Triple Task and the Philosophers Stone:
discovering a methodology for systemic and
reflective
participation
The Point
project
Simon Bell and Stephen Morse
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Commission's Seventh Framework
Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under the grant agreement n° 217207 (POINT project, www.point.pb-works.com).
1
P
INT
Background
Many participatory action research methods stop at the point where
outputs have been achieved. No attempt to appreciate the dynamics that
may have been at play within the group to arrive at those outputs.
“Group X has had problems with its internal dynamics – no wonder the outputs
were unimaginative.”
“Group Y was dominated by ‘A’ but the others in the group seemed to be happy
with that and they certainly had no trouble producing expected results.”
“Group Z has worked very well together with lots of discussion and animation.
Their outputs are imaginative and insightful; they have raised points I have not
heard before.”
2
P
INT
Background
Triple Task (TT) provides a more formal basis for
analysing how group function can influence group output.
Do purposeful groups always produce the most insightful
outcomes?
Do conflictual groups produce incoherent results?
What makes a ‘good’ group?
3
P
INT
Triple Task: Task 1 (what is)
Systems of Challenges
Rich Picture: now
4
P
INT
Triple Task: Task 1 (what could be)
BITAOC and Vision o f Change
5
P
INT
Triple Task: Task 1 (how to get there)
Rich Picture: if aspired for change
happened
6
P
INT
Triple Task: Task 2 (BECM)
Broad guidelines for team assessment
Being - respecting perspectives
Engaging with complex
situations
Contextualising an approach
Complexity seen as being within Able to adapt concepts, approach and
the nature of relationships not ‘in methodology to context with ease,
the world’. Same with ‘system’, responsibility and creativity.
etc. Emergence understood.
Managing practice
1. The team has internalised the concepts/ skills
associated with effective practice - can use and apply
ideas in a logical way - varying approach in reflection
with context. Can adapt and change approach in
creative ways. Learning is bi-directional. Evidence of
realistic, astute, practical judgement and perception
2. Solid grasp of methods which can be applied over a
wide range of contexts – without the innovative
ability to reflect imaginatively. Good straightforward
and sensible approach. Potential but needs to develop
reflective capability
3. The team has good qualities and can manage an
enquiry but understanding of arguments and engaging
are flawed and limited. Not wholly confident about
methods.
Self-aware, aware of others and
ethically focused. Written material
uses 2nd and 3rd order language (‘I’
and ‘We’).
Inviting and welcoming others to join in and share
enquiry (3rd Order, Theory Z) Continually aware of
interpersonal viability of enquiry. Appreciate needs
for evaluating own managing. Responsive to
opportunities and ‘environmental’ problems
5. Some reference to methods but mainly an
instrumentalist approach in the most limited and basic
kind. No coherent logical thread going through
presented work. Work full of bald and stereotypical
‘this is what you want to hear’ comments but not
based on learning. Repeating known and preferred
ideas without thought.
6. Little of reflection on behaviour. A few isolated
points. Grossly flawed understanding and
representation of points. Incoherent.
Not aware of how the self is or relates
to others as demonstrated by limited
use of 1st order language (‘it’) in
reporting on systems practice
Complexity is always in the world
– always divorced completely
from different perceptions
including that of the observer/
systems practitioner
Hardly able to adapt approach to context. Very
limited grasp of approach -applies methods in
a simple, though not incomplete systematic,
unreflective manner
Highly instrumentalist. Little awareness of different
modes of managing. Narrow and sketchy focus on
elements bound within a ‘system’. Always 1st order
and Theory X - occasional evidence of W
Domination and self-assertion.
Possible signs of egoistic attitude
permeating reports, accompanied
with dogmatic assertions
Tyranny. Frequent use of dogmatic
assertions and no evidence at all of
being self-critical
Complexity is someone else’s
fault
Unable to adapt approach to context. Muddy
view of any approach - square peg in round
hole
No awareness of different modes of managing.
Non-responsive to values, beliefs and
circumstances outside the practitioners own
sphere. Theory W
Flagrant abuse of others values, beliefs and
circumstances. No idea of what ‘managing’ involves
Providing the where-with-all for viable enquiry (2nd
order, Theory Y). Demonstrates awareness of
modes of managing (for, with, or enabling others
to). Acknowledges need to be responsive to
environment
Aware but not really self-aware. Some Complexity sometimes seen as
Generally good at adapting approach to
Sometimes providing viable enquiry (1st to 2nd
use of Ethical approaches. Written
being in the relationship and not context. Better than adequate grasp of
order, Theory X and Y) and some awareness of
material uses mainly 1st order
in the world
approach and develops own methodology
different modes of managing. Some, though
language (it)
inconsistent acknowledgement of, and
responsiveness to, the environment
4. The team has adopted an instrumentalist approach Very limited awareness. Very limited Complexity usually in the world - Sometimes good at adapting approach to
Little but occasional thought of viability in enquiry to getting through. Has difficulty contextualising
thought about the ethics of an
sometimes abstracted to
context. Adequate grasp of approach - applies fairly instrumentalist (Usually 1st order and theory
approaches to changing circumstances - low to poor intervention as demonstrated by use relationships
methods and sometime methodologies
X). Little acknowledgement of environment outside
ability to engage reflectively.
of 1st order language (‘it’).
immediate managerial concerns
7. No understanding of methods for this kind of
project.
7
Aware and sometimes self-aware.
Complexity usually seen as being Good at adapting approach to context. Good
Evidence of considering ethical issues. in the relationship and not in the grasp of approach and methodology
Frequent use of 2nd and 3rd order
world
language
Complexity is not understandable No grasp of systems concepts or approach at
and emergence is not understood all
P
INT
Triple Task: Task 3 (Symlog)
"SYstem for the Multiple Level Observation of Groups".
Has a history going back to 1979 when it was first introduced by
Bales and Cohen.
Has since grown to become a popular approach to the analysis of
group work and has been applied in a wide variety of contexts.
Symlog Consulting Group
www.symlog.com
8
P
INT
Triple Task: Overview
Task 1
Task 2
BECM
‘outside in’
Internal to facilitators
Scoping
Task 3
Vision
Symlog
‘inside out’
External to facilitators
Aspiration
9
P
INT
Philosophers Stone
Systemic and Reflective
Participation?
How can we relate the 3
Tasks?
Are Tasks 2 and 3 related?
Can the outputs of Task 1 be
related to Tasks 2 and 3?
10
P
INT
EU POINT project
Triple Task workshops held as part of the POINT (Policy Influence of Indicators)
project funded under the European Union Seventh Framework Programme.
11
P
INT
Relating Task 2 and Task 3
Yes – but not straightforward (best subsets)
12
P
INT
Relating Task 1 to Tasks 2 & 3
SAGA: Subjective Assessment of Group Analysis
Level of use
Levels
1 – Incoherent rich picture
Process of drawing (group
activity)
Not engaged, sitting
quietly
Content (1) Colour relevance
Hardly any or no colour.
Not used for any
discernable reason
Hardly any or no
variation in line width
and no use of symbol –
drawing limited to lines
– wide use of words and
acronyms
No evidence of a story,
fracture and /or isolated
elements.
Content (2)
Kinetic
Content (3)
Mood expression
13
2 – semi-incoherent rich
picture
Moderately engaged,
little standing, little
talking
Little colour, rarely used
to emphasise meaning
3 – semi coherent rich
picture
Engaged, some
standing, some talking
4 – coherent rich picture
Colours in some places,
sometimes used to
emphasise meaning
Some variation of line
width and shape, a
limited use of symbol –
some use of words
Vibrant colours,
attention to additional
colouring for meaning
Vibrant line width and
shape, much agitated
use of symbol – little or
no use of words
Little evidence of a
narrative theme
Some evidence of a
narrative positive or
negative
Occasional reference to
indicators in terms of
reception, internal use,
maybe external use,
probably not decision
support
Level 3: Fairly engaged
and occasionally creative.
Reasonable group
strength for defining
indicator use
Evidence of a strong
‘story’ and narrative
direction (positive or
negative)
Frequent reference to
indicators in terms of
reception, internal use,
external use and
decision support
Little variation of line
width, small use of
symbol – substantial
use of words or
acronyms
Content (4)
Evidence for information /
indicator use incidence
No explicit reference to
indicators in terms of
reception, internal use,
external use or decision
support
Little reference to
indicators in terms of
reception, internal use,
probably not external
use or decision support
Type
Level 1: Unengaged,
instrumentalist and no
group cohesion.
Dominance by one or
small group. No real focus
on indicator use
Level 2: Occassionally
engaged and rarely
creative. Little group
strength for defining
indicator use
P
INT
Highly engaged,
standing, talking
Level 4: Engaged,
creative and capable of
developing a strong group
narrative re. indicator use
Relating Task 1 to Tasks 2 & 3
Good
Task 2 (BECM)
L
K
M
I
N
P
G
Task 1
Poor
Good
B
D
H
C
O
A
J
E
Poor group function
Poor
14
Task 3 (Symlog)
F
Good group function
P
INT
Relating Task 1 to Tasks 2 & 3
Good
Task 2 (BECM)
F
K
M
I
N
P
G
Task 1
Poor
Task 1 is significantly correlated
with Task 2 (BECM)
Good
B
D
H
C
O
A
Better group function  better outputs
J
E
BUT – both Task 1 and Task 2
assessed by facilitators – bias?
Poor
15
R2 = 20% *
L
P
INT
Relating Task 1 to Tasks 2 & 3
P
N
H
O
C
J
D
Task 1
Poor
Good group function
G
Good
L
B
K
E
F
I
M
Poor group function
Poor
16
P
Task 2 (BECM)
A
Task 3 (Symlog)
Good
INT
Relating Task 1 to Tasks 2 & 3
Good
P
O
C
J
D
Task 1
G
BUT –
relationship is
more complex.
N
H
Poor
?
Task 3 (Symlog)
A
Good
L
B
K
E
F
I
M
Poor
17
P
?
Better group function does
not necessarily yield better
outputs.
INT
Worlds in Collision
“When two independent matrices of perception or reasoning
interact with each other the result .. is either a collision ending in
laughter, or their fusion in a new intellectual synthesis, or their
confrontation in an aesthetic experience.
The bisociative patterns found in any domain of creative activity are
tri-valent: that is to say, the same pair of matrices can produce
comic, tragic or intellectually challenging effects.”
(Koestler 1964 page 45, our emphasis.).
18
P
INT
Acknowledgements
Thank you
We would like to thank all of our colleagues in POINT but
especially Louis Cassar and Liz Conrad (Malta), Zuzana
Valkovcova and Daniela Babicova (Slovakia), Jari Lyytimäki and
Kautto Petrusand (Finland), Henrik Gudmundsson (Denmark)
and Markku Lehtonen (UK).
Many thanks also to Pia Frederiksen (POINT Coordinator) and Ian
Perry (EC).
19
P
INT