Schuman S. - The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation (2005)(en)

Although many examples of the literature seem to focus primarily on one dimension of the model, some approaches to facilitator education transcend several dimensions of the model. The approaches taken by Hogan (2002, 2003), Hunter, Bailey, and Taylor (1995, 1999), and the IAF and ICA (Pierce, Cheesebrow, and Braun, 2000) are good examples. This is potentially confusing but reflects the fact that some of the facilitation literature is broader in scope and addresses a range of facilitation competencies, knowledge, values, and beliefs. For other authors, one dimension is enough to classify the approach to facilitator education they present. The model is more user friendly if the boundaries between each dimension are viewed as overlapping or at least blurred.

By definition, the model implies that each new dimension incorporates the elements of previous dimensions and then adds a layer of complexity of facilitator education. The progression is in some respects sequential, but in reality, facilitator education has multiple entry points. For example, a person with knowledge, interest, or experience in critical education (see Freire, 1973) or community development in developing countries (see Phnuyal, Archer, and Cottingham, 1997) may gravitate straight toward a critical facilitator education approach. However, they may also have to double back to previous dimensions to master certain competencies, gain specific knowledge, or develop certain attributes or qualities. Similarly, before an emerging facilitator can truly focus on the approach of a more complex dimension of facilitator education, it could be argued that he or she must first achieve mastery in a preceding dimension of the model.

Literature on the nature of expertise (Chi, Farr, and Glaser, 1988) suggests that experts are often able to function with greater speed and effectiveness because they have mastered, to a level of automaticity (Flor and Dooley, 1998), skills or processes required to perform particular tasks. It is possible that the same is true for facilitators and that they must master previous dimensions to be “fully present” and facilitate using the approaches recommended in other dimensions of facilitator education. It is also important to flag the obvious tension that exists when trying to develop a model that encapsulates the diversity of approaches to facilitator education presented in the literature. Some authors in their description of facilitator education processes never move beyond a technical focus, while other authors are explicitly critical of this practice. The model attempts to provide a fair, respectful, and balanced summary of the approaches to facilitator education contained within the literature. An emerging innovation, used by qualitative researchers to overcome such difficulties, is called multiple voicing. In this approach, researchers provide a

rich array of interpretations or perspectives without “pressing them into coherence” (Gergen and Gergen, 2003, p. 580). In the interests of generating further discussion and research, this chapter presents a model designed to advance research and discussion, but it does so with an appropriate level of diffidence.

Second, when the literature on facilitation did not specifically identify processes, rationales, or values concerning facilitator education, judgments about authors’ perspectives on facilitator education were made. It is possible that the critical reading of the literature presented in this chapter is flawed or that others may interpret implied meanings differently. In what could be described as a crisis of representation (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003a; Lincoln and Guba, 2003), I accept responsibility for the fact that despite all attempts to portray the literature accurately, some errors in interpretation are unavoidable. In the spirit of collaborative inquiry, I hope that further discussion and research on the model presented in this chapter will lead to a better understanding of facilitator education processes and the development of a better model. It would also be helpful if more authors were explicit about the strategies and techniques that they believe emerging facilitators could use to continue their development.

Another issue that warrants further research is the apparent tension regarding interpretations of intentionality. Some authors advocate an explicit intentionality, and yet there may be a case for a tacit level of intentionality. I hope that further research and discussion will contribute to an increased understanding of the relationship between theory and practice of facilitation in experiential education. Hovenlynck (1998) describes the facilitator education process as a generative process where developing facilitators learn to articulate what makes sense in practice, or their knowing-in-action. In this respect, although Schön’s work (1988, 1995) should not be used to justify theoretical laziness, he does balance the view that facilitators could ever hope to reach a state of complete intentionality. Approaches such as action learning and action research (see Carr and Kemmis, 1986; Elliot, 1991; Weinstein, 1999; Winter, 1989) may help lead to an alternative theory-practice relationship, which would be beneficial in facilitator education. The action learning and action research frameworks build on programmed knowledge (preexisting expert knowledge, theories, and personal knowledge) by questioning it, acting on it, and reflecting on it.

Fourth, there are some apparent weaknesses in the facilitation literature at present. Only a small proportion is grounded in empirical research, and although the

profession may not be well suited to the positivist paradigm, research using naturalistic approaches within an interpretive paradigm (see Denzin and Lincoln, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c; Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, and Allen, 1993; Ezzy, 2002) would strengthen and deepen our understanding of facilitation and facilitator education, practice, and theory. Methodologies based on critical theory paradigm (see Habermas, 1984, 1991; Kincheloe and McLaren, 2003) would be well suited to exploring the dimension of critical facilitator education.

Finally, while there is ample discussion of the skills, theories, and practice of facilitation, there is less discussion in the literature about the processes and strategies that facilitators can use to develop their skills, understanding and experience. (See Chapter Twenty-Eight for a report on such strategies.) The facilitation literature would also benefit if authors were more explicit about their assumptions or philosophies on how they believe facilitators develop.

CONCLUSION

The Dimensions of Facilitator Education Model presented in this chapter has been developed to provide an interpretive framework for continued research and discussion about facilitator education. I hope that it will contribute to the facilitation profession in an OD context by providing a richer understanding of the assumptions, philosophies, and processes in facilitator education.

3.Trust group potential, and model neutrality.

•Honors the wisdom of the group

•Encourages trust in the capacity and experience of others

•Is vigilant to minimize influence on group outcomes

•Maintains an objective, nondefensive, nonjudgmental stance

544

The desire to resolve such issues led to a project by members of the International Association of Facilitators (IAF) to develop a professional Statement of Values and Code of Ethics. This chapter documents the process by which the code was developed, which we believe serves as a model collaborative process for a globally dispersed group, explores the key issues that were identified during its development, and touches on some further issues that are now emerging. (The complete version of the code is in Appendix 30A at the end of the chapter.)

IAF VALUES AND COMPETENCIES

The IAF code project builds on previous work by the IAF in the area of the association’s values and competencies of group facilitators. The mission of the IAF is to promote, support, and advance the art and practice of professional facilitation through methods exchange, professional growth, practical research, collegial networking, and support services. This is accomplished through peer-to-peer networking, professional development, and annual conferences, which are crucial means for fulfilling the mission and reflecting their core values.

These core values of the association are (IAF, 2004):

•Inclusiveness—Including the full spectrum of personal, professional and cultural diversity in our membership and in the field of facilitation

•Global Scope—Connecting and serving facilitators locally, nationally, and internationally

•Participation—Advocating participative methodologies that generate ownership of decisions and actions

•Celebration—Celebrating life through spirit-filled quality interchange, activities, and events

•Innovative Form—Modeling a participative and flexible organizational structure that promotes growth, change, and learning

•Social Responsibility—Supporting socially responsible change within private, public, and voluntary organizations

In addition, a set of facilitator competencies was developed as an aid to understanding the role and values of facilitators and what they do. The eighteen competencies, which serve as the framework for this book, are grouped into six categories:

engage in professional growth, create collaborative partnerships, create an environment of participation, utilize multisensory approaches, orchestrate the group journey, and commit to a life of integrity (Pierce, Cheesebrow, and Braun, 2000).

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODE

The project to develop the code was initiated by a small group of IAF members (Sandy Schuman, Roger Schwarz, and Dale Hunter) at the global conference in Toronto in May 2000. Schuman and Hunter subsequently cochampioned the project. The Ethics and Values Think Tank (EVTT), convened after the conference as an on-line group for IAF members, became the primary vehicle for the development of the code. The rationale and purpose of the code project was described as follows:

Rationale

IAF has moved forward in adopting a set of competencies and a certification program for the same. An important complement to competencies is a coherent set of values or ethical standards that guide the application of those competencies. A “code of profession ethics” or “statement of core values” or similar document (hereinafter referred to as “code”) will further strengthen the credibility of group facilitation as a profession, enhance the professional identity of group facilitators, and avoid misconceptions of group facilitation by existing and potential customers.

Purpose

To create a “code of professional ethics,”“statement of core values” or similar document that can be formally adopted by the IAF and made available for adoption by individual members. Members may then indicate to existing and potential customers that they have agreed to adhere to the code and may provide the customer with a copy of it [Schuman, e-mail to EVTT, Oct. 24, 2000].

Plan

An eleven-point plan outlined the major tasks of the project:

1.Develop a two-year plan for creating and implementing a code.

2.Gather and examine similar documents from other professional organizations.

3.Develop among Think Tank members a draft document. Consult with professional ethicists.

4.Draft a document for review by the Association Coordinating Team ACT [the IAF’s board of directors].

5.Revise and make available a draft to all members.

6.Conduct a Think Tank session at IAF Conference 2001.

7.Revise and re-circulate a draft to ACT and make available to all members.

8.Develop training materials.

9.At IAF 2002 present code to ACT (and perhaps to general membership) for formal agreement.

10.Test training materials at Think Tank session at IAF 2002.

11.Finalize training materials and make available to IAF members [Schuman, e-mail to EVTT, Oct. 24, 2000].

The EVTT e-mail group, varying over time between forty-seven and eighty-five people, was assisted at times by a small face-to-face subgroup of five to seven people called the task force. The e-group was facilitated for part of the time by Tony Nash and moderated by Sandy Schuman.

Process

The process used to develop the code followed the plan as described above. Additional in-person forums were held at IAF global and regional conferences in Canada, Bolivia, the United States, Malaysia, Australia, and New Zealand. Agreement on the exact wording of the code was reached on-line on May 4, 2002, and adopted in draft form by the IAF in Texas on May 22, 2002, with the provision that it be reviewed and presented for final adoption in 2004.

Inclusiveness, participation, and global scope are three of the key values for the IAF. By using the on-line medium, many professional facilitators around the world were able to participate in the code’s development. Although the on-line dialogue was English speaking, face-to-face discussions at regional conferences involved other languages. Different perspectives were shared from many cultures and facilitation backgrounds. By including as many as possible in the process, wider applicability and greater acceptance of the code was generated.