It is something that means much to me too. While I looked mostly at the 'experiencing' being more enriching when alert and alive to what is happening, it is true that participants operating on auto-pilot aren't really 'into' the review, and reviews often get neglected, or worse dictated by the facilitator.

It might be a worthwhile investment to ensure the allocation of 'energy resources' to address all objectives of the programme ;) which is not something I see as cotton wool, but a primary objective.

However, I do agree that cotton wool can be equally damaging, by not really allowing the participants to experience that pride in extending themselves.

I do see the need to push close to the edge of sleep deficit at times. In fact, I'll take out the 'close to the edge of' and plunge right in, since I don't know where that edge really is, and may not be able to judge it accurately in a deficit state anyway. I still think it is worth it at times. The selling factor for me is not to 'create a deficit', but to seize an opportunity that otherwise may be lost. In fact, I bet that the most classic of such times happen when you aren't even thinking about the sleep you will lose, but are excited by what you are up to.

I'm a firm believer of boundaries, and it would never be 'programme design' post a certain time. But no guarantees for campfire conversation that takes on a life of its own, for example. Or a night walk to watch the Chandratal shimmering like a jewel in the moonlight at 4270m above the sea level on a once in a lifetime trek. The keys are voluntary and temptation. I drink alcohol too (its not all that fabulous for my liver or brain).

Another thing I touched on, briefly is the human process and ethics aspect of things. On OAE programmes, the facilitator holds tremendous power, and it is up to our judgement to use it as we see fit. My concern for a long time is that many things facilitators do are more about their own needs than the group. Be it hoarding power, limelight or appreciation. It becomes easy for us to make choices in either direction - cotton wool or extra tough - based mostly on what we prefer for what we get out of it rather than authentic group need. I've seen programmes where I thought that the facilitator should have paid participants rather than the other way around, because he seemed to be the only person actually getting what he wanted.

Before how much sleep or how much coddling (action), it is important to really look at why that choice is being made (intention). Are we ensuring that the client feels 'comfortable' enough to return with more work? Are we trying to set a 'fitness/worthiness' benchmark? Are we of the opinion that the group needs to be shaken up and put their money where their mouth is, and creating an opportunity? Do we think that the group needs to be more sensitive to caring and appreciation? Why are we choosing the approach we are choosing? That I think will lead to better estimation of the 'payoffs' between the lack of sleep/exertion and the value obtained (impact).

Vidyut

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Roger Greenaway <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Outres members,

In between this:

"we intentionally used sleep deprivation as part of the double-edged sword psychological milieu" (James)

and

"cotton wool" (Colin's concern)

is a huge area of OAE practice for which we have a reasonably good research base.

The concerns I have expressed about the intentional use of sleep deprivation do not make me an advocate of cotton wool - and nor do they place me towards that end of the spectrum. But I do enjoy discussion and exploration around the edges of what we do especially, if this throws up interesting questions worthy of further research or discussion.

For example, Elinor raised some interesting philosophical questions ... "Are they hallucinations, or are they altered perceptions? ... Seeking to dismiss another's experience as 'not real', however, is in my view not an ethical option." I agree in the sense that we can never really know what another person experiences because experience is subjective. But I think the more important ethical question is the effects (on self and others) of having a particular view of reality. Is the belief harmful to self or others? Concerning sleep deprivation (or lack of sleep) 100% of the research shows it is harmful.

As there appear to be several outres members who wish to believe otherwise, then maybe that could be a fruitful area of research? Vidyut's comments suggest many useful directions that such research might take. Viddyut says 'the line is fine' and suggests ways we can weigh up the pros and cons in this area. A key factor (not yet mentioned) affecting the position of this 'fine line' is the age of participants. But I do not understand why it is so necessary to push so close to the edge of sleep deficit for possibly (but probably not) better results when there are so many other wonderful factors and 'edges' that make OAE such a powerful medium for education and development.

There is another side effect arising from lack of sleep which is of particular interest to me - which is how it affects review and reflection sessions. Quite simply, when people have a sleep deficit it is difficult to facilitate a group discussion in which everyone stays alert and awake. In recognition of this problem, some practitioners avoid reviewing all together and keep people awake with activities. This is not the place to offer my own solutions to this problem, but it would certainly be less of a problem if participants have had a good night's sleep.

So another casualty of sleep deficit is high quality meaningful reflection. If people are short of sleep because they have stayed up late round the campfire having engaging reflective discussions, then my argument may shift a bit - but this example is far removed from 'the intentional use of sleep deprivation' which is something I could never support. And, as far as I can see, neither does any research.

Roger

Roger Greenaway
Reviewing Skills Training
< http://reviewing.co.uk>