AI Practitioner
February 2010
Volume 12 Number 1 ISBN 978-1-907549-00-7
Lena Holmberg
Jan Reed
has a PhD in Educational Research, worked as a
consultant and manager in an IT company and started
the AI consulting company Apprino. With Jan Reed,
she was guest editor of the November issue of the AI
Practitioner in 2007 that focused on AI and research.
Contact: [email protected]
lenamholmberg.blogspot.com
PhD, BA, RN has been involved in research for many
years. She has a nursing qualification, and teaches and
supervises healthcare students at the Northumbria
University. Her interest in the possibilities and
contributions of Appreciative Inquiry research to the
processes of change has recently resulted in a book.
Contact: [email protected]
AI Research Notes
edited by Lena Holmberg and Jan Reed
AI Research Notes carries
news of AI research
developments. We’d like
to make it as collaborative
and appreciative as
we can – we know that
many of you are working
and thinking about the
relationship between
academic research and AI,
and that you have news,
comments and questions
which we’d like you to
contribute.
In this section
Editors’ Note
Appreciating AI Research from a Practitioner’s Point of View
Accounts and comments
••A Practitioner’s Perspective by Bernard Mohr
••Embracing the Whole of Human Language – Dancing with Words and
Metaphors and Creating New Worlds by Katja Finger Avenstam
••Appreciative Inquiry Research: A Story from the Field by Ann ShackladySmith
Invitation to contribute
In the next issue (May 2010) Michel Avital will write about Generative Theory.
Would you like to comment? Please send suggestions and material to
[email protected] or [email protected]
Appreciating AI Research from a Practitioner’s Point of View
This column came into being because of Bernard Mohr. One fine day in June
2009, he wrote to us and pointed out that, given the breadth of AI ‘applications’,
it is quite difficult to address questions like ‘does AI work better than deficit
based approaches?’ Despite the obvious challenges, he nevertheless urged us
to try to bring together relevant research addressing a long list of questions.
We are still struggling with finding a way of doing this: that would have to be a
collaborative effort as the research fields involved are numerous. But we will get
back to this question in columns later next year.
However, what especially delighted us about Bernard’s letter was that it
expressed an interest from a practitioner regarding research results. Professor
Lennart Svensson, a Swedish authority on action research, makes a distinction
between four different ways of doing research (2000): Do research on, do
research for, do research on behalf of and do research with. Traditionally,
AIP February 10 AI Research Notes
More AI Resources at www.aipractitioner.com 54
AI Practitioner
Volume 12 Number 1 ISBN 978-1-907549-00-7
February 2010
research is done on people, where individuals are seen as objects and theory
and practice are kept separate. When doing research for groups, the view of
people as objects still remains. Although there is a focus on usefulness and
active participation, the researcher is still considered the expert. When doing
research on behalf of, the researcher is commissioned to develop new knowledge
especially for a particular group. The individuals are no longer considered
objects, but subjects directing the research.
When doing research with people, everyone participating is considered a subject
with their own agenda. Theory and practice are developed in parallel, but
researchers and practitioners have different roles in knowledge development.
A joint and simultaneous learning takes place, through equal and reciprocal
relations with the purpose of creating insightful theory and applicable practice.
We like doing research with AI practitioners, which is why it is important for us
to know what they would like from research. We asked Bernard his opinions:
he came up with a very long and interesting list of research questions. We also
asked Katja Avenstam, an avid AI practitioner who has applied AI in a university
context, to comment on this topic; she outlines an explorative journey into the
use of language and metaphors. She participated in the AI programme at Case
Western at the same time as Ann Shacklady-Smith, a researcher at Manchester
Business School who is also an AI practitioner. Ann writes about how practise
might benefit from adopting research practice. Together, they have created a set
of very valuable insights, as well as a challenging and exciting research agenda!
Lena Holmberg and Jan Reed
References
Svensson, L. (2000). ‘Att forska och utveckla tillsammans – om gemensam
kunskapsbildning mellan forskare och praktiker’ [Doing Research and
Development Together – On Joint Knowledge Development by Researchers and
Practitioners]. Artikel ur ‘Lärdilemman – Teoretiska och praktiska perspektiv på
lärande i arbetslivet’, Backlund m.fl. (red). Studentlitteratur, 2001.
A Practitioner’s
Perspective
Bernard Mohr
Innovation Partners
[email protected]
I’m not an academic, but in my view research is really the life blood for our
practice. Without it we would be nothing more than technicians jumping from
tool to tool and method to method. David Cooperrider’s doctoral thesis (and
the subsequent article) ‘Appreciative Inquiry In Organizational Life’ represented
frame-bending research. Of course we need more of that; we are increasingly
benefitting from research at the component level and phenomenological or story
levels. Barbara Fredrickson’s wonderful work on the power of emotions and the
plethora of case histories from almost every conceivable corner of the world,
describing almost every imaginable ‘application’ of AI, using almost every ‘form
of engagement’ that has been articulated. So what is left to research?
I think the answer is ‘much’. In particular if we could continue the component
level (that is, understanding the impact of conversations on the brain) and
phenomenological or story levels (all those wonderful narratives), but add a
focus on the ‘system dynamic level’ – what would that mean? For example, given
the breadth of AI ‘applications’ – from couples therapy, to team building, to
strategic planning, to designing an organization’s social and technical systems,
to reshaping culture, to building inter-organizational networks – I can imagine
AIP February 10 AI Research Notes
55
AI Practitioner
Volume 12 Number 1 ISBN 978-1-907549-00-7
February 2010
the complexity of trying to address questions such as ‘does AI work better than
deficit-based approaches? When and under what conditions?’ But I can dream.
And since I can ‘Dream’, I wonder if your/our efforts might include bringing
together the plethora of research at the micro or component level that already
exists to support what I think of loosely as the ‘constituent practices of AI’:
••Creating the frame ( the ‘Definition’)
••Collecting information and sense-making (the ‘Discovery phase’)
••Visioning/Goal Setting (the ‘Dream phase’)
••Innovation design ( the ‘Design phase’ )
••Implementation, measurement and modification (the ‘Delivery or
Destiny’ phase)
By this I mean, for example, the research on the power of a vision. Visioning
research (or Dreaming as we know it) is well described in David Coperrider’s
seminal ‘Positive Image, Positive Action’ paper (1990). Could we inventory and
make easily accessible the research which is available to answer the questions:
••What evidence is available to understand why/whether/when paired
interviews are better for collecting ‘data’ than other methods?
••What evidence is available to understand why/whether/when
storytelling is a superior process to PowerPoint presentations or
‘spreadsheet data’?
••What evidence is available to understand the links between ‘innovation/
creativity’ and positive questions?
••What evidence is available showing why/whether/when participative
‘designing’ processes are superior to ‘expert’ driven processes?
••What evidence is available to understand why/whether/when
‘improvisation’ is better than ‘creating and sticking to detailed change
plans in complex systems’?
••What evidence is available to understand why/whether/when
conversations shift our neural functioning?
And of course all of this is within the frame of ‘AI Research’, which is a curious and
intriguing topic in and of itself. After all, isn’t what we as practitioners do with our
clients pose questions and make sense of the answers? Are we researchers? Just
where is that boundary between AI Research and appreciative action research?
And what is AI Research? Is it an investigation into the nature of Appreciative
Inquiry? Are AI Researchers attempting to prove or disprove the Appreciative
Inquiry ‘hypothesis’– and what would that mean?
And what about ‘evaluation’? If AI is a form of discernment, seeking to identify
that which is most valuable in any situation, is that not a form of evaluation?
What about that boundary – the one between AI, AI Research and Evaluation.
Even just a dialogue on these questions would make a great read!
AIP February 10 AI Research Notes
56
AI Practitioner
Volume 12 Number 1 ISBN 978-1-907549-00-7
February 2010
I’m delighted that you are undertaking this journey. Whether my personal wishes
get met or not is irrelevant. It is important that our community engages with
these ideas. That is a key part of our evolution. You are our evolutionary guides!
References
Cooperrider, D.L. (1990) ‘Positive Image, Positive Action: the Affirmative
Basis of Organizing.’ In S. Srivastva and D. L. Cooperrider (eds.), Appreciative
Management and Leadership. 91-125. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Embracing the Whole
of Human Language
– Dancing with Words
and Metaphors and
Creating New Worlds
Katja Finger Avenstam
Chalmers University of Technology
Sustainable Business Development
When people ask me what work I do I say: I design processes for people to enter
a room of people they’ve never met before. And the one thing they can be sure is
that they will have changed as a human being when they leave the room. People
ask me: how do you do that? I say: we talk, we draw, we dance. It depends...
As a designer of trans-disciplinary, multicultural and cross-boundary processes
in local and global community development, I and the people I am guiding
through these complex processes very often come to the stage where, instead of
using words, we compare pictures.
Words, even in a homogenous group, are experienced as tending to create more
confusion about the core question than increase clarity. We spend quite a lot
of time defining words and questions. People want to be more energy efficient;
energy in the sense of ‘human energy’, going more quickly from thought to
action. We experiment with different forms. These experiments need to be
observed, guided and developed.
As groups tend to become more and more inter – inter-generational, intercultural, inter-system, and at the same time more inter-dependent to be able
to find solutions to global challenges – we need to be more efficient at creating
the inspirational core question, as well as designing the total AI process by
interlocking individuals’ words and metaphors.
As an AI practitioner, I would like to create a joint project with AI researchers
in which we could discover new ways of perceiving our worlds and ourselves
through our words and metaphors. The practitioner becoming a researcher and
the researcher becoming a practitioner.
I would like to learn more about how to ask questions within inter-systems’ logic
– without introducing my own or someone else’s logic. How to ask questions, to
listen, to create a dialogue that respects and honours one another’s metaphors.
We practitioners from all sectors of society need to connect with academics to
build new knowledge, methods and insights, as well as an appropriate language.
I would like to join in with practitioners from different sectors and researchers
to develop the idea of truly embracing the whole of human language; words,
metaphors, nonverbal behaviour, perceptual space.
AIP February 10 AI Research Notes
57
AI Practitioner
Volume 12 Number 1 ISBN 978-1-907549-00-7
Appreciative Research:
a Story from the Field
Ann Shacklady-Smith
Manchester Business School
[email protected]
February 2010
I was asked to conduct a study of an International Leadership programme, the
outcome of which would likely determine the future direction and support for
the programme. This leadership programme was inspired by AI, which also
informed its ethos and practice. In turn the participants, mainly drawn from
Africa and the UK, experienced a ‘life transforming’ event that helped shape their
experience for a new leadership approach, one that placed positive emphasis on
the abundance, beauty and strength of Africa and aspirations for its future. The
training evaluations were overwhelmingly positive and the personal and social
outcomes from the programme demonstrated its power and impact. Given the
values and ethos of the programme, it seemed obvious that any review should
also be approached from an AI perspective.
As with any research process, the method selection is critical. The researcher will
likely ponder first on the most appropriate approach to ‘find out’, ‘discover’, ‘shed
light’ on the research question. We also know that each approach will generate
different insights according to the philosophical orientation, the questions asked,
the focus of inquiry and the role of the researcher and research participants.
Asserting AI as an appropriate methodology for the review was a first step for
me in consciously utilising the AI 4D framework and AI perspective as a research
inquiry method.
In designing the research framework, the 4D cycle provided a format that
allowed for the review of the Leadership programme to be the central focus, and
research questions flowed naturally from the structure to produce qualitative
and quantitative data. Semi-structured interviews conducted in appreciative
conversation style gave participants a sense of participating in research while
observing the best conventions of participative action research and associated
approaches to which AI is positively related. The report was easy to write and
well received by the client and stakeholder groups involved.
It was one of the most enjoyable pieces of research that I have ever completed
and demonstrated the validity of AI as research method.
Likewise, in any AI process that I have experienced, there is close and conscious
attention and intention paid to its design. What are the questions? Who is
involved? How might the questions be framed/asked? How will information be
collated/presented? Where does it lead? How is feedback given? And so on.
It seems to me that as an AI community, we can perhaps frame more of our AI
processes as research inquiry, write reports or produce visual presentations for
sharing, connecting and building the literature on the very great work that our
colleagues are doing in the field.
Back to Table of Contents
AIP February 10 AI Research Notes
58
February 2010
AI Practitioner
International Journal of Appreciative Inquiry
Inside:
4
Introduction to The Inside and Outside Worlds of an AI Practitioner edited by
Geoffrey Allan, Steve Loraine and Anne Radford
8
Part 1: Personal Challenges of Organisational Leadership
Fragile Practice, Humble Learning, Extraordinary Outcomes by Joan McArthur-Blair
Education is all that matters. It is the greatest gift a government can give people. Generative
leadership requires both humbleness and passion.
11
An Appreciative Approach to Inclusive Teambuilding
by Bente Sloth and Carsten Hornstrup
A leader talks about her journey towards leading with a focus on inspiration, motivation,
co-creating learning and not least, creating a great work environment.
16
Part 2: Combining AI with Other Models
Creating a Bridge Between Deficit-based and Strength-based Problem Solving:
the Journey of a Six Sigma Master Black Belt by David Shaked
The challenge of combining the energy and creativity of AI and process mapping with
post-it notes and deep statistical analysis.
20
Appreciating Action Learning by Geoff Allan
25
Neuroscience: a New Friend to OD and AI by Richard Coe
29
AI KI DO by José Otte
Combining AI and action learning sets.
Looking for answers about how the brain functions, especially in different social
circumstances and sensory environments.
AI combined with Akido creates a connection between East and West which can be used
in organizations to create positive change, positive leadership and organization culture
transformation.
AIP February 10 The Inside and Outside Worlds of an AI Practitioner
Back Issues at www.aipractitioner.com
February 2010
AI Practitioner
International Journal of Appreciative Inquiry
Inside continued:
34
Part 3: Evolving Our Practice Through Reflection and Working in New Ways
It’s Not the Events – It’s the Spaces In Between by Sarah Lewis
A story about working with what you can, not what you can’t.
39
‘We’re in it Together’: Living Well with Dementia: Creating a Regional Strategy
for the East Midlands by Julie Barnes
On 2 October 2009, 180 people from across the East Midlands, UK and from all parts
of local health, social care and community services came together with people with
dementia and their carers to create a regional vision for living well with dementia.
43
The AI Circle: A Place to Develop Our Skills and Ourselves by Jeanie Cockell
47
Reshape to Reframe: Living AI in our Bodies by Roz Kay
51
Confessions of an AI-coholic: The Road to LEAD by Ada Jo Mann
54
AI Research Notes
by Jan Reed and Lena Holmberg
Creating a space for our internal selves to show up (who we are) as we share our
strategies for working in our worlds (what we do).
Our mental frameworks are deeply rooted and they shape our bodies in ways that impact
our listening, seeing, attention and more.
LEADing from your strengths.
Research Notes carries news of AI research which is about to start, is in progress or has
been completed. Contributions are from researchers around the world.
59
About the May 2010 Issue
60
IAPG Contacts and AI Practitioner Subscription Information
Guest Editors: Loretta Randolph and Neil Samuels
This issue will be devoted to Individuals and Organizations Flourishing Through Time.
AIP February 10 The Inside and Outside Worlds of an AI Practitioner
Back Issues at www.aipractitioner.com
AI Practitioner
February 2010
Volume 12 Number 1 ISBN 978-1-907549-00-7
IAPG Contacts and AI Practitioner
Subscription Information
International Advisory Practitioners Group IAPG
Members of the International Advisory Practitioners Group
working with AIP to bring AI stories to a wider audience
Druba Acharya, Nepal
Gervase Bushe, Canada
Sue Derby, Canada
AIP Subscriptions
Individuals
NGOS, students and community groups
Small organisations
University/Research Institute
Large organisations
http://www.aipractitioner.com/subscriptions
Back Issues and Articles
Sara Inés Gómez, Colombia
http://www.aipractitioner.com/issues
http://www.aipractitioner.com/articles
Lena Holmberg, Sweden
Change of subscriber details
Joep de Jong, Netherlands
Dorothy Liebig, Germany
John Loty, Australia
Sue James, Australia
Maureen McKenna, Canada
Liz Mellish, Canada
Dayle Obrien, Australia
Jan Reed, United Kingdom
Catriona Rogers, Hong Kong
Daniel K. Saint, United States
Marge Schiller, United States
Jackie Stavros, United States
Bridget Woods, South Africa
Jacqueline Wong, Singapore
Margaret Wright, United Kingdom
http://www.aipractitioner.com/customer/account/login/
Publication Advertising/Sponsorship
For the advertising rates, contact Anne Radford.
Disclaimer: Views and opinions of the writers do not
necessarily reflect those of the publisher. Every effort is made
to ensure accuracy but all details are subject to alteration. No
responsibility can be accepted for any inaccuracies.
Purpose of AI Practitioner
This publication is for people interested in making the world a
better place using positive relational approaches to change such
as Appreciative Inquiry.
The publication is distributed quarterly: February, May, August
and November.
AI Practitioner Editor/Publisher
The editor/publisher is Anne Radford. She is based in London
and can be reached at [email protected]
The postal address for the publication is:
303 Bankside Lofts, 65 Hopton Street, London SE1 9JL,
England.
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7633 9630
Fax: +44 (0)845 051 8639
ISSN 1741 8224
AI Practitioner © 2003-2010 Anne Radford
Back to Table of Contents
ISSN 1741-8224
Subscribe at www.aipractitioner.com 60