P INT1

The Point project

Triple Task and the Philosophers Stone: discovering a methodology for systemic and

reflective participation

Simon Bell and Stephen Morse

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under the grant agreement n° 217207 (POINT project, www.point.pb-works.com).

P INT2

BackgroundMany participatory action research methods stop at the point where outputs have been achieved. No attempt to appreciate the dynamics that may have been at play within the group to arrive at those outputs.

“Group X has had problems with its internal dynamics – no wonder the outputs were unimaginative.”

“Group Y was dominated by ‘A’ but the others in the group seemed to be happy with that and they certainly had no trouble producing expected results.”

“Group Z has worked very well together with lots of discussion and animation. Their outputs are imaginative and insightful; they have raised points I have not heard before.”

P INT3

Background

Triple Task (TT) provides a more formal basis for analysing how group function can influence group output.

Do purposeful groups always produce the most insightful outcomes?

Do conflictual groups produce incoherent results?

What makes a ‘good’ group?

P INT4

Triple Task: Task 1 (what is)

Rich Picture: now

Systems of Challenges

P INT5

Triple Task: Task 1 (what could be)

BITAOC and Vision o f Change

P INT6

Triple Task: Task 1 (how to get there)

Rich Picture: if aspired for change happened

P INT7

Triple Task: Task 2 (BECM) Broad guidelines for team assessment Being - respecting perspectives Engaging with complex

situations Contextualising an approach Managing practice

1. The team has internalised the concepts/ skills associated with effective practice - can use and apply ideas in a logical way - varying approach in reflection with context. Can adapt and change approach in creative ways. Learning is bi-directional. Evidence of realistic, astute, practical judgement and perception

Self-aware, aware of others and ethically focused. Written material uses 2nd and 3rd order language (‘I’ and ‘We’).

Complexity seen as being within the nature of relationships not ‘in the world’. Same with ‘system’, etc. Emergence understood.

Able to adapt concepts, approach and methodology to context with ease, responsibility and creativity.

Inviting and welcoming others to join in and share enquiry (3rd Order, Theory Z) Continually aware of interpersonal viability of enquiry. Appreciate needs for evaluating own managing. Responsive to opportunities and ‘environmental’ problems

2. Solid grasp of methods which can be applied over a wide range of contexts – without the innovative ability to reflect imaginatively. Good straightforward and sensible approach. Potential but needs to develop reflective capability

Aware and sometimes self-aware. Evidence of considering ethical issues. Frequent use of 2nd and 3rd order language

Complexity usually seen as being in the relationship and not in the world

Good at adapting approach to context. Good grasp of approach and methodology

Providing the where-with-all for viable enquiry (2nd order, Theory Y). Demonstrates awareness of modes of managing (for, with, or enabling others to). Acknowledges need to be responsive to environment

3. The team has good qualities and can manage an enquiry but understanding of arguments and engaging are flawed and limited. Not wholly confident about methods.

Aware but not really self-aware. Some use of Ethical approaches. Written material uses mainly 1st order language (it)

Complexity sometimes seen as being in the relationship and not in the world

Generally good at adapting approach to context. Better than adequate grasp of approach and develops own methodology

Sometimes providing viable enquiry (1st to 2nd order, Theory X and Y) and some awareness of different modes of managing. Some, though inconsistent acknowledgement of, and responsiveness to, the environment

4. The team has adopted an instrumentalist approach to getting through. Has difficulty contextualising approaches to changing circumstances - low to poor ability to engage reflectively.

Very limited awareness. Very limited thought about the ethics of an intervention as demonstrated by use of 1st order language (‘it’).

Complexity usually in the world - sometimes abstracted to relationships

Sometimes good at adapting approach to context. Adequate grasp of approach - applies methods and sometime methodologies

Little but occasional thought of viability in enquiry - fairly instrumentalist (Usually 1st order and theory X). Little acknowledgement of environment outside immediate managerial concerns

5. Some reference to methods but mainly an instrumentalist approach in the most limited and basic kind. No coherent logical thread going through presented work. Work full of bald and stereotypical ‘this is what you want to hear’ comments but not based on learning. Repeating known and preferred ideas without thought.

Not aware of how the self is or relates to others as demonstrated by limited use of 1st order language (‘it’) in reporting on systems practice

Complexity is always in the world – always divorced completely from different perceptions including that of the observer/ systems practitioner

Hardly able to adapt approach to context. Very limited grasp of approach -applies methods in a simple, though not incomplete systematic, unreflective manner

Highly instrumentalist. Little awareness of different modes of managing. Narrow and sketchy focus on elements bound within a ‘system’. Always 1st order and Theory X - occasional evidence of W

6. Little of reflection on behaviour. A few isolated points. Grossly flawed understanding and representation of points. Incoherent.

Domination and self-assertion. Possible signs of egoistic attitude permeating reports, accompanied with dogmatic assertions

Complexity is someone else’s fault

Unable to adapt approach to context. Muddy view of any approach - square peg in round hole

No awareness of different modes of managing. Non-responsive to values, beliefs and circumstances outside the practitioners own sphere. Theory W

7. No understanding of methods for this kind of project.

Tyranny. Frequent use of dogmatic assertions and no evidence at all of being self-critical

Complexity is not understandable and emergence is not understood

No grasp of systems concepts or approach at all

Flagrant abuse of others values, beliefs and circumstances. No idea of what ‘managing’ involves

P INT8

Triple Task: Task 3 (Symlog)

Has a history going back to 1979 when it was first introduced by Bales and Cohen.

Symlog Consulting Group

www.symlog.com

Has since grown to become a popular approach to the analysis of group work and has been applied in a wide variety of contexts.

"SYstem for the Multiple Level Observation of Groups".

P INT9

Triple Task: Overview

Task 1Scoping

Vision

Aspiration

Task 2

Task 3

BECM

‘outside in’

Internal to facilitators

Symlog

‘inside out’

External to facilitators

P INT

Philosophers Stone

10

Systemic and Reflective

Participation?How can we relate

the 3 Tasks?Are Tasks 2 and 3 related?

Can the outputs of Task 1 be related to Tasks 2 and 3?

P INT11

EU POINT project Triple Task workshops held as part of the POINT (Policy Influence of Indicators) project funded under the European Union Seventh Framework Programme.

P INT12

Relating Task 2 and Task 3

Yes – but not straightforward (best subsets)

P INT13

Relating Task 1 to Tasks 2 & 3

SAGA: Subjective Assessment of Group AnalysisLevel of use Levels 1 – Incoherent rich picture 2 – semi-incoherent rich

picture 3 – semi coherent rich picture

4 – coherent rich picture

Process of drawing (group activity)

Not engaged, sitting quietly

Moderately engaged, little standing, little talking

Engaged, some standing, some talking

Highly engaged, standing, talking

Content (1) Colour relevance Hardly any or no colour. Not used for any discernable reason

Little colour, rarely used to emphasise meaning

Colours in some places, sometimes used to emphasise meaning

Vibrant colours, attention to additional colouring for meaning

Content (2) Kinetic

Hardly any or no variation in line width and no use of symbol – drawing limited to lines – wide use of words and acronyms

Little variation of line width, small use of symbol – substantial use of words or acronyms

Some variation of line width and shape, a limited use of symbol – some use of words

Vibrant line width and shape, much agitated use of symbol – little or no use of words

Content (3) Mood expression

No evidence of a story, fracture and /or isolated elements.

Little evidence of a narrative theme

Some evidence of a narrative positive or negative

Evidence of a strong ‘story’ and narrative direction (positive or negative)

Content (4) Evidence for information / indicator use incidence

No explicit reference to indicators in terms of reception, internal use, external use or decision support

Little reference to indicators in terms of reception, internal use, probably not external use or decision support

Occasional reference to indicators in terms of reception, internal use, maybe external use, probably not decision support

Frequent reference to indicators in terms of reception, internal use, external use and decision support

Type Level 1: Unengaged, instrumentalist and no group cohesion. Dominance by one or small group. No real focus on indicator use

Level 2: Occassionally engaged and rarely creative. Little group strength for defining indicator use

Level 3: Fairly engaged and occasionally creative. Reasonable group strength for defining indicator use

Level 4: Engaged, creative and capable of developing a strong group narrative re. indicator use

P INT14

Relating Task 1 to Tasks 2 & 3

F

G

H

C

E

D

A

B

O

P

J

K

IN

L

M

Poor GoodTask 1

Poor

Good

Task

2 (B

ECM

)

Good group function

Poor group function

Tas

k 3

(Sym

log)

P INT15

F

G

H

C

E

D

A

B

O

P

J

K

IN

L

M

Poor GoodTask 1

Poor

Good

Task

2 (B

ECM

) R2 = 20% *

Task 1 is significantly correlated with Task 2 (BECM)

Better group function better outputs

BUT – both Task 1 and Task 2 assessed by facilitators – bias?

Relating Task 1 to Tasks 2 & 3

P INT16

Relating Task 1 to Tasks 2 & 3

Good group function

Poor group function

Tas

k 2

(BE

CM

)

A

BC

D

EF

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

Good

Poor

GoodPoorTa

sk 3

(Sym

log)

Task 1

O

P

P INT17

Relating Task 1 to Tasks 2 & 3

A

BC

D

EF

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

Good

Poor

GoodPoorTa

sk 3

(Sym

log)

Task 1

O

P

?

?

BUT – relationship is more complex.

Better group function does not necessarily yield better outputs.

P INT18

Worlds in Collision

“When two independent matrices of perception or reasoning interact with each other the result .. is either a collision ending in laughter, or their fusion in a new intellectual synthesis, or their confrontation in an aesthetic experience.

The bisociative patterns found in any domain of creative activity are tri-valent: that is to say, the same pair of matrices can produce comic, tragic or intellectually challenging effects.”

(Koestler 1964 page 45, our emphasis.).

P INT

Acknowledgements

Thank you

We would like to thank all of our colleagues in POINT but especially Louis Cassar and Liz Conrad (Malta), Zuzana Valkovcova and Daniela Babicova (Slovakia), Jari Lyytimäki and Kautto Petrusand (Finland), Henrik Gudmundsson (Denmark) and Markku Lehtonen (UK).

Many thanks also to Pia Frederiksen (POINT Coordinator) and Ian Perry (EC).

19