Action research PhD

Gerry Roberts   -- Chapter 7

 

 

Action researching my practice as a facilitator of experiential learning with pastoralist farmers in Central West Queensland

 

 Gerard Michael O’Brien Roberts

B.App.Sc.  (Rur.  Tech) (Hons); M.Sc.  (Wool and An.  Sc.)

 

Chapter 7 Concerning new conceptualisations and their action outcomes for pastoralists and the impact of my facilitation on these aspects of developing the experiential learning skills of pastoralists

 

"Well, I’m just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood."

(Benjamin, Marcus and Caldwell 1964 )

 

Section 7.1 Introduction

In Chapter 7 I develop the theme of exploring my facilitation of experiential learning from my experience with the pastoralists. Reflection on my project work suggests that two major factors influenced outcomes as I sought to use adult learning principles to facilitate the development of collaborative and participative extension.  The first is that previous experience helps explain action taken or not taken by pastoralists and/or myself (as facilitator) as a result of our group activities.  The second is that the level of congruency of my action theories of facilitation influenced outcomes.

In dealing with the two factors I recognise:

• That my initial interpretation of the experiential learning literature did not include the need for particular attention to facilitation in other than the process capacity of presenting the experiential learning cycle.  This was discussed in Section 5.4.
• That my facilitation activities influenced the learning outcomes of the pastoralists.

My reflections show that I initially sought to ‘make’ pastoralists learn, that is I wanted them to reach outcomes I thought suitable.  There was a change when I recognised the unconscious use of my position of power as facilitator and moved to become more collaborative and this is detailed in Chapter 5.  In Chapter 7 I use the reflection opportunity afforded by writing this thesis to examine the assumptions underpinning my initial position and my changed position, to gain a more critical understanding of my facilitation of experiential learning.

In this chapter I record the formal reflection on my facilitation of experiential learning with pastoralists.  It includes the abstract conceptualisations I developed from my reflection which related to my facilitation.  As such it represents reflection about how I was and am (in thesis writing) learning about my facilitation and thus may be referred to as meta-learning.  The outcome of my reflection derives from the interplay among my field experience, the literature referred to in Chapter 6 and in this chapter.

The abstract conceptualisations developed from the reflection relate to three issues:

1. My perspective on new concept development (higher level learning) and how it impinged on my interpretation of what action should be taken (Section 7.2).
2. ‘Action taking’ by pastoralists and I as an outcome of group learning activities.  I explore three explanations for expected action not being taken (Section 7.3):
   *   personal foundation of (previous) experience,
   *   the impact of my practice as a facilitator, and
   *   the continuing emergence of action outcomes after the formal experiential learning activities concluded.
3. The level of congruency of action theories in my facilitation of experiential learning (Section 7.4).  I do this through reference to a specific experience in cycle one of the action research.  My reflections on the experience highlight an initial lack of congruency of action theories and I explore how this insight impacted on my later facilitation for collaboration.  I then consider my developing understanding of the need for congruency of action theories through my implementation of plans for expanding my facilitation options as the project progressed.

I conclude the chapter by relating the concept of transparency in facilitation for collaboration with that of congruency of my action theories as a facilitator.  I discuss the proposition that transparency in facilitation relies upon congruency of action theories about transparency in facilitation.  I consider how examining the congruency of my action theories of transparency in facilitation provides for effective reflection-in-action (Schon 1987) in future.  I argue that holding congruent theories of action about transparency better places me to enable collaboration in learning opportunities that arise during experiential learning.

 

Section 7.2 Reflecting on my facilitation of the development of new conceptualisations by pastoralists through experiential learning

The focus of this section is that of my facilitation of the development of new concepts related to issues facing pastoralists (that is, higher level learning related to these issues) in the Westland and MTT groups.  The development of new concepts provides learning in the sense presented by Argyris and Schon (1996), Bawden (1995;1990), Mezirow (1991; 1981), Argyris et al (1985), Kolb (1984) and Rogers (1969).  The sense referred to is that of improvement in problem situations through change in meaning scheme (Mezirow 1991) or the transformation of meaning perspective (Mezirow 1991).

At project initiation I viewed new concept development as an ethical means of providing choices that would lead to changes by pastoralists.  I interpreted such change as their taking action to improve their problematic situations.  I interpreted ethical practice as enabling participants to derive their own outcomes through their use of the process of experiential learning.  I wanted to avoid the imposition of the will of the facilitator as criticised by Brookfield (1993,1987) and Freire (1972).

This was the basis of my invitation to pastoralists in the first (Westland) group to gather around an issue previously identified as relevant by a wider spectrum of pastoralists.  The Westland pastoralists who responded each agreed that the issue was one that concerned them.  Following rewording by the group to establish specific relevance, the issue became the focus of experiential learning for the group.

 

Section 7.2.1 Identifying and interpreting my initial process for facilitation of new concept development

The intent of my project was to increase the options for action available to pastoralists to improve problematic issues.  Reference to the notion of new conceptualisations that lead to action outcomes (change) in my field notebooks (b3p51; b4p7) indicates its centrality in my thinking relative to the ‘success of my project’.  In this situation I am referring to the emergence of new conceptisations as a function of the experiential learning process (Kolb 1984) and recognise that new conceptualisations in this sense are possible at all levels of learning (Bawden 1995).

Stage one of my emerging understanding of facilitating the generation of new conceptualisations began in early planning.  It involved providing visual as well as verbal messages in the invitation contacts with pastoralists (Cat.#55W; Cat.61).  It also involved room layout, process planning and attention to the need for creativity (b4p12/13/31/40/43; Cat.#3W) in our group sessions. I believed these to be useful ways to model ‘being different’ as acceptable in this forum.  The idea of ‘being

different’ was consistent with my idea of generating new (different) conceptualisations about problematic situations.

Stage two was my recognising that thinking differently about a problematic situation required attention to all stages of experiential learning and not just abstract conceptualisation (b4p34/40).

Stage three was my recognition of the meaning of ‘new’ in the term ‘new ideas or conceptualisations’.  An initial concern centred on the development of ideas by Westland pastoralists that were not new to me (e.g.  woolgrower co-operatives).  Reflection activities with a member of the DPI group involved in the project and with a DPI training facilitator resulted in an appreciation that ‘new’ (when facilitating experiential learning) is describable as ‘new for the person in the situation’(b4p46/88).  This interpretation is evident in the experiential work of Smith and Berg (1995) with group dynamics students and in the adult learning literature (Burns 1995; Mezirow 1991).

From this emerging understanding my facilitation became:

• focussed on providing activities and techniques that generated knowledge commensurate with the phases of the concept of the experiential learning cycle, particularly divergent and assimilative knowledge, and
• inclusive of my understanding of new conceptualisations or ideas in terms of their relevance (or newness) to participants.

Over the duration of the project I believe that my epistemic position from which I interpreted facilitation for generating new conceptualisations progressed, at least in its espoused action theory beyond Perry’s (1970) dualistic cognitive position to the epistemic (Kitchener 1983) position of multiplicity (Perry 1970), and ultimately to a position of commitment in relativism which represents an "...  orientation of self in a relative world" (Perry 1970).  This is apparent insofar as my interpretation recognises:

• the multiple responsibilities of myself and pastoralists in learning for change in this project,
• that the commitment in relativism recognises the right of the pastoralists to identify what is a "new" idea for their circumstances, and
• that my approach may need to change as new material emerges, and this is allowed for by the flexibility of an action researching methodology (Culver and Hackos 1982; Culver 1987).

In this way my epistemic perspective on facilitation changed to a position supporting the development of new conceptualisations in which the pastoralists are the arbiters of newness.  New pictures of the world, generated from the confluence of the phases of divergent and assimilative knowledge in experiential learning can lead to the emergence of new concepts (Bawden 1995,1990; Macadam 1995).  However, my emphasis on generating new conceptualisations through focussing only on divergent and assimilative knowledge, may indicate a lack of attention in my facilitation to acquiring convergent and accommodative knowledge.  Macadam (pers comm) refers to this and suggests it can be lacking in the application of the experiential learning model and is manifest as change or action outcomes not emerging from learning.  The subject of the next section of this chapter is action outcomes of the learning of both the pastoralists’ and myself. 

 

Section 7.3 New conceptualisations generated by pastoralists, and their action outcomes

Action outcomes in a stylised model of experiential learning (Kolb 1984) involve converging to a course of action, mediated by development of the new conceptualisations, and followed by accommodation.  Macadam’s (pers comm) suggestion is that a new concept about a problematic situation develops through the use of facilitation, using techniques that promote divergent and assimilative knowledge.  He posits however that action as an outcome of the experiential learning cycle does not always occur insofar as insights into what might or should be done are not translated into action outcomes.

At this stage it is interesting to consider situations in the project where action outcomes occurred or did not occur. Considering these situations may make clearer the role of my facilitation in this aspect of facilitating experiential learning with pastoralists.

Examples exist demonstrating the development and use of both convergent knowledge and accommodative knowledge (that is action outcomes) by pastoralists in the Westland and MTT groups. Collective examples and individual examples are available.

 

Section 7.3.1 New conceptualisations leading to action outcomes by pastoralists

One Westland pastoralist and his management team decided to sell their property and move to a different district where they would not run sheep.  This was the accommodation of a new conceptualisation of the world in which they were not continuing to run sheep.  He suggested that this outcome could have had some basis in the activity of the group (b7p19).  It was a new conceptualisation for him as he had earlier in the group’s activities indicated his intention to stay in wool growing as his way of fulfilling his role in preparing and selling his wool.  In the earlier activity he had presented himself in a sketch of his future, as conducting a more efficient wool growing operation (Cat.#19W).  So his accommodation of the new conceptualisation occurred as one of moving out of the wool industry.

In another instance a Westland pastoralist identified a new concept or a new conceptualisation as his recognising aspects of marketing he would not undertake personally (b6p60) whereas he had originally held the view that he could include them in his activities.  In an evaluation session, the pastoralist (b7p107) explained the new conceptualisation as "The other realisation that came out of the group was that there is not much that I as a woolgrower on such a small scale, can do to control wool marketing.  I should do wool growing well and produce a quality product .....  I can’t go to Italy because of costs, and I don’t speak the language." A probe question related to ‘action taking’ was "Did you make any significant management changes since the start of the Westland group?" In response he said he had decreased numbers "...  the aim being quality not quantity of wool."

An example of cycle completion on a group basis was the development by the pastoralists of the MTT of a new conceptualisation related to sourcing information to assist their decision-making about their wool-selling method.  The concept was to have access to a ‘code of options’.  It would enable a comparison of wool selling methods and be used as a framework for directing questions to the providers of wool selling facilities (b8p49).  The information was brought together and published by group members (Cat.#76) to make it available to other pastoralists.

 

Section 7.3.2 New conceptualisations not acted on by pastoralists

Examples are also available where pastoralists reported that they had converged on an option for action and planned how the implementation could proceed, but had not gone on to produce an action outcome.

An MTT pastoralist brought to the group the problematic issue of "not enough time for my time management" (b7p68/71).  He referred to not having enough time to do well all of the things he believed he needed to get done.  Group progression of the issue using a Revans’ action learning questioning format followed. My reflection notes of the session record the observation "[Pastoralist’s name] didn’t really say what he plans to do" (b7p66).  It is qualified with an interpretation (b7p67) pointing out the new conceptualisation identified by the pastoralist (in this case one of ‘best use’) was to be activated by his asking "Is this the best use of my time now?" My notes and transcript of the tape of a later discussion with the pastoralist and his wife, as the other member of the property management team, (b10p36; Cat.#01) show that he had yet to use the questioning device.

A second example is available from the same group.  It involves a situation already described in Chapter 5 where it was presented as an instance of higher level learning.  This situation began as one of deciding whether the industry was sufficiently secure to support his purchasing an aeroplane for contract stock work to secure his future.  It concluded with the new conceptualisation of security for his future including the need to examine a family succession issue (b7p84/85).  My notes of an evaluation discussion between the pastoralists and myself held 11 months later (b12p7) show that no discussions had taken place with his family on the succession issue.

It appears that the only thing lacking in these instances is the final act of implementing the action.  Holt and Schoorl (1989) provide a model of ‘putting ideas into practice’ based on an examination of systems paradigms.  Their aim is to interpret action for change in agriculture.  The five steps they identified are - getting the idea, judging whether to go ahead, planning for action, designing a scheme for incorporating the action into current practices and finally implementing the action.  Their model refers to the conceptualisation of a ‘new’ idea and the development of convergent knowledge and accommodative knowledge in Kolb’s (1984) terms.  The instances I have reported show only stages one to four of the Holt and Schoorl (1989) model as completed.

Two group instances of new conceptualisations without action outcomes arose with the Westland pastoralists.  One issue related to synthetic wool packs and the loose fibres retained in them after manufacture that subsequently contaminate wool put into the packs at shearing.  The new conceptualisation was that manufacturers may be able to build into their production activities a process to remove loose fibres thus overcoming contamination problems occurring when shed staff did not turn the packs at shearing (b5p55).  That the group recognised it as significant is shown by notes of the session when it arose, and by references in evaluation sessions where it was described as having the potential for combined group action (b7p19/29).  However, no action of any kind eventuated.

In the second instance, a networking booklet was proposed.  The new conceptualisation was one of having practising pastoralists, rather than experts, provide information to other pastoralists.  It was well supported during the session in which it was developed (b5p56).  It was recorded on the newsprint paper as one of the highlights of our time together (Cat.#50).  Again no action was planned or taken.  In these examples, the cycle did not progress through to action.  It supports the contention of Macadam (pers comm) that progress through to action is a common shortcoming in experiential learning situations.  Kolb (1984), in discussing learning styles, suggests that it is the combination of all four elementary learning forms that produces the highest level of learning.

In the reflection afforded by thesis writing I have become aware of a meaning scheme I am using in my understanding of experiential learning.  My attention was drawn to the meaning scheme through my awareness that in this section I am referring to the outcome of experiential learning as an action supposedly "observable" by another person.  Earlier I discussed my initial and current perceptions of experiential learning referring to my current perception as one of recognition of Kolbian experiential learning as a process rather than steps to action.  This is consistent with an interpretation of Kolb (1984) wherein the outcome can be conceived of as an internal "change of mind" (Bawden pers comm) derived from the "one cycle" process beginning with concrete experience (but not progressing to a second concrete experience for that is in a different cycle).  The continuation of the process to include additional cycles and thus action, is more recognisable as Lewin’s action research because I have moved through additional cycles.  I believe however, that a change now would be inconsistent with the application of experiential learning and with the concept of reflection as a part of thesis preparation.

With this recognition that the focus on action is a more applied or stylised version of experiential learning, the examples used show that action outcomes did not eventuate in all instances following the development of new conceptualisations.  In relation to my facilitation however, I believe that an exploration of the reasons for this may further my understanding of my facilitation of experiential learning itself and my use of this and other processes to develop skills for change in others.

 

Section 7.3.3 Exploring the meaning of action outcomes not occurring

There are a number of possible explanations for a lack of action outcomes when seeking change.  Boud and Walker (1990 p63) suggest that the roots of disincentives to action arise from an individual’s ‘personal foundation of experience’. They are referring to the accumulated previous experiences of the person concerned.  They suggest that previous experiences may explain why individuals at times do not take expected action.

The notion of a foundation of previous experience is related to Checkland and Casar’s (1986) model of Vickers’ appreciative system.  This model maintains it is the ‘appreciation’ that an individual makes of the flux of events and ideas (previous experience) that underpins future action.  The action in turn becomes part of the flux that makes up the life of the individual.

The influence of previous experience on learning is recognised by Taylor (1994) in his work interpreting intercultural competency in terms of transformative learning processes.  He refers to it as ‘stage setting’ and maintains that his qualitative research showed "...  each person comes to intercultural experience with former critical events in his or her life, personal goals, varying amounts of intercultural training, and previous intercultural experience that influence the learning process" (Taylor 1994 p160).

Again in the context of interpreting action in relation to the particular situation, it seems that previous experience helps explain taking action or not.  Finger (1994 p141) found that the best predictor of this was "....  (previous) experiences in and with the environment".  It is his proposal that any conceptual model used to understand how changed behaviour (action) arises in relation to the environment, should include a field he has called ‘life-experiences’.

There is evidence of the influence of previous experience explaining why action is not taken in the applied literature of change.  Gotsch (1996 p48) cites an example where previous experience limited fund raisers in their achievements as change agents for their institutions "It is only when ...  (we) ...  get outside the box of our past, of what we know, of our experiential noise, that each of us is truly open to new possibilities; that clearing of liberation and transformation of self when we ...  can together invent the future."

An action research project where a similar phenomenon was recognised was where Hastie (1997) identified ‘previous history with the subject’ as a critical factor in the change process when action researching the creation of a new ecology in an educational setting.

Hastie (1997), Taylor (1994), Finger (1994) and Checkland and Casar (1986), like Boud and Walker (1990), have identified the role previous experience plays in an individual's decision to act. It is worth noting that these authors have arrived at the same explanation of action and non-action, from different starting points - systemic thinking, intercultural experiences and environmental education.

A simplistic interpretation of the material on the effect of previous experience is that change in behaviour will not occur without previous experiences that support the change.  Counter evidence, however, does not preclude the taking of any new, previously unexperienced, action by individuals.  This is apparent in the work of Argyris and Schon (1996) and Dick and Dalmau (1992) in the field of behaviour change and Packham et al (1989) in the field of agricultural education.  These changes are all in facilitated learning situations.  The work of Perry (1970) and Klaczynski (1994) suggests the same happens in unfacilitated situations where the initiating factor is psychological need. Similarly Smith and Berg (1995) report that the psychological need to accommodate new conceptualisations produced changed behaviour in groups.

So while some change appears to occur without explicit links to previous experience, there is clear evidence that some explanation of change can be linked to previous experience.

 

Section 7.3.4 Project examples of how previous experience can be interpreted as having influenced an outcome of no action in this work

An example of action outcomes not arising in response to experiential learning events because of a personal foundation of experience, can be interpreted from the behaviour of a pastoralist in the Westland group.  This pastoralist missed few sessions and was always supportive of what was happening in the group.  In a final evaluation interview between the pastoralist and I (b8p13) he raised issues that support the idea that his personal foundation of experience had manifested itself in his not taking action.

In response to an initial introduction seeking the meaning for him of the time spent in the group, he raised the following issues:

• we had covered a lot of ground about selling wool and he had "tried most of them [before]";
• he had, "found out years ago that [wool] futures [trading] provided a budget tool".

In his response to the question "How would you describe the level of action taken by the group?" he said that there was "not a lot of action by the group [as a group project]. [We] Talked a lot and thought a lot." And he thought that was "...  acceptable because change takes time.  10 years is usual and we worked together for only 12 months."

Initially he said that he had "learnt a lot" in response to the question, ‘If you had to relate something that you have learnt while you have been in the group, what would that be?’ When asked for examples he said, "Nothing actually ...  [I] have thought of or tried all of those things in [my]own backyard." And later when asked about any changes to his management activities as a result of group involvement he said, "Don't think it helped me with anything in that line."

Later in the discussion, when asked whether the initial sessions introducing the concept of experiential learning for generating new ideas had been useful to him he replied that the particular sessions had not.  He drew the analogy that the reason they had not was that he "...  had too much to wash off ...". He said however, "You are on the right track - wash[ing] brains and start[ing] again."

As the oldest pastoralist present, a man of over 65 years, he said he had "at no point" lost interest.  This is consistent with his being recorded as contributing his experience to the group.  He said that he would be happy to be in future group activities although he didn’t know if his thinking was "too set".  Unprompted, he said he might change but that "...  to get a change in thinking may need younger people."

A reasonable inference from the data is that his personal foundation of experience in previously trying wool selling methods and experiencing change as taking longer than 12 months had the effect of maintaining the status quo for him in relation to his current management.

Another example interpretable as no action outcome because of a personal foundation of experience, arose in the MTT group.  It occurred in cycle three of the action research.  This issue is reported in Chapter 5 where I used it in developing the argument for attending to relationships in group experiential learning situations.

In this case a pastoralist raised the current local issue (CLI) of his perceived need to develop relaxation habits that fitted with his family, business and self needs (b8p33).  In the session related to this, the pastoralist developed a plan to progress his issue.  He left the session supposedly ready to add to his accommodative knowledge regarding relaxation to suit his situation.  The plan involved his return to his farming situation to work with his new conceptualisation that relaxation did not require long periods of time doing something conventionally considered as relaxation (e.g.  sporting activities) but could be practised using structured relaxation of short duration (e.g. meditation).  In doing so he was transforming via extension, his new conceptualisation of relaxation as something he could practise for a short time each day.  He did this through the active experimentation of seeking and using relaxation techniques that matched with his idea of short times.

In the following session he reported that he had taken no action (b8p51).  The reasons he gave for this were that:

• he currently does things that he believes provides means for him to relax,
• when he thought about it, relaxation is not a problem for him, and
• he has other tasks to work on that take his attention.

One possible interpretation of these reasons is that of his having a personal foundation of experience in relaxation practice that, in this case, resulted in not taking his planned action.

It appears that, in the two situations referred to above, the influence of the learner’s personal foundation of experience (Boud and Walker 1990) could provide at least part of the explanation for the lack of an action outcome.  That it provides only part of the explanation in the second example is possible given material reported in Chapter 5 that supports the argument that relationships between that pastoralist and the group also influenced his decision to bring apparently less important issues such as relaxation to the group.  Thus a cluster of influences can be seen to mediate action outcomes.  The existence of clusters of influences is consistent with the significance attached to complexity of issues confronting people by Kitchener and King (1981) and Kitchener (1983).  It is also consistent with the concept of collaboration in action research where an example is the clusters of influencing factors acted on to improve the access of low-income women to physical activity services (Frisby, Crawford and Dorer 1997).

A possible additional factor contributing to an explanation of why in some situations some pastoralists did not take action is that my facilitation did not provide for action.  Currently applied Kolbian (1984) experiential learning is expected to involve action in the accommodation phase.  I consider the influence of my facilitation in relation to action in the next section of this chapter and Smith and Berg (1995) refer particularly to the contribution of facilitation to outcome in experiential learning.

 

Section 7.3.5 Examining the influence of my facilitation on ‘action taking’ by pastoralists

In considering the influence of facilitation on action taking it is interesting to compare recorded changes by members of the two groups in relation to the wool issue.  The changes show some cases in which action was taken.

At Westland (8 property management teams were represented):

• one management team sold out and moved to another district to run cattleand do more of the other things that each wanted to do (b7p18);
• one team put a special selection of its wool up for sale under a "promotional" brand to draw buyers' attention to their wool (b7p28/29);
• one team decided to decrease stock numbers to improve wool quality, but stay out of wool processing (a previous interest of the pastoralist) in recognition of the fact that his business was too small financially for involvement in processing (b7p107);
• another acted to sell their wool by putting it up for tender (Cat.#72W);
• another recognised a need for a cash business to complement his wool selling and he put on a farm manager and bought a business in the local town.

At the MTT (7 property management teams were represented):

• the group prepared material about selling methods available to them and the strengths and weaknesses of those methods for their own later use in decision making about wool selling(Cat.#76).

The MTT also worked with CLIs after my attention to shifting decision-making power relative to the direction the group would take (recorded in Chapter 5).  At that time I changed to a role of supporting the group to do their own experiential learning following a reassessment of my facilitation practice.  For the CLIs that were the focus of learning in the MTT there were some actions taken by group members as a result of our use of action learning as our technique of experiential learning.  For example:

• one management team representative confirmed his need to act to change his sheep breeding program (b7p54);
• another management team began using the experiential learning cycle in making property decisions and this was reported by a team member who was not a group member (Cat.#03);
• another developed a plan to expand their exploration of the possible purchase of a neighbouring property, and from his generalisations in action learning, his team decided not to purchase (b8p33);
• one pastoralist developed a plan and took action to take control of a field day being run on his property by a Government Department (b7p99);
• as a group the MTT planned and ran a night meeting to demonstrate to their other management team members how they went about action learning.

These instances demonstrate that actions were taken by group members, in contrast to the occasions referred to in the earlier part of Section 7.3.2 where there were instances of no action.

Observations supporting an interpretation that my facilitation limited opportunities for action with each of the two groups is available.  In final reflection discussions, pastoralists at Westland reported on two issues that had offered the opportunity for combined group action (b7, b8).  The first dealt with wool packs and the second with a pastoralist networking booklet.  Four of the eight Westland pastoralists reported that these two issues were worthy of group action and that I could have precipitated action on these opportunities (b7p18/27/107;b8p4).  In the words of one of the four "When it [action as a group] didn’t happen I thought that was what the group was supposed to do - [that is] not do those things." It appears my facilitation in the view of these pastoralists, did not provide for action.  On that basis examinating my assumptions about action in the project can contribute to an understanding of my process of facilitation. Checkland (1991) has suggested a similar activity for soft systems inquiry.

My assumptions about action-taking are apparent in records of field observations (b5p8) when I identified and recorded my assumptions in response to a group member raising the issue of no group action in cycle one of the action research.  I recorded them as "Assumptions about the theory which underpins the way [for me] to operate to address the issue of ‘no action together as a group’

• the action learning is about [my] asking questions of the group and not developing answers for them,
• the principle of participation is important in drawing out the outcome which best suits our group,
• that posing questions allows the development of dialectics that, through discussion, will lead to an increased understanding of the issue and its problems by members,
• that the people in the situation can learn their own way out of it."

These appear to conform to a position of waiting for the group to enable action taking and of believing that individuals should learn or act for themselves.  This is consistent with the recorded aim of the project (see Chapter 1) "to have participants move towards self-action to improve the wool situation for themselves".

There are instances of my not moving to take action even when group members suggested it.  At Westland, for example, pastoralists suggested involving an outsider (b7p18/48).  This issue was also raised at MTT but it was not progressed through facilitation within either group, that is, not offered back to the group to plan for action.  In this respect my facilitation role was consistent with my underlying theory-in-use of having the people in the situation resolve their issues for themselves - an epistemic assumption that influenced my facilitation behaviour.  In a final discussion a Westland pastoralist said, "It became clear that your process was more important to you than the group doing something [together]" (b7p108).  This expression supports the interpretation that my facilitation restricted the extent of ‘action taking’ by the group as a group.

My facilitation (waiting for group action to be initiated by group members) is interpretable as my facilitating in the belief, founded in my personal experience (Boud and Walker 1990), that individuals are responsible for their own actions.  My foundation is evident in my summation of my assumptions about ‘action taking’ referred to earlier where I suggested that I appeared to conform to a position of waiting for the group members to initiate action and that individual action was preferred.  In fact I was responding from the same position (my foundation of personal experience) as I have suggested pastoralists themselves responded when not taking action.

At the same time as my personal foundation of experience was restricting my acceptance of proposed action to that taken by individuals, my records reveal an anxiousness on my part to have the group members act (b5p81).  This anxiety precipitated the situation I referred to in Section 5.4 as a ‘power shift’ away from my ‘directing’ pastoralists toward particular outcomes.  Field records show my intention was to have individuals "plan" (while in the group settings) for individual ‘action taking’ and this is borne out in the original expression around which I invited pastoralists to gather, and which then formed the focus of our activities at Westland.  The expression included the use of the personal pronoun "I" and its connotations of individuality.  It was "The role that I [the pastoralist] as a Longreach woolgrower can play in the preparing and selling of my wool" (see Table 3.3 Chapter 3).

From an examination now of:

• my assumptions about my facilitation role in ‘action taking’ by group members; and
• the original invitation expression that I used;

it seems that the unconscious intention in my facilitation was to have participants initiate all action and to take their action as individuals.  This led to my not recognising or ignoring directions for which pastoralists in each group had energy to act as a group.  Facilitation founded on such an approach is counter to the adult learning concept of recognising that learners know what they want to learn (Mezirow 1981, Knowles 1984) a concept which I would have claimed to be applying.

Thus it seems that my facilitation contributed to pastoralists not acting in some cases during the project activity.  It does appears however, that pastoralists continued ‘taking action’ after the formal completion of the action research process.

 

Section 7.3.6 ‘Taking action’ after the formal completion of action research

An additional interpretation of ‘taking action’ by pastoralists has arisen from my reflection on the outcomes of experiential learning with the pastoralists of the Westland group in cycle one.  The interpretation is that although our formal activities as a group reached an end point, pastoralists continued to learn about the issues with which we had been dealing.  Prior to the end of cycle one, two pastoralists had taken action in relation to our issue and in the following six months, the other pastoralists took observable actions that could be linked to previously expressed altered perspectives.  One pastoralist for example, had expressed recognition of an additional cash business as a changed concept in relation to the group’s focus of "The role that I as a woolgrower can play in the preparing and selling of my wool" (Cat# 72W).  He and his management team acted on this after our group concluded its activities by employing a manager to run their sheep property and purchasing and running a cash business.  The idea of action continuing to occur for participants after the end of formal action research activities is reported by Frisby et al (1997) in community programs relating to access to physical activity services.

It seems that even though the formal group activities of experiential learning had ceased the process of moving through the experiential learning cycle was continuing for individuals.  It is not valid to suggest that the group experiential learning activities were solely responsible for the development of the new concepts for action, but involvement appears to contribute to ‘action taking’.  It could be construed that pastoralists had learnt how to experientially learn and were continuing to apply the process for themselves, as was the original intention of the project.

 

In response to the issue of the influence of my facilitation in situations where action was not taken - reflective observation reveals that at times action was taken by pastoralists, but was not obvious.  Reflection also shows that ‘action taking’ was a complex phemomenon affected by:

• the personal foundations of experience of the pastoralists,
• the quality and nature of relationships between participants
• my facilitation, and
• when an assessment was made as to whether or not action was taken.

In Section 7.4 I continue the theme of this chapter related to my facilitation by examining the congruency of my action theories of facilitation.

 

Section 7.4 Considering the effect of congruency of my action theories on my facilitation of experiential learning

Both Argyris and Schon (1996) and Dick and Dalmau (1992) have argued that congruency of action theories of interventions play a crucial role in relation to behavioural change in complex situations.  In Section 7.4 I consider my level of congruency of action theories of facilitation relative to collaboration and participation in this project.

In Chapter 6 I explored the literature related to congruency of action theories (Argyris and Schon 1996; Dick and Dalmau (1992;1991); Argyris et al 1985) and proposed that behavioural congruency was important in facilitation.

In this section I consider my facilitation behaviour and its impact on the outcomes for pastoralists.  In doing so I raise the possibility that my level of behavioural congruency of facilitation impacted adversely on the development of my project goals of collaboration and participation.  I suggest however, that the action research methodology allowed me to modify my behaviour and this enabled positive change (learning outcomes) to occur for the pastoralists.

Torbert (1983) suggests it is individual self-study that is required to increase effectiveness.  The action science work of Argyris and Schon (1996) and Dick and Dalmau (1992) is used in this section to assess my congruency of action theories of facilitation.  Their work provide a means of critically reflecting on my facilitation as suggested by Burrows (1997).

The assessment uses a two-column analysis process (Argyris and Schon 1996).  It incorporates the concept of Model I and Model II governing variables (Argyris et al 1985) together with Model I and II action statements (Dick and Dalmau 1992).  I referred to these concepts in Chapter 6 when discussing congruency of action theories of facilitation.

The steps I took to determine the congruency of my action theories of facilitation using the two column analysis are those suggested by Dick and Dalmau (1992).  They are:

1. I assess how I would like to behave in facilitating experiential learning with pastoralists in terms of Model I and Model II action statements.
2. I describe each of two project experiences whose outcomes I considered unsatisfactory and analyse each in terms of the public (group) and private (facilitator) dialogue and actions during the experience.
3. I then relate the two-column analysis to Dick’s and Dalmau’s (1992) Model I and II action statements to consider the tendency of my words (public dialogue), thoughts (private dialogue) or actions (public or private) to favour one or other of the models.
4. I describe action I took in response to my reflections on the experience.

The material generated in the instrument at step three above shows whether it is Model I or II that is favoured by the words and actions.  Plans are made to progress to the desired model, whenever incongruencies appear.

Two ‘experiences’ were selected for analysis.  I describe the analysis in detail rather than in a summary form as I believe the depth of analysis provided the leverage for making the behaviour changes that the analysis identified as relevant in my practice.  The first (Experience 1) is the issue discussed in Section 5.4 where I sought to use my

position of ‘power’ to direct pastoralists to my notion of suitable outcomes.  The second (Experience 2) is not a single incident and spans a period of time and a number of what, at the time, were distinct incidents.  They relate to my communicating clearly to participants what we were doing and why (transparency) and the influence of clarity of process on collaboration between the pastoralists and myself.

 

Section 7.4.1 Step 1 - Assessing my claimed (espoused) action theories of facilitation of experiential learning activities with pastoralists

Table 7.1 shows an adapted form of the material of Dick and Dalmau (1992) illustrating an assessment of my preferred choice of facilitation actions in relation to Model I and Model II behaviours.

 

Table 7.1 Table showing my preference (the
blackened numbers) for Model I or II behaviours

Expressions supporting Model I actions	Rating	Expressions supporting Model II actions
Pursue own goals perhaps without making them explicit to others	1  2  3  X  5	Explicitly and jointly define all goals before proceeding with the activity
Act unilaterally to control the way things are done	1  2  3  X  5	Involve the others in defining and managing the way things are done in the activity
Others seem to perceive you as defensive	1  2  3  4  X	Others seem to perceive you as not defensive
Try to win using a win/lose strategy when necessary	1  2  3  4  X	Try to achieve outcomes for both self and others
Unilaterally define and manage the task	1  2  3  4  X	Explicitly and jointly define and manage the task
Resulting relationships seem to be defensive	1  2  3  4  X	Resulting relationships seem not to be defensive
Maintain my values whatever happens	1  2  3  4  X	Open to revising my values in the light of developments
Act to minimise negative feelings for self and others	1  2  3  4  X	Express negative feelings openly and clearly
Unilaterally engaged in actions to protect self	1  2  3  4  X	Express vulnerability and invited others to assist
Conceal assumptions of others’ motives	1  2  3  X  5	Reveal assumptions before acting on them
Act unilaterally to protect others from hurtful situations	1  2  3  X  5	Reveal perceived hurt to others before acting
Present information selectively	1  2  3  4  X	Provide all relevant information
Act to limit the choices open to the others	1  2  3  X  5	Create environments that maximise personal freedom
Treat the process as given once it is begun	1  2  3  4  X	Encourage others to express dissatisfaction with the process
React defensively if others voice their assumptions	1  2  3  X  5	Encourage others to voice their assumptions
Partial censorship of some beliefs or feelings	1  2  3  4  X	Open expression of almost all beliefs and feelings

My marking of preferred modes of behaviour (with an X) within Figure 7.1 shows my preference to act in the facilitation role with pastoralists in ways that correspond to Model II.  This is consistent with the original aims of the project presented in Chapter 1.

 

Section 7.4.2 Step 2 - Description of selected project experiences

The first experience (Experience 1) to be analysed was a session of the Westland group

where I set out to help the pastoralists identify what they could do to achieve our focus

of identifying ‘the role that I as a woolgrower can play in preparing and selling my wool'.  Four of the eight members were present.  The setting was a cottage used for School of the Air by four local pastoralist families, two of whom were represented in our group.

Material, written on newsprint, that related to the work of the group was fastened to the walls.  For example:

1. Our group focus - ‘the role that I as a woolgrower can play in the preparing and selling my wool'.
2. Quotations, e.g.  ‘If you always do what you have always done you will always get what you have always got’
3. Any sheets being worked on (e.g.  graphic sketches of visions of the future).

I undertook actions intended to:

• facilitate the preparation of a rich picture/mindmap by the pastoralists of their interpretation of the material they had collected about the focus issue
• contribute examples of how material should be written
• provide guidelines on the mindmapping technique.

My intentions for the pastoralists were that they would:

• identify the issues to be recorded
• write their own material on the mindmap
• clarify points they were raising if others asked

General description notes:

• it was a night session and at times the pastoralists appeared tired
• at other times they appeared energetic and enthusiastic.

My intention was to have the pastoralists identify the actions that they could take individually to fulfil ‘the role that I as a woolgrower can play in the preparing and selling of my wool’.

The two-column analysis in Table 7.2 records the public dialogue among group members during Experience 1, and my corresponding internal dialogue.

 

Table 7.2 The 2 column analysis (Argyris
and Schon 1996) prepared for Experience 1

Internal dialogue (of facilitator)	Public dialogue
	I said - ‘Let’s put on our map the options for actions you can take’.  I added things like, ‘as I said in the news sheet [sent to you before this session] the mind map allows us to see it all together and to link items'.  I think it is useful and allows us to analyse the material.  It's a good process for doing this.  Is that OK for you?’ (b5p77) Pastoralists - All said or nodded ‘yes’.
People lack focus on what they can do for themselves - e.g.  for selling they have just listed the range of options, but not made personal choices. People are still exploring rather than analysing e.g.  recognising that they needed more accurate feedback from wool processors, but not how they would get it. We need a useful outcome otherwise the work won’t be seen as successful by others. The pastoralists won’t think the sessions have been successful unless we have a practical wool outcome for each of them, or at least the majority.	Pastoralists and I - spent an hour putting-up their ideas. I said things like - ‘you need to push the lines outward as in doing that you will see actions to take.’ I said often - "You need to refer back to the central issue as you add more - and also, does what you are adding relate to the central issue?". I have no clear recollection of what the people were saying as I kept drawing their attention to the need to focus on the central issue. They were saying things like "we are having difficulty doing this." It is my general perception (in hindsight) that they were looking at me questioningly as I kept referring to the need to focus on the central piece.  I never sought to find out why they were looking like that.
‘I am having some difficulty understanding how people haven’t picked up on the idea that it is what they can do themselves that is the focus of our mind map (central topic).  That’s what we have been on about all the time.’ ‘We haven’t got to what the individuals are going to do, e.g.  their advertising and promotion link to a professional advertising agency only'. We should be finished this and moved on but we haven’t got to what they are going to do themselves. I could have them take it away and work on it before the next session and give them more guidelines about what to write.	There were quite long silences when people were not writing or saying anything. When I as facilitator judged these to be long enough I said - "this is an important part of our time together, it’s where we see where it has all led"
The others aren’t here so it will be OK to extend it to another session. If we were to achieve a good result from our time together at Westland, I need to have pastoralists focus on actions that they can take for themselves.  I need to understand how to use rich picturing to focus the pastoralists’ attention on that particular point.  Do I need to change the central topic of the picture? Do we need to refer back to what people saw as a desirable future? (An exercise we had done earlier).	Publicly I said - "As the others aren’t here and as we need to move on, should we finish this next time?" Pastoralists - "Yes"   I added - "I’ll make a copy of this and send it to each person, with guidelines for those not here now" I said again - "What you need to do is push lines outward and refer back to the centre each time you intend to add things". * Pastoralist 1 - "Gerry, you should nominate the lines that each person is to pursue"
	As a part of a reflection activity at the finish of the session the following took place: Pastoralist 1 - "It’s not easy, there have been big gaps.  It’s making us think about things we haven’t had to think about before e.g.  advertising.  There have been long gaps.  If it was easy we would have filled it up quicker." I responded - ‘you need to be focussed on what you can do yourselves.’ Pastoralist 2 and pastoralist 1 responded - ‘if we are going to do things fully ourselves then we would need to be specialised in those areas ourselves'.  And ‘if we want to take the maps further we would need to have someone who had experience in the item to tell us if it was worthwhile before we continue’.

 

Section 7.4.3 Step 3 - Assessing my facilitation of Experience 1 in terms of Model I and Model II behaviours

In the days following the sesssion depicted as Experience 1, I prepared a model mindmap to demonstrate how the pastoralists should extend the lines on the mindmap made during the session.  It included questions at various points to focus the pastoralists on what they could do individually in relation to the problematic situation.  I also prepared material for the Westland news sheet to reinforce the message.

I contacted one of my academic supervisors by telephone after faxing him a reproduction of the pastoralists’ map and my model mindmap.  In our discussion I argued for (what I now see as) my continued directiveness, based on the need for an ‘acceptable’ outcome.  The arguments I raised included:

• the idea that if no action or potential action developed, then the pastoralists would go away saying, ‘it was interesting, but in future I will not be involved’, and
• I pursued the idea that the central issue should be reworded so that the pastoralists maintain direction.

In a 90 minute telephone reflection session with the academic supervisor I, as the action researcher, developed an understanding that:

• I was anxious about the outcome and was loading my anxiety on to the pastoralists;
• the central issue could be actually limiting the group members’ thinking;
• it was what the pastoralists were thinking about the central issue that was important;
• my ‘facilitation’ approach had been directive;
• there had been no ‘real discussion’ with the pastoralists about how this phase was to be conducted;
• engaging the pastoralists in my developing understanding of my anxiousness and directiveness would be best done through stating what I was thinking and feeling first, and then asking them to respond;
• there was a need to provide a process for group members to share and develop their thinking about what they had found out about the issue at stake;
• it was appropriate for me to seek alternatives with the group to the dilemmas I was perceiving;
• the dilemma was mine, but I believed it was that of the pastoralists as well, and I had not sought to disconfirm that assumption by raising the issue with them.

It was clear that this was a significant experience in the action research about my facilitation of experiential learning.

Table 7.3 is my interpretation of my actual facilitation behaviour in terms of Model I and II behaviours.  The shaded number in each row represents my current perception (during thesis writing) of my position at that time.  This assessment arises in the light of the reflection outcomes mentioned above.  The assessments using the two-column analysis and the Model I and Model II action statements (Dick and Dalmau 1992) were made during the subsequent writing of this thesis.  They reflect a deeper understanding of the impact of my facilitation on the development of experiential learning skills by pastoralists in the agricultural extension setting depicted in Experience 1.

 

Table 7.3 Assessment of my facilitation behaviour in Experience I in terms of
Model I and II behaviours using Dick’s and Dalmau’s (1992) behaviour statements

Expressions supporting Model I actions	Rating	Expressions supporting Model II actions
Pursued own goals perhaps without making them explicit to others - e.g.  in private dialogue ‘We need a useful outcome otherwise the work won’t be seen as successful by others.’	X  2  3  4  5	Explicitly and jointly defined all goals before proceeding with the activity
Acted unilaterally to control the way things were done - e.g.  in public dialogue I first said ‘As facilitator I said - "let’s put on our map the options for actions you can take".  I added expressions like, "as I said in the news sheet, the mind map allows us to see it all together and to link items.  I think it is useful and allows us to analyse the material. It’s a good process for doing this.  And only then said is that OK for you?"	1  X  3  4  5	Involved the others in defining and managing the way things were done in the activity
Others seem to perceive you as defensive - e.g.  in public dialogue ‘Pastoralist 1 - "Gerry, you should nominate the lines that each person is to pursue."’	1  X  3  4  5	The others seem to perceive you as not defensive
Tried to win using a win/lose strategy when necessary - e.g.  in internal dialogue ‘I could have them take it away and work on it before the next session and give them more guidelines about what to write'.	1  X  3  4  5	Tried to achieve outcomes for both self and others
Unilaterally defined and managed the task - e.g.  in public dialogue ‘I added - "I’ll make a copy of this and send it to each person, with guidelines for those not here now."	X  2  3  4  5	Explicitly and jointly defined and managed the task
Resulting relationships seem to be defensive - e.g.  in internal dialogue - "I am having some difficulty understanding how people haven’t picked up on the idea that it is what they can do themselves that is the focus of our mind map [central topic].  That’s what we have been on about all the time".	1  X  3  4  5	Resulting relationships seem not to be defensive
Maintained values whatever happened - e.g.  in public dialogue I responded - "you need to be focussed on what you can do yourselves".	1  X  3  4  5	Was open to revising values in the light of developments
Acted to minimise negative feelings for self and others - e.g.  in public dialogue ‘Publicly I said - "As the others aren’t here and as we need to move on, should we finish this next time?"	X  2  3  4  5	Expressed negative feelings openly and clearly
Unilaterally engaged in actions to protect self - e.g.  in public dialogue ‘Publicly I said - "As the others aren’t here and as we need to move on, should we finish this next time?"	X  2  3  4  5	Expressed vulnerability and invited others to assist
Concealed assumptions of others’ motives - e.g.  in internal dialogue ‘The group members won’t think the sessions have been successful unless we have a practical wool outcome for each of them, or at least the majority.’	1  X  3  4  5	Revealed assumptions before acting on them
Acted unilaterally to protect others from ‘assumed’ hurtful situations - e.g.  in public dialogue ‘I added - "I’ll make a copy of this and send it to each person, with guidelines for those not here now."’	1  X  3  4  5	Revealed perceived hurt to others before acting
Acted to limit the choices open to the others - e.g.  in external dialogue - ‘I responded - you need to be focussed on what you can do yourselves’.	X  2  3  4  5	Created environments that maximise personal freedom
Treated the process as given once it was begun - e.g.  public dialogue - ‘I said again - "what you need to do is push lines outward and refer back to the centre each time you intend to add things"’.	X  2  3  4  5	Encouraged others to express dissatisfaction with the process
Reacted defensively if others ‘voiced’ their assumptions - e.g.  public dialogue - ‘When I as facilitator judged these (silences) to be long enough I said - "this is an important part of our time together, it’s where we see where it has all lead"’	1  X  3  4  5	Encouraged others to voice their assumptions

 

In Table 7.3, where the description of the Experience 1 is interpreted in the light of the behaviour statements of Dick and Dalmau (1992), my facilitation of Experience 1 tends to favour Model I behaviour unlike the claim of a Model II preference evident in Table 7.1.

 

Section 7.4.4 Action I took in response to reflections on Experience 1

The action I took in response to my reflections following Experience 1 had two major strands.  They were to:

• declare my anxiety about an outcome to Westland pastoralists and ask them to respond; and
• stop being directive in my facilitation and suggest a method that the pastoralists could use to have their individual ideas about our focus issue emerge in a way that the group could share.

Table 7.4 is a two-column analysis of the implementation of the two action strategies.  The material in the table comes from records of my preparation for the session of the Westland group subsequent to the Experience 1 session, and the session itself.

 

Table 7.4 The two-column analysis of the my response to reflections on Experience 1

Internal dialogue	Public dialogue
I want to act immediately	I wrote in news sheet (the Westland News produced after the session in which the experience occurred) the outcome of my reflections. (Cat.#72W) I wrote that they should each extend the mindmap as they chose.
I had feelings of apprehension in raising these issues with the pastoralists. Luckily I have already broached the subject in our news sheet.	At the next session (b5p47) as facilitator I acknowledged that: "I have spent time with an academic supervisor reflecting on the experience." "I now understood that I was being directive and that was why you were saying it was difficult to work on the mindmap". "My dilemma has been in thinking that we have 2 sessions to go and that we need a practical result by conventional standards otherwise we and others will be dissatisfied." "I can influence things just because of the ‘power’ of my position as organiser.  Such influence doesn’t allow for natural creativity.  In being directive I have moved away from the aim which was to participate collaboratively to find new solutions." I gave examples of where people had challenged the idea of doing it all themselves (Pastoralist 2 and Pastoralist 1 in Table 6.2).
It has been less difficult than I thought to raise these issues with the pastoralists - they have listened and from their responses seem to understand. I want to get to the practice and understanding of real participation in this action research work for myself and the pastoralists involved. I know I want to talk less and promote talking by the others.	Pastoralist 3 - "Not getting a concrete result is not a problem as the experience itself has been important." Pastoralist 4 - "We have got ideas for ourselves about our role." Pastoralist 5 - "We were never likely to get a group result, not getting a result for individuals is disappointing." I said - "I have learnt from this occurrence how to work with groups without restricting them by my thinking." Pastoralist 2 - "I did get things out of our group activities" Pastoralist 1 - ‘Yes, and more was done before and after sessions.’ I suggested a process to consider what we had come up with - an interview process - and from that the pastoralists went on to record their outcomes from our time together. The pastoralists were enthusiastic as they worked using the process. Reflection notes of that session record that it was one of the most creative we’d had together.

 

Table 7.4 demonstrates how I sought to shift my facilitation towards Model II facilitation behaviours.  Such behaviours are consistent with those I aspire to, as depicted in Table 7.1.

The increase in congruency of facilitation action theories in the above situation brought about changes for the pastoralists involved.  They demonstrated a notable increase in creativity and enthusiasm in response to the wool issue (b6p55; cat#50).  The material they generated provided a basis for the action by the Westland pastoralists recorded in Section 7.5.

Changes in my facilitation behaviour produced increased congruency between my espoused and in-use theories of facilitation.  I offered pastoralists a process to enable their ideas to emerge and I believe this was significant in providing a focus for future action.  The fact that pastoralists became more creative and enthusiastic, thus identifying areas for action, supports my earlier interpretation that the outcome of experiential learning continued to emerge after the formal activities of cycle one.  Their own ideas were more acceptable as action foci but the action came after the formal finish because of the timing of my change in facilitation behaviour.  It appears that the increased congruency of my action theories of facilitation in the Westland group sessions contributed to completion of the experiential learning cycle for some individuals.

The insights arising from Experience 1 led to more congruent facilitation in the third cycle of the action research with the MTT pastoralist group (b6p26).  I was more transparent about my process proposals and this opened the way to improved collaboration with pastoralists.  Changes in my facilitation enabled the emergence of the focus on using experiential learning to improve CLIs (current local issues) described in Chapter 5, as well as group action on a code of options for wool selling (cat#76).

Experience 2 follows.  It demonstrates how increased congruency of action theories enabled pastoralists and myself to collaborate in an increasingly authentic way.

 

Section 7.4.5 Experience 2 and its impact on my transparency in facilitation for collaboration

Experience 2 is not a single incident.  It spans an extended period of time and two discrete events.

The first event occurred with the Westland group in cycle one of the action researching and the second was with MTT group in cycle two.  At Westland all 8 pastoralists were present at the time and with the MTT all 7 pastoralists were present.  Table 7.5 uses the two-column analysis of Argyris and Schon (1996) to consider the events that make up Experience 2.

 

Table 7.5 The descriptions of the situations of Experience 2 using Argyris and Schon’s (1996) two-column analysis

Internal dialogue	Public dialogue and actions
Event 1 of Experience 2 - Feb 1993 and again Nov 1993 Event 1 refers to a situation in which I inquired of participants about my process introducing experiential learning.  I stopped the inquiry when they said the process I was referring to had been ‘boring’ and I made my own assumptions about their meaning.  It later emerged that my assumptions were not well founded, so I returned to the issue seeking their meaning.
Feb 1993
‘Boring’ means the sessions are not interesting and too long. "My impression is that they [introduction sessions] need to be reduced, I need to say where they are taking us."	I asked the pastoralists of the Westland group ‘What did you think of the 4 starter sessions?’(b5p22) Pastoralist 6 - "As Pastoralist 1 said, it wasn’t until [after] 3 or 4 meetings .....  that she [understood enough of what we were doing and] could actually tell people what we were doing." Pastoralist 1 - "They were boring." Pastoralist 7 - "We were working towards something that we didn’t know we were working towards." Pastoralist 8 - "(They) gave us a chance to get to know each other." Pastoralist 6- "We need to have the discussion about the history about each other - this was important - get to know each other - must have this concept in some form." I did not seek more information to explain ‘boring’. Pastoralist 1 - ‘It’s like you [Gerry] have a map but it is in your pocket [and we can’t see it].’ In a later session I asked - ‘Do you have any thoughts on what Pastoralist 1 said about my having a map (of where we are going) but it is in my pocket?’ (b6p11) Pastoralist 7 - ‘Group is to learn different ways of thinking, you have goals and we don’t know what they are'.  You think we can go further.’ Pastoralist 1 - "We waste time finding our way in the end for the same result." I asked "What suggestions would you make about it?"     Pastoralist 1 - "[We] Need to keep on track.  If [you] see we’re getting confused ....  better to pull it back onto line earlier.  Confusion is tiring."
Nov 1993
"Maybe the learning here is not repeating a question in another way, but rather I should examine why I am using that process. " "Does it relate to non-transparent process (map in pocket)? Could mean when they think that they are doing what I asked of them, but then I say no it wasn’t.  (Pastoralist 1) feels that their time has been wasted because I then redirect them.  Could mean that they haven’t had enough input into the process even if only through my making the process transparent and asking them to support change." (b6p11)	I sought information on ‘boring’.  I asked which [activities] were boring? (b5p84) Pastoralist 1 - "[I got bored] when asked a question from you and group didn’t know how to respond." Pastoralist 1 - "It has been useful lately when you have said things again in another way.  You would give us an exercise - then add explanation.  By the end of the explanation I become confused about what we are supposed to do.  I have an answer first up, but then lose it.  It is not in our skills to respond to verbal only information." Pastoralist 7 - "I agree with Pastoralist 1, people, when [they] don’t know how to respond do feel bored."     Pastoralist 6- "Interest varies - people vary in what they like - look for variety of material, do 2 or 3 exercises so people will find ones they like."
Event 2 of Experience 2 - in cycle 2 of the action research. In Event 2 I made interpretations of what was happening in the group but didn’t ask participants to comment on their validity.
Internal dialogue	Public dialogue
‘I am concerned about Pastoralist 9 thinking that we could have got to conclusions faster, but I know we have to get the group to agree on these ‘conclusions’. ‘I’m dissappointed when people seemed not to be as interested in acting differently.’ ‘What can be done about (lack of) interest?’ Group members don’t appear very interested in acting differently.	Group members' actions showed some body language (such as yawns, listless appearence) indicating low interest.  (b5p103) Pastoralist 9 - "We could have got to things [our mission statement] earlier and faster." MTT pastoralists asked if the survey done in 1992 that showed wool as important, was still relevant now in Nov 1993 (b6p26).

 

Section 7.4.6 Reflections on Experience 2

The two-column analysis in Table 7.4 was prepared during the writing of this thesis.  Reflections immediately after the events however, led to these interpretations:

• I need to say where our activities are taking us (b5p22).
• I sometimes talk too much; I will talk less through prompting others to speak (b5p27).
• I need to have a visual (words and /or diagrams) of what I am asking.  I should ask someone to repeat back to me as much as they understand of what I have said (b5p86).
• I need to understand my role in making the decision to undertake an activity or not.  As well I need to understand their [pastoralists’] role in the these decisions and identify clearly how I have consulted them about the decisions (b5p86).

Subsequent reflections on Experience 2 with an academic supervisor (b6p18) led me to understand that an increase in my transparency of facilitation was desirable.

More recent reflection on my behaviour while writing this thesis is again based on my modification of Dick and Dalmau’s (1992) Model I and II statements of behaviour.  Table 7.6 shows the results of this assessment.

 

Table 7.6 Assessment of my facilitation behaviour in Experience 2 in terms of Model I and II behaviours using Dick’s and Dalmau’s (1992) behaviour statements

Expressions supporting Model I actions	Rating	Expressions supporting Model II actions
Pursued own goals, perhaps without making them explicit to others - e.g.  in private/internal dialogue - ‘I am concerned about Pastoralist 9 thinking that we could have got to conclusions faster, but I know we have to get the group to agree on these ‘conclusions’’.	X  2  3  4  5	Explicitly and jointly defined all goals before proceeding with the activity
Tried to win using a win/lose strategy when necessary - e.g.  in internal dialogue - ‘Could mean when they think that they are doing what I asked of them, but then I say no it wasn’t. (Pastoralist 1) feels that their time has been wasted because I then redirect them.’	1  X  3  4  5	Tried to achieve outcomes for both self and others

Unilaterally defined and managed the task, e.g.  public dialogue - Pastoralist 1, ‘It’s like you have a map, but it is in your pocket.’	X  2  3  4  5	Explicitly and jointly defined and managed the task
Maintained values whatever happened, e.g.  internal dialogue - ‘I am concerned about Pastoralist 9 thinking that we could have got to conclusions faster, but I know we have to get the group to agree on these ‘conclusions’.	X  2  3  4  5	Was open to revising values in the light of developments
Concealed assumptions of others’ motives, e.g.  in internal dialogue - ‘Group members don’t appear interested in doing things differently.’	1  X  3  4  5	Revealed assumptions before acting on them
Presented information selectively, e.g.  in external dialogue - MTT pastoralists - ‘Asked if the survey done in 1992 that showed wool as important it still relevant now?’	1  X  3  4  5	All relevant information is provided
Treated the process as given once it was begun, e.g.  internal dialogue - ‘I am concerned about Pastoralist 9 thinking that we could have got to conclusions faster, but I know we have to get the group to agree on these ‘conclusions’.	X  2  3  4  5	Encouraged others to express dissatisfaction with the process

As in the case of Experience 1, it appears that I behaved in ways that can be interpreted as grounded in Model I governing values.  Such an interpretation supports my recognition during field work of the need to change.  The outcome at the time was to increase my transparency of facilitation and make provision for participant contributions to process.  The usefulness of the two-column analysis and its interpretation in highlighting incongruent behaviour highlights its potential as a structured tool for identifying where behaviour change can lead to improved practice.  The following interpretation of my changed behaviour validates this potential.

 

Section 7.4.7 Action I took in response to my initial reflections about Experience 2

In response to my reflections about the events of Experience 2 I prepared a plan for the second session with the MTT pastoralists.  I wanted to introduce for discussion the idea of making group members aware of the facilitation processes I intended to use in the session and my reason for doing so.  I saw the decision to collaborate about what we did and how this could be improved as another avenue for discussion of the facilitation issue (b6p27).

My intention in cycle two of the action research with the MTT pastoralists was to progress what was learnt in the first cycle of the action research with the Westland group.  This meant the provision of facilitation that allowed for and encouraged collaboration and participation, and offered experiential learning opportunities.  I intended to switch from the role of a facilitator driving content and process to that of facilitator as collaborator about process and content.

This meant I had to explain why I believed a change was needed. I had also to offer a proposed purpose for the session and suggestions for achieving it, and what I offered had to be open for negotiation and change.

The two column analysis in Table 7.7 presents my implementation of actions planned in response to my reflections described above. My planned actions were implemented in the second session with the pastoralists of the MTT group in cycle two of my core action research.

 

Table 7.7 The two-column analysis of my response to the events recorded and reflected on, in Experience 2

Internal dialogue	Public dialogue
‘The fact that I am going to make the change has made me feel OK about taking this to the Muttaburra group.’ ‘I am excited by the positive comments.’ ‘I feel enlightened by the group's perception that we are a thinking group.’ ‘This will take more time and effort but it will be worthwhile.’ ‘People have welcomed the open approach to process.’ ‘I will prepare an overall approach that promotes openness for the remaining 2 sessions at Westland and all Muttaburra sessions.’	I began the session by saying ‘I think it may be useful to consider some changes to the way we operate for today.  I am using consider because it means that it is only if most people agree that a change would be useful, that we will go ahead with it.’ (b6p26) I said ‘What is it that has made me suggest changes?’ ‘In the Westland group they told me I had not made clear what and why, especially why we were doing things'.  They talked of it as a ‘map in my pocket.’’ ‘Those pastoralist made it clear that the theory (of experiential learning) is important and useful, but must not be boring.’ ‘I know we should mix theory and practical activities in experiential learning.’     ‘I have come to understand that I was being directive with the Westland group and that I had begun in a similar way with you.  Our wool issue (decided last week) could be restricting us.’ ‘And finally, the idea of needing to change our way of operating came from your question about the relevance of the wool issue in our last session.’ Pastoralist 10 - ‘Has this approach to learning been used before.’ I said "Yes" and gave examples. MTT pastoralists - ‘Agreed to the try the approach’ I offered a purpose for our session on that day.  With that proposed purpose I made suggestions about a presumed useful way of achieving that purpose. As a whole group we discussed these in an energetic way.  In the process the group decided that we were a thinking group and called themselves the Muttaburra Think Tank (MTT).’ The pastoralists as a group decided on a topic to use as the means of introducing experiential learning.’   Following the session in which I altered my behaviour to one of increased collaboration the MTT reflected on the change to comment: (b6p36) Pastoralist 10 - "Through .... improvement in our own ability to think, that we may be able to go home and do something for ourselves. [We are]Learning things for ourselves rather than a problem solving exercise which I first thought it was." Pastoralist 11 - "If we tie our hands, the thought process or the learning experience is going to be stifled.  Needs will change." Pastoralist 13 - "Originally problem solving, but now thinking." Pastoralist 10 - "One issue at each meeting, for the exercise of thinking it through." Pastoralist 15 - "Pick a topic each week, related to our mission statement." Pastoralist 12 - "Once (we have) learnt about the learning cycle we can apply it. Learning different ways to solve problems, learn how to think again." Pastoralist 15 - ‘Practical aspect will be good.’ Pastoralist 11 - "[We will be] achieving more out of this whole process, if out of this process I can develop different ways of approaching problems.  [Provide] initiative, so doesn’t matter what problem comes up I may be more innovative in solving it.  [It] will be more constructive, as far as I am concerned, rather than trying to solve the problems of the wool industry." Pastoralist 10 - "Now as [it] is thinking (instead of just wool) many wives would be keen to be involved." I said "I’m not sure where we are going.  I wasn’t sure whether this change to the way we were doing things was appropriate.  I’m now sure that the change was needed and it is working."
	It became my usual practice at the start of each session to offer a purpose and proposed way of achieving that purpose as the way of beginning our sessions. The group later: As a group we decided to shift from individual topics related to the mission to what they called current local issues (CLIs), e.g. succession planning.  This constituted the beginning of cycle 3 of the action research.(b7p45) As a group we decided to conduct a demonstration of how they operated using the experiential learning for the other members of their families.  (b9p1) As a group pastoralists collected information about options available for wool marketing and decided to publish it for other growers to access [I did the actual publishing and distribution].  (Cat.#76)]

In both Experience 1 and Experience 2, the improved outcomes occurred following my recognition of the role of congruency of action theories of facilitation in achieving collaboration and participation.  The outcome of Experience 1 with Westland pastoralists was more creative responses by them of how to deal with the wool issue.  With the MTT group the outcome of Experience 2 for pastoralists was the decision to focus on current local issues (CLIs) to acquire skills in thinking (learning).

 

Section 7.5 Summary

I began Chapter 7 by referring to my goal of facilitating the learning of pastoralists such that they developed new concepts and ideas about their issues.  I suggested that I saw this as a means of ethically providing them with options for change.  I interpreted this as meaning I should not dictate the actions to be taken.

In keeping with my expectations of the action research methodology in the project it is emergent outcomes that provided for improvement in the goal of the project.  The emergent outcomes were:

1. Recognition of the need for my epistemic cognitive position to progress before I could practise my claimed belief that the pastoralists should be the arbiters of newness in conceptualisation of their situations.
2. Awareness of the complexity generated by the interplay of factors operating in situations where action is not taken.
3. That exploring previous personal experience as one contributor to the complex interplay of decisions about "action taking" by pastoralists enabled me to understand that my previous personal experience was contributing to my actions as a facilitator.
4. That participants in the learning situation continued to develop convergent and accommodative knowledge (action outcomes) after the formal end of experiential learning activities.
5. That action science provides me with a critical means of considering what appear to be difficult situations in my facilitation to develop congruency of action theories that match the goal I espouse for my facilitation.

The increased congruency of my action theories of collaboration was a significant learning outcome relative to my aim of facilitating pastoralists to develop experiential learning skills and my more general aim of improving as a facilitator of experiential learning through a methodology of action research.

 

---

Converted to hypertext by Bob Dick;  last modified 20000110

The URL of this document is
http://www.uq.net.au/action_research/art/t-groberts07.html