Using a self-selected support group as a strategy for survival
9515
Using a self-selected support group as a strategy for survival
Christine Hibbert, Antoinette Middling and Frances Scourfield, University of Sheffield
The aim of this paper is to discuss the interaction of the roles, responsibilities and dependency associated with a self-selected support group. This took place in the dissertation year of a Masters in Continuing Education course. This discussion will be undertaken using three specific areas. They are the context of the group, the processes used and the importance of the dawning recognition that this was a survival strategy and a life changing experience.
There are three people involved in both the support group and the writing of this paper. The joint collaboration to write a paper was very different from the original intention of the support group. We only knew that we worked well together although our learning styles and approaches to completing the task were very different. We also recognised that to survive we had a need to exclude others from the group. This will be further discussed later in the paper. In reviewing the experience on completion of the original task and then with more depth for writing the paper there was an echo to be found in the work of Kasl, Dechant and Marsick[1]. They identify the fact that if a group sets itself up to achieve a task, the main focus of attention is the completion of that task. They also suggest that there may be a nodding acquaintance with the process by which the task is achieved; this, however, is of less significance. What we had done was set ourselves another and very different task. The dilemmas this created have only recently come to light in that we now believe this is not the case for this experience. The superficial process was perhaps one of the most important areas of which we were conscious. It might be appropriate at this point to identify what those differences were in relation to the common aim and the roles taken on by each of the group members. A tentative model has been developed to explain this strategy for survival more succinctly (see Figure 1). It is acknowledged at this point that it has not yet been tested.
In explanation of the model, the central concept and most important factor was the need to survive this year and successfully achieve the task. The topic areas and therefore the supervisors were different and at the time this seemed to be of no significance in the selection of the group. The significant point was the recognition that we already knew that our styles were different and yet still chose to work with each other.
The first group member had an approach to the task that involved commencing work immediately, editing and re-editing work until the final draft was satisfactory. She had a way of conceptualising problems and issues and broadening the discussion to involve new trains of thought and totally different ways of approaching the task. On the other hand she also had an ability to act as organiser and ‘bossy boots’ when requested. She agreed to set times and dates for completion of work to enable the other group members to use her as a motivator for deadlines. The unusual element in all of this is that these two roles seem to be totally opposed to each other and yet both seemed too important in the completion of the task.
The second group member edited to a lesser extent but still needed to write and re-draft. She was also what we called the disbeliever in that theory and academia were constantly challenged and questioned. Therefore, when the other two members of the group started to conceptualise and wallow in theory, the bubble was burst. There was a refreshing sense of it is okay to challenge and disagree, in fact to disbelieve. On the other hand once this had occurred the disbeliever was then the one who brought a sense of getting on with the task. She demonstrated time and again that she had integrated the theoretical concepts so well they become hidden in expertise[2]. There was also a sense that this person brought the group back to reality by recognising and reminding others that there was life outside this task. She reminded us that to survive we needed to remember this.
The third group member had a style that involved doing the major part of the task in her head. This was organised in a logical order and then written as a final draft towards the end of the deadline. This involved almost constantly living with the work and using quiet moments to sort the order cognitively. She had an ability to encourage and inspire the other group members. The encourager reminded the other group members why they had started first and what the outcome would be at the end. There was a sense of vision about success or survival that was unswerving. She was also a knower in that previous learning and experience meant that a resource was available cognitively to point the other group members in the right direction.
The arrows on the diagram indicate the relationships among the three group members. These roles were not used sequentially or in any particular pattern that could be identified, and this seemed interesting in itself. For example you would expect to use the conceptualiser at the beginning and the knower during the literature review; this was not the case. All six roles were used at varying times and immaterial of the stage at which work was produced. Looking at the model it could be said that an integration of all the roles seems to make up what could be considered the ideal learner.
The exclusion zone was born out of desperation in that there was a feeling that we would not survive and complete the task. We were not quite sure why. However, on reflection, some of it was related to our work areas where, as facilitators of adult education we could not be drawn into the support role at the cost of our own task. Also, without quite knowing why we knew that would not happen within the self selected group.
The reflection process started when the group met after the successful completion of the task to celebrate the survival. There also seemed to be a need to not end a successful strategy and an important lifeline at difficult times. What started as an informal discussion became formal when we started to identify critical incidents. This was within the context of the previous two years of the course and related to incidents that meant that we self-select a support group that became crucial to our survival. This kind of reflection technique is suggested by Benner[3].
Through conscious reflection we began to examine why we self-selected. There then came a dawning recognition that significant reflections and incidents that were perceived as individual, were, in fact, common to all three members. Using the guidelines suggested by Benner[4] we identified that our moral reasoning was based on very similar ethical principles. These are outlined by Beauchamp and Childress[5]. Perhaps the best way to describe this connection is to identify the critical incidents and connect them to the principles. It must be acknowledged here that there is criticism of the use of principalism[6]; however it is not within the scope of this paper to argue this point.
The first critical incident occurred at the start of the three year course when the three group members expressed concern and fear about completing the course and reaching the required standard. This was a significant event as it seemed we were the only course members to verbalise these feelings. All three group members remembered this incident and saw it as a significant step towards successful completion. On reflection other incidents that reinforced this honesty occurred throughout the course and this seemed to come together with upholding the ethical principle of truthfulness or veracity[7].
The next incident occurred when sharing took place amongst participants on the course. It appeared that each of the three members of the group remembered specific instances when resources were promised and did not appear. The only time when there was an exception to this was when information was promised by the three members of the support group. This can be related to the ethical principle of fidelity or promise keeping[8].
The most significant incident that finally cemented the group as a survival group was when we were asked by the course co-ordinator if we wanted or needed help to set up support systems. Interestingly, quite independently of each other we replied negatively, although our response ranged from the formal letter to ignoring it in the hope that nothing would come of it. We then contacted each other to confirm that we had each responded in the same way knowing that this would be so. From an ethical point of view this could be related to the principle of beneficence. Beauchamp and Childress[9] identify that within this principle there is ‘an obligation to weigh and balance the possible goods against the possible harms of an action.’ We believe that we acted in this way to prevent harm both to ourselves and each other. It was at this point that we began to recognise that this was about survival and that was not just about ourselves as individuals but also the group of three. We all brought with us our own experiences of life, the course and our professions. All were of ourselves and yet contributed to the whole. It seems that this experience echoes Habermas’ description of the three worlds, objective, social and subjective[10].
The last critical incident occurred when two members of the group were contacted by other members of the course asking for assistance. Again there was a negative response to this that was not without difficulty. We were all involved in our professional lives in the facilitation of learning and to step outside this role created a certain tension (See Figure 2). The dialectical relationship of the established ethical beliefs and the request for help that could or would not be met lead to the permission to take care of just ourselves in this set of circumstances. The tension in this position created the new context of our decision to proceed. According to Ross[11] when a mature person reflects upon moral obligations in conflict they cannot be ‘ranked or weighted so that we could know in advance which principles should take precedence over which.’ Our obligation to ourselves superseded the duty of beneficence. In effect this cemented the exclusion zone.
In conclusion this exercise has allowed the experience to focus beyond the group and beyond the issue of our own learning, albeit only extending as far as issues connected with our own practice working in the field of adult education. This is supported by Nod Miller in Boud, Cohen and Walker[12] who links the ‘private and public’ worlds and talks about the development of her sociological imagination[13]. This writing exercise has enabled the three participants to try and place an essentially individual and personal experience against the context of a professional life that seeks to develop insights and skills to facilitate learning in others. Each of us is changed; each of us has learnt that to survive we need to give ourselves permission to exclude others. Each of us has learnt that we need to help ourselves and that sometimes this is at the cost of our wish to help others.
In asking questions of ourselves it is how we frame those questions that will shape the answers. Van Manen[14] discusses the way one articulates research questions as part of determining the approach to the research being undertaken. It seems likely that this is true of this piece of work. There are questions we have chosen to articulate and discuss. There are also questions that we are aware we have not raised and inevitably there are questions that, as yet we are unaware of: questions that should be asked either collectively or individually.
The writers recognise that this is neither an exhaustive account, nor a tried and tested or fully researched model. However, it is reassuring to accept the approach of Van Manen[15] when he discusses the theory of the unique and dealing with ‘what is essentially not replaceable.’
Reproduced from 1995 Conference Proceedings, pp. 75-79 SCUTREA 1997
[1] Kasl, Dechant and Marsick (1993); p. 54
[2] Dreyfus, cited by Benner P. (1984) From novice toexpert. California, Addison Wesley; p. 32
[3] Benner P. (1984) From novice toexpert. California, Addison Wesley; p. 300
[4] Benner P. (1984) From novice toexpert. California, Addison Wesley; p. 302
[5] Beauchamp T, Childress J. (1989) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford, Oxford University Press
[6] Danner Clouser K, Gert B. (1990) A critique of principlism. In Journal ofMedicine and Philosophy. 15, pp 219-236
[7] Beauchamp T, Childress J. (1989) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford, Oxford University Press; p. 308
[8] Beauchamp T, Childress J. (1989) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford, Oxford University Press; p. 341
[9] Beauchamp T, Childress J. (1989) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford, Oxford University Press; p. 194
[10] Habermas J. (1984) The theory ofcommunicative action. London, Heineman; p. 100
[11] cited by Gillon R. (1992) Philosophical medicalethics. Chichester, John Wiley and Sons; p. 18
[12] Boud D, Cohen R, Walker D. (1993). Using experience for learning. The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press
[13] Wright Mills C. (1970) Thesociological imagination. Penguin
[14] Van Manen M. (1990) Researchinglived experience. Ontario, Canada, Althouse Press; pp. 1-2
[15] Van Manen M. (1990) Researchinglived experience. Ontario, Canada, Althouse Press; p. 7