An ethical dilemma of my professional development design and practice (Extract from thesis, 2005) An ethical dilemma of my professional development

design and practice Dianne Allen (Extract Section 3.3.1)

It has been my intention that the above material indicate how much, and what of the design of my professional development activity, relies on, or matches with, the documented work of others. In describing the design and presenting the rationale, and its relationship to the documented work of others, I have also tried to convey some of how I have tested the design against the empirical findings and theoretical assertions of the literature. My testing involved using my professional practice satisfaction criteria: here is material that is different from what I could have stated as my understanding of my practice, and that I am prepared now to try, and to try and use, because it relates sufficiently to my experience, addresses some of the inadequacies that I recognise in my practice, and develops my understanding of that experience in a way that means I do not expect to get into trouble when I do make the change developed from the interaction with the literature in order to improve my current practice. During that process, a number of challenges to, and dilemmas of, the design and its assumptions arose. One such challenge came from my reading of Brookfield (1995, p.82): .. as Karl and Kopf (1993) point out, "There is no support for the assumption that the more people know about their behaviour, the more they will improve it" (p.309) A second challenge came from my reading of De Laine (1997, p.303) where a discussion about the ethics of selfdisclosure, in terms of power relationships, and ingratiation and social indebtedness, noted the following: Lee (1993, p.109) refers to a number of micro-sociological studies of power and exchange that suggest reciprocity and self-revelations can be deployed strategically in social relationships. They may be used, for example, as ingratiation tactics, or as a means of increasing the social indebtedness of the other. In other words, strategies used to ensure a non-hierarchical relations between interviewer and respondent can come to be regarded simply as a set of techniques divorced from the ethical foundations upon which they are based (ibid). Another challenge comes from a dilemma concerning the question of when, in-practice, is it possible, and appropriate, to introduce and require critical thinking, at the level that relates to the challenging of assumptions. A number of authors indicate that the capacity to critically explore assumptions is important for developing professional practices involving the interpersonal and the social (Brookfield, 1995; Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Fook, 1996). A number of authors indicate that the timing of requiring such a capacity is not during professional formation studies, or professional initiation, when a lot of cognitive effort is required to integrate new content, but rather with ongoing professional development, when a reservoir of experience has been established and when it is reasonable to expect a practitioner to draw on that resource (Robins & Webster, 1999; Schn, 1987). The dilemma that arises is this: by the time the professional reaches that stage, unless substantially unsettled by practice experience, a practitioner may well have a satisfied and closed mindset, based on an inappropriate epistemology and associated understanding, combined with being captured in the hegemony of established professional practice norms, and the conservatism inherent in that. Alternately, a practitioner may be engaging in inappropriate practice: malpractice or oppressive responses to change. In either case, the task in changing learnt responses in order to improving practice is going to involve significant levels of unlearning.

An ethical dilemma of my professional development design and practice (Extract from thesis, 2005)

These three strands of the design and its application what assumptions are being taken for granted, what processes constitute an ethical dilemma, and what timing of challenging assumptions by ethical processes, including relevant self-disclosure, is likely to be most effective find expression for me in challenging a significant aspect of my person and practice. One of the meaning perspectives that I use in checking my practice comes from the Christian tradition. I have found the wisdom, available from commitment to the claims of this other body of literature, instructive to the living of my whole life, including my professional practice. Part of my practice understanding includes the view that the insights of Christian belief contain general truths about our world, and our relationships in this world. I am unsure to what extent my acceptance of those insights and my experience of their efficacy inform and contribute to my capacity to experience change, and to undertake change in thinking and acting. If I do not disclose this in the course of the professional development design activity, as part of action learning, of being able to undertake effective critical thinking about aspects of self-awareness and other-awareness in group processes, then my non-disclosure represents a fundamental incongruence with the design. Such non-disclosure neither opens my thinking in this area to challenge, nor provides information that I have from another source so that it might be open to others testing and validation. If tested, and found valid and relevant to the processes at hand, then such a perception can be made available as one of the resources for change another might need to have to be able to access further significant change. All four challenges remain unresolved for me at this point. More detail: http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/288/ Bibliography: Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research (rev ed ed.). (Melb.): Deakin Univ Pr. De Laine, M. (1997). Ethnography: Theory and applications in health research. Sydney: Maclennan & Petty. Fook, J. (Ed.). (1996). The reflective researcher: social workers' experience with theories of practice research. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Robins, K., & Webster, F. (1999). Deconstructing the Academy: The new production of human capital, Times of the technoculture: from the information society to virtual life (pp. pp192-218). London: Routledge. Sch D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the n, Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.