Sergej,

I found your last question especially provocative - the one about conducting action research with multi-species teams. With an animal, of course, one would have to interpret their body language to determine how they felt about the interaction.

Before I get into the meat of this post, let me share my present research question. It reads, "What are the semiotic principles and structures which govern human-equine interaction in the modern classical manege?"

I reread your 719-CMM post and have put some thought into your last post here on Mindz. Let me track back just a bit and try and clarify just a bit some of my original concerns. Of course, you realize that none of this is ever directed at you personally - its just exploration at this point. Let me begin by saying that within classical horsemanship there is always someone (usually an expert) who can critically assess a rider's performance. In short, performances are graded and bounded by an external frame of reference. The riding master ultimately reads the rider's performance and determines if harmony (groove) has been achieved. Not only must a particular ride look right to the expert, but it must also feel right to the rider. There is a direct link between the two because there is but one correct way in classical horsemanship to frame a horse.

But when we translate this art form into a business setting, things become a lot less clear. Business teams may or may not have any external reference point. So one might intervene in a particular situation but have no orientation points to evaluate the intervention. My concern, in brief, is that we have no clear analytical definition of groove. I guess that's what I was driving at in my first post - groove has prerequisites. It has a very specific meaning, and it doesn't just happen. Just because a group of people get together over some beers, it does not necessarily follow that they have achieved groove.

So what I'm driving at is clarity and precision. Otherwise, interventions end up being nothing more than feel-good moments for all involved. From reading Frank's paper, I sense that jazz musicians - at least those who are at the top of their game - enter the perfomance setting in a disciplined way, having practiced thousands of hours to earn the right to be a part of a jazz ensemble.

In addition to the pre-requisites, I'm beginning to think that we also need to include a set of external or orienting frames in which a given performance is situated. These act as navigation points, helping those within the group (jazz ensemble, rider-horse dyad, or business team) find their way to the kind of groove called for in that situation.

a) Expressive : Purpose is to display one's level of competence
b) Exploratory : Purpose is to playfully explore a given structure
c) Focused : Purpose is to attain a specific goal or objective

In the absence of an external frame, it strikes me that action research conducted from within (inside) a particular group is limited to the discovery of how group members feel about their interaction. Lacking an outsider's perspective or audience, a team of neophytes, for instance, may feel that they have achieved groove when in fact they came nowhere close. In other words, I'm beginning to think groove is something that must be validated from both within and outside the group. Even jazz musicians go hungry if they don't sound good to an audience. These external frames may be a first step in attaining that external perspective. I don't know...

Hi Dan,

I am sorry to hear that you had damage form the storm, and I do hope that the trouble is solved. We go tsome news from the area, and it seems pretty extreme weather at the moment where you live.

Thanks for your reflections on Frank's paper. I do think you have a point when you say that any intervention would need to take into account what's already known about groove. Let me exand on your thinking by summarizing some earlier research findings, and by also putting them in the context of action research and design science as I read them.

In an earlier paper I did for human development, I looked at Csikzentmihalyi's theory of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and Keith Sawyer's theory of Group Flow (Sawyer, 2007). If we take the groove of jazz to be similar to these concepts, we find even more prerequisites for groove. Some of which are the group’s goal, close listening, complete concentration, being in control, blending ego’s, equal participation, familiarity, communication, moving it forward, and the potential for failure. In a case study I did of a workshop for Mise en Place, one of my research supporters, we got 200 managers in groove, and in reflecting on the experience 20 of them were able to distill these patterns from the experience in a reflective worldcafé session. Paradoxically, this taught me that a wide ranging group could identify a similar list to the researchers findings. Also, the groove in this case seemd to have a lower treshold than being only accessible to professional jazz musicians.

What this means for research design is the followoing I think. First of all any intervention should try to base itself on findings already available in theory. This means studying the literature, and weaving proposals like Frank's into any intervention. In an action research setting this also means experimenting with those interventions, showing the participants openly what we think might help, and opening the theory up to reflection from practice. As an illustration I like the example of the Wright brothers form a paper by Van Aken (2005). He said that without their pragmatic experimentation, the science of aerodynamics might not yet exist, while today, nobody in his right mind would overlook aerodynamics findings before designing a new aircraft wing.

What do you think would this entail when you want to look at performance in the manege? Your semiotic angle I think sort of helps with keeping enough distance from the phenomenon, without trying to objectify the experience too much. And as long as you are looking for a what question, which you now seem to be doing, this seems perfectly alright. What would it mean to do action research with human species teams I wonder...

To be continued...

Sergej,

Apologies for not starting us off but we had some terribly destructive storms tear through the area Wednesday night, and our house sustained some damage. The power line to the house was taken out by a tree. Fortunately, the house itself sustained no structural damage. We've been working to get everything restored.

Toward the end of Frank's paper, he mentions a couple things that I sensed were important. What I am referring to here are what I would call the prerequisites for achieving groove. In short, groove cannot happen unless and until these things are in place. Here they are in a shortened version.

First, one must have performers (participants) with a minimum level of skill, capable of playing their role - either in the team or in the jazz ensemble. Second, there must be a minimum level of structure around which the performer's can synchronize their various contributions to the effort. This is the "score." And finally, the performers must exhibit a proper fit to each other. Just because each performer is playing at the "top of their game" does not necessarily mean that they will play well together as a team. Thus fit is of paramount importance.

As you can imagine, each of these pre-requisites could be a dissertation in itself. The struggle I'm trying to work through - specifically with regards to the 2nd formulation of your research question - is that any intervention you design, plan, and eventually implement would need to have these pre-requisites in place and maintained consistently throughout the intervention. Otherwise, each element listed above could have a dramatic and adverse effect on whatever intervention you implement. A single incompetent player, for example, can derail any and all attempts at achieving groove. Or if you have a mismatch of players, groove will be all but impossible to reach.

And what holds true for jazz also holds true for classical horsemanship. Each of the elements listed apply equally to rider and horse, though one is crossing species lines at this point. (I've met horses where I sensed immediately that "this wasn't going to work out. We would never achieve harmony...)

Well, give this some thought and let me know what you think. I'm looking forward to this conversation...

Hi Dan,

In our last call we discussed the connections between the groove of jazz and the feel of horsemanship. After that you read Frank Barrett's paper and you mentioned you had some important insights you wanted to share. Would you mind taking a turn sharing those insights? In my turns, I will retrospectively bring in the earlier turn I made if we need clarification. Just want to start with your news. ;-)

Cheers, Sergej