In this section frequent reference will be made to the reports which were written after each meeting. They are contained in the Appendix, section 3. Unless otherwise stated (with an attributing name) the reference will be to the report written by this researcher - this appears first in the collated reports for each meeting. In this web based version, only this researcher's reports are available.

The First Meeting - Contracting In

On ‘Initiating an Inquiry’ Heron(1997) proposes three important functions:

* The initiation of group members into the methodology of the inquiry so that they can make it their own.

* The emergence of participative decision-making and authentic collaboration so that the inquiry becomes truly co-operative.

* The creation of a climate in which emotional states can be identified,so that distress and tension aroused by the inquiry can be openly accepted and processed, and joy and delight in it and with each other can be freely expressed.

The first meeting had been preceded by the process of completing questionnaires.

To a limited extent this was a group process, in that we were all focussing upon the issues presented in the questionnaire and the returned, collated, questionnaire gave co-researchers some idea of - and chance to reflect upon - where self and other potential group members were coming from. A description of the co-operative inquiry method (App 2.3) had also been included in the mailout.

‘Co-ownership’ of the inquiry was placed firmly in the spotlight through this researcher’s opening remarks (App3.1.paras1&2). The co-researchers rapidly demonstrated that they were very autonomous and self-directing individuals: there were three other teachers of co-counselling, five members had already participated in previous co-operative inquiries, - two with John Heron, one had previously initiated his own inquiry. The introduction of the "Preliminary Thoughts" (App1.4) document sparked off a first wave of checking out leadership isssues (App3.1.para5). The group’s reluctance to take on the "Preliminary Thoughts" without, apparently, having a forum to express their own extended swiftly to a similar ‘mistrust’ of the pre-prepared agenda (App1.5). This analysis is corroborated in feedback reports (App3.1.Sally.p2.para7), (App3.1.para5).

As a result the co-researchers were hurled into group decision making -and accompanying chaos- very early on in the process. (App3.1.para8) On reflection it may have been better , in the opening remarks, to negotiate at the outset an agreement that this researcher could maintain an ‘initiators agenda’ for a set period in order that the group address certain ‘essentials.’ There was feedback to this effect. (App3.1.Julian.para4)

On the other hand, the ensuing structurelessness gave the group early access to the emotionality of co-operative inquiry experience, also, to the phenomenon of chaos as the precursor to the creative solution (App3.1.para28)

After two, (resisted) attempts to bring the group back to the agenda (App3.1.para10 & para13) it wasn’t until late afternoon that we returned to look at ‘what’s expected of people who join?’ (App3.1.para21) We stayed with the agenda long enough to reach the proposed small group exercise. This researcher was able to notice that his ‘facilitative’ anxiety about ‘getting it all done’ had receded as a result of sensing that it had been taken on board by the group as a whole. (App3.1.para24)

In the check-in following this exercise the research group hit a crisis with one member leaving in distress (App3.1.para25) The group’s mood spiralled downwards until a sharp observation of our process (App3.1.para27) acted as a catalyst which sparked chaotic creative activity underscored by the subtle insight that our experience (of inquiry) is here and now. We do not have to design exercises with the intention of provoking experience - we are in our present experience already! (App3.1.paras27&28)

Regarding the methodology, there was a broad spread of familiarity with the co-operative inquiry method - this was acknowledged (App3.1.para22) - it was also addressed to a some extent by spontaneous skill-sharing (App3.1.para20) There was certainly quite a focus on identifying cycles of proposition/experience/reflection (App3.1.para6, paras12&13, & para29), - There was some anxiety expressed about creating a ‘proposition.’ This was alleviated by the identification of cycles that had already been engaged in - some with no formal proposition - and by the loose proposal for home study (App3.1.paras32&33).

The group did create some collaboratively designed exercises to help identify and rank order areas of interest for the inquiry. There was an assumption that this would lead towards defining a definitive proposal (App3.1.paras15-19). From that series of exercises, however, "the difference between (and the value of) catharsis of feelings vs. transmutation of feelings" emerged as a most popular item.

The meeting ended in a rush of last minute decision taking - but it was a group rush rather than one perceived by this researcher alone. There was regret that we had not made use of the questionnaires - though they had perhaps already served their purpose. Around half the group made a firm commitment to continue our work. Despite the rush time was made for a meaningful closing ritual and that ritual time became part of the starting/finishing tradition of the group for the rest of the meetings together.

The suggestion that all co-researchers write reports, which this researcher would collate and redistribute, gave - in a macro sense- another opportunity for a cycle of experience (the meeting itself), reflection (the sharing of reports)... leading to the clear proposition embedded in a number of the returned reports that the next meeting should spend more time with the practices of co-counselling and meditation. The next (weekend) meeting certainly worked with an emphasis on that implicit proposition. A couple of reports contained poems. Sally’s, verse3, gives an evocative picture of the group’s adjustment to the methodology. (App3.1.Sally.p1.) All in all,the first meeting served well as an initiation; all three of Heron’s purposes were addressed. On reflection, the preprepared ‘agenda’ was a mistake - a mistake, though, with a fortunate outcome as experienced by a co-researcher (App3.1.Mary.p2.para5). In future co-operative inquiry research this researcher would ask for an agenda to be arrived at collectively.

Engaging with the Inquiry

There were 2 months between the contracting-in day and the full weekend of inquiry. For all seven co-researchers who gathered together on that weekend before Xmas, the period had served as a time for gathering data. All had also had a chance to read a more accessible account of co-operative inquiry (App2.4 - external link). We were joined by a new co-researcher, David, who - well-briefed - incorporated smoothly into the group. This researcher did not present a preprepared group agenda this time; only some of his own items to contribute to collaborative agenda making. Interestingly, Jilly did have some pre-prepared items on paper and she appeared to ‘inherit’ some of the resistance of the last meeting! (App3.2.paras4&5), (App3.2.Jillyp1.para6.)

There was a very different tone to the weekend meeting - it was much more practice based; most of Sunday given over to experiential activity. As a result of this, perhaps, we had generated, by the end of the weekend, an ineffable quality which the author struggles to describe at the end of his report (App3.2.para42).

‘The quality of the weekend was hugely helped by the way we started’ (App3.2.Jillyp1.para4.)

In a combination of Gina’s and Mary’s suggestions the opening exercise allowed the group to both tune in with each other and to ‘set the intention’ for the weekend. It also modelled effective collaborative design (App3.2.paras1-5).

We adopted a new technique - the gather (App3.2.para8) which was used throughout the rest of the inquiry. As well serving as an invaluable device for recording only what was crucial, it also provided the group with a mode of ‘collective reflection’ - giving a forum to mull over the commonalities and breadth of our individual experiences.

Emerging from our report back on our individual research work at home, we picked up on the ‘catharsis vs. transmutation’ - which had held the place of predominant interest at the last meeting. We realised that we didn’t have a clear definition of what we meant by transmutation - essentially, there was doubt as to whether or not it is a ‘willed’ process, or whether (non-reactive) awareness alone is the agent of transmutation. Again, this researcher noticed a personal dismay at the either/or focus on transmutation/catharsis which had been felt at the last meeting when it emerged as top interest item. After much further reflection the author realises, now, that an inquiry expressed in such a manner will necessarily reside within the propositional realm of knowledge. It was a relief , then, that in a subsequent discussion we came up with the following formal proposition "co-counselling and Meditation can be usefully combined in a single (reciprocal) turn-taking session." It was a relief because this led us naturally into an exercise which may or may not shed light on the catharsis/transmutation question, - in the propositional realm of knowledge - but it may contribute in the experiential realm of knowledge, It would certainly bring an end to speculation upon the transmutation/catharsis matter in the short-term! (App3.2.para9)

The wording of the proposition was crucial in that the term ‘useful’ somehow set the tone of our critical subjectivity for the rest of the inquiry. Doubts expressed at the time about the use of the term were offset by the observation that ‘useful’ was embedded in subjective experience just as much as ‘painful’ of ‘peaceful.’

Henceforth, however, the content of a session, when quoted, was not presented as the ‘object’ of the subjective report - but more as evidence (particularly in the manner of it’s processing) of the ‘usefulness’ or otherwise of the kind of integration we had been working with.

Another crucial insight of perspective came on the Sunday am. It came to be known as the ‘time axis’ perspective (App3.2.paras32, 33 & 37) and it helped us to conceptualise our ‘inquiry into integration’ as a phenomenon which could be located at, -and anywhere in-between - the polarities of: this present instant, and, a whole lifetime.

We had a comprehensive, critical exploration of validity issues on the Saturday pm. (App3.2.paras14-22) from which emerged a thorough exploration of what we each understood by meditation. It was a relief to discover, in this case, a convergence of group practice upon what is described as insight or awareness meditation (App3.2.para15). The Devil’s Advocate Hat also materialised in the form of a biscuit packet wrapper and was used later in the day, in a determined challenge to the falsifiability of our inquiry (App3.2.para31).

Research Cycles: The first proposition of the weekend, after the experiential phase and subsequent reflection (App3.2.para13) led to a subsequent cycle of research guided by twin propositions (App3.2.para24) which occupied us for most of the subsequent day. The idea was to immerse ourselves in the practice (App3.2.para28).

The first proposition invited an exploration of ‘sandwich style’ integration; the second, a dynamic ‘within session’ integration. Reflection, after exploration of the first proposal (App3.2.para29) was mixed, though, as was pointed out, no-one said they had not found it useful. After the second experiential exercise, however, there was considerably more consensual appreciation of the usefulness of what had been experienced. There were a couple of references to ‘being on the edge of something new’ and ‘creating a new method’ (App3.2.para38) There was also a cautionary reminder of ordering effects and the cumulative nature of our weekend experience. The co-researchers made a specific commitment to each other to continue the research at home. The group ended with a very warm and mutually appreciative ritual - clearly proud of what had been achieved. Reports were invited again and were collated and redistributed well before the next meeting.

The final meeting started with the same opening exercise (App3.3.para2) followed by a very effective consensually designed process which separated out emotional debriefing from homework debriefing. (App3.3.paras3-5) [It also introduced the only ( brief) use of an intentional concentration meditation - metta bhavana]. The homework debriefing was lengthy (App3.3.p2.paras6-10) with a lot of useful reflections upon the method we seemed to be developing appearing in the subsequent ‘gather’

The questions of "how to communicate our work to others?’ and ‘what are the essential components of our method ?’ began to consume us.........

Chaos reemerges .... How can we take account of the cumulative ‘intention’ our work has generated when describing the method to a group new to these ideas? The suggestion of an opening and closing ritual at begining and end of a session dominated the group’s attention. There was a challenge to the validity of what we were recommending - in that it was something we hadn’t yet explored ourselves! Suddenly time seemed to be running out and distress levels were rising in the group (App3.3.paras12&13). Again, out of the confusion and chaos emerged a solution with the nature of ‘lets not talk about any more, let’s just do it’

We decided to break into pairs "take an hour and use it in whatever Co-med way our pair decided and then we could use the breadth of our choices to illustrate the breadth of the method."

And gives birth to fresh insight.......When we debriefed (App3.3.paras14-19) there was certainly a breadth of both approaches and experiences! It was clear that Chris had had a significant experience which he expresses in poetic form in his final feedback report (App3.3.Chris.p3). From the point of view of method, however, Gina and Mary took dynamic integration one step further by removing turn-taking altogether. Gina expresses it like this in her feedback report:

"There was a sense of totality. It was WE who had been experiencing the last hour, not a you and then a me and then a you" (App3.3.Gina.para7) and Mary:

"We seemed to maintain the same meditative quality in giving and receiving throughout the session. It felt very special." (App3.3.Mary.p2)

Pointing to further Research ........ this ‘free-form’ style of integration, emerging too late in the present inquiry for further cycles of investigation, suggests an exciting new avenue of research into what amounts to:

A new way of being in the presence of another!

The latter part of the final meeting was occupied by gathering the kind of information we wanted to appear in the pamphlet -as already described earlier in the discussion. Several people also suggested they would be interested in further developing the work we had done through offering workshops, support groups etc. and by disseminating the results of our work through the various co-counselling networks (App3.3.Julian). We found time to to explore an appropriate ‘opening/closing’ ritual which may serve psychologically as an intention setting device. This has been included in the results section as an illustration; it has not been subject to the rigorous cyclical design of research characterised by the rest of the pamphlet.

Updated 16 June 99
by Martin Wilks