The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes through Cognitive Bias Reduction
Liedtka, J. (2015) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12163 · Cited by 951
Innovation and Design in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Verganti, R., Vendraminelli, L., & Iansiti, M. (2020) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12523 · Cited by 851
The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas
Lim, Y.-K., Stolterman, E., & Tenenberg, J. (2008) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/1375761.1375762 · Cited by 718
Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem solving
Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/bf02504994 · Cited by 494
`Two-Way Windows': Clinicians as Medical Managers
Llewellyn, S. (2001) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840601224003 · Cited by 419
Metadata
- Authors
- Bogumil, R. J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the IEEE
- Published
- 1985-04
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 845-846
- ISSN
- 0018-9219 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-2256
- OpenAlex
- W2045510465
- Cited by
- 2,323
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/proc.1985.13210
- The paper
- Bogumil, R. J. (1985). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Proceedings of the IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/proc.1985.13210
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
