Donna Frost

Discussion and conclusions 261 8 As discussed in Chapter 7 , a workplace culture in which professional artistry is valued and an approach to professional development which pays attention to more than mere technical skill were supportive contextual factors within this research (cf. Boomer & McCormack, 2007 ; Boomer & McCormack, 2010 ; Manley, Sanders, Cardiff & Webster, 2011 ; Verleysen, Lambrechts & Van Acker, 2015 ; Geue, 2018 ), helping create the conditions in which the CCCI could be initiated and sustained. Nevertheless, our experiences during the inquiries also emphasized the vulnerability of this kind of work (cf. McCormack, 2008 ; van Lieshout et al., 2015 ). A long term project with successes and failures, nurturing professional artistry within the CCCI was vulnerable to being snowed under, even when the benefits had been personally experienced. Ongoing critical and creative effort was required to sustain the CCCI processes within the reality of daily practice (cf. Senge et al., 1999 ; Bushe & Kassam, 2005 ; Snoeren, Janssen, Niessen & Abma, 2014 ). A similar phenomenon has been reported, for example, by Jacobs ( 2010 ), Van Lieshout ( 2013 ) and Snoeren, Niessen and Abma ( 2012 ). Even when values and intentions are clearly articulated and agreed to at the start of collaborative research endeavours, the pressures of deadlines, competing work commitments and the complexity of dealing with the subjective position of the researcher can lead to differences in priorities and obstacles to enacting the underlying values. It remained important, therefore, even within a supportive context, to ‘exercise our professional artistry muscles’ and draw the attention of other professionals towards the less easily grasped dimensions of our – and their – professional practice. Equally important was our capacity for compassion for self and others within the inquiry. As Van Lieshout et al. ( 2015 ) discuss, where mutual engagement is a key part of the process facilitation requires a continual movement between balance and imbalance. The facilitator responds to her context and works with, while simultaneously developing, her own characteristics as facilitator (van Lieshout, 2013 ; van Lieshout & Cardiff, 2015 ). Compassion for self, and a compassionate system of support for the facilitator, ensure that the movement between balance, imbalance and regaining balance is seen as part of the process and not a break in the system (see also: Titchen & McGinley, 2003 ; Titchen & McMahon, 2013 ; van Lieshout et al., 2015 ; Titchen & Hammond, 2017 ; Titchen & Kinsella, 2019 ). The CCCI process was at its most effective when we accepted with grace, compassion and interest where each of us ‘was’ at that point in time, supportinging and challenging each other to gain a sense of both that place and the opportunities that arose, could arise, or could be created, for expanding our understandings and repertoire for action.