'One amongst many' = a 'Community of Practice'?

In my last blog I talked about how proud I felt to be 'one amongst so many' during our International Intensive Interaction Week 2017 i.e. being a part of our growing world wide community of Intensive Interaction practitioners*. Indeed this very Blog has now been accessed from 29 different countries, the latest being someone in Cape Verde, which if I'm being honest I had to locate via Google-Maps (its a small group of islands in the mid-Atlantic), so thank you for that! 

Anyway, in this statement I deliberately alluded to the concept of a 'Community of Practice' (sometimes 'CoP' for short), and did so because I think that such a 'CoP' is manifest across those of us who use or advocate for Intensive Interaction (albeit a defuse 'CoP' community i.e. spread widely by role, discipline and geography).

To put some theoretical flesh on this description, a ‘Community of Practice’ was an educational concept developed by academics Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger who defined a ‘Community of Practice’ as a self-defining, but open and supportive group of people ‘who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their understanding and knowledge of this area by interacting on an on-going basis’ (Wenger, 1998). 

Such a ‘Community of Practice’ should have three distinct and defining aspects: ‘mutual engagement’, ‘joint enterprise’ and ‘shared repertoire’ (Wenger, 1998: 72–3):

1. Mutual engagement: through participation in the ‘CoP’, individual members build relationships that bind the group together as a social entity.
2. Joint enterprise: through a process of continuous discussion and clarification, members of the ‘CoP’ build a shared understanding of the issue(s) that bind them together.
3. Shared repertoire: in the pursuit of their joint enterprise members of the ‘CoP’ collectively develop a set of shared practices or ways of working.

Lave & Wenger actually made the claim that such a 'CoP' grouping was 'an intrinsic condition for the existence of knowledge’ i.e. it was in such dynamic social learning groups that knowledge and understanding in particular disciplines is actually advanced. 

Within the Intensive Interaction 'CoP' we tend to feel that new or novice Intensive Interaction practitioners are best nurtured [or even actively mentored], and their skills and understanding of the approach developed, with the help and support of other more experienced Intensive Interaction practitioners (the 'old-timers'); and I think that this fits well with the general understanding of the theoretical 'CoP' concept. 

The way a ‘Community of Practice’ works is in marked contrast with more hierarchical ways that people (and organisations) have often chosen to share certain skills and knowledge (or not share them) in a top down and sometimes potentially non-inclusive manner.

Therefore to conclude: an Intensive Interaction ‘Community of Practice’ should deliberately set out to have certain defining features*, these being that:

• We are a group of people who share a common interest in the practices and theory of Intensive Interaction.
• We work together in a mutually encouraging and supportive manner in pursuit of our common interest e.g. the dissemination of good quality Intensive Interaction.
• We continuously look to collectively develop our shared skills and knowledge.
• We are collectively accessible to help ‘novice' practitioners develop their Intensive Interaction skills and understanding at whatever pace, and to whatever extent as individually appropriate. 

(*see the 'Intensive Interaction Users' Facebook group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/13657123715 for the evidence about how wide spread the Intensive Interaction community has now become). 

(**adapted from Firth, G. in 'The Intensive Interaction Handbook', Hewett et al, 2011, p.143)

   

What an 'II Week' its been so far ... after just one day!

I have waited until near the end of  the first official day of 'International II Week 2017' before doing my weekly blog - and I must say that I waited with a bit of baited breath (I think it was a bit baited) to see how well things were doing  ... and as usual I have been mightily impressed and delighted to see just how much stuff has already been posted on Facebook about what is going on around the world (e.g. in Greece, Russia, Finland (well done Dave!), Wolverhampton). Even just saying 'around the world' sends a shiver down my spine.

Anyway, there has been so much social media traffic so far on Intensive Interaction that I don't want to add anything that might deflect from from the combined efforts of our international and ever growing Intensive Interaction 'Community of Practice': indeed this blog has actually been viewed in 26 different countries, the latest being East Timor - so thanks for that!

There is just one thing that I would like to add - and that is just how proud it makes me to be 'one amongst so many' of our world wide community of Intensive Interaction practitioners and advocates. Our combined efforts and dedication are surely the most important resource we all have.

Evaluating the effects of Intensive Interaction ... hmmm, yet more twaddle musing!

At a recent evaluation meeting I attended, one of my colleagues reminded us all of the potential for basic 'type I and type II errors' that we should always remain wary of. A 'type I error' (for some reason they always seem to use roman numerals for this) comes from the measurement of, and subsequent belief in, an effect that isn't actually present (a false positive): so this means that you end up thinking that what you're doing is working, when it isn't. A 'type II error' is a failure to detect some kind of effect that is actually present (a false negative): so this means that you end up thinking that what you're doing isn't working, when it is. 

All well and good so far - especially if what you are measuring is clear in its nature, relatively easy to observe, and straightforward to quantify. However, these kinds of errors are less easy to take account of if what you are looking to measure is potentially unclear (or multifaceted) in its nature, and far from straightforward to quantify.

This lead me to muse a bit on the potential for these kinds of errors being at play in any evaluation of our Intensive Interactions work: both formally (via some kind of structured recording/evaluation system), and informally (by we ourselves forming subjective judgements on the effects of our practice). 

But, whilst thinking about the evaluation of Intensive Interaction, it is my view that while the practice will be the same (enacted via the Fundamentals of Communication, being 'process central', following 'Nind's 5 central features', etc), the effects of Intensive Interaction may actually lie in  at least 3 different domains, and that is just for the recipient (it also has significant outcomes for the practitioner as well). I have previously used the term 'Dual Aspect Process Model' to describe Intensive Interaction (British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2009*) to differentiate the outcomes into two domains or aspects:

1. Social Inclusion - this being evidenced in short term improvements in sociability as both recipient and practitioner develop and improve their social engagement (often via the reclaiming of latent social skills and understanding on the part of the recipient).
2. Developmental Progression - evidenced in the longer term acquisition or extension of social skills and understandings as new social experiences are accommodated by the recipient and new learning takes place.

However, I now also think that there is a third potential outcome of Intensive Interaction for some recipients, and this is a 'therapeutic aspect' (Berry et al, 2013*). This paper states that Intensive Interaction can be used to 'establish psychological contact with people who are difficult to reach'. Being in 'psychological contact' with someone is obviously going to be a positive psychological experience, and the lack of that kind of affirming contact is potentially damaging to anyone's psychological well-being. Indeed in the above paper the authors see the potential for '... an evidence-based therapy for people who are unable to access traditional psychotherapies but may be in great need of experiencing psychological contact and connectedness'. 

So, back to where I started - the evaluation of Intensive Interaction therefore becomes potentially problematic in that we need to be clear in which of these 3 domains we wish to measure any outcomes, before we even set out to find suitable systematic methods with which to make those measures, otherwise we may be liable to type II errors - not detecting the positive outcomes we may be facilitating by our use of Intensive Interaction. Finally I have one last thought on this issue of evaluation ... that whilst firmly believing in the rigorous use of robust systematic methods for gathering evidence of the effectiveness of interventions, I always have one profound worry, which is this: 

Do we, across all disciplines and services, knowingly prioritise and therefore more readily  legitimise less plausible interventions (i.e. those that are often more abstracted from the natural model, or somewhat removed from truly person-centred ways of working), simply because these interventions lend themselves more easily to more hard-edged, quantitative methods of evaluation (than say Intensive Interaction)? ... and if we do (which in reality we do do), is that right and proper? 

*Firth, G. (2009) ‘A Dual Aspect Process Model of Intensive Interaction’, British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), p.45-49.

*Berry, R., Firth, G., Leeming, C. & Sharma, V. (2014) ‘Clinical psychologists’ views of Intensive Interaction as an intervention in learning disability services’, Journal of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 21 (5), p.403-410.