The Orid Or Focussed Conversation Method

THE “ORID” OR FOCUSSED CONVERSATION METHOD

A very useful de-briefing process for facilitation is the ORID questioning process which is based on the Kolb experiential learning cycle. See Figure 1 below:

Figure 1 Experiential Learning Model (After Kolb, 1984)

Experience

Apply Reflect

Generalise

This process is simple and you can practice it on a one-to-one basis with family and friends. It is also a simple tool to reach participants, in that way they learn to work in cooperative mode and de-brief one another in pairs.

Author/purpose This process was designed by Laura Spencer of the Institute of Cultural Affairs (USA) to enable individuals to ask questions to make the most out of the wisdom and experience of others (Spencer 1989). It was developed further by Stanfield (1997) who called it the “Focussed Conversation Method”. See also ICA web site: http://ica-usa.org/mobis/mobis- products.htm

The beauty of this process is that it is fundamental to all facilitators.

The purpose of the ORID process is to:  Provide facilitators which a famework which is based on Kolb’s experiential learning model (Kolb 1984).  Enable participants to reflect on an event or commonly shared experience eg a lecture, a quotation, an article, TV programme, a meeting and to interpret the experience and decide what to do as a result. 1

1.5_ORIDhandout.doc Adapted from Hogan, C. F. 2003, Practical facilitation: a toolkit of techniques, Kogan Page, London, England.  Enable participants to listen to one another’s perceptions and emotional response, suspend judgement during the discussion and as a result gain a broader and deeper understanding of an experience.

Size of group This process can be used in many different formats:  By a facilitator and the whole group  By participants in pairs, they interview each other  By a mentor to a mentee.

Materials Flip chart, paper and pens to record responses.

Venue/layout Semi-circle of chairs, tables.

Stages A facilitator leads the process by preparing then asking questions to which the group members respond. In introducing the process, the facilitator may wish to explain the rationale of the process, ie to obtain perceptions and learning from experience. Some facilitators prefer to explain the four stages so that participants more easily stay on task. (It is also useful for participants to learn processes which they can use in the future.) If a participant by-passes a stage, the facilitator calmly brings him/her back on task. Each participant is asked to give only one idea at a time so that the participation of as many people as possible is encouraged.

Differences in perception and recall are acknowledged and may be recorded on flip chart paper to keep track of ideas. The facilitator may wish to summarise or ask for further explanation.

There are four distinct stages of questioning whose first letters make up the mnemonic ‘ORID’.  Objective questions  Reflective questions 2

1.5_ORIDhandout.doc Adapted from Hogan, C. F. 2003, Practical facilitation: a toolkit of techniques, Kogan Page, London, England.  Interpretative questions  Decision questions.

Questions need to be:  Preferably prepared beforehand, tailored with care and related to the experience itself  Open ended and specific  Sequenced ie start with easy questions.

If no one answers wait, allow think time, repeat the question. As a last resort reword or rephrase the question. If an idea comes up that is off the topic note it on a separate sheet ‘for attention later’. Invite participants to bring in opposing ideas “It looks as if we have three perspectives here. Are there any others?”

Figure 2 Relationship between ORID Process and the Experiential Learning Model (Kolb)

EXPERIENCE

APPLY REFLECT 1. DECISION QUESTIONS 2. OBJECTIVE QUESTIONS 3. REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS

GENERALISE

4. INTERPRETATIVE QUESTIONS

1. Objective questions: Facts, data, senses

1.5_ORIDhandout.doc Adapted from Hogan, C. F. 2003, Practical facilitation: a toolkit of techniques, Kogan Page, London, England. Objective questions are used to draw out the facts and observable data about the event. Participants learn that there are different perspectives of observable reality. Questions relate to thought, sight, hearing, touch and smell eg:  What images or scenes do you recall?  Which people, comments or words struck you?  What ideas/people caught your attention and why?  What sounds do you recall?  What tactile sensations do you recall?  What were the other elements?  What words jumped out at you?

2. Reflective questions, reactions, heart and feelings Reflective questions relate to the affective domain of emotional responses moods and hunches. Examples include:  How did this xxx affect you?  Were you concerned at any time?  Were you surprised at any time?  Were you worried at any time?  What was the high spot?  What was the low spot?  Where (did) you struggle?  What was the collective mood of the individuals involved?  How did the group react?  Were you surprised/angered/elated/curious/confused/depressed by anything in the experience?

If individuals have difficulty identifying feelings some suggestions could be put forward eg “When during the experience were you surprised/angered/intrigued/confused?” Frequently individuals respond to correct the questioner regarding the intensity of the feeling replying “No I wasn’t angry, I was absolutely livid”.

3. Interpretative questions, critical thinking: so what?

1.5_ORIDhandout.doc Adapted from Hogan, C. F. 2003, Practical facilitation: a toolkit of techniques, Kogan Page, London, England. The participants are invited to consider the value, meaning or significance of the event for them. This enables them to put their thoughts into perspective by hearing other people’s viewpoints eg:  What was your key insight?  What was the most meaningful aspect of this activity?  What can you conclude from this experience?  What have you learnt from this experience?  How does this relate to any theories, models and/or other concepts?

4. Decision Questions, now what? Individuals and/or the group then have to make decisions on outcomes and determine future resolutions and/or actions eg:  What will you do differently as a result of the experience?  Has this experience changed your thinking in any way?  What would you say to people who were not there?  What was the significance of this experience to your study/work/life?  In future in how many different ways could you… as a result of this…?  What would it take to help you apply what you learnt?

Outcomes The group develop a shared understanding of the event and desired outcomes

Advantages This process stops meandering discussions that lead nowhere. Frequently individuals jump to conclusions regarding an experience eg “That was awful”, “That was terrific”. It enables individuals to get to the heart of the matter rather than reach superficial conclusions. The questioner uses a questioning framework to enable detailed reflection and learning. People frequently evaluate or judge events too quickly without considering all the elements. Spencer outlined her perception of the process:

It is simple because it follows a natural process – it does not have to be taught. It is sophisticated because it ensures that each step of the natural process is taken,

1.5_ORIDhandout.doc Adapted from Hogan, C. F. 2003, Practical facilitation: a toolkit of techniques, Kogan Page, London, England. thereby reaching a conclusion based upon the widest base of data possible. (Spencer 1989:48)

Frequently emotional or intuitive responses are not acknowledged. This process helps participants broaden their perspectives of an event and turn emotions in action.

Emotions are important data. When taken into consideration in making a decision, they strengthen and support the decision. Ignored they usually jeopardize the decision. (Spencer 1989:48)

The method gives a structure to the de-briefing process and prompts recall. A group can formulate a common strategy as a result.

Disadvantages The disadvantages of the process are it:  Could appear awkward until skill internalised  May be time consuming  Requires cooperation of all other person(s) present.

Interesting points This process may be used with families and friends on a one-to-one basis, or it may be used consciously in your own thinking, or in a journal process writing down your own interpretations of events.

Variations The process can also be adapted whereby a large group is divided into four sub-groups. Each is assigned to a workstation that has flip chart paper and each of one of the four stages and key questions. All group members work concurrently adding ideas to their group’s flip chart paper for about five-ten minutes. At the end of that time, the facilitator requests each group to move collectively to the next workstation and they add their thoughts to the list and so on until each group has worked at each of the four work stations. The facilitator then draws the whole group together to summarize the main elements of learning.

REFERENCES 6

1.5_ORIDhandout.doc Adapted from Hogan, C. F. 2003, Practical facilitation: a toolkit of techniques, Kogan Page, London, England. Kolb, D. A. 1984, Experiential Learning Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall Inc. Englewood Cliff, New Jersey. USA.

Spencer, L. 1989, Winning Through Participation – Meeting the Challenge of Corporate Change with the Technology of Participation. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company. Iowa, USA.

Stanfield, R. (ed.) 1997, The art of focused conversation: 100 ways to access wisdom in the workplace. The Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs, Toronto, Canada.

1.5_ORIDhandout.doc Adapted from Hogan, C. F. 2003, Practical facilitation: a toolkit of techniques, Kogan Page, London, England.