Using a critical friend for a small project

Presentation for discussion within BadCoP community of practice

Paul Mayes September 2010

http://betterprojects.jiscinvolve.org/wp/

paul.mayes@gmail.com

Terminology

Terminology really is worth thinking about !!

Critical friend is a very established phrase but is actually used to describe very differing relationships

We are adapting the three types suggested by Paul Gibbs and Panayiotis Angelides

(“Understanding friendship between critical friends” Improving Schools vol 11 no 3 Nov 2008 p213 – 225)

The three types:

(1) Critical friendship

Based on friendship where participants mutually critique their practice. This critiquing is within the nature of the friendship, which extends prior to and beyond the specific critique. It is based on trust and respect for wellbeing of both parties

Do we have organisations or people who are real ‘friends’ and would help us ?

(2) Critical companionship

A relationship where friendship is based on advantage. This is recognised by both parties. Trust has already been established. The relationship will have a defined time span. It could be seen by our potential critical companion as collaborative research.

Is this type more suitable or easier for us to arrange than critical friendship?

(3) Critical acquaintance

This applies where the advice is from an expert or from an authority organisation or even unsought. Generally the intent is an organisational goal with a contractual relationship.

May apply if a grantgiver or stakeholder gives us what they might term a ‘critical friend’Describes one-off obtaining of expert advice

What mainly do we expect the possible critical person to do?

1. Have a mission to make our project succeed2. Balance an informal approach with a critical eye3. Facilitate friendly, honest and critical analysis and

shared professional reflections amongst the project team

4. Maintain confidentiality, frankness, sensitivity and independence

5. Provide advice and both ‘political’ and practical suggestions[see further ideas for this and later slides at http://critical-friends.org/daedalus/cfpublic.nsf/guidelines?openform]

What do we expect them not to do?

1. Evaluate, mentor or act as a consultant2. Make decisions for the project team3. Report formally to any project stakeholders either

external (eg grantgivers) or internal to our institution

Some principles we can give to a potential critical person

The critical person as arranged by us (and not specified by a stakeholder):

1) will have to balance many contradictions2) is not part of the project team and shares none of theresponsibilities of the project3) helps our project team recognise its difficulties, challenges - andpotential solutions to these - but will not take on responsibility formanaging conflicts or concerns4) helps our project team make connections to other projects, initiativesor individuals5) helps our project team to mitigate risks and exploit opportunities inpractice6) helps our project team to make an explicit move to reflective practiceand active horizon scanning for the further duration of their practice7) maintains confidentiality at all times and does not share information with anyone outside the project team 8) ultimately aims to make their role as critical person superfluous

Setting up the relationship between our project team and the critical person

It is a two-way process between what our team should do and what we hope the critical person will do

It will be supported by an updated comprehensive version of the checklist of issues that was developed for the JISC UKAN-SKILLS project

Following the format of the checklist, the early discussion and meeting(s) will cover:

1) reporting mechanisms and timescales2) clarifying the distinction between critical friendship and formal

evaluation3) what both parties can expect or will give in terms of support (how

much and in what areas)4) clarifying the importance and scope of confidentiality 5) any finance issues

In critical friend or critical companion situations there should be no need for the critical person to have to establish their role or credibility in the way a critical acquaintance may have to

Later the relationship will cover:

Helping our project team achieve friendly, honest critical analysis through an understanding of the importance of a positive approach to feedback

Assisting our project team to achieve their output/outcomes including:

1) helping the team ensure that they are on target fordelivery of intended output and outcomes2) supporting the team in finding an appropriate balance between dealing with obstacles, meeting deadlines and reporting to stakeholders3) supporting the team in finding effective ways of reestablishingan achievable project plan if a substantial change of direction in the project occurs.

Helping our project team deal with any really difficult issues (not identified our initial risk assessment) by:

a) suggesting routes and processes that can enable solutionsb) suggesting externals or resources that may be able to helpc) helping the team decide whether its own management and governance arrangements may be able to helpd) helping the team evaluate which problem solving processes and whose involvement are advantageous and where caution must be taken not to damage the long term credibility of the project or host institution.

Ensuring that our project team is fully engaging with our agreed community of practice strategies on communicating and engaging with stakeholders, on benefits realisation, on impact measurement, on continuation possibilities and on sustainability