Donna Frost

Discussion and conclusions 263 8 hand in hand, supported by a rigorous investigative process that was both principle based and practical. Heron ( 1985 , 1996 ) describes being systematic in the testing of developing conclusions as one of the most challenging aspects of collaborative inquiry. He explains how groups have a tendency to feel, intuitively, what the inquiry is teaching them and where it is going, but be less able to grasp it intellectually. That was certainly the case during particular stages of both the RNI and the NPI. Working through the phases of articulation, lived experience, creative response and critical and creative dialogue, however, in both practice contexts and during CCCI meetings, enabled embodied learning, as and when it happened, as well as capturing diverse aspects of that learning. I came to understand, as initiating researcher, that being able to give succinct and accurate language to our process and the insights we had gained was much more often an outcome of than a prerequiste for an effective inquiry process. Similar processes and conditions are described by others engaged in developing, or helping others to develop, the less tangible aspects of nursing or research practice (eg. van Roekel-Kolkhuis Tanke, 2009 ; van Lieshout et al., 2015 ; Snoeren, Raaijmakers, Niessen&Abma, 2016 ). Snoeren’s ( 2015 ) doctoralresearchemphasizes that workplace learning happens in any case: it is human nature to make sense of experience and draw conclusions and these processes are complex, relational and responsive. She argues that if we create the conditions in which embodied and embedded learning can be supported, and are able to recognise and engage with opportunities when they arise, we will foster learning that has meaning for those concerned. Bierema and Eraut ( 2004 ) and van Roekel-Kolkhuis Tanke ( 2009 ) would agree that the workplace is rich with serendipitous opportunities for learning to which facilitators of learning should become attuned (cf. Titchen, 2019 ). Noticing what we noticed (cf. Titchen, 2004 ; Watson & Rebair, 2014 ; Siles-González & Solano- Ruiz, 2016 ) and being alert to practice situations that were relevant to our inquiry into professional artistry were indeed important aspects of the CCCI process. The incremental and often paradoxical nature of the development of professional artistry meant that we experienced periods in which what we ‘knew’, or thought we knew in our heads, did not match with what we ‘did’ or were able to do in our nursing or facilitation practice, or did not match with our feelings or emotions. As discussed previously, demanding and busy roles left little time outside the context of a research project for introspection and standing still, or for taking time to consider, collaboratively and in a systematic way, the impact of practice. This could and did create situations in which we were bothered by the mismatch, or tried to ignore it to be free from the uncomfortable feeling (cf. Jacobs, 2008 , 2010 ; Munten, 2012 ).