1
Mindful Mediating
The Reflections of Mediators on the Role of
Improvisation in Mediation Practice
Written by Dagmar Elisabeth Punter
Master Conflict Resolution and Governance
Graduate School of Social Sciences, University of Amsterdam
Thesis Research Project
First Reader: Dr. David Laws
Second Reader: Dr. John Forester
Date: 29
thof June 2018
2
Wassily Kandinsky ‘Improvisation 28 (second version)’, 1912
The title of this artwork ‘Improvisation’ refers to a series of works that Kandinsky painted between 1909 and 1913 which was, according to the artist, "a largely unconscious, spontaneous expression of his inner
character, and of non-material nature."
However, through the abstract shapes and patterns, references to the material of recognizable images, subjects that he had painted earlier on quite often, can be discovered.
3
Abstract
What music does the mediator make? Is it classical or jazz improvisation, or maybe both? (Euwema & Bollen, 2012: 41). In what way do mediators deal with disruptive, unexpected turns in mediation sessions and what do they need in order to manage both structuring principles and conflict interaction? In recent literature on mediation practice, the responsive, adaptive performance of the mediator is compared to that of the jazz musician (Cooley, 2005&2007 & Balachandra et al., 2005abc). Even to be a “masterful mediator, one has to be an improvisational artist”, suggesting the importance of improvisational skills for the practitioner (Cooley, 2007). Although, we improvise all the time within the unpredictable course of our everyday lives (Limb & Braun, 2008: 1 & Tint, 2015: 79), the particular conceptualization of what improvisation entails remains somewhat ungraspable. The aim of this research is to uncover some of its mystery by exploring how mediators themselves describe the use of improvisation in their practice. The main research question is formulated as: How do mediators reflect upon the role of improvisation in their practice? By means of in-depth interviews, the perspectives of mediators on the role of improvisation in their practice were analyzed and supported by observations and side interviews. From the perspective of the mediators’ reflections, improvisation can be understood as designing new forms of action on the spot embedded in being in the moment and connecting to what is there, while at the same guiding process and structure. In addition, important factors that affect the mediator’s ability to improvise derived. Subsequently, it showed that improvisation is an important link in the chain of reflection and professional learning. The conceptual framework displaying the interrelatedness between disruption, structure and reflection helped to make improvisational activity in mediation practice tangible, relevant for both the practitioner and academia.
4
Table of Contents
Introduction……….8
Being in the room……….8
Mindful mediating……….10
Chapter 1: Reflective Practice………12
Introduction……….12
1.1 Reflective thought………13
1.2 The reflective practitioner……….16
1.3 The practitioner’s mindset to ‘train thought’……….20
1.4 Interrelatedness of reflection, structure, and disruption to improvisation……….22
Conclusion………..28
Chapter 2: Improvisation in Mediation Practice……….29
Introduction………29
2.1 Exploring improvisation………29
2.2 Mediation practice as a structure………34
2.3 Mediator as improviser………37
2.4 The applied improvisation approach in conflict resolution………42
Conclusion………45
Chapter 3: Research Design………47
Introduction………47
5
3.2 Research methods………49
3.3 Research data………..51
3.4 Operationalization……….52
3.5 Mediation practice in the Netherlands………53
3.6 Ethical challenges & research limitations……….54
Chapter 4: Reflections of mediators on improvisation………56
Introduction………56
4.1 The reflections of mediators………..57
4.2 Dealing with the unexpected: implicit reflections upon improvisation………..63
4.3 Explicit reflections on improvisation in mediation practice………70
Conclusion………78
Chapter 5: Mediator as Improviser?...79
Introduction……….79
5.1 The mediator being one’s own instrument………80
5.2 The mediator’s attachment to structure……….83
5.3 The experienced mediator, trust and confidence……….87
5.4 Improvisation as a skill to develop……….90
5.5 Reflective conversations as grounds for learning……….94
Conclusion……….98
6. Conclusions……….100
6
6.2 Implications………102
6.3 Limitations & further research……….103
7. References………105
8. Appendixes………111
A. Interview guide………111
7
Acknowledgements
This thesis would not have been possible without the support, time and effort from the people willing to think, talk and reflect with me. First of all, I want to thank the people who participated in the interviews, who shared their perspectives in rich and open conversations, their personal stories and experiences, challenges within and motivations for their practice.
Rianne Foekema & Miguel Arduin Vivendi Dance Collective, Amsterdam Joyce Silva Xavier
JSX Style, Studio Oost Laura van Bergem
Alumni Graduate School for New Dance Development
Linda Molenkamp Jazz Singer Cindy de Haas
Mediation and Interim Bureau Challenge Ali Al Hadaui
Koek en Ei Mediation Tabitha van den Berg Mediation Amsterdam Janny Dierx
o.a. de Mediation Coöperatie Toos Bik
Mediation Trainings Instituut (MTi) Bente London & Pippie Kerkhoven Stichting Beter Buren Nederland Bert Visser
Jij Beslist Mediation
Anouk van der Jagt Fifty-Fifty Mediation Jozan Coenen
First Seven Frans Antonis
Mironi Mediation & Coaching Hans Bekkers
Nieuw Script Marjolein Triest Stapwerk
Anja Sophie Boorsma Wakkere Tante Martine van Straaten
Van Straaten Legal Business & Mediation Dr. Cees Hamelink
Emeritus Professor International
Communication & Media & Jazz Musician, UvA & VU Amsterdam
Dr. Barbara Tint
Co-President of the Applied Improvisation Network & Professor Conflict Resolution at Portland University, USA
Meret Muntinga
Master’s program alumni
Furthermore, I want to thank my thesis supervisor Dr. David Laws for guiding me through the various stages of this thesis process. For engaging with me in insightful and inspirational
discussions. Subsequently, I want to thank my second reader Dr. John Forester. Finally, I want to thank the people around me, who I love, patient enough to hear my stories, insights, doubts and other thesis thoughts.
8
Introduction
Being in the room
The mediator interrupts: “you have now both stated your concerns, and past events have been mentioned several times, I would like to go back to signing the mediation agreement. A formality we have to take into account in order to proceed further”.
Two-third of the time scheduled for the session passed and the conversation between the two neighbors kept on returning back to repetitive events of nuisance. The mediator’s questions like “what would your ideal relationship with the other neighbor look like”, “how would you then liked to be approached” and “how can we get there” - questions that could surface a common ground between the two, possibly shifting the conversation towards some mutual understanding – weren’t picked up by the parties yet. The long history of everyday experienced disturbances was weighing so heavily, that the ventilation of concerns by one party and the expression of distrust by the other, needed time. The parties were stuck on the confidentiality clause in the mediation agreement. The agreement that sets of the rules of engagement, according to the principles of mediation, which creates the structure and a safe space setting for interaction. While one party was willing to do concessions, the other neighbor, the complainant had constituencies to spar with.
The conversation escalated when the agreement became a vehicle for personal allegations. One party stood up and left upset the table. The mediator asked permission to follow the party into a separate caucus and left the room as well. Suddenly, I was there - the observer, the student - with the other party, alone in the room.
During the mediation session, I already experienced several other challenges, dealing with unexpected turns. Even though, I went in the session, with what I described as “having no set expectations”, having no prior experiences with such sessions. I was aware that at the same time anything could unfold. With only limited information, I could only guess what the parties looked like, what they would say, how they would act and behave, and how the interaction would unfold. After done several interviews with mediators about their reflections on their practice, I now found myself in the midst of action. Facing all kinds of unexpected turns, the mediators had even described before me through the interviews.
In the session itself it was difficult to stay distant from the sudden flow of emotions, tears and anger expressed by the parties, in which I often felt sympathy for the parties. Constant new information brought to the table caused several changes to the story I had constructed for myself.
9 The eye-contact made with me, the observer, by the parties, was confrontational and fastened - just as the personal information and emotions put on the table - my heartbeat. I had several controlling thoughts on how to sit in the room, how to stay just an observer, so that my face didn’t seem an open book to them. Silent questions about how I came across, and a stream of thoughts around the problems, stories and possible solutions to them. I had to suppress the practical options and solutions coming up in my head, that could bring, from my perspective, both parties together.
Back to the room, there with one party, I encountered a stream of experiences never encountered before. I had never been part of such a context and everything seemed unpredictable. When the party in the room started expressing complaints and anger about the other party to me, I tried to carefully pick words, compile sentences that fitted my role, in order not to influence the broader process of the mediation too much. The setting asked for quick responses, moving only from one step to the next, without the possibility to look too far ahead. I could only be there in the moment, and trust upon, the uncertain responses of my intuition. It felt like I needed to balance between the structuring principles of my role and guidelines I committed to, while being fully perplexed in the moment due to this new setting. What I said and did - “would you like another glass of water?” - when a reaction from me was asked by the other party, was fully improvised, connected to what was there at the moment. It resembled the previous effort of the mediator to let both parties express their concerns and interests in a flow, with dynamics of its own, stirred by quick action and reaction, while at the same time keeping an eye on the formalities, the time, process, and the mediator’s own role therein.1
1 This anecdote was based upon my own experience during an observation in a mediation session between
two neighbors. The anonymity of both the mediator and the parties involved is taken into account. The descriptions of the events, dynamics and expressions might differ from the experiences and perspectives of the actors involved.
10
Mindful Mediating
What music does the mediator make? Is it classical or jazz improvisation, or maybe both? (Euwema & Bollen, 2012: 41). In what way do mediators deal with disruptive, unexpected turns in mediation sessions and what do they need in order to manage both structuring principles and conflict interaction? According to recent literature on mediation practice, the responsive, adaptive performance of the mediator can be compared to that of the jazz musician (Cooley, 2005&2007 & Balachandra et al., 2005abc). Even to be a “masterful mediator, one has to be an improvisational artist”, suggesting that the mediator has to have some sort of improvisational skills in order to finetune his or her practice (Cooley, 2007). And although, we improvise all the time within the unpredictable course of our everyday lives, and the world on its own has become more complex, ‘fluid’, uncertain, quick and disruptive (Limb & Braun, 2008: 1, Bauman, 2007:4 & Tint, 2015: 79), the particular conceptualization of what improvisation entails remains somewhat ungraspable. Because improvisation is enacted in the midst of action, in the particularities of context and in the here and now, it is something difficult to reflect upon afterwards or even in action. It is hard to pin-point what it actually means, entails and when it occurs in different practices.
The aim of this research is to uncover some of its mystery and research how mediators themselves describe the use of improvisation in their practice. Thereby, it questions to what extent mediators describe an explicit use of improvisation in their practice and whether they perceive improvisation as an important skill for conflict resolution practice. The main research question that derives from this recent debate explores the meaning of improvisation from the reflections of the practitioner and is formulated as follows: How do mediators reflect on the role of improvisation in their practice? By means of in-depth interviews, the reflections of mediators on the role of improvisation in their practice are analyzed and supported by observations and side interviews. Respectively, from the interviews with mediator’s important factors that affect the mediator’s ability to improvise derived. Subsequently, it showed that improvisation is an important factor in the chain of reflection and professional learning. Throughout this research a conceptual framework, embedded in the theories on reflective practice and improvisation, helped to interpret the research material. By displaying the interrelationship between disruption, structure and reflection the character of improvisation in mediation practice emerged more concretely. From the perspective of the mediators’ reflections, improvisation can be understood as designing new forms of action on
11 the spot derived from being in the moment and connective to what is there, while at the same guiding process and structure.
The relevance of this thesis research reaches from the practitioner to the general field of mediation and conflict resolution theory. The research both has academic and practical relevance in a sense that it broadens our conceptual understanding around the concept of improvisation and its relation to learning and reflection, and it provides rich knowledge on the role of improvisation in mediation practice. In addition, this research aims to provide relevant knowledge for the practice field of mediation itself. Thereby, it aims to bridge both sides of knowledge, complementing each other. By integrating insights from the arts, general processes of improvisation throughout different practices become visible. Through having reflective conversations with practitioners, the potential for professional learning and improvisational skills is enhanced as well, even as my own perspectives on dealing with the unexpected, improvisation and the importance of reflection.
12
Chapter 1: Reflective Practice
Introduction
This thesis research aims to uncover the role of improvisation within the practice of mediation by delving into the reflections of practitioners. Improvisation, explicitly part of the mediator's practice, has only been touched upon recently by the literature (Balachandra 2005a/b/c, Cooley, 2007). It is not clear to what extent practitioners themselves reflect on improvisation as playing a central part in their conflict resolution practice. Throughout this chapter the key concepts of reflection, in relation to disruption and structure are outlined, through which the concept of improvisation foregrounds, as depicted in figure 1.
From the literature of reflection, improvisation can be understood as a reactive form of action stirred by reflection on how to deal with unexpected events. It is a possible reaction to when things don’t unfold as planned, when there is a need to move away from the script, the structure, a need for a quick response in the moment. Additionally, improvised actions by the practitioner can be an attempt to disrupt the current structure more consciously. One the one hand improvisational actions on the spot can derive from reflection in the midst of action. On the other hand, improvisational actions can result in a need to reflect upon unused actions afterwards, stimulating a process of professional learning. Reflection in both examples could be a means to settle disruption and doubts, a way to restructure and make sense of occurrences with new experiences. Throughout the upcoming chapters other conceptual links are put forward.
This first chapter addresses the relevant literature and theories that lay the foundation for analyzing the reflections of mediators. It highlights the tradition of thought concerned with reflection, focusing on reflective thought and reflective practice that provides a basis for researching the reflections of mediators as reflective practitioners. Furthermore, it dives into the description of the concept improvisation as the main subject of inquiry and how it relates to reflection and learning. Chapter 2 then examines both the structuring and disruptive angle of mediation practice, which results in the consideration of the recent literature on the role of improvisation in the mediator’s practice. In the final section of chapter 2, the applied improvisation approach is put forward, that indicates the importance of applying improvisation skills to the working practice of conflict resolution practitioners.
13
Figure 1: Improvisation with respect to the interrelatedness of reflection, disruption and structure
1.1. Reflective thought
Reflection in a simple sense is part of our nature and of our day to day lives. We take time to make sense of events that happened and to share it with others. We are struck by new and disruptive experiences and search for a way to deal with them. We believe it is important to learn from our experiences, maybe in order to know how to deal with similar events the next time (Boud et al., 1985: 8). We make decisions upon what to do next as a reaction to occurrences that affect us.
Reflecting upon what you do as a professional is widely integrated in current professional practice. It is progressively included in training, schooling, intervision, feedback and debriefing sessions. Hence, the use of reflection as a tool to develop and support practice is increasingly recognized in professional fields and the social sciences (McIntosh, 2010: ix). In this sense, “reflection is used to create depth of knowledge and meaning, both for the self [ the practitioner or the researcher] and for those practiced upon and its basis lies in self-awareness and awareness of others” (McIntosh, Ibid.). It is also becoming an important perspective for practice-based research. Nonetheless, this learning objective to link reflection to the area of action and practice of the practitioner, hasn’t been always so explicit. Reflection on one’s professional practice has developed over time, and is now perceived as an important share in the learning process of the practitioner in various fields (Thompson & Pascal, 2012: 311). The idea of the practitioner as being reflective upon
14 his own working in order to be able to learn, together with the importance of acquiring knowledge through reflection upon one’s practice, took a spurt in the last decennia. Related to this, the idea that reflection is something which is purely thinking has been revisited. Doing relates to, and is integrated with, reflecting more than we think.
John Dewey, whose work was of great importance for the field of educational sciences and pragmatist philosophical theory, caused a great shift in our thinking about what reflection is and can mean to our personal learning. Dewey’s thinking provides this thesis with a first account on how reflection can be understood - reflection as a process of thinking - and influences the second account discussed in the next section - related to professional practice - of what reflection entails. In his book ‘How We Think’ (1933) Dewey focuses on the importance of critical thinking by unraveling the meaning of our thinking and what happens when we reflect. For Dewey reflection and learning relates to experience. While it is not possible to teach someone how to think, it is possible to help develop someone’s thinking in order to become more curious, creative and inquisitive. Reflection on one’s thinking is from Dewey’s perspective essential. The perception that reflection can be trained and developed and contributes to development and learning, still runs through our current idea on the reflective practice of the professional. Dewey, describes it as ‘reflective thought’: “active, -persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey, 1933: 9). A form of critical thinking that can be integrated with all thoughts, occurrences, experiences and actions. Specified further, reflective thought involves “(1) a state of doubt, hesitation, perplexity, mental difficulty, in which thinking originates, and (2) an act of searching, hunting, inquiring, to find material that will resolve the doubt, settle and dispose of the perplexity.” (Dewey, 1933: 12). Reflection therefore, starts with experiencing a ‘problem’, which arises from this perplexity, disruption or surprise we experience. A shock in the moment, a disruption, asks for immediate thought and reflection, which then stimulates further decision and actions (see figure 1). These next actions lead to new experiences which then unavoidable stir new reflective thought. The circle thus starts again. Dewey argues: “demand for the solution of a perplexity is the steadying and guiding factor in the entire process of reflection.” (1933: 14-15). Reflection is a means to get a grip on the flow of experiences, to make sense out of chaos and to align our next actions with it. Thereby, when someone experiences a confusing situation, one does not stand apart from this situation but is directly involved in it: "we are doubtful because the situation is inherently doubtful. [..] The inquirer does not stand outside the problematic situation like a spectator; he is in it and in
15 transaction with it. (Schön, 1992: 122). Dewey further argues that reflection, and especially his form of ‘reflective thought’ is not just compiled of loose ideas and thoughts. Reflection has a certain order and is part of a ‘ladder of inquiry’. “Reflection involves not simply a sequence of ideas, but a con-sequence — a consecutive ordering in such a way that each determines the next as its proper outcome, while each outcome in turn leans back on, or refers to, its predecessors.” (Dewey, 1933: 4). Reflection itself is thus also a form of inquiry and part of a broader network connecting experience to reflection, action and learning. Kolb and Fry draw onto this notion of experience being part of a larger chain of reflection and learning by providing the ‘experiential learning model’, see figure 2 (1975: 33). Learning, chance and growth are best facilitated by an integrated process hereof. Immediate concrete experience is the basis for observation and reflection. Which are assimilated into theory from where guidance derives for action, that creates new experiences (Ibid. 1975).
To conclude this section, the perspective on reflective thought, and its interrelatedness with disruptive experiences and inherent potential for learning, provides a basis for understanding the reflective process of the practitioner. It is a useful start in assembling the framework for studying the role of improvisation in mediation practice. It gives preliminary insights into how improvisational actions as a response to or as a means to cause disruption, are related to reflection and could be of key importance for the mediators reflective practice. The next section dives deeper into the reflective practice of the practitioner by analyzing Donald Schön’s framework of the ‘reflective practitioner’.
Figure 2: Based on the ‘Experiental
16
1.2. The reflective practitioner
Schön developed this theory of inquiry on ‘reflective thought’ further into a framework called ‘reflective practice’ (Schön, 1992: 123). As Dewey’s ‘reflective thought’ being the first account of reflection discussed in this chapter, the second account of reflection concerns reflection as part of the practice of the professional. Schön’s approach integrates thought and action and links the academic world with everyday practice, viewing them both as valuable (Schön, 1992: 119). His re-valuation of practice in science in the beginning of the eighties was stirred by, a crisis of professional knowledge in which ‘technical rationality’, coming from the positivist tradition of thought, undermined the positive appraisal of practical knowledge (Schön, 1983: 3). According to Schön, it is too narrow to perceive practice as an application of scientific theory and techniques. The perspective of the professional and how he or she constructs his or her own reality, practice and knowledge, has its own importance to be reviewed (Kinsella, 2009: 6). Thompson & Pascal emphasize this view: “professional practice is not a technical process of applying (scientifically derived) solutions to practice problems. More realistically, it is a matter of wrestling with the complexities of both theory and practice, using professional artistry to move forward as effectively as possible.” (2012: 314). The challenge to Schön was to make research accessible to practitioners and useful for their practice and to re-valuate practice-based knowledge for scientific ends (Ibid.). Schön’s work on the ‘Reflective Practitioner’ introduces important concepts that help explain how professionals deal with the challenges they face in their work and how they might also specifically, reflect upon the role of improvisational actions in their practice. Furthermore, the concepts help to generate practice-based knowledge. Reflecting together with the practitioner on his or her practice might, on the one hand, contribute to their own understanding of their practice, which is based upon the recognition of the practitioner as developing inquirer. On the other hand, by assembling different views and stories around the practitioner’s challenges and events throughout this research, practice-based knowledge can be shared throughout the discipline and move its way to the academic arena.
Schön’s perspective on the practitioner involved in ‘reflective practice’ as a ‘reflective practitioner’, is generally described as someone who reflects in, through and on practice and therefore engages in a continuous process of learning (Johns, 2013: 1). According to Schön, research or ‘inquiry’ in Dewey’s terms, is thus not only something that the scientist engages in but also something that the practitioner actively does. He argues that practitioners, by recognizing their
17 perspective and enabling reflection “[..] may become reflective researchers in situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and conflict. From this perspective, research is an activity of practitioners. It is triggered by features of the practice situation, undertaken on the spot, and immediately linked to action” (1983: 308). To give a more extensive review on Schön’s approach, Christopher Johns describes the reflective practitioner, in his book for nursing professionals named ‘Becoming a Reflective Practitioner’, as follows:
“I currently describe reflection as ‘being mindful of self, either within or after experience, as if a mirror in which the practitioner can view and focus self within the context of a particular experience, in order to confront, understand and move towards resolving contradiction between one’s vision and actual practice. Through the conflict of contradiction, the commitment to realize one’s vision, and understanding why things are as they are, the practitioner can gain new insight into self and be empowered to respond more congruently in future situations within a reflexive spiral towards developing practical wisdom and realizing one’s vision as praxis. The practitioner may require guidance to overcome resistance or to be empowered to act on understanding” (Johns, 2013: 2).
From Johns quote reflection itself seems to be a way to solve conflict and contradiction, similar to Dewey’s perspective on ‘reflective thought’, another interesting link to the relation between the concepts of reflection and structure and disruption (see figure 1).
As part of his influential theory on the ‘‘reflective practitioner’ Schön introduced a couple key concepts useful to understand the reflections of practitioners. To begin with, Schön describes the concept ‘knowing-in-action’: “the knowing built into and revealed by our performance of everyday routines of action” (1992: 124). A kind of tacit know-how, based on certain ‘pre-structures’, a “characteristic mode of ordinary professional knowledge’ (1983: 54). To paint the picture more concretely, it is for example when we ride a bicycle on automatic pilot or find our way through our neighborhood. Drawing on Dewey’s theory, Schön describes this as a flow of action in which there is no interruption by surprise; someone knows what to do next without really thinking about it (Schön, 1992: 124). Actions that are so common and automatic in our system are often hard to describe to others; we just simply find ourselves doing them. We might not even be aware of how we learned them (Schön, 1983: 54). Although, we might reflect on our knowing-in-action, it might be a theory of what we do rather than what we actually do. This is the distinction between our ‘espoused-theory’ and ‘theory-in-action’ (Argyris, 1991: 7), developed by Schön together with Chris Argyris in their book ‘Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness’ (1974). It is also often the case that when we find ourselves in challenges circumstances, we fall back onto what we usually do, rather than what we believe, espouse, we would or should do:
18 “When someone is asked how he would behave under certain circumstances, the answer he usually gives is his espoused theory of action for that situation. This is the theory of action to which he gives allegiance and which, upon request, he communicates to others. However, the theory that actually governs his actions is his theory-in-use, which may or may not be compatible with his espoused theory; · furthermore, the individual may or may not be aware of the incompatibility of the two theories. (p. 7)” (Argyris & Schön, 1978: 11).
When asking practitioners about previous events and experienced challenges, it has to be taken into account that their perspective on the story as it occurred might be more an espoused one than one aligned with their real actions in the moment.
Another conceptual distinction Schön makes, is between ‘reflection-on-action’, for example when reflecting back on ‘knowing-in-action’, and ‘reflection-in-action’. While reflection-on-action refers to reflecting back upon one’s actions. ‘Reflection-in-action’ happens in the midst of action (Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009: 1340). In the following quote Schön describes this complex concept:
“What we already know how to do includes a remarkable ability to take note of surprise and respond to it-to be puzzled, uncertain, or doubtful, if only momentarily, and to respond smoothly through on-the-spot experiments. The word reflection in the phrase "reflection-in-action" suggests-misleadingly, from my point of view-that reflection-in-action involves what Hannah Arendt calls a "stop-and-think,” pause during which we think back on what we have done, reasoning about it verbally. [..] But the reflection I have in mind here takes place in the midst of action, in what I call the action-present, and it need not employ the medium of words. Think of a basketball player's instant maneuvering in response to an opponent's surprising move, or a jazz pianist's on-line improvisation on the melody she has just heard the trumpet play.”” (Schön, 1992: 125).
Hence, it reveals that reflection could not only be something that happens afterwards, but also something that is directly involved with doing in action, reframing the situation. The interesting link between reflection and improvisational action on the spot, is herein already made by Schön. It shows that improvisational action is linked to responsiveness in the midst of action, and that the ‘reflection’ is interrelated and embedded with-‘in’ the improvisational ‘action’. Schön argues that, in Dewey’s terms, reflection could thus be an ability to respond to doubtful situations and can be responded through ‘on-the-spot experiments’ and improvisation. The conceptual link here made by Schön, underscores the convenience of the conceptual model for researching improvisation within the practitioner’s practice, previously showed in figure 1.
A specific form of reflection-in-action is having a metaphorical ‘reflective conversation with the situation’ (Schön, 1983: 295). That is being part of the situation in the moment and being ‘in it’ and in ‘transaction with it’. It is a version of reflection-on-action in action, a version undertaken in
19 the situation of action itself, but reveals more of a reflective pause in action caused by the disruption (Schön, 1992: 126). When the practitioner encounters surprise, experiences perplexity and uncertainty, he or she reflects and tries to reframe, transform the situation in order to resolve the uncertain current situation or problem he/she encounters. Being ‘in transaction with the situation’, and taking a more distant stance from it, can cause a revising of the situation, a reframing when approached again. “The situation talks back”, which causes interruption to reflect (Schön, 1992: 125). The practitioner is reflecting on the situation and, at the same time, on one’s way of thinking and acting on it. This then could lead to new situations and thus ‘problems’ to react to (see also Figure 1). Schön describes:
“The inquirer goes on to transform the situation in a way that resolves uncertainty, at least for the moment. Edmund Carpenter, for example, has described an Inuit sculptor scraping away at a reindeer antler with his knife, examining the bone now from one angle, now from another, until he cries out, "Ah, seal!'". The inquirer is in the situation, influenced by his appreciation of it at the same time that he shapes it his thinking and doing-in Dewey's words, "instituting new environing conditions that occasion new problems” (Schön, 1992: 125). According to Schön this form of reflection in action could occur in a certain mode of discovery or design, because it is then the inquiry and reflection upon this inquiry, reframing the situation, that would lead to new ideas (1992: 123). It might relate to the interventions designed on the spot by practitioners as improvisational actions, in order to move through experienced encounters with ‘problematic’ situations. When two dancer partners dance together they both receive ‘back talk’ from each other and the music they dance to:
"Because then you really have a conversation with the two of you [as a dance couple ...] You have a conversation together, and you have a conversation with the song together. Conversation with each other and with the song." - Salsa Dance Collectivei , 2018
To elaborate further on this idea of being in interaction with the situation, the backtalk in the practitioner’s encounters with perplexing circumstances, thus, also derives from interaction with other practitioners, other involved parties and surroundings. The importance of interaction with the surroundings, that includes other practitioners, comes forward in the following quote that builds onto Dewey’s and Schön’s approach:
“Reflection is a process, both individual and collaborative, involving experience and uncertainty. It is comprised of identifying questions and key elements of a matter that has emerged as significant, then taking one’s thoughts into dialogue with one self and with others. One evaluates insights gained from that process with reference to: (1) additional perspectives, (2) one’s own values, experiences, and beliefs, and (3) the larger context within which the questions are raised. Through reflection, one reaches newfound clarity, on which one bases
20 changes in action or disposition. New questions naturally arise, and the process spirals onward.” (Ja7 & Johnson, 2002: 76).
To conclude, this section described the second account of reflection, as being part of the practitioners practice when encountering challenging and perplexing situations. It shows that the reflective practice of the practitioner, in Schön’s terms, is highly related and rooted within reflective thought as described by Dewey. Schön’s perspective on the ‘reflective practitioner’ provides a basis for engaging in studying the reflective practitioner, specifically relevant for interviewing mediators about their practice and their occurrences with disruptive situations and experiences with improvisational action. It provides an understanding of different forms of reflection, in and on action and how the practitioner might reflect upon these forms. In addition, it fosters the broadening of our perception on reflection in the mediator’s practice, and helps to generate other forms of reflection present in their practice.
1.3 The practitioner’s mindset to ‘train thought’
“A mind that is stretched to a new idea never returns to its original dimension.” - Oliver W. Holmes, as quoted in Flyvbjerg, 2001: vi
As derived from the previous sections, both Dewey’s and Schön’s theory are embedded in practice. Their theories on reflective practice are not only about practice but also ask practitioners to become actively engaged in reflective practice, stimulating practice-based knowledge, learning and development. Both theories imply that the practitioner’s ability to reflect and learn can be enhanced and stimulated. The practitioner has to, according to the theory, be actively engaged in and conscious of the possible relevance of reflection for their practice. Since, reflection, is in fact, inherently part of their practice. Becoming aware of that, triggers then the potential for learning. Despite of this aim, it is the question to what extent the practitioner is willing or able to, or has the capacity and competence, to ‘be’ a reflective practitioner. As John elaborates around curiosity, an attitude stimulating surprising situations and thus reflection: “curiosity is fundamental to the creative life, and yet many practitioners are locked into habitual patterns of practice. Often, when things get overly familiar, we take them for granted and get into a habitual groove.” (2013: 4). It implies that being reflective upon one’s practice is challenging, and possibly disruptive to routines, habits and believes as structures, which relates back to the conceptual framework in figure 1. Although, reflection might be implicitly present in every practitioners practice, it is up to the
21 practitioner to make reflection an explicit part of practice and learning. Dewey’s signifies the importance of having a certain mindset and attitude as a reflective thinker:
“Because of the importance of attitudes, ability to train thought is not achieved merely by knowledge of the best forms of thought. Possession of this information is no guarantee for ability to think well. Moreover, there are no set exercises in correct thinking whose repeated performance will cause one to be a good thinker. The information and the exercises are both of value. But no individual realizes their value except as he is personally animated by certain dominant attitudes in his own character.” (Dewey, 1933: 29).
It is the combination of training, theory and the professional’s character and attitude that enhance reflection. Training thought would then also mean stimulating the ability to become surprised, or to be curious, in order to facilitate reflection. To become or let oneself be surprised once in a while, fostering such a mindset, stimulating the process of reflection, then becomes beneficial for learning and professional development of the practitioner. ‘Training thought’ could help the development of the practitioner, refining his or her ‘artistry’ (Kinsella, 2009: 13). This attitude according to Dewey is formed by open-mindedness, being whole-hearted, enthusiastically and curiously absorbed into the subject or inquiry and being sincerely connected to the subject (Dewey, 1933: 30-33). They together provide a certain readiness for the practitioner to develop a mindset for reflective thought. Curiosity and eagerness to explore and test new things, stimulate a certain sense of creativity and quirkiness in the moment:
“[..] there is no single and uniform power of thought, but a multitude of different ways in which specific things — things observed, remembered, heard of, read about — evoke suggestions or ideas that are pertinent to a problem or question and that carry the mind forward to a justifiable conclusion. Training is that development of curiosity, suggestion, and habits of exploring and testing, which increases sensitiveness to questions and love of inquiry into the puzzling and unknown; which enhances the fitness of suggestions that spring up in the mind, and controls their succession in a developing and cumulative order; which makes more acute the sense of the force, the proving power, of every fact observed and suggestion employed.” (Dewey, 1933: 55).
The quotes above raise the question to what extent the practitioner can be trained to be a reflective practitioner. On top of that, the idea that reflective thought can be stimulated by adopting a curious mindset, also might imply that one could train ‘the fitness of suggestions that spring up in the mind’, as suggested above. Enabling ‘habits of exploring and testing’, which is quite similar to improvisational activity, might also suggest that the reflective practitioner could enhance improvisational skills, contributing to the reflective ability of the practitioner. It is yet another account of the relationship between reflection and improvisation wherein the development of one
22 skill could enhance the other, and vice versa. The implications of Dewey’s theory for this research on mediators also display that it is interesting to analyze the mediator’s personality, and how the character of the mediator contributes to the improvisational skills and reflective practice. Furthermore, it is interesting to consider the implications of engaging the practitioner into reflective conversations through interviewing. Which consequentially, raises the question whether the joint conversation between the interviewer and the practitioner activates and sparks reflective thought and inherently its training. Conclusively, asking practitioners specifically about the role of the relatively unknown topic of improvisation could stimulate curiosity and possible reflection upon one’s own practice with the potential to go beyond the interview setting.
1.4. Interrelatedness of reflection, structure, and disruption to improvisation
Figure 3: Improvisation with respect to the interrelatedness of reflection, disruption and structure
The prior review of Dewey’s and Schön’s theory already displayed the interrelatedness of the concepts of reflection, experience and action and hinted at what meaning improvisation has in relation to them. Dewey’s basic idea that reflection derives from a certain state of perplexity and unexpected experiences is interestingly linked to what happens when we improvise and react to in the moment. Boud et al. argue that reflection, is an active process of exploration and discovery which often leads to unexpected outcomes. (1985: 7). Furthermore, Dewey’s description mentioned above, that the experience of perplexity creates a certain need for reflection and thus for action in the moment, is related to what happens when there is a need for improvisation on the spot (Dewey, 1933: 107). Improvisation could be an action as a reaction to what happens, it could also itself be
23 disruptive, creating openings for reflection, reformulation and new forms of action by others and by the initiator itself. Dealing with surprise, perplexity or the unexpected in the moment, as a form of improvisation, thus relates directly to reflection. Schön makes the link more explicit when using examples of jazz-improvisers showing how they reflect-in-action:
“When good jazz musicians improvise together, they also manifest a ‘feel for’ their material and they make on-the-spot adjustments to the sounds they hear. Listening to one another and to themselves, they feel where the music is going and adjust their playing accordingly. They can do this, first of all, because their collective effort at musical invention makes use of a schema – a metric, melodic, and harmonic schema familiar to all the participants – which gives a predictable order to the piece. In addition, each of the musicians has at the ready a repertoire of musical figures which he can deliver at appropriate moments. Improvisation consists in varying, combining, and recombining a set of figures within a schema which bounds and gives coherence to the performance. (…) They are reflecting-in-action on the music they are collectively making and on their individual contributions to it, thinking what they are doing and, in the process, evolving their way of doing it.” (Schön, 1983: 55-56).
The quote shows the interesting combination of different facets of improvisation and how improvisation is related to both a certain structure of prior experience, musical schemes and performance rules, while at the same time being a reaction to what happens disruptively in and interaction with the surroundings of the practitioners. This final section of the chapter explains the conceptual framework that combines these elements more thoroughly. Previously, throughout this chapter several references to the interrelationship between the above concepts, depicted in figure 3, came forward. This section will carry on the further development of our understanding of this framework and explains its usage.
The framework includes three concepts, that are in continuous interaction with each other. The interrelationship between the concepts disruption, structure and reflection help to differentiate in what ways improvisation plays a role in the mediator’s practice and where it’s connected to. It helps to understand whether and when improvisation is merely a response to unexpected disruptions, or whether it is an attempt to disrupt the structure at hand, or even resettle structure. It helps to analyze how mediators make sense of improvisation in their work, how they experience it, face it, develop and learn from it.
The common use of the word disruption can be simply understood as ‘a disturbance that interrupts an event, activity or process’ (Cambridge Dictionary 2018). It is how Dewey describes the experienced perplexity, surprise or ‘problem’ within the stream of thought. Disruption itself has an
24 unpredictable character, causing an unexpected effect. It is described as an interruption or break in how things usually unfold are how they are generally expected to unfold.
In contrary to the concept of disruption, the common use of the word structure refers to ‘the way in which parts of a systems are arranged or organized, or the system itself’ (Cambridge Dictionary, 2018). This organization of the system is both dependent upon the set structure but can also develop through the actors acting within it. It relates to the highly debated structure-agency debate. Since this thesis is concerned with studying the improvisational actions of different actors, mediators, and how they relate to the structure of principles, rules and professional guidelines wherein they perform their practice, Giddens structuration theory provides a basic understanding for approaching the concept. From Giddens perspective, structure/agency ‘is a duality, not a dualism; they are interdependent and internally related. Structures constrain and enable agents, agents interpret structures and in doing so change them (Marsh, 2010: 216). An example, or reconceptualization of structure/agency, Giddens gives in his book ‘The Constitution of Society: Outline of the theory of structuration’ (1984), is that of ‘the individual’ and ‘the society’ (1984: 163). From this perspective the mediator also acts, as an individual, within the community or ‘society’ of the mediation profession.
The common use of reflection is in a more literal sense than discussed above, ‘something that shows, expresses or is a sign of something’, or the ‘image of something in a mirror or any reflective surface’, more elaborately a ‘careful thought’ (Cambridge Dictionary, 2018). In this chapter reflection is more understood as making sense of either disruption or structure or providing thoughts for actions in the disruptive or structuring realm. Previously, this chapter differentiated two accounts of reflection, interrelated and grounded in each other, namely that of reflective thought and reflective practice. Through interviewing mediators about how they make sense of the events they experience, and how they act and respond to and within them, result possibly in other meanings of reflection.
The common understanding of improvisation is ‘a performance that is not planned beforehand and invented by the performers’ on the spot or an ‘activity of making or doing something that you have not planned, using whatever you find’ (Cambridge Dictionary, 2018). The conceptualization of the concept improvisation itself, and the assumptions that come with this common understanding, are further outlined in chapter 2. Herein also the role of improvisation within the specific context of mediation is reviewed from the current literature.
25 To clarify how the relations between the concepts within the framework work, the different sides of the triangle, as depicted above in figure 3, are outlined. The first side of the triangle displays the relationship between the concepts of disruption and reflection. In one direction disruption stirs reflection, as described by Dewey in his conceptualization of reflective thought. In the other direction, reflection can stir disruption, since reflecting upon routines, habits and structures can conflict or challenge what one generally knows or does. To include the concept of improvisation within this relation, improvisational actions can be seen as a reaction to reflections upon surprise or disruptive experience. The other way around improvisational actions can be disruptive and reflection in action can cause such improvisational actions. And just as there is a need to reflect upon disruptive events or experiences, there could be a need to reflect upon disruptive improvisational actions.
The second side of the triangle highlights the relationship between reflection and structure. In one direction reflection helps to settle or resettle structure. The other way around not only reflection on the structure can take place, but structure can also stir reflection. Although, different than as described by Dewey, reflection can also take place when things do go as planned or expected. Including the concept of improvisation in this relation, improvisational actions, stirred by reflection, can be a means to get back or bring back the structure. To act in the moment, connected to what is there, with the aim to recover order. The other way around improvisational actions indirectly derive from previous structure of knowledge, practice, training and previous experiences and are for example, when acted in the moment, interesting to reflect back on.
The third side of the triangle highlights the relationship between disruption and structure. It is similar to the duality explained by Giddens, where structure and disruption are in constant flow and consecutive to each other. There is both structure and disruption and they influence each other, and derive from each other constantly. Including the concept of improvisation in this relation, improvisational action is a way to balance between, to manage both the process or structure and respond to disruption or interaction in the moment. As described above improvisational action, linked to reflection, can derive and stir both disruption and structure.
It is when reflection, experience and action become interconnected, where learning derives. As explained by Leitch & Day:
“Reflection-in-action acknowledges the tacit processes of thinking which accompany doing, and which constantly interact with and modify ongoing practice in such a way that learning
26 takes place. Much of this may remain unconscious, tacit and unverbalised (Clark & Yinger, 1977), though Loughran (1996) suggests that, in meeting unanticipated problem situations, reflection-in-action comprises reframing the problem and improvising on the spot so that the experience will be viewed differently.” (2000: 180)
Applying the experiental learning model (depicted in figure 2.) to the above described interrelationship of the concepts disruption, structure and reflection, results in the following model, depicted in figure 4. The experiences, either constituted out of moving towards disruptive or structuring experiences, stir reflection in the different forms as described above, or as derived from the interviews, and stir actions, for example that of improvisational action. And then start the cycle of learning again. Thus, reflection is of great importance in this chain, to provide and serve as a basis for learning. When perplexity in Dewey’ terms stimulates reflection and action in the moment, improvisational activity can be part of a cycle of learning, where improvisation stirs further reflection and learning, valuable for the practitioner in moments of practice but also for the broader development of his or her professional abilities. Schön also refers to improvisation as being related to the reflection of the reflective practitioner. He mentions the improvisation of the jazz-pianist and basketball player, as quoted before, as a form of action tied to reflection-in-action. Exploratory action, just as improvisational action, helps to deal with ‘divergent’ situations in practice and provides, in relation to reflection, new understandings and moments of learning. As Schön emphasizes further:
“Reflection-in-action, is central to the art through which practitioners sometimes cope with the troublesome ‘divergent’ situations of practice.” (Schön, 1983: 62). “When the phenomenon at hand eludes the ordinary categories of knowledge-in-practice, presenting itself as unique or unstable, the practitioner may surface and criticize his initial understanding of the phenomenon, construct a new description of it, and test the new description by an on-the-spot experiment.” (Ibid.: 62).
“When the practitioner reflects-in-action in a case he perceives as unique, paying attention to phenomena and surfacing his intuitive understanding of them, his experimenting is at once exploratory, move testing, and hypothesis testing.” (Schön, 1983: 147).
The descriptions of Schön are thus similar to how the experiental learning model is described. Experiences, in this case disruptive experiences, stir the need for reflection in order to settle doubt, perplexity or unrest, and lead to small decisions on further action, which in this case can be experimental or improvisational action. This improvisational action then creates further experiences, reframes the situation and starts the cycle again.
27 To conclude, this section has provided a conceptual framework to make sense of improvisational activity by practitioners in relation to, and as formed by elements of disruption, structure and reflection. It can be used to explain the referred processes within the reflections of the practitioners. It moreover discussed the interdependent relationship between reflection and improvisation, and how they are both part of and important for the learning process of the practitioner, on the spot, but correspondingly also for the professional abilities for the practitioner in broader terms.
Figure 4: The process and cycle of learning, between disruption/structure as experiences, different forms of reflection and improvisation as actions which then again result in experiences.
28
Conclusion
All things considered, the antecedent chapter provides a first understanding of meaningful concepts to study the role of improvisation as reflected upon by mediators as practitioners. With a focus around the concept of reflection, section 1.1 discussed the in-depth processes of reflective thought as defined by Dewey. Section 1.2 elaborated onto this providing the second account of reflection, reflective practice, as developed by Schön, to underscore the meaning of reflection within the practice of the practitioner. Section 1.3 showed the important condition of a practitioner’s mindset to reflection, and how that could be enhanced or stimulated in order to facilitate learning. In section 1.4 the key concepts, that arrived through the chapter, disruption, structure and reflection where connected within a conceptual framework in order to provide a future understanding on improvisational activity. The next chapter dives into the concept of improvisation and its meaning within the context of mediation practice.
29
Chapter 2: Improvisation in Mediation Practice
Introduction
This second chapter builds onto the first one, by exploring the meaning of the concept of improvisation, specifically within the context of mediation practice. As a foundation, mediation practice is viewed from two perspectives. On the one hand mediation provides a certain structure for conflict resolution practice. It provides rules, principles and guidelines in order to control and structure to a certain extent the dynamics of conflict interaction between parties, guided by a third actor. On the other hand, mediation practice can be viewed from this unexpected conflict dynamics, in which interactions unfold unpredictably and the mediator needs to connect to these dynamics, move along with, and respond to on the spot occurrences. Section 2.1 provides a deeper understanding around the concept of improvisation, developed mostly from the literature occupied with the arts. Section 2.2 describes the structuring character of mediation practice and defines it further. Section 2.3 focuses on the other aspect of mediation, its unpredictable and disruptive character, as mostly focused on by the literature on improvisation in mediation practice. Section 2.4 refers back to the idea that improvisational activity can be enhanced and developed by the practitioner and points out the convenience of the applied improvisation perspective on conflict resolution practice.
2.1. Exploring Improvisation
“The process of improvisation is involved in many aspects of human behavior beyond those of a musical nature, including adaptation to changing environments, problem solving and perhaps most importantly, the use of natural language, all of which are unscripted behaviors that capitalize on the generative capacity of the brain.” – Limb & Braun (2008: 1)
You could argue that improvisation is in all human practice and conversation, in interaction with others. We have to make on the spot adjustments all the time, design new steps, actions and materials in the moment and respond to when things don’t unfold as planned or ask immediate action from us. Having said that, some practitioners in certain fields, for example within improvisational theater, jazz music, dance or other arts, deal with and use improvisation more explicitly in their practice. According to Dick Swaab, in his book ‘Our Creative Brain’, brain activity research on musicians’ improvisational activity shows an increased stimulation in the brain areas of language, memory and the emotions and shows that improvisational activity is concerned with
30 the quick and merely unconscious processes in the brain (Swaab, 2016: ch5, p.1-2). It is one of the most complex matters to study, ‘one of the most mysterious forms of spontaneous creative behavior’ (Limb & Braun, 2008: 1), as well due to the new and unpredictable outcomes of improvisational processes (Swaab, Ibid.). Hamelink in an interview explained: “It’s a mysterious process in which you don’t know how the song evolves, but you know it will end somewhere” (Hamelinkii, 2018). Recent neuroscientific research has shown that during the improvisational activity of jazz musicians and rap artists viewed under the MRI-scanner, improvisation, in contrary to over-learned musical schemes that they had to practice beforehand, concerns brain areas used for language, communication and having conversations or interaction (Limb & Braun, 2008: 1, Donnay et al., 2014, & Limb, TedX, 2010). The comparison between the mediator and jazz musicians improvising, as displayed further in section 2.3 is thus not so surprising.
Although research on what improvisation actually is, has extended the classical studies on improvisation from the fields of improvisational theater, music, and other arts, with classics such as Keith Johnstone’s book ‘Impro: Improvisation and the Theatre’ (1979), Viola Spolin’s book ‘Improvisation for the Theater’ (1963), and Paul Berliner’s ‘Thinking in Jazz: The infinite art of improvisation’ (1994), our common conceptualization of the concept still rests upon assumptions and misunderstandings of what improvisation entails. It is often referred to as that someone ‘just does something’, or as being a last resort option when things go out of hand or go unplanned. As Berliner describes in his book ‘Thinking in Jazz: The Infinite Art of Improvisation’, improvisation is often defined as follows: “to improvise is to compose [or create], or simultaneously compose and perform, on the spur of the moment without any preparation.” (Berliner, 1994:1). Weick refers to it as: "improvisation involves reworking precomposed material and designs in relation to unanticipated ideas conceived, shaped, and transformed under the special conditions of performance, thereby adding unique features to every creation" (Berliner 1994, p. 241, In: Weick, 1998:544). It is an act without planning, a spontaneous process with unpredictable outcomes. The idea however that improvisation occurs without preparation, training or practice, because it is an act in the moment, ‘doing whatever’, is currently reconsidered. It is the preparation, previous experience and learning from which improvisation indirectly derives, Berliner also notes. Without previously known patterns, tracks that one has walked before, new paths or routes cannot be discovered. A certain confidence or base from which one is enabled to improvise. To be able to improvise means to have a certain grip on the (basic) materials of one’s practice. As a jazz singer describes:
31 “It is very important to understand that improvisation does not come from vagueness and not knowing how to do something. But it comes from experience and a previous background. And from that deepening of knowledge, you can improvise. I cannot really remember a moment when I thought; now I can do it. I now have the idea that I am managing it quite well, but sometimes I’m not. Because some of the pieces are just so difficult, you can just get fooled by them.” – Jazz Singeriii, 2018
"But that is for dancers too, dancers who improvise have also learned techniques. People who just simply swing around in the disco; that is not improvisation! That's just a bit of hopping on music. At least, I assume that it also works like this with dancing [similar to jazz]. That you study, that you learn techniques, that you look at others, that you get ideas, and that it then comes together in the moment. "- Jazz Singeriv, 2018
The role of previous knowledge, experience and preparation is however, more present at the background, and influences indirectly the content and utterances of improvisation. In the spur of the moment this is the background material in the practice and performance of the improvisor, providing the basic structures for future actions. Besides, improvisational activity emerges through a framework or structure of rules and constrains wherein the freedom to improvise is taken by the practitioner. As Barrett notes: ‘jazz is a rule-bound activity’, the soloists are constrained by the framework of musical rules and performance agreements (Barrett & Peplowski, 1998: 558).
Hence, it is ‘the improviser’s evolving storehouse of knowledge’ that makes a difference (1994: 146). This is also connected to the idea that memory is at the heart of improvisation; “to get retrospective access to a greater range of resources” (Weick, 1998: 547). Building onto existing patterns, experiences, forms and materials, is according to Berliner, one of the basic principles that enable the jazz musicians to develop diverse ways of musical thinking which encourage and enable improvisation (Berliner, 1994: 146). Berliner describes that uttered improvisational musical phrases become part of the repertoire of the musicians that have listened to it. It builds upon what is previously done, and because of that, shapes potential for new forms of practice and improvisation. A certain kind of constant learning is present (1994: 221), ‘a relentless pursuit of learning a disciplined imagination’ (Barrett, 2012: Ch1: Improv Paradox p.1). Berliner writes: “in creating solo after solo, jazz improvisers continually explore relationships of musical ideas, negotiating among a mixture of fixed elements, which derive from their storehouses, and fresh, variable elements, which present unique challenges and surprises.” (1994: 221). It is thus a constant negotiation between what they know and are skilled to do, the musical schemes and routines they’ve practiced, and the constant flow of unexpected turns in their surroundings that trigger and challenge them to
