USING STORY ON COMMITTEES

Using story - also referred to as narrative, or story-telling; in other words, stories based on lived experience - is one of the main features of the discourse of many oppressed groups, including people diagnosed with a mental illness.

Consumer discourse differs from medical discourse, bureaucratic discourse, research discourse, clinical discourse, management discourse and even carer discourse. These differences are fundamental to the ways different groups communicate, both inside their own group and outside.

For a detailed guide to telling and using story in all sorts of contexts, not just in committee work, see Speaking Our Minds: A Guide to How We Use Our Stories (www.ourcommunity.com.au/files/SpeakingOurMinds.pdf).

On committees, various discourses confront each other and often vie for space, prominence and authority. Some discourses have more institutional power than others, consumer discourse tends to have the least power of all, and most committees have disproportionately few consumers. This combination of factors means that using narrative is not only an art but a minority art. We have to learn to use this tool exceptionally well if our message is going to stick.

Nevertheless, many consumers believe we have an ethical obligation to use story in committee deliberations, especially the more important ones. And some of us believe committees would benefit if other (non-consumer) committee members used story too. Overseas studies have shown that it changes the way decisions are made, and it changes the level of comfort for everyone on the committee. It means narrative is seen as more acceptable, even essential, by many on the committee who would otherwise not 'get it'.

Narrative discourse plays a very important role in highlighting the effect that committees' decisions have on real people. It doesn't mean the story needs to be about a real person using services provided by the organisation that engages and funds the committee; far from it. Narrative holds a different way of thinking, a different philosophy about what counts as knowledge.

Unfortunately, many consumers have experienced working on committees that are ignorant about the use of story. For example, other members have a tendency to use 'story time' to read something else very overtly, or they take over and patronise consumers. Chairs have a big responsibility here, and they do not always live up to it. They might prefix consumer stories with comments such as "make it short now" or "not too long". (They never say this to other committee members.)

Attitudes such as this also underpin the idea that consumers need to be educated in meeting procedures and meeting etiquette, when we would argue that it is the committee that needs to be educated. Most committee members will be unaware that there is a problem; that consumer discourse is being inhibited by competing discourses.

There are ways we can learn to use story wisely - and not all the time and not too long and… There is a need for training here. (In fact, we'd argue that training in using story well is much more useful than training in how to take minutes or how a committee is structured.) Story envelops messages that privileged groups might otherwise misinterpret, redraft, overlook or just fail to understand.

When to use story

We all have a variety of ways of communicating with other committee members: story is just one of them. Different subject matter offers opportunities to communicate in different ways. Story, however, attracts attention because:

• Narrative is unusual in a committee context, and some committee members experience a wave of fear because they don't 'get it'. These people are often important or powerful, and they are accustomed to 'getting it'. Not understanding sometimes causes powerful people to transfer their fear back onto the story-telling consumer. In doing so, they might describe our chosen discourse as 'inappropriate' rather than examining why they are feeling uncomfortable. (The term 'inappropriate' is used often in psychiatry, and it pushes our buttons because it begs the question of who decides what is and isn't 'appropriate' - very rarely us!)
• Story is about emotions. There is debate within the mental health sector about whether emotions should or should not be part of meeting protocol.

Whether you choose to use story in your committee work may depend on the type of committee you are sitting on. Generally, story is tolerated better on local committees than on state or national committees. However, paradoxically, it might be these high-level committees that most need to learn from it.

We do, however, need to be judicious in how many stories we tell, and very tight in the telling.

Using story effectively

We must take responsibility for the way we use narrative. If a consumer yells a narrative account at other committee members, all this shows is that the consumer involved is rude and that using narrative is unattractive.

How can we use story effectively when we are outnumbered by people representing alternative (but not better or more important) discourses? It's hard. In order to be confident and competent about using narrative on a particular committee, first consider asking for some time, perhaps 20 minutes at one meeting, to educate committee members about its use. Explain why using narrative is important, tell a short story (don't let anyone call it an anecdote, because this belies the importance of the narrative), and then join the story to social or educational theory. This demonstrates that you are passionate and can put forward an intelligible argument to explain your story.

Most committee members will need step-by-step help in understanding. Take nothing for granted. Make absolutely sure the chair knows exactly what you are going to do before the meeting. If people feel they have been misled more trouble will arise.

Using narrative doesn't come naturally to all of us. Some of us can be very long-winded. Some of us use narrative that goes nowhere; i.e. that doesn't envelop a message. Following are some key skills that we can learn to help us become better users of narrative.

• Use a story only if it enhances your argument.
• Keep it short; practise this skill with other consumers if you get a chance. As a general rule, telling a story on a state or national committee shouldn't take much longer than five minutes.
• Try to keep your passion controlled. Passion is inevitable when we believe strongly in something, but uncontrolled passion can camouflage your message. Some committee members will just switch off. Try not to feed their need for you to react to their stereotyping of you as your diagnosis. Stay calm even if you are infuriated by this. People rarely take responsibility for their own part in how all this gets played out in a meeting, but all we can do is stay strong inside ourselves.
• Consider what is useful and what is less useful in using narrative. This is best done in a training exercise with an experienced consumer team.
• A story needn't be about your own experiences of using particular services. Sometimes, a story comes from an experience as an observer (see the case study following for an example).
• Your narrative must be short but it still needs structure: a beginning, substance, and a conclusion, including ideas for change.
• Don't use props, such as PowerPoint, just for the sake of it. You might use them if you believe they'll make you look more professional, but it's an individual call. Sometimes narrative just arises in the meeting and you will have nothing written down, no PowerPoint, just you and your story.
• If your story relates to an item held over from the last meeting, have it placed on the agenda and be firm about it. The very worst time to try to make narrative work is during 'other business', when people are itching to leave or to share food and drinks. If the chair is resistant, enlist someone else to help you lobby. If this doesn't work, you might have to introduce the item during the meeting.
• Think about what you are going to do if a chair cuts you off before you have started to speak. Consider whether you would want to complain to whomever the chair reports to.
• If there are committee members participating in the meeting by phone link-up, they won't be able to see your hands or body language. In this case, be especially mindful of your voice: your tone, volume, modulation, and all the other ways you can tell a story when you can't be seen.
• Sum up your story. What do you want the committee to do? How do you suggest they should do it? Who would you like to see execute this if the rest of the committee agrees to your suggestion?

Dealing with resistance

You might have to tell your story while people lean back on their chairs, fold their hands, read another document, look away from you, or even get up and leave the room. This is rude. It's also what people do if they are unconvinced of the value of something, believe something is a waste of time by virtue of the fact that you are a consumer, or feel embarrassed for you. When this happens, try one of the following strategies:

• Stop. Don't say anything, and wait for people to be embarrassed.
• Pose a question.
• Say something like, "We'll do this next meeting when people are ready." You have to be brave to do this. They'll probably blame your diagnosis. They probably won't see themselves as the problem that they are.
• Continue on regardless, and try not to let others' cynicism interrupt the cadence of your narrative. Perhaps ask some searching questions later that will make the rest of the committee think a bit.
• Comment on the lack of respect being shown towards you. Maybe pull individual members up. Then go on. (Before you choose this option, reflect on whether you have ever been guilty of showing this sort of dismissive body language to others.)

Story in action: an example

Melanie sits on the Board of a large organisation. She is a consumer with a particular interest in borderline personality disorder and a strong track record. She is also skilled and confident using narrative and sees it as 'the people's language'. This is the story she told as part of her work on that Board:

"One of the most extraordinary things that has happened to me during my long years of battling for people with 'Borderline' came after a run of keynote addresses.

"I'd spoken in my own address about people with a Borderline diagnosis and the relationship between this diagnosis and childhood trauma, specifically sexual abuse. A young woman approached me afterwards. She wanted to tell me she had a Borderline label but no trauma. She said she wished she had been sexually abused. Was she dishonouring the pain and shame of survivors of childhood sexual abuse? Was it more complicated than this? These questions perplexed me for a long time.

"They were answered over the next six months when person after person came to me saying the same thing. Interestingly, they were in capital cities and regional centres in four different states, so it doesn't seem to be a state sort of thing. The only conclusion I could draw was that there were two hierarchies (maybe more) operating within mental health.

One was a hierarchy of diagnosis and legitimacy which started with schizophrenia on the top and dumped personality disorders on the absolute bottom. The second was a hierarchy of abuse and trauma which started with childhood sexual abuse on the top and unknown, faceless, 'nothing' trauma on the bottom.

"All these young people, men and woman, were facing a life of terrible suffering that they could attribute to nothing. They all saw themselves as evil, a disgrace, with nothing to salvage of themselves as useful people in our world. That's why they yearned for a history of sexual abuse. At least it might carry some meaning.

"We need to address this here in this organisation with some urgency and dedicate real resources to this particular category of people who we often dishonour, stereotype and dislike. What can we do at this senior level to prevent the sorts of stories I've just told from re-emerging in our own services?

"I'm not going to be silenced on this one. The suffering has gone on for too long and some of it is caused by our preoccupation with people with schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses. This is a forbidden comment, I know, but the time has come to make it. I suggest we drive this firstly by asking the CEO to produce an accurate breakdown of who uses our services by diagnosis and then we can get Iris to have a look at the money allocated to Borderline as a percentage of total expenditure. We also need the CEO to explore what sorts of services are being offered to people with a primary diagnosis of 'borderline'.

"We have been stalling for too long in this area. I would like us to make a commitment today to make this a priority. It's long overdue and people are suffering. I put forward that we have the figures and some initial analysis on the table by next month's meeting".

Back to top