Cover Page

Title: Teaching critical reflection in sub-Saharan Africa: business as usual ?

Name of author(s): Michelle Blackburn (Senior Lecturer, Sheffield Hallam University),

Rick Holden (Principal Lecturer, Leeds Metropolitan University), Catherine Burrell (Principal Lecturer, Leeds Metropolitan University)

Organisation affiliation/position(s): Please see above

Address: School of OB/HRMStoddart BuildingSheffield Business SchoolSheffield Hallam UniversitySheffieldS1 1WB

Email address: m.blackburn@shu.ac.uk

Stream: Comparative and cross-cultural dimensions of HRD

Submission type: Working paper

Teaching reflection in sub-Saharan Africa: business as usual?

Abstract

Reflective practice enjoys a prominent position in management education in the West. However, its ‘export’ raises questions about both positioning and effective delivery. This paper reports on exploratory research in relation to the teaching of reflective practice as part of a masters management programme delivered in two sub-Saharan African countries.

In relation to prevailing practice in the West the research evidence is clear. Teaching reflection is problematic, posing challenges in relation to engagement, ownership, assessment, and transfer beyond the classroom. Whilst problematic in terms of its teaching, however, it is accessible. The cultural context of the west does not preclude access to the essential ideas of reflexivity and an analysis of self. Drawing on data collected as part of the teaching of an MSc in Leadership and Change Management in Malawi and Swaziland the paper reflects on the nature and extent of this challenge in a very different cultural context.

Students from these two countries faced similar difficulties to their Western counterparts, made worse by a somewhat inferior level of available resource. They found the concept interesting but troublesome. Assessment of, and questioning about practice revealed some success but more often a high failure rate in achieving a level of depth of self analysis.

The research speculates if a ‘business as usual’ teaching agenda sidesteps the question of the appropriateness of an Anglo-American model of reflective practice; whether competing wisdoms, the heterogeneity of difference, religious and cultural, ‘tap into’ and service the goals of reflective practice to good effect.

Key words

Reflection, Africa, Learning, Cross-culture, Personal Development

Introduction

This paper addresses the teaching of reflection and reflective practice within a management and leadership programme taught in Malawi and Swaziland. It reports on an exploratory research project concerned to assess the ‘transfer’ of a UK based teaching model as regards this particular aspect of the curriculum into a sub saharan Africa context.

Teaching reflection is problematic, posing challenges to the tutor charged with the responsibility of facilitating and nurturing such a capability. Cross cultural teaching adds further complexity. It is this dimension which is addressed in this paper. The paper seeks to evaluate the process and impact of our teaching of reflection within a 12 month (Leeds Met University accredited) Masters management programme taught

in situ in Malawi and Swaziland. Are the challenges, and the teaching and learning strategies that may best meet those challenges, broadly on a par with what we might expect in a UK context? Or, are there important differences which materially affect learning outcomes and our aspiration to develop critical reflective practitioners?

The paper unfolds as follows. First, we locate the problem within the context of what is, conventionally, understood by reflection and its teaching within, predominantly, a Western postgraduate / professional educational context. Subsequently, the research undertaken is briefly explained before moving to a discussion of findings. At one level these point to conclusions as regards teaching and learning enhancements to meet the particular challenges identified. However, the research also suggests that this ‘business as usual’ agenda may sidestep more fundamental questions relating to the ‘export’ of this particular component of western Masters education.

Reflection: from concept to practice

A wide range of bodies responsible for promoting and influencing management and leadership education identify the value of reflection and reflective practice as a fundamental part of both initial and continuing development of managers (AMED, BMAF, CIPD). Indeed Francis and Cowan (2008) suggest that development of the ‘reflective practitioner’ is nowadays almost “the sine qua non of continuing professional development” (p337). A reflective practice, or reflective learning, curriculum has thus emerged and occupies a special place within management and leadership education. Anderson (2003) goes as far as to suggest that critical reflection is a hallmark of Masters level management education. This curriculum, however, and its delivery, is problematic. Some understanding of this problematic landscape is achieved by considering two inter-related themes. First, what is reflection and secondly, in terms of attempts to formalise some sort of pedagogic engagement with reflective practice.

At its simplest reflective practice is thinking about how new knowledge and skills might be used in future activities. However, such relatively simple explanations of reflection may result in somewhat impoverished or even prescriptive (Woodall, 2006) outcomes. Bradbury et al (2010), for example, warn against what they call the “worst excesses of a technical or instrumental view of reflection” (p192) questioning the value of educational approaches which adopt ‘recipes’, checklists and other instrumental means. Such approaches, they argue tend to treat reflection as a separate enterprise, not one firmly situated within professional practice, and importantly, tend to undermine critical reflection as the principle goal for the development of professionals. A reductionist approach (Boud and Hager, 2010) results.

Of particular significance in avoiding such a reductionist view of reflection and reflective practices is recognition of the existence of levels of reflection. Here ideas about single and double loop learning (Argyris, 1982) are important with the implication that a deep, rather than superficial, level of reflective learning can lead to transformative change both within individuals and organisations (Brockbank et al, 2002). Bain et al (1999) identify five levels of reflection. In the first three levels,

reporting, responding and relating, the reflector focuses on what happened and what lessons can be learnt to apply in other situations.

Existing frameworks of thinking and beliefs prevail.. In the fourth level in-depth analysis occurs and may involve a challenge to such frameworks. Alternative stories or ways of interpreting what happened are perceived. A process of deconstructing the experience creates the opportunity for reconstruction, the fifth level, where the application of learning is based on new frameworks of thinking. Other authors (see, for example, Cunliffe, 2003) draw a distinction between reflection and reflexivity. Reflection is learning and developing through examining what we think happened on any occasion. Reflexivity is finding strategies to question our own attitudes, thought processes, values, assumptions, prejudices and habitual actions, to strive to understand our complex roles in relation to others. It is important to recognise that the aspiration of the management and leadership development curriculum, particularly at Masters / continuing professional development levels, is to develop a criticality about practice and of self in relation to that practice.

Formal recognition of reflective practice within the curriculum assumes that education can assist in the transition from concept to practice. Such an assumption, however, lacks a solid research basis. Race (2006), for example, muses that it is probably unwise to attempt to ‘teach’ people to reflect. That it is firmly part of the learning curriculum, however, is incontestable. Attention, therefore, to how best it might be delivered is inescapable. Four inter-related, dimensions of the challenge facing teachers of reflective learning, are highlighted here (see also Griggs and Holden, 2010).

Approach: The teaching of any curriculum requires choices and in relation to reflective learning it is of fundamental importance. The dominant teaching paradigm in much management and leadership education today is one of knowledge / information transfer. However, if the curriculum, or at least part of it, requires recourse to a set of highly personal issues (revelations) then a very different relationship, one of trust, becomes critical. The teaching and learning strategies adopted may need to nurture a relationship which is “mutual, open, challenging, contextually aware and characterised by dialogue” (Brockbank and McGill p 209). Furthermore, that reflective learning requires time and space is a consistent finding from research (see, for example, Corley and Eades, 2004; Forneris and Peden-McAlpine, 2006; Warhurst, 2008).

Engagement and Assessment: Student engagement with, and the assessment of, reflective learning in professional education are identified in the literature as providing tutors with particular problems. Relevance is questioned (e.g. Halton et al. 2007) and practices such as the need for learning logs perceived as unnecessary (Samkin and Francis 2008). There is evidence suggesting many students adopt a very instrumental attitude to such activity (e.g. Grant et al. 2006) and approach it very superficially (Betts 2004). Whilst a curriculum requirement to complete a process of reflective learning ensures engagement of a sort it does not overcome the problem of a level of engagement which tutors may deem desirable and which provides the basis for depth, sustainability and transfer. Rothwell and Ghelipter, (2003), for example, question if many of their research respondents within management education, achieved a shift from single to double loop learning. Difficulties also

emerge for the teacher / tutor in terms of identifying and ‘measuring’ depth (Samkin and Francis, 2008). Any requirement to assess, formally, reflective learning may compound engagement difficulties. Assessment sits somewhat uneasily with reflective learning. There are two dimensions to this tension. First, what are we attempting to assess: content or process? (Brockbank and McGill 2007). Second, the very nature of the reflection process is personal, individually focused, possibly sensitive. It is a process of curiosity and questioning; this is not easy to assess or evaluate (Bourner 2003).

Ethics and Ownership: Such issues have led some critics (e.g. Betts, 2004) to question if, as educators, we have the authority to determine if a piece of formal reflective work passes or fails. This raises questions about the moral authority of the tutor to encourage students to enter those private, possibly dark and uncomfortable, places of emotion, feeling and attitude on the basis that this is in some way ‘good for them’. Certainly, reflective learning, beyond the very superficial, inevitably raises questions about the tutor – student relationship. Issues of trust become critical and challenging in a context of resource constraint on staff to student ratios. Peel (2005), for example, highlights the potential problems of ownership, privacy and reputation that may arise once any written work moves beyond the author him/herself. Furthermore, once any written work is placed into an assessment system it might be argued that that piece of work is now in the public domain. The extent to which such practice influences what is written remains un-researched. Hobbs (2007) raises both practical and moral questions in relation to ‘forced’ reflection. Her research suggests that requiring individuals to be open and honest in the context of assessment can provoke a “strategic response” (contrived stories are developed for the purposes of the assessment) and often hostility.

Transfer : Whilst there is some research data on the issue of level of engagement there is very little as regards its transfer. Significantly, Moon (2004) argues that we lack ‘good empirical data’ that the development of reflection in an academic context has long term and definitive benefits to a majority of learners. Holden and Griggs (2011) suggest their research highlights a small number of very positive examples as regards transfer but at the same time reveals two prominent barriers. Firstly, a lack of interest and motivation to transfer in any ‘formal’ sense. Reflection was something, students argued, they did practice but “informally”. This suggests an acknowledgment of the importance of reflection but a rejection of the argument that this needs evidencing in some way or indeed that there is added value to the process by writing it down. Secondly, organisational culture appeared to be highly influential as regards transfer. A majority of students felt reflection was not encouraged in their workplace, overtly citing time pressures but with an implicit indication that the dominant value system was one that did not encourage too many questions to be asked!

Teaching reflection across cultures

The research highlighted above has largely been undertaken within settings of ‘western’ postgraduate and professional education. The cross cultural dimension unleashes a complexity of potentially enormous significance. In the context of Africa,

for example, Nafukho (2006) identifies the concept of ‘Ubuntu’, "an African worldview enshrined in the maxim umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu, meaning a person is a person through other persons”. Importantly, in the context of reflective practice and reflexivity, Ubuntu reflects a difference between the Western and African perception of ‘self’. The common Western idea of self is that individuals have the power of free choice. The idea in African culture that “a person is dependent on other persons to be whole” (Sydhagen & Cunningham (2007, p131)

Similar tensions, in terms of implications for teaching a Western curriculum, arise when it is recognised that traditions of learning (formal and informal (story telling etc)) differ. Turner (2006), for example, in the context of Chinese postgraduates studying in the UK, speculates that a curriculum which emphasises reflective learning may in fact set such students up to fail as a result of fundamental cultural differences in pedagogy. Research on reflective practice with student teachers in Pakistan (Rarieya, 2005) describes the oral culture and highlights that most teachers are not willing to reflect on their practices in writing. However, such glimpses of the cultural impact on learning reflection are exceptions. There remains a dearth of research into how, in practice, the cultural dimension plays out in the specific context of the challenge of teaching reflective practice and vis the other challenges noted above.

The research

The research reported upon in this paper draws data from two cohorts (47 Malawi; 54 Swaziland) of students undertaking an MSc in Leadership and Change Management. The programme consists of 8 taught modules (plus a work based project); two of the taught modules – Personal Development Planning (PDP) and Leadership, Self and Creating the Future (LSCF) – were the focus of our research. It is these modules which have a distinctly reflective content. PDP has two reflective components, the first covers personal development prior to the course, the second requires reflection on personal development during the course. LSCF has a 75% reflective component to its assessment, aimed at encouraging students to reflect on their personal development in the context of leadership.

We adopted a mixed methodological approach, taking the advantage of our teaching sessions (blocks of two or three days) with the students to utilise different data collection methods. These included a questionnaire, a focus group (at each location), and written assignment work. In this way we were able to obtain some relevant demographic data; a sense of key perceptions around themes of reflection and reflective writing and evidence of capability in writing about themselves in a reflective capacity. We took steps to incorporate something of a longitudinal perspective; addressing development over the year rather than a snapshot at one point in the programme’s cycle.

Space restricts a detailed recording of the data collected. Thus, in the section which follows, we structure a discussion of findings around three key themes: teaching and learning; engagement and performance; and self awareness / locus of control. The choice of such constructs reflects both key aspects of the literature regarding teaching reflective practice and our interpretations of the main messages of the data sets generated with the two groups of students.

Discussion of Findings

Teaching and Learning

As an initial point we note that in terms of the teaching and learning strategy used with the two cohorts of students few adjustments were evident vis any equivalent group in the UK. Much of the same formal content, cases, and exercises were used, at the request of local partners, who wanted their students to have a Western educational experience. Perhaps naively we adopted the view that this would be unproblematic due to the multicultural nature of some of our UK classrooms and that consequently there was no reason to adopt a different approach or prepare a wholly different set of teaching materials. Broadly speaking then a similar resource base underpinned our delivery. Importantly, however, the particular setting did impoverish the teaching in two ways. First, the infrastructure of support materials was inferior; access to library resources and access to the internet made it harder for the student to progress their independent study. Secondly, the teaching of the module was very much frontloaded and students had considerably less access to ongoing tutor support (whether formal or informal). Thus, there was no face to face contact beyond the teaching blocks. There was no opportunity for formative assessment (used effectively elsewhere to develop capability in reflective practice / writing - see, for example Griggs and Holden, 2010). Attempts to generate a level of group discussion – via learning sets beyond the teaching blocks - also proved difficult. Some learning sets did engage in limited reflective support, but others simply discussed assignments and those more geographically spread tended to fail as a consequence of the cost and time required to travel and meet. In sum, the opportunity for dialogue, student- student and student-tutor, potentially valuable in developing critical self reflection, was largely absent.

Engagement and Performance

We will have more to say about engagement in due course. Initially, though, we highlight a marked unfamiliarity with ideas about reflection, and reflective learning. This is in marked contrast to the situation in the UK where, post Dearing (1997), it is unusual to find students who have not had some exposure to these ideas and practices as part of their undergraduate curriculum. Interestingly, this lack of prior knowledge was the case even amongst those students engaged in the fields of education and people development.

Such unfamiliarity did not impact adversely upon engagement, at least at a superficial level within the formal class sessions. The students' engagement with the PDP module for example, is indicated by the following module evaluation scores (where 5 is strongly agree) , overall satisfaction (4.4); enjoyed the learning experience (4.6 Malawi; 4.7 Swaziland) and saw the module as relevant (4.6). However such reaction belied a more problematic scenario when performance is considered. Disappointingly, mean scores for PDP and LSCF for the Malawi cohort were 53% and 46% respectively. The mean average across the other – non reflective – modules was 60%. The situation was only slightly better for the Swaziland cohort; mean scores of 53% (PDP) and 50% (LSCF) compared to 57% for the other

modules. Overall 55% of Swaziland and 57% of Malawi PDP students were assessed at 55% or below; LSCF painted an even starker picture when just the reflective component was taken into account. 79% of Swaziland and 89% of Malawi students were assessed at 55% or below for the reflective component of their assessment. Of some note also is the decline in mean performance levels with respect to the PDP Assignment 1 and Assignment 2. We anticipated progression in terms of students’ familiarity with ideas about reflection and their ability to write reflexively. Only 19% of Swaziland students, and 42% of Malawi students produced a 60+ performance from a 55 or less performance in Assignment 1. Whilst an imperfect measure the data suggests large numbers of students had regressed to a more descriptive level of reflective writing. The point is reinforced when performance in LSCF was considered; a module which followed PDP.

An extensive extract from a student assignment is highlighted below as it enables us to surface and illustrate the deficiencies, shortfall and missed opportunities to infuse reflective writing with a degree of depth.

On 9th May, 2011 I received a communication by phone from [UN agency] requiring that some of my [unit heads] should come the next day and meet [UN agency] staff at my office. By the way there are 190 [small units] and 21 [large units] in my district scattered all around. I physically know only some and many I know them just by name and location using my desk map. To contact these [unit heads] that were required to come was a tall order for me. Only few turned up because I could not contact all of them as per the request. I felt so bad about this because in all fairness I am the one who was supposed to have the proper communications channels with my [units]. I was ashamed because it looked as if I am not in control as far as [purpose] is concerned in the district. Everybody above or below even fellow [area managers] will expect me to have all the information about my [units]. How can I have no information about a [unit] important as it with all the [staff] and most importantly [service users]? This made me really worried. People may feel that I do neglect my responsibility of looking after [units] in my district. If [UN agency] report to my [Regional Manager], the boss may think I am an irresponsible manager and start rating me lowly on my appraisal forms. I feel this may also rate me low assuming the same exercise also happened in other districts and the other managers were able to invite all the [unit heads] concerned. This I feel may put me on a disadvantage despite my long service on the job.

The extract provides much of interest in terms of a real, ‘problematic’, workplace scenario. However reflexive analysis remains weak. The student reports or re-tells with minimal transformation (Bain et al, 1999). Although the extract does use ‘I’ the amount of personal introspection is minimal. Some assessments or judgements are made (difficulty, expectations) but little exploration to generate further insight of such issues. Whilst there is acknowledgement of ‘feelings’ (shame, worry) and there are clear glimpses of a personal agenda this is subject to minimal critique. No questions are raised. Although problems are raised, paradoxically the scenario is presented as non-problematic. The extract is an interesting example of a missed opportunity; the

theme is not developed. The student took it no further than the extract illustrates above. Student work, across the two cohorts, contained many such examples.

Transfer

Whilst conscious of the difficulties involved in attributing attitudinal and behavioural change to our teaching of reflection, nonetheless we wanted to address transfer beyond the classroom and the course as a whole. Robust data on transfer requires follow up research which was beyond the scope of this study. Our focus here was to generate some sense of what students intended to do, had actually done and importantly whether they had gained an enhanced understanding of the workplace into which our teaching of reflection might be applied.

Findings here were mixed. Students appeared committed to continue with reflective practice activities (logs, diaries, reflective conversations) beyond the classroom. There was a clear sense that students were keen to engage in thinking about reflective learning such that they wanted to transfer some of the techniques they had learnt to their workplace. For example, students commented as follows:

I have explained it to my colleagues…

I understand that it is important for me to ponder on my experiences.

I did try but it is not an easy practice especially in my team.

In terms of impact some glimpses emerge from responses to the questionnaire, for example:

It has helped me to improve my performance because I learn a lot about my previous experience through reflection and apply lessons learnt

I have changed to be a much better person both in life in general and at work. Now I ponder on experiences and am able to reflect and think about an action plan.

Learning on reflecting has greatly improved my skills especially at work where most of challenging situations happen. Now I am able to reflect so that I improve…

Whilst encouraging at one level there is a simplicity to such statements which makes us wonder ‘have they really got it ?’ Furthermore, we must beware the ‘faking it effect’ (see also Hobbs, 2007) . When asked about transfer beyond the classroom (whilst still a student) it is a brave student will say they no such intentions. Elsewhere, our limited data points to work environments which are, superficially, characterised by openness and a degree of personal freedom. For example, 52% and 39% of Swaziland and Malawi students, respectively, indicated that openly revealing concerns and discussing mistakes were a normal feature of their workplace. However, at the same time, only 3% of Swaziland and 21% of Malawi students saw receiving ‘open and honest feedback’ as a normal feature of their workplace. Qualitative data from both assessed work and focus group interviews

reinforced this picture, suggesting a workplace unused to and not encouraging challenge, particularly upwards. For example, a student recorded an entry in his learning journal as follows:

... I called a meeting with the junior members to find out from them why the issue that happened in our directorate was taken to another directorate. In their explanation, they said they were afraid to approach me with the issue.

Additionally, accounts from students in their PDP assignments demonstrated to us a surprising level of violence and intimidation that seemed to be an 'accepted' feature of the workplace both in Swaziland and Malawi. For example:

Nearly watched a fight today between H and J (Sales Manager). Bone of contention was that H interrupted J when he was speaking and J politely said "please this is my turn, you'll get yours". H didn't take it well and stood up approaching J while taking off his jacket and folding his shirt sleeves. J responded the same and started advancing. We had to separate them. That was the end of the meeting.

Whilst requiring further exploration we suggest this may be an important feature of the workplace culture making the transfer of reflective practice into the workplace that bit more problematic.

Self Awareness and the locus of control

Taken as a whole our data suggests an unconscious resistance to reflexivity.. Indeed, we speculate that for at least half the students the essential concepts of self, self talk, self awareness and self learning were out of reach. Such students did not readily identify with the individualistic momentum to be self-aware.

The particular role of religion and faith warrants some attention in this context. Students were asked ‘who knows you best?’. The role that God has to play was very clear with 72% and 70% of Malawi and Swaziland students, respectively, placing God in their top three and approximately 50% placing God above ‘you’ (i.e. self / personal understanding). The majority of students belong to a Church and the notion of self-determinism and the ability and will to purposefully transcend their immediate circumstances be it through personally positioning themselves and taking on responsibility for their own situation or career progression contradicts many of their culturally held beliefs and values. The following extracts from student work powerfully illustrate such points:

I convene with God ... he knows me and I am his servant ... what will be ... is what he deems for me

When I reflected on all this, I realized that God did not allow me to proceed right away … Instead God allowed me to get a job first in 1989 and then study while working.

You are what you are perceived to be by others ... I am an Elder at Church ... I am a good Father ... a responsible and honest member of the community ...

If God is seen to have the greatest understanding of any situation, is there then a possibility that the individual will excuse themselves from responsibility for understanding and instead hand over the role to God?

Thus, in this regard, the ‘inner’ world of the self; the internal ‘private’ world is not readily accessed and we have evidence in written assignment of a strong cultural reluctance to either express or convene with an inner world. One female student expressed it this way:

It’s not that I have any deep, dark secrets ... everyone has their own dignity around them ... why would anyone want to know about me?

A further dimension of this is linked to traditional means of learning through story telling. Given the faith factor noted above it is hardly surprising to find that students looked back on moral stories from the bible as a feature of their learning from an early age. We suggest there is an influence of such on the largely personal narratives of our students’ written work, which is clearly written from their point of view but without a questioning perspective. The latter requires a distinction between life stories and life history (Goodson, 1998). The life history goes beyond the descriptive by drawing in challenging data from a wide range of sources. It pushes the question of whether private issues are also public matters. “The life story individualises and personalises; the life history contextualises and politicises” (Goodson, 1998, p. 11). In sum, in a Malawi and a Swaziland culture which is characterised by family, community and a distinctly ‘public’ presence there is a strong distinction between the ‘public and the ‘private’ realms. Only a handful of our students were comfortable with, and made a transition to the ‘private’ and the ‘self’, with evident success.

Conclusions

We draw this paper to a conclusions by returning to its title: Teaching reflection in sub- Saharan Africa: business as usual? In a number of respects similar challenges to those faced by the Western reflective learner in the Western classroom presented themselves. The problem of ‘getting to depth’ in student’s reflective writing is a feature of the literature. Our research suggests a similar problem with students in sub-Saharan Africa but one of greater magnitude. On this basis it would be legitimate to conclude with a call for a more nuanced teaching and learning strategy. This might include a preparedness to address: faith, power within the workplace, alternative perspectives on story telling, and also to look to ways to introduce greater tutor contact, formative assessment etc. Importantly, it might include use of the student work now available to us to provide illustrations and examples in familiar contexts. However, our problem with this conclusion is that to an extent it sidesteps the question of whether the challenge is distinctively different.

We cannot escape the fact that as staff at Leeds Met, we have been drawn into a debate about the proliferation and exportation of Anglo-American models of organisations and personal constructs. The students have purchased a British qualification and have entered into a psychological contract which gives the power to a UK institution to design the curricula and to require its staff to deliver accordingly. However within the literature on leadership and global human resource management,

writers offer differing paradigms, and question the way the West currently interface with the world through our education provision Turnbull, (2011), for example, challenges the hegemony of Western business education as do Mendenhall et al in the context of developing global leadership capabilities and a global mindset (2006).

Our research highlights and illustrates the tensions and questions captured by this debate. Teaching reflective practice on this particular Masters programme is more challenging from a resource perspective but more importantly perhaps from a perspective of the cultural context in which the teaching takes place. Is it just about being better prepared, using more culturally sensitive cases and examples and perhaps by enhancing the resource base to include more one-one work for example? Or, does it raise a more fundamental question of the appropriateness of a Western paradigm of reflection? Richardson, (2004), writing from the perspective of student teachers in an Arabic-Islamist culture argues “Reflection as conceived and implemented in the West may not be in best interests of the student teachers if they wish to teach in local schools.” Is this the case for our Masters management and leadership students? Our data, to date, is not sufficiently strong across the two cohorts to join Richardson’s camp. Clearly there is need for further research, particularly focused on the transfer and sustainability of learning about reflective practice and reflexivity. Nonetheless, it raises some uncomfortable questions both for ourselves (as subscribers to Anderson’s (2003) position that reflection is the hallmark of Masters management education) and more widely to policy makers anxious to extend revenue streams by exporting such programmes without costly research support and modification.

References

Anderson, L.M., Critical reflection: the hallmark of masters education, Education in a Changing Environment, , Conference Proceedings, 17-18 September, 2003, Available from: <www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/int_03.rtf> [Accessed 12/03/2012]

Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, Learning and Action. Individual and Organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bain, J., Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. & Mills, C. (1999). Using journal writing to enhance student teachers’ reflectivity during field experience placements. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 5(1), 51-74

Bangura, A. K. (2005) Ubuntugogy: An African educational paradigm that transcends pedagogy, antragogy, ergonagy and heutagogy Journal of Third World Studies, Vol 22. No. 2, pp 13-53.

Betts, J (2004), Theology, therapy or picket line? What’s the good of reflective practice in management education?, Reflective Practice, 5(2)

Boud, D. and Hager, P. (2010) Conceptualising continuing professional development: compliance, pedestrianism and decontextualisation of richer notions of learning and practice ? Paper presented to the Fourth Professional Lifelong Learning conference, 11 January, University of Leeds

Bourner, T., (2003), "Assessing reflective learning", Education and Training, 45 (5)

Bradbury. H., Frost, N., Kilminster, S. and Zukas, M. (eds) (2010) Beyond Reflective Practice: new approaches to professional lifelong learning Abingdon, Routledge

Brockbank, A. and McGill, I., (2007), Facilitating reflective learning in higher education, London, Sage Publications

Brockbank, A., Beech, N. and McGill, I., (2002), Reflective learning in practice, Farnham, Gower

Corley, A. and Eades, E., (2004), Becoming critically reflective practitioners: academics and students’ reflections on the issues involved, Human Resource Development International, 7(1)

Cunliffe, A. (2003)`Reflexive enquiry in Organisational Research: Questions and Possibilities’, Human Relations, 56, (8), pp. 983-1003

Dearing (1997), National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. Available from: < http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/> Downloaded: 12th April 2012

Forneris, S.G. and Peden-McAlpine, C., (2007), Evaluation of a reflective learning intervention to improve critical thinking in novice nurses, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 57(4)

Francis, H. and Cowan, J. 2008,. Fostering an action-reflection dynamic amongst student practitioners. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32, no. 5: 336-346

Goodson, I. (1998) “Storying the self: Life politics and the study of the teacher’s life and work” in W.F. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum: Towards new identities (pp. 89-98), New York, Garland.

Grant, A., Kinnersley,P., Metcalf, E., Pill, R. and Houston, H. (2006), Students’ views of reflective learning techniques: an efficacy study at a UK medical school, Medical Education, 40

Griggs, V. and Holden, R. (2010) “Not another learning log”, A research enquiry into the teaching of reflective learning within a professional human resource management programme, University Forum for Human Resource Development, Available from <http://www.ufhrd.co.uk/wordpress/?p=2432>

Halton, C., Murphy, M. and Dempsey, M., (2007), Reflective learning in social work education: researching student experiences, Reflective Practice, 8 (4)

Hobbs, V., (2007) Faking it or hating it: can reflective practice be forced?, Reflective Practice, 8(3)

Holden, R. and Griggs, V. (2011), Not more learning logs! A research based perspective on teaching reflective learning within HR professional education, Human Resource Development International, 14 (4)

Mendenhall, M., Osland, J. and Osland, A. in Stahl, Gunter K & Bjorkman, I (2006) Handbook of Research in International Human Resource Management pp197 - 223

Moon, J. (2004), A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning, Routledge

Nafukho, F. M. (2006) Ubuntu Worldview: A Traditional African View of Adult Learning in the Workplace, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol 8. pp408 - 415

Peel, D., (2005) Dual professionalism: facing the challenges of continuing professional development in the workplace?, Reflective Practice, 6 (1)

Race, P. (2006), Evidencing Reflection: putting the ‘w’ into reflection, Available from: <http://escalate.ac.uk/resources/reflection>, [Accessed: 03/01/2010]

Rarieya, J. (2005) Promoting and investigating students’ uptake of reflective practice: a Pakistan case, Reflective Practice, 5 (3)

Richardson, P., (2004) Possible influences of Arabic-Islamic culture on the reflective practices proposed for an education degree at the Higher Colleges of Technology in the United Arab Emirates, International Journal of Educational Development, 24 (4)-

Rothwell, A. and Ghelipter, S., 2003, The developing manager: reflective learning in undergraduate management education, Reflective Practice, 4 (2)

Samkin, G. and Francis, G., 2008, Introducing a learning portfolio in an undergraduate financial accounting course, Accounting Education, 17 (3)

Sydhagen, K. And Cunningham, P. (2007) Human Resource Development in Sub-Saharan Africa, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp121-135

Turnbull, S. (2011) Worldly leadership: challenging the hegemony of Western business education, Journal of Global Responsibility, Vol. 2 Iss: 2, pp.170 – 187

Turner, Y., (2006), Chinese students in a UK Business School: hearing the student voice in reflective teaching and learning practice, Higher Education Quarterly, 60 (1)

Warhurst, R. (2008), Reflections on reflective learning in professional formation, Studies in the Education of Adults, 40 (2)

Woodall, J. (2006) From individual learning to social learning – reframing HRD theory and practice, Human Resource Development International, 9 (2)