Abstract

Simulation facilitators routinely invoke the 'Socratic method' when describing their questioning approach, yet this invocation often lacks philosophical grounding and practical specificity. Whilst Socratic questioning features prominently in debriefing standards, its application has become what scholars describe as "extraordinarily vague", with conflicting interpretations proliferating across the literature. Facilitators need clear guidance for important decisions: when to challenge versus support, when to profess ignorance versus share expertise, when to create discomfort versus maintain psychological safety. This article returns to Plato's dialogues to construct a contemporary pedagogical framework through close textual analysis. We developed five distinct facilitation orientations drawn from specific passages in the original texts: the Gadfly (challenging assumptions through persistent questioning), the Professed Ignorant (modelling intellectual humility), the Midwife (facilitating emergence of tacit knowledge), the Stingray (inducing productive cognitive dissonance), and the Co-inquirer (fostering collaborative discovery). These orientations function as philosophical stances rather than algorithmic techniques, providing meta-level guidance that complements existing debriefing frameworks. Each orientation addresses different aspects of productive uncertainty, the deliberate cultivation of intellectual discomfort as a catalyst for deeper thinking. When facilitators position themselves as fellow learners, debriefing can shift from teaching learners what to think towards teaching them how to think. Engagement with Socratic principles expands facilitators' repertoires for creating meaningful learning conversations. These orientations offer simulation educators a philosophically grounded alternative to vague appeals to 'being Socratic'. They emerge from interpretive choices calibrated specifically to healthcare simulation contexts rather than claims of historical authenticity.