Frameworks For Effective Improvised Facilitation D.P. Hennessy This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. LICA, Lancaster University July 2015 Abstract The starting point for this study is the facilitation of groups engaged in knowledge exchange and the ways in which facilitation in that context can be more flexible, more responsive, more creative and more effective. Only anecdotal evidence exists relating to what this study calls Improvised Facilitation and defines as the generation of a series of in-situ, micro-designs at each step and turn, independent of established formats and processes. The study attempts to understand better what those micro-designs might involve, by interrogating the practice dimensions of this emergent and poorly articulated form. Key assumptions underpinning both facilitation and improvisation were explored through a systematic review of the literature. The major works of theorists from group and team theory and those associated with the measurement of creativity were interrogated to construct and test emerging ways of working. Action Research was used to explore the aptitude, skills, techniques, competences and confidence required to perform the role of a facilitator who improvises as s/he flexes and turns in response to group needs and challenges as they emerge. Practice dimensions were explored through reflections on practice and with a cohort of professional facilitators contributing their experience through structured interviews. The theoretical approach shed light on the role and impact played by other factors in the facilitation process, almost as co-facilitators in the process itself. These factors include the facilitation environment, spatial configurations within that environment, restraints of time, levels of preparedness and the materials and resources deployed in the moment. This has enabled the synthesis of a streamlined competence framework for facilitation and the design of an entirely novel confidence frame for Improvised Facilitation. These products of the research formed the basis of i the construction of an innovative two-stage approach to the evaluation of Improvised Facilitation that was then tested in dynamic, real-life group events. Driven by practice, experience-capture, passion and reflection, this study has addressed a significant knowledge gap through the design of these frameworks. In so doing, the research offers insights into what this might mean for facilitation, for facilitators and for the development of knowledge exchange processes more broadly. ii Acknowledgements It was my immense good fortune to have met the inspirational Professor Rachel Cooper when I facilitated EPSRC Sandpits she supported as mentor, and then for her to agree to become one of my supervisors for this research. Her unique combination of insight and clarity has made supervisions an absolute pleasure. Professor Leon Cruickshank has supported and challenged me in equally exhilarating measure since I arrived at LICA, and may just have turned me into a researcher as a result. To both Rachel and Leon I offer my sincere gratitude. I am completing this thesis exactly thirty years after last studying In Lancaster and have once again met some extraordinarily supportive people here - both staff and students. In addition to my fantastic supervisors, I particularly want to thank Professor Gordon Blair for his pragmatic good-sense; the wonderful Joanne Wood; Dr Mark Rushforth for his bravery and trust, and who it was an absolute pleasure to work with on the EPSRC Impact Acceleration Account events; Andy Darby for the storyboarding workshop; Dr Katy Mason whose conversations as I approached those terrifying final weeks were immensely focusing; and Loura Conerney, whose calm reassurance got me through the final days. Thank you all. To the professional facilitators who shared so openly the detail of their practice highs and lows, thank you so much. Particular thanks go to Matthew Haggis, my colleague, business partner and friend for his twenty years of flexibility, creativity and focus. Thanks also go to the invaluable contributions of Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders, Founder of MakeTools and Associate Professor in Design at The Ohio State University; and Delft University of Technology’s Marc Tassoul, author of Creative Facilitation, who gave their time so generously at the validation stage. I sincerely hope this research will indeed prove to be useful to you. And also to Madeline Smith from the Institute of Design Innovation of the Glasgow School of Art for her informed guidance. And to my examiners Professor Tom Inns, Director of Glasgow School of Art and Professor Nick Dunn of Lancaster University for their insights, support and reassurance. But undertaking this research has also absorbed my time and my attention in ways that have not always been helpful, so special thanks go to my wonderful family who have supported me at every step and sometimes complicated, miserable turn of this adventure. But it has been the absolutely essential John Chell who has given up more and made the most compromises to support me, as he has done so many times before. I cannot begin to thank you for your selflessness John Chell, although one day I promise to at least try. Finally, this is dedicated to Dinny. When I was 9 years old he told me the story of his conversation with another docker who’d met a stevedore that day whose daughter had just got a degree from a university. Thank you Dinny. iii Motivation for the Study How long does it take to prepare for a facilitated workshop? Answer 1: Your whole life. Answer 2: It depends McWaters, V (2006) This research came about following many years’ professional facilitation practice using an ‘unplanned’ and responsive method that evolved when circumstances conspired to create the opportunity. I have come to call this Improvised Facilitation. That opportunity arose in the month that an ex-colleague and I were setting up our creative facilitation partnership. Our very first commission was when we were invited by the Scottish Executive to facilitate a 24-hour event attended by each of the medical directors and nursing directors from all of the NHS Boards across Scotland. Our only brief was to ‘do something interesting and useful’.1 If we had been more established, or more experienced, we would have been intimidated by this request, but we were neither established nor experienced, so we took risks we didn’t even know were risky. And thankfully, according to the Scottish Executive, it was both interesting and useful. My idea of Improvised Facilitation was born then, in the Dunblane Hydro, in the autumn of 2000, when we greeted the participants and neither they nor we were aware of what would be said or done over the next 24 hours. This study reflects upon what might now be understood by Improvised Facilitation and considers what might be possible next. 1. Creative Exchange/Scottish Executive, Department of Health, event planning meeting notes. November 2000. iv Declaration This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I declare that this thesis is my own work and has not been submitted in the same form for the award of a higher degree elsewhere. To the best of my knowledge it does not contain any materials previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text. ______________________________________________________________ D.P. Hennessy v Table of Contents SECTION ONE .............................................................................................. 1 Background and Starting Points ................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 1: Overview .............................................................................................. 1 1.1 The Research Questions ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Definitions .................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Thesis Objectives and Approach ............................................................................................................. 5 1.4 Structure of Thesis ..................................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2: Methodological Approach ............................................................... 11 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Grounded Theory ..................................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Action Research ........................................................................................................................................ 14 2.4 Action Research Models ......................................................................................................................... 16 2.5 Study Design .............................................................................................................................................