Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 13–22 | Cite as

Engineering from reflective practice

  • D. I. Blockley


Some ideas for a new epistemology, encompassing practical action, based on the concept of reflective practice, are presented. The term reflective practitioner was first suggested by Schon (1983) in an analysis of the need to define the nature of practical competence. The prevailing culture of technical rationality, which depends on science for it rigor, is compared with that of the “wise engineer” promoted by Elms (1989). Worldview, quality, systems thinking, and responsibility are discussed as preliminaries to an analysis of reflective practice. The model is based on the passing of hierarchically structured sets of message patterns from perception to reflection to action. Intelligence is defined as an ability to construct, evaluate, and act on alternative scenarios of the future in the reflective phase. Design involves the construction of scenarios where imagined artifacts operate to achieve predefined needs for some defined person(s). Rigor for the reflective practitioner stems from the achieving of appropriate objectives. The similarities and differences between science and engineering become apparent when both are viewed as examples of reflective practice.


Reflection Technical Rationality Alternative Scenario System Thinking Practical Action 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Avison DE, Fitzgerald G (1988), Information Systems and Development, Blackwell Scientific, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett RA (1991), Culture and Conduct, Wadsworth, Belmont, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  3. Blockley DI (1980), The Nature of Structural Design and Safety, Ellis Horwood, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  4. Blockley DI (1985), Reliability or Responsibility, Structural Safety, Vol 2, 273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blockley DI (1989), Open World Problems in Structural Reliability, In Ang, Shinozuka, Schueller (Eds) Structural Safety and Reliability, Proc ICOSSAR '89, San Francisco, Vol 3, 1659–1665Google Scholar
  6. Blockley DI, Henderson JR (1980), Structural Failures and the Growth of Engineering Knowledge, Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs. Part 1, 68, November, 719–728Google Scholar
  7. Checkland P (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  8. Elms DG (1989), Wisdom Engineering—The Methodology of Versatility, Int J Appl Eng, Vol 5 No 6, 711–717Google Scholar
  9. Koestler A (1967), The Ghost in the Machine, Picador, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Penrose R (1990), The Emperor's New Mind, Vintage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Polanyi M (1958), Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, Univ. of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Schon D (1983), The Reflective Practitioner, Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. I. Blockley
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations