Sample Answer
Critical Review of Brookfield’s “Critically Reflective Practice”
Introduction
Reflective practice is an essential element in professional development, especially in health and social care, education, and related fields. It encourages practitioners to analyse their actions, assumptions, and decisions to improve their work and personal growth. Stephen Brookfield’s article, Critically Reflective Practice (1998), is widely regarded as an influential contribution to this field. The article emphasises the importance of critical reflection and explores how professionals can use it to improve their practice. This essay provides a critical review of Brookfield’s article by examining its arguments, strengths, weaknesses, and relevance to contemporary professional contexts. The review will also connect the article to my own role as a practitioner, using critical incident analysis to highlight how the theories apply in real professional life.
Summary of Brookfield’s Article
Brookfield (1998) argues that reflective practice is not just about looking back on experiences but about critically questioning the assumptions that shape professional behaviour. He emphasises that reflection becomes “critical” when practitioners look beyond their own viewpoint and consider wider power structures, ideologies, and cultural influences. Brookfield identifies four lenses through which professionals can reflect: their own autobiography, students’ or clients’ perspectives, colleagues’ feedback, and theoretical literature. By using these lenses, professionals can uncover hidden assumptions and challenge their thinking.
The article highlights how reflective practice is linked to professional improvement. Brookfield suggests that by questioning underlying beliefs, professionals become more adaptable, ethical, and effective in their roles. His discussion is rooted in education, but the concepts can be applied across many professional fields, including health and social care.
Critical Evaluation of Brookfield’s Arguments
Brookfield’s article is valuable because it offers a clear framework for reflection. The four-lens model makes the process practical and systematic, ensuring that practitioners do not rely solely on their own interpretations of events. By encouraging perspectives from clients, colleagues, and theory, the framework helps avoid biased or one-dimensional reflection. This is particularly useful in professional contexts where decisions affect other people’s well-being, such as in teaching, nursing, or social work.
Another strength of Brookfield’s argument is his focus on assumptions. Many professionals act according to routines or beliefs that they rarely examine. By uncovering and questioning these assumptions, practitioners can avoid reproducing harmful patterns or practices. For example, a teacher who assumes that quiet students are disengaged may fail to notice their learning progress. Critical reflection challenges such assumptions, leading to more inclusive practice.
However, the article also has limitations. Brookfield does not fully address how difficult it can be for professionals to find the time and resources for deep reflection. In many health and social care settings, heavy workloads and institutional pressures limit opportunities for sustained critical enquiry. While Brookfield acknowledges challenges, he does not provide concrete strategies for embedding reflective practice into busy professional environments.
Furthermore, the article can be criticised for being somewhat abstract. Although Brookfield outlines the four lenses, he provides limited practical examples of how to use them in daily work. This may make it difficult for some practitioners to translate the theory into practice without additional support or guidance.
