LA ESTÉTICA DE GABRIEL MIRÓ

Generating meaning about the third condition meant returning to the data to explore the properties and dimensions of the in-vivo codes used by the teams to describe their relationship with the participants. According to Stewart & Joines (1987) transactional analysis (TA) is a theory of communication that can be applied within most contexts where there is a need to understand and generate meaning about individuals and relationships. The core principles of transactional analysis are similar to Charmaz’s (2006) constructivist’s ideals that advocate deeper reflection and analysis of the construction of another’s world through developing sensitivity and meaning. Originating from Freudian theory, TA and has been adapted and interpreted in many different ways, and presented an ideal conceptual framework to use to analyse properties and dimensions of the in-vivo codes used by the teams to describe the relationship. TA also helps explore team processes, and in particular, the common patterns and dynamics within a team. The original version of TA was based on Berne’s (1957) work, which introduced three ‘ego states’ as different ways of ‘being in the world’. The general rubric of TA suggests that an individual’s actions and responses to another are based on a life script, which is a pre-determined play of life usually developed before the age of seven. From this, ego-states emerge which form a structural analysis of the way in which individuals use their ‘life script’. The ego-states refer to the Parent, Adult & Child and are described by Berne (1957) as a “consistent pattern of feeling and experience directly related to a corresponding pattern of behaviour” (p15) which could therefore be used to generate meaning about the third condition that had emerged from the team interview data. The key principles of the three Ego states were later used to explicate the properties and dimensions of in-vivo codes, which enhanced sensitivity about the third condition.

168 7.2.1. Explicating the Third Condition through the Team’s Ego States.

Berne’s (1957) three ego states are thought to be inhabited by the individual indiscriminately and frequently through their lifetime. The Parent Ego state refers to the actions an individual makes that have been inherited from their parents. The Child ego state relates to how a person uses their previous reactions as a child and resorts to this behaviour in ‘here and now’ situations. First order structural diagrams are often used in transactional analysis to help visualize the ego-states (see figure 9).

Figure 9 First Order Structural Diagram

P= Parent, A = Adult, C = Child

The ego-states are further divided into the controlling and nurturing Parent, and the adapted Child and free Child. The free Child is sometimes referred to as the emotional Child whereby laughter, crying, kissing and anger are freely demonstrated. The adapted Child learns to adapt their emotional state to the given situation i.e. children should be seen and not heard. In particular, the adapted Child ego state refers to the way in which a person responds to another in Child mode to fit in with an accepted or spoken expectation or rule. The Parent ego-state is divided into the controlling Parent and the nurturing Parent and whilst both are influenced by the individual’s own parent styles, they reflect the way in which parents managed behaviour. The controlling Parent provided instructions such as ‘don’t do this, look both ways before crossing the road, and the nurturing Parent is illustrated through the physical attention given to a child such as cuddles or reading a bedtime story, both can be positive or negative. A second

C A

P P

C A

169 order structural diagram is normally used to sub-divide the three ego-states into a functional analysis to explore processes rather than its structure, please see figure 10 next.

Finally, the Adult ego state suggests that the person reacts in an adult way, that is, the individual weighs up their position carefully and appraises a situation. Although analysing these ego-states can be complex, they were useful in developing understanding about the third condition and in particular, they helped determine whether the third condition was a result if a paternalistic ‘controlling Parent ego state of the team, or whether they were predicated on a nurturing Parent ego state. To support the analysis, second order structural diagrams were used to identify what ego states were common in the team that signified the third condition. It is acknowledged by Stewart & Joines (1987) that ego-states are often revealed through a person’s words rather than actions and although direct observation of transactions were not possible, a secondary analysis of the transcripts using the second order structural diagrams to explore the third condition was helpful in determining the relationship. Re-immersion in the data as advised by Corbin & Strauss (2008) helped refine sensitivity and exploring the nuances of the relationships using TA enabled texts between the participants and teams to be compared. In particular, the interviews were analysed to ascertain the extent to which the team were influenced by the controlling Parent ego state and/or the nurturing Parent ego state. This process was similar to open coding used at the start of the analytic process but was more sensitive because TA was being applied

©2009

LJA Learning & Development

170 specifically to explicate the third condition. Using the ego-states as a basic premise guided the analysis and revealed two further categories that related to the team dynamics. This helped to construct a picture of the teams and later uncovered how the teams ‘controlling Parent Ego-state’ influenced the third condition. The first category of the nurturing team is discussed next.