Examining Group Facilitation In Situ: The Use of Formulations in Facilitation Practice

Franco, L. Alberto; Nielsen, Mie Femø

doi:10.1007/s10726-018-9577-7

Cited by 38 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this facilitated mode, the risk analyst acts as both a modeler and as a facilitator to the risk group (Franco & Montibeller, 2010). Although the quality of the model content will be contingent on the analyst's skillful application of his/her chosen risk modelling method, effective management of the group process will depend on the analyst's facilitation skills (see Franco and Montibeller (2010); Franco and Nielsen (2018); Phillips and Phillips (1993)). The risk analyst should identify the stages of the modeling process that would mostly benefit from using this modeling approach.…”

Section: Design Choices For Managing and Prioritizing Threatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Risk Analysis Framework for Prioritizing and Managing Biosecurity Threats

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing need to manage biosecurity threats, such as diseases, zoonoses, and biological weapons, poses serious challenges for risk analysts and policymakers. These threats are large in number, can occur concurrently, and may cause multiple tangible and intangible impacts. They often have an emerging nature, exacerbated by incomplete evidence about their probability of occurrence and potential impacts. There is also a limited amount of time and resources available to evaluate the risks posed by each threat, and it is difficult to learn from past projects. On the other hand, there is also a need to provide policymakers with transparent and consistent threat prioritizations, together with evidence-based recommendations. In response to these challenges, we propose a risk analysis framework for the prioritization and management of biosecurity threats. The framework encompasses key design choices that analysts may use in risk analysis projects along three dimensions: risk support, risk group, and risk organization. The framework has prescriptive value, as a design tool to inform risk analysis projects in this context, along with descriptive value, as a learning tool to understand past projects. We applied the framework prescriptively in two biosecurity threat prioritization projects for the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and illustrate its descriptive value by reporting our experience of these projects as in-depth case studies. Overall, the proposed framework provides important insights into the impact of different design choices on the success of risk analysis projects for biosecurity threat prioritizations.

show abstract

Section: Design Choices For Managing and Prioritizing Threatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Risk Analysis Framework for Prioritizing and Managing Biosecurity Threats

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To demonstrate the utility of Conversation Analysis in informing and illuminating facilitation practices, we will explore one study in detail, as a case example, and provide illustrative extracts 1 . The study, by Franco and Neilsen [ 34 ], used Conversation Analysis to examine how facilitator communication shaped work group interactions (across university, business, and local government contexts). The authors found that by using three distinct types of conversational ‘formulations’ (i.e.…”

Section: Objectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although ‘formulations’ are the focus of Franco and Neilson’s [ 34 ] analysis, these are just one of many interactional ‘tools’ or resources facilitators and recipients might use in the facilitation process. We turn now to a summary of additional examples from the Conversation Analysis literature of the interactional resources used to ‘do facilitation’ in interaction.…”

Section: Objectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing an interactional approach to exploring facilitation as an implementation intervention: examining the utility of Conversation Analysis

Hunter

Young

Lawless

et al. 2020

Implement Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The widely adopted integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework identifies facilitation as a ‘core ingredient’ for successful implementation. Indeed, most implementation scientists agree that a certain degree of facilitation is required to translate research into clinical practice; that is, there must be some intentional effort to assist the implementation of evidence-based approaches and practices into healthcare. Yet understandings of what constitutes facilitation and how to facilitate effectively remain largely theoretical and, therefore, provide scant practical guidance to ensure facilitator success. Implementation Science theories and frameworks often describe facilitation as an activity accomplished in, and through, formal and informal communication amongst facilitators and those involved in the implementation process (i.e. ‘recipients’). However, the specific communication practices that constitute and enable effective facilitation are currently inadequately understood. Aim In this debate article, we argue that without effective facilitation—a practice requiring significant interactional and interpersonal skills—many implementation projects encounter difficulties. Therefore, we explore whether and how the application of Conversation Analysis, a rigorous research methodology for researching patterns of interaction, could expand existing understandings of facilitation within the Implementation Science field. First, we illustrate how Conversation Analysis methods can be applied to identifying what facilitation looks like in interaction. Second, we draw from existing conversation analytic research into facilitation outside of Implementation Science to expand current understandings of how facilitation might be achieved within implementation. Conclusion In this paper, we argue that conversation analytic methods show potential to understand and refine facilitation as a critical, and inherently interactional, component of implementation efforts. Conversation analytic investigations of facilitation as it occurs in real-time between participants could inform mechanisms to (1) improve understandings of how to achieve successful implementation through facilitation, (2) overcome difficulties and challenges in implementation related to interpersonal communication and interaction, (3) inform future facilitator training and (4) inform refinement of existing facilitation theories and frameworks (e.g. i-PARIHS) currently used in implementation interventions.

show abstract

“…Mingers and Rosenhead 2004;Franco and Montibeller 2010;Franco and Rouwette 2011;Herrera et al 2016;Rouwette 2011;Tavella and Franco 2015). The practice of facilitated workshop to approach group dynamics' difficulties and limits is well-established and used (Franco and Nielsen 2018), to help group engaging in productive discussions and enabling a change in perspectives (Phillips and Phillips 1993).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aesthetic Perspectives in Group Decision and Negotiation Practice

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the role of the aesthetics in Group Decision and Negotiation (GDN) practice, specifically how it affects the methods and the cognitive processes in the architectural field. We intend aesthetics as “scientia cognitionis sensitivæ”, a particular process and way of knowing and experiencing the problem through senses, imagination and empathy. We argue that (a) aesthetics and aesthetic features can (and do) convey knowledge about the problem; (b) we can distinguish between two kinds of aesthetics, one of the process and one of the product and (c) the aesthetics can contribute to create a “plural subject”. The issue is investigated through a decision problem about the transformation of an iconic building in the centre of Turin (Italy), in two ways: (1) by merging the Strategic Choice Approach (SCA) with architectural design and (2) by approaching the same issue with Storytelling, as a method for problem-based instruction. Considering the aesthetics as a specific form of language, the paper offers innovative considerations about the role of representation and visualisation tools and models—drawing, scheme, diagrams, but also video and text—as support for group decisions and negotiations, in the construction of knowledge within decisional processes.

show abstract

Examining Group Facilitation In Situ: The Use of Formulations in Facilitation Practice

Cited by 38 publications

References 49 publications

A Risk Analysis Framework for Prioritizing and Managing Biosecurity Threats

A Risk Analysis Framework for Prioritizing and Managing Biosecurity Threats

Introducing an interactional approach to exploring facilitation as an implementation intervention: examining the utility of Conversation Analysis

Aesthetic Perspectives in Group Decision and Negotiation Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About