(1)  I had intended to make a tape recording of the whole proceedings. Some members of the group made it clear that they were not happy with that - expressing concern about the workload of transcription and adding their hope that the record keeping could come from the group itself. I made few personal notes; though I did collect up all the group notes which we accumulated during the day. Having an audio record may well have assisted me in recalling some of the enormous detail of the moment to moment group process and content - instead, I am assisted in this current task by an audio record made of a debrief I had with a co-researcher the morning after our meeting.

(2)  I started by welcoming the group members and acknowledging that as initiating researcher I expected to continue to take the initiative in group facilitation at the outset and that that would change as we moved towards becoming more co-operative.

(3)  I suggested we then had a ‘round’ - saying who you are and what you think it is important the group should know about you. Interestingly, this mutated almost immediately into a ‘sharing circle’- still with people taking an uninterrupted turn to speak, but not in circular order. Though this was an introductory exercise, participants took the opportunity, generally, to speak at some length about the history of their involvement in both co-counselling and meditation practice. I took the opportunity to share with the group the significance of this research for me in terms of it being a requirement on the MSc. On reflection, contributions in this round were, to some extent, a reiteration of questionnaire material.

(4)  For a first exercise I suggested a three way mini-session consisting of a sandwich of meditation, client-counsellor-observer, meditation. This was repeated three times so that each person took time in each role. Each timed period was 3min. so the whole exercise took 24 mins. I suggested threes rather than twos to give greater ‘getting to know you’ capacity. For a ‘subject’ to consider, I suggested "What’s on top/what interest me about the inquiry? The threes came together from a mingling(walking) exercise with a suggestion that we make eye contact as we passed by each other. One of intentions of this exercise was to make chance to, emotionally, clear the air through the catharsis of co-counselling or the transmutation of feelings in meditation. Another - we did it standing - was simply to stretch the legs after having sat through the round. Another intention was to provide a preliminary experience of an exercise which integrated counselling, clienting and meditation. At the end of this mini we sat back in our circle- there was no feedback period.

(5)  I introduced my proposed agenda (App1.5) - with an acknowledgement that it was mine and not the group’s and that modification may be necessary. I pointed to the few items we had already completed and then to - Martin- preliminary thoughts (Handout) (see App 1.4) I then gave out a copy of my preliminary thoughts - written while on a meditation retreat the week before - and read through them. There was some chuckling as I read through - it seemed a little bizarre to me to be doing this and I noticed I read through them quite quickly. Afterwards there was some taking issue with one or two points and requests for clarification but the substance was quite quickly put aside in favour of a period of checking out, I suppose, the validity of what I had just done. Questions such as "what about everyone else’s ideas ?" and "Are we supposed to agree with this or what?" were being asked in a way which suggested that the group were testing out the notion of co-operation and shared ownership of the project. "I haven’t had chance to prepare my thoughts in this way" and - "when do we get our chance?" And also, someone responding "well I don’t work like that, I just immerse myself in other people’s ideas and then something might come out of that." Eventually, after a period of anxiety during which I had no solutions to offer, a suggestion emerged that we should all take 5 minutes to jot down what we, as individuals, wanted from the project, and to then take a further 5 minutes to share that with another person.

(6)  This was later recognised to be the point at which we entered into our first cycle. An experiential phase, precluded by the (unstated) proposition ‘we all have our own agendas’

(7)  Following this, we had a sharing circle to accumulate our wishes/desires/hopes and one member of the group volunteered to scribe the contributions.

(8)  By this time the facilitative suggestions were coming from other group members - I was making my facilitative suggestions along with others. Choosing between proposals for action seemed to be at the level of ‘group gut’ feeling.

(9)  At the end of the round we had a flip chart covered in small writing with multiple areas of interest for each participant.

(10)  At this point I made a bid for a return to the agenda (the first of many!) I explained that I felt we were, in a sense, duplicating the work done in the questionnaire process - that I didn’t want to lose sight of this work and that if we could return to the agenda, we would lead logically into examining/utilising that data. The group resisted that suggestion.

(11)  There was a feeling of the enormity of what we had generated - there was some relief when it was suggested that the data could fit into four categories. They were:

Theoretical questions - eg is it possible to share subjective experiences?, what are the differences between the catharsis and transmutation of feelings (in co-counselling and meditation respectively?)

Communicating/sharing experience - sharing experiences of different mind states’ and ‘I want to be able to explain to others clearly what I do in co-co and meditation and how they are different’

Skills & Techniques - supporting each other in developing a practice. Increasing body awareness during different mind states.

Integration - specific questions about co-counselling and meditation combined. Effect of introducing co-co into meditation group and meditation into co-co?

(13)  With a sense of completion apparent within the group and lunch time now eagerly anticipated, I made a request that we return to my agenda. I supported this suggestion with an explanation that I had included all the items that I felt it important that we address on this first day, and that I had arranged this in a logical order. There was a some humorous banter about there being more than one logic with me agreeing and stating, furthermore, that there were twelve (12 in group) We almost had agreement on this when the originator of the last chunk of work said he didn’t want us to leave it there. It was like a rich fruit cake and it needed further chewing over. We then had a discussion about the ‘proposition->experience->reflection’ cycle with 3 or 4 participants who are relatively conversant with the model identifying the various stages they could see in our work so far. One important point which emerged at this time was that there was not a necessity to ‘commence’ a cycle with a formal proposition. That experience/activity which is then reflected upon can lead to the formulation of another proposition in an upward spiral of emerging meaning. I let go of my agenda and asked, instead, that we consider it after we’d chewed on the fruit cake. There was some commentary to the effect that we would be engaging in more reflection on the data our exercise had produced.

(14)  Lunch was a picnic in the garden in the centre of the square. Not rushed; we had a chance to relax and socialise.

(15)  I began the after lunch session by setting the day in the context of a co-operative inquiry which would have at least one more full weekend meeting - this day being a ‘contracting in’ day when it is important that we get to know what it is we’re contracting in to. I also expressed a hope that we would make chance to create at least an initial proposition to work with this pm. and also develop proposals for home practice. Meanwhile, there was still some reflection required on the previous activity - so my agenda would wait until that was done.

(16)  An activity was suggested with the intention of eliciting the popularity of each idea. The group went with this - there was some disagreement about how we should demonstrate approval/disapproval for the idea. One proposal was to stand in a circle and move to the middle when an idea was presented with which one agreed. The other was to use the length of the room and to place oneself at one end to strongly approve and the other to strongly disapprove. The former was agreed upon with the group close to half and half for each suggestion. There was also some preliminary discussion to attempt to clarify whether we were talking about our favoured idea: a) for the whole inquiry, b) as an initial proposition, c) as something we would want to look at at some time during the inquiry. Option c) got the consensus. The process stopped and started a few times with some confusion about how the information should be recorded. The procedure became based upon the big sheet of ideas which was passed around the circle with each person reading out one of their ideas and walking to the centre accompanied by others who were interested in the idea. Walking half way in was understood as 1/2 a vote and totals were written next to the idea. My idea " I want to have developed a clearly defined, properly researched technique which combines co-counselling and meditation" was conspicuous by virtue of it being the only idea which found none other than the author standing in the circle centre! When one other person joined me, belatedly, there was a good-natured exchange in which he agreed to the accusation that he was rescuing me. Not all the ideas were tested out - we seemed to run out of enthusiasm for it after one go-round.

(17)  There was a lot of willing energy for action in the group at this point - decision making was chaotic and permissive. It was noticeable in deciding on the ‘in the centre’ vs. ‘ends of the room’ a number of people letting go of a firm preference in order to let the group proceed. Clarity about the implications of what we were doing was somehow only snatched at the last moment, decisions about how to record the popularity of ideas were ‘made in action’ by the people who went first. The relatively slight discomfort I felt about my isolation with my own idea was partly because I wasn’t that attached to it - it hadn’t been well thought out in the earlier exercise. But the ‘rescuing’ and the subsequent brief humorous exchange, confirmed for me at the same time both the warm, friendly support in the group AND a determination not to collude with me.

(18)  There was a lot of laughter during this whole process - there were often humorous moments; - and/but from the perspective of this debrief, we wonder if the catharsis of laughter helped us to manage our frustration and anxiety.

(19)  At the end of this process the item "the difference between and the value of catharsis of feelings vs transmutation of feelings" came out as the top interest item. Again I made a bid for the ‘agenda’ - there was some support in the group for this, but for others it was important to continue to further rank ideas by popularity which we did and came up with the following rank order:

* catharsis & transmutation

* share experiences re meditation

* symbolism sets context (sacred space before co-co sessions)

* how co-co & meditation are mutually supportive

* effect of catharsis prior to meditation

* how co-co practice can help a meditation group

(21)  At this point there was also a strong sense of anxiety in the group about what still remained to be done today and when I again requested we return to the ‘agenda’ there was no opposition. I began from the ‘what’s expected of people who join’ - acknowledging that the group had already demonstrated a willingness to be both researcher and subject, the next item - regarding the movement through cycles - we had anticipated. I began to run through the other items in the list when I was interrupted with a question regarding the status of what we were doing; was this a checklist that we were all agreeing to or what? I pointed out the small group planned for later and there was an agreement to listen through until we hit that point, at which time we could discuss the issue s in small groups and take it from there - however there were already a lot of anxieties being expressed about the issues of power & responsibility and conflict & encounter. Some people expressed anxieties about how much was being expected of them - what was the commitment. It felt like we’d hit a trough- wading through thick mud, - sticky.

(22)  I had suggested "what do you make of it so far?" as the small group’s focus. At this point we went into groups, though, anxiety about what was still left to be done was so high that a new checklist emerged with these 4 items to focus upon:

Expectations

Initial proposition

Home Practice and

Meetings (dates)

(24)  My group chose to start with a mini co-co session - in my turn as client I recognised that I was able to let go of some of ‘will we get it done?’ anxiety as I noticed it was being carried by the group as a whole. When our small group reconvened one of the other pair was noticeably distressed saying that this (the proceedings so far) was not he had expected or chosen to come for. He was unable to engage with our subsequent discussions re initial proposition and indicated that his only option was to leave. The suggestion was made to him that he could also consider, as another option, making a bid to influence the group process in order that it become more of what he wanted. We then explored, as an initial action proposal, the idea of setting up a situation where, in pairs, a specific feeling state is aroused - eg. anger - on two occasions and dealt with alternately through catharsis and transmutation. We got a bit stuck in details of how to arouse identical feeling states, order effects and other such related matters which, in the light of subsequent discussions, seemed to belong to the ‘traditional research paradigm’ The ‘home practice’ we left vaguely defined as ‘using spontaneously arising feeling states as the material to alternately cathart or transmute’ We had a brief discussion about meetings.

(25)  When we moved back into the big group the first thing to happen was that the discontented participant stated briefly that this wasn’t satisfying for him. There was too much ‘in the head’ for him; and he left. People said goodbyes in different ways - sensitively, thoughtfully, regretfully, reluctantly and one clear strong goodbye with warmth and matter of factness. There was quite a lot of surprise expressed after he had gone, one voice asked "why was that OK for him to just leave like that?" Gradually it became established that no-one had yet made a commitment to anything. Regret that we had had no chance to persuade him to stay subsided when the group learned that it had been suggested in the small group that one of his options might be to stay to influence the group in the direction he would like it to go. Emotional processing of the group’s loss merged rather messily into the beginning of a debrief from the previous small group work.

(26)  In this unstructured sharing, the members of the other 4 group, amongst other things, expressed satisfaction that at long last in that format they had found chance to begin to share experiences of different mind states in meditation, different struggles with practice etc. One participant expressed grave doubts about his own competency in the face of a new methodology and to some extent, new vocabulary. He imagined he was on his own in this and was invited to check that out in the group. A rough estimate of what this revealed was of about 1/3 lost and bothered by it, 1/3 lost and not bothered, and 1/3 familiar with co-op inquiry principle and the vocabulary we were using. I owned to a partial familiarity - [ I think I was in touch with a bit of lost and bothered at this point] - as the round progressed the mood of the group seemed to plummet. One person commented she felt like she was in a school staff meeting (eek!) ...there were complaints about us having done hardly any meditation or co-counselling, comments and suggestions were being criticised as being ‘old-paradigm’ , provoking new puzzlement and frustration about the vocabulary...when a skilfully timed and aimed (ie at no-one in particular) contribution suggested that there was a lot of restimulation in the group at this moment.

(27)  There was a sudden shift from a downward spiral of group depression to urgent chaos. I spoke about the irony of our small group struggling to think of ways to provoke distress feelings (in order that we ‘treat’ them alternately through catharsis and transmutation) Here’s feeling, let’s work with THIS. Suggestions were suddenly flying thick and fast - half the group meditate, half have a co-co session, rate distress level before and after ‘the treatment’ Someone, offered a concise and coherent transmutation technique to use in meditation.There was, again, gales of laughter, then the suggestion that we were already, through our laughter, discharging our distress. Was it too late to do the exercise? Activity was stalled for just a moment and then half the group-voting with their feet- were off out of the room to sit to meditate. I was, by default, in the co-co group and discovered, with some surprise, an unfamiliar stomach pain which I was able to work with by placing it on a cushion and entering into dialogue with it.

(28)  There was real passion to do something at this point - never mind what it is or whether it has been well designed, let’s just do it. This a comment not a criticism. In fact I felt I had a definite taste of the spontaneity and creativity accessible in chaos. It had to be worked with there and then! The comment about the effect of laughter was an apposite reminder of the impermanence and mutability of feeling states. There was also an echo in this for me of an intimation I keep getting about this inquiry which is, essentially, an inquiry into these two different methods of personal inquiry. There is a reiterative quality to this which suggests, somehow, that we don’t need to design special exercises - it’s already happening and we just need to notice. How, now, to translate this back into our research cycles?

(29)  This can be seen as another research cycle: the proposition - again unstated - "There is distress, - it is possible to deal with it through catharsis and through transmutation and it is possible to rate the effectiveness, or otherwise, of this treatment". We had our activity phase and we subsequently reflected upon it in a round. This whole cycle was effectively ‘nested’ in our attempts to relate to the agenda and to the necessity of reaching specific agreements by 7.30.

(30)  We came back together to have a loose and interactive round - most people had rated their distress level before and after. Everyone reported a lower level of distress after the exercise. Another person, who had been in the meditation group, reported the shifting of a stomach pain. I shared that I no longer felt hard pressed to get things done. Another person said they were glad that I was no longer anxious AND that there still remained important decisions to make in the fast dwindling time available.

(31)  At this point one person expressed a very strong dissatisfaction with her perception that we had still not completed the sharing from the small group earlier on - ( that had begun to grind into a spiral of lethargy and depression) After having made her point quite forcefully, we had an agreement to have a timed (90secs) round to say what was left unsaid. The kettle was on at this point and she had to argue strongly for the timed round rather than ‘until the kettle boils!’ I tried to structure this feedback according to the four categories we had gone into the small groups with with: expectations, propositions etc. There was strong resistance to this with the suggestion that a round would better reflect what had transpired. Upon completion of this round there was again a momentum to ‘go for tea’ But the same member - who used the rich fruitcake metaphor just before the lunch break - demanded to know what it was about this group that contrived to time a break just as we got to the meat of things. Once again tea was made and delivered by volunteers to avoid the necessity of interrupting the process. Thus enabled, we did another ‘responding to each other’ round - (again for 90 secs. each)

(32)  This was a very useful process of offering clarification for each other. To one member - who said he was enjoying the ‘process’ nature of the group, but knew that was not what it was really all about and maybe he’d be better spending his time with another group which had the expressed intention of being process oriented - reassurance was offered to the effect that co-operative inquiry cannot ignore group process - that reflecting upon it is intrinsic to the method. There had been a number of anxieties expressed about the idea of creating a ‘proposition’ - it seemed to some to be a very academic and heady activity. Emphasis was placed by another person in the feedback round on the agenda item referring to ‘the importance of aiming for practical, personally relevant,skill based outcome’ and linking that to the creation of a proposition. The relief this clarification offered to some members of the group was tangible. The same person then offered a proposition/question of his own which the group considered with interest for some time: "What patterns prevent me from actually doing my meditation practice?" and , as a subsequent question" What patterns emerge to distract me during my practice?"

(33)  In the exploration which followed on from our first suggestion for ‘home practice’ it gradually became apparent that something like this could be ‘adjusted to fit’ for each of us. That we didn’t need to take away a standard, identical question/proposition to explore. If we each of us took time to define what it was we were doing - in relation to continuing our inquiry at home - and did it, then that was fine. For one person that was left just a little too ill defined to be done without support and he suggested we could team up to give each other telephone support between now and the next time. This was agreed and organised with very little fuss. The ending time for our first meeting was now rapidly approaching; someone suggested that he’d like to finish with a brief ritual - the group agreed that that would be desirable. Fixing a next meeting date went very smoothly - with late January rejected as being too far away, initial reservations about before Xmas being difficult to fit in were waived and the w/e 13-14 Dec. was agreed.

(34)  Another agreement was reached regarding how we would record the day’s events. We would each write a report and send it to me for collating and distribution. Deadline for the report to be one week. A brief discussion followed regarding the sharing of power and responsibilities - one ‘resolution in action’ which followed from this was a chipping in £5 towards the postage and room hire. It was agreed that at this stage it was appropriate that I do the collation and distribution since I had all the address info. etc.

(35)  I had a sense of us being on the home straight at this time. There was a willingness to kind of let things fall into place. Fixing the next meeting date so easily was a surprise for the whole group. I’m glad that in the loosening up over the precise nature of the home practice, we didn’t miss the opportunity to keep continuity and support through phone contact.

(36)  As we gathered ourselves for the closing ritual I racked my brains for the important agenda items still to be done. We were in candlelight at this time; I said that though I’d rather just gloss over it, we could take this last minute opportunity to formally commit ourselves to the inquiry. The light went back on and we had a round- about half the group made a formal commitment, one said he’d think it through once at home, the remainder said probably, but I’ll mull it over.

(37)  We had a simple and effective ritual which involved passing a candle around the circle to each other and making brief statement - whatever felt appropriate.

(38)  Finally, after the end of the group, I asked about how and if to include a couple of other people who had completed questionnaires and agreed to the original meeting date but couldn’t come today. Various opinions; the group agreed to be open to them on condition that I gave them a very thorough briefing of today’s events beforehand.

Updated 16 June 99
by Martin Wilks