Meeting four finished with a discussion that uncovered the feeling of powerlessness created by the inclusion of the budget accountability within the role. As one participant said:
I think I we could talk forever around it but we’re not going to resolve anything and I just feel if the resolution is for CNLs of the future I think we’ve concluded. I feel we’ve concluded [the budget theme]…. can’t take it out of the CNL description.
I asked directly: “Why not”? The same participant answered:
Because we’ve said that accountants don’t know anything about our job so they need us but whether we could have a closer relationship with [the accountants]
. We speak different languages we talk about patient care and they look at
While at the time this was a “transformative moment” (Wadsworth, 2006, p. 330), it was also a moment symbolic of the feeling of the group having no control over the setting of budget and subsequent accountability in their role. They had agreed they wished to retain components such as review of product and equipment choice but the amount set and any ability to have input into that figure was limited. I suggested that we continued this discussion in meeting five and the group agreed. The meeting closed directly following this discussion.
Park (2006) states that in addition to the more traditional methods of quantitative and qualitative inquiry a non-canonical approach can be used by reaching into the arts to “reveal the more submerged and difficult-to-articulate aspects of the issues involved” (p. 84). Taylor (2006), when discussing reflective processes in research, writes the researcher can be creative in the strategies used. Following meeting four and the group’s perceived powerlessness to influence the organisational expectations of the role, I chose a non- canonical approach. The analogy I wrote to capture this powerlessness and tension between the leadership and management aspects of the role is presented in