Donna Frost

Design and methods 97 4 Meetings were opened by paying attention to making a transition from where we were at before we came, to being present, now, in the meeting and preparing ourselves bodily, through our senses, cognitively and emotionally for our inquiry work together. This was done through a simple grounding exercise, for example, breath work, or movement, for example stamping, followed by silence. We also generally paid attention to closing the meetings with care, to help with transitioning out of our space. My efforts to create and protect moments of stillness together were intentional. As the inquiries progressed the moments of transition in and out of the physical and metaphysical space were recognised and valued by the other inquiry members as well. We became increasingly able to enter a contemplative space together even if not in a dedicated meeting environment, for example when visiting each other in practice for practice observations and other forms of data collection. This was the case in both the RN and NP inquiries. Reflection and reflexivity within the inquiry Reflection is integral to critical and collaborative inquiry generally (Heron, 1985 ; Bray et al., 2000 ; Heron & Reason, 2001 ) and to CCCI specifically. Reflection on actions, intentions and assumptions and critical appraisal of the intended and unintended impact of those actions and assumptions give rise to new insights and questions. Reflection is thus integral to learning from experience (Schön, 1987 ; Mezirow, 1990 , 2006 ; Dewing, 2008 ) and CCCI is a structured process of learning, as a group and as individuals, from one’s own and one another’s experiences. These principles were relevant to both the research design and my own journey as initiating researcher and facilitator of the inquiry groups. As Enosh and Ben-Ari ( 2016 ) explain, paying attention to and noting difference, dissonance and incongruence is the first of two key reflexive activities for researchers. The second is treating instances of difference or incongruence as a source of new knowledge enabling reconstruction of what is known. This is in line with Heron’s ( 1985 , 1996 ) approach to achieving rigour in collaborative inquiry and Titchen and McCormack’s ( 2008 ; 2010 , also Titchen et al., 2011 ) use of cognitive and artistic critique within practice and research inquiry. The translation of these principles into specific strategies was integral to the CCCI design. As detailed in the text accompanying Figure 4 . 4 and 4 . 5 , space for both individual and group reflection was built into the CCCI process. A variety of prompts to reflection and tools for surfacing assumptions and explicating experiences or feelings were used routinely within the inquiries. Examples are given in the sections describing the CCCI steps ‘Experience’, ‘Creative response’, and ‘Dialogue’, (pp. 104 - 113 ). Particular attention was paid to noting incongruence