{"id":16058,"date":"2023-03-06T18:39:55","date_gmt":"2023-03-06T18:39:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/actionresearchplus.com\/?p=16058"},"modified":"2024-02-12T19:06:04","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T19:06:04","slug":"toward-a-developmental-basque-political-culture-integrating-power-and-caring-among-political-actors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/actionresearchplus.com\/toward-a-developmental-basque-political-culture-integrating-power-and-caring-among-political-actors\/","title":{"rendered":"Toward a developmental Basque political culture. Integrating Power and Caring among political actors."},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\"\"

<\/p>

<\/p>

Less than one year after kicking off an innovative experiment on transformation of a political culture with politicians and policy makers in the Basque Country of Northern Spain, we, Hilary Bradbury and Miren Larrea, completed Phase 1. One big surprise was just how much emotions and gender matter! First an overview below. And if you’re interested in the next steps underway, a description of our 2024 sandbox project that highlights gender issues in governance<\/a>.<\/p>

Origins of the work in constructivist developmental theory<\/strong><\/p>

The transformative learning process was designed and facilitated by Miren Larrea in her role as a senior researcher<\/a>\u00a0and one of the action researchers supporting regional politics through the Orkestra research institute of Deusto University.\u00a0Hilary Bradbury in her role as curator and principal at AR+ Foundation<\/a> brought a constructivist development approach and an assessment tool. In working together our idea was to experiment with raising awareness about how actors work \u2013 and might transform – power, collaboration and inquiry dynamics.<\/p>

Developmental politics<\/strong><\/p>

By the terms develop and developmental we mean something specific. Not so much the bricks and mortar of so much international development work, but a constructivist approach. Constructivism is the idea that humans do not merely respond to external stimuli, but can learn and be creative in how they live and work together finding innovations in responding to whatever comes their way. In this kind of developmental approach, attention is drawn to the ways each actor makes meaning and takes action with others.\u00a0Each also reflects on new experiments to take, given the explicit intention to co-create a new political culture together with all stakeholders.<\/p>

More details on the initial steps undertaken last year are here.<\/a><\/p>

Working with a shared focus on\u00a0Action Research for Territorial Development<\/a>, we framed this as the transformative intersection of external and internal territory. In other words, personal and group developmental processes were as important to the development of a new political culture as external territory challenges, such as green transitions. \u00a0<\/p>

A key advantage to the work was new ways of coordinating action across agencies.<\/strong><\/p>

The most lauded outcome in the previous action research that had created a foundation was that better – more productive ways \u00a0– had become possible for policy makers in working with local agencies. As one senior official explained: instead of working in hierarchical, conflictual ways, which focused attention against one another, we started to could work together. We saw we could address common challenges. This led to the work of multiple agencies becoming more streamlined which in turn saved time, energy and money. There were, naturally, some challenges along the way.<\/p>

Foremost \u00a0was the reluctance to look internally\u2026<\/strong><\/p>

Our work to combine internal and external territories was controversial at first. Though neither the first nor foremost of the controversies the group managed – see more on this, which became a PhD topic,<\/a>\u00a0 the experiment we describe was neither immediately nor easily accepted by all. The challenge was stated first as a difficult dichotomy. Was our experiment promoting self-inquiry in opposition to cooperative transformation? In other words wasn’t it an Anglo-American style individualism in opposition to the local values of communitarian welfare?<\/p>

We, Miren and Hilary, decided to make that very issue a central inquiry to the experiment itself. Rather than have an initial argument about concepts we agreed to have it be an evolving dialogue among equals. A group of seven agreed to be the first experimenters in taking the assessment as as way to personally reflect on their use of power and inquiry and then begin to discuss it with others.<\/p>

It is rather rare that we reflect on how we use power. We might say that the very reflection is a way to consciously update our social software.\u00a0 The assessment tool is a vehicle to have that reflection and dialogue together.\u00a0 In taking the assessment people became aware of their (internal) \u201caction logic.\u201d This refers to signature patterns of sense-giving and meaning-making. These patterns are most evident in how we interpret our surroundings and respond when our power or safety is challenged. As these patterns are measurable the invitation was also to see how practice at evolving stages of sense making and action taking help us become measurably better collaborators.<\/p>

Then we needed to know the default patterns of power, inquiry and collaboration. The \u201cbase line\u201d action logics became evident with the use of the Developmental Assessment Self Instrument<\/a>\u00a0which enabled all involved to see also how they might shape their own future work in collaboration. All measured at the same action logic of \u201credefining.\u201d<\/p>

The action logic called redefining accounts for about 10% of professionals who have used this and other similar measures. Generally speaking it describes a mindset that recognizes that neither it nor any of the other action logics are \u201cnatural\u201d; all are constructions of oneself and the world. This seemingly abstract idea enables those who assess at this action logic to contribute unique practical value to their organizations; they put personalities and ways of relating into perspective and communicate well with people who have other action logics. They are concerned with multiple perspective being heard and enjoy horizontal processes.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

What sets redefining apart from conventional professionals (i.e., the majority with earlier action logic that work to achieve externally mandated goals) is their awareness of a possible conflict between their personal principles and their actions, or between the organization\u2019s values and its implementation of those values. At the redefining stage, however, conflict becomes the source of creative tension, and a growing desire for further development. Note also that this action logic tends to ignore rules they regard as irrelevant, which often makes them a source of irritation to both colleagues and bosses. The later\u00a0 – transforming – action logic accounts for just 4% of professionals. It becomes a potential next developmental step for those oriented toward the benefits it brings, namely a focus on organizational constraints, which they treat as discussable and transformable. Whereas the redefining action logic masters communication with colleagues who have different action logics, the transforming action logic masters the second-order organizational impact of actions and agreements. The transforming mind is also adept at creating shared visions across different action logics\u2014visions that encourage both personal and organizational transformations. According to the transforming action logic, organizational and social change is an iterative developmental process that requires awareness and close leadership attention. The transforming action logic makes for highly effective change agents.<\/p>

Learning processes over a series of short workshops<\/strong><\/p>

Using an interview format, each participant reflected on the results of the action logic assessment tool; they chose what they felt would be their step forward a next stage of development, \u201ctheir developmental edge.\u201d Then they shared how taking that step would\u00a0 – in their estimation – affect the deliberation group. Finally, they also reflected on the impact that the previously mentioned transformation of the group would have on the policy ecosystem.<\/p>

As a follow up each was invited to prepare a short narrative to present their experience with others present, i.e., outside an interview format. Everyone involved was invited to a group dialogue – to be held with Hilary Bradbury \u2013 and during which we\u2019d agree on what learnings are to be brought back to the larger deliberation group, within which these seven members hold leadership roles. Together the group revisited the earlier controversy of \u201cindividualism versus collective.\u201d<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

Seven Narratives of Inner Territory Development among political actors<\/strong><\/p>

The following narratives, excerpted from each of the seven who work with their assessment of action logic, show it is possible to imagine connections between self-transformation and transformation of the group and the wider community. Each person also summarized what was most important in their developmental journey. Captured in these following short phrases each sent a message about the heart of the work to create new political culture. The message was most immediately to the new government as a new election is about to happen.\u00a0 But it is also, we hope, for other political actors who seek to understand what is required of individuals within new political culture.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>

What is needed for co-creating new political culture is:<\/p>