I am waiting for my AI to be approved by my LF. I am going back over the checklist Anthony posted in Plone.

How can I build a strengths-based team?

Discussion on Action Inquiry

Welcome to our dialogue on Action Inquiry.

I welcome questions on all aspects of Action Inquiry but perhaps I should begin with a checklist to help you focus on your topic - your research question.

1.    Is there a clear problem being addressed?
2.    Is this expressed clearly in the research question?
3.    Is the problem within the locus of control of the researcher?
4.    Is there a clear change/action in the proposal?
5.    Is the proposed action future oriented?
6.    Is the researcher engaging the participants in the research process?
7.    Are ethical considerations clearly identified?
8.    Will the data collected be qualitative in nature?
9.    Will the data collected enable the researcher to evaluate their action to inform planning for subsequent cycles?
10.    Is there a domain/s of subject literature identified to be accessed?
11.    Does the proposal have the potential to allow for sufficient depth of analysis to meet the levelness required by the assessment criteria?
12.    Does the proposal have the potential to allow for sufficient reflection on personal practice to meet the levelness required by the assessment criteria?
13.    Are there explicit cycles to the work

That said - What is your first question on Action Inquiry...?

We started in earnest today on the BV project.

VW and KH had to work together for the first time. Following my briefing of the outcomes and principles we would follow to get the job done we worked separately on different parts of a report.

The finished report was printed and bound for GPA before the end of the day. VW and I presented it to GPA.

From including all our names on the cover, to actually completing integral parts of the report that formed its sum, this felt like a job well done.

I felt strong when:

1. The report presented looked the part i.e. outstanding layout
2. The content was a collaborative effort
3. The content was considered and clear
4. The content showed skill in different disciplines i.e. Gantt charting (mpp)
5. The report met the outcome we had agreed as a team i.e. identifying the gaps in the knowledge of the wider working party and starting to highlight how we would respond to meet the project targets

My Action Inquiry proposal is based around building Strengths-based teams in my work setting.

KH and I have now completed the online questionnaire and I will ask the rest of the team leaders to log on and take the test.

A positive side of working with a relatively fresh team (new members of staff) means that working practice is not too entrenched. This is the only certainty with this proposal, I have no idea how the balance of the team will react to completed the questionnaire.

Cycle 2 would include individuals sharing their top 5 themes.

I am pleased with the WA relationship I have started.

I feel strong because:

1. BS is sharing real incidents of his working practice with me
2. BS is using different language to describe the critical incidents I am sharing - this assists in my understanding
3. BS has agreed to give me a weekly slot of 30 minutes