Process conflict or disagreement with the process was also found to hinder cross- disciplinary collaboration for some participants, as expressed by Participant O.
I found this exercise really difficult – my discipline is taught not to be prescriptive – unintended consequences of human action and all that. (O)
Participant O went on later to explain this further and how towards the end of the weekend they had a better understanding of the whole process.
Initial mystification as to the point of the exercise, structured dialogues – not enough time to talk/debate/engage around issues. Dislike for AI process probably didn’t help – resistance. See AI [Appreciative Inquiry] as part of the neo-liberal agenda – its not the fact that you are poor, oppressed and
discriminated against that is the problem its your attitude towards the fact that you are poor, oppressed and discriminated against. Individualised/depoliticized oppression blah blah blah But actually I started to get it by mid Saturday – thought that some of the exercises were really useful – the timelines and the criticisms of the role plays – some of the criticisms could be clearly identified as coming from a particular disciplinary standpoint and I really enjoyed the
dialogue among the participants. (O)
Participant L, while frustrated by the Appreciative Inquiry process, was keen to learn more about the methods.
Whilst I was frustrated with the Appreciative Inquiry method I am very keen to explore this further by looking at more research and literature about AI. (L)
Participant I, on the other hand, considered that the set questions in the paradigms of disability activity led the responses in a particular direction, a direction that they did not adhere to.
These are really questions that are focused on finding a particular kind of answer. They derive from seeing disability as an individual problem.... Disability is discrimination and exclusion if a real definition is needed. The cause? – stinking thinking. (I)
Participant H considered that the typology was biased, which impacted how some engaged in the process.
A couple of people in my small group didn’t contribute a lot and I wonder if this was because of the original framing of the typologies – they are quite disability focused. I wonder if that entirely fair on our rehab colleagues? (H)
Participant O also struggled with the personal on-going reflections preferring to reflect while in discussion with others.
Found the reflecting questions hard – I’m not a spontaneous thinker, like to compost issues – enjoy collective discussion bouncing ideas off the group. (O)
Participants P and Q also preferred debates and expressed a desire for more.
Greater lead in time more open debate about aims, meanings, overall direction etc. (P)
Possibly more group (larger) discussion around the philosophical ideas underpinning our beliefs and processes. (Q)
Participant J agreed and considered that there needed to be more discussion around the different disciplines that were present to help illuminate the different perspectives and aid interaction.
I remain unsure about this. I think that because the disciplines were not really articulated it was difficult for us to know where others were coming from. (J)
Assistant Brown also wondered if a discussion on the disciplines might have been helpful to the process.
I wonder if this might have been even deeper if there had been a discover stage, with interviews, specifically on one another’s disciplines and paradigms. (Brown)
Participant B also agreed and expressed throughout the weekend that there needed to be more discussion around the different disciplines that were present to aid
understanding of the different perspectives. In the end, however, Participant B considered that not having this discussion might have been ideal.
We should know each other’s disciplines so we can learn about the context of different views. Communication was frustrated – not sure we knew where each other came from. [After the Movie activity]… Still not sure the disciplines people are connected with. But it is clear that there is not always a shared vocabulary between disciplines. People found their voices, tried to find common ground with others and then mapped shared concepts. [After the Timelines activity] ... lots of sarcasm in the role-play so I don’t know where others actually place themselves in the paradigms [After the Timelines and Typology activity] … for the most part I think disciplines were not acknowledged in formal activities. People seldom acknowledged their own discipline … No body seemed to claim any particular worldviews. In private discussion I could not get anyone to claim one either. Maybe that was ideal. Had us discuss issues and strategies not typologies [Final reflections]. (B)
One participant also noted that there had been no discussion around the disciplines or the boundaries between the disciplines and wondered if the process was in danger of developing a discipline that had no substance.
Our group took the opportunity to explore our disciplines – our common experience and our different experiences – would it have been different if we had been asked to describe, explain, justify the foundations of our
professional/discipline? I’m not sure we’ve done this yet. How
strict/impermeable are the boundaries between the disciplines present in the room and between the quadrants/typologies? A useful heuristic – but in danger of constructing a ‘straw discipline’? (D)