View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

Chapter Four – The diachronic analysis – who, what and when? – Page 135
Session 9
Present: Bill, Judi, Frances, Tom, Heidi, Mary, Kelly and Nancy.
Absent: Paula, Ron and Veronica.
Nancy presented in Session 9, which comes after the eruption (which can sound much
less of that to me now, over four years later). She reported that she hadn’t been able to
persuade her colleagues in her workplace to let her tape and bring her work with a
patient. Instead, she brought two clinical vignettes from her work with the team, and the
group played with them. It was different, and an active example of constant comparative
method, as well as a chance to look particularly at the impact of defensiveness on the
work in the learning group.
Session 10
Present: Bill, Judi, Frances (late), Tom, Paula, Mary, Ron, Kelly and Nancy.
Absent: Heidi and Veronica.
I am moving now to think about Session 10, when Frances presented, but turned up late.
As in Session 8, it seems that one member’s openness (Paula, the member behind the
‘discloser’ in Session 8) brought forth a lot of very important acknowledgement from
many members of the group about their difficulties with the learning, with the course,
and also with the reflective group. Yet it seems that Judi and I are not able to take this
up directly.
Hearing the consulting break in Session 10, I am aware that Judi and I are quite jokey.
We are unable to work out which of us should be facilitating, Judi resenting the burden,
and me saying that I don’t know whose turn it is but that I pretended it was hers because
I didn’t want to do it. There is something a bit regressed about the way we are being. I
wonder if we are just surviving, and perhaps the disclosures in Session 10 are too hot to
handle, representing a regressive pull for Mum and Dad to take away the uncertainty