First I look at how the nurse-participants began to enjoy organising themselves and taking ownership of their projects. I then move on to the challenge of building relationships with WBSs and use validity claims to discuss how trust was, or was not established. I look at Mandy’s case in particular, because it highlights the difficulties that can occur, but then balance this with the other nurse-participants positive experiences, collating their reflections on the
supervisory relationships. Reference is made to the need to create ‘ideal speech conditions’ (Habermas, 1984) for constructive dialogue to take place. Further on, I reveal how the WBSs were important here in affirming the
nurse-participants’ strengths, helping the nurse-participants to become more aware of their own skills and influence.
165
Once the initial shock of not being formally taught had subsided, all the nurse-participants began to take control of their work. Mandy said: “I liked the idea of being able to sort of, not set your own outcomes, but sort of take it where you needed it to be.” She went on to say: “I think you get ownership. It becomes a bit more personal than sitting and writing your assignment on a topic. I just felt I owned it a bit more.” Carol echoed this sense of ownership:
“Of all the modules this is the one I am most proud of, because it was all me.”
This reference to a sense of ownership echoes findings produced by Dewar et al. (2003) and Chapman (2006). Despite the fact that some of the projects were reactive in nature, responding to health care pressures, they were beginning to be viewed as personal projects, made their own by the nurse-participants controlling the choice of activities involved.
Paula enthused about her methodical planning: “Within the WBL structure, I could evaluate what was going on, what was happening and what was
needed.” By creating her own schedule, Paula set herself deadlines and added:
“It compartmentalises things, so you are not stood at the bottom of the ladder looking up and thinking – see how much there is to do and thinking
‘oh my god I have so much to do!”
Elaine similarly described how “breaking it down into smaller chunks” made it more manageable. Balancing different activities was an essential aspect of this project management. Even when Jenny critiqued her time management, she demonstrated her immersion in the work. She said:
“I didn’t appreciate how long it would take…I also got bogged down
looking at all the research. I was too focused on the literature review, which wasn’t that many words, whereas the thing that took the most time was writing the educational resource and I did not start that early enough, which is my own fault.”
Habermas refers to communicative action as being based on a need to seek consensus with others to achieve agreed goals (1984, p.60). The
nurse-participants needed to articulate their views so that a “co-operative process of interpretation” of their ideas about their immediate clinical world could be agreed (Habermas, 1984, p.101). Supervisory agreements needed to be
166
formalised and so the first project interactions focused on supervisory meetings.
WB supervisory relationships emerged as the most important of any of the relationships encountered during the project work, frequently referred to in the interviews, and this is reflected in their mention in each of these three findings chapters. This again echoes Chapman (2006) findings. Breaking this down further the first task appeared to be finding a supervisor you could trust. For some in small teams the choice of supervisor was limited and governed by local etiquette. As described in New Frictions Mandy chose a more
experienced specialist nurse colleague as her WBS, but soon realised there was friction she at first described as being on “different wavelengths”. Here I note her final comment: “I think she (the WB supervisor) probably just thought I was a silly little girl”. This last phrase doesn’t just indicate differences in age and experience, but is suggestive of a power relationship of parent to child (Berne, 1996) that emphasised the supervisor’s superiority and reduced the nurse-participant’s capacity to liaise with her as an adult colleague, denying ideal speech conditions.
Communicative reasoning entails a criticality in assessing the everyday validity claims of others, Habermas suggests with regard to their truth, sincerity and moral rightness, (1987, p.121). Mandy blushed when she
described the WBS’s behaviour, appearing embarrassed to admit this was how she had been treated, but I think this distress indicates the shock of being treated in this way and her humiliation. The impact of this unexpected denial of the validity of Mandy’s claim was that Mandy’s power to negotiate was considerably diminished. It did not appear to be Mandy’s sincerity or
knowledge that was questioned, because the proposed change had been trialled by her reportedly successfully. However it was her lack of seniority that seemed to be the problem, it meant that she was viewed as not having the right to question their authority and her action might have been seen as morally inappropriate.
Mandy was able to consolidate her knowledge by networking around the country with other similar specialist departments and presenting her findings to
167
a wider audience. Mandy acknowledged the challenge this presented her “I was quiet. Personally it was quite a good thing for me really to go through.” It seemed that because she had to promote her ideas more widely in a more public way it increased her sense of ownership and made her aware of how she was changing as a person. When the relationship was negative it had forced her out of her comfort zone, but in an unsupported way. Veronica had similarly had supervisor difficulties then found a stronger bond with another mentor, stating: “the other supervisor said to me you want to do this, let us get together, I will teach you.” This suggests a more equal relationship, with someone she described as becoming “seriously involved”, by working with her on filming and critiquing the educational resource she was preparing.
It appeared that the nurse-participants had to defer to the WBS’s specialist knowledge, trust their personal sincerity and professional willingness to support them. Elaine stressed: “You have to respect them professionally as well. You have to think about personalities.” Local culture and etiquette appeared to discourage criticism of experienced colleagues, therefore free and open dialogue was constrained, and ‘ideal speech conditions’ were not always being met where the supervisory relationships were strained (three situations).
The learning entailed realising what was happening and finding ways of overcoming the obstacles presented without offending those concerned.
Seven of the nurse-participants had good experiences with their WBSs found they positively encouraged them to articulate their ideas more widely,
providing a channel for communication out into wider professional networks.
The more experienced staff knew their colleagues well enough to choose individuals they trusted (Beryl, Carol, Paula and Ruth). Carol confirmed: “I chose her because I trusted her.” The younger staff (Jenny, Stephanie and Yvonne) chose individuals they had worked with previously and felt comfortable with and as a result did not appear to have had problems communicating. In these cases the ‘actors’ were able: “to reach an
understanding about the action situation and about their place of action in order to co-ordinate their actions by way of agreement” (Habermas, 1981, p.86).
168
Stephanie commented on her supervision arrangement: “It worked
fantastically; I worked very well with both my supervisors.” Enthusing about the academic supervisor particularly she said:
“She saw the potential in me, which I didn’t see. It probably takes someone else to say it is going to be hard, but you can do it, I am glad someone was like that with me personally.”
Ruth and Paula had the action learning set and WB supervision as part of that group. Although these comments emphasise moral support rather than critical reflection these relationships had the potential to encourage further critical debate.
Paula summed up what was crucial to finding the right WBS in terms of a person who: “a) knows a bit about the subject, but also b) will converse with you, in a way that you feel as though is logical.” Elaine advised that students should choose someone: “Who can be honest with you and say what they really think, not just be nice to you.” Carol added it would have been helpful to have someone who had undertaken WBL themselves. Even if the WB supervisor was the best person for the job, they could be ignorant of the documentation required and Elaine recommended that the WBSs themselves should perhaps be given more support or that more tripartite discussions with academic supervisors should be used to help consolidate their understanding of course documents. These practical suggestions illustrate the kind of constructive relationship the nurse-participants believed to be helpful; one in which open dialogue could take place, individuals could be trusted, but ideas would be debated.