Framing Model

To what extent, and in what ways, does a practitioner impose their own coherence, and/or their own values, on the situtation of practice (as opposed to being open and inclusive of other's values, and the ways participants might bring their own coherence to a situation)?

What sorts of prejudices and preconceptions does the practitioner have that may influence their actions in the situation of practice? What personal desires or goals may influence their actions? To what extent do they work to overcome these or account for them?

What is the degree of authenticity with which the practitioner acts, as opposed to adopting an artificial stance or not behaving towards participants in an honest, straightforward, and in-the-moment manner?

To what extent do the representations, verbal and physical actions, and other sorts of interventions a pracititioner makes in the situation of practice, create and preserve communicative openness and a spirit of dialogue among the participants (as opposed to enshrining one point of view or a top-down/one-way mode of communication, or one that gives more weight/credence to some participants or positions than others)?

To what extent do the representational artifacts a practitioner has a direct hand in exhibit clarity of meaning, expressivenes of depiction and articulation, and helpfulness to participants within (and beyond) the situation of practice (as opposed to artifacts that are difficult to understand, inarticulate, or not useful)?

What sort of gaps, breaches, or anomalies does the practitioner encounter, and how much / in what ways do they persevere in overcoming them (as opposed to giving up a desired course of action or direction)? What is the specific character of the checks/resistance from either people, materials, or situation, and how does that play into the way the practitioner either perseveres or doesn't?

Gives a sense of what practitioners must encounter/overcome in the course of their work.

What narratives does the practitioner use to understand the events in the current situation, that give context to the ways breaches and anomalies occur as well as the actions they take to respond to them? To what extent are those narratives useful in constructing positive and helpful responses? To what extent are they evocative (as opposed to stultifying or constraining), and inclusive (as opposed to excluding or marginalizing aspects, people, or interests in the situation)?