Ilene C. Wasserman, PhD and Placida Gallegos, PhD

Abstract
The diverse workforce offers opportunities for us to challenge our everyday assumptions and reflexive responses to our social worlds. New skills and tools for making sense of our experiences are critically important. Our paper introduces the REAL Model that helps organizations manage and leverage differences in their workforce and the marketplace.

Overview
Our paper introduces the REAL Model that helps organizations manage and leverage differences in their workforce and the marketplace. The process of reflection is a critical component to taking the perspective of another and, in so doing, see one’s own meaning making processes in a new way [Cranton, Marsick, Mezirow, 1993, 2001]. Critical reflection and engaging with those whose social world, values, or historical narratives are significantly different from our own expands our ways of construing meaning and making sense in relationships [Wasserman, 2004]. Transformational learning practices thus provide organizations with new and constructive ways of addressing challenges and issues previously found to be at best inhibiting and at their worst, intractable.

Disorienting Dilemmas and Diversity
Life in organizations is so complex that we encounter disorienting dilemmas or moments of mis-meeting in our social encounters on nearly a daily basis. Stories of self and other are often so deeply embedded that for significant shifts to occur in the dynamics of relationships, transformative learning must occur in relationships and the culture of organizations, rather than merely for individuals. At the point that we are confused or thrown into uncertain situations, we have a choice – do we ignore the difference and move away from the interaction or do we engage in critical reflection. If we avoid moments of mis-meeting, dissonance or disorienting dilemmas, we miss the potential opportunity to learn more about ourselves, the other, and new ways of relating. Wasserman (2004) suggests that critical reflection on these moments, with others with whom we experience dissonance opens the possibilities of creating new forms of relating that include our differences more fully.

The following example from our consulting practice demonstrates the confusing situation people often find themselves facing. When intentions do not align with impact or outcomes, people wonder what went wrong and feel confused, ineffective and often resentful.

• Maya is a senior manager who conveys a lot of optimism. She is an immigrant who has been afforded many opportunities. While eager to understand others, she has been having a hard time understanding the difficulties others have when it has felt so easy for her.
• Teresa is a supervisor in the same organization. She has great pride in having risen through the ranks of the organization having started in an entry-level position. She was born in Puerto Rico and feels that her successful movement into a professional role positions her as a role model for other Latinas in the organization. She takes every opportunity to tell her story in the hopes that it will inspire others to invest in their own development.
• Maya serves as a mentor to Teresa and offers her feedback intended to advance her career. She suggests that Teresa not tell people of her humble background as it only invites negative judgments and distracts from her positive attributes.
• Teresa feels insulted. Maya feels misunderstood and underappreciated for her efforts.

Teresa and Maya would benefit from a shared language for reflecting on their encounter. The opportunity for reflection would support Teresa and Maya in moving from being identified with the conflict or being the conflict to looking at the conflict. This would be characterized by a move from the first to the third person perspective.

Using reflective tools derived from the CMM model (Coordinated Management of Meaning (Pearce 1994, 2006), we can map out the different rules, norms and influences – messages if you will – that Teresa and Maya bring to their encounter. The following “daisy” diagram outlines some of these:

Figure 1: Adaptation of the Daisy Model from B. Pearce, Communication and the Human Condition, 1989

In the encounter between Teresa and Maya, Teresa learned that Maya places a high value on accommodating to the expectations of others and promoting oneself in the most positive light possible. Maya’s taken-for-granted frame of reference is grounded in her Asian cultural norms which value conformity, fitting in, being part of the group and deference to the dominant culture. Teresa shapes her story based on her Latino cultural value of remembering where you came from and honoring your roots [Gallegos 1987; Cox 1994; Ferdman and Gallegos 2001]. This dynamic of group identity norms playing out in interpersonal dynamics is a frequent source of disorienting dilemmas at the workplace. Senior leaders who recognize the value of coordinating communication are interested in ways to develop employees who encounter differences with curiosity and empathy rather than avoidance or defensiveness [Bennett & Bennett, 2005].

Disorienting dilemmas occur within organizations at the individual, interpersonal and systemic levels. Individuals such as Maya face dilemmas related to contradictions between the people they think they are and how others perceive them.

Model for REAL Dialogue and Engagement
The REAL Model offers a way to create traction and insure meaning contact in relationships by fostering new ways of relating. This model incorporates the work of Pearce, (2004), Kegan and Lahey (2000),Senge and Schwarmer (2005) and Wasserman (2004). Each of these scholars provides a perspective for unpacking assumptions or mental models for making meaning, and looking at alternative possibilities. Our years of practice have been enriched by the principles of the work cited, and helps to inform the kind of structures and processes that would support Maya and Teresa to shift from judgments to curiosity, from assumptions to inquiry and from fixed stories of the other to unfolding and emergent shared narratives. Noticing and engaging around moments of mis-meeting or disorientation are opportunities for destabilizing entrenched habits and exploring new, more creative paths of engaging. REAL is an acronym that represents:
R: Reflecting on current relationships, assumptions and situations
E: Expanding awareness across differences
A: Agility in behavior and ways of engaging
L: Learning from shared stories that transform individuals and organizations

REFLECTING on Current Relationships, Assumptions and Situations
We are continuously constructing our social worlds in the process of communication. Communication consists of an action that makes rather than reports meaning. Every communication act is consequential. Since we influence and affect our social worlds in what we say or do or how we do or don’t respond, we enact ethical implications and consequences with every choice we make. Engaging with others whose life experiences have been significantly different from one’s own often creates a sense of confusion or dissonance as the norms that one might take for granted may be interpreted differently by a person from a different ethnic, cultural, racial, gender, class, or geographic background. Those whose way of making sense becomes the norm of the whole organization are considered the “dominant culture”. Typically, members of the dominant culture see their way of thinking as “normal” and may not even notice it. Those who have a different perspective based on their history and cultural norms are more likely to notice and be able to describe the norms of the dominant culture. Members of the dominant culture may experience a sense of dissonance when they hear the voices of those who have felt marginalized under conditions they have deemed “normal”. The challenge of building organizational competence in intercultural encounters is different for those in subordinate and dominant groups. Each is experiencing the world differently based on what barriers or support they encounter. It takes work to build cultural empathy that allows each group to recognize the validity of the other group’s perspective and become willing to learn about the experiences radically different from their own. Milton Bennett has written extensively about the need to “overcome the golden rule” by acknowledging that treating others as we want to be treated is a flawed strategy for engaging differences.

EXPANDING Awareness Across Differences
Having explored current relationships, assumptions and situations, the next phase in our work with clients is focused on expanding awareness and deepening understanding of how the current situation is lived in the organization. Within every organization, there co-exist multiple narratives of the organization, past, present and future as well as multiple ways of contributing to the mission and contributing to its success. Leaders play a key role in creating the conditions for people to have deep and rich conversations across differences. These conditions include exploring what creates safety and trust, and suspending knowing and certainty.

When people come to work they bring the stories of their lives with them. According to Bruner (1990;), people organize their experiences and knowing in the form of narrative. Narratives that potentially foster connections and affiliations among people may also create walls of misunderstanding and disruptions to relating. When my narrative conflicts with yours, we find ourselves in a relational disorienting dilemma.

A poignant example of this dynamic occurred in a large financial services firm where we were working with the senior leadership team. Among the six senior vice-presidents, Andre was the only African American man. He interacted well with his white male colleagues in business settings and became an avid golfer recognizing the important conversations that took place during these activities. In one particularly candid team building session, Andre disclosed the day-to-day challenges he faced as a Black man in a predominantly white organization, discussing his marginalization in relation to other African Americans at lower levels as well as the difficulty he encountered fitting in with his peers at the senior level. He likened his experience as having to “put on a suit of armor” every morning to face the daily onslaught of incidents of racism and exclusion. His colleagues on the team were shocked by his disclosure. They thought Andre fit in effortlessly and felt totally accepted. It was a challenge for them to understand the gap between his story and theirs. The ability of the team to hold the contradictions and learn from them helped them fully embrace Andre more fully as their esteemed co-worker.

Daily routine communication, such as reporting on each other’s tasks, actions and operations, usually takes place in the form of storytelling (Boje 1991; 1995). Different representations of the different groups in an organization, be they cultural differences, functional differences or other kinds of differences, are created in everyday communication. Some of these may seem harmless, but in effect are offending and harassing and debilitating to the organizational atmosphere (Olsson 2002). Raising awareness of such harmful representations is often one of the central focuses in diverse organizations.

For example, a large hospital located in an ethnically diverse community is struggling to deal with the many languages spoken by employees and patients. Initial attempts to manage this linguistic diversity lead to the establishment of a harsh and punitive “English Only Policy” Problems arose for the nursing staff when patients and medical staff addressed them in other languages. Through dialogue and reflection, they were able to arrive at a more realistic and appreciative stance on multi-lingual communication that was respectful of employee’s cultures, patient care and business need. They are on their way to being an employer of choice for nurses in their region at a time when nursing shortages are reaching critical levels.

We often rely on story telling across difference to create breakthrough experiences for co-workers. Many people carry stereotypes about others that are more or less fixed depending on the extent of real life exposure one has to other groups. These stereotypes are fostered in narratives that are influenced by one’s own ethnicity, gender, class and generational cohort.

AGILITY in Behavior and Ways of Engaging
In a recent education session, a participant was overwhelmed by the vast range of differences present in the organization and exclaimed sincerely his intention to “never say anything that would offend a person of difference ever again”. While his sincerity was admirable, his goal will be difficult if not impossible to achieve. None of us can expect to be perfect, to fully understand or be eloquent in all interactions. The best we can hope for is to humbly position ourselves as learners, as being curious, being willing to listen and reflect on our own behavior and taken for granted frames of mind and habits of engaging, to explore how we make sense of our experiences with others and what other possibilities for sense-making exist.

In a diverse environment, it is easy to assume that we are all having the same experience and that the organizational culture is the same for each of us. The data we collect in conducting organizational assessments clearly indicates that people are in the same building, (literally or virtually) living very different narratives. People are making sense of their lives based on both individual and collective social identity group experiences. Part of the difficulty of addressing these dominant rules and making them more inclusive for all is the fact that some of the rules are visible and explicit while others are invisible and implicit. Everyday practices such as giving and receiving feedback, offering advice or mentoring, paying compliments and building trust become fraught with the potential for misunderstanding. Increasingly these diverse worlds are encountering each other side by side – presenting opportunity for people to gain, benefit and learn from their encounters. The first step in transforming these dilemmas into organizational learning is staying engaged with each other long enough to challenge our assumptions and form new ways and patterns of relating (Wasserman, 2004).

Telling a story about, as distinct from describing, what life is like in the organization from different perspectives helps to stimulate people’s empathetic orientation, which provides a basis for connecting to the experiences and world-views of other people. Similarly, organizational culture is created and perpetuated by communication processes. The culture defines “What kind of an organization are we?” and “What kind of people are the members of our organization?” through narratives and communication processes [Barrett and Cooperrider 1990; Lamsa and Sintonen 2006]. As it relates to diversity, an inclusive culture is one in which multiple realities are acknowledged and openly explored. In establishing norms in teams and departments, leaders may need to attend to the conflicting narratives being told by various groups and support a more participatory narrative that honors the differences and yet establishes clear boundaries and expectations. While minimizing differences and focusing only on similarities is easier in the short term, there are also long term costs associated with taking the path of least resistance. Organizational learning can only occur when we are willing to stay in contact and explore the values of the other in a climate of mutual respect and reflection.

LEARNING from Shared Stories that Transform Individuals and Organizations
There are certain episodes or events that, unfortunately, have occurred in many different organizations with which we have worked. We find that when we use these examples in a teaching venue, we see many nods that indicate, “Oh, I know that one!” One story is of an African American employee who discovers that she or he has been depicted in e-mail by a racial epithet. In this scenario, the person who sent the e-mail claims not to have meant anything racial. Rather, the communication was an expression of frustration with the individual. In this case, the Serpentine model along with the Daisy model are two tools we might use to help us stand back and reflect on what we are making and how:

Challenges to Taken for Granted Assumptions Enhance the Workplace
We have seen many situations where issues faced by diverse individuals and groups become opportunities for organizational learning and success. Some examples from our work include:

• Work schedules. At first, flexible schedules were considered special dispensation for working mothers who needed to take care of children. Over the past 20 years, we have seen the benefits extend to life style, co-parenting, eldercare, as well as workload issues.
• Who does what work often brought to light “taken for granted” habits of mind or assumptions that did not necessarily reproduce the most efficient, safe or smart ways of working. For example, women firefighters helped their male counterparts discover alternatives to backbreaking heavy lifting.
• Different abilities shifted our attention to how the workplace could accommodate different needs and in the process, improve team performance. In one instance one of the authors was working with a leadership team of a major university. One of the members of the team was hearing impaired and read lips. She requested that at our meetings, we paused between speakers to enable her to notice where she needed to shift her eyes. The effect of her request was to slow down the conversation so each person listened to whoever was speaking and people did not talk over each other.
• Products are moving toward customization as technology enables companies to more closely address diverse markets.

These are only a few areas in which having skills and processes for addressing differences opened the possibilities for doing work as usual in a different way, expanding our repertoire while better meeting the needs of the customer.

Summary
Leveraging the value of diversity requires fostering a culture of inclusion to develop the skills and competencies that cannot be easily transmitted in a short training session. Advancing an inclusive culture requires new skills that call for shifting habits of mind and habits of relating. In this chapter we stressed the importance of capturing the opportunity for disorienting dilemmas as portals for transformative learning in action. While letting things “roll off one’s back” is a noble quality, too often each instance of letting it go becomes a pattern that creates divisions among people. If we wait too long, those divisions become too deep to transverse. Creating the norm in organizations that we address moments in which we misconnect without blame or criticism but rather as opportunities for relational learning, can be transformative for individuals, teams and organizations as a whole.

REFERENCES

Boje, D. M. (1991). “The storytelling organisation: a study of story performance in an
office-supply firm.” Administrative Science Quarterly 36(1): pp. 106-26.
Boje, D. M. (1995). “Stories of the storytelling organisation: a postmodern analysis of Disney as ‘Tamara-Land.” Academy of Management Journal 38(4): pp. 997-1035.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge Mass, Harvard University Press.
Buber, M. and R. G. Smilly, Trans. (1959). Between man and man Boston, Mass., Beacon Press.
Cox, T. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA, Berrett Kohler.
Ferdman, B. M. and P. I. Gallegos (2001). Latinos and racial identity development. New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and practical anthology. C. L. Wijeyesinghe and B. W. J. III. New York, New York University Press. pp. 32-66.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press.
Fisher-Yoshida, B., K. Geller, et al. (2005). Transformative Learning in Human Resource Development: Successes in Scholarly Practitioner Applications: Conflict Management, Discursive Processes in Diversity and Leadership Development Academy of Human Resource Development, Co.
Gallegos, P. I. (1987). Emerging leadership among Hispanic women: The role of expressive behavior and nonverbal skill. Psychology. Riverside, University of California. PhD.
Gonsiorek, J. C. and J. D. Weinrich (1991). The definition and scope of sexual orientation. Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy. C. Gonsiorek and J. D. Weinrich. Newbury Park, CA, Sage: pp. 1-12.
Johnston, W. B. and A. E. Packer (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century. Indianapolis, Ind., Hudson Institute.
Kegan, R. and L. Lahey (2000). How the way we talk can change the way we work: Seven languages for transformation.
La¨ msa, A. M. and T. Sintonen (2006). “A narrative approach for organizational learning in a diverse organisation.” Journal of Workplace Learning Vol. 18 (No. 2): pp. 106-120
Marsick, V. J. (1990). Action learning and reflection in the workplace. Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide for transformative and emancipatory learning. J. Mezirow. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. A. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, Jossey Bass.
Mezirow, J. A. (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco. Ca, Jossey-Bass.
Olsson, S. (2002). “Gendered heroes: male and female self-representations of executive identity.” Women in Management Review 17(3/4): 142-50.
Senge, P., O. Schwarmer, et al. (2005). Presence: An exploration of profound change in people, organizations, and society.
Taylor, E. I., . (2000). Analyzing research on transformative learning theory. Learning as transformation. J. Mezirow. San Francisco, Jossey Bass.
Wasserman, I. (2004). Discursive Processes that Foster Dialogic Moments: Transformation in the Engagement of Social Identity Group Differences in Dialogue. Unpublished PhD, Fielding Graduate Institute, Santa Barbara, California. Human and Organizational Development. Santa Barbara, California, Fielding Graduate University. Ph.D.

Leadership Challenges In Fostering A Culture Of Inclusion.
Diversity Resistance in Organizations, Kecia M. Thomas ed.
Wasserman, Ilene C., Gallegos, Placida V., and Ferdman Bernardo
» download publication PDF file

Ilene C. Wasserman, PhD
The Fielding Graduate University

Abstract
Transformative learning has developed over the last 25 years into a leading theory of adult learning. This paper describes what we learned from an appreciative cooperative inquiry of people’s experience in groups exploring faith, race and gender diversity. The inquiry itself created transformative dialogic moments. Transformational learning is framed from a relational perspective.

Introduction
The capacity to engage the story of another whose social group identity (including race, faith, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality) is different and perhaps less dominant than one’s own, commands a level of coordinating meaning that is quite complex. Coordinating such complex layers of meaning requires one to suspend judgment and to suspend a commitment to one’s essential truth to consider different, and potentially contradicting narratives. Such a process is challenging enough between two individuals. The process becomes even more challenging at increasing levels of complexity of relationship, where social identity group stories based on deeply embedded histories are still present. Working with adult learners calls on us to foster environments that invite people to learn in relationships, to co-create meaning with others, with particular regard to opportunities that engaging tensions that diverse narratives create.

This study identifies discursive processes that promote transformative dialogic moments in the engagement of social identity group differences by identifying what is occurring, in the forms of relating, when such profound engagements happen. More specifically, a facilitated group reflection focused on what conditions enabled people to stay engaged in a disorienting encounter or a moment of dissonance with the other such that the engagement became transformative. There are many factors that contribute to sustained engagement and transformative moments in relating across differences. This study specifically focuses on communication processes, the turns and movements in the process of relating.

A focus on communication processes, particularly from a social construction perspective, shifts the spotlight from the individualistic cognitive perspective to the in-between or relational arena. Transformative learning theorists have made great contributions to the adult learning literature by framing a multifaceted process by which learners identify, deconstruct and give new meaning to their experiences. Through dialogic conversation and attending to mutuality, participants expanded their deeply embedded stories of their social group identities through embracing those of the others whose stories were significantly different from their own.

Theoretical Framework
Social construction, communication theory and the emerging literature on relational theory provide the theoretical grounding for the framing of this research. Building on Martin Buber’s definition (1958), and more recent writings from Kenneth Cissna and Robert Anderson (1998; 2002), dialogic moments are defined as instances when meaning “emerges in the context of relationship and when one acknowledges and engages another with a willingness to alter their own story” (2002, p.186). McNamee and Gergen (1999) described the transformative process as “first transforming the interlocutors’ understanding of the action in question … and second, altering the relations among the interlocutors themselves” (1999, p 35). These theoretical frameworks guided and informed the design of the research such that the focus of analysis was on what was being formulated in the relationships rather than within each person.

The Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) (Cronen, Pearce, & Lannamann, 1982; Pearce, 2001, 2004) provides a theoretical framework and practical tools for analyzing how people make meaning and how people in relationships coordinate meaning. CMM provides set of concepts and models that facilitate analyzing what happens in the to’s and fro’s of communicating and aligning communicating in real-life situations. The key concepts suggest that whatever we do, what meaning we make, is not made alone, but in relation to or coordination with others. We choose what stories we tell or don’t, what stories we hear or don’t, in order to make our lives meaningful and bring coherence to ourselves and to our relationships. The complexity of the world within which we live suggests a sense of mystery and that there is always more to know. In instances where there is coordination, there is coherence. Where there is a lack of coordination, there is mystery. Our capability to coordinate our stories of each other and ourselves is enhanced by skills and tools that shift mystery to inquiry and curiosity, to coherence.

CMM describes four key models that serve as tools to help people surface alternative ways of viewing their perspective in relationship with others’. The hierarchy model of actor’s meaning identifies the way meaning is shaped by the order of priority one attaches to different contexts (e.g., individual, group, cultural, relationship) in a particular episode. For example, one might amplify the personal of oneself nested within a relationship in the cultural context while another might view the episode as a story of culture nested with in the story of self. The difference in the way one nests the hierarchy of meaning might have implications for how meaning is coordinated between and among people. The serpentine model depicts how any communication or speech act has a before, an after and a sequence. Meaning is made by how one punctuates when episode begins and ends and the sequence of turns within. The daisy model depicts the multiple conversations that provide context or reference to the episode. The LUUUTT model is an acronym highlighting the role of stories lived, untold, unheard, unknown, told and the manner of the storytelling itself (Pearce, 2004).

Transformative dialogic moments as a concept merged the phenomenon of dialogic moments with transformative learning. The current conceptualization of transformative learning refers to the process “by which we transform our taken-for-granted frames of reference (meaning perspectives, habits of mind, mind-sets) to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and reflective so that they may generate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide action” (Jack Mezirow, 2000; Jack Mezirow & Associates, 2000 p.7). Transformative learning is a process that involves critical self reflection to challenge assumptions, engage complex situations, question conformity, embrace change, and align actions toward the betterment of society (Brookfield, 1987; Dirkx, 1997; Kasl & Yorks, 2002; Marsick, 1990; Jack Mezirow, 2000; Jack Mezirow & Associates, 2000, 1990). Taking a communication approach to transformative learning builds on the notion of shifting habits of mind to shifting habits of talking and engaging.

Research Design and Analysis
The research design formulated for this study, an appreciative cooperative inquiry, integrated aspects of action inquiry research methodologies such as participatory action research (Park, 1999, 2000), cooperative inquiry (Baldwin, 2001; Kasl & Yorks, 2002; Reason & Bradbury, 2002), action inquiry (Torbert, 1991), and appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider, Barrett, & Srivastva, 1995; Ludema, Cooperrider, & Barrett, 1999). We inquired into what was affirming, with particular regard to discursive processes that:

• Fostered dialogic moments in the engagement of social group identities with a history of conflict,
• Enabled people to stay engaged in the story of the other while being aware of their own story, and
• Sparked people’s curiosity to understand the other and, consequently, oneself in relationship to one’s group, in a new way.

The participants in this study were members of two groups who were formed and engaged independent of this research. Both were organized voluntarily for the purpose of exploring collective identity group differences. One group was exploring faith issues and included 18 women including Muslims, Christians (Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Quakers), Unitarians, Jews (Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist and Orthodox) and Baha’is. The other group’s members were human resource consultants exploring issues of race and gender. There were 8 members of this group including 2 African American women, 2 African American men, 2 White women and 2 White men. One of the White men was homosexual; the other group members were heterosexual.

While questions were formulated in advance, peoples’ responses guided subsequent questions. In addition to the CMM model, circular questioning (Tomm, 1984a, 1984b) helped to shape the manner and direction of the interview probes. The data analyzed for the study derived from the facilitated guided reflection from both group meetings. The analysis included two levels: the group members’ reflections in relationship with one another, and the researcher’s analysis of how meaning emerged in the turns of these reflective conversations. Included in the analysis was how, in the process of reflecting, the groups enabled or inhibited certain conversations, expanded upon or lost what others said, and reconstructed the meaning of particular episodes.
The analysis focused on the following questions:

• What enables dialogic moments in groups engaging social identity group differences?
• What discursive processes foster people’s capacity to engage the stories of others, particularly when they conflict with one’s stories of one’s own groups?
• What enables a transformative dialogic process?

Discoveries Made in the Process
The data collection process was both iterative and recursive. I learned things in the initial individual interviews that influenced the first group interviews, which influenced the follow-up individual interviews and so on. I saw patterns emerging that told a story about what the research process itself was doing. For example, I met with people individually before the first group interview to make a personal contact and invite them to begin their reflective process. I began with the questions: Tell me about your beginnings with this group. What was it that attracted you to this group? What were your first impressions … your hopes? Think about a time in the group … a memorable or significant moment in the engagement of group level differences where you came to see yourself or your frame of mind differently in relationship to others. Given my criteria for being part of the study, I was surprised, concerned and puzzled when the first responses I received were, “I am not sure there have been any.” Then, a pattern emerged. Within seconds, there was a follow-up statement about moments that were potentially transformative, yet were, for some reason, truncated before they could be explored. I noted these as potential episodes to be explored by the group as a whole. The very act of inviting people to recall a transformative dialogic moment helped them to construct one that they might not have framed as such prior to the invitation.

When the groups came together for the inquiry, I invited them to think about our conversations and what emerged from them, or subsequent to them, that they would be interested in exploring as a group. I also gave a brief introduction to the CMM models to help guide the group reflection process. Despite my initial intention to focus the research on studying what contributed to the fostering of dialogic moments, I altered my approach when I encountered unanticipated responses from each of the groups. For one of the groups, potential episodes identified included both those where there had been a shared experience of a transformative dialogic moment, and those where there was something that was confusing, unexplained, even disorienting. The very process of exploring episodes where there had been dissonance, as a group, created a transformative dialogic moment in the group meeting. For the other group, the process of reflecting on episodes just in the process of deciding which to explore helped identify what discursive processes inhibited transformative dialogic moments.

Findings and Conclusions: Implications for Adult Education Theory and Practice
This study contributed to the literature on transformative learning theory in the identification of discursive processes that foster transformative dialogic moments in the engagement of social identity group differences. The methodology itself demonstrated how learning in relational reflection, as distinguished from individual reflection, was significant in fostering a transformative learning process. The study builds on the notion of shifts in habits of mind to shifts in habits of relating. One of the enabling conditions that fostered transformative group reflection was using storytelling to exploring historical narratives that influence meaning making. Stories that had been a source of dissonance or a disorienting dilemma provided a focal point for members to present different perspectives and construe meanings from a shared third party perspective. Taking time for the group to reflect together deepened their individual and collective narratives, enlarging their stories of self in relationship with the other. Curiosity and engaging from a place of inquiry were essential processes for transformative learning in relationships.

The implications for this study are relevant to adult education, creating learning cultures and fostering diversity. The opportunity for mutual sense making and expanding one’s frames of references are critical for working and living in today’s complex global environment.

References

Baldwin, M. (2001). Working together, learning together: Co-operative inquiry in the development of complex practice by teams of social workers. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of Action Research. London, England: Sage Publications.
Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cooperrider, D. L., Barrett, F., & Srivastva, S. (1995). Social construction and appreciative inquiry: A journey in organizational theory. In D.-M. Hosking, P. Dachler & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Management and organization: Relational alternatives to individualism: Avebury Press.
Cronen, V. E., Pearce, W. B., & Lannamann, J. (Eds.). (1982). The Coordinated Management of Meaning: A theory of communication. New York: Harper and Row.
Dirkx, J. M. (1997). Nurturing soul in adult learning. In P. Cranton (Ed.), Transformative learning in action: insights from practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kasl, E., & Yorks, L. (2002). An epistemology for transformative learning theory and its application through collaborative inquiry. Retrieved 1/28/02, 2002
Ludema, J. D., Cooperrider, D. L., & Barrett, F. J. (1999). Appreciative Inquiry: The power of the unconditional positive question. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research. London: Sage.
Marsick, V. J. (1990). Action learning and reflection in the workplace. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide for transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, California: Josey-Bass.
Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J., & Associates (Eds.). (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.
Park, P. (1999). People, knowledge, and change in participatory research. Management Learning, Vol 30(2), 141-157.
Park, P. (2000). Knowledge and participatory research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. Pgs 1-20). London: Sage.
Pearce, W. B. (2001). A brief introduction to the coordinated management of meaning (CMM).Unpublished manuscript.
Pearce, W. B. (2004). The coordinated management of meaning (CMM). In B. G. (Ed.) (Ed.), Theorizing about communication and culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2002). Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of Action Research. London: Sage Publications.
Tomm, K. (1984a). One perspective on the Milan approach, Part I: Overview of development of theory and practice. Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 10, 113-125.
Tomm, K. (1984b). One perspective on the Milan approach, Part II: Description of session format and interviewing style and interventions. Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 10, 253-271.
Torbert, W. (1991). Individual and organisational transformation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.