The Story So Far

The co-researchers

An invitation email was sent to facilitator networks via the Regional Representatives of the International Association of Facilitators (IAF). Facilitators who responded were invited to review the research information and plan posted on the initiating researcher Stephen's student web pages. Facilitators were posted an information pack that included a cover letter, an information sheet, a consent form and an article by Peter Reason; Integrating Action and Reflection Through Co-operative Inquiry (1997). This article is a layperson's guide written specifically for introducing cooperative inquiry to a new research group.

The online storytelling research group was formed with eighteen group facilitators including the initiating researcher:

2 in Singapore
1 in Adelaide - Australia
2 in Canberra - Australia
1 in Sydney - Australia
2 in Auckland - New Zealand
1 in Taupo - New Zealand
1 in Wellington - New Zealand
1 in Chandler, Arizona - United States of America
1 in Chicago Illinois - United States of America
1 in Allentown PA - United States of America
1 in Houston Texas - United States of America
1 in Westminster South Carolina - United States of America
1 in Boxborough Massachusetts- United States of America
1 in Louborough, Midlands - United Kingdom
1 in Gronegin - The Netherlands

The research journey

A six-week plan was created by the initiating researcher Stephen for the pilot phase of the research project. When shared with the group for input, it was extended to seven weeks as several participants pointed out that the holiday of Thanksgiving would fall in the middle and that a third of the group would likely be absent or unavailable over part of that period.

Pilot Phase

Introductions
From 24 October participants began to introduce themselves to each other by email. They described their interest in the research topic, and shared their expectations of the research project. Co-researchers were invited to talk about what was drawing them to the topic of “How story and narrative can be used to facilitate relationship development in online groups”.

A Skype conference was scheduled for 3 November to discuss the research question, getting to know each other and to experience one of the audio tools we would be using. This session could be described as challenging at best. We organized the meeting so that participants would meet in two small groups of four-five participants. Participants would swap groups part way through the meeting. Skype didn’t really show itself as a useful tool to support our purpose. The tool often crashed; there was some echoing, and voice delays.

Developing the group culture
Because we had found the Skype™ conferencing technology so challenging and knowing that the group culture was so important we decided to initially use telephone conferencing to develop our group culture. We believed that having a stable tool to connect and communicate through was of paramount importance.

A teleconference was scheduled for 2 December. After a story introduction, we discussed what online facilitation means for each of us. There were variations and we talked about some of the differences between training and facilitation. We then moved into discussing some group norms and developed a group culture statement for our research group.

During the meeting we decided collectively how to define what was a story and what types of stories we were interested in sharing and hearing. We decided to investigate our research question with stories about group facilitation and stories about groups, family, teaching, and leadership that could in some way inform our facilitation practice.

We found that our group tasks could be more easily achieved using telephone conferencing than using Skype™ or the other asynchronous tools of email and the forum that we decided to use it further and to combine its usefulness with other online tools.

Cycles of storytelling and reflection
Six further real-time meetings were held using teleconferencing, Yahoo! chat, Skype, a mixed meeting using both teleconferencing and the WebIQ web conferencing system. Stories were told, reflected upon, and a participation survey was conducted. Meeting reports were written up for each of these meetings and shared with those in the group who could not attend the various meetings.

Participation survey
A concern was raised about the participation level during a storytelling meeting using Yahoo! Messenger on 10 December 2006 that only two co-researchers had joined. The small group decided to develop and send out a survey to find out where others were at with their participation. The participation survey was sent to the group on 12 December.

The survey was a useful tool for finding out what other commitments participants had and we collected several ideas for improving the group’s participation. Suggestions included having peer discussions, more notice of upcoming events, a common website, to remain open & curious about our experiences and there were calls for more structure.

As it was getting close to Christmas (17 December 2006) the review of the pilot phase was postponed until the New Year.

Just before Christmas a Yahoo! e-group (onlinestory) and the iMeet forum system were setup to collect our thoughts and reflections over the holiday season.

Some technical support for participation
One participant made known that her low confidence with using the technical tools was impacting on her ability to participate in the research. This experience was discussed and together we developed a plan for several 1-on-1 coaching sessions to trial the tools out with her.

Midwest Facilitators Network Conference Workshop
On 17 January 2006 the initiating researcher Stephen presented a 90 minute session on the initial learnings and impressions from the storytelling research project at the Midwest Facilitators Network conference in Chicago, Illinois. The session was presented via the internet using Skype video conference with workshop participants in Chicago. Co-researcher Paul Collins was at the conference session in-person and a second co-researcher, Eva Martony, joined in from Chandler in Arizona. They both spoke about their experiences in the research group and helped answer some of the questions from the audience. Session participants had a real curiosity in seeing how the research project might inform their own practice.

Reviewing the Pilot Phase - After Action Review
A review of the pilot phase began on 2 March through a series of 3 telephone conferences supported by a web conferencing tool WebIQ (www.webiq.net). Use of the WebIQ system was kindly granted free of charge by Raymond E. Bejarano of WebIQ (VP Operations).

As a process for evaluation an After Action Review (AAR) had been suggested and agreed to by the group. The AAR is a post-event evaluation process used to collect the positive aspects of an experience and areas for further improvement.

Nine out of the eighteen co-researchers participated in at least one of the sessions and the other co-researchers contributed to the resulting report via email. Reflections were collected on the different events that had occurred within the project so far.

Identified next steps were to create a website with web blog and photos for our group which would include: the project vision, the summaries and files, what we have done so far, pictures and profiles of group members, time zones, what’s coming up, when, and any relevant numbers to ring with web links as needed.

1st Sub-project - Inspiring Online Participation
While developing a structured series of themes to provide some focus for the research a smaller, focused topic emerged for one of the co-researchers to investigate in more detail. This co-researcher’s practice involves the training of secondary (elementary) teachers via a combination of residential and distance learning with the Christchurch College of Education. She wanted to facilitate a professional practice session via a chat session to see if a combined process approach of storytelling and Appreciative Inquiry could inspire further online participation in the sharing of professional practice learnings.

A proposed process was sent to the co-research group for comments and input into the design of the session. On 24 March a storytelling chat session around professional practice was facilitated with a group of nine third year trainee teachers. The trainee teachers had volunteered to participate.

The online chat session took 90 minutes and the feedback from participants was very positive. A follow-up questionnaire was sent to the trainee participants and a summary report was presented to the research group.

Onlinestory.net
One of the identified next steps coming from the After Action Review was to develop a website for the research group.

Our intention was to create something like a Yahoo! 360 webpage with a web blog and photos for our group. Other options considered were to create a wiki or our own online story website. Our aim was for this space to become a home base for our project group that would contain the project vision, the summaries, files on what we have done so far, pictures and profiles of group members, time zones, what’s coming up. Another important aim was for the space to also list when group events were happening and any relevant telephone numbers to ring or web links to follow.

The creation of a Yahoo! 360 webpage was attempted by the initiating researcher Stephen (http://360.yahoo.com/profile-b0y5QTUib6PCRmZfJfl3ULxgZtGa). The Yahoo! 360 system was found during it’s creation process to be to structured ans unsuitable for our group’s needs. Yahoo! 360 is essentially a social networking tool similar in nature to Bebo or Facebook. There wasn’t the same flexibility that could be achieved if we created the website ourselves.

The creation of the www.onlinestory.net website was begun on 9 April 2006 and over the following weeks began to take shape. Feedback was sought from the group and incorporated into the website.

Phase 1 - Reflection on topics of choice and developing a plan of inquiry

There were a range of areas that the group was interested in investigating. Areas such as engaging and inspiring participation; the social functions of stories; belongingness; best practice; motivation; creating community and building trust (see Table 5.X below).

On 18 April 2006 a planning phase was begun, this time by using the Yahoo group email so that all could have input and participate. Co-researchers were sent a list of areas that might be researched in-depth. These areas had been identified by individuals and the group throughout the pilot phase and identified in the After Action Review.

The group reviewed the list identified and indicated their preferences for the areas that had the most attraction. The group then organized these areas into categories.

A research plan was developed based on the areas that the group identified as of the most interest. Below is the research plan put together by the group. Several areas did not have a particular research project or method of investigation identified. It was thought that these gaps may emerge, through the process of investigating the other areas.



Phase 2 – First action phase on topic

During June and July of 2006 several projects were initiated exploring: the power of story, participant introductions in workshops, sharing stories vs sharing information, and leadership stories via video conference.

A Slow Down in the Research Project
During the period 5 August - 22 October 2006 some of the momentum of the overall project slowed. Through this period the initiating researcher Stephen ’s time and energy diverted into a range of other commitments (leading an online facilitation skills training programme, authoring a chapter on online facilitation in and other editing for a revised edition of The Art of Facilitation (2007) by Dale Hunter, associate editing work on the IAF Journal of Group Facilitation, part-time teaching at AUT, on top of his normal working week).

The slow down highlighted some of impact that the initiating researcher had on maintaining the momentum of the project. Co-researchers also had their own commitments and facilitation work. A breakdown in the group culture occurred as the initiating researcher did not transparently identify and share these growing commitments with the group. The group also did not identify or discuss how the plan may have been falling short of the group’s goals and take action to intervene.

Storytelling via web blog
The use of humour in facilitating online has been considered challenging and it was thought that sharing funny stories using a web blog might be a useful approach as audience members might post comments. To investigate this further, the initiating researcher Stephen developed a sub-project investigating the use of storytelling using a blog as part of an online facilitation training programme that they were co-leading. The blog was set up using Blogger™ at www.blogger.com to explore the topics of dialogue and storytelling. The blog was facilitated over four weeks (between 19 September and 21 October, 2006) with eleven participants.

Participants were asked to submit a “funny facilitation fable” based on an experience that had had with their groups. As participant stories flowed and comments were posted themes began to emerge from the group sharing. The stories chosen and told gave insights for participants.

Participants found the blog tool very familiar and easier to use than the forum tool they had been learning previously. The blog was also considered a fun tool for people to use. Other participants however, found storytelling on the blog challenging. It was difficult for some to “just produce a story.” Although the blog facilitator opened with an example story, a clearer context for the storytelling may have been useful and more options to tell stories other than ‘fun’ ones.

Leadership Stories via Video Conferencing
Another sub-project was initiated by two of the co-researchers from Global Learning in Canberra - Steve Colman and Mark Spain to explore stories about leadership using video conferencing. The goal was to build on a face-to-face four-day leadership programme with twenty middle managers in a large Australian government agency delivering services all around Australia.

The stories that were told during these sessions were related to experiences of dealing with a challenge in their leadership environment and their own personal development. These stories often involved a third party, such as a mentor, manager or colleague who had a significant impact on the storyteller. This third party had demonstrated leadership and particular values in their behavior that had inspired the storyteller. Some of these stories also had a living or traveling in another culture theme to them.

Participants offered feedback that they were fully absorbed and engaged in the stories and strongly valued the lessons learned by the storytellers. The sessions triggered more openness, trust and personal disclosure. Positive outcomes identified from the storytelling session included the building of personal trust, active open listening, and learning that peoples’ perceptions can be different.

Comparing Email Introductions with Public Web Profiles
A comparison test was created to explore the impact of two different types of introductions used within our research group at the beginning of the project. The first type of introduction was the email introductions which included a story that participants had made to introduce themselves to each other in the group. The second type of introduction was participant’s own web biographies or professional profiles. These web biographies either came from a participant’s own website or they were uploaded to the co-researchers page of the project website.

The purpose of the comparison test was to establish what might be useful for the introductions stage of online groups. Participants were asked to review and compare eleven different profiles each containing a public profile and a corresponding email introduction to our research group. Members were asked to respond to eight questions via the research project website. Thirty-eight responses were received in total. While not intended to be statistically significant, the test was aimed at being indicative and to present an early reflection of our group. We wanted to see if people felt closer, could see more personal aspects and identify more points of connection in a story introduction when comparison to the same person’s web biography. We also wanted to know what participants thought had contributed to their sense or level of trust and the impact that the inclusion of a photo may have had. Overall the comparison test showed us that the story introductions were more popular than the web profiles.

Storytelling in Second life
A storytelling sub-project was also conducted in Second Life (dates) with participants in the Online Facilitation Skills training programme that Stephen was leading.

Each person joining Second Life creates their own cartoon-like ‘avatar’ that represents them in the 3D world. Participants travel around the various environments, and interact with other people from around the world. The facilitated storytelling session was held in a virtual camp fire on Boracay Island and explored participant’s journeys to becoming a facilitator. Story was blended with fun.

Discussion on the experience followed on the programme’s discussion forum. Participants found the experience emotionally engaging and many wanted to explore the 3D interactive environment further.

Final reflection phase

In November and December 2006 we moved into the final reflection phase and reviewed all the data collected throughout the data collection phase. It was hoped that the research group would tie together the findings from each of the sub-projects and inquiries undertaken. However co-researchers preferred to give feedback via email on summary findings presented in the sub-projects and by the initiating researcher.

Some discussion was held on how the findings were to be presented. A proposal for a chapter submission to the Handbook of Research on Computer Supported Communication was submitted and accepted. Short articles were called for Communique, a newsletter of one of the co-researchers. Submissions to the IAF Journal of Group Facilitation and IAF conference workshops were also suggested and put forward.

There were also reflections collected on the overall research process. These reflections were captured through email discussion. The research project was then completed on 30 January 2007.

Summary

Overall we covered a lot of ground and investigated storytelling from several angles with a wide range of online tools. We didn’t follow through the full series of co-operative inquiry cycles as planned. Subsequent phases of planning, action and reflection would have taken more time than the research group was committed to. We did follow to some extent the first 4 phases of the co-operative inquiry method. The nature of our online meeting meant that phases of planning, action and reflection occurred within each of the sub-projects followed through.

The tools we used included email, audio and telephone conferencing, video conferencing, telephone with web conferencing, internet relay chat, a web blog, Second Life, and we used online surveys. These tools and the types of inquiry we investigated with them are summarized in the table below.