Three Phases

When Penny and I reviewed the sweep of David Grove’s work from the early 80s until his recent death we identified three major phases. While there are plenty of ways to create more sub-categories, to our mind these three phases are different logical types. Each deals with a separate domain of experience and for each one David created a different language model: [1]

Phase	Approx. Dates	Domain	Language Model
I	Early 1980s to 2001	Metaphor	Clean Language	CL
II	2002 to 2006	Networks	Clean Space	CS
III	2006 to Jan 2008	Recognition [2]	Powers of Six	Po6

The earlier phases contain some clear precedents of David’s later thinking, and when taken as a whole it is possible to see an overall directionality to his work. [3]

While there are similarities and overlaps between the phases, my aim in this paper is to present a model that ‘joins up’ the three phases and maintains their individuality. Rather than trying to integrate the phases into a single process I have used the metaphor of ‘join up’ because David was inspired by The Horse Whisper, Monty Roberts. Monty says, “Join-Up occurs when the animal willingly chooses to be with the human.”[4]  Join up is when the horse and human start working as a team — without sacrificing any of their individuality.




In all three phases David made use of emergence — but in different ways. [6]

Domains and Language Models

I strongly recommend becoming adept in the workings of each domain and each language model separately, before seeking to combine or integrate them. Why? Because each domain has it’s own nature and each language model has its own function.

The fundamental motif of each domain can be summarised as:


Each language model puts the facilitator in a different relationship with the client and their inner world. This changes the basic choices available to the facilitator:


One easy way to see how much the client’s content is involved in the three language models is to notice how often “...” (which represents the client’s words/nonverbals) appears in the questions/instructions in Table 3.

To preserve the particular characteristics of these domains and language models, the facilitator needs to use their verbal and nonverbal language carefully and purposefully.

Mediums, Means and Methods

Before I explain how the three ways of working identified above can be joined up, I need to make a further distinction. To work in any of the domains requires a ‘medium’, a ‘means’ and a ‘method’:


The Medium

At the perceptual level, the medium within which the client works is the same as the domain, i.e. Metaphor, Network or Recognition.

At the physical level, the medium is what the client uses to express (make external) their internal world. There are physical constraints on how perceptions can be expressed (represented or embodied). For example, perceptions of time and perceiver cannot be expressed directly without form and space.
 
Below are six ways clients commonly express their perceptual world. You might like to consider how each of these can be used in each of the three domains, as in Table 1:

	Metaphor	Network	Recognition
Spoken word
Drawing/writing
Nonverbal sounds/music
Object
Movement
Use of space

The Means

David devised a different means of facilitating change in each domain. His genius was to devise ways of working that had a congruent medium, means and method in each domain. These have been described previously in a number of articles:

Clean Language questions	for working with	Metaphor [7]
Clean Space questions and instructions	for working with	Networks [8]
Powers of Six questions and instructions	for working with	Recognition [9]

In the next section we classify the specific questions and instructions of each language model in relation to a generalised method for working emergently.

The Method

In Metaphors in Mind (p. 40) we proposed a ‘universal’ 5-stage change process, or method. The  ‘bottom-up’ version can be summerised as :


This is not to be thought of as a linear process. The core stages 2, 3 and 4 form iterative feedback loops which give an overall directionality within the non-linearity of the process.[11]

Combining the three domains (the medium) and language models (the means) with the 5-stage process (the method) gives in Table 2:

	Stage 1 Set up	Stage 2 Individuate	Stage 3 Interact	Stage 4 Emerge	Stage 5 Set down
Clean Language questions with Metaphor	o------>	------>	------>	------>	----->o
Clean Space questions/instructions with Networks	o------>	------>	------>	------>	----->o
Powers of 6 questions/instructions with Recognition	o------>	------>	------>	------>	----->o

A selection of the most common questions asked and instructions given in each of the five stages is summarised in the Table 3 below.

	Stage 1 Set up	Stage 2 Individuate	Stage 3 Interact	Stage 4 Emerge	Stage 5 Set down
Clean Lang	Entry: Where would you like to be? Where would you like me to be? What would you like to have happen? ---------------- PRO model [12]	Developing a perception: Is there anything else about ...? What kind of...? Where/ Whereabouts...? ... Like What? ---------------- WITHIN A PERCEPTION When ..., what happens to ...? Is there a relationship between ... & ...?	Multiple perceptions: Then what happens? What happens just before ...? Where could ... come from? ---------------- ACROSS PERCEPTIONS When ..., what happens to ...? Is there a relationship between ... & ...?	Six approaches: Concentrate Wholes Broaden Lengthen Necessary Conditions Introducing	Maturing: Develop Spread Evolve Consolidate ---------------- Exit: Take all the time you need to ... Assignments
Clean Space	Starting: Client writes/draws statement. Place that where it needs to be. Place yourself where you need to be in relation to it. [= Position 1]	Establish nodes: What do you know from here? What does this space know? And is there anything else you/this space knows? And what could this space be called? Client writes name and places paper to mark space. Find a space that knows something else about ....	Establish links: And what do you know from here about ... [another space]? Return to ... [name of space]. And what do you know from here now? And is there anything else you know about ... [another space] now?	Work with the network: Use names for groups of spaces. AND/OR Find a space outside of all this [whole network] And what do you know from here about all that [whole network]?	Finishing: Return to [Position 1]. After all that, what do you know from here now? What difference does knowing all this make?
P of 6	Clean Start: Choose a size of paper and write  or draw what you want to work on. Place that where it needs  to be [=B]. Place yourself  where you need to be in relation to that [=A]. Are you [A] in/at  the right space / angle / height / direction? Is that [B] in/at the right space / angle / height / direction? Is that the right distance [=C] between  you [A] and that [B]?	Overdrive A: What do you  know? Upload A: Put that on there. ---------------- OPTIONAL on later iterations: Overdrive and Upload B/C: What does that [B/C] know? Put that on there.	Iterate x 5: And what else do you know? Put that on there. ---------------- OPTIONAL on later iterations: Iterate B/C x 5: And what else does that [B/C] know? Put that on there.	Download A: And now what do you know? ---------------- OPTIONAL on later iterations: Download B/C: And now what  does [B/C] know? ---------------- Meta‐Drive A  x 5: Find another  space.	Download A: Knowing what you know now, what do you notice  about the difference between your  initial statement and your last statement? ---------------- OPTIONAL Action Plan: Taking into account your last statement, write down six things you will do when you leave here; where and when you are  going to do  them; and who if anyone you are going to do them with.

Traditional Usage

The three phases of David’s work can be used independently. Using each question set in Stage 1 (Set up) and Stage 2 (Individuation) will facilitate a client to establish a particular kind of perceptual domain: Clean Language will lead to a Metaphor Landscape; Clean Space will lead to a Network; and Powers of Six will lead to the domain of Recognition. Once this happens, staying with the same question set during Stage 3 (Interaction) and Stage 4 (Emergence) explores or asks about what already exists in that domain:

use CL, CS or Po6	to establish	M, N or R domain	Stages 1-2
then, use same question set	to ask about	the same domain	Stages 3-5

Join Up

Once competency has been obtained in each of the three domains/language models independently, the processes can be joined up in a variety of ways. Below I examine how join up can happen at three levels:


While it is possible to combine individual questions/instructions in a huge number of ways, my aim in this paper is to join up the three question sets only as long as we can preserve the nature of each domain.

It’s like mixing paint. If you keep mixing colours, eventually the character of each individual colour is lost and you end up with a mess. Whereas if you carefully mix colours in appropriate proportions you end up with new colours and subtle hues. The key is to mix in such a way as to make use of the unique features of each colour.

Domain/Language Model-Level Join Up

The simplest way to join up the three processes is to use one and then use either a part or the whole of what emerges as the seed for starting another process.


1st Example:


2nd Example:


3rd Example:

While it is not necessary to get through all 5 stages before switching to another domain/language model, it is important at this level that each switch is accompanied by going through at least Stage 1 (Set up) and Stage 2 (Individuation) of the new process.[13]

Vector-Level Join Up

The last Developing Group (August 2008) covered Systemic Outcome Orientation, also known as Vectoring. Vectoring sits between the level of individual questions/instructions and the level of the stages.14

Each vector involves stringing together a number of questions/instructions to provide a short-term direction to the process (not the client). A number of vectors are usually required to ‘go through’ any stage. The transition between each stage will always necessitate a new vector.



Joining up the processes at the vector level is more tricky than at the domain/language model level. It takes a good deal of skill and awareness by the facilitator to retain the properties of a domain while using a language model originally developed for a different domain. The primary difference between join up at the vector level compared to join up at the domain/language model level is that at the switch the facilitator does not Set Up the new process but jumps to Stage 2 (or, less frequently, to Stages 3 or 4). Done well the switching should appear seamless to the client.[15]



Examples of how we have done this follow.

Once a metaphor landscape has been established:

Or

Once a network has been established by a Clean Space process:

Or


Use a recognition from a Powers of Six process to:

Or

When joining up at the vector level it is important to be aware if you are establishing a domain (Stages 1-2) or asking about an existing domain (Stages 3-4). It is important to properly establish a domain before switching. If you don’t you risk ending up with a heap rather than a whole. For example, asking about a metaphor in the middle of Po6 series of questions will likely ruin the Po6 process. Similarly, having a client move to a CS process before a metaphor landscape is established may well result in the client losing touch with the psychoactivity of their metaphor.

Question/Instruction-Level Join Up

At the lowest level it is possible to occasionally introduce a question/instruction normally used in a different domain. The skill is to choose the appropriate moment. If you do it too often, not only are you asking the client to do a lot of mental gymnastics, you will likely pull them out of the domain and they will not have stayed there long enough to get beyond the obvious.



Examples of such questions/instructions are:

To a client who has physicalised their metaphor landscape:


To a client who come to a pause in their metaphor landscape:


It may be useful on occasion to construct hybrid questions or instructions which combine bits of two language models. For instance:

To a symbol in a client’s metaphor landscape:

To a client who has developed a network of spaces:


Given the nature of the Powers of Six process it is not appropriate to interrupt the six iterations with any other form of question/instruction. Therefore other interventions would need to come between iterations.    

[Extra examples tested by the group are outlined on page 3.]

In Conclusion

In this paper I have shown how David’s three brilliant, innovative leaps can be joined up at the domain/language model, vector, and question/instruction levels.

I’ll end by repeating my recommendation that you become adept at working independently in each domain with the appropriate language model before experimenting with join up. This way you will get to understand the nature of each domain and the function of each question/instruction within the relevant language model, and know precisely what you are attempting to achieve by joining up.

Finally a reminder. Most of this paper has been written from the facilitator’s perspective. The only purpose for joining up any of David Grove’s work is to serve the individual client who has entrusted themselves to your expertise.

The following examples of joining up David Grove's work were tried by members of the Developing Group:

Domain/Language Model-Level Join Up
1.
2.
3.
Vector-Level Join Up
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

11.

Thanks to everyone who attended and took part in the testing and extending of the model.