Being, knowing, and doing: A model for reflexivity in social constructionist practices

Noble, K., & McIlveen, P. (2012). Being, knowing, and doing: A model for reflexivity in social constructionist practices. In

P. McIlveen & D. E. Schultheiss (Eds.), Social constructionism in vocational psychology and career development. (pp. 105-

113). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

CHAPTER 8

KAREN NOBLE AND PETER MCILVEEN

BEING, KNOWING, AND DOING: A MODEL FOR

REFLEXIVITY IN SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST

PRACTICES

The social constructionist approach is philosophically and practically different to the

traditional, tried-and-tested theories and practices of career development which generations

of students, researchers and practitioners have learned, implemented, evaluated, for their

needs in various contexts. After 100 years, the endeavour of the field has produced a rich

intellectual and professional bounty to celebrate and, moreover, to share with one another.

Indeed, it is the familiarity of this tradition and lore of taken-for-granted ideas and practices

that foster conventions of “being, knowing and doing” that underpin a sense of assuredness

in conducting one’s profession as a member of a community in which everyone knows

what to do and what not to do. For example, the notion of conducting a semi-structured

interview with a client in counselling and administering psychometrically sound measures

of interests, skills, and abilities to further explore themes drawn from the interview data,

and then providing a synthesis of all the data to the client as a way of informing action

plans and decisions, is taken for granted; it is what is done in traditional approaches—no

surprises there. There are volumes of research articles and text books, and countless

opportunities for professional development courses that focus upon what is already well

known and well regarded in the field, but this state of affairs is not so for the social

constructionist approach. Social constructionism in the field of career development is

(relatively) new and its conceptual, empirical, and practical manifestations are very much

works in progress in this nascent stage of its evolution as a paradigm. Indeed, the purpose

of this book is to further articulate social constructionism as a relatively new approach to

the science and practice of career development and offer alternative perspectives for its

development.

Toward Reflexive Practice

In this chapter, we focus upon the scholar of social constructionism—the student,

the researcher, the practitioner, the person—who seeks to pragmatically implement its

principles in his/her field of practice, whether it be the academy, the classroom, or the

counselling centre. The term scholar is used in the broadest sense to connote those

individuals who are engaged in the learning and relearning of social constructionism

conceptually and pragmatically in research, teaching, and practice. Thus, by way of an

ending to this book, we do not rehearse what our fellow authors have already quite deftly

presented as a suite of theories and propositions that offer fresh perspectives on social

constructionism and ways to go further. Instead, we aim to extend this research endeavour

by focusing upon how scholars who constitute the field of vocational psychology and

career development can make meaning from social constructionism as a way of being,

knowing, and doing. Accordingly, we present a model that may be used as a framework to

support critical reflection and learning, and two methods that operationalise the model.

The model and methods manifests notions of the epistemology of practice

(Polkinghorne, 1992) and reflective practice (Schön, 1983); yet it goes further in a shift

from reflective practice as mere self-observation toward a process of reflexivity

demonstrated as critical consciousness, learning, transformation, and action, amidst the

discourse and practices that constitute social constructionism. Furthermore, the model

assumes the radical proposition that the same discourses and practices of social

constructionism are constitutive of reflexivity, whereby critical consciousness, learning,

transformation, and action are themselves processes of social construction. Thus, there is

an ineluctable subjectivity and paradoxical solipsism in which an individual becomes self-

conscious via critical analysis of the discourse and practices that constitute the self-

consciousness per se. This goes to the ontological and epistemological assumption of

KAREN NOBLE AND PETER MCILVEEN

social constructionism that notions such as “reality” and “being” are relationally-, socially-,

culturally-, discursively-mediated phenomena. Thus, critical reflection is not an objectified

process of observing and behaviourally reporting on oneself implementing theoretical

concepts through practices in context.

Model of Reflexivity

In the light of the complexity of professional identity development, it is asserted

that meta-cognitive awareness of how one goes about mobilising discourses to create,

affirm and sustain themselves throughout their experiences in the workplace is critical.

That is, to understand ways of being, knowing and doing vocational psychology, as a

process of professional identity formation (e.g., researcher, teacher, career development

practitioner), has the potential to empower scholars and position them to resist discourses of

power and control. Indeed, it is the overt assertion of “freedom” over “domination” that led

to the development of the model of critical reflection (MOCR) (Noble, Macfarlane, &

Cartmel, 2005). The model was the result of questioning the tensions that compose social

order in the world of work. It emanated from working with staff in a broad range of

education workplaces where the focus was on specifically how problems of identity and

difference were constructed is understood in terms of the conditions of intellectual

production in the social and political environments of practitioners themselves. It is

assumed, therefore, that identity is not understood according to tenets of individualisation,

but rather as formed inherently by social context, narratively in discourses (cf. Savickas,

2011). Thus, from a social constructivist perspective, identity is clearly related to

subjectivity and the formation of selves. These processes are also linked to the social

environment in which people interact and highlight the importance of context.

The four-step model of critical reflection (MOCR) leads practitioners to

deconstruct, confront, theorise and think otherwise about practice.

1. To deconstruct practice is to pull apart the main tenets of theory that govern particular

practices and closely examine its make-up, especially practices that have been enshrined as

‘normal’ and ‘proper’ practice

2. To confront practice issues translates as approaching the issues head on by examining

difficult, previously thought of as ‘untouchable’ topics

3. To theorise is to carefully consider teaching practice at all levels and question what is and

what could be by thinking broadly and by using a range of discourses from which to draw

4. To think otherwise is to challenge oneself to think outside the dominant discursive

framework and come up with other ways, or better ways of thinking about and practising.

(Noble, Macfarlane & Cartmel, 2005, p. 16)

Through examining the diverse yet inter-related contexts against which

practitioners experience the world of work, poststructuralist theory specifically offers

conceptual resources that assist in understanding the production of self and practices in

relation to power within a profession (cf. McIlveen & Patton, 2006; Stead & Bakker, 2010).

In advancing the argument that Foucauldian discourse theory provides a framework for

responding to the questions posed about the construction of the self within the workplace,

as has been outlined in previous chapters, we draw on five interwoven concepts:

subjectivity, discourse, truth, power and self. How the individual is seen by others and by

himself/herself impacts greatly on productivity and performativity (Ball, 2003). Thus, from

a Foucauldian perspective, it is the “constructedness” of professional identity that is taken

up in this section of the chapter.

Discourse, truth, power and self are involved in the construction and interplay of

multiple subjectivities (Foucault, 1977; Weedon, 1997). As subjectivities are socially

constructed, they can be imposed, assumed, resisted or changed through discursive

practices, but, to do so, there is a requisite depth of theoretical and conceptual

understanding alongside skills of critical reflection that work at an individual as well as a

collective level. Two technologies, the technology of power and the technology of self, are

relevant to understanding how individuals are simultaneously positioned by, and choose to

position and understand themselves with regard to, their subjectivisation (Foucault, 1988b).

Therefore reflective practice should be constituted in particular ways that enable critical

reflection to occur at an individual as well as at a collective level.

To understand how individuals engage with, accept, reject, resist or create

particular subjectivities as a result of their workplace experiences requires the provision of

a mechanism by which these understandings and experiences can be communicated easily

BEING, KNOWING, AND DOING: A MODEL FOR REFLEXIVITY IN SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST

PRACTICES

within and across contexts. It may initially appear contradictory to claim allegiance to

social constructivism, and indeed poststructuralist theory, and yet espouse the use of a

particular model for critical reflection to occur at both the individual and collective level.

However, the model is non-prescriptive and open-ended and indeed underpinned by the

notion of “thinking otherwise” (Foucault, 1988a, 1988b; Noble & Henderson, 2008) in

relation to theory and practice. Such thinking otherwise promotes the acceptance of

multiple perspectives and therefore less likely to delimit notions of practice as proper or

improper, and lead to the deconstruction of the binaries that may constitute grand narratives

(Lyotard, 1979/1984) or taken-for-granted truths within a field of practice. Through the use

of language and social interactions with others in terms of challenging the zone of proximal

development (Vygotsky, 1978), it is postulated that individuals may actually achieve a

deeper level of understanding of workplace complexities.

The ability to confront aspects of practice is not an inherent part of the

practitioner’s toolbox. With regard to the practices of career development, we could not

have better explained this point than Prilleltensky and Stead (2011):

Questioning our fundamental values, assumptions, and practices is not something we do

readily. Confronting our unwitting complicity in systems of oppression is painful. And even

after we muster the courage to do so, we are limited by our own biases. This is why we

need to create dialogical spaces where our friends can support us and challenge us at the

same time. The creation of such spaces requires community building and critical reflective

practice. This is a laborious process that can get contaminated by power differentials within

the group and the organization, but the alternative is none too appealing. Silence in the face

of injustice is hardly defensible. Counselors are trained in the art of talking, listening, and

creating safe spaces. We are merely suggesting that we apply that skill not just to our

clients but also to ourselves, as we figure out how cultural norms of individualism seep into

our practice. (p. 17)

Accordingly, it is important to encourage scholars to focus on their own practice and

confront issues that might arise in terms of challenging the dominant discourses at play for

them in relation to their own subjectivity and not merely focusing those of their subjects of

practice. Moreover, it is vital the field, as a broad community of scholars, to not only create

safe spaces for critical reflection, but actively foster such a practice as a way of being,

knowing and doing vocational psychology.

Methods of Reflexivity

In this section we overview two methods of reflexivity that correspond to the

model and respond to the call for critical reflection. The first, autoethnography, is a

research method that is focused upon the experience of the scholar. The second, community

of practice, is focused upon the shared experiences of a group of scholars. Both

operationalise the notion of ways of knowing in the social constructionist paradigm and

foster awareness of being, knowing and doing (Gee, 1996).

Autoethnography

Autoethnography (Ellis & Bochner, 2000) is the research method by which the

researcher studies himself/herself in relation to a particular phenomenon or topic of interest.

Whilst an autoethnographic study may elucidate a phenomenon, it does more to elucidate

the processes by which a researcher creates meaning and knowledge in his/her disciplinary

context. It is the act of “locating the researcher in the research” (du Preez, 2008, p. 509). It

is the rigorous study of a researcher enacting his/her practices as a way of being, knowing,

and doing. Autoethnography is not simply autobiography as an historical or thematic

narrative. Authoethnography draws upon multiple sources of data and entails a theoretical

analysis of the data through narrative. Its function is to both report and theorize, not simply

report.

Autoethnography has only recently appeared in the career development literature

(McIlveen, 2008; McIlveen, Beccaria, du Preez, & Patton, 2010). In his study to

understand why he selected and how made meaning of particular theories of career

development, McIlveen (2007) articulated a narrative analysis that ranged across his

personal development, took into account peak experiences, and sought meaning in music.

By conducting the autoethnographic study, McIlveen deconstructed and confronted taken-

for-granted assumptions regarding the use of theories and the generation of hypotheses in

KAREN NOBLE AND PETER MCILVEEN

research. Rather than recounting an ostensibly rational process underpinning how

particular theories and hypotheses were practiced in the discourse of psychology, the

autoethnographic process highlighted historical personal and emotional influences that were

present within the research endeavour under study. Whilst that autoethnographic study may

be critically taken as an historical post hoc rationalisation, the process of the narrative

analysis generated new understandings of a nexus of self-theory-practice, with each

interpreted as an influence upon one another.

As a way of operationalising social constructionism, autoethnography requires the

scholarly melding of personal experience with disciplinary discourses and practices. Like

other qualitative research methods, autoethnography generates knowledge that is specific to

a phenomenon (i.e., does not furnish generalisation); it is subjective (i.e., the narrative

analysis is written in the author’s voice as a recording of personal experience); and it is

critical (i.e., theory and conventions are brought into question through the narrative

analysis). One of the benefits of autoethnography is that it provides a theoretical analysis

of phenomena that may be rare or inaccessible to traditional methods and researchers, and

that therefore go unexamined in the field.

Autoethnography is an intense form of critical reflection that doubles as a research

method; thus it is proffered as a vehicle for the “organic” construction of knowledge in term

of the epistemology of practice. Although autoethnography requires engagement with

one’s discourses and ways of being, knowing, and doing within context, it is inherently

limited by its being research conducted on the researcher by same researcher. There is a

need for an additional approach that engages scholars acting in a community for their own

collective purposes, in a way akin to participatory action research (cf. McIlveen & Patton,

2010). Community of practice fits that bill.

Community of Practice

Drawing on Gee’s (1996) notion of discourses as “ways of behaving, interacting,

valuing, thinking, believing, speaking, and often reading and writing” (p. viii), it is argued

that the rapidly changing world of work creates a new discourse but often without explicit

knowledge of what that now means or of what it might entail. Issues of identity and

relationships within the workplace are generally not considered in an explicit way

(Henderson & Hirst, 2007) and as Gee explains, discourses involve a “usually taken for

granted and tacit ‘theory’ of what counts as a ‘normal’ person and the ‘right’ ways to think,

feel, and behave” (p. ix). Learning and practising a new discourse can be challenging and

it can effectively exclude others from joining a community. For scholars to unpack tacit

knowledge and make meaning of their experiences in explicit ways the process of critical

reflection provides space for new possibilities to be explored and realised (Moss & Petrie,

2002) and collective engagement in this space affords construction, rather than merely

reproduction, of knowledge.

The concept of communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) has become an influential

one in both formal and informal learning contexts and indeed, there is research that

suggests that the most sustainable communities are those that privilege the social and

academic/cognitive aspects of learning (Barton & Tusing, 2005). Communities of practice

are understood to be characterised by three main tenets: mutual engagement, joint

enterprise and shared repertoire (Wenger, 1998). As such the specific example of such a

community of practice approach provided here, that of the learning circle, attempts to

address a situated approach that is well articulated and where these three tenets are clearly

privileged.

The learning circle privileges interactions and relationships where dialogic

interactions between all participants is an expectation as individuals work collaboratively to

develop enhanced and refined abstract skills. Technologies of power are seen to be

relatively nullified in that individual agency is explicit and that, regardless of professional

positioning, all members of the learning community contribute to the learning of others.

The democratic platform underpinning the learning circle is that all participants are equal

and valued, sharing equitably in the processes as well as the outcomes. Such an approach is

understood as affirming practitioners within and across practice contexts (Noble, 2009) and

creating the space to ‘think otherwise’ about their existing practices.

Within the learning circle approach, scholars should feel supported, personally and

professionally, as well as challenged to strive to move beyond the zone of proximal

development. In fact it is argued that where such a supportive and collaborative context

BEING, KNOWING, AND DOING: A MODEL FOR REFLEXIVITY IN SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST

PRACTICES

exists, self-direction and motivation to improve practice plays out in terms of improved

personal dynamics, addressing potential relationship breakdowns within the work context

and therefore actively ensuring that ongoing learning is not delimited. What is also clear is

that through such a collaborative approach to critical reflection in, on and through action,

individual scholars are more likely to engage critically with the theory practice nexus.

Participants are expected to draw upon their own experiences and learning and demonstrate

a high degree of professional agency (Haigh & Ward, 2004) as they work to support others

on a similar journey.

When critically reflecting with others, scholars must not see themselves as the

repository of objects of knowledge (Moss & Petrie, 2002), but rather engage in a process

that allows them to construct new epistemological understandings that are constantly

informed by theory, practice and research. Dominant discourses can be challenged and

professional and personal growth heightened through critical reflection in collaboration and

indeed learning is more effective when it involves contact with others rather than being a

solitary process (Lovett & Gilmore, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1998). Thus, the

creation of space for and facilitation of a dialogic relationship is critical for collaborative

critical reflection. As stated by Prilleltensky and Stead (2011) in regard to career

development practice, this means “the creation of a safe space where colleagues can share

dilemmas and push each other gently to question basic assumptions, such as what is wrong

with being outside the system and what is good about being within it.” (p. 16-17). In using

the learning circle approach, as a process of working collaboratively in a community of

practice, all participants are afforded opportunities to critically reflect on their experiences

and on their ways of doing, being and knowing within the workplace as a pedagogical place

in their lives and are thus are less constrained by their own beliefs and value systems, and

by the grand narratives that exist as a part of their subjectivity. Accordingly, Fisher (2003)

proposed that dialogue between scholars is necessary to obviate the possibilities for self-

deception which critical reflection as self-reflection invites.

Clinical supervision is a traditional practice in the counselling professions.

Supervision may occur as a dyad of supervisor-supervisee or as a group, perhaps a multi-

disciplinary group. It serves as a way of debriefing, formulating cases, seeking “second

opinions”, and ensuring ethical practice. Despite these important functions, supervision is a

form of professional surveillance and represents the metaphorical knowledge-power

panopticon (Foucault, 1977). On the other hand, community of practice (Wenger, 1998)

may be understood as different to clinical dyadic or group supervision in the sense that the

members of the community are not only focused upon the exigencies of counselling

practice and responding to surveillance, but upon the professional learning needs of the

members of the community. Clinical supervision may focus upon the learning needs of the

supervisee in legitimate functions of professional enculturation (e.g., ensuring that

experiences are interpreted in terms of professional competencies so that they may be

signed-off by the supervisor). Supervision and community of practice are not mutually

exclusive, however it is the clinical demands of practice and the well-being of clients that

are privileged in the dialogue of supervision, rather than the development of the members.

It is within the learning circle of supervision as a community that the epistemology of

practice comes to fruition as a way of generating knowledge by members for members.

CONCLUSION

Social constructionism is a new vista on the notion of career, the role of work in

people’s lives, and the practices of career development. As a paradigm for the field of

vocational psychology and career development it promises a great deal. What will

distinguish between a failure to deliver on the promise and its paradigmatic success is the

generation, articulation, and on-going evaluation of ways of being, knowing, and doing

social constructionist vocational psychology and career development. The chapters in this

book are evidence of the promise writ large. Concomitantly, the chapters are evidence of

appreciable progress toward delivery on the promise. Of course, there is no end in sight;

there never will be; for social constructionism holds that knowledge is ever in flux as an on-

going negotiation on what is deemed “real” and relevant. Indeed, knowledge is itself a

social process and a social product. It is therefore incumbent upon those of us in the field

to actively participate in our social processes as reflective scholars who are members of a

community that cares for itself.

KAREN NOBLE AND PETER MCILVEEN

REFERENCES

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228. doi:

10.1080/0268093022000043065

Barton, D., & Tusing, K. (2005). Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and social context. New York, NY: Cambridge.

du Preez, J. (2008). Locating the researcher in the research: Personal narrative and reflective practice. Reflective Practice,

9(4), 509-519. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In N. K. Denzin &

Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733-768). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Fisher, K. (2003). Demystifying critical reflection: Defining criteria for assessment. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(3), 313-325. doi: 10.1080/0729436032000145167

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). London: Penguin Books (Original

work published 1977). Foucault, M. (1988a). The ethics of care for the self as a practice of freedom. In J. Bernauer & D. Rasmussen (Eds.), The final

Foucault (pp. 1-20). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Foucault, M. (1988b). Technologies of self. In L. Martin, H. Gutman & P. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 16-49). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London: UK: Falmer Press.

Haigh, M., & Ward, G. (2004). Problematising practicum relationships: Questioning the "taken for granted". Australian

Journal of Education, 48(2), 134-148.

Henderson, R., & Hirst, E. (2007). Reframing academic literacy: Re-examining a short-course for 'disadvantaged' tertiary

students. [UNSPECIFIED]. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(2), 25-38. Lovett, S., & Gilmore, A. (2003). Teachers' learning journeys: The quality learning circle as a model of professional

development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(2), 189-211.

Lyotard, J.-F. (1979/1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. McIlveen, P. (2007). The genuine scientist-practitioner in vocational psychology: An autoethnography. Qualitative Research

in Psychology, 4(4), 295-311. McIlveen, P. (2008). Autoethnography as a method for reflexive research and practice in vocational psychology. Australian

Journal of Career Development, 17(2), 13-20.

McIlveen, P., Beccaria, G., du Preez, J., & Patton, W. (2010). Autoethnography in vocational psychology: Wearing your class on your sleeve. Journal of Career Development, 37(3), 599-615. doi: 10.1177/0894845309357048

McIlveen, P., & Patton, W. (2006). A critical reflection on career development. International Journal for Educational and

Vocational Guidance, 6(1), 15-27. McIlveen, P., & Patton, W. (2010). My career chapter as a tool for reflective practice. International Journal for Educational

and Vocational Guidance, 10(3), 147-160. doi: 10.1007/s10775-010-9181-0

Moss, P., & Petrie, P. (2002). From children's services to children's spaces: Public provision, children and childhood. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.

Noble, K. (2009). Understanding workplace bullying in early childhood education contexts: Safeguard the workplace to

address burnout and stress. Berlin, Germany: VDM Verlag. Noble, K., & Henderson, R. (2008). Engaging with images and stories: Using a learning circle approach to develop agency of

beginning 'at-risk' pre-service teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 1-16.

Noble, K., Macfarlane, K., & Cartmel, J. (2005). Circles of change: Challenging orthodoxy in practitioner supervision. Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1992). Postmodern epistemology of practice. In S. Kvale (Ed.), Psychology and postmodernism (pp.

146-165). London: Sage. Prilleltensky, I., & Stead, G. B. (2011). Critical psychology and career development: Unpacking the adjust–challenge

dilemma. Journal of Career Development. doi: 10.1177/0894845310384403

Savickas, M. L. (2011). The self in vocational psychology: Object, subject and project. In P. J. Hartung & L. M. Subich (Eds.), Developing self in work and career: Concepts, cases, and contexts (pp. 17-33). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Society.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Stead, G. B., & Bakker, T. M. (2010). Self in career theory and counselling: a discourse analysis perspective. British Journal

of Guidance & Counselling, 38(1), 45-60. doi: 10.1080/03069880903408646

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard College.

Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.