The art of reflective practice in health and social care: reflections on the legacy of Donald Schön
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reflects on Donald Schön work on reflective practice, and why it might be seen as a means of moving toward phronesis, or practical wisdom, in health and social care. First, it begins with a consideration of why we might need reflection and particularly why it might be crucial at this point in history. Second, it considers the legacy of some of Donald Schön’s work on reflective practice highlighting four significant legacies of his theory including: (a) the limits of technical rationality and his proposal for an epistemology of practice; (b) his recognition of the artistry of practice; (c) his explication of an embodied type of reflection; and (d) his recognition of the significance of individual and disciplinary frames in professional practice. A case study is presented to show how Schön’s ideas go some way toward a re‐invigoration of a notion of phronesis (wise action) as a complement to episteme (scientific knowledge) and techne (pragmatic knowledge) in professional life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it