Critically reflective practice and its sources: A qualitative exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Critical reflection may improve health professionals' performance of the social roles of care (eg collaboration) in indeterminate zones of practice that are ambiguous, unique, unstable or value-conflicted. Research must explore critical reflection in practice and how it is developed. In this study, we explored what critical reflection consisted of in a context known for indeterminacy, and to what sources participants attributed their critically reflective insights and approaches. METHODS: The study context was the interface between health care and education for children with chronic conditions or disabilities necessitating health-related recommendations and supports (eg accommodations or equipment) at school. We conducted a secondary analysis of 42 interview transcripts from an institutional ethnographic study involving health professionals, school-based educators and parents of children with chronic conditions or disabilities. We coded all transcripts for instances of critical reflection, moments that seemed to lack but could benefit from critical reflection, and participant-attributed sources of critically reflective insights. RESULTS: Critically reflective practice involved getting to know the other, valuing and leveraging different forms and sources of knowledge, identifying and communicating workarounds (ie strategies to circumvent imperfect systems), seeing inequities, and advocating as collaborators, not adversaries. Participants invariably attributed critically reflective insights to personal experiences such as former careers or close personal relationships. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that personal experiences and connections inspire critically reflective views, and that being critically reflective is not a binary trait possessed (or not) by individuals. It is learnable through personally meaningful experiences. Health professions education could aim to preserve philosophical space for personal experience as a source of learning and integrate evidence-informed approaches to foster critically reflective practice.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".