Two Professors Walk into a Workshop

A Reflective Self-Study of Co-Facilitation Through Critical Friendship

By Smitty Miller & Dr. Andrea Sator

Co-Facilitation

As faculty, we are encouraged to seek out interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary collaborations. These collaborations can be energizing, creative, and even transformative.

They can also be awkward, stressful, and occasionally make you wonder why you ever agreed to put another meeting in your calendar.

For us, the experience turned out to be very much worth it.

When we signed up to co-facilitate a faculty workshop on community engagement for the 2025–2026 Launch—a year-long professional development program for newly hired permanent faculty—we did not really know each other. We were both still settling into new roles, new environments, and the general “Where is that form? Who do I ask? Am I supposed to know this already?” stage of academic life.

But we quickly discovered that we worked well together. We had an easy rapport, and our different approaches complemented each other. One of us brought structure, planning, and a love of making sure things were grounded in theory. The other brought a more relational, intuitive, and experience-based approach.

In other words, one of us brought the plan. The other helped make sure the plan left room for actual humans.

Somehow, it worked.

The workshop itself was a success. Participants responded positively, and we received encouraging feedback from Launch leaders. But after the session, we realized that the most interesting part of the experience was not just whether the workshop had “gone well.” It was how we had worked together to create it.

So, we decided to keep talking.

Critical Friendship

After the session, we met for a debrief. Because we both found the collaboration meaningful, we decided to look more closely at our experience using the idea of “critical friendship” (Schuck & Russell 2005). That term sounds a bit formal, and possibly like something that requires a cardigan and a bibliography, but the idea is simple: a critical friend is someone who supports you, asks thoughtful questions, challenges you with care, and helps you better understand your own practice.

A good critical friend does not simply say, “Great job!” and move on. They also do not say, “Here are twelve reasons you are wrong.” Ideally, they help create a space where honest reflection can happen without defensiveness.

That was what we wanted to do.

The Process

We began with a guiding question: How did engaging in critical friendship help us better understand our co-facilitation of the community engagement session? More specifically, what values, tensions, and relational practices shaped the experience, and what might we learn from this for future collaborations?

To guide our conversation, we agreed on a simple process. We would talk first about what happened, then about what it meant. We would ask each other questions, notice assumptions, name any tensions, and look for themes that emerged from the experience.

Some of the questions we explored included:

What assumptions about community engagement were we bringing into the session?

Where did we feel most aligned with our intentions, and where did things feel less aligned?

How did our relationship as co-facilitators shape the tone and flow of the session?

What did each of us notice that the other may not have seen in the moment?

Where did we model community engagement well, and where were we mainly talking about it?

What would we do differently next time?

These questions led to a rich and surprisingly honest conversation. A few themes stood out.

Emerging Themes

First, we realized how much we influenced each other’s thinking. We each brought different strengths, but neither approach took over. The session became stronger because it was shaped by both of us. What began as a more theory-heavy workshop gradually became something more open, participant-centred, and alive in the moment.

Second, we noticed that there were small tensions along the way. One of us wondered whether they had contributed enough. The other wondered whether they had stepped in too quickly or too strongly at times. These are the kinds of things that can stay unspoken in collaborations, quietly lurking in the background like an unlabeled shared document. But because there was trust between us, we were able to name them without judgment.

That trust mattered.

It allowed us to talk honestly about vulnerability, contribution, and uncertainty without the conversation turning defensive. Instead of seeing our differences as problems, we began to see them as part of what made the collaboration work.

We also kept returning to the importance of relationship. The way we co-facilitated was not just about dividing up slides or deciding who would say what. It was about being able to read the room, check in with each other, adjust in the moment, and trust that the other person would respond with care.

That relational foundation shaped the session. In fact, it reflected what we were trying to teach. We were not just talking about community engagement. We were trying to practice it.

Another important realization was that we did not need to position ourselves as experts delivering content. The most meaningful parts of the workshop happened when we created space for participants to share, reflect, and define community engagement through their own experiences. This shifted the session from “Here is what community engagement is” to “Let’s think together about what community engagement asks of us.”

That felt important.

We also learned that structure and flexibility do not have to be enemies. One of us needed a clear plan, timeline, and sense of organization. The other leaned more toward flow, responsiveness, and trusting the conversation. At first glance, those approaches might seem like they would clash. In practice, they balanced each other beautifully.

The structure gave the session shape. The flexibility gave it life.

From the outside, the workshop may have looked smooth and seamless. From the inside, we now understand how much quiet negotiation, trust, and responsiveness made that possible.

Perhaps the biggest lesson was that the most meaningful parts of the session were not the theories we had originally thought we needed to include. They were the choices we made about how to engage people.

We chose not to assign pre-reading. We invited people into a circle. We created space for dialogue. We allowed participants’ voices to lead. These choices reflected the values we wanted to bring into the room: humility, care, inclusivity, responsiveness, and respect.

Outcomes

In the end, critical friendship helped us slow down and look more carefully at the relationship between what we intended, what we actually did, and what we value as educators.

It helped us see that the success of the session was not about how much content we delivered. It was about how we showed up. It was about how we created space for others. It was about trust, shared responsibility, and attentiveness to the people in the room.

It also helped us understand that tension is not necessarily a sign that something has gone wrong. Sometimes tension simply means that people are bringing different strengths, needs, and ways of working into the same space. When there is enough trust, those differences can become productive rather than difficult.

Our collaboration reminded us that good faculty work is not only intellectual. It is relational. It depends on listening, adjusting, noticing, and sometimes admitting that you are not entirely sure what you are doing, but you are willing to figure it out together.

And really, that may be one of the most honest definitions of collaboration we can offer.

Smitty Miller is an Assistant Professor in the UFV Department of Information Studies. Dr. Andrea Sator is an Assistant Professor and Chair of the UFV Applied Business Technology program.

Reference

Schuck, S. & Russell, T. (2005). Self-study, critical friendship, and the complexities of teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 107-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960500288291