Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6.3 Kristiansen & Block-Poulsen Self-Referentiality PDF

    Uploaded by

    moerkm
    27 views18 pages

    Original Title

    6.3 Kristiansen & Block-Poulsen Self-referentiality.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    27 views18 pages

    6.3 Kristiansen & Block-Poulsen Self-Referentiality PDF

    Uploaded by

    moerkm

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 18
    ARTICLE KEY worDs + action research = dialogue + participation = power Action Research Volume 24): 571-388 Copyright© 2006 SAGE Pubtatons London, Thausand Onl CA, New Dah sworn sogepublcions com Dok 10.1177/1476750304047961 Self-referentiality as a power mechanism Towards dialogic action research Marianne Kristiansen and jergen Bloch-Poulsen Aalborg University, Denmark ABSTRACT, ‘The article is a frst- and second-person inquiry into power rela- tions between action researchers and participants based on a dlialogic action research project with a group of managers at Bang & Olufsen, Denmark. It focuses on discrepancies between ‘our espoused values of dialogue and our theotes-in-use charac- terized by seltzeferentialty. This concept emerged during the process and describes a non-dialogic way of transforming the perspectives of the other into your own a priori categories and ‘ways of relating. It denotes @ power mechanism imposing our regime of truth on participants so that their reality does not count. First- and secondl-person reflection on self-referentialiy is a process of mutual vulnerability and seems to enhance the {ualty of third-person action and research. 371 rans 2, 372 © 9/13/06 1:39 2 Page 372 + Action Research 2(4) Statement of aim As dialogic action researchers, we see ourselves as part of a larger methodologi- cal and philosophical movement away from relying solely on gaining scientific knowledge through observation of and reflection on others as objects and towards an inclusion of contact and dialogue with them as subjects and partici- pants (Heron & Reason, 2001; Shorter, 1992; Steier, 1991}, In spite of our espoused values of practicing democracy and dialogue with participants, a closer inquiry into our theories-in-use (Argyris & Schén, 1996) reveals how power mechanisms are present as self-referential interpretations in four actual, relational practice in a dialogie action research project at Bang 8 Olufsen, Denmark. Self-referentiality means that unknowingly the perspective of the other is transformed into your own a priori categories and ways of relating (Kcistiansen & Bloch-Poulsen, 2000). Luhmann (2000) uses the concept of self referentialty with a different meaning in a systemic paradigm. He understands self-reference as a choice made by and in a closed system, according to which the individual will make a distinction and in doing so autopoetically construct the outside world. We understand self-referentality as a power mechanism, in which you do not question it if itis only your realty that counts (Chambers, 1997). ‘Transcending sel-referentiality is not only 2 question of changing one’s own inguiry practice, it is also about questioning a tendency to impose one’s own regime of truth on others (Foucault, 2000). We have experienced this questioning as.a vulnerable proces. Based on experiences and research results from this project, the article claims that power is present not only in macro-relations, but also in micro- relations berween dialogic action researchers and participants in our co-action and co-research. ‘The article understands power as relational, discursive practice, and as en- compassing all human relationships in alignment with the Foucault-inspired approach within the PAR tradition as presented by Gaventa and Cornwall (2001, p72). Recently some PRD students asked: “Why do you focus on power relations between action researchers and participants when there are more pressing social and economic problems in the world to be solved?” The purpose of the article is an attempt to answer this question by illustrating how first- and second-person reflections on self-referentialty can result in improved third-person action and research (Torbert, 2001), and how the negligence of these reflections can have negative impact on action and research. On a moze concrete level, the article raises three questions: 1) How did our attempts to practice dialogue sometimes function self teferentially in spite of our espoused values? —$— OLARS 2.4 9/13/04 1:39 mH Page 373 $ 2) 3) Kristiansen & Bloch-Poulsen Dialogic action research @ 373 ‘What inquiry practice did we develop to reflect on our own self-eferentil- ity? ‘What consequences did these reflections have on action and research in terms of improved quality? Frame and concepts ‘These three questions are based on the above mentioned dialogic action research ‘co-operation with the R&D department at Bang & Olufsen (B&O), Denmark. ‘The participants were the managerial group and some of their employees. The research process is described and documented in Kristiansen and Bloch-Poulsen (1998, 2000a, 20006). By dialogic action research we understand a particular approach to organizational development work that has dialogue as both its object and its method. We train members of organizations how to enter into dialogue on topics in which they are deeply engaged, so they can arrive at practical solutions that will receive general support. These dialogues may concern a new product, concept, a new mentor program, a change in the structure of meetings, etc. Through this training, we are simultaneously co-exploring and co-developing dialogic competencies. Perspective reflection, meta-communication, confirma- tion, and congruence turned out to be central dialogic competencies in the process at B&O. We use the term dialogic competence to refer to a combination of com- rmunicative skills, ways of relating to other people, and ways of being present as ‘human beings. We define dialogue as an exploratory conversation in which the partners jointly strive to achieve a better understanding or to become wiser together. It is characterized by sharing, daring and caring, Sharing means that all partners are willing to share their knowledge with everyone else. Daring means that they are willing to run a risk and question their own and others’ basic assumptions or self- teferentality. Caring means that the exploratory mood is based on an honest and forthright intent towards others. Our concept of dialogue is inspired by Bohm’s holographic cosmology (1996), Buber’s anthropological dialogue-philosophy (1965, 1994), Rogers’ humanistic psychology (1959, 1980], and Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics (1989). Dialogic action research belongs to the domain of interpersonal organiza- tional communication, We define this as face-to-face conversations between ‘organization members and between action researchers and organization members who are always already situated in multiple contexts (Eisenberg & Goodall, 1997), Action researchers are understood to be a selfsimplicative part of the field of investigation, which they explore and develop in cooperation with organiza- tion members (Bateson, 1972; Hawes, 1998). Inspired by Foucault (2000), the article has non-juridical, strategic per- 9/13/04 1:39 PM Pace 378 t 374 © Action Research 2(4) spective on power. This means that power is not conceived as an individual possession, but as a discursive activity, Thus we assume that power is a princi- pally neutral mechanism to be analysed in its relational dimension and evaluated according to its specific consequences. In this article we focus on power as pro- duced and exercised in and through the discursive practice of participants and action researchers in their interpersonal, organizational relations. These power relations change continuously (Schrijvers, 1995), and they are seen as embedded in larger organizational contexts influencing the discursive practice and vice versa (Alderfer, 1986; Bisenberg & Goodall, 1997}. The relationship between action researchers and participants is a compli- cated one. As dialogic action researchers we function as process consultants, observers, providers of feedback, communication trainers, and researchers. We use the concepts of action rescarcher and participant respectively because of this asymmetry. As action researchers, we strive to co-create more dialogic, demo- cratic. relations among managers and employees in organizational contexts where, principally, there is no democracy. This attempt raises fundamental ‘questions such as: is dialogue at all possible in organizations? Is dialogue double- bind communication in organizations? Is the attempt to set up dialogues in organ- izations an expression of our humanistic sef-referentiality, which Foucault would see as a modernist, essentialist power technique? (See Foucault, 2000, p. 274.) ‘These questions will not be addressed further in this article. Action research at B&O. Since 1989, when our working relationship with B&¢O began, we have conducted a variety of training processes for different BEcO groups. It was on the basis of that long-standing cooperation that they trusted us enough to proceed with the action research process we are reporting here. In 1994 we were asked by the HR senior manager at B&O to join a vision group for the R&D department. The department was organized into project groups. In as much as the management of the groups changed from one project to the next, the staff felt a need for a management function that would be able to attend to their long-term professional and personal development. Management supported this goal of leadership continuity, as they, too, were interested in retaining the staff. On the basis of a future-lab (Jungk & Miller, 1990) and a number of interviews with managers, senior managers, the director, and selected staff members, the vision group decided to implement a training process for the 24 managers. ‘A draft for the training process was presented 0 one of the senior man- agers. It was intended as a videotaped integration of a three-module training sequence for the managerial group and a research process on collegial supervision Kristiansen & Blach-Poulsen Dialogic action research © 375 and dialogue in organizations. This turned out to be consistent with his aim of strengthening his own and his colleagues’ communicative competencies: how could the dialogic action research process empower the managers to empower their employees? ‘The training process started in 1995 and involved an executive director, his two senior managers and their 21 managers, Apart from one woman, trained in economics, they were all men with technical or engineering backgrounds ‘Twenty-four employees participated in staff development conversations, which became part of the training, ‘The managers were trained as mentors, in other words, as personal leaders who would be co-responsible for the long-term interests and development of their employees. The training was framed as communication training in small-size ‘groups of six to seven persons. It included collegial supervision on realistic work problems, which the managers experienced in their everyday work-life, and feed- back on content, form and process in the group. Participants took turns, acting respectively as supervisors, focus persons, and reflecting observers in the training conversations. Later participants emphasized that this integration of form and content was particularly rewarding and had an unforeseen team-building effect. ‘The empirical, videotaped training material consisted of: 50 collegiate supervision conversations; 50 group feedback conversations between a supervisor and a supervisant on one side, and the remaining reflecting participants and us on the other side; 24 staff development conversations between a manager and an employee, which we monitored from an adjoining observation room; feedback conversations between the manager, the employee, and us subsequent to each conversation; observation and feedback of meetings in the managerial groups and training sessions at which we presented co-developed theories and models for farther dialogue. In the spring of 1996, we presented the managerial group with two training, videos and a pamphlet we had produced on the basis of the process. In 1999 we interviewed a number of employees, recent employees and experienced employees alike, about how their managers performed as mentors. The outcomes of these interviews were integrated into a follow-up course later that year. From the outsct, it was our intuition that ‘meetings’, or particular peaks of insight in the conversations, were essential. Would it be possible, for example, to characterize verbally and non-verbally such moments in conversations? The focus of the research project became an inquiry into how insight that creates change and development are generated in conversations berween the participating ‘managers and us; between them; and between them and their employees, In retrospect, the core of the program became to strengthen the managers’ ‘communicative competencies as ‘midwives’ and dialogue partners. A midwife assists with che delivery of the ideas or solutions that are already present in the other. The concept of midwife emerged in the process as 2 metaphor for the col- OL_ARS 24 376 = 9/33/04 1:39 PM Page 376 Action Research 2(4) Jegial supervisor. A dialogue partner contributes to the achievement of collective thinking and participative learning in 2 group. Concepts concerning communicative competencies and theoretical models ‘were co-developed and improved along the way. In other words, nobody knew at the outset those concepts and models that we came to employ in module 3. We began to describe our inquiry practice as emergent, mutual involvement as the ‘way integrated transformation in action, research, and training is created through dialogue. Emergent, mutual involvement was originally a participant-centered notion about dealing with realistic problems and challenges presented by the participants during the process. It differs from following a pre-ordained process design (Kristiansen & Bloch-Poulsen, 2000.) In the following we want 10 enlarge the scope of this concept by including what emerges in first-person research practice. Inquiry as self-referential practice In the B&O project, we expected ~ perhaps naively ~ to find dialogues between participants and between them and us. Looking closer at videotaped, colleague supervision and feedback conversations we discovered that dialogues were rare. ‘More often we found conversations in which managers interpreted the perspec- tive of their colleagues and employees within their own perspective without checking this. The concept of self-referentiality emerged during the process as a way to understand how managers transformed the perspective of their colleagues according ro their own a priori categories and ways of relating, apparently with- ‘out paying attention. ‘This was, for example, the case in the following colleague supervision con- versation. The supervisant or focus person is a project manager who has difficulty coaxing the necessary resources out of those around him, especially his senior manager, whenever he tries to implement 2 project. You enter the conversation after the supervisant, Bent, has introduced his supervisor, Are, to his problem: ‘Ame: ... why has this become a problem for you now? Bent: Yes, but it isn't a problem for me now, it has been a problem in a way [5 secs] yes... for a long time Ame: Yes, but I understand this is sort of derived from the fact that you started by making a statement {yesterday}. Bent: Yes, but its not jus statement. I wasn’t given the resources that I should Ihave been given for the job I'm working om just now .. Ame: Yes... but, but Tunderstood that it was actualy the statement that has come up now, which sort of made you want to, what'll we call t, vo tal about i? Bent: [think it's more a question ofthe situation because I've been conscious of it many times, $e OLaRs 24 9/23/08 1:39 4 Page 377 Kristiansen & Bloch-Poulsen Dialogic action research © 377 In this sequence, Ame presupposes that Bent’s problem has become topical ‘now’ and that it has been caused by a particular ‘statement’. This statement was made by another colleague the previous day, but has not been mentioned by Bent pre- viously in che conversation. He puts forward a perspective with a longer time scale, He states that he has had the problem ‘for a long time’ and ‘been conscious of it many times’. Between the two of them is created 2 relational pattern charac- terized by repeated use of ‘yes, but’. This pattern can be understood as a power struggle about how to define Bent’s problem. By adopting a here-and-now perspective, Arne interprets and reduces Bent’ perspective on his own problem, Arne speaks on the basis of his own idea, which hhe has not checked and confirmed, and does not, therefore, meet Bent where he is, but where Arne believes he is. This would not have been the case, if Arne had checked his impression by asking: ‘T understand i in the sense that... is that how ‘you see it, too? We see this problem-reducing presupposition as an example of ‘what we have called self-referential a priori categorization. In the end of the conversation, Bent reacts by emphasizing that he isin fact talking about a serious problem: Ame... as see you... you... are highly sucessful ar what you do and you ‘et things done and... don’ see any problem in that Bent: Noit ia serious problem for me, because I... didn't find the manpower to get the job completed by the original deadline. Again, Ame and Bent have two basically different perspectives on the same prob: em. Arne looks upon it in a positive way (‘highly successful), Bent in a more problem-maintaining way (‘it isa serious problem’). Ame tries to convince Bent that he is actually successful as a manager. After the conversation Bent told that he did not feel that Arne really listened to his problem. We understand Ame’s postive perspective as an example of self-referential, a priori ways of relating. In the following feedback conversation, Arne reflected on how his positive perspec tive might prevent Bent from finding a solution to his own problem, ‘The concept of self-referentialicy did not only apply to managers. A closer look at video clips of our own inquiry practice in feedback conversations revealed that we, too, acted self-referensally in spite of our espoused value of practicing ialogic research with participants rather than on them (Heron & Reason, 2001). This is the case in a videotaped feedback conversation berween Lars, a recently hired junior employee, Willy, his project manager, and us. Prior to this conversa tion, Lars has been at his first staff development conversation, which we have followed on a monitor in an adjoining observation room. An analysis of the feedback conversation reveals that we were ignoring Lars’ understanding of the situation, or his reality, because of our own self-referential theory. We wil illustrate this interpretation by analysing short sequences from this conversa tion. |ouars 24 9/13/04 1:39 mM Page 378 f —o— 378 © Action Research 2(4) In the observation room we followed the development conversation between Lars and Willy: Willy: ...have you hada chance to... think about what you wane with this [con- versation]? Lars: Ido think it’s quite important for me to... get myself some aime. Willy: Right. Lars: What you expect and what the firm expects. And think that's nice to be able to set yourself some goals, because otherwise you might just sand still somewhat. [e's always been important for me to have some aims ‘Willy: [smiles] Is chat not wo different things? Lars; Tan get to know what the aims are with me, and then I can set myself some goals and decide which of them I want to fulfil [giggles] Willy: [smiles] Which of them comes first? ‘Thats it sn it? Lars: [reddens, 2 sec.] Well, I think it's quite okay that the company or you or whoever ic is sets some goals for me. We saw this sequence as an important place in the conversation. The change in Lars’ non-verbal communication where he giggles and reddens suggested to us that they might be on the edge of giving birth to new insight. Some days before this conversation, the management group and we had found that new recognition in conversations often seemed to be accompanied by changes in verbal and non- verbal communication such as, for example, long pauses, sighs, statements like: ‘That’s a good question’, shifts in bodily position, changes in skin colour. These changes we called gold indicators, because we thought they were signs of new ideas or aspects in the process of being born (Kristiansen & Bloch-Poulsen, 1998), We did not question our self-referential interpretation of Lars’ observable communication (‘giggles, reddens’), which we understood as non-verbal indica- tions of his difficulties of seting goals and taking initiatives. We interpreted Lars as.a dependent person. In the following feedback conversation, we (indicated as MK and JBP), asked how he had experienced the contact with Willy in the conversation: Lars: I thought there was generally good contact ... thought, too, there were places when it was kind of coming to a standstill that was when I was asked [2 sec. specifically about some points. I came to a standstill chen (MK: What you're sinking of, was that fr instance this about your future? Lars: Wel yes, among other things. MK: Right. lars: Think that was incredibly dieu for me atleast... But generally Thad ‘he impression thatthe contact wat fine. JBP: Right. [2 sec.] MK: Right. [3 se] Willy: [nods] Jotans 2.4 9/13/06 1:99. rage 779 A Kristiansen & Bloch-Poulsen Dialogic action research © 379 Lars: Any more about that? [smiles] MK: Idon’t know. JBP: We'll come back to that Lars: You see, maybe that’s asta dificult poine for me... That's maybe when it was closes co falling off, 90 to speak (smile)... I think perhaps he was digging into a bit much (laughs and looks at Willy} ‘We learned that there was a decisive difference between Lars’ and our perspective ‘on that part of the development conversation, which was about him defining his sims. For Lars this was the place in the conversation when the bicycle chain was ‘closest ro falling off, which was ‘incredibly difficult’ for him. In the feedback session, he told, T didn’t actually have any goals, because, as newly employed, I ‘was more concemed about what was going to happen generally. And really 1 hadn't made any specific plans for my future. I think that will be different in a In our understanding, the differences in perspective become audible as unspoken voices in our communication. That is present when MK checks her understanding of Lars’ experience of the situation when the chain falls off: ‘What you're thinking of, was that for instance this about your furuse?" Is this an open ‘question, where we genuinely check Lars’ way of experiencing the situation? Or is it only apparently an open question, because we are investigating a situation that we interpreted differently beforehand without saying so? We miss an open, dialogic reflection on our perspective such as: ‘Our perception of the situation is such and such, that’s why we would really ike to hear your version.’ ‘The unspoken voice can also be heard through a relatively long pause that Lars breaks by asking: ‘Any more aboot that?’ In hindsight, we remember that we ‘were in some unspoken doubt about how to approach the situation that Lars is talking about, The doubt shows in our answers: ‘I don’t know (MK) and “We'll ccome back to that’ (JB) Moreover, we sce a certain unequal progression throughout the sequence. We ask inguiringly about Lars’ perspective. That makes him open up more and ‘more concerning his experience of the situation. This is seen in his use of adjec- tives and adverbs expressing his feelings: ‘incredibly difficult” and ‘a difficult point for me’. It culminates in his downgrading critique of Willy’s way of asking: ‘Tchink perhaps he was digging into a bit muck’, which makes us all laugh. Lars’ openness is not met by a corresponding openness on our part. ‘Through the unspoken voice in our communication, we thus contribute to establishing an asymmetric relation between Lars and us. The selation is especi- ally marked by inequality with regard to openness. A central difference between him and us consists in his increasing congruence, whereas we remain incongruent about our doubt, The inequality is also visible with regard to questions. We use them t0 define the conversational situation, in other words, as a constraining, discursive power mechanism. It seems that our unquestioned, self-referential 380 1:39 mM rage 360 —— Action Research 2(4) interpretation contributes to establishing us as uppers, devaluating Lats and his experience as a lower (Chambers, 1995, 1997). We implicitly impose out ‘regime of truth’ on him instead of trying to co-develop or unfold his ability to take initiatives (Foucault, 2000) Dimensions of self-referentiality Self-referemtiality is a coherent personal, professional, and cultural paradigm. In the following we will illustrate some dimensions of ous sel-referentialty, which shaped the participants’ space of action in a constraining way and reduced the quality of the research. The first dimension of selfreferentiality is related to our theoretical back- ‘ground in interpersonal communication. We have been inclined to understand ‘organizational issues as relational and interpersonal rather than as also task- oriented (Schein, 1999), For example, during the B&O training process we observed @ managerial mecting about a possible cut down in staff. In the feedback-session after the meeting we gave examples of how managers who used unproductive advocacy were listened to, while those who practised productive inquiry were ignored (Isaacs, 1999), The managers recognized this communica- tion pattern. They understood it, however, asa consequence of the pressure of the situation and as a question about future resource allocation based on expected changes in markets, in other words as task-oriented questions, In this situation, we did not manage to combine our interpersonal commu nication approach with their task-oriented approach in a way that could have been productive for their furure work. The definition of the situation as zelation- al thus functioned as a self-referential power mechanism, There was no fusion of horizons (Gadamer, 1989). The second dimension reflects our humanistic naiveré when working in complex, organizational contexts. In the B&O project several managerial layers ‘were present in the training contexts, which made it important to pay attention to different managerial voices. Who did speak during the training? Who spoke in support of whom? Who did not speak ar all? Ar the beginning of the project we did not pay attention to these formal and informal hierarchies. We tended to treat people as equal human beings and were, for example, surprised when one of the managers said during a break: ‘When my senior manager has asked three questions pointing in the same direction, then I know what we are heading at. By excluding hierarchy and competition within the managerial group and by acting as if Habermas’ ideal notion of power-free communication was the way t0 go in the group, our humanistic naiveté functioned as a self-referential power mecha~ nism, Analyses of videotaped feedback conversations show examples of our tacit alliances with those who speak. This was particularly the case when only one of —b— 9/13/06 1:39 ‘Kristiansen & Bioch-Poulsen Dialogic action research tus was present in a training group. In retrospect, we did not help them to cope swith hierarchical problems like what could be said to whom by whom. Towards the end of the project, we began to understand training sessions as spaces where managers positioned themselves and apparently were up for exam by senior ‘managers and where the latter, to0, were being evaluated. We wonder if we our- selves have been internal examiners? Afterwards one on the managers told us that he had just played the game during the taining process A third dimension of our self-referentiality deals with identification. ‘Managerial groups are usually characterized by a firm action-oriented approach, and the B&O group was no exception, From time to time we were confronted with a spoken or unspoken voice in the training room saying: ‘Let's continue, go on, speed up’. Sometimes, we unconsciously followed Schein’s sixth principle for process consultation “go with the flow” while forgetting his eighth about ‘con- frontive interventions’ (Schein, 1999), In these cases, our identification with their action-orientation meant that we did not use the dialogic competence called meta-communication. This might have helped to problematize their action orien- tation and to underline the importance of aking the stand of the devil's advocate. By identifying with them, we did not manage to help them reducing the number of decisions followed by fire-extinction because of too little reflection. ‘A fourth dimension of self-referentialty deals with ways of projecting per- sonal character traits and emotions onto participants. During the B&CO project, we were faced with this dimension in a myriad of ways. We found ourselves irri- tated at participants who did not take initiative; fond of participants with whom wwe easily identified; afraid of participants who questioned our approach, etc. In some cases we used our emotions as starting points for further inquiry, in others we did not, In the latter situations our emotions fanctioned as self-referential power mechanisms, in which we interpreted our ways of experiencing partici- ‘pants as personality traits they possessed. Thus self-eferentiality took the form of tunquestioned judgements. In these situations, ie did not become clear if part pants actually took initiative, or if their criticism could be integrated in the process, etc ‘We learned that we must continuously question our own emotions and risk. our own notion of reality, our epistemology, discursive practice, and interper- sonal communication as dialogic action researchers. We have experienced this risk as a vulncrable process because we have had to give up notions of being in control and to take a more humble stand as learners. We have also come to understand selfreferentiality as a necessary point of departure for both partici- pants and ourselves as dialogic action researchers and as a companion 0 be questioned throughout the process whenever new perspectives and ways of action are needed. = 381 382 = 5/13/08 1:39 PM Page 382 as ‘Action Research 2(4) Reflections on action Self-referentiality means that you take your own actions and reactions for granted. You do not question your observations, bodily sensations, emotions, thoughts, intuition, and communication. They pass unattended and are not submitted to the sceutiny of a first-person research practice. As a corollary, they are not questioned in the inter-subjective, second-person inquiry, as we have shown above. ‘We understand reflections on self-referentiality as a first-person, internal dialogue with yourself and as a second-person dialogue with others ~ your research partner(s) and/or the participants. Reflections on self-referentiality ‘mean suspending the unattended automatism berween your observations, bodily sensations, emotions, thoughts, and intuition on the one hand and your actions! ‘communication on the other. Schén (1983) distinguishes between seflection in action and on action. The former takes place while practicing, the latter after practice has ended. We will begin with some reflections on accion looking closer atthe staff appraisal inter- view between Willy and Lars and the following feedback conversation. While observing this interview one of us reacted with strong bodily sensations and emo- tions, which were not reflected in action. JBP had to walk around in the observa~ tion room being unable to contain his frustration and impatience with Lars, JBP did not ask an introspective or first-person question: ‘Why do I move around like a lion in a z00?* JBP knows from years in psychotherapy that he has problems with the more soft, vulnerable and nor-so-masculine-goal-seting voice inside himself, Instead Lars was automatically judged by JBP as being dependent and tunable to set goals for himself. This self-referential interpretation functioned as a power mechanism, or as projective counter-transference, making sure that the vulnerable voice was not listened to. As we have shown above, this interpretation ‘was not put up for a second-person research practice because we assumed naively wwe could draw conclusions from observations of Lars’ external communication to his internal experience. We did not learn from Lars in action, nor did he learn from us, because our reality counted. In this reflection om action, we learned that itis important to listen to strong, emotional and bodily reactions whenever they are present and make them an object of a first and/or second-person inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry is to break the automatism between reactions and spontaneous interpretations Instead of suspending emotions and bodily sensations (Bohm, 1996), we suggest that repeated, strong personal reactions are inquired into and checked. In the example above, our unchecked interpretation had second-person consequences. ‘We did not empower Lars by confirming and inquiring into his perspective. During the B&O project we began to peer-reflect on the differences hetween the two of us and use them in action. After having introduced a feedback model, the participants reacted by becoming silent. JBP, who tends to be an action-ori- Jovass 2.¢ 9/13/04 1:39 24 Pas Kristiansen & Bloch-Poulsen Dialogic action research © 383 ented extrovert, became impatient and wanted automatically to move on. MK, who tends to be more of a reflexive introvert, became silent, to0, and in doubt about what was happening. We decided to present MK’s introspection as a second-person question asking about how the participants experienced the model. ‘This counter-intutive intervention opened a dialogue. Some of the managers revealed they became silent because they wanted more help to avoid making mistakes when using the model. The dialogue revealed that asking for help as a manager was rare and was connected with many unchecked notions about their macho-culture, as one of them described it: if [ask for help, my colleagues will ‘know that lam not in charges if Thelp a colleague, it will be my job to provide a solution, etc. By means of peer-reflection we broke JBP’s action-oriented auto- ‘matism and it rurned out that the dialogue moved from second: to third-person ‘questions about issues of health and managerial work-life quality. Managers made themselves vulnerable by talking about stress symptoms like hypertension, headaches, and stomach pains, and they decided to help a recently hospitalized colleague. A new, unexpected dimension was added to the action research project: hhow could managers help to empower each ather and to stay alive. Reflections in action: unfolding an organizational dilemma A similar transgression from a first~ t0 a third-person inquiry happened in the following two examples. We were listening to a colleague supervision or coaching conversation between Thomas, the supervisor, and Peter, the focus person. Peter talked about one of his employees who did not perform well. During the conversation we reacted bodily with stomach tensions, emotionally with anger towards Thomas, and began to observe repeated conversational patterns in his communication such as the use of negative check questions ("You have not... ?') and ‘yes, but’ answers (‘I agree, but I think you could . ..”. Increasingly we got an intuitive notion of something not being said, or that Peter was even manipulated by ‘Thomas, In the feedback conversation, we decided to check oue first-person intcospection by asking Thomas a second-person, check question, ‘Is there some- thing which is not said in this conversation?” He smiled as if he was embarrassed and asked: ‘How do you know?" He went on to say that he actually knew what the employee, Peter, was talking about and that he did not know how to handle his sensitive information, By taking this risk, Thomas helped to transform the feedback conversation into a principal dialogue about: how to decide whom to coach; how co handle sensitive information as a manager when networking with colleagues; the limits of dialogue in organizations; and how to be supportive of employees and at the same time help yourself. This dilemma was raised but, of course, never solved during the action research project. 384 © Action Research 2(4) This example also illusteates that a first-person inquiry can lead to third person questions about, for example, organizational dilemmas. During the B&O project we began to learn that sometimes third-person questions are already present in embryonic forms when practicing first-person introspection, We also learned that we could never predict when and if this would be the case, We can only stay attentive to the present and look out for possible links berween first, second: and third-person connections. Reflections in action: co-production of a theoretical model [At the end of the first day of the action research project MK talked about how the ‘managers would present realistic problems in collegial supervision conversations during the mentor program. One of the managers intecrupted MK by saying in @ loud voice: “Here at B&O we do not have problems, we solve them!” Several of his colleagues nodded, apparently in agreement, Internally, MK became surprised that the manager reacted with such vehemence, but did not check her reaction with him. Afterwards the two of us reflected on how to understand the situation. ‘We decided to present and check our reflections as a difference between theit perspective on problems and ours. Incidentally, this situation became an early introduction to theoretical and practical distinction between managers acting 2s advisors or problem solvers and as midwives. It turned out that this distinction ‘was to have an unforeseen and important impact on the training course, Listening 10 collegial supervision conversations, it became obvious to everybody that many of them repeated the same conversational pattern of acting as advisors and prob- Jem solvers. Gradually, chey also experienced the importance of acting as mid- ‘wives as expressed in the following conversation between four of them: Bjarne: Now, I happen tobe the introverted type. And not, of course, just because enjoy wallowing about in all that inquiring stuf. But because I've found ‘out that it’s rational. Because, if Tjust dish up solutions in those 10-minute ‘conversations, then bang, suddenly there's a solution It has che short-term effect of getting the problem solved, so we move on, Inthe long term, I've discovered that to0 many decisions end up being made by me. It becomes a bloody burden in the long run. So Ihave found aut that if I spend moze time with the person who approaches me withthe problem, they don’t do it quite so often Alé That's probably right ‘Aksel: That's the conclusion P've reached at any rat. Ifthe person you are talking to has am ‘ahs experience of insight, then you don’t have all that nonsense of having to convince him and believe in all that stuff I's much easier. ‘You don’t have co sll anything. Ole: And suddenly you ate equals. Because, as a manager, if you give an [employee] « solution - ie. he can’t find a solution to i and you suddenly = [os.asa 24 9/13/04 1:39 2m Page 385 1 Kristiansen & Bloch-Poulsen Dialogic action research @ 385 pall one out of your sleeve ~ then sometimes it's abit like the boss ~ = bit like a godfather ~ has provided a solution, And then the member of staff, ‘of course, since he came to you with a problem and you were kind enough 10 solv it is infact forced to doit. So the hierarchical clement also enters the picture in a detrimental way. Self-referentiality as a lifetime companion ‘We have learned a similar lesson from this project. By asking check-questions into the automatism between our impressions and spontaneous interpretations it becomes possible to make a transition from first: to second-person inquiry. This inquiry is basically about confirming or recognizing the perspective of the par- ticipants so that their reality counts - as opposed to acting self-referentially (Buber, 1965; Rogers, 1959). If, as action reseazchers, we can fundamentally con- firm participants in what they are and how they look upon reality, this might help them and their organization to develop. ‘We have tried to illustrate how first- and second-person reflections on self- referentiality can result in improved third-person inquiry in a dialogic action and research process. As Torbert comments on ‘transformational power’ and ‘mutual vulnerability’: Both developmental theory and statistically significant empirical results in ten, multi-year organizational transformational efforts support the proposition that one ‘must be vulnerable (0 self-transformation if one wishes to encourage ongoing, «episodic transformation in others and in whole structures of activity . . . Whereas traditional forms of power (e.g, coercion, diplomacy, logistics, charisma) can be exercised unilaterally, transformational power can only be successfully exercised under conditions of mutual vulnerability. (Torbert, 2001, p. 256) ‘As we read this comment, it is not only valid for managers in relation to their employees and organization, but also for dialogic action researchers in relation to participants and their organization. The article has shown that improved quality in our action research project depended on muteally risking ourselves as man- agers and action researchers. In those dialogic moments, we all became vulnera~ ble human beings in search of improved quality of work life. These moments ‘occurred when we risked ourselves by asking first- and second-person questions, ‘which sometimes took the action and research into a third-question arena. (ur own fist- and second-person inquiry benefited from the use of various inquiry practices: the use of video enabled us to analyse our own communication; peer-reflection helped open up dialogues between them and us; and our education in psychodynamic psychotherapy provided an understanding of transference and counter-transference when working with participants. Today, our body therapeutic training helps to establish a bodily container 9/33/08 1:39 PM Page 286 dp Action Research 2(4) as dialogic action researchers, It contributes to cope with high levels of energy, for example, when staying in conflicts in and between hierarchical layers of an ‘organization, We have leamed that itis important to create a bodily space with- in ourselves to avoid, for example, walking around as tense, judgmental ions. It helps us stay present, also when sitting in the fire (Mindell, 1995), Ie functions, t00, as a pool from which we can reflect on and use our bodily sensations, emo- tional reactions, thoughts, and intuition ~ either ina first- or second-person dia- logue. We have learned that daily, bodily exercises such as grounding, centering, strengthening of bodily boundaries, and rising of energy can facilitate building this container, because they establish new automatic bodily responses needed in stress situations (Branthjerg, Marcher, &¢ Kristiansen, in press). It is our experience that reflections on action help developing reflections in action because they contribute to establishing a first-person laboratory as a central dimension of dialogic action research. ‘We are interested in systematically pursuing the complex connections between first-, second- and third-person inquiries in future projects with action researchers with different theoretical backgrounds and worldviews. The first- and second-person aspects of these projects were not only to inquire into self- referential conversations, but also into how dialogues in organizations might function as power mechanisms in ways that are not only transformational {Kristiansen & Block-Poulsen, 2003). References Alderfer, C. P. (1986). An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational bebaviour (pp. 190-222). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Argyris, C. & Schéin, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning, I. Theory, method, and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley Publishing Company. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books. Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. London: Routledge. Brantbjerg, M. H., Marcher, D., & Kristiansen, M. {in press). Vejen til et ressource: orienteret perspektiv pd chok. Buber, M. (1965). The knowledge of man. New York: Harper & Row. Buber, M. (1994), land Thou. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Chambers, R. (1995). Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development. In N. Nelson & S. Wright (Eds.), Power and partipatory develop- ‘ment. Theory and practice (pp. 30-42). London: Intermediate Technology Publication. Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Pasting the first last, London: Intee- mediate Technology Publication. Bisenberg, E. M., & Goodall, Jr, H. L. (1997). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint, New York: St. Martin's Press. —e— Kristiansen & Bioch-Poulsen Dialogic action research © 387 Foucault, M, (2000), Power: Essential works of Foucault 1954-1984, volume 3. New York: The New Press Gadamet, H.-G, (1989), Truth and method. London: Sheed & Ward, Gaventa, J, 8 Comwall, A. (2001), Power and knowledge. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds,), Action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 70- 80). London: Sage Hawes, L. C. (1998), Becoming-other-wise: Conversational performance and the politics of experience. Text And Performance Quarterly, 1(4), 273-289. Heron, J, & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research with’ rather chat ‘on* people, In P. Reason 8 H. Bradbury (Eds, Action research: Participative inguiry and practice (pp. 179-188), London; Sage Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together. New York: Currency, Doubleday, JJungk, R., & Miller, N. R. (1990), Zukunftwerkstten: Mit phantasie gegen routine tund resignation, Berlin: Verlag Volk und We. ‘Kistiansen, M., 8 Bloch-Poulsen, J (1998), Productive dialogues ~ Golddigging mid- wifes. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 5(3), 37-54 Kristiansen, M., & Bloch-Poulsen, J. (2000a). The challenge of the unspoken in ‘organizations: Caring container as a dialogic answer? Southern Communica. tion Journal, 65(2/3), 176-190. Kristiansen, M., & Bloch-Poulsen, J. (2000b). Karlig rummelighed i dialoger — om interpersonel onganisationskommunikation. Aalborg: Aalborg. Universitet forlag. Kristiansen, M., & Bloch-Poulsen, J. (2003). Dialog og dialogiske kompetencer ~ en ny form for mage? Erbverespsykolog, 1(4), 40-65. Lashmann, N. (2000). Sociale systemer: grimdrids til en almen teori, Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels forlag. Mindell, A. (1995). Sitting inthe fire. Portland, OR: Lao Tse Press. Rogers, C. (1959). theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships, as

    You might also like