|
Paper #6
Towards a Model of "Reflection-in-Action":
An Analysis of Facilitators' Intuitive Behaviours
in Electronic Meetings
Dr Pak Yoong
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
INTRODUCTION
In "Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for
Teaching and Learning in the Professions", Schon was concerned with
what he called the "crisis of confidence in professional knowledge
... and professional education" and believed that this crisis was
caused by the "prevailing epistemology of practice" in professional
education institutions. He based this argument on the assumption that
professional expertise and thinking should not only depend on the application
of established theory on particular situations but also on experience-based
knowledge and on non-logical kinds of thinking about what is relevant
and appropriate in the context of those situations. To enhance this latter
kind of professional thinking, Schon suggests a reflective approach to
professional education based on the notion that "in much of the spontaneous
behaviour of skilled practice we reveal a kind of knowing which does not
stem from a prior intellectual operation" but on a reflective practice
process called 'reflection-in-action' which is thinking about the action
while one is doing it, rather than after the event. In this paper, I shall
describe a model of 'reflection-in-action' used by fifteen facilitators
who were involved in a training programme in electronic meetings facilitation.
Given the constraints of an on-line conference, I shall only describe
the essential elements of the model and other aspects of the model is
documented elsewhere (Yoong, 1996).
BACKGROUND
n March 1993, I began a grounded theory study that investigated the question:
How do facilitators of conventional meetings make the transition to facilitating
face-to-face electronic meetings? This study aims to develop a model representing
the learning processes and experiences of traditional facilitators who
are undergoing training in the facilitation of computer supported problem-solving
meetings.
As I began this research journey, I reflected on my facilitation experience
of both conventional and electronic meetings. I know that it was not only
'reading' about meeting facilitation but also 'doing' meeting facilitation
that has assisted my learning to be a facilitator of electronic meetings.
I have also found that reflecting and talking on these facilitation experiences
have made possible the links between 'doing', 'reading', and 'making sense'
of what is essentially a complex set of behaviours. This action reflection
approach to learning, which included periods of 'reflective thinking'
on my facilitation experiences, is the main approach that I have used,
and continue to use, in my continuing learning as a facilitator of conventional
and electronic meetings.
I have also found the facilitation of meetings, with its characteristic
rational and irrational components, to be a complex process. Understanding
my facilitation actions, intended or unintended, is possible only with
attention to situational and contextual complexities and with the recognition
that much of what I do in meetings is active, spontaneous and flexible.
There is simply little time to deliberate on my actions. If this situation
is also coupled with the use of computer-based tools, the facilitation
becomes very much more complex.
Between March 1993 and June 1994, as a partial requirement for this grounded
theory study, three groups of five experienced meeting facilitators participated
in a electronic meeting facilitation training programme. The training
programme consists of the following three modules:
Module 1 - The Tools of an Electronic Meeting: This module provides the
necessary hands-on skills and knowledge of the electronic meeting software
product.
Module 2 - Planning and Managing an Electronic Meeting: This module focuses
on (a) how to plan and design an agenda for an electronic meeting, (b)
how to balance human and computer interactions, and the role of the facilitators
in electronic meetings.
Module 3 - Putting It All Together: This practical module provides opportunities
for trainees to plan and facilitate 'live' electronic meetings. "
The trainee facilitators (trainees) studied Modules 1 and 2 during the
two full-day and two half-day sessions.
Module 3 took place soon after the training. The trainees were expected
to demonstrate the skills and knowledge acquired from the preceding training
program. They did this by planning, managing and facilitating a 'live'
electronic meeting which lasted about three hours. All the meetings were
videotaped and the recordings used for giving feedback to the trainees
and as research data for this study.
The next section provides a descriptive model of Reflection-in-Action
in electronic meetings and is the result of a grounded theory analysis
of the interview and video data provided by the fifteen trainee facilitators
after the facilitation of their first face-to-face electronic meetings.
A MODEL OF REFLECTION-IN-ACTION
In this section, I will describe a model of Reflection-in-Action, which
is thinking about the action while one is doing it (Schon, 1983). The
proposed model (see Figure 1) of Reflection-in-Action has two components:
(a) Reflection-in-Action (with intuitive action) - intuition that led
to the taking of alternative intuitive action and (b) Reflection-in-Action
(without intuitive action) - intuition that led to no intuitive action.
Excerpts from trainees' accounts of Reflection-in-Action will be analysed
to illustrate the proposed model.
ACTION <-------------> SIGNAL
^ (behaviour
and/or feeling)
| |
| |
| v
| [note:
this is an arrow]
| |
| |
| v
|
| TAKE
NOTICE OF SIGNAL
| |
| |
| v
| MAKE
CONNECTION WITH
| PRIOR
EXPERIENCE
| |
| |
| v
| CONSIDER
ADAPTATION
|
|
|
|
|
v
| ASSESS
THE RISK
| |
| |
| v
+<---------------(no)----- MAKE ADAPTATION
|
|
v
(yes)
|
|
v
INTUITIVE ACTION
Figure 1: A Model of Reflection-in-Action
The next section provides an example of an electronic facilitator's reflection-in-action.
In the following interview excerpt, the facilitator was giving an account
of important learning that occurred during the facilitation of her first
electronic meeting. It will illustrate the reflective process Reflection-in-Action
(with intuitive action). The incident occurred towards the end of the
meeting. At that instant, the trainee was thinking why the meeting had
completed the agenda so much earlier than planned. She was wondering what
to do next.
"I was asking myself all sorts of interesting questions. As it was
apparent that we were getting to the end so quickly I thought, have I
done something really wrong or is it just this group . . . I was sort
of thinking like I wonder whether I could try one of those other things
(computer tools) because at one point I made a comment that there are
a whole lot of other tools that you can use and then I thought that was
a stupid thing to do because someone could have said well let's do one.
. . . Because for me, in conventional facilitation, I quite often take
that approach - let's try something new, it may not work, it may work
but are you willing to try it and that usually comes after I feel the
group trusts me in that role but it felt exciting to do it here when really
the risk is for me. The biggest risk was not for them but would I be able
to make this (tool) works without having put it on the agenda which of
course is what I know is the great advantage of this technology.
. . . And I suppose the other thing was a feeling of caution about whether
by generating more information, I would be raising expectations. By then
there was only half an hour to go and would I be raising more expectations
about what would come out of this. And then on-balance I decided we'll
go with it because we've got the time to do and in a sense it is about
something that they can take away to then do, it's not trying to resolve
something here. As the discussion went around we were getting into deeper
issues which did need much more focus and planned discussion."
The following table is an analysis of the trainee's comments based on
the the model shown in Figure 1.
Table 1: Example 1 of 'Reflection-in-Action' (with intuitive
action)
Stages of the model
Trainee's comments Researcher's comments
Take notice of intuitive signal
I was asking myself all sorts of interesting questions. As it was apparent
that we were getting to the end so quickly I thought, have I done something
really wrong or is it just this group . . .
The trainee noted the earlier than expected finish to the meeting (behaviour)
and wondered if she has done something wrong (idea).
Make connection with prior experience
Because for me, in conventional facilitation, I quite often take that
approach . . .
The trainee's prior experience in the facilitation of conventional
meetings suggested that, under such conditions, it was worth taking
the risk of doing something which was not scheduled on the agenda.
Consider adaptation
... let's try something new, it may not work, it may work but are you
willing to try it and that usually comes after I feel the group trusts
me in that role...
The trainee considered adding an agenda item which involves the use
of another computer-based tool.
Assess the risk
... when really the risk is for me. The biggest risk was not for them
but would I be able to make this work without having put it on the agenda
which of course is what I know is the great advantage of this technology
. . . And I suppose the other thing was a feeling of caution about whether
by generating more information, I would be raising expectations.
The trainee weighed up the risks associated with the proposed adaptation.
Make adaptation?
And then on-balance I decided we'll go with it because we've got the
time to do and in a sense it is about something that they can take away
to then do, it's not trying to resolve something here.
Yes. After assessing the risks, on balance, the traine decided to make
the proposed adaptation.
Intuitive action
As the discussion went around we were getting into deeper issues which
did need much more focus and planned discussion.
The trainee then set up another computer-based tool and invited the
participants to take part. As it turned out, this action helped the
group identify deeper issues and engage in a more focused discussion.
In summary, during Reflection-in-Action the trainee notices an intuitive
signal - a behaviour, an idea or a feeling - and makes a connection between
that insight and prior experience. The trainee then considers an adaptation
to the original action and assess the risks associated with that adaptation.
Based on her assessment of the risks, a decision is taken on whether the
adaptation will be adopted as the intuitive action. If this is so, then
the reflective process Reflection-in-Action (with intuitive action) is
executed.
The facilitators in this study, and especially those with many years
of facilitation experience to draw on, frequently demonstrated facilitative
behaviours and actions that seemingly came from nowhere and were definitely
not taught during the facilitation training programme. The only way I
could explain their response was that it was the product of their prior
experience as facilitators of conventional meetings and/or as experienced
computer users. Some facilitators used the phrases 'voices in my head',
'inner voices', or 'voices within' to describe those moments of intuitive
insights. For them, it was like hearing 'echoes from the past' when prior
facilitation or computing experience helped them recognise patterns and
helped them decide that alternative intuitive actions were required.
A variation of Reflection-in-Action (with intuitive action) was when,
during the 'live' electronic meeting, the trainee was so preoccupied with
the technology or other matters that appropriate intuitive action that
should have been taken immediately was not done till much later. The phrase,
Leaving Instincts on Ice, was used by one trainee to describe this type
of situation. In this case, the trainee was too occupied with the technology
and so postponed the immediate use of the alternative actions. The following
excerpt describes this situation and the analysis is given in next table.
Trainee: Looking at the tape . . . I'm more aware than I was at the time
that some people are not contributing and that the discussion was starting
to be dominated by 3 or 4 people and I'm starting to say to myself that
the traditional facilitation skill here is being lost. You're forgetting
that, you're too worried about the technology, you're too focused on that
part of it, you should be encouraging those people to speak, the people
who were being quiet. There were people who hadn't said a lot up to that
point and there was a hell of a long way to go.
. . . 1.19:50 p.m. (referring to the time shown on the videotape), I
finally acknowledged that one person in particular hadn't said anything
and I stepped in to try to give him a bit of confidence to make a point.
I gave him the opportunity to do that, which he did. And it was absolutely
clear from his demeanour that he appreciated that and he felt better about
participating in this experience because of that. What I'm saying to you
here and now is that . . . I should have done something about it much
earlier. It was very late in the piece, 1 hour and 20 minutes, to start
doing that.
Researcher: And you attribute that to the focus on the
technology?
Trainee: Yes, I do very definitely. My instincts, if in fact they are
instincts, or whether they're acquired ways of dealing with situations
- my instincts were a little left on ice there and they became shoved
into the background and I just was concentrating far too much on the technology
and how I was handling that, how I was giving instructions, how I was
manipulating data, making sure I was pressing the right buttons and so
on. In retrospect that is a big mistake. An understandable one though.
Table 2: Example 2 of 'Reflection-in-Action' (with intuitive
action)
Take notice of intuitive signal
I'm more aware than I was at the time that some people are not contributing
and that the discussion was starting to be dominated by 3 or 4 people
The trainee noted some people were not contributing to the meeting
(behaviour).
Make connection with prior experience
I'm starting to say to myself that the traditional facilitation skill
here is being lost. You're forgetting that, you're too worried about the
technology, you're too focused on that part of it . . .
The trainee's prior experience in the facilitation of conventional
meetings suggested that he should be doing something else rather than
worrying about the technology.
Consider adaptation
you should be encouraging those people to speak, the people who were
being quiet . . .
The trainee considered encouraging those non-participating people to
take a more active role.
Assess the risk
There were people who hadn't said a lot up to that point and there was
a hell of a long way to go.
The trainee weighed up the risks associated with the proposed adaptation.
That is, if no action was taken then these people may have felt left
out for the rest of the meeting.
Make adaptation?
I finally acknowledged that one person in particular hadn't said anything
and I stepped in to try to give him a bit of confidence to make a point.
Yes. After the assessment of the risks of not taking action, the trainee
decided to make the proposed adaptation.
Intuitive action
I gave him the opportunity to do that, which he did ... What I'm saying
to you here and now is that . . . I should have done something about it
much earlier. It was very late in the piece, 1 hour and 20 minutes, to
start doing that.
The trainee finally got the person involved in the discussion. As it
turned out, the trainee felt that this adaptation should have occurred
earlier.
I recalled from my own experience as a facilitator of electronic meetings
that there were numerous occasions when the concept Leaving Instincts
on Ice was an accurate description of my own lack of intuitive action.
Some of these occasions required a decision as to what actions were appropriate
in the context of the meetings, for example, whether the actions would
satisfy the meeting client or its participants. Zorn and Rosenfeld (1989)
say that this dilemma often occurs when the facilitator has to decide
between achieving management's goals or the group's goals: "The consultant-facilitator
serves the goals of management while simultaneously serving the goals
of the group, a dual role that may [suffer] from competing actions"
(p. 98). There are no hard and fast rules for resolving this issue. However,
when confronted with it, the facilitator has to think 'on his or her feet'
and weigh the consequences of the alternative actions.
The next section discusses Reflection-in-Action (without intuitive action)
which is those situations when it was considered that, given the context
of the meeting and the trainee's lack of specific computer-supported facilitation
skills, the proposed adaptations should not be executed. On many occasions
trainees did not act on their intuition even when it would have been the
right thing to do. This reflective process, Reflection-in-Action (without
intuitive action), was most evident when a trainee had to decide whether
to take alternative action involving the use of computer-supported tools
that he or she was not confident with. For example, one trainee described
how during a meeting she sensed (took notice of an intuitive signal) that,
by taking a vote at a particular moment in the meeting, the differences
of opinion among the participants might have been resolved once and for
all (make connection with prior experience). However, even though her
intuition suggested that an Electronic Voting exercise might have been
the best approach (considered an adaptation), her lack of confidence in
using that tool deterred her from taking that alternative action -the
explanation was that she did not rehearse using the Vote tool during her
preparation as it was not included in the planned agenda (assessed the
risk). Instead, she stuck with the set agenda and continued the discussion
(decided not to make the adaptation). Here was how another trainee described
a similar dilemma.
"I will be disappointed if we don't achieve the result we want by
the end of the full period. I'm more than happy to delete some (agenda
items) if it's necessary and change them. But the only area where I am
not fully confident is if it was suggested that we redirect the whole
session requiring a new input to the computer and the use of other tools.
It is simply my (lack of) knowledge of the other tools and the time it
takes me to think it through and set them up and the pressure of having
people waiting while you do this. It tends to create opportunities for
mistakes."
Other situations when the trainees stuck to the set agenda were when
they had to deal with issues involving contentions, conflict, or high
emotions. Even though intuitive cues signalled that alternative actions
should be taken, this particular version of reflection-in-action, Sticking
to the Set Agenda, was often made because there was insufficient time
to adequately deal with the issues, or it was inappropriate for the issues
to be dealt with in the meeting, or the trainees had neither the skills
nor the confidence to resolve the issues. However, the trainees acknowledged
to the group that these issues had surfaced and suggested that the group
could deal with them at another time.
In summary, this paper reports part of a grounded theory study in which
fifteen facilitators, already experienced in conventional meetings, were
trained to become facilitators of face-to-face electronic meetings. In
particular, the paper presents a model of "Reflection-in-Action".
This model has two components: (a) Reflection-in-Action (with intuitive
action) -intuition that led to the taking of alternative intuitive action
and (b) Reflection-in-Action (without intuitive action).
REFERENCES
Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think
in Action. Basic Books, New York.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New
Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Yoong, P. (1996). A Grounded Theory of Reflective Facilitation: Making
The Transition From Traditional To GSS Facilitation. Unpublished doctoral
thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Zorn,T. and Rosenfeld, L. (1989). "Between a Rock and a Hard Place:
Ethical Dilemmas in Problem-Solving Group Facilitation," Management
Communication Quarterly, Vol 3 No 1, pp. 93-106.
[Return to the
list of Conference papers]
|
