participant in the project. That is to say, he attended regularly and showed some evidence
of his work in the SAC. However, the communication with him was very difficult 10.
Very often, when talking to him, I had the feeling that we were having two different
conversations, rather, it was like having two monologues that did not overlap in a very
polite way. Analysing the different interactions with him, it is difficult to find anything
that would have made me be aware of comembership of any kind. Most of the times I
had the feeling that my questions and his answers did not match. My field notes reveal
my concern about our interaction
C: What is going on with S?.... He is not aware that he needs to
practise, however his answer is always “with practise”. I don’t think that we
are communicating at all..How can I tell him...This time S didn’t remember
what he had to do for this session, but he read me a text he wrote about
Oaxacan ethnic groups.....Why I don’t find myself with him? Why I don’t feel
satisfied with what he does? Why do I feel that I cannot help him?.....Maybe I
don’t function with S because......
Furthermore, from his part, there never was a reference of the input I provided (which
was not the case with most of the participants), something that, I believe (see 7.2.3, p.
222), proved to be a good way to develop comembership between the participants and I.
Actually, the fact that the participants agreed, or did not agree, to work under the
same scheme I put forward in the input sessions was not enough to develop a record,
either good or bad. T provided evidence to support this view. Along the whole project he
expressed his disbelief in certain elements of the scheme. He was always direct and open
about this. On one occasion, for instance, I asked everybody to give personal examples
of all the different stages of the learning process we had been working with. He said:
T: I didn’t do that part. Don’t expect me to remember all the things that you
said. You know, I don’t work that way. I don’t believe in that.
I think that the difference between T and S is that with T, his open and
straightforward manner, made me realise what to expect from him. In the case of S, I had
no expectation because it was so difficult for me to say what his position was. I said,
there was no communication, and communication for me is essential to interact with
learners. To speak the same language, so to say, is an essential comembership element
for the good development of counselling sessions.
In short, two strong beliefs of mine were the cause of F and S developing bad
records, one is the belief that there should be a commitment by both parties in a
counselling relationship, and second, the belief that without communication it is
241