Reflecting on reflection-in-action

I am in the process of writing up chunks on each project as it was developed iteratively. I think this process of browsing across the data is useful as a first type of pass over the creative works. In this process the evaluation of the steps through each project seems to be based around a framework of probing and scrutiny. Looking back at the process so far I am interested in seeing if there is type of framework emerging through this evaluation. I seem to be asking myself the following questions.

Why I decided to do what I did? (the motivations behind the practice inquiries)
What did I discover?
What did I learn?

Looking more closely at the reflecting on reflection-in-action process, I think this evaluation of the projects needs to consider the following as part of looking at Scrivener’s article ‘Reflection in and on action and practice in creative-production doctoral projects in art and design’. In here Scrivener writes a really useful overview of Schon’s concept on ‘reflection-in-action’.

How has the problem been framed?
What are the issues with that framing?
(a critique of that framing)
How has the problem been reframed?
How has this kept the practice inquiry moving along?
(invigorated action)
What type of experiments emerged out of that reframing?
What type of changes occurred due to those experiments?
How did the situations that emerged ‘back talk’?
What knowledge is being utilsed to deal with the issues that arise as part of those experiments?
How have the issues/problems been solved in terms of utlising knowledge that I already have?

Types of experiments: (the aim is to make something (a situation) better. The idea is to clarify (‘affirm’) the next step in the practice inquiry.

Exploratory experiment (invigorate an action to see what happens next)
Move-testing experiment (invigorate an action to create something intended)
Hypothesis-testing experiment (weeds out other hypotheses – clarifies the reframing)

Moving iteratively from project to project the framework could look like this:

Motivations:
How did the previous inquiry (artifact/s lead to the current project? (issues with the framing)
How is the current project reframing the problem? (Why did the framing need to be shifted)
What type of experiment process will be used? (probe – design proposition to move the practice inquiry along – action)

What did I discover?

What was produced? (images; description of artifact/s)
What happened? (situations and ‘back talk’/issues/changes)

What was learnt?
What exisiting tacit knowledge did I utilise to resond to situations and issue?
How was that tacit knowledge altered and progressed?
What additional knowledge did I need to learn to keep the practice inquiry (experiment) moving?

Progression of the inquiry into the research problem
How do these artifacts demonstrate the validity of the research problem?
How do they demonstrate approaches towards a solution?
How can the knowledge being learnt be reused in other situations? (this may be more overall at the ending rather than for each project/experiment)

Transition to the next artifact
What do I need to address next to move the practice inquiry onwards?

Putting this into practice in the chunking process it possibly looks overly complex at this point. But, already I am looking much more iteratively at the move from each artifact to artifact. For example, why a prototype was abandoned as part of moving the practice inquiry onwards. These are content prototypes that are like small test that are very incomplete. They just end and the next artifact moves in another direction.

Scrivener, S 2000, ‘Reflection in and on action and practice in creative-production doctoral projects in art and design.’, Working papers in Art and Design, vol. 1, . p 5-6

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *