Gary Rolfe1, Lyn Gardner. 1. School of Health Sciences, University of Wales, Swansea, UK. g.rolfe@swan.ac.uk
Abstract
AIM: This study explores and extends some recent Foucauldian critiques of reflection and clinical supervision in nursing. BACKGROUND: Although reflection is often accepted uncritically, several writers have claimed that it is being employed (albeit perhaps unwittingly) as a management tool to facilitate the governmentality of the workforce by establishing conditions whereby so-called reflective practitioners monitor and regulate their own practice in an essentially self-repressive way. EVALUATION/EXAMINATION: We evaluated these critiques and extended them with reference to Foucault's later writing, particularly on the 'care of self'. KEY ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS: Our exploration of these critiques prompted us to distinguish between two different projects of reflection, which we term the ontological and the epistemological. The ontological project regards the aim of reflection as personal growth under the direction of an enlightened guide, and we argue that there is a real danger that such an approach might degenerate into what one critic has termed 'a subtle but persuasive exercise of power'. The epistemological project, on the other hand, is concerned with an exploration by practitioners of their own methods of thinking about their practice, and as such, has the potential to become truly emancipatory.
AIM: This study explores and extends some recent Foucauldian critiques of reflection and clinical supervision in nursing. BACKGROUND: Although reflection is often accepted uncritically, several writers have claimed that it is being employed (albeit perhaps unwittingly) as a management tool to facilitate the governmentality of the workforce by establishing conditions whereby so-called reflective practitioners monitor and regulate their own practice in an essentially self-repressive way. EVALUATION/EXAMINATION: We evaluated these critiques and extended them with reference to Foucault's later writing, particularly on the 'care of self'. KEY ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS: Our exploration of these critiques prompted us to distinguish between two different projects of reflection, which we term the ontological and the epistemological. The ontological project regards the aim of reflection as personal growth under the direction of an enlightened guide, and we argue that there is a real danger that such an approach might degenerate into what one critic has termed 'a subtle but persuasive exercise of power'. The epistemological project, on the other hand, is concerned with an exploration by practitioners of their own methods of thinking about their practice, and as such, has the potential to become truly emancipatory.