Donna Frost

Discussion and conclusions 259 8 that it was not until individuals within the inquiry came to the realisation that their own practice contained the potential for professional artistry – the first milestone described in Chapter 7 – that they were able to move forward with developing that artistry. Senge et al. ( 2005 ) and Scharmer ( 2009 ) describe a transformational process in Theory U, arguing that learning is most effective when we learn from the past and, paradoxically, the future which is yet to be. Having seen, sensed and understood our past, for example the potential for professional artistry which we have until this moment not consciously developed, we let it – the past – go and, waiting at the bottom of the U, we imagine and begin to sense future possibilities, without fear, remaining open to the solutions these imagined futures present to us. As we rise up the other side of the U the newpossibilities, such as the possibility for demonstrating professional artistry in our practice, become integrated into our conceptions of self. Rowan and Reason ( 1981 ), too, argue for the interconnected nature of human experience and contend that opposite states are interdependent, tied up together and in fact found within each other. This way of thinking places emphasis on change, process and movement: ‘A’ is always in a process of becoming ‘not-A’ and is thus intimately linked with it. This means that movement through different states and ways of being is inevitable and that contradictions cannot be resolved, only allowed to emerge. Paradox, in this view, is a key feature of a stable system. These conceptions of paradox and becoming can also be recognised in the metaphorical principles for creating the conditions for human flourishing (Titchen & McCormack, 2010 ; McCormack et al., 2013 ), four in particular: movement in the stillness, openness to all ways of being, circles of connection and working with energising forces (see Table 5 . 6 for explication of these principles and examples of how they were enacted within the CCCI). Within the CCCI this intentional shift in both focus and energy, and learning to perceive and pay attention to a new set of information, did not happen spontaneously. It required intentional, critical and creative effort, as others have also argued (Senge et al., 2005 ; Titchen & McCormack, 2010 ; Titchen & Horsfall, 2011 ). There is often little room for such an endeavour in the normal course of nursing work (eg. de Veer, Francke, de Kruif & Bolle, 2005 ; Blackman et al., 2015 ; Hunt, 2016 ; McInerney, 2018 ). The workload and pressures of daily routine in an environment where short staffing and cost reduction are the norm can overwhelm inspiration and curiosity (Fagerström, 2006 ; Maben, Latter & Macleod Clark, 2006 , 2007 ; McCrory, 2019 ). Furthermore, cognitive ways of knowing and rational means