'Integrationism' ... a new-ish view of co-constructed communication!

Over a number of previous blogs I have been writing about 'being with' a person, and then 'going with the flow' with them i.e. being positively in the present with them using Intensive Interaction as a means of social connection and communication. However, sometimes things aren't so straight forward.

I was thinking about this the other week when I met 3 different people who all seemed to have high levels of language comprehension, but who all seemed to exhibit complex psychological, social and communication impairments in very different ways. I was meeting them with a hopeful expectation that some form of Intensive Interaction would be both 'the means and the ends' of our encounter (i.e. that Intensive Interaction would be both the form of the communication, and the outcome produced by it). However, as I was meeting them I also started to wonder what they, the 3 very different service users, were expecting from their encounter with me, and what outcome they may have had in mind for any potential communication with me.

In the book 'Understanding Intensive Interaction: Context and Concepts for Professionals and Families' (JKP, 2010) I briefly introduce the (hopefully interested) reader to a model of communication called 'integrationism' (Harris, 2006). So I have been back and had a look at this 'integrationist' view of communication, a view that does not accept the simple 'sender-receiver' transmission model of communication (i.e. that the act of communication is a simple transfer of information between two, or more, human beings). This 'integrationist' view also rejects the idea that communication is a process that is bound by concrete symbolic representations and formal linguistic rules. Instead the integrationist view sees communication as a dynamic and creative process that requires ‘the integration of activities’ of two people to communicate meaning between them, with such ‘integrated activities’ being simultaneously co-created by the participants to purposely share meaning, both verbally and non-verbally ... hhmm, does that sound familiar?

Additionally, from the integrationist viewpoint, any communication situation is defined by three distinct ‘parameters’, these being: 1. the individual capabilities of the individual participants; 2. the cultural practices of the participant’s community or social grouping; 3. the specific circumstances of the communication setting or situation.

According to this integrationist view, to understand a communication situation, we should simultaneously consider a participant’s present capabilities, acknowledge the impact of their previous communications experiences, and also consider any expectations a person has of what will be the outcome of the communication situation (this being informed by their previous communication experiences). So this integrated view of a 'present, past and future' contextualised communication scenario is what sparked my thoughts.

From our position as Intensive Interactors, acknowledging such an integrationist view can help us reflect on the central role of context (past, present and future 'expectation') in defining a potential communication situation. We should therefore accept that the current context of a communication situation will include the environmental setting (yes, obviously), but it will also include the person's own social and historical context. We may have to somehow accommodate the enduring influence of any previous problematic social or communication experiences encountered by the person, as these influences will to some degree always be present for them in all subsequent communications (and I think this was very much the case for the 3 people I met the other week).

So perhaps we need to allow for, or even sometimes expect, a negative expectation of a social encounter from some people; indeed a person may well feel indifferent, defensive or even hostile towards any perceived communicative ‘intrusion’ based on their prior experiences. Some people may initially react very negatively to any social encounter they perceive as potentially directive, or that carries any level of demand on them to alter their behaviour in some way. Thus we may need to create many positive, or at least initially many non-aversive social experiences before we can expect the person to alter their expectations of social communication situations to a more positive (or at least less negative) one.

In such cases I initially try to give such people repeated experiences of me being present, but essentially (even minimalistically) responsive, to make the initial stages as demand-free as possible, and thus to cumulatively improve their expectations of any future social situations. If the person’s expectations alter, to allow for the possibility of potentially positive interactions, then they are far more likely to eventually become active and dynamic participators in co-constructed, integrated, and therefore mutually meaningful interactivity.

Firth, G., Berry, R. & Irvine, C. (2010) 'Understanding Intensive Interaction: Context and Concepts for Professionals and Families', London, JKP. 
Harris, R. (2006) Integrationist Notes and Papers 2003-2005, Crediton, Tree Tongue. 

FLOW: The psychology of optimal experience* (sounds nice!)

Prompted by two things coincidentally coming together at the same time last week (some II practice related research that I and my placement student Gemma Denby are currently writing up, and a posting on the 'II Coordinators' Facebook page), I will set out my understanding on the particular psychological state that is called 'Flow' (helped by some of Gemma's kind work). 

So, 'Flow' is viewed as the psychological state where an individual is operating at their optimal potential level within any given task i.e. when they are fully immersed and engaged in a task (sometimes referred to as being ‘in the zone’) - and this is something that I think I experience when I am fully engaged in a really good episode of Intensive Interaction. This psychological state was first conceptualised by psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, who described experiencing the state of ‘flow’ as being ‘so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter’ (1991). Yes, that is the state that I have often experienced!

Now, in order to experience a state of flow, the content of the experience must be realistic to that individual i.e. an individual must be able to fully engage with, understand and attend to the task in order to become fully immersed in it. Once in a state of flow, an individual gains the ability to perform this task at the highest level, with effortlessness and ease, and quite often experiences a transformation of time, i.e. where time seems to speed up as we reach a peak of attention, engagement and enjoyment.

Below are some quotes taken from Csikszentmihalyi's book that I think might be of interest to us Intensive Interactors: 

 ‘the best moments in our lives are not the passive, receptive, relaxing times ... the best moments usually occur when a person’s body or mind is stretched to its limits in a voluntary effort to accomplish something difficult and worthwhile - optimal experience is thus something that we make happen.’ (p.3)  

  'optimal experiences add up to a sense of mastery- or perhaps better, a sense of participation in determining the content of life.’ (p.4)

‘the flow experience is typically described as involving a sense of control - or, more precisely as lacking the sense of worry about losing control that is typical in many situations of normal life.’ (p.59)

During an optimal experience ‘self-consciousness disappears, and the sense of time becomes distorted. An activity that produces such experiences is so gratifying that people are willing to do it for its own sake, with little concern for what they will get out of it…’ (p.71)

‘We need not change ourselves to be with friends; they reinforce our sense of self instead of trying to transform it ... friendship usually involves common goals and common activities, it is “naturally” enjoyable.’ (p.185 &186)

To develop this idea of 'flow' a bit further, beyond the individualistic state described by Csikszentmihalyi, it seems to me that to construct an optimal social state of ‘flow' (i.e. one shared by two socially 'attuned' people), we need to look at intrinsically motivating sociable interactivity that sits somewhere between one of externally imposed challenge (and potential loss of control), and a state that creates too little of interest to claim the attention of the person, potentially creating a state of boredom, disengagement and/or sustained isolation. 

Therefore to create such a socially shared state of 'Flow' (via Intensive Interaction) there needs to be sufficient mutual familiarity generated through the repetition of the basic patterns of any prior social interactivity, but with sufficient carefully calibrated offers of variation (either natural, intuitive or contrived) to create the potential for a steady upward spiral of interactive communication (in content and levels of sophistication). But we need to get that balance right so that we don't ever go too far in advance of the skills and capabilities of the learner i.e. acting very much within or at the boundary of a person's current social understanding (for students of such things - their Vygotskian 'Zone of Proximal Development'). Hmm, interesting!

* Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1991) 'Flow: the psychology of optimal experience', Harper, NY.

Intensive Interaction: a growing world-wide phenomenon

Over the Christmas holidays I did some work helping update sections of The Intensive Interaction Handbook for the upcoming second edition (due out in June 2018 from Sage Publications). Looking at one section, it started to make me think about how the profile and knowledge of Intensive Interaction is now building across many countries.

In the handbook we point the readers to the sterling Intensive Interaction work being done in Australia, Finland, Denmark, Greece and Germany. There is also a list of countries in which Dave Hewett and his associates have delivered training and presentations, these including: Hong Kong, Russia, Hungary, Tajikistan, New Zealand, Cyprus, South Africa, Portugal,  Sri Lanka, Romania, Slovakia, Trinidad &Tobago and Czech Republic.

Also in our Intensive Interaction Newsletter (Issue 58 - I'm sure you will all remember), I listed some international social networking sites for II, including:

Intensive Interaction Australia (at: https://www.facebook.com/Intensive-Interaction-Australia-149574338571931/)

Intensive Interaction Finland (at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1497688260510338/)

Intensive Interaction Denmark (at: https://www.facebook.com/IntensiveInteractionDanmark/)

Intensive Interaction France (at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1041373799263424/)

There's even one for South Yorkshire (at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1798797420399688/ ) which is not an independent state yet, but who knows what t' future may bring!

But things seem to be moving on rapidly for Intensive Interaction. I have mentioned before that I am a member of the 'Researchgate' social networking site (at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Graham_Firth/), and as of last week my Intensive Interaction research papers have now been read and/or downloaded 1,122 times from academics/researchers in 36 countries (in approx. order of frequency): UK, Australia, USA, Ireland, Hong Kong, Taiwan, New Zealand, South Korea, China, Iran, Spain, Thailand, Italy, Denmark, Finland, Canada, Belgium, Greece, Germany, Japan, Austria, Brazil, Czech Republic, Norway, India, Netherlands, Egypt, East Timor, Russia, Nigeria, Israel, Kenya, Croatia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sweden …

... and there's more! 

This very Blog has now been accessed over 6,000 times by readers in ... wait for it ... 59 countries (in approx. order of frequency): UK, USA, Ireland, Australia, Canada, Greece, Finland, Ukraine, Germany, France, Denmark, New Zealand, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, Cyprus, Norway, Russia, Malta, Iceland, Sweden, Italy, South Africa, Slovakia, Brazil, Trinidad & Tobago, Indonesia, Spain, Hong Kong, Portugal, Gibraltar, Pakistan, Switzerland, Thailand, Colombia, South Korea, Estonia, Poland, Singapore, Barbados, Peru, Fiji, Bukino Faso, Japan, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Czech Republic, Montenegro,  Netherlands, Philippines, Macedonia, India, Lithuania, Belarus, Laos, Mexico, Tajikistan, Cape Verde (I had to look Cape Verde up on Google maps; its a small island state in the mid-Atlantic - I'd love to go!).

So should we now be looking to have more country/regional social media sites being set up to help all our II people hook up together? Should there be an Irish or North America Facebook group? or one for Greece & Cyprus, or one for Africa or east Asia? 

Surely the way to build an identifiable and supportive local Intensive Interaction community, is to start to build an identifiable and supportive local Intensive Interaction community!