Menu vs framework approaches to LS

Menu vs framework approaches to LS

by Jane Maxwell -
Number of replies: 8

Hi everyone,

My name is Jane Maxwell and I'm a faculty development instructor at Yukon College (soon to be Yukon U).  I've dipped my toes into Liberating Structures in the past, mostly in the context of facilitating professional development opportunities for instructors, and I look forward to taking a deeper dive this week.  


What big question do you have about Liberating Structures as we begin our time together?

How can we approach LS as a framework rather than a menu?  Since my goals is to build capacity with instructors rather than designing a specific course/workshop, I worry that the menu of 33 structures will be overwhelming and may encourage superficial engagement with LS.  However, I still struggle myself to identify a clear framework of LS that can facilitate deeper and more meaningful engagement.


What do you hope to get from and give this group this week?

I hope to get and give critical and creative perspectives on Liberating Structures as a tool (or philosophy?) for fostering critical, creative and reflective approaches to teaching and learning!

In reply to Jane Maxwell

Re: Menu vs framework approaches to LS

by Bettina Boyle -

Hi Jane - nice to see you online again!

Our Liberating Structures practice group for faculty here at CapU has been a great way for faculty to engage through experience (participating or facilitating). So rather than introducing all 33+ structures, we've really framed it around testing and playing with 2-3 LS's during each meet-up, which I think has created some meaningful engagement - and opportunities to discuss application in the classrooms afterwards/as debrief. 

Bettina

In reply to Jane Maxwell

Re: Menu vs framework approaches to LS

by Leva Lee -

Hi Jane,

Learning 33 structures all in one is is overwhelming and challenging. However, a good approach for starters is to select structures that addresses a particular problem (lack of group interaction) or meeting purpose (gaining peer feedback) . Teach/learn them as you go and start with purpose in selecting what you want to learn/try. (This is how we are approaching teaching them here in this FLO course as well!) There are many easy LS to start with which will be your mainstay (1,2, 4 All, IN, Troika, TRIZ, Min Specs, 9 Whys to name a few.)

Alternatively, many people leap in head first by taking an Immersion course. In 2.5 days you do 33 structures rapid fire. It's intense and exhausting. I started to learn them this way . The disadvantage of this method of learning them is that the structures can come across as superficial as not much time is spent on integration of your learning or discussion on application--the focus is on the doing them all.  This "just do it" approach, as I understand it, is the belief you need to experience the structures first before knowing how they might work for you, in your context and discover the ones that resonant. I can see the strengths of all these methods of learning LS.

Really glad to learn together with you.

In reply to Jane Maxwell

Re: Menu vs framework approaches to LS

by Nancy White -

Jane, just as one perspective, I'll share my LS learning journey. First I saw LS as a repackaging of a collection of tools of which I had familiarity in some way or another with many of them. (Remember, LS has its roots in a deep and wide lineage of facilitation methods.) I thought, "cool, nice packaging." 

Then I began to see the patterns that the microstructures call out. This was my first real AHA moment. By having a mental model of the framework, I could begin to analyze both what I'm trying to do and how to do it through the language of the microstructures. I began to notice them everywhere, including in the types of examples of non useful applications of microstructures. (WHAT TO STOP DOING!!) There is no value judgement of the microstructural elements. They just are. ;-)

Then I went on happily practicing till the next peak arrived - stringing. With a sufficient repertoire (3-5) I began to play with different sequencings, and with riffs and variations of any individual LS - all the while still paying attention to the microstructures. Think improvisational jazz. A few rules and lots of freedom. I realized that I could flexibly change what I was doing based on what was happening in the room. 

Then I went on happily practicing till the NEXT peak arrived - LS is really useful when we don' t know what to do, when we can't predict what will come next - i.e. in Complex settings. (I'll leave definition of that aside for now, but happy to circle back.) 

So today, in this moment, I arrive at a question: how complex is any one person's classroom context. If it is less complex, LS can immediately and pretty simply be tools to structure engagement. If it IS complex, LS can be a way to keep productively moving forward in that complexity. I hope that makes a shred of sense. It is still EARLY in the morning with no tea yet!


(See https://medium.com/@SFQua/learning-unflattened-experimenting-with-self-authorship-and-group-discovery-ff00f7cb7bfc by Fisher S. Qua as an example of noticing and using complexity in a edu setting with LS - in a pretty radical way, but a great way to crack open possibilities)

In reply to Jane Maxwell

Re: Menu vs framework approaches to LS

by Jane Maxwell -

Thanks Bettina, Leva, and Nancy for sharing your experiences learning to teach with LS!  Very helpful. :)

In reply to Jane Maxwell

Re: Menu vs framework approaches to LS

by Jane Maxwell -

Reading through the discussion thread on Doug's big question (Ah ah - and Cultural Backgrounds?) has helped me to clarify a bit further what I'm struggling with.

When I look at the Principles behind liberating structures, I agree that they're all important for the type of liberating work/discussion that we want to achieve.

  1. Include and Unleash Everyone
  2. Practice Deep Respect for People and Local Solutions
  3. Build Trust As You Go
  4. Learn by Failing Forward
  5. Practice Self-Discovery Within a Group
  6. Amplify Freedom AND Responsibility
  7. Emphasize Possibilities: Believe Before You See
  8. Invite Creative Destruction To Enable Innovation
  9. Engage In Seriously-Playful Curiosity
  10. Never Start Without a Clear Purpose

Where I struggle is: How do the structures themselves help us to achieve these principles?  For example, I've seen 1-2-4-All employed in a way that fails to really meet most (if any) of these principles. 

If our goal is create (or help others to create) teaching and learning activities that meet these principles, does LS simply provide a set of example structures that should be used with these principles in mind, or is there a more fundamental relationship between principles and structure that I'm still missing?   

In reply to Jane Maxwell

Re: Menu vs framework approaches to LS

by Beth Cougler Blom -

Jane this is a really interesting question you've asked here. I saw it yesterday and was hoping that someone else would jump in so I could see what they said too! But I'll take a run at this...

I think some of the LS activities have some of the principles "baked in", as they say. For example, TRIZ and Ecocycle both have elements of "inviting creative destruction to enable innovation." They ask, "What can we stop doing?" before they can make space to ask, "What can we start?"

From my group process facilitation work with non-profit and other groups I have seen both sides of this coin. First, groups that seem to not want to come up with new ideas or projects because they have so much on their plate. They can't be innovative, they don't have time in their day to add on something else. Second, groups that - when presented with the opportunity to move through a Liberating Structure - are absolutely gleeful thinking about and talking about what projects they can creatively destroy, so that they can "birth" new initiatives. In the first situation I didn't use LS. In the second I did. This principle works!

But you said you think it's possible to facilitate LS without employing the principles fully. I think sometimes you're right. But that's not the goal, is it? We can be more than that. I think the goal is to bring the principles into the mindset that we carry to our work as facilitators, not just to let them rest interwoven in some of the invitations and instructions of the structures. It has to be both.

Are all of the principles in all of the structures' purpose and instructions? I'm not sure. Keith and Henri and others (Nancy?) might know for sure. But in the approach that we bring as facilitators, it is ideal to bring them all.

Thoughts from others?

In reply to Beth Cougler Blom

Re: Menu vs framework approaches to LS

by Nancy White -

Interestingly, the LS Principles emerged after the repertoire and microstructures were developed. My take on this is that by using LS, the original practitioners noticed patterns that became principles. 

For me, the principles are not rules that must be enforced with every structure, but tools to help me from falling back into patterns of unnecessary control. To help me stay in the zone between over and under-controlled processes. In practice, I have also observed that people notice and use different principles... and that there are too many of them to hold in my head at one time. (I craved just 3-4!)

In reply to Jane Maxwell

Re: Menu vs framework approaches to LS

by Leva Lee -

Hi Jane,

In my journey with Liberating Structures it was very incremental in my understanding of how and why these structures work. Looking at the principles and underpinnings of LS became much more meaningful to me as I used the structures (focused on the mechanics essentially) and saw how they work for people, the social proof of LS. In recent years, I'm finding learning about the underpinnings of LS fascinating!  Also, Keith McCandless's article "Liberating Structures Iceberg" listed in the Tips and Resources is helpful in giving insight on the evolution of an LS practice. Let me know what you think.