"Toward Authentic Dialogue: Origins of the Fishbowl Method and Implications for Writing Center Work"

This article, by Kristen Garrison and Nicole Kraemer Munday, is focused mostly on the relationship between the Writing Center and the larger university. Although that doesn't directly concern tutors, I saw some germane points about talking, listening, and creating an open, egalitarian environment.

Obviously, almost all the work we do at the Writing Center is collaborative. I like to think we're mostly a friendly, informal group. On the other hand, we'd be kidding ourselves if we claimed that we don't have a hierarchical structure here. We do. Between the tutor and student, the tutor has more power; among the tutors and me, I have more power; between Ann Russell and me, Ann has more power. Hopefully, none of us is acting like a petty tyrant, but the reality is that the balance of power affects how open and authentic dialogue can be.

I enjoyed learning about the history of the Fishbowl Method. With no direction and leadership--as fishbowl groups in the late 1960s showed--the dialogue foundered. Even in an egalitarian situation, we apparently need a plan.

So how does this inform our work and our communication here? How do we create a "dynamic, energizing" dialogue that helps us reach the metacognition that Lewin observed in the participants of his study? How do we build our own "collaboratory" that will enable us to "focus on problem solving to achieve positive change"? I'm not asking you to develop definitive answers to these questions, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.