Introduction

If Anecdote Circles (ACs) is a way of starting a process of story-telling then having some approaches that can actually do the collecting, analysing and sense-making of the stories in an agile and coherent manner is critical for sustaining the research and social contracting process. Working methodically with peoples' lived experiences - especially when they are distributed within and across multiple contexts - becomes the proverbial life blood of the emergent research process - i.e. keeping things together by demonstrating how the latter (research process) can produce both theoretical and practical outputs and outcomes - for example in the form of generating new epistemic objects (problem statements and research questions) as well as supporting stakeholders' real-time decision-making and action-taking in response to the challenges they are facing.

As already mentioned (on the Home and Agile methods pages) an important criteria for finding appropriate research methods that can actually work in an agile and coherent manner is the question whether they can be used as synergic - standalone - methods or used synergically together with other methods. This is important, because individual methods should not be overly dependent on other methods for getting the job done, yet they should also be sufficiently flexible to be used in combination with other methods, when called upon to do so. In other words, agile methods should be able to do what they are supposed to do in the research process, but also, at the same time, be able to work in tandem with other approaches in order to produce effects / outputs for the research process as a whole - the sum of which should be greater than the individual parts (methods). One such agile approach which has been purposely designed for working with multiple human experiences / stories, and tested in many different parts of the world, is known in the marketplace as SenseMaker™ (SM) - described in more detail below, :

Guiding principles

The dynamics involved in iterative narrative-based research processes means that the latter simply cannot be yanked or pulled in certain directions by the ideas and interests of researchers (or any other interest groups for that matter). A better approach would be that of, metaphorically speaking, nudging the research process in the different directions informed by the multiple narratives generated by the research process itself. The following guiding principles are key for doing exactly this in practice:

• Self-signification

This principle acknowledges the inescapable challenge of working with the sensemaking of sensemaking - i.e. accepting the impossibility of gaining direct access to others' lived experiences, but can only do so via peoples' sensemaking of their own life-worlds. In the literature, this is also known as the double hermeneutic (Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society). There are simply no short-cuts around this - which, in practice, means first giving story-tellers the opportunity to interpret the meaning of their own stories before doing so from the position or perspective of the analyst / researcher.

• Distributed cognition & learning

This principle recognises the equivalence of multiple experiences / stories generated within many different socio-institutional settings spaces and places - distributed within and across organisations, communities and society at large. This is also known as distributed ethnography. In other words, there are no single socio-institutional places and spaces in society who enjoy some or other superiority over other places and spaces. Another way of looking at this principle would be through the lens of epistemic justice - in other words, valuing all experiences / stories - irrespective of their origins - as equally valid and legitimate and should, therefore, be treated as such throughout the entire research process.

• Co-design

The importance of the self-signification distributed across many different experiences and perspectives is of such significance, that it simply makes sense to allow this to become part and parcel of designing key aspects of both the research process as well as tool to be used during the process.

Iterative Process

The above animated (spinning) graphic depiction of the iterative narrative-based research process is probably much closer to how things will be actually conducted in real-life situations, than what is suggested by the linear rendition of the same research process below. It is therefore important to keep this more dynamic picture in mind, because in practice many of distinct or separate steps, will be much more nested, flowing in and out of each other - depending on the contexts in which the research is embedded.

Phase.I: Design

The SM process starts with the co-design of the signification framework, which will be used during the next phase for the actual story collections. For more examples of the latter, please look at the various reports on the Sensemaker Publications sub-page on the site). In order to get the process of sharing stories underway (especially with groups with no prior shared experiences), Anecdote Circles (ACs) can be used very fruitfully to this end. The experiences participants bring into the process, and how they express these in their own everyday language, is extremely valuable for incorporating into the actual design of said signification framework.

One of the hallmarks of this early co-construction work is that words do matter - not necessarily in the sense that words in and of themselves (as signs / symbols) carry some or other inherent meaning - but rather that words derive their meaning from context. The actual words to be finally used as labels and inscriptions, with which to describe different elements of the signification framework is, therefore, not just some or other arbitrary process in abstract semiotics (language games), but rather a carefully crafted / negotiated process - embedded within and contributing to the broader process of trust-building and social contracting underway between researchers and stakeholders. As soon as they are satisfied with their co-design work, the signification framework then gets uploaded onto the Sensemaker server, ready to be used for the actual story collections during the next step in the process.

Note: working together with stakeholders on the co-designing of the signification framework in this manner is the first of many opportunities opening up for researchers for working on their dynamic epistemic objects - by refining or changing their initial guiding problem statements and research questions, or coming up with new ones.

Phase.V: Implementing

Strictly speaking, this step is embedded within the previous phase, because the returning of stories already entails initiating transformative discussions on both the nature and directionality of any change process decided upon by stakeholders - i.e. discussions on both the kind of change to be undertaken as well as their different trajectories. The purpose, therefore, by treating this as a distinct phase in the research process - under the heading Implementation - is merely to surface the importance of pursuing the next step(s) question - i.e. focusing more explicitly on the challenge of figuring out what is considered plausible and desirable in / under the conditions of the current situation, and for whom? This is never a straight forward matter, given the reality of competing perspectives and interests at play when it comes to implementing ideas and plans - especially if this cannot be done unilaterally, but rather collaboratively, by working together. It, therefore, deserves to be mentioned and discussed as a distinct aspect or feature - if not step or phase - of the research process.

This is indeed very tricky work, because of the risks involved in falling into the trap of producing panaceas for the emerging situation at hand. One way of avoiding falling into this trap of single solutions is to building consensus by keep on bringing the multiple voices in the narrative patterns into the next step(s) question what can be achieved in / under the conditions of the current situation. And, this is where the said 'aporectic role' (referred on the Home page) of researchers becomes really prominent during this part of the research process, because it involves the art and skill of working with many uncertainties and contradictions as creative tensions for consensus building - rather than seeking final solutions / answers.

At this point in the process, there, however, is no need for adopting the traditional strategic management approach - aka rational-teleological thinking and planning - of always, first, coming up with some clear-cut visions or scenarios of the future - to be used as a launching pad from which to approach the present. A fundamental weak point in the latter is that these visions and scenarios tend to become overly idealistic / normative end-states - which are simply too abstract (i.e. removed from context) to be realised. A different approach would be that of discovering the evolutionary potential of the present by keeping the focus squarely on bringing the multiple voices - represented in the narrative patterns - into figuring out the next step(s) question. Should the need arise for having these kind of discussions in a facilitated workshop mode, the Future Backwards approach can be used very effectively for this purpose.

Note: Any new insights and understandings gained from the actual facilitating of these discussions with stakeholders is yet another golden opportunity for researchers to refine, change or developing new problem statements and research questions.

Summary: End-notes

• When taken together, all the above phases of this narrative-based research process afford multiple and rich opportunities for researchers to work on - refining, changing, innovating - their dynamic epistemic objects - the net effect being that researchers are no longer solely dependent on the literature only for doing this theoretical work. The new insights and understandings gained from all the different inter-actions with stakeholders and their experiences, perceptions and observations of the situation at hand, can be legitimately referenced, provided these have been well recorded and made available for interrogation by others.

• The agility / versatility of SM resides in the fact that it can be used either as a synergic - standalone - method or used synergically together with some other agile methods. For example, if used in combination with NetMapping (NM) it can produce complementary effects for the research process as a whole which are greater than the sum of the parts. This can be achieved by embedding the abstract lines - used in NM to signify various network formations - in the shared lived experiences / stories made explicit by the SM approach. NM can then, in turn, be used for demonstrating the distribution of power nodes within and across the visualised networks in terms of their relative strengths and weaknesses - from the perspectives (experiences, perceptions, observations) of the people who participated in producing the latter. Using these two methods together in this manner may include overlaying some of their different visualisations (e.g. narrative landscapes and power maps) - something which can certainly be used very effectively when engaging with communities for discussing the next step(s) in terms of what they consider to be plausible and desirable for them in their situations / contexts.