Advertisement

Facilitation as Fair Intervention

  • Wendy J. Gregory
  • Norma Romm
Part of the Contemporary Systems Thinking book series (CST)

Abstract

This chapter elucidates a view of facilitation in which explicit attention is paid to the way in which the facilitator of group processes may adopt a role as (temporary) participant in the process, at times contributing content-suggestions to the discussions. Our argument is relevant to the practice of community operational research (‘Community OR’ for short) in that it considers what it might mean to develop a community towards enriched dialogical competence. Midgley and Ochoa-Arias (1999) indicate that when practitioners undertake work labelled as Community OR, there are often implicit visions of community that they bring to bear as they proceed. In this chapter, we pay explicit attention to the way in which we operated in terms of a specific conception of ‘community’ when we acted as facilitators in the context under consideration. Our approach draws to a large extent on Habermas’s (1984, 1987) concern with enhancing ‘communicative rationality’ in social relationships. We spell out a pragmatised version of Habermas’s argument as it relates to validity checking, but we also extend/modify the argument to take account of the continued fragility of the dialogical process.

Keywords

National Health Service Validity Check Communicative Competence Soft System Methodology Fair Intervention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackoff, R.L. (1979a). The future of operational research is past. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 30, 93–104.Google Scholar
  2. Ackoff, R.L. (1979b). Resurrecting the future of operational research. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 30, 89–199.Google Scholar
  3. Baburoglu, O.N. and Ravn, I. (1992). Normative action research. Organization Studies, 13, 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein, R.J. (1991). The New Constellation: The Ethical-political Horizons of Modernity/Postmodernity. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, M. (1993). Changing perspectives on facilitation skills development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 17, 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bleicher, J. (1982). The Hermeneutic Imagination: Outline of a Positive Critique of Scientism and Sociology. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  7. Burke, W.W. (1987). Organization Development: A Normative View. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Chensult, J. (1989). Training for changing consultant roles. Journal of Management Consulting 5, 48–55.Google Scholar
  9. Churchman, C.W. (1979). The Systems Approach and Its Enemies. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  10. French, W.L. and Bell, C.H. Jr. (1990). Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  11. Gouldner, A.W. (1973). The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Gouldner, A.W. (1975). The Dark Side of the Dialectic: Toward a New Objectivity. Sociology Institute of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  13. Gregory, W.J. (1992). Critical Systems Thinking and Pluralism: A New Constellation. PhD Thesis, The City University.Google Scholar
  14. Gregory, W.J. (1993). Designing educational systems: A critical systems approach. Systems Practice, 6, 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gregory, W.J. (1996). Dealing with diversity. In: Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research and Practice, pp. 37–61. Flood, R.L. and Romm, N.R.A. (eds.). Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gregory, W.J. (2000). Transforming self and society: A ‘critical appreciation’ model. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 13, 475–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gregory, W.J. and Romm, N.R.A. (1996). Towards multi-agency dialogue: Facilitation as fair education. In: Praxiology, vol. 4. pp. 323–351. Gasparski, W.W., Mlicki, M.K., and Banathy, B.H. (eds.). Transaction, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
  18. Gregory, W.J. and Romm, N.R.A. (2001). Critical facilitation: Learning through intervention in group processes. Management Learning, 32, 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gregory, W.J. and Walsh, M.P. (1993). Quality, ideology, and consumer choice: Health care standards and stakeholder participation. In: Managerial Issues in the Reformed NHS, pp. 169–181. Malek, M., Vacani, P., Pasquinha, J., and Davey, P. (eds.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester.Google Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1. Beacon Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  21. Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 2. Beacon Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  22. Hanson, B. (2001). Systems theory and the spirit of feminism. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18, 545–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jackson, M.C. (2000). Systems Approaches to Management. Kluwer Academic /Plenum Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Jones, S. and Eden, C. (1981). OR in the community. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 32, 335–345.Google Scholar
  25. Lane, D.C. (1991). Modelling as learning: A consultancy methodology for enhancing learn-ing in management teams. European Journal of Operational Research, 59, 64–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKay, V.I. and Romm, N.R.A. (1992).People’s Education in Theoretical Perspective.Maskew Miller Longman, Cape Town.Google Scholar
  27. Midgley, G. (1992). The sacred and the profane in critical systems thinking. Systems Practice, 5, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Midgley, G. and Ochoa-Arias, A.E. (1999). Visions of community OR. Omega, 27, 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mingers, J.C. (1992). Recent developments in critical management science. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43, 1–10.Google Scholar
  31. Mitroff, I.I. and Emshoff, J.R. (1979). On strategic assumption-making: A dialectical approach to policy and planning. Academy of Management Review, 4, 1–12.Google Scholar
  32. Parry, R. and Mingers, J. (1991). Community operational research: Its context and future. Omega, 19, 577–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pasmore, W.A. (1993). Designing work systems for knowledge workers. Journal for Quality and Participation, 16, 78–84.Google Scholar
  34. Rittel, H.W.J. (1972). Second-generation design methods. Interview by Grant, D.P. and Protzen J.-P. The Design Methods Group 5th Anniversary Report: DMG Occasional Paper No. 1, 5–10.Google Scholar
  35. Romm, N.R.A. (1990). Gouldner’s reflexive methodological approach. In: Sociology and Society, pp. 13–22. Alant, C.J. (ed.). Southern Book Publishers, Johannesburg.Google Scholar
  36. Romm, N.R.A. (1991). The Methodologies of Positivism and Marxism. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  37. Romm, N.R.A. (1994). Continuing tensions between Soft Systems Methodology and Critical Systems Heuristics. Research Memorandum 5. Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull.Google Scholar
  38. Romm, N.R.A. (1996a). Inquiry-and-intervention in systems planning: Probing methodolog-ical rationalities. World Futures, 47, 25–36.Google Scholar
  39. Romm, N.R.A. (1996b). Systems methodologies and intervention: The issue of researcher responsibility. In: Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research and Practice, pp. 179–193. Flood, R.L. and Romm, N.R.A. (eds.). Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Romm, N.R.A. (1997). Becoming more accountable: A comment on Hammersley and Gomm. Sociological Research Online, 2, www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/3/2.html.
  41. Romm, N.R.A. (2001a). Accountability in Social Research: Issues and Debates. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Romm, N.R.A. (2001b). Organising a dialogical intervention strategy for development. In: Development: Theory, Policy and Practice, pp. 511–523. Coetzee, J.K., Graaff, J., Hendricks, F. and Wood, G. (eds.). Oxford University Press, Cape Town.Google Scholar
  43. Schein, E.H. (1987). Process Consultation: Lessons for Managers and Consultants, vol. II. Addison-Wesley OD Series. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  44. Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning. Paul Haupt, Berne.Google Scholar
  45. White, L.A. and Taket, A.R. (1993). Community OR-doing what feels good. OR Insight, 6, 20–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. White, L.A. and Taket, A.R. (1994). The death of the expert. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45, 733–748.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wendy J. Gregory
    • 1
    • 2
  • Norma Romm
    • 2
  1. 1.Christchurch Science CentreInstitute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) Ltd.ChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.Centre for Systems Studies, Business SchoolUniversity of HullHullUK

Personalised recommendations