|
|
The Wisdom Companion
The Game A: reflective case study Wisdom as Skill is meant to be practiced collaboratively, preferably in groups of two to six members. It can be effectively practiced individually, and larger groups may provide unique advantages, added perspectives and greater experience. Seeking out teachers, advisors, and coaches is encouraged. Practice follows reflective learning (Brinson, 2004) reflective case study (Mahan, Troxell, & Allen, 1993), and action learning (Gray 2001) models. The steps outlined below have been adapted from Mahan et al. (1993).
Christine Lloyd (2002:112) quotes David Hopkins’ (1993:44) description of action research as “action disciplined by enquiry, a personal attempt at understanding while engaged in a process of improvement and reform” and on the following page presents Altrichter’s (1993) six quality criteria for ensuring the validity of action research, all of which are relevant to Wisdom as Skill:
1. the collection and analysis of a variety of data from a range of sources and perspectives;
2. the interlinking of reflection and action through a cyclical approach;
3. a recognition that this approach to research is subjective and value laden and is not concerned with the search of objectivity;
4. a recognition that the process of research is not about finding solutions so much as deepening understanding and identifying areas for further research and development;
5. action research is concerned with the development of professional competence and collaboration, and peer evaluation should be used as part of the process of critical reflection;
6. the interactive dissemination of findings for critical scrutiny and professional debate is essential.
Jesse Brinson (2004) discusses reflective learning in terms of exploring an experience, testing ideas and assumptions associated with it, reviewing the experience and its affect on oneself critically, seeking feedback from others who are knowledgable of such situations. Brinson suggests that the abilities to assess oneself, and to describe and analyze, synthesize and evaluate situations are important for reflective learning.
For reflective case study as a means to developing wisdom in a group discussion, a sixty to ninety minute session is recommended. Thus, if a group meets weekly or less frequently, perhaps two cases can be discussed in one session. One person might act as facilitator for the meeting, making sure that important questions get asked, that each person has an opportunity to participate, and that the discussion remains focused on the presenter’s situation. Mahan et al. note that the facilitator may also comment on the nonverbal communication of the presenter (or other group members), areas of resistance, or make other observations. The facilitator may prod group members whom E senses have more to say than they actually have said, or the facilitator may ask general questions of the group. The facilitator also decides when it is time to move on from each particular step of the process.
A person who is presenting a situation should describe concisely (less than a thousand words) in writing a difficult and important situation from hir own life whose resolution requires wisdom. That is, a situation involving priorities and difficult questions of values, or related to existential questions of the meaning of life. This will be a situation that has not been entirely resolved, or whose resolution has left doubt and dissatisfaction in the presenter’s mind.
Confidentiality needs to be maintained, and so appropriate changes of actual names or places must be made when describing the situation. Papers should be collected at the end of the meeting.
The background of the situation should be given, and a clear description of what happened, the emotions involved. What was your response, and the results? What is your evaluation of the results? What do you see as the critical issue? Your goal? What is difficult for you in this situation? Where is your resistance?
Copies of the written account should be shared with the members of the group, and the case read aloud by the person who wrote it. Others can make notes as the situation is read aloud.
After the case has been read, other members can ask questions to help them understand the situation more fully. These are only for purposes of understanding, and include factual matters and emotions, questions regarding the relationships of those involved. What exactly would the presenter like the group to contribute? The presenter can add any information she or he wants that will provide further clarification.
In the third step, other members of the group connect this event with their own personal experiences and their feelings in them. The focus must be on the situation the presenter has shared, resisting any urge to divert the discussion to the experiences of the others. The presenter can make notes of particular points, but during this sharing, and the following two steps, she or he doesn’t speak.
Following this sharing of personal connections, the members of the group share their professional and other learning. Whereas the prior step involved self-revelation, this one presents a distanced, theoretical perspective. Strategies that group members have learned from their training and speculation.
Next, the group reflects on the presenter’s behavior in the situation, what hir behavior looks like to them—its effectiveness or ineffectiveness, its interposition of secondary, or personal issues. What are future implications and possibilities? The group should first consider what the presenter did that was perceptive or well-done. Then they can consider where he or she might have gotten off track.
The presenter hirself concludes the session by reflecting on what he or she has learned from it, and what was most helpful in the process of describing hir case and hearing the responses of the others. Copies of the situation should be collected at the end of the meeting. |
|