Exploring Provenance as a Technique for Facilitator Reflective Practice

This assignment is one of practice-led inquiry and aims to explore the relationship between practice and theory through the lens of ‘provenance’ as a technique for facilitator reflective practice (see Hill and Lloyd 2018). It invites application of a methodology that can support a practitioner’s investigation of their own practice. 

The purpose of this assessment is to develop greater knowledge about the individual and collaborative practices we have explored in the paper.

Reflective Practice

Reflective practice lies at the heart of a facilitator’s development from a novice to an advanced facilitator. Often intervention decisions have a variety of layers to them. Some balancing trade-offs between task and process, others between the needs of the individual and that of the wider group. Cashtan’s (2005) advocacy of ‘transparent facilitation’ states that facilitators need a capacity of self- reflection, especially applicable during ‘charged moments’ requiring extra ‘ethics’ in a facilitative response (p. 58). Hunter & Thorpe (2005) provide a helpful overview of facilitator values and ethics as well as articulating areas of contention in the development of the International Association of Facilitator’s Statement of Values and Code of Ethics for Group Facilitators adopted in 2004. For Macfarlane (2002), moral and ethical dilemmas are intrinsic to the role and require personal judgment (p. 56). Each decision to intervene lays open a universe of further choices. She argues that even apparently functional choices can have ethical consequences; and provides case studies of ethical choices on the move?by?move level, as do Bush & Folger (1994).

Yoong (1999) also argues for reflective practice as a primary training method for facilitators. Yoong discusses the ethical dilemmas facilitators can find themselves in due to the multiple stakeholders they serve, for example in choosing between serving ‘management’ (who may be the paying client) and participant goals: “a dual role that may [suffer] from competing actions” (p.102). Thomas (2008) calls for research on divergences between facilitators’ espoused theories, and theories?in?use (actual behaviour), particularly when the facilitator encounters challenging situations. In such circumstances, “the gap between an emerging facilitator’s adopted, espoused theory and his or her theory?in?use could be problematic” (p. 10).

Fincher, Petre and Clarke (2001) in their book entitled Computer Science Project Work: Principles and Pragmatics place special emphasis upon the value of reflection, “Reflection on experience underpins the process of successful learning and is essential to the success of education.” (p. 226). Engaging in reflective practice creates a mindset that is invaluable for workplace professional performance well beyond your degree. The Fincher et al. model is drawn from earlier work by Donald Argyris and Chris Scho?n (1974; 1996) and Scho?n (1987) in which professional work involves self-monitoring, continual improvement and cycles of planning, putting things into action, observing how they work, and then reflecting on them for further rounds of plan, act, observe, reflect.

Provenance

Provenance

Practice is, and can be, perceived as an historic construction (Kemmis, 2010, p. 141) that draws on both practitioners’ historic perspectives of their practice, and the general discourse related to a practice, often available in literature. For example, a practice such as surgery is informed by those who practice as surgeons as well as the history of surgery in medieval barbering (Himmelmann, 2007). This dual source of knowledge about practice generates two different forms of
Provenance: general or personal. General Provenance is often evident when a researcher frames their particular focus within discourses relating to what is ‘known’ about their topic. This framing
has been referred to as a ‘Literature Review’ (Bruce, 2001). What makes Provenance different from a literature review is that the starting point for Provenance is within the practitioner’s own practices. By reflecting on their practice, practitioners identify literature that has informed their own development of practice, and these identified sources are the beginning of a literature review pertinent to the practice they are investigating.

The process described for provenance in Hill & Lloyd (2015) started with the practitioner identifying critical incidents related to development of their practice, then organising those incidents chronologically to posit a developmental story. By constantly revisiting the story, a practitioner added more and more detail generating depth and clarity of the practice.

Task

Your task in this assignment is to write a 1,500-1,800 word reflective report following, or adapting, the provenance story method described below. 

Method

Having professionals tell stories about their practice is an effective way to elicit embedded knowledge that informs their sense of being a professional. This knowledge may comprise:

• Educational learning
• Practice experience

Step 1 - Choose an artifact1

Choose an artifact that is important to you in your understanding of your professional practice as a novice, intermediate or experienced facilitator of teams. This artifact could be represented as an item, or a particular reading, a book, or a symbol of some kind, something related to the workshop you facilitated – something that has inspired your practice or deepened your understanding of professional practice this semester.

Step 2 - Meet with a class member to discuss (online or face-to-face)

Arrange a time to meet with a class member and discuss the ideas behind your artifact and what it means for your understanding of professional practice. You may like to record the session or take notes so that you can capture the important themes.

Task

1 noun

1. An object made by a human being, typically one of cultural or historical interest.
2. Something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but

occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure. (Oxford Dictionary)

Some pointers as questions for discussion:

Why did you choose this artifact?
How does this artefact describe the work that you do, or have done this semester?
What does it tell you about your practice, or how does it help you to be effective?
What does it tell you about how people in teams operate and nay be best facilitated? What does it tell you about what you believe are the theories or models that underpin your practice?
Does this artefact provide insights into the critical incidents, or significant events that have shaped your sense of self as a professional?
What would you like to know more about? 

When you tell your story about your artifact, you will begin to create a narrative about your professional practice.

Swap and listen to the other person talk about their artifact. As you listen, other questions may be generated that you, as a listener, may want to ask, as well as some questions you may want to ask yourself. Take note of these and ask them as appropriate.

Step 3 – Summarise your provenance story – 500-600 words.

As this may be the first emergence of a provenance story related to your practice, write a 500-600- word summary of your reflections on your conversation about your artifact and its relationship to your understanding of professional practice. In your final summary sentence identify 2-3 practice- related themes you would like to investigate further. 

Step 4 - Investigate theory - 600-800 words.

From the themes identified in your summary investigate literature that may inform and deepen your understanding of practice. Make links to research or published literature and specific examples from your lived experience as a professional. Discuss which authors you find most relevant to your own understanding and why? 

Theory you may explore could relate to processes, to technology, or to frameworks that you have been exposed to, or encountered in your learning or practice.

This section should include a critical dimension and be related to relevant literature, such as that by Argyris & Scho?n (1974; 1996) and Scho?n (1987) discussing reflective practice, the nature of professionalism and the concept of theories of action.

Step 5 – Conclusions - 400-500 words.

Reflect upon the significance of your provenance story and on the facilitated session that you delivered in assignment 2. Identify key conclusions you can make about how you understand your own practice as a facilitator. Consider what you may have gained personally and professionally from the whole experience. Identify any opportunities for further learning, or professional or personal development. 

Include references to the literature supporting your reflective report.

Assessment Criteria

Provenance story

• Effective summary of your reflections on your conversation about your artifact.
• Reflections on its relationship to your understanding of professional practice.
• Identification of 2 or more practice themes.

Links between theory and practice

• Analysis of relevant theory (such as frameworks, models, processes used), including critical

evaluation of the application of those theories to experience.

Critique of relevant literature in relation to personal reflective practice and the nature of

professionalism.

Conclusions

Include personal and professional development

• Evaluation of own personal and professional growth.
• Identification of future learning needs.