As women arrived at the Glenerin Inn in a suburb of Toronto they seemed shocked by the contrast between the spartan retreat centre we used for the first workshop and this relatively luxurious complex. Those of us who had made the arrangements, quickly and quite self-consciously reassured women that CCLOW had managed to get an excellent conference rate because of the recession and that we were not paying the prices posted in each room. Throughout the four days, however, women continued to use the setting as a metaphor for the luxury of attention we seldom are given and seldom feel comfortable taking.

We spent Thursday afternoon and evening telling stories about what had happened since we last met. Earlier in the month, women had received the written descriptions of all the communities, programs, and woman-positive activities. Hearing each woman's personal interpretation added many different layers. Women had a chance to meet in their affinity groups from the first workshop and many stayed up late talking informally with each other.

The next morning we reviewed the research design and timelines and had a general discussion about documentation. We talked about the different forms of documentation currently being produced. We had women's journals and interview transcripts. We had descriptions of each program, its community, and its woman-positive activity. In some programs, those involved in the activities planned to produce books, a set of pamphlets, a poster, a newspaper, or a policy statement. CLOW planned to produce a poster representing the entire project and to develop a final publication outlining the research process.

After this review, women divided into three different groups according to the kinds of documentation they planned for their programs. These groups rotated through three different hour-long activities.

Activity 1: The women worked with each other and with Aisla Thomson on their program descriptions. They asked questions and suggested additions or changes. They started to talk about the next section to be added, the section describing what happened because of the woman- positive activities.

Activity 2: I reviewed the documentation process with the program women in each group. We discussed what they had been doing, how useful it was, what they might want to change, and how they saw their final program product developing. We also talked briefly about ideas for the final project publication(s).

Activity 3: Frances facilitated a process where women named the issues arising both within their programs and within themselves as a consequence of implementing their woman-positive activity. She used a web chart to document these discussions, introducing one way we might move into collaborative analysis.