Talk:Reflective practice/Archives/2015

Rolfe 2001

The section attributed to Rolfe 2001 is incorrect. The three questions come from Gestalt Therapy, have been in common use for decades, and have evolved into many varied and sophisticated questioning methods. This section should be removed. Attributing this ancient and time tested approach to one individual is a travesty! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.177.6 (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It's correct that the pattern "What? So what? Now what?" predates Gary Rolfe's use of it; as Rolfe said—and as is clearly stated in the article—the source of the pattern is Terry Borton's 1970 book Reach, Touch, and Teach. However, it is not incorrect to give attribution to Gary Rolfe, because although the pattern "What? So what? Now what?" dates back to Borton's 1970 book (as is clearly stated in the article), Rolfe is responsible for connecting the pattern "What? So what? Now what?" to the idea of reflective practice in nursing and the helping professions. Borton (1970) and Rolfe (2001) are both fully cited in the article. Unless someone can point to an earlier publication that had a significant impact, I don't see any problem with this section as it stands. Biogeographist (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

My issue with the appearance that Rolfe is the ideator of these three questions. They were originally used by Perls in the 1940s as early Gestalt Therapy. I learned this from Perls in the 1950's. All I am saying is give credit where credit is due, otherwise it looks like someone is trying to inappropriately steal the limelight for original thought and that smacks of plagiarism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.177.6 (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay I googled this 1997/2005 textbook source that predates Rolfe, attributes the questions to Gestalt and cites Borton. Looks like they have expanded the three questions, as have many others, in what they call funnelling. https://books.google.com/books?id=axRaiRhQ2CwC&pg=PA202 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.177.6 (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's great that you say you learned this from Perls in 1950s, but oral tradition doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. If you want to claim that someone prior to Terry Borton should be credited, you need to supply a reliable source. The link you have cited above is the second edition of the book Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming, published in 2005. That was published after the Rolfe 2001 text, not before. However, I am sympathetic to the argument that the section heading really should be Borton 1970 and not Rolfe et al. 2001 (and I notice that in any case the current heading is wrong because Rolfe was not the sole author of the cited text; he was a coauthor, hence the heading should have been Rolfe et al. 2001). I am convinced by the argument that the primary credit should go to Borton 1970, with Rolfe et al. 2001 as a supporting secondary source (and not vice versa). I will change the article accordingly. By the way, if anyone feels the need to add further secondary sources to this section, such sources can easily be found on Google Scholar, for example: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=reach+touch+teach+Borton+1970 Biogeographist (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Credit to Borton seems more accurate, because (according to the others and I found the same in their 1997 first edition before Rolfe etal) he seems to give credit where credit is due. Too many people plagiarizing their content both from WP and to WP. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.177.6 (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify exact problem that justifies coatrack template

User:Altenmann on 12 December 2015 added Template:Coatrack which says: "This article may primarily relate to a different subject, or to only one aspect rather than the subject as a whole. For more details see WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK." This message suggests one or several problems with the article, and it is not clear exactly what the problem is. Please avoid drive-by tagging and explain in detail here exactly what the problem is that justifies the presence of this template, and how the problem can be fixed. If no explanation is provided, I will remove the template. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"what exactly": Many sources cited do not use the term "reflective practice" nor synonyms. They are just thrown in indiscriminately from various areas. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"how can be fixed": coatrack is a common trait of wp:synth. Just use the sources which directly discuss the concept and you will be automatically good. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Altenmann: Thanks for your responses. You say: "Many sources cited do not use the term 'reflective practice' nor synonyms", but as I quickly skim through the list of sources, I do not see any that are not about reflective practice (or a close synonym), which is defined in the first sentence as "the capacity to reflect on action so as to engage in a process of continuous learning". Can you identify the specific cited sources that you find to be problematic in the current version of the article? (I agree that the article is not good, and I think it is correctly rated as C-class, and would benefit from a complete rewrite by a subject expert, but I am still doubtful that the coatrack template is justified. The original research template (which is also present) seems to be sufficient.) Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)