Chapter 9
‘Instructor’s Name’
‘Subject’
In the article titled ‘reflection in action’, Donald Schon suggests that sometimes practitioners of a trade know certain things by action, but would not be able to explain those things theoretically. While performing certain actions, both personally and professionally, individuals would be able to display certain skills, for which they would not be able to give clear rules and regulations. These actions are mostly guided by tacit recognitions and judgments. Schon terms this process as ‘reflection in action’, and it is critical in dealing with uncertain and unstable situations.
He stresses that, contrary to the popular belief, an action need not always be performed with prior plans and rules pertaining to the action, but can be done with spontaneous behavior of skillful practice. He elaborates on this phenomenon of knowing by doing, by elucidating various examples. He talks about how some pitchers in baseball speak of ‘finding the groove’, and how we are able to gauge the mood of another person without knowing how we are doing it.
Knowing in action has three properties. They are actions which we do not dwell on before doing them, we are mostly unaware that we are doing those particular actions in that particular way, and we would not be able to describe those actions. According to Schon, when a person reflects-in-action, he is not confined to the established rules of his practice, and would be able to improvise and can construct a new theory. Thus, reflecting in action can be undertaken even in situations of uncertainty, because this method is not constrained by the laws of Technical Rationality.
He concludes the article by stating that, many technical practitioners have become too skillful in abstract practices, and they find it hard to handle uncertain situations. At the same time, people who are used to reflection-in-action practices, feel uneasy and at times inadequate because they are not able to justify their actions or explain them to others. Thus, as said by Schon, it is imperative to develop a practice or theory which combines the best aspects of both the practices.
Terry cooper, in the chapter titled ‘applying the design approach to public administration ethics’, talks about how a public administrator should handle a problematic situation. Her design approach can be further improved, if we combine certain aspects of reflection-in-action theory. Cooper says that an administrator should collect the facts, define the problem and look for various solutions. However as Schon elucidated in his article, an uncertain situation cannot be solved using a definite set of theories or rules. It requires a person who uses his tacit judgments and knowledge, to find the best course of action.
Guy Adams and Danny Balfour in their article titled ‘The prospects of reconstructing public ethics’ delineate how understanding the problems or evils in public administration, does not necessarily provide a solid framework to address those issues. Corroborating the opinions expressed by Schon, they say that the culture of technical rationality has aggravated our willingness to comprehend problems. From the three articles we analyzed, we can say that, all these authors are against merely theorizing administrative problems, and having a rigid resentment resolution model. Any public administrator should therefore, use a combination of theoretical and tacit knowledge to address administrative issues.
The best example of ‘acting his mind’ or ‘tacit knowing’ (other phrases used by various authors to denote refection-in-action), is Winston Churchill’s decision to go on the offensive against the Nazi Germany during the World War II. The five days between May 24, 1940 and May 28, 1940 is a period, which had a profound implication in the course of the Second World War, and in effect on modern history. During these five days, the British war cabinet discussed whether they should negotiate with the Nazi Germany or continue on the offensive. Almost a quarter million British troops were trapped by the German army in Dunkirk, and efforts were on to evacuate them, and some of the cabinet members were tempted to negotiate with the Nazis, seeing the tight situation they were in.
During those five days the future of Europe hung in a perilous balance. England was faced with two paths: come to an understanding with Hitler or face the music alone (since America was yet to enter the war) and dauntingly so. Many English politicians of that era believed that, Stalin and his communism was an equal if not a greater threat for Europe then, Hitler and his Nazism. However, Churchill had the historical consciousness which made him proclaim, that if Hitler wins the war, the whole world will be drowned in dark abyss of a modern age characterized by perverted science.
The most fascinating aspect of Churchill’s character is that he was not just showing blind bravado. Apart from being courageous he was also a realist, and he knew that the chances of British to survive the German attack were slim. He was also aware that many of his colleagues did not favor a war with German, and they had reservations about his capabilities as a leader. So going by technical rationality, he should have decided to go into a peace negotiation with Hitler. Yet, he had the conviction that Hitler was a greater threat than Stalin or communism, and the determination to stand his ground in spite of the stiff opposition he faced. Thus, he took a decision by reflection-in-action, and the rest is today history.
