in the manner as set out above (cf. 'Storied practical theology'). Naturally it also relates to the way in which interdisciplinary dialogue shapes us and is shaped by us.Along with Freedman and Combs (1996), our preference for narrative practice (e.g. research, therapy, inquiry, coaching and facilitation) derives from the way in which narratives organise and maintain our lives (Freedman & Combs 1996:29-33). Some authors have worked with narrative as an organising metaphor for a number of years (both in the humanities and social sciences), before narrative ideas began to be used in the field of therapy (the context in which Freedman & Combs [1996] write). Amongst the authors they refer to include: E. Bruner (1986) Ethnography as narrative; J. Bruner (1986) Actual minds, possible worlds; and Geertz (1983) Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology (Freedman & Combs 1996:29-33).By inscribed we do not mean to imply passivity. On the contrary, telling our stories involves activity (i.e. construction) but we do this by interpretively weaving together an inner envelope that consists of our past life experiences, our current situatedness and our anticipation of the future. We also do this set against an outer envelope that involves the broader social milieu and socially constructed realities. Irrespective of whatever rationalities might be part of facilitation, they all already form part of a reality that is socially constructed. On a sociological level, these realities are formed along the lines of subjectification, externalisation, objectification (which consists of typification, institutionalisation, and legitimisation), and internalisation (Arbnor & Bjerke 2009:144-148; cf. Freedman & Combs 1996:23-27).Secondly, interdisciplinary dialogue consists of a duet and not a duel.9 In this sense it is natural that one of the ways in which the inscribed facilitator is informed would be different aspects that the duet partner contributes. A narrative approach concurs with facilitative traditions, for example those that try to instil a 'respectful, accepting culture, deep embodied listening, the ability to be in silence together, the willingness to speak from one's own experience or knowing, and the willingness to suspend judgments' (Hunter et al. 2007:98). This is also called a sacred space (Hunter et al. 2007:98), which resonates with the reference to a transitional space mentioned earlier. Narrative practice further corresponds to what Arbnor and Bjerke (2009:18-19) refer to as the basic criteria of any inquiry (their context of inquiry notably that of business methodology), namely, awareness and self-reflection. Although a word of caution at this stage: it is not a matter of becoming aware rather than in reflecting and becoming aware, one is busy constructing or inventing - Rorty notes that we tend to think of causes as discoveredrather than invented (1989:28). The prominence of narrative also relates to ideas such as appreciative inquiry often used in the corporate environment. We gather from Rodas-Meeker and Meeker (2005:99) that appreciate inquiry (AI) as they employ it in facilitation, is a process relevant in probing the history and stories of an organisation. In relation to narrative therapy, Freedman and Combs (1996:15-16) mention that in their time, interventions were aimed at specific problems and goals, but, having