3 thoughts on “Taking Yourself Seriously Forum

  1. Peter J. Taylor Post author

    Jo Nelson of the Institute of Cultural Affairs, http://ica-associates.ca, observed that the gears corresponds to ORID (see entry in TYS on Focused Conversations).
    Objective (concrete things, actually observable by all) = Head
    Reflective (associations and feelings) = Heart
    Interpretive (meaning and significance) = Human Connections
    Decisional (implications for the future) = Hands

  2. Peter J. Taylor Post author

    SMALL GROUP ROLES (p. 142-145)
    Using these roles in activities this week pointed to a number of changes:
    1. The overall organizer or facilitator should communicate that there is a meta-agenda, over and above the specific activity, namely, learning about how to include all and raise their voices.
    2. The Includer role needs to be about noting when a person has neglected their role. But who plays this role if the Includer is neglecting their role? Perhaps the overall organizer or facilitator needs to monitor this.
    3. Phase 3 needs an Orienter as well.
    4. If the key aspects of the roles are implemented separately in previous activities or meetings, participants can quickly take up their roles without having to keep their eyes on the written descriptions. This prior preparation is valuable if the small group consist of young people or anyone else for whom the long instructions are hard to take in. For example, Plus-Delta feedback (p. 121) is the central part of the Process Reporter role.
    5. The first time someone takes a role they may see the instructions as a recipe that has to be followed. After that, participants may well add their personal touch to the role, for example, to the time-keeping that is central to the Phaser role.
    6. There’s a need for people to be aware of other people’s roles and think about what is not linked to a role, which means it is open for everyone to work on, e.g., learning about how to include all and raise their voices.

  3. Steve

    How do these roles compare to the traditional role of the facilitator? It seems that that role has been split up among the members of the group. Shared responsibility. I wonder which situations would be better with this type of shared responsibility and which would be better with a facilitator whose only role is to keep the discussion flowing but is not steering the content. Younger groups unfamiliar with small group discussions would probably benefit from a guide. Also when I have done therapy groups I was more of a facilitator than a participant (I hope…).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s