Asif Devji

Thanks Doug for your response and for the link to the video .

We agree that conscious instructor intervention is required to set up the environmental parameters (safety) and expectations (openness) that learners will adapt themselves to -- the co-creation of a social environment that invites and supports learners in sharing their ideas freely and without fear (1:44 in the video).

My initial response to your post was based on the assumption that you were teaching in Canada to a cohort of learners from multiple ('non-Canadian') cultures -- however after checking out your profile I see that you are actually teaching in Japan to a cohort (I am assuming) of primarily Japanese learners.

For me this changes the dynamic -- as the dominant culture in your case is Japanese (which to me means it is you who will tend to adapt to the environment around you) -- and you seem to be attempting to create a (not-necessarily Japanese?) bubble of safety/openness within that dominant culture. Complex challenge -- you seem to be swimming against the stream. Not sure why, but something in me intuits that if you succeed in this the transformative potential for your learners could be amazing.

Hi Doug -- interesting question re: how the structures work specifically in classes with different cultural backgrounds.

How would you respond to the idea that each online community creates its own internal culture that participants will instinctively comprehend and adapt themselves to?

Hi Nadine -- I think this is really important: this feeling of discomfort is caused because of a loss of control.....over the outcome

For me it highlights the underlying dynamic by which most facilitation/meetings I that have experienced tend to operate -- while purporting to generate participant 'engagement' they are actually structured to generate alignment/agreement/acceptance/compliance with a preset outcome.

As I dig more into the LS activities, I see more and more how the rigidity of the 'structure' part is actually designed to draw out new/alternative/innovative ideas from participants -- rather than leading them towards pre-decided outcomes. This is exciting! 

Hi Faith -- this is really interesting to me: The majority of the learners in the program will be First Nation citizens, working in rural First Nation communities, so I also wonder if there are certain Learning Structures that support a First Nation learning context and spirit more so than others.

A question in response (and please forgive me -- I know I'm grouping together multiple different experiences under the monolithic term 'First Nation'): Are you aware of any First Nation-based facilitation techniques that replicate/echo/contrast with (the logic of) Liberating Structures activities? Thanks.

Hi All -- I've had a brief look at the Liberating Structures site & content as part of a previous (FLO Synchronous) workshop -- and while I've come away with a positive perspective of the activities presented there -- I also come away with the idea that those activities seem pretty common sense if you're actually trying to 'liberate' people to put forward (what they might otherwise consider risky) honest opinions within contexts that might not otherwise welcome alternative views or critical feedback.

Those (vocational/educational) contexts generally set the overweening 'structure' within which their participants operate -- so my question is: to what degree can a Liberating Structure activity override the the risks presented by the larger not-necessarily-so-liberating context which participants will necessarily be keeping in mind as they participate in the activity?

In this workshop I hope to learn from the perspectives and experiences of my peer practitioners who have attempted some of the Liberating Structures activities (or activities based on the same logic/objectives) -- and their reflections on the results thereof.