Abstract
The following will attempt clarify and complexify the notion of reflective practice. Ironically, invocations of reflective practice are often themselves not at all reflective of the consequences associated with where this practice comes from. (Ecclestone 1996) Ignorance of the genealogy of reflective practice risks the practice of reflective practice being insufficiently reflective. Awareness of that geneaology opens reflective practice to more effective techniques that are otherwise missed, whilst also limiting claims about the effectivity of reflective practice more generally. To put this another way, Donald Schon’s notion of reflective practice is appealing because of its pragmatism. Developed from American pragmatist philosophies, John Dewey in particular, with the specific aim of capturing the pragmatism of design as a creative problem-solving expertise, reflective practice, as reflection- in-action, happens in and as the everyday of designing. For this reason, there is a danger of assuming that by merely being a designer one is always already a reflective practitioner, without having to act any differently. This is not just a misreading of Schon, but also a misreading of pragmatism, which I hope to show always has a romantic heart, by which I mean an element of affectively formative willing – i.e., romanticism in the philosophic sense.1 Reflective practices are how designers design, but they must also be designed, and, according to the philosophies grounding the notion of reflection, designed in ways that are more ambitious than the everyday pragmatics of designing.
Citation
Tonkinwise, C. (2004) The Idealist Practice of Reflection: Typologies, Techniques and Ideologies for Design Researchers., in Redmond, J., Durling, D. and de Bono, A (eds.), Futureground - DRS International Conference 2004, 17-21 November, Melbourne, Australia. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2004/researchpapers/176
The Idealist Practice of Reflection: Typologies, Techniques and Ideologies for Design Researchers.
The following will attempt clarify and complexify the notion of reflective practice. Ironically, invocations of reflective practice are often themselves not at all reflective of the consequences associated with where this practice comes from. (Ecclestone 1996) Ignorance of the genealogy of reflective practice risks the practice of reflective practice being insufficiently reflective. Awareness of that geneaology opens reflective practice to more effective techniques that are otherwise missed, whilst also limiting claims about the effectivity of reflective practice more generally. To put this another way, Donald Schon’s notion of reflective practice is appealing because of its pragmatism. Developed from American pragmatist philosophies, John Dewey in particular, with the specific aim of capturing the pragmatism of design as a creative problem-solving expertise, reflective practice, as reflection- in-action, happens in and as the everyday of designing. For this reason, there is a danger of assuming that by merely being a designer one is always already a reflective practitioner, without having to act any differently. This is not just a misreading of Schon, but also a misreading of pragmatism, which I hope to show always has a romantic heart, by which I mean an element of affectively formative willing – i.e., romanticism in the philosophic sense.1 Reflective practices are how designers design, but they must also be designed, and, according to the philosophies grounding the notion of reflection, designed in ways that are more ambitious than the everyday pragmatics of designing.