Video: The difference between graphic facilitation and graphic recording

What exactly is the difference between graphic facilitation and graphic recording? We asked Brandy Agerbeck from loosetooth.com this question some time ago. Here is her personal video answer.

Note: A summarized translation of the video can be found directly in the attachment. 🙂

Brandy Agerbeck began her career in 1996 at Ernest & Young , who at that time were looking for junior staff to support the delivery of change management workshops. These workshops were based on a process developed by MG Taylor .

"You are all facilitators," they were told on the very first day. "Regardless of your role in the process, you are there to make things easier for the participants. You help them do their work more easily and effectively." There were numerous tasks for the facilitators to complete. Brandy's job was to record the group's dialogues on enormous whiteboards. This would remain her role for the next three years, and she learned a great deal about facilitation and processes using the MG-Taylor process. She also learned a lot about different clients and industries.

In 2000, Brandy attended her first IFVP conference . IFVP stands for "International Forum of Visual Practitioners" and is the conference for people who do exactly the same thing as Brandy. This first conference was surprising for Brandy in several ways. The first thing she learned was that many of her colleagues called themselves "Graphic Recorders." She also noticed that many of the conference attendees came from "The Grove"—the large San Francisco-based company run by David Sibbet.

Furthermore, there were participants whose role, from Brandy's perspective, was rather passive. They tried to become virtually invisible in the process – like a ninja. Others, on the other hand, felt that the meeting was being channeled through them and then transcribed onto a piece of paper. Without wanting to criticize the working methods of others, Brandy understood her own role in the process as significantly more active. Even though she is the "silent" partner of the classic facilitator in a meeting, she nevertheless understands her task as facilitative (supportive) and definitely as an active role .

Since that first conference over 13 years ago, there has been an ongoing discussion about the question: "What is graphic facilitation and what is graphic recording? Where do the two differ, and where do they overlap?" Brandy is certain that it is indeed important to gain clarity about terminology within the field—also from the client's perspective. After all, they want to find exactly what they are looking for. However, Brandy is also skeptical that a consensus will ever be reached on this issue. From her own perspective, which is informed by the MG Taylor process she learned, she is a graphic facilitator. The "other school"—namely, that of "The Grove"—understands a graphic facilitator as someone who fulfills the role of the classic facilitator and is also responsible for "process visualization." From their perspective, Brandy's role is that of a "graphic recorder."

Collaboration (with the customer) as a differentiating factor

Instead of focusing on the obvious differences in definition within the field itself, Brandy prefers to offer a different perspective on the distinctions between the two terms. One aspect is the collaboration or partnership with the client. How strong is the collaboration? Brandy uses the image of a scale here – with "Graphic Facilitation" on one end and "Graphic Recording" on the other. From her perspective, there are many gradations between the two regarding the level of collaboration with the client. We imagine Brandy's scale as follows:

While graphic facilitators prefer to be involved in the process, discussing the agenda and visual tools and actively contributing, graphic recorders, from Brandy's perspective, are content simply to show up at the meeting with their markers and a roll of paper. Brandy herself feels comfortable in any area of ​​this spectrum. She believes it's the client's responsibility to define the job requirements. Although she loves working in a collaborative environment, she has no problem if a client contacts her to essentially drop her into the meeting with just a roll of paper and markers. Logically, there are specialists for both approaches. And there are those who are able to cover the entire spectrum.

Type of representation as a distinguishing criterion

As another way to differentiate between the two terms, Brandy Agerbeck cites the style of presentation. Again, she uses the image of a scale – on one side, the facilitator, on the other, the recorder. In the other dimension, however, it is now the issue of "attention to detail" or "verbatim transcription" that, in her view, makes the difference between the two. She sees pure "recording" more as a kind of journalistic activity with many details, while the facilitative approach strives to identify patterns in the contributions and illustrate connections. Brandy understands the work of the graphic facilitator as organizing the content and creating a synthesis from it. And, of course, she sees her strength precisely in this role. Anyone who wants to learn more should read her book "The Guide to Graphic Facilitation." You can find it in German exclusively in the Neuland shop.

Similarities

Despite all the differences, Brandy Agerbeck sees some fundamental similarities. Whether recorder or facilitator – both do their job to help a group do its work better. Both capture the big picture of the dialogues live during the meeting and help the group recognize the connections and the bigger picture.