quo not just for themselves but also for others. This finding may also support the notion put forth by Ferguson (2018) that practitioners may avoid reflection as a means of self-defense against the sensory and emotional impact of their work and the high anxiety they might be experiencing. He called it “internal supervision,” which may indicate emotional intelligence on their part, making their work “bearable and doable” (p. 10). Following Ferguson, one could argue that the participant, for instance, recognized the limit of reflection and identified the situation where critical reflection was “not possible, desirable or beneficial” and had to “psychically protect” himself in order to do his job (p. 10). Further studies may be needed to examine the implication of the fear of repercussion regarding reflection in social work and social service agencies.

Furthermore, this study revealed that reflection does not need to be solitary or uniform, or even organized in any formal way for social workers. One could reflect individually and in group settings as circumstances dictate. Indeed, peer reflection and peer supervision could be more valuable than self-reflection and clinical supervision as practitioners could easily and freely share thoughts and opinions, while providing or receiving feedback and constructive criticism without feeling evaluated, judged, or documented. This study also found that the definition of peers and colleagues could include friends and family members in allied human and social service fields.

Moreover, this study found that social work students in field placement provided opportunities for reflection for their supervisors irrespective of their busy schedules. Reflection on power and privilege often happened when students in placements asked questions about agency mandates, processes, and practices, including worker–client relationships and agency operations. Perhaps, this method—internship students as pathway to reflection—should be recognized and harnessed to encourage more established social workers to engage in critical reflection.

Finally, the results of this study broaden the idea of phenomenological reflection by Van Manen (1997) who regarded phenomenology as the reflection on everyday life but went a step further to declare that “phenomenological reflection is not introspective but retrospective” (p. 10). Like Husserl (1970), he argued that one only reflects on what has happened as opposed to what one is living through in the present moment. His declaration that true introspection was not possible is not supported by participants in this study. Not only did these participants reflect retrospectively, they also reflected introspectively as they negotiated their interactions with clients in real time. They regarded the power of introspection as the awareness of present moment interaction, where one could affect immediate change in the tenor or direction of dialogue with clients. It is in the present moment where social workers usually observe and reflectively calibrate their responses to clients. If reflection cannot be introspective, the ability to recognize the process and effects of one’s interaction with others would be limited, if not problematic. Retrospection, on the other hand, cannot reverse present moment actions, it can only contain a promise to do better in the future—to listen more attentively to clients, and to suspend negative judgments, or eliminate pre-judgments. Retrospection will always be relevant as an evaluation of the service provided, but social workers also need introspection.

It is worth noting that participants in this study reflected retrospectively, introspectively, and proactively, as they anticipated and planned for future interactions with specific clients. The idea of introspective reflection relates to what Thompson and Pascal (2012) referred to as reflection-in-action, while the retroactive reflection discussed here relates to reflection-on-action, and proactive reflection is reflection-for-action. Social workers reflect at different levels and engage in self-analysis in the social, political, and cultural contexts of their practice to ensure that their action conform to their profession’s knowledge and value bases (Fook, 2002; Thompson & Pascal, 2012).

Implications

This study has implications for research, education, and practice. In terms of research, there is value and benefit in critical reflection when it is done; however, there were conflicting responses regarding the ability to do so. Important research opportunities exist in exploring these gaps in capacity in order to make recommendations to employers and workers to support critical reflection. For example, future research could include pre- and post-surveys with workers engaged in direct practice focused on critical reflection. Further, through highlighting specific improvements in client and worker outcomes, perhaps more research could suggest promising practices both within and beyond the workplace.

Second, social work education offers regular opportunity for reflection and the classroom is still an ideal place to practice critical reflection and to set up strong habits for students who will become future professionals. This implication is especially highlighted in the disconnect between the potential that the respondents saw in reflection and the lack of opportunity to practice it. The classroom could be a place for students to explore this potential future resistance and to brainstorm with instructors and educators on how to ensure that the practice of critical reflection remains.

Lastly, as each of the participants in this study was a social worker, this article allows practitioners to hear from their peers and to perhaps empathize with the struggle to be critically reflective. As social workers are required to update licenses, opportunity exists to consciously infuse critical reflection into regular practice and professional development activity. Another possibility for practitioners may include adding reflection into supervision sessions and into intentional discussions with peers and colleagues, conscientiously promoted by social work agencies.

Limitations of the study

The process of this inquiry was influenced by the researcher’s lived experience as a Black male social worker with a decade of direct social work practice in Canada. Even though there was an engagement in the act of bracketing and writing reflective field notes during the research process (Creswell, 1998; Van Manen, 1997), one’s social location, subjectivities, theoretical orientation, and framework (Koro-Ljungberg, 2008) would indicate that the findings are technically provisional. Similarly, all feedback from participants only revealed their own lenses and experiences.

Despite the attempts to ensure credibility and trustworthiness of this research, the phenomenological method is regarded as a methodology without codified procedures (Moustakas, 1994). Likewise, there is no formula for critical reflection (Fook, 2015). The implication is that both the methodology and the topic, as important as they are, are fluid, and the findings derived are thereby contingent on the contexts of study participants. As such, the findings cannot be representative of the experiences of all social workers in Canada or elsewhere. Lastly, though transferability, which is the extent to which the findings of this study can apply to other situations (Shenton, 2004) is attainable, as in other qualitative research, generalization of this study is impossible (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).

Conclusion

This article has highlighted the importance of critical reflection to social workers even when it has not been a priority for some of them in many instances. The three themes discussed were: no time for reflection, fear of reflection, and too much reflection. This article also examined how social workers reflected alone, with colleagues and supervisors as well as the benefits of critical reflection when it happened. The author’s view is that critical reflection has implication for social work practice, education and research, and that social work agencies should provide an infrastructure or process for reflection.

In closing, it is recommended that critical reflection should not be regarded as an intimidating exercise. Rather, it should be considered as a constituent part of practice with many benefits to clients and practitioners. In addition, critical reflection does not need to be a solitary exercise as it could be practiced in groups or during supervision. It is also not merely retrospective but equally introspective; and social workers can also reflect proactively to prepare for client encounters and plan intervention strategies accordingly. Lastly, social work agencies should encourage and promote reflection in such a way that social workers will not fear reprisals from management, but they will feel supported to do their jobs effectively.

Footnotes

Ethics

Ethical approval for this project was given by the Research Ethics Board of the University of Windsor (REB #14-268).

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC# 618555).

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Naomi Levitz, Tolulola Taiwo Hanna, Dr David Harrison, Dr Rick Csiernik, and the anonymous reviewers and editor of this journal for their questions, comments, and suggestions on many drafts of this article.

ORCID iD

Akin Taiwo

References

Anderson

S. K.

Middleton

V. A.

(2011). Explorations in diversity: Examining privilege and oppression in a multicultural society. Cengage Learning.

Australian Association of Social Workers. (2003). Practice standards for social workers: Achieving outcomes. www.aasw.asn.au/document/item/16

Baines

(2000). Everyday practices of race, class and gender: Struggles, skills, and radical social work. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 11(2), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1300/J059v11n02_02

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

British Association of Social Workers. (2014). The code of ethics for social work: Statement of principles. http://cdn.basw.co.uk/upload/basw_112315-7.pdf

Brookfield

(2009). The concept of critical reflection: Promises and contradictions. European Journal of Social Work, 12(3), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691450902945215

Canadian Association of Social Workers. (2005). Code of ethics. http://www.casw-acts.ca/practice/codeofethics_e.pdf

Creswell

J. W.

(1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage.

Curry-Stevens

(2010). Journeying toward humility: Complexities in advancing pedagogy for the privileged. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 16(1), 61–72. http://www.reflectionsnarrativesofprofessionalhelping.org/index.php/Reflections/index

10.

D’Cruz

Gillingham

Melendez

(2007). Reflexivity, its meanings and relevance for social work: A critical review of literature. British Journal of Social Work, 37(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcl001

11.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y.S.

(Eds). (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.

12.

Enosh

Ben-Ari

Buchbinder

(2008). Sense of differentness in the construction of knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(3), 450–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800407311962

13.

Ferber

(2010). Unlearning privilege and becoming an ally: It is never too young to start. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 16(1), 133–139. http://www.reflectionsnarrativesofprofessionalhelping.org/index.php/Reflections/index

14.

Ferguson

(2018). How social workers reflect in action and when and why they don’t: The possibilities and limits to reflective practice in social work. Social Work Education, 37(4), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2017.1413083

15.

Fook

(2002). Social work: Critical theory and practice. Sage.

16.

Fook

(2015). Reflective practice and critical reflection. In Lishman

(Ed.), Handbook for practice learning in social work and social care: Knowledge and theory (3rd ed., pp. 440–453). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

17.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. Ramos, Trans.). Herder & Herder. (Original work published 1968).

18.

Gergen

K. J.

(2003). Social construction: A reader. Sage.

19.

Greene

(2010). Naming privilege in a justice-centered social work practice. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 16(1), 147–150. http://www.reflectionsnarrativesofprofessionalhelping.org/index.php/Reflections/index

20.

Howe

(2009). A brief introduction to social work. Palgrave.

21.

Husserl

(1970). The idea of phenomenology. Martinus Nijhoff.

22.

Ixer

(1999). There’s no such thing as reflection. British Journal of Social Work, 29(4), 513–527. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/29.4.513

23.

Jones

R. G.

(2010). Putting privilege into practice through “intersectional reflexivity”: Ruminations, interventions, and possibilities. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 16(1), 122–125. http://www.reflectionsnarrativesofprofessionalhelping.org/index.php/Reflections/index

24.

Kondrat

M. E.

(1999). Who is the “self” in “self-aware”: Professional self-awareness from a critical theory perspective. Social Service Review, 73(4), 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1086/514441

25.

Koro-Ljungberg

(2008). A social constructionist framing of the research interview. In Gubrium

?0026; Holstein

(Eds), Handbook of social constructionism (pp. 429–444). Guilford Press.

26.

Largent

E. A.

Grady

Miller

F. G.

Wertheimer

(2012). Money, coercion, and undue inducement: Attitudes about payments to research participants. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 34(1), 1–8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4214066/

27.

Lietz

C. A.

Langer

C. L.

Furman

(2006). Establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research in social work. Qualitative Social Work, 5(4), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325006070288

28.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

29.

Lopez

(2010). The search for a middle ground. Reflections: Narratives of professional helping, 16(1), 39–45. http://www.reflectionsnarrativesofprofessionalhelping.org/index.php/Reflections/index

30.

Mattsson

(2014). Intersectionality as a useful tool: Anti-oppressive social work and critical reflection. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 29(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109913510659

31.

Middleton

V. A.

Anderson

S. K.

Banning

J. H.

(2009). The journey to understanding privilege: A meta-narrative approach. Journal of Transformative Education, 7(4), 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344610386868

32.

Moustakas

(1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage.

33.

Mullaly

?0026; West

(2018). Challenging oppression and confronting privilege: A critical approach to anti-oppressive and anti-privilege theory and practice (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

34.

Mullaly

(2010). Challenging oppression and confronting privilege (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

35.

Nicotera

Kang

(2009). Beyond diversity courses: Strategies for integrating critical consciousness across social work curriculum. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 29(2), 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841230802240738

36.

Noble

Sullivan

(2009). Is social work a distinctive profession? Students, supervisors and educators reflect. Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, 11(1), 90–108. http://vuir.vu.edu.au/id/eprint/4493

37.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

38.

Pewewardy

N. L.

(2004). Discourse regarding White privilege: Critical content for transformational social work education [Doctoral dissertation]. Proquest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI 3115206). https://search-proquest-com.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca/docview/305317320?pq-origsite=summon

39.

Roediger

D. R.

(2005). Working toward Whiteness: How America's immigrants became White: The strange journey from Ellis Island to the suburbs. Basic Books.

40.

Saldana

(2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.

41.

Segal

E. A.

Gerdes

K. E.

Stromwall

L. K.

Napoli

(2010). Privilege through empathy. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 16(1), 79–87. http://www.reflectionsnarrativesofprofessionalhelping.org/index.php/Reflections/index

42.

Shenton

A. K.

(2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/efi-2004-22201

43.

Thompson

Pascal

(2012). Developing critically reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 12(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2012.657795

44.

Tisdell

E. J.

(1995). Creating inclusive adult learning environments: Insights from multicultural education and feminist pedagogy. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Information Series No. 361. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED384827.pdf

45.

Van Manen

(1997). Researching lived experience. Althouse Press.

46.

Vodde

(2001). De-centering privilege in social work education: Whose job is it anyway? Race, Gender & Class, 7(4), 139–160. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/41955731

47.

Watt

S. K.

(2007). Difficult dialogues, privilege, and social justice: Uses of the privileged identity exploration (PIE) model in student affairs practice. College Student Affairs Journal, 26(2), 114–126. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ899385.pdf

48.

Yip

(2006). Self-reflection in reflective practice: A note of caution. British Journal of Social Work, 36(5), 777–788. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch323