the 5^th "Three Section" Conference in Stockholm
4–6 July 2003

Report from Discussion Group convenors meetings.

The discussion group convenors met on three occasions during the Stockholm conference. We, Pia Litzell Berg and Anna Malmquist Saracino were responsible for the meetings, which offered a space for exchanging experiences and reflections around discussion group processes. We would like to share some of the themes and viewpoints that were brought forward during these meetings, as we have understood them.

It turned out to be about 50 % of the participants who regularly attended a discussion group which means that every group had around 15 members. This was experienced by most convenors as a good group size. Some even meant that it was an optimal size. Several thought that two convenors for one group and the combination of one experienced and one not so experienced was good. Particularly if one of the convenors was less fluent in English as this, they thought, contributed to a less prestigious climate in the group and made it possible for group members to dare to speak, as most participants did not have English as their first language. In the mixed language group there were additional issues to deal with, which made it even more complicated, but challenging.

A number of convenors described that when the group section was responsible for the main paper presentation, the group processes turned more dynamic and the group climate got more intense, this could also relate to it being the last day of the conference. It was as if the different issues and happenings at the conference went "from head to stomach". Some expressed the idea that maybe the group section "carried conflicts" on behalf of the whole conference. One of the re-occurring themes that came up for discussion was the examination of the boundary between group discussion and dynamic group processes. Many concluded further that discussion groups and its convenors were not mentioned specifically in the final closing of the conference. Chairpersons for main sessions and workshops were thanked, but discussion group convenors were not. Neither were convenors meetings mentioned in the programme. In the meeting of the convenors we were reminded of the history of discussion groups. Discussion groups as a forum for mutual exchange were not in the programme at the first EFPP conferences. They were introduced after a proposition from participants. Later on, convenors required a separate space to share experiences and thoughts around group processes. It was experienced as important to share with others before leaving the conference. Now the meetings are there, but they are "invisible" and not mentioned in the programme. One issue was if this could have been a mirror effect of a possible ambivalence towards discussion groups in the conference organisation. Several of the convenors reported that the group members experienced the discussion and exchange with colleagues as very meaningful. Many expressed that they had received "something for themselves". Several members in one of the groups put forward that they experienced the space in the discussion group "as a gift."

Our reflections

Are discussion groups really important and which status are they given? It was really difficult to demand continuous participation, to underline the thinking behind and importance of the meetings, when at the same time they were "invisible" in the programme. Calls for changes in the time-schedule for the meetings were made because of flight schedules etc. Some of this we understood as commonly known processes, to be encountered in the acceptance of such a task as the one we had accepted, but we believe that the "invisibility" contributed to the fact that the structure were questioned. However, we received positive feedback in the last meeting because we had kept to the frame of the meetings and for standing up for the importance of having them in the first place. It turned out in the end that there was a definite need to talk about processes in the discussion groups before finally parting after the conference.

Stockholm 2003-09-25 

Pia Litzell Berg and Anna Malmquist Saracino

Welcome greetings »»
Summary (with photo's) »»
Report from Discussion Group convenors meetings »»
Evaluation »»

back

last updated: 2018-12-18