1
2
3
4
EXPERIENCES OF TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING IN THE APPRECIATIVE
INQUIRY EVENT
5
by
6
KELLEY DOUGLAS WOOD
7
to
8
FIELDING GRADUATE UNIVERSITY
9
A dissertation submitted
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
10
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
11
in
12
HUMAN AND ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEMS
13
This dissertation has been accepted for
14
the faculty of Fielding Graduate University by
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
______________________________________
Steven Schapiro, Ed.D.
Chair
______________________________________
Dottie E. Agger-Gupta, Ph.D.
Faculty Reader
______________________________________
Frank J. Barrett, Ph.D.
Faculty Reader
______________________________________
James P. Goebelbecker, MBA, MAHOS
Student Reader
______________________________________
James D. Ludema, Ph.D.
External Examiner
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
36
37
38
Experiences of Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
by
Kelley Douglas Wood
39
Abstract
40
In a review of the current literature and research on the practice of appreciative
41
inquiry, it is evident that changes in meaning schemas reported by participants are
42
consistent with the process of transformative learning as described by Mezirow. In this
43
qualitative research, I explored and described how AI participants understand and make
44
meaning of their transformative experiences, comparing these experiences to Mezirow’s
45
TL theory. The sample population consisted of self-selected participants who reported a
46
positive change they attributed to an AI event. First, I used a method of constant
47
comparative analysis suggested by grounded theory. Then a deductive analysis using a
48
transformative learning coding key, later, I triangulated the data.
49
My research revealed that 73% of the participants who attended an AI summit
50
experienced TL. Overall 38% of the participants experienced a change of perspective
51
consistent with TL, while 62% experienced an alignment of their values with AI. The
52
process of TL followed Mezirow’s model and other unique models of TL. Positive
53
emotional experiences played a significant role in offsetting the experience of negative
54
emotions. This research resulted in a new model of TL, which better describes the
55
experiences of the research participants, and may be more inclusive and complete. This
56
research increases our understanding of the process of TL, how AI might promote and
57
foster TL, and the role of positivity and positive emotions in the process of TL.
58
Keywords: Transformative Learning, Appreciative Inquiry, Organizational Behavior,
59
Positive Psychology, Positive Emotions, Qualitative Analysis, Grounded Theory
60
ii
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
© Copyright
71
by
72
Kelley Douglas Wood
73
2007
74
iii
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
75
76
Acknowledgements
I would first like to acknowledge and thank my external examiner, Dr. James D.
77
Ludema, Ph.D. Professor of Organizational Behavior at Benedictine University, Founder
78
of Appreciative Inquiry Consulting, Principle Consultant Corporation for Positive
79
Change. I am thankful for his knowledge, insight, comments, suggestions, and feedback.
80
I offer a special thanks to Jim Goebelbecker, my tireless Student Reader, you have my
81
gratitude. Dr, Colleen Ives and Dr. Johnna Herrick-Phelps fellow travelers and my
82
special cohort in learning. My friends and coworkers for their patience, and the gang at
83
the Norwich Inn for their encouragement and support.
84
I would also like to acknowledge the following people without whom this journey
85
could not have begun: Dr. Steven P. Guerriero, Ph.D., Edward J. Tomey, M.Ed., Dr.
86
Donna L. Mellen, Ph.D., Dr. Bill Griffith, Ph.D., Peter M. Smith, M.B.A., and Natalie
87
Milano of Antioch New England Graduate School. Dr. Leo Johnson, Faculty Emeritus,
88
Fielding Graduate University for welcoming me to Fielding, keeping track of my
89
progress, and encouraging me all these years.
90
I would also like to thank the following people for their assistance in finding
91
research participants for this study: G. Scott Wakefield, Colonel US Army National
92
Guard, Ret.; Dr. Margaret Tyndall, CEO of NTL; Dr. Susan O. Wood of the Corporation
93
for Positive Change; Jennifer Hetzel-Silbert and Bernard Mohr of Innovation Partners
94
International; Anne Peyton of Yellow Brick Road Consulting; Dr. Nancy Stetson of
95
Expert on Call and Appreciative Inquiry Consulting; Ron Velin of Velin Performance
96
Works; Franne McNeal of HR Energy; Dr. Karen Norum of Gonzaga University; and Dr.
97
Sherene Zolno of the Leadership Institute of Seattle.
98
iv
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
99
100
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to the research participants for sharing so
101
willingly their very personal experiences with me. Their stories of courage, positive
102
change, and possibilities gave me the strength to continue.
103
This work is also dedicated to the next generation of my family; Emily, Julia,
104
Tommy, Nicole, Evan, JJ, Adam, and Holly. I hope this inspires you to reach further,
105
and further, from what is comfortable and toward what is possible. Further, I would like
106
to dedicate this dissertation to my family, one and all. Especially to my Grandmother,
107
Helen Roy Hall, and my Mother, Janet Hall Jefts for teaching me the importance of
108
education. My Uncle and Aunt, Robert and Valerie Hall, they are examples of great
109
educators, who showed me a wider world. My Brothers, Thomas Wood whose
110
encouragement and support started me on this path, and Robert Wood, my first student.
111
My Grandfather, Richard Hall, Father, Douglas Wood and Stepfather, Carl Jefts, for
112
teaching me to be patient, pay attention to details, do it right the first time, and don’t be
113
afraid to ‘crack a smile.’ I would like to thank My Sisters-in-Law, present and former:
114
Lori Knox, Beth Croteau, and Wendy Frazer, for the couches to sleep on, meals, and for
115
listening.
116
I would like to mention Robert Brennan, my Coach at Monadnock Regional High
117
School who showed me the importance of perseverance, a quality that has served me
118
well. I am thankful to the scouts of Troop 311, Camp Carpenter, and the Daniel Webster
119
Council for showing me that I was a leader. Thanks to SSgt. Gary Dewitt and the
120
members of the 236th MP K-9 section for showing me how leadership should be done and
121
how a great team functions.
v
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
122
123
vi
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
124
Table of Contents
125
Page
126
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1
127
Introduction......................................................................................................................1
128
Theoretical Constructs .....................................................................................................1
129
Transformative Learning............................................................................................. 1
130
Appreciative Inquiry ................................................................................................... 3
131
Research Questions ..........................................................................................................4
132
Chapter Two: Literature Review .....................................................................................5
133
Chapter Three: Methods ..................................................................................................5
134
Chapter Four: Data Analysis ...........................................................................................6
135
Chapter Five: Findings ....................................................................................................7
136
Chapter Six: Discussion...................................................................................................7
137
Implications .....................................................................................................................8
138
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................9
139
Introduction......................................................................................................................9
140
Transformative Learning .................................................................................................9
141
Transformative Learning History and Context ........................................................... 9
142
Research on Transformative Learning...........................................................................12
143
Transformative Learning in the Group Context ............................................................13
144
Critical Analysis of Transformative Learning Theory ..................................................20
145
E. Taylor’s Critique of Transformative Learning Theory .............................................21
146
Other Critiques of Transformative Learning .................................................................25
147
Other Models of Learning and Development ................................................................27
148
Summary of Transformative Learning ..........................................................................36
149
Appreciative Inquiry ......................................................................................................37
150
Appreciative Inquiry History and Context ................................................................ 37
151
Appreciative Inquiry and Transformation .....................................................................41
152
Discussion of the Critique of Appreciative Inquiry.......................................................44
153
Summary of Appreciative Inquiry .................................................................................45
154
Positive Psychology .......................................................................................................47
vii
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
155
Summary of the Literature Review................................................................................48
156
The Gaps in the Literature .............................................................................................49
157
Research Questions ........................................................................................................50
158
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ......................................................................................51
159
Introduction....................................................................................................................51
160
Research Design ............................................................................................................51
161
Sample Selection ....................................................................................................... 52
162
Procedure .................................................................................................................. 53
163
Setting ....................................................................................................................... 56
164
Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................... 57
165
Research Protocol ..................................................................................................... 58
166
Debriefing ................................................................................................................. 59
167
Data Management ..................................................................................................... 60
168
Pilot Study .....................................................................................................................60
169
Method of Data Analysis ...............................................................................................61
170
Summary of the Methods...............................................................................................65
171
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................67
172
Introduction....................................................................................................................67
173
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................67
174
Coding for Understanding and Meaning Making in the AI Event ................................68
175
Coding for Transformative Learning .............................................................................72
176
Triangulating the Coded Data ........................................................................................74
177
Profiles of the Participant’s AI Event Experience .........................................................75
178
Summary of the Data Analysis ......................................................................................93
179
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS ...........................................................................................95
180
Introduction....................................................................................................................95
181
Research Question 1 ......................................................................................................95
182
The significance of the participant’s AI event experience ........................................ 95
183
Research Question 2 ....................................................................................................107
184
The participants’ experiences of TL ....................................................................... 107
185
Comparing the AV, OTL and MTL Research Participants .........................................112
viii
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
186
Research Question 3 ....................................................................................................115
187
Additional Findings .....................................................................................................117
188
Mentoring ................................................................................................................ 117
189
Loss of relationships ............................................................................................... 118
190
Summary of the Findings ............................................................................................118
191
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION ......................................................................................120
192
Introduction..................................................................................................................120
193
Discussion of the Findings ..........................................................................................122
194
Discussion of the Significance of the AI Event Experience ................................... 122
195
Discussion of the Critique of Appreciative Inquiry.....................................................124
196
Discussion of E. Taylor’s Critique of TL ....................................................................127
197
Individual Change Versus Social Action ................................................................ 127
198
Decontextualized View of Learning ....................................................................... 128
199
Universal Model of Adult Learning ........................................................................ 128
200
Adult Development: Shift or Progression ............................................................... 129
201
An Emphasis on Rationality ................................................................................... 129
202
Other Ways of Knowing ......................................................................................... 130
203
Other Models of Perspective Transformation..............................................................131
204
Discussion of Other Models of Adult Learning and Development .............................132
205
Discussion of Cranton’s Model of TL .........................................................................133
206
207
Awareness of Values and Assumptions, Questioning Values, Revision of Values and
Assumptions ............................................................................................................ 133
208
Responsiveness to Trigger Events .......................................................................... 133
209
Content, Process, and Premise Reflection .............................................................. 134
210
Rational Discourse .................................................................................................. 134
211
Revision of Meaning Perspectives .......................................................................... 135
212
Discussion of J. Taylor’s Model of TL........................................................................136
213
The Role of Positive Emotions ....................................................................................136
214
Positive Emotions and the AI Event Experience .................................................... 138
215
The Role of Positive Emotions in TL ..................................................................... 138
216
Implications of this Research.......................................................................................141
217
Using AI to promote TL in the educational setting ................................................ 141
ix
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
218
Supporting TL in the AI event ................................................................................ 143
219
Toward a More Complete Model of TL ......................................................................144
220
A Proposed Model of the Process of TL .....................................................................147
221
Comparing Wood’s Model of TL to Other Models of TL...........................................154
222
Phase I ..................................................................................................................... 155
223
Phase II.................................................................................................................... 155
224
Phase III .................................................................................................................. 156
225
Summary of the Discussion of the Findings ................................................................157
226
Limitations ...................................................................................................................161
227
Researcher’s Reflections on the Study ........................................................................162
228
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................165
229
x
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
230
List of Tables
231
Page
232
Table 1 Mezirow’s Model of TL .......................................................................................11
233
Table 2 Taylor’s Model of TL ...........................................................................................32
234
Table 3 Cranton’s Model of TL .........................................................................................33
235
Table 4 Sample of Coding for Clustered Concepts ...........................................................63
236
Table 5 Clustered Concepts for the Axial Coding .............................................................64
237
Table 6 The Transformative Learning Coding Key ..........................................................64
238
Table 7 Clustered Concepts by Experience and Phase ......................................................69
239
Table 8 Common and Unique Clustered Concepts by Experience ....................................70
240
Table 9 Major and Minor Clustered Concepts by Experience ...........................................70
241
Table 10 Cranton’s Suggestions for Promoting TL .........................................................145
242
Table 11 Wood’s Proposed Model of TL ........................................................................151
243
244
List of Figures
245
Page
246
Figure 1. Categories of participant experience ..................................................................71
247
Figure 2. Categories of participant TL experience ............................................................73
248
Figure 3. Categories of experience by TL category ...........................................................97
249
Figure 4. Changes in reported emotions by stage of experience .......................................99
250
Figure 5. Categories of experience by TL category .........................................................113
251
Figure 6. Categories of experience by TL categories of reflective practices and self-
252
examination ......................................................................................................................114
253
xi
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
254
List of Appendices
255
Page
256
Appendix A: Fielding Institutional Review Board (HOD Subcommittee) Request for
257
Review of Proposed Research……………………………………………………… .....171
258
Appendix B: Verbal Recruitment Script for Research Participants.................................173
259
Appendix C: Written Recruitment Script for Research Participants……………..... ......175
260
Appendix D: Informed Consent Form……………………………………………... ......177
261
Appendix E: Background Information Questionnaire……………………………... ......181
262
Appendix F: Interview Protocol…………………………………………………….......183
263
Appendix G: Professional Assistance Confidentiality Agreement………………… ......186
264
Appendix H: Glossary of Operational Definitions and Terms ........................................187
265
Appendix I: Results of Coding for TL in the Data by Research Participant ...................191
266
xii
267
268
“Appreciation is a wonderful thing: it makes what is excellent in others belong to us as
269
well.” Voltaire
270
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
271
272
Introduction
While teaching Organizational Behavior in a local MBA program I realized that
273
the students of my class were expressing signs of transformative learning (TL) (Mezirow
274
1978; 1990; 2000) after an experiential exercise using appreciative inquiry (AI)
275
(Cooperrider 1986; Cooperrider and Srivastva 1987; Srivastva and Cooperrider 1999).
276
Three of the students expressed changes in their viewpoints, changed significant
277
relationships, and integrated the learning from the AI exercise into their professional
278
lives. This led me to question the relationships between AI as a organizational
279
development initiative (Weisbord 1987; 1992; Hatch 1997; Holman and Devane 1999;
280
Bowditch and Buono 2001) and TL as a means of describing participant’s experiences of
281
AI events.
282
283
284
Theoretical Constructs
Transformative Learning
The theory of TL, as defined by Mezirow (1978; 1990; 1991; 2000), is a model
285
for transforming problematic frames of reference into new and more dependable frames
286
of reference. From this perspective, TL occurs through a process of critical self-
287
reflection, reflective dialogue, and reflective action, in which deep-seated assumptions
288
are questioned, new assumptions are tested for validity, and new assumptions are
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2
289
integrated into a new reality for the learner. Mezirow postulates that these reflective
290
processes occur through ten stages: a disorienting dilemma, self-examination of feelings,
291
a critical assessment of assumptions, and the recognition of one’s discontent and the
292
process of transformation are shared. The stages continue as the student begins an
293
exploration of options for new roles, relationships, and actions, planning a course of
294
action, acquiring knowledge and skills, provisional trying of new roles, building
295
competence and confidence, and a reintegration into one’s life (Mezirow 2000). While
296
these steps are experienced in a variety of orders all ten stages must be satisfied to
297
accomplish TL (Mezirow 1990; 2000).
298
These transformations result in the acquisition of new perspectives, attitudes, and
299
behaviors integrated into new roles and relationships, and these changes are integrated
300
into the subject’s life (Mezirow 1978; 1990; 1991; 2000). These transformations are
301
evident both to the participant and to others.
302
In the classroom and other learning environments, TL is practiced with groups of
303
learners. Learners may not be at the same point of readiness for TL. Research (Lytle
304
1989; Cesar 2003) of TL shows not all learners will experience stages of TL. Only those
305
who experience the first nine steps will meet the final stage of TL: a re-integration into
306
the participant’s life. Research has also shown the transformative learning of the
307
individual may lead to greater transformations for the other members (O'Hara 2005) and
308
the individual’s transformation may co-emerge with the organization’s transformation
309
(Scott 2003). Yorks and Marsick (2000) in a case study of learning programs stated
310
individual transformational learning should be a goal of all organizational initiatives,
311
despite the possible conflict between the goals of the individual and the organization.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
312
3
If individual transformation might lead to greater organizational transformation
313
then organizational development initiatives might increase the opportunities for more
314
successful outcomes. With this in mind, it will be useful to understand how TL might be
315
experienced and reported in the literature of organizational development. To narrow the
316
scope of this research I will review the literature of appreciative inquiry, one of many
317
organizational development initiatives. Appreciative inquiry is unique among
318
organizational development initiatives in its focus on finding and promoting the
319
organizations positive core of success. AI uses a unique methodology and principles to
320
achieve this result, which will be discussed further in the next section.
321
Appreciative Inquiry
322
In the field of organizational development, AI is recognized as a method for
323
catalyzing or achieving lasting change in teams, groups, organizations, or communities
324
(Cooperrider 1986; Cooperrider and Srivastva 1987; Srivastva and Cooperrider 1999).
325
AI is a organizational development method introduced by Cooperrider in 1986 as a
326
means of dialogic discovery with the purpose of uncovering the egalitarian organization
327
(Cooperrider 1986). Guiding AI are five principles: the Constructionist Principle, the
328
Principle of Simultaneity, the Poetic Principle, the Anticipatory Principle, and the
329
Positive Principle. These principles are applied through a 4D design model in an AI
330
summit. The four elements of this design are: Discovery, Dream, Design, Destiny
331
(Cooperrider and Whitney 2000).
332
The literature of AI shows that individuals do experience transformations in
333
perception, attitude, and behavior that can be compared to TL. These transformations
334
have a positive and beneficial effect on the organization as a whole as seen in the
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4
335
following studies. Bushe and Khamisa (2004) found that many of these studies represent
336
organizations that exhibited signs of transformation consistent with transformative
337
learning resulting from appreciative inquiries. At the organizational level, these
338
transformations consist of a major shift in the state of being or the identity of the
339
organization, development of persistent generative metaphor, and development of a new
340
set of background assumptions.
341
These case studies of appreciative inquiries also reported individual
342
transformations consistent with TL including increased confidence and competence in
343
addition to increased transfer of learning and data (Mohr, Smith et al. 2000). These
344
transformations improved gender relations, and appreciation for gender issues (Schiller
345
2002), and lead to increases in morale, profitability and sustainability (Trosten-Bloom
346
2002). Personal transformations in relation to past experiences, others best experiences,
347
and the organizations traditions were also reported (Van Buskirk 2002) but it is not made
348
explicit that all ten of Mezirow’s stages are met in any of these case studies (Mezirow
349
1978; Lytle 1989; 1990; 1991; 2000; Cesar 2003).
350
Research Questions
351
My primary research questions are:
352
How do participants of appreciative inquiry summits or training understand and
353
make meaning of their experiences of change relating to their participation in an
354
appreciative inquiry event?
355
356
How do the AI event participants’ experiences compare to the theory of TL as
defined by Mezirow, and how does TL theory describe their experiences?
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
357
Of secondary interest to this study, is the research question: How does
358
appreciative inquiry’s focus on positive emotions compare to TL theories emphasis on
359
the examination of feelings of anger, guilt, and shame?
360
Chapter Two: Literature Review
361
In chapter two, I expand on the theoretical construct by discussing the relevant
362
research in the fields of TL, and AI. The discussion also includes the possible
363
correlations between the theories of AI and TL, a critical analysis of TL theory and an
364
exploration of other theories of TL, transformation, adult learning, and adult
365
development. I then expand upon the theoretical construct of my research as suggested
366
by the research questions, and discuss the implications this research might have.
367
368
Chapter Three: Methods
This was an exploratory, qualitative, and descriptive research study. I interviewed
369
people who self-reported they experienced changes in their attitudes, behaviors, beliefs,
370
relationships, or actions resulting from participation in an appreciative inquiry. This
371
research study was designed to discover and explain how AI participants understand and
372
make meaning of these experiences. After the inductive data analysis, I conducted a
373
deductive analysis of the data using a key code I developed for TL. Later I triangulated
374
the findings of the inductive and deductive coding sessions back to the original
375
transcripts to ensure the validity of my analysis.
376
5
This study consisted of semi-structured in-depth interviews with twenty-one
377
research participants who indicated by self-selection that they could attribute positive
378
changes in their lives to an AI event. The research participants discussed their
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
6
379
understandings in depth and the meaning they made of their experiences, which resulted
380
from their participation in an AI event. With this research design I pursued emergent
381
patterns and themes that relate to the study through both an inductive method of open and
382
axial coding and a deductive method of coding for TL in the data.
383
This study is exploratory and qualitative in nature. It is intended to describe and
384
categorize the participants’ experiences of their participation in an AI event. This
385
approach allowed for the exploration of emergent patterns and themes. It also supported
386
the incorporation of the early findings into the data collection process through several
387
iterations of data analysis. This approach is common in qualitative research.
388
389
Chapter Four: Data Analysis
Data analysis was based on transcriptions of the interviews, notes made during the
390
interviews and summarized afterward, and by my reflection on the data after the
391
interviews. I analyzed the data collected in this research over the respondent’s complete
392
interview in a holistic approach. Interpretation of segments of the respondent’s story was
393
made against the whole transcript ensuring that the participants’ words are kept in
394
context. The analysis of the data collected in this research is interpretive and intuitive. I
395
will introduce the research methods used in this data analysis here further describing and
396
explaining the method of analysis in sections below.
397
For the data analysis, I used a method suggested by Glaser and Strauss, grounded
398
theory, which uses a constant comparison of concepts in the data to develop hypotheses
399
and eventually a theory grounded in the data (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss and
400
Corbin 1998; Glaser 2002). While this research is not intended to develop a theory, the
401
rigor of this method will lend validity to the findings.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
402
The data analysis revealed that participants either experienced a direct positive
403
effect (DPE) or expressed a non-direct effect (NDE). These participants also reported
404
that they felt an alignment or reinforcement of their personal values with the principles
405
and methods of AI (AV) or they experienced a change of perspective (CP). Those who
406
experienced a change of perspective followed Mezirow’s model of TL (MTL) or
407
followed other paths to TL (OTL).
408
409
7
Chapter Five: Findings
In this chapter I discuss the categories of data revealed in the data analysis. The
410
experiences of AI event participants are discussed with regard to the increase in positivity
411
and positive emotions reported by the AI event participants and the increase in insights
412
resulting from their attending the AI event. These insights included issues of power,
413
connection to others, discovering their own voice, the importance of stories and a
414
common language of positivity.
415
416
Chapter Six: Discussion
In this chapter, I discuss an alternative to Mezirow’s model of TL, which is not
417
entirely descriptive of the experience of all the participants who experienced TL resulting
418
from their participation in the AI event. Current models of TL are also learner centric. I
419
propose a more descriptive model of TL that includes both the learner and the educator in
420
the process of TL. This model of the process of TL includes insights from Mezirow,
421
Cranton, and others. This model of the TL process more clearly describes the
422
participants’ experience by including the mentoring role of the educator and includes the
423
role of positivity and positive emotions in the TL process.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
424
425
8
Implications
This research has several implications for practitioners of TL, including the
426
inclusion of positivity and positive emotions in the self-examination involved in the TL
427
process. Positivity and positive emotions might be fundamental in fostering TL among
428
learners. TL practitioners must also recognize their active participation in the learner’s
429
TL process. Their participation includes, challenging, supporting, providing vision,
430
assisting with personal issues, while attending to the power relationships and maintaining
431
the health of the learner educator relationship.
432
This research also has several implications for practitioners of AI, including
433
awareness that accepting AI principles and methods might require a change in meaning
434
schema for some AI event participants and can initiate the TL process. AI practitioners
435
need to be aware of the participant’s engagement in TL and need to be educated in the
436
theories and processes of TL. Then the AI facilitator can be of assistance to their
437
participants who become engaged in the process of TL. This presents the AI practitioner
438
with an opportunity to develop longer-term relationships with their AI event participants
439
as mentors, formal or informal. This research also presents the AI practitioner with
440
ethical questions concerning their involvement in the participant’s TL process, and how
441
far that involvement should go.
442
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
443
444
445
9
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
In this chapter, I begin with a review of TL to establish a common viewpoint and
446
the meaning of key concepts, as they will be used in this paper. This will help establish
447
the common goals and outcomes of AI and TL. Once I have discussed TL, and
448
appreciative inquiry, I examine the possible correlations between the AI and TL theories.
449
Then I discuss how the field of positive psychology might explain the participants’
450
experiences of positive emotions in the study. Later I discuss the gaps in the available
451
literature and the implications for the research questions. Many of the terms used in this
452
study have multiple meanings so I have provided a glossary as a reference tool. Please
453
refer to Appendix (H) for a glossary of operational definitions and terms.
454
455
456
Transformative Learning
Transformative Learning History and Context
Mezirow’s (1978) theory of TL has its beginning in his study of adult women who
457
returned to the classroom after an extended absence. Mezirow’s research revealed these
458
women had experienced significant changes in their meaning perspectives and their ways
459
of being. His research findings suggested these experiences might be similar to the
460
experiences of other adult learners. Since 1978 much research has been done to show
461
TL’s application to many other situations: adult learning (Mezirow 2000), curriculum
462
development (Taylor 2000) group learning (Imel 1999), and organizational learning
463
(Yorks and Marsick 2000). Mezirow defines TL concisely:
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
464
465
466
467
468
10
Transformative learning refers to transforming a problematic frame of reference
to make it more dependable in our adult life by generating opinions and
interpretations that are more justified (Mezirow 1990a; 1990b).
TL occurs through a process of critical self-reflection, reflective dialogue, and
469
reflective action. Critical Self-Reflection is the cornerstone of this process and is initiated
470
when the individual is confronted with a disorienting dilemma that causes a questioning
471
of the deep-seated assumptions that make up the individual’s meaning perspective.
472
Mezirow uses the term meaning perspective to define a frame of reference or a collection
473
of meaning schemas.
474
475
476
477
478
479
A meaning perspective is a habitual set of expectations that constitutes an
orienting frame of reference that we use in projecting our symbolic models and
that serves as a (usually tacit) belief system for interpreting and evaluating the
meaning of experience (Mezirow 1991).
A meaning perspective is a structure of assumptions that are used to assimilate
480
past experiences into expectations of new experiences defining our attitudes, establishing
481
our view of our world, and guiding our actions. Mezirow notes that there are six types of
482
meaning perspectives or habits of mind: Sociolinguistic, Moral-ethical, Epistemic,
483
Philosophical, Psychological, and Aesthetic. Mezirow theorizes that TL is a cognitive
484
rational process, and can only truly be transformative if it effects a change in the
485
cognitive nature involving reasoning, critical reflection, and a critical dialectic. For
486
Mezirow TL is essentially an epistemic TL experience.
487
Reflective Dialogue is the process by which the individual tests the validity of or
488
justification for these assumptions and becomes a negotiation with others to develop a
489
consensual validation of the assumptions that make up the frame of reference. Reflective
490
Action is action based on the critical self-reflection of the previously held assumptions
491
and is intended to integrate the resulting new set of assumptions (Mezirow 2000).
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
11
492
Mezirow postulates that these reflective processes occur through a process of ten
493
stages. These stages are experienced in a variety of orders and depths, and all ten stages
494
must be satisfied to accomplish TL. Please refer to Table 1 for Mezirow’s model of TL.
495
Table 1
496
Mezirow’s Model of TL
1
Disorienting dilemma
2
Self-examination with feelings of fear, anger, guilt, or shame
3
Critical assessment of assumptions and relationships
4
Recognition of one’s discontent and the process of transformation are shared
5
Exploration of options for new roles, relationships, and actions
6
Provisional trying of new roles
7
Building competence/confidence in new roles and relationships
8
Planning a course of action, Acquiring knowledge and skills for
implementing one’s plans
9
Acquire knowledge and skills for implementing one's plan
10
A reintegration into one’s life on the basis of conditions dictated by one’s
new perspective
497
498
It is interesting to note that Mezirow’s TL calls for an examination of emotions
499
that are construed as negative, while Cooperrider’s AI is designed to focus on positively
500
construed emotions. This could prove to be a significant difference between the two
501
theories in this study. Antonacopoulou and Gabriel’s (2001) study explored the extent to
502
which emotions and learning are interdependent and highlights many of the subtleties of
503
individuals' reactions to change. The authors note that there is a predominance of
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
12
504
research and literature on the negative emotions involved in change efforts, but that little
505
research has been done on the role of positive emotions in organizational change.
506
Another interesting characteristic of TL is that those who experience it are
507
conscious of their change in perspectives, and others can recognize that a fundamental
508
change has occurred in them also (Scott 2003). While research on AI reports individual
509
transformation it does not report of others noticing the transformation.
510
Research on Transformative Learning
511
There is much research available on the theory of TL, much of which is narrowly
512
focused and not comprehensive in nature. Taylor’s (2000) analysis of TL research found
513
that while the theory of TL is widely applied to a diversity of situations very little of the
514
research available provides data supporting Mezirow’s comprehensive model. For
515
example, the research available focuses on portions of the theory, critical reflection,
516
context, or perspective transformation. Taylor has also found most research was
517
retrospective, based on reflecting on an experience, rather than being conducted during
518
the experience. Retrospective research is subject to the participant’s preferred vision of
519
the experience and may not be accurate. Taylor cites Lytle’s (1989) dissertation research
520
as supportive of Mezirow’s model and the most thorough of the research into perspective
521
transformation.
522
Lytle (1989) uses a questionnaire based on Mezirow’s ten stages in semi-
523
structured interviews and found thirty percent of a class of nursing students experienced
524
all ten of Mezirow’s stages. All participant’s in the study experienced the first four
525
stages, but only those who had experienced all nine of the previous stages experienced
526
stage ten, a reintegration back into one’s life. Cesar’s (2003) dissertation research, which
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
13
527
clearly uses Lytle as a model, of adult learner motivation found forty percent of his
528
subjects experienced all ten stages. Cesar found consensus was less in the early stages of
529
TL compared to Lytle’s findings. Cesar did find that ninety-seven percent of his subjects
530
experienced stage three, ninety-three percent experienced stages one and four, and
531
seventy-three percent experienced stages two and five. Cesar found a clear trend of
532
fewer students experiencing stages six through ten.
533
This research will explicitly compare the participants’ experiences of the AI event
534
to Mezirow’s model of TL. While Taylor is concerned with the retrospective nature of
535
TL research in general, the constraints on this research project do not allow me to study
536
AI event participants during the AI event. My methods will vary from Lytle and Cesar’s
537
formula, but Lytle’s questionnaire can assist in developing my research protocol and can
538
provide an example of quality research on the theory of TL. In the next several sections
539
of the literature review, I will review TL research and literature to better understand
540
where this research project will fit and how it might enhance the theory of TL.
541
542
Transformative Learning in the Group Context
Education and training have used a group setting as a vehicle for delivering
543
learning. Historically the group setting can be viewed as foundational to adult education
544
(Imel 1999; Scott 2003). Modern study of group learning owes much to Eduard
545
Lindeman (Mezirow 1978) who advocated the use of facilitation and discussion in groups
546
to connect learning with experience and social action. TL was conceived as a description
547
of adult learning experiences in an educational setting, which was primarily conducted in
548
the classroom (Laiken 2002). As such, TL is researched and discussed in a variety of
549
group learning settings, classroom, workplace training, and mentoring pairs. In this
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
550
section, I will review the Literature and research on the theory of TL as it relates to the
551
group learning context, which is similar to the context of my research participants’
552
experience.
553
14
Laiken’s (2002) classroom research shows that it is possible for individuals to
554
experience TL in groups if the balance between the polarities of action and reflection, or
555
task and process, is managed or facilitated to promote TL. This balance is maintained
556
through critical reflective dialogue. Laiken’s critical reflective dialogue is based on
557
Mezirow’s practice of reflective dialogue. Laiken’s research describes the role of the
558
facilitator, learning environment, and factors that are promoted in the AI event to manage
559
the movement between reflection and problem solving. This research raises awareness of
560
the importance of the educator’s role as a facilitator, attending to the learner’s need for
561
both reflection and problem solving, in the learning environment although it requires
562
further research. Laiken offers self-reported evidence of TL, resulting from her narrative
563
inquiry, and does not compare these reports to Mezirow’s model of TL. This research
564
does not make clear whether Mezirow’s definition of TL was met. AI events often move
565
the participants from action to reflection through one on one, small, and large group
566
discussion and planning exercises, and might lead to TL for its participants.
567
Eisen (2001) reports in her case study, that a peer to peer coaching model
568
promoted epochal TL through rational dialogue between coaching pairs consisting of
569
practiced professionals rather than group learning or individualized instruction. Eisen
570
equates rational dialogue with Mezirow’s practice of reflective dialogue and uses the
571
terms interchangeably. Eisen’s research shows that reflective dialogue in the learning
572
environment may lead to TL. Rational dialogue is encouraged in the AI among pairs in
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
15
573
the appreciative interviews and in the small and large group discussions. While Eisen’s
574
definition is based on Mezirow’s model of TL, she makes no comparison of the subject’s
575
statements of transformation to Mezirow’s model. This research does not make clear
576
whether Mezirow’s definition of TL was met. For this research, it may be helpful to
577
know at what stage or point this dialogue should occur to promote TL. Since Eisen does
578
not compare her findings to Mezirow’s model, we do not know when this dialogue might
579
have been most helpful. AI participants begin the AI event with positive interviews that
580
could be a place for rational dialogue between peers might occur.
581
Sokol and Cranton (1998), using Mezirow’s definition of TL, found that
582
perspective transformation in the classroom was a result of: how well the facilitator
583
handled their role, the positive nature of the group, and the self-awareness gained through
584
psychological self-assessment. Sokol and Cranton found that TL resulted from face-to-
585
face interaction between the teacher and student and between the student and their study
586
group in a social context whose purpose is reflection, learning, and change. Sokol and
587
Cranton show that critical self-reflection and reflective dialogue might lead to TL. Sokol
588
and Cranton make no comparison in their research to Mezirow’s model. AI events are
589
also dependent on the factors of facilitator skill, positive group nature, and self-awareness
590
and self-assessment for success and cause the participants to engage in reflection,
591
learning, and change. AI makes a conscious effort to cultivate these factors. This
592
research does not make clear whether Mezirow’s definition of TL was met. This research
593
also does not make clear when these reflective processes might be helpful, or what stages
594
of TL they might facilitate or promote.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
595
16
Yorks and Sharoff (2001) propose that collaborative inquiry as a practice in group
596
learning creates the context for TL, as defined by Mezirow, by providing easier access to
597
diverse and challenging perspectives, social support for the construction or reconstruction
598
of meaning, and the sense of connection resulting from learning in relationship. Yorks
599
and Sharoff assert the goals of the AI event should provide such a context for its
600
participants. AI events also promote collaborative inquiry in small and large group
601
discussions, and in action planning. The authors do not compare the participant’s
602
experiences of TL to Mezirow’s model, and this research does not make clear whether
603
Mezirow’s definition of TL was met. This research does show that the goals and values
604
of an AI event might promote TL.
605
Scribner and Donaldson’s (2001) quantitative study of a group of educational
606
administrators in preparation through their course of studies to determine how factors of
607
group dynamics might effect the group’s learning and whether that learning might be
608
transformative. A group climate that was inclusive of difference, norms that encouraged
609
the surfacing and resolution of difference, clearly defined roles, and free and open
610
communication led to students reporting changes in their attitudes and behaviors toward
611
group learning and qualitative research methods. This research highlights the positive
612
group dynamics encouraged in the appreciative inquiry, which may lead to TL
613
experiences for its participants. The changes described are not compared to TL as
614
described by Mezirow. The authors do not compare the participant’s experiences of TL
615
to Mezirow’s model, and this research does not make clear whether Mezirow’s definition
616
of TL was met.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
617
17
Many researchers of group and team learning cite Mezirow as an influence or
618
they claim TL as a by-product or end result of the research projects. For example, Kasl,
619
Marsick(Kasl, Marsick et al. 1997), et al’s team-based learning model, which posits a
620
team-based learning process of framing, reframing, experimentation, crossing
621
boundaries, and integrating perspectives. The team-based learning process if successful
622
leads to a synergistic learning stage, which provides the context where the team’s
623
members are likely to experience TL, as described by Mezirow. AI events allow for the
624
creation of teams that design and plan action to solve issues uncovered by the AI event
625
process.
626
Yorks and Marsick (2000) postulate that groups can learn as discrete entities,
627
transcending individual learning with in a group. Yorks and Marsick further state that
628
organizational transformation’s goal of more effectively reaching its performance goals
629
might be in conflict with the individual’s goals of TL, but also that the individual’s TL
630
should be desired in meeting the organization’s goals. Yorks and Marsick examined two
631
case studies for evidence of TL. One case study was a learning event using the critical
632
reflection school of action learning and the other case was a learning event based on
633
collaborative inquiry. While the authors report evidence of TL as reported by the
634
participants and observed by the authors, they do not compare the participant’s learning
635
experiences to Mezirow’s ten stages of TL. This shows TL might occur in an AI event
636
where it is not a stated goal of the initiative and that the individual’s TL goals should be
637
respected even if they are opposed to the group’s goals.
638
O’Hara (2005) argues that the individual and the group frame of reference
639
commingle to beneficial effect in transformative group experiences. O’Hara reports that
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
18
640
there are certain moments in the transformative group’s life, where there is a balance
641
between high individual awareness and high interpersonal acceptance. In this place of
642
balance, the group becomes a higher order entity. O’Hara labels these as integral groups,
643
which enable the balance in this way:
644
645
646
647
648
649
The group as an entity gives up its exclusivity, transcends its own boundaries, and
opens itself to membership, participation, and interconnection in even higher
order entities of which it, too, is but a part. The community takes care of its own
members but/and it also gives to the larger world.
Members of these integral groups often describe themselves as being lifted
650
beyond their personal best while participating in these groups and that they achieve
651
deeper learning and experience a sense of flow that is transcendent, which O’Hara
652
compares to Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of flow (Csikszentmihalyi 1997; O'Hara 2003).
653
Individuals in this expanded state of consciousness unfreeze and reconfigure old
654
cognitive, emotional and possibly spiritual patterns to learn at deep and transformative
655
levels. O’Hara’s integral groups might be useful in describing the AI event participants’
656
experiences. The relationship between Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of flow and TL would
657
be an interesting topic for another research project.
658
Scott (2003) postulates that transformation takes place as a result of structural
659
changes in the psyches of the individual and in the social structures of society, which
660
includes the context of the group. The personal and social transformations co-emerge
661
and in their dyadic relationship transform simultaneously.
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
The transformation involves a change in the interrelationship among the higher
mental functions, particularly in form of perceptions that include a conceptual
mind, as well as sensations that create a world through ideas, concepts, images,
and more bodily ancient archetypes constellated as emotions. The social and the
personal transformation (change in structures) co-emerge at the same time (Scott
2003).
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
19
669
Scott theorizes that the individual and organizational transformations are
670
interrelated, each enabling the other to happen. From Scott’s perspective of TL,
671
transformation takes place on at least two levels, for the individual participants and for
672
the social unit it takes place in, whether that relationship is the teacher – student, class –
673
student, member – organization. One cannot transform without the other. Scott’s
674
conclusion implies that organizational development initiatives cannot effect
675
transformation without effecting individual transformation.
676
O’Hara’s and Scott’s studies show that the group setting may do more than
677
provide a context for critical self-reflection and reflective dialogue. The group might
678
play a part in transforming the individual members into a group entity, which enables a
679
transformation for both the group and the individual members. In this study, I will focus
680
on the individual transformations that might result from participation in the AI event.
681
In this section, I have established that TL can occur in groups, if attention is paid
682
to the balance of the action reflection polarity (Laiken 2002), and if opportunities for
683
critical self-reflection and reflective dialogue are provided (Eisen 2001). TL in the group
684
learning context is also dependent on the facilitator or educator’s skill in their role, the
685
positive nature of the group is encouraged, and the group experience provides
686
opportunity for self-assessment leading to greater self-awareness (Sokol and Cranton
687
1998). Educators might make use of collaborative inquiry to create a context for TL
688
(Yorks and Sharoff 2001). Educators should encourage an inclusive group climate,
689
clearly defined roles, and free, open discussion to encourage TL (Scribner and Donaldson
690
2001). Team or group learning may lead the group to a synergistic learning stage where
691
TL is more likely to occur (Kasl, Marsick et al. 1997). Individual TL goals may be
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
20
692
opposed to the group’s learning goals but should be respected and encouraged (Yorks and
693
Marsick 2000). The group and the individual’s frames of reference can commingle in
694
integral groups, which enable individual transcendence, lifting the individuals beyond
695
their own capabilities (O'Hara 2005). Personal and group transformations can co-emerge
696
and transform both simultaneously, with TL happening in relationship between the group
697
and the individual or the learner and the educator (Scott 2003). Without direct
698
comparison to Mezirow’s model of TL researcher’s are creating confusion concerning the
699
terms used to describe TL and the model of TL.
700
The research in this section reveals that the group learning context contains many
701
similarities to the AI event. Practices such as balancing action and reflection, critical
702
self-assessment, collaborative inquiry, a positive group climate, and open discussions,
703
which are encouraged in an AI event, might provide a context for TL to occur in the AI
704
event. I will further discuss the AI event in the section on AI.
705
706
Critical Analysis of Transformative Learning Theory
Mezirow theorizes TL is essentially an epistemic TL experience, theorizing that
707
TL is a cognitive rational process. Mezirow further theorizes TL can only truly be
708
transformative if it effects a change in the cognitive nature involving reasoning, critical
709
reflection, and a critical dialectic. Mezirow’s theory of TL leans heavily on Habermas’
710
model of knowledge types and in particular his definition of emancipatory knowledge.
711
Mezirow states that Habermas defines three types of knowledge based on the nature of its
712
learning goals: instrumental knowledge with the goal of instructing scientific, rational,
713
and objective learning; communicative knowledge is focused on social norms, values,
714
developing interpersonal understanding; and emancipatory knowledge where learners
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
21
715
revise their underlying assumptions and perspectives. Habermas’ description of
716
emancipatory knowledge is much more wholistic and integrated, while Mezirow
717
conceived of this as a predominately cognitive process (Mezirow 1991). Scholars
718
question how a transformative, and emancipatory learning experience can involve less
719
that the whole person, the emotive and affective, or even spiritual person (Taylor 1997).
720
E. Taylor’s Critique of Transformative Learning Theory
721
E. Taylor (1997; 1998), in his critique of Mezirow’s theory and model of TL,
722
asserts that research points out the unresolved issues in the discussion of Mezirow’s
723
theory. Although this critique is nine years old it remains a seminal work and is the most
724
comprehensive review of TL theory to date. I will use Taylor’s work as a foundation for
725
this critique of TL theory since his categorization of the issues inherent in TL are still
726
relevant today. Taylor classifies these unresolved issues into seven categories in a meta-
727
analysis of forty-four published research studies focused on Mezirow’s theory. The
728
seven categories of issues are: individual change versus social action, decontextualized
729
view of learning, universal model of adult learning, adult development: shift or
730
progression, emphasis on rationality, other ways of knowing, the model of perspective
731
transformation.
732
Individual change versus social action. Taylor’s critique of Mezirow’s theory
733
will be discussed based on these seven issues. The relationship between TL and social
734
action and social power is the most controversial of the unresolved issues. Taylor (1997)
735
states Mezirow’s link to Habermas’ critical learning theory does not adequately explain
736
the relationship between perspective transformation and social emancipation. Critical
737
learning theory’s emancipatory knowing emphasizes knowing to free one’s self from
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
22
738
oppression. Mezirow’s theory presents perspective transformation as a more individual
739
and personal experience of emancipation from the oppression of distorted and
740
dysfunctional meaning schemas. Social action then becomes the choice of the
741
transformed learner.
742
Decontextualized view of learning. Taylor (1997) reports Mezirow ignored the
743
personal and sociocultural factors of the learner’s context that influence the learner’s
744
meaning schemas and the process of transformation. By decontextualizing the subjective
745
influence of social, cultural, and historical discourse creates an imbalance toward the
746
individual dimension of TL.
747
Universal model of adult learning. Mezirow in his goal of developing a universal
748
theory of TL attempts to define universal conditions and rules while adhering to cultural
749
determinism where culture acts as a template of organic processes. Mezirow’s theory
750
cannot be both decontextualized on the one hand and culturally deterministic on the other
751
hand. Including cultural and social influences might make a universal theory impossible
752
(Taylor 1997).
753
Adult development: shift or progression. Taylor (1997) argues Mezirow also sees
754
the process of perspective transformation as parallel with the process of adult
755
development, which assumes that a perspective transformation is a move through a series
756
of steps or phases (Mezirow 2000). This position does not consider the normative
757
psychological development of the adult or the socially constructed nature of
758
development. Further Mezirow states that perspective transformation can be either
759
incremental or epochal, occurring is stages or in one transcendent shift of perspective.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
760
23
An emphasis on rationality. According to Taylor (1997) Mezirow’s model relies
761
too heavily on critical reflection based on premise reflection, which is a reflection of why
762
we perceive. Mezirow asserts that premise reflection is a rational examination of
763
assumptions and presuppositions. Mezirow (2000) does acknowledge that TL can take
764
the path of subjective reframing and asserts this subjective reframing generally involves
765
an ‘intense emotional struggle’ as the subject challenges and transforms old perspectives.
766
The transformation takes place on a cognitive-rational level. It can be argued that this is
767
an overly western view of how knowing is constructed, which disregards emotions and
768
intuition.
769
Other ways of knowing. Taylor (1997) also argues that Mezirow has given little
770
attention to the role of other ways of knowing, such as relational learning. For Mezirow
771
the learner’s perspective transformation impacts their relationships. Those relationships
772
are not a source of knowing, nor are they regarded for the influence of trust, support, and
773
caring that relationships can provide to enable or encourage learning. Scholars argue
774
perspective transformation is not the individual and autonomous process described by
775
Mezirow.
776
The model of perspective transformation. Mezirow’s model of TL is supported
777
by some research (Lytle 1989; Cesar 2003), but there may be other stages of perspective
778
transformation not reported by Mezirow. Some studies show Mezirow’s model to be
779
more recursive or spiraling in nature rather than a hierarchy of self-fulfilling steps
780
(Taylor 1997; Scott 2003). Many studies show that the learner needs to express and
781
confront feelings that arise during the critical assessment and resolve them before they
782
can move toward perspective transformation (Coffman 1989; Saavedra 1995; Taylor
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
24
783
1997). In some studies, the learner had to accept with some measure of blind faith the
784
new directions and assumptions would lead to their desired outcome (Morgan 1987;
785
Taylor 1997). These learners suspended their need to assess critically their assumptions.
786
The disorienting dilemma as a first step is debated by some critics of TL theory.
787
The debate concerns the intensity or how profound in nature the dilemma must be, and
788
why some disorienting dilemmas lead to perspective transformation and others do not
789
(Clark 1993; Pope 1996; Taylor 1997). Scholars also debate the definition of a
790
perspective transformation. Mezirow does not clearly address the implications and
791
consequences of perspective transformation (Clark 1993; Saavedra 1995; Pope 1996;
792
Taylor 1997). Perspective transformation can affect the psychological, the convictional,
793
and the behavioral aspects or the person, lead to spiritual or mystical experiences.
794
Perspective transformation can also increase the learner’s sense of connection with and
795
compassion for others, increase creativity and the sense of freedom (Morgan 1987;
796
Coffman 1989; Clark 1993; Saavedra 1995; Pope 1996; Taylor 1997; Scott 2003).
797
There is much current research being done on TL for dissertations and theses
798
concerning Mezirow’s model of TL. Much of this research shows other paths to TL. For
799
example, Frank (2005) reports that her research subjects experience of TL was highly
800
individual, hinged on a key insight or learning, involved the emotional and spiritual
801
selves, was assisted in some cases by mentoring, and had an affect on others in the
802
participants’ lives. Wilson (2004) reports that TL was a result of related knowing, that
803
narratives and stories played a large part, participants used metaphors to describe their
804
experience, the process of TL was both emotional and rational, and an external event
805
triggered the process of TL. Wasserman (2004) found that reflection, storytelling, and
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
25
806
dialogue fostered TL. McEwen (2004) found that her experience of TL involved multiple
807
intelligences: emotional, intuition, spiritual, body-awareness, and cognitive learning.
808
Harvie (2004) reports the TL process was primarily social in nature rather than
809
individual, and the results were cognitive–affective and cognitive-behavioral.
810
Taylor’s seven categories of issues with Mezirow’s theory of TL have become the
811
basis of most scholarly critique of Mezirow in the intervening years. Taylor’s critique of
812
Mezirow’s theory of TL reveals many endemic and inherent conflicts, many issues to
813
clarify and resolve, and points to new research directions, all of which will be considered
814
during this research and the subsequent data analysis. At this point, I continue with other
815
critics of TL theory to round out the critique of TL theory.
816
Other Critiques of Transformative Learning
817
Other scholarly critics of TL theory consider the psychological and cognitive
818
development of the subject and the holistic nature of TL. Merriam (2004) asserts that
819
while TL leads to a more mature, autonomous and developed level of thinking, it should
820
also be noted that Mezirow neglects to mention it requires a certain level of cognitive
821
development before TL can be undertaken by the learner. Critical self-reflection and
822
reflective dialogue require a learner to be able to assess critically their deeply held
823
assumptions, fundamentally questioning and reordering how they act and think. Not all
824
learners will be ready to make this critical assessment and educators must be prepared for
825
these learners.
826
Tennant (1993) reminds us that while perspective transformation can lead to
827
cognitive development it does not lead to psychological development and that educators
828
need to be wary of expecting too much of their learners. Pietrykowski (1996) argues that
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
26
829
Mezirow, along with Freire and Habermas, claim an emancipatory end state that Foucault
830
and other postmodern theorists assert is impossible when considering how deeply
831
embedded the concept of power is in the discourse required. Scholars are also
832
challenging the obvious exclusion of the whole person in effecting transformational
833
learning. Illeris (2004) theorizes that a comprehensive learning theory should include
834
cognition, emotion, and environment as a reflection of a whole person in society.
835
Taylor (1997) cites the difference between Habermas’ description of
836
emancipatory knowledge and TL and Mezirow’s use of emancipatory knowledge as a
837
flaw in Mezirow’s theoretical underpinning. Habermas’ language is much more inclusive
838
of the whole person and their social and historical context, while Mezirow sees TL as a
839
cognitive process. Taylor (1997) shows that this basic difference reveals several endemic
840
and inherent issues for research on TL to investigate and resolve. Robinson (2004)
841
proposes including the spiritual aspect of the self. Yorks and Kasl (2002) propose that
842
TL occurs in a phenomenologically-based frame of reference, which is more congruent
843
with the human experience of holistic learning.
844
Merriam (2004) points out that not all adult learners will be in the right stage of
845
cognitive development for TL, which may explain why many learners do not experience
846
all ten stages of TL or achieve integration of that learning into their lives. Tennant
847
(1993) shows that TL does not equal psychological development. Pietrykowski (1996)
848
argues that the concept and role of power is too deeply ingrained in the social and
849
historical context of the learner for them to engage fully in the reflective dialogue
850
required to experience TL. Other scholars question whether Mezirow’s theory and model
851
of TL are inclusive of the whole person (Illeris 2004; Robinson 2004), and is not
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
27
852
congruent with holistic learning (Yorks and Kasl 2002). This critical analysis of TL
853
theory reveals an emphasis on issues of cognitive and psychological development, along
854
with issues of power and emancipation, and including he whole person in TL are
855
necessary for defining a comprehensive theory of TL.
856
Critical analysis of the theory of TL as described by Mezirow reveals that
857
Mezirow’s theory should not be viewed as a complete and universal theory of adult
858
learning and adult development. However, this critical analysis of TL theory shows that
859
this theory should remain open to further questioning and further research to clarify
860
Mezirow’s language for describing it and its theoretical underpinnings (Cranton 1994;
861
Taylor 1998; Mezirow 2000).
862
Other Models of Learning and Development
863
In addition to TL, there are other theories of adult learning that might inform my
864
analysis of the TL participants’ experiences of AI events. Much of adult learning theory
865
is derived from Dewey’s (1938) concept of experiential learning, which holds that
866
learning is as much a physiological process as it is a cognitive process and that
867
combining hands on experience makes the learning experience more meaningful. The
868
theories discussed in this section may inform the analysis of the data collected in this
869
research project and may also suggests topics for further research and new research
870
directions for TL.
871
Mezirow’s theory of TL is often compared to Freire’s (1993) theory of liberation
872
education, Conscientization, in which the instructor consciously intends to engage in
873
liberating the student from oppression. The oppressed student is not an abstract concept
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
874
isolated from the world but an active participant in their world. The oppressed and the
875
oppressor actively create and sustain the systems of oppression.
876
28
In traditional education, the instructor deposits wisdom and knowledge and the
877
goal of education is producing a student who fits the existing systems of oppression. In
878
liberation education, the instructor becomes a problem-poser rather than one who
879
deposits wisdom and knowledge. In the role of problem-poser, it is the instructor’s goal
880
to develop the student’s critical consciousness of their assumptions and their context.
881
The instructor assists the student in developing critical consciousness through the skill of
882
dialogue. It is through open and honest dialogue conducted with humility, love, and
883
respect that the praxis of action and reflection occurs. Critical consciousness leads to
884
conscientization, in which the student moves from complete unawareness of how their
885
assumptions and their context shape one’s life through dialogue and praxis. Critical
886
consciousness empowers the student in how they name the world and the phenomena
887
they encounter.
888
Freire differs from Mezirow in seeking freedom from oppression through
889
liberation education, where Mezirow’s TL treats emancipation from oppression as an
890
ancillary benefit of education. Freire also sees the student as a contextual being,
891
connected, dependent on, and defining their world. As noted above in the critique by
892
Taylor, Mezirow is often criticized for not including the whole person and
893
decontextualizing the process of TL.
894
Revans (1982) sees the link between critical reflection and action and uses it to
895
define a theory of learning designed originally for management development called
896
Action Learning. Action learning requires participants to partake in real and complex
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
29
897
problems while asking questions about what knowledge exists and reflecting on their
898
actions during and after the problem solving. Action learning’s goals are well defined by
899
the organization and individual change is directed at achieving those goals. This leaves
900
little room in the literature of action learning for personal stories of transformation. The
901
focus on organizational learning may provide a basis for comparing the data collected in
902
this research to Revans’ theories.
903
Some adult development theorists begin with Carl Jung’s model of life stages:
904
youth, middle age, and old age. Theorists such as Levinson (1978) describe development
905
in well-defined stages of life based on age. Erikson (Erikson and Erikson 1997)
906
describes development in terms of a questioning of assumptions. While I will collect in
907
my research age and sex data for each research participant, this research project may not
908
collect enough detail concerning these theories and any similarities to these theories in
909
my analysis of the data will suggest further research topics.
910
Gould (1979) views adult development as a passage between the resolution of
911
four key assumptions that drive four well defined age groups. In Gould’s model, there is
912
no defining crisis; developmental movement through stages depends on questioning the
913
key assumptions:
914
I’ll always live in my parents world
915
Doing things my parent’s way, with persistence, will bring results
916
Life is simple and controllable; I have no contradictions within me
917
There is no death; there is no evil
918
In the fifth and final life stage, there are no questioning of assumptions, only an
919
acceptance and appreciation of what one has and has accomplished. This research may
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
920
not collect enough detail concerning Gould’s theories and any similarities to these
921
theories in my analysis of the data will suggest further research topics.
922
30
Gould believes that we develop as adults by solving personal problems based in
923
the dilemmas created by adhering to the statements defining each of the stages. Through
924
a process of experimentation, experience and learning to make good decisions we master
925
bad habits, fear and misconceptions. This development reduces the impact of the left
926
over childhood consciousness, which is an act of confronting layer after layer of buried
927
childhood pain. Gould’s definition of Adult development states that personal change
928
generates internal conflict as the childhood unconscious is uncovered and its issues are
929
resolved. This happens in a three-stage process. First, we are confronted with a demand
930
for a new pattern of behavior. Then, we change our pattern of behavior while sorting out
931
the confusion between current reality and the pain of the past. Last, we arrive at a clear
932
and grounded understanding of current reality. This process helps us resolve each stage
933
and prepares us for the next.
934
Rooke, Fisher, and Torbert (Rooke and Torbert 1998; Rooke, Fisher et al. 2001)
935
propose a model which compares the personal development stages of Chief Executive
936
Officers (CEOs) to the organizations stages of development. After several decades of
937
studying manager and executive levels of personal development Rooke, Fisher and
938
Torbert developed eight stages of personal development, which they match to eight
939
corresponding stages of organizational development. Rooke, Fisher and Torbert theorize
940
that it is at the sixth stage of personal development, the Strategist/Leader, when CEOs
941
can begin to effect transformation with in the organization, which is in the Collaborative
942
Inquiry stage. The authors use the Washington University Sentence Completion Test
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
31
943
(SCT) to assess the CEO’s personal development stage. Critics of this theory state that it
944
focuses too strongly on the CEO and ignores the organization as a whole and the other
945
key players in organizational transformation (Rooke and Torbert 1998; Porter 2002).
946
Since I will not be conducting the SCT with the participants of my study comparisons to
947
Rooke, Fisher, and Torbert will be difficult, although their descriptions of the personal
948
development stages might be useful.
949
Bronfenbrenner (2004) looks at human development as it is influenced by
950
ecological spheres, the microsystem, messosystem, macrosystem, and how they effect
951
several key dimensions. As it applies to an organization, the ecology of human
952
development would consider how the members interact with each other (microsystem),
953
then how the members interact with their immediate external stakeholders
954
(messosystem), and finally how the organization interacts with its greater environment
955
(macrosystem). The AI event may be inclusive of, or representative of, each of
956
Bronfenbrenner’s systems so it may be possible to compare the data collected in this
957
research to his theories.
958
Another model of TL is proposed by Jane Taylor (1989) in her master’s thesis.
959
Taylor’s model of the process of TL is more general in nature and does not include many
960
of the specific process or events that Mezirow’s model proposes. Taylor sees the process
961
of TL proceeding of three phases in which the learner becomes conscious of a new
962
reality, transforms their consciousness, and integrates the new consciousness into their
963
life. Please refer to Table 2 for J. Taylor’s model of the process of TL.
964
965
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
966
Table 2
967
J. Taylor’s Model of TL
32
Phase I: Generation of Consciousness
Step 1
Encountering trigger events
Step 2
Confronting reality
Phase II: Transformation of consciousness
Step 3
Reaching the transition point
Step 4
Shift or leap of transcendence
Phase III: Integration of consciousness
Step 5
Personal commitment
Step 6
Grounding and development
968
969
Taylor reports the disorienting dilemma may be internally induced by the learner
970
as well as externally induced and is a result of confronting a new reality through a trigger
971
event. Transcendence can be sudden or gradual but the learner is aware of a conscious
972
leap of faith. Personal commitment to the new perspective and acting on the new
973
perspective integrate the change of meaning perspective into the learner’s life.
974
Other theorists, such as Cranton (1994), Kolb (1984), Boyd (1989; 1991), and
975
Dirkx (2000; 2001), base their theories on Carl Jung’s theories of personality type.
976
Cranton (1994) uses Jung’s eight basic personality types based on the functions of
977
extroversion and introversion, thinking and feeling, sensation and intuition. These types
978
were developed in Jung’s study of differentiated individuation based on the interaction of
979
internal subjective forces and external circumstances. Differentiation is the ability to use
980
one function independently of another and individuation is a process of differentiation
981
with the goal of developing the individual personality. Since these personality types have
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
33
982
been well studied and are supported in much research they provide a solid basis for
983
determining how TL varies among adult learners. Cranton uses these types to show how
984
personality type can influence personal learning styles. Cranton compares each type to a
985
series of components leading to TL and the likelihood that they would engage in each
986
component of TL. Cranton’s model is a variation of Mezirow’s model of the process of
987
TL, which Cranton has used without reference to the MBTI personality types. Please
988
refer to Table 3 for Cranton’s model of TL.
989
Table 3
990
Cranton’s Model of TL
1
Awareness of values and assumptions
2
3
4
5
Receptiveness to trigger events
Questioning of values and assumptions
Content and process reflection
Premise reflection
6
7
8
Rational discourse
Revision of values and assumptions
Revision of meaning perspectives
991
992
Cranton finds each personality type is likely to engage in some of the components
993
but none will engage in all of the components. Yet TL does occur. This implies that the
994
path of TL will be different for each adult learner. Cranton finds the learner’s personality
995
type, how differentiated or individuated each learner is, should be accounted for in
996
promoting TL. I will collect basic background data for each research participant, I do not
997
expect each participant to know their Jungian personality type, although the MBTI
998
assessment is common. Any similarities concerning Cranton’s theories in my analysis of
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
999
1000
1001
34
the data will suggest further research topics, or new directions for research concerning
TL.
Kolb’s (1984) theory of experiential learning is based on the creation of
1002
knowledge as it relates to learner’s experiences. Learners accomplish their
1003
transformations by moving through four learning phases: Concrete Experience, Reflective
1004
Observation, Abstract Conceptualization, and Active Experimentation. This process
1005
facilitates learner’s full integration of their experiences into TL. Kolb (1985) also
1006
theorizes learners have a natural learning style based on these four phases, which can
1007
reveal strengths and weaknesses in their ability to integrate their experiences into TL.
1008
Kolb and others have found that this learning style preference is linked to Jung’s basic
1009
personality types. The experiential nature of the AI event may lend itself to comparison
1010
with Kolb’s theory of experiential learning. The data collected in this research project
1011
may reveal the research participant’s natural learning preference and may provide a basis
1012
to compare the data to both Kolb’s theories and to Cranton’s theories.
1013
Boyd (1989; 1991) defines transformative learning, from a Jungian perspective, as
1014
a fundamental change in personality resulting from both the resolution of a personal
1015
dilemma and the expansion of consciousness fostering a greater integration of the
1016
personality. Boyd finds this is a result of individual conflicts within the psyche. Boyd
1017
describes a whole person centered process including the ego and the collective
1018
unconscious. TL is a process of discernment, or contemplative insight involving
1019
listening, recognizing the need to choose, and confronting and reconciling grief. Boyd’s
1020
transformation is transpersonal, where the ego is a servant of the spirit, while Mezirow’s
1021
transformation is personal and the ego is dominant. The rational nature is vulnerable to
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1022
the unconscious and unable to realize fully the new perspectives gained from critical
1023
reflection. Comparison of the data collected in this research to Boyd’s theories of
1024
transformation may yield fruitful results.
1025
35
Dirkx’s (2000; 2001) exploration of TL begins with Boyd’s (1989; 1991) use of
1026
Jungian theory, but moves to another of Jung’s concepts. Jung suggests that it is helpful
1027
to look for the image that lie behind and ultimately drive emotions and behavior. Dirkx
1028
theorizes that emotional experiences are the link between the unconscious and the
1029
conscious and enable deep TL experiences. Emotions are often associated with voices or
1030
images that convey a deep, inner life that cannot be controlled by force of will or
1031
connected to reason. Spontaneously appearing images are gateways to the unconscious
1032
self. These images often connect the inner and outer self, through emotions and help
1033
make meaning of the world. These images are tied then to our initial construction of
1034
meaning and are constructed through imagination and fantasy. Mezirow’s TL theory,
1035
with its preference for the cognitive, asks how or why of our transformative experiences.
1036
Dirkx suggests we ask ourselves during learning experiences what the emotions we are
1037
also experiencing remind us of in our past. When have we felt these emotions before?
1038
What was going on then? Who was involved? Asking these questions might surface the
1039
image that connects these emotions to the experience at hand. Dirkx suggests a strategy
1040
for making use of these images in a positive and transformative manner.
1041
Describe the image as clearly as is possible
1042
Associate the image with other aspects of our lives
1043
Amplify the image through stories, poetry, fairy tales, or myths
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
36
1044
Animate the image by allowing it to talk or interact with us through additional
1045
fantasy or imagining.
1046
Dirkx’s research suggests interesting means of coping with the negative emotions
1047
that Mezirow’s model suggest must be engaged and provides some basis for the use of
1048
appreciative inquiry’s positive principle and poetic principle in providing a context for
1049
TL. Dirkx’s theory may prove useful in analyzing the data collected in this research.
1050
Summary of Transformative Learning
1051
TL is the change in the meaning schemas, accompanied by changes in ways of
1052
being, resulting in new perspectives, attitudes, and behaviors integrated in new roles and
1053
relationships as these changes are integrated into the subject’s life. TL takes place
1054
through critical self-reflection, reflective dialogue, and reflective action, over a series of
1055
ten stages (Mezirow 1978; 1990; 1991; 2000). Lytle (1989) and Cesar’s (2003) research
1056
shows that while most students will experience some of the stages of TL not all students
1057
will experience all ten stages of TL. Lytle shows us that a student must experience all
1058
nine previous stages before they will be able to experience stage ten, a reintegration of
1059
the learning into their life (Lytle 1989).
1060
Yorks and Marsick (2000) confirm that TL does occur in organizational learning
1061
initiatives and recommend that TL for the individual members of the organization’s
1062
organizational learning initiatives despite the possible conflict between the organization’s
1063
goals and the individual’s goals. O’Hara (2003) finds that group and individual
1064
transformations co-mingle, leading the individuals participating to a higher state that
1065
enables deeper learning and transformations of greater impact for both.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1066
37
Scott (2003) proposes that social transformation is a result of changes at the
1067
individual level, happening in an interrelationship where transformation of the social and
1068
personal co-emerge simultaneously. O’Hara’s and Scott’s findings describe the
1069
interdependence between organizational transformation and individual transformation. If
1070
TL does occur at the organizational and individual level and personal and organizational
1071
transformation are interdependent, then individual TL might be a result of participation in
1072
organizational development initiatives.
1073
Mezirow’s theory of TL is not a complete and universal theory of adult learning
1074
and development so this research will consider other theories of TL, transformation, adult
1075
learning, and adult development. Theorists such as Gould (1979) Cranton (1994), Kolb
1076
(1984; 1985), Boyd (1989; 1991), and Dirkx (2000; 2001) may describe the experience of
1077
AI participants as well as, or more fully than Mezirow.
1078
1079
1080
Appreciative Inquiry
Appreciative Inquiry History and Context
The field of organizational development has promulgated many organizational
1081
change and intervention models since Trist and Emery’s Bristol-Sidderly search
1082
Conference in the early 1960’s. A few examples of these are the Search Conferences,
1083
Participative Democratic Design, Preferred Futuring, Future Search, Whole-Scale
1084
Change, and Appreciative Inquiry. These models are often based on Lewin’s field
1085
theories of social organizations and his theory that an organizational change would follow
1086
the model of an un-thawing, changing, and refreezing of the organization (Weisbord
1087
1987; 1992; Lewin 1997; Holman and Devane 1999). Organizational change requires an
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
38
1088
organizational design for change, and an individual level of awareness to accomplish TL
1089
at an individual level.
1090
This level of individual learning might be confused with a field of organizational
1091
development known as organizational learning. Organizational learning’s goal is the
1092
improvement of the organizations performance, restructuring of values, and enhance the
1093
organization’s capacity for learning (Argyris and Schon 1978; Senge 1994; 1996). The
1094
focus of this research is at the individual level, not the organization. In this section, I will
1095
discuss the theories, design, and methods of AI to show AI as an appropriate
1096
organizational initiative for this research project.
1097
Appreciative inquiry’s use as an organizational development initiative has grown
1098
exponentially since Cooperrider introduced the concept in 1986. AI was used as a means
1099
of dialogic discovery used to uncover the egalitarian organization (Cooperrider 1986).
1100
Cooperrider states appreciative inquiry’s basic premise:
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
Human systems construct their worlds in the direction of what they
persistently ask questions about, and this propensity is strongest and most
sustainable when the means and ends of inquiry are positively correlated.
The single most prolific thing a group can do, if it aims to liberate the
human spirit and consciously construct a better future, is to make the
“positive change core” of any system the common and explicit property of
all (Cooperrider 2002, p. ix).
AI is more than a method of appreciative questioning or a positive mindset, AI is
1110
a new paradigm for viewing our relationships with knowledge and learning capital in
1111
organizations and other social relationships. AI applies its unique philosophy through
1112
five principles (Cooperrider 1986; Srivastva and Cooperrider 1999; Cooperrider,
1113
Sorrensen et al. 2000; Fry and Barrett 2002).
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1114
39
The Constructionist Principle: Meaning, knowledge, and learning are constructed
1115
through “discursive interchanges and social interactions, through processes of
1116
negotiation, conflict, improvisation, and the like (Gergen 1999)” thus the way we know is
1117
fateful.
1118
The Principle of Simultaneity: Inquiry and change in organizations are not
1119
separate incidents but are the self-fulfilling destiny of the questions we ask and the
1120
images of the future that they provoke, change begins with the questions we ask and at
1121
the moment we ask them.
1122
The Poetic Principle: Organizational systems are not closed books but are
1123
narratives constantly unfolding in a never-ending story, constantly being co-authored by
1124
its members, and AI writes the next chapter in that story.
1125
The Anticipatory Principle: In human systems the anticipated or projected future
1126
state influences the expectations, language and behaviors of the members, thus deep
1127
change is a result of changing the system’s imagery of the future.
1128
The Positive Principle: Hope, interest, motivation, caring, positive effect and
1129
social bonding, long lasting and sustainable change are a response to the unconditional
1130
positive question. Positive inquiry creates positive anticipation, positive images of the
1131
future, and leads to positive response freeing members of the system to construct a new
1132
positive reality and positive expectations, positive language, and positive behaviors
1133
(Cooperrider 1986; Srivastva and Cooperrider 1999; Cooperrider, Sorrensen et al. 2000;
1134
Fry and Barrett 2002).
1135
1136
The AI event is generally delivered in a summit format, which includes four
stages in which participants are facilitated through a discovery of their organization’s
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1137
positive core, and then participate in designing the intervention that will yield their
1138
desired end state. Some practitioners start with a Fifth D: Define, in which the
1139
facilitators and the client organization clearly define the topic or focus of the AI in
1140
advance of the event (Leadership 2000). Here I describe each of the four stages in
1141
general terms to show how AI might be a context for TL.
40
1142
Discovery is a search to understand the "best of what is" and "what has been."
1143
This phase begins with collaboration in constructing appreciative interview questions,
1144
and constructing an appreciative interview guide. AI questions are written as affirmative
1145
probes into an organization’s positive core, in the topic areas selected. They are written to
1146
generate stories, to enrich the images and inner dialogue within the organization, and to
1147
bring the positive core more fully into focus. Dream: is an exploration and envisioning
1148
what might be in light of the best of what the system might be. Participants express their
1149
hopes and dreams in sessions that enable them to think beyond their current boundaries
1150
and experiences of the past. Design: Participants design through dialogue the ideal future
1151
state for the system, or what should be. These plans often begin with ‘provocative
1152
propositions’, which expand the expectations of what their organization should be
1153
aligning the positive past with the highest potential. Destiny: Participants commit to
1154
plans and action steps that will create and sustain the highest potential of the
1155
organization, co-constructing the future designed above, and leading to ‘inspired actions
1156
(Cooperrider, Sorrensen et al. 2000; Cooperrider and Whitney 2000; Ludema, Whitney et
1157
al. 2003).
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1158
1159
41
Appreciative Inquiry and Transformation
In a seminal study of transformations reported as resulting from AI events Bushe
1160
and Khamisa (2004) conduct a meta analysis of twenty AI case studies searched for the
1161
presence or absence of transformational change. The authors defined transformation in
1162
the context of their study as a major shift in the state of being or the identity of the
1163
organization, developed a persistent generative metaphor, and developed a new set of
1164
background assumptions. This is very similar to Mezirow’s definition of TL. Not all
1165
case studies examined by Bushe and Khamisa offered evidence of a transformation. In
1166
the cases studied, thirty-five percent reported cases transformational outcomes and in all
1167
of the positive cases new knowledge, models or theories, and a generative metaphor,
1168
which compelled action, resulted. Bushe and Khamisa also found eighty-three of the
1169
positive cases used an improvisational approach to the destiny phase of the Appreciative
1170
Inquiry.
1171
Bushe and Khamisa’s focus is on the organization and its transformation. Many
1172
of the author’s they cite discuss individual reports of transformation as an outcome of
1173
participation in appreciative inquiries. Since these studies are focused on organizational
1174
transformation, they do not specifically compare their findings to theories of adult
1175
learning and development. I will discuss some of the transformations reported in these
1176
research projects individually below. The case studies cited by Bushe and Khamisa are
1177
collected together in Fry, Barrett, and et al’s (2002) edited work.
1178
Mohr, Smith, et al in their case study, report changes in behavior and attitude, an
1179
increase in confidence and participation, along with an increase in the transfer of learning
1180
and data in their case study of an intervention based on AI (Mohr, Smith et al. 2000). For
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
42
1181
example, this passage shows that some of the participants of Mohr, Smith, et al’s case
1182
study had the opportunity to provisionally try new roles and relationships, which lead to
1183
an increased experience of confidence.
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
It was a bit like doing rehearsals. Now I have greater confidence in what I’m
doing. I feel assurance about my own decisions. Now I ask more confidently in
real life (Mohr, Smith et al. 2000).
While Mohr, Smith, et al report transformations consistent with TL they do not
1189
report of participants experiencing all ten stages of TL (Mezirow 1978; Lytle 1989; 1990;
1190
1991; 2000; Cesar 2003).
1191
In Schiller’s case study reports of changes in the perceptions, attitudes and
1192
behaviors of the members of an organization toward issues of gender and the women
1193
members of that organization are cited, including integration into the lives of
1194
participant’s (Schiller 2002). For example in this study, some of the participants have
1195
clearly critically reassessed their roles and relationships and experienced a transformation
1196
in their meaning perspectives.
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
Individuals reported that the AI way of thinking and asking questions affected
other parts of their lives, including profoundly changing their relationships with
their families. “This works,” said a human resources manager. “I tried this at
home with my kids. Now I am ready to try it at work (Schiller 2002).”
Schiller’s study is important for showing appreciative inquiry can lead to the
1203
integration of transformation into the participant’s life but does not report all of
1204
Mezirow’s ten stages of TL (Mezirow 1978; Lytle 1989; 1990; 1991; 2000; Cesar 2003).
1205
Trosten-Bloom’s case study describes changes in perception and ways of being
1206
that led to an organizational change that had an effect on both the internal and external
1207
stakeholders of the Windows Fashion Division of the Hunter Douglas Company, which
1208
included dramatic increases in morale, performance, profitability, and sustainability
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1209
(Trosten-Bloom 2002). For example, Trosten-Bloom reports provisional trying of new
1210
roles and responsibilities and the empowering effect of exercising power for the greater
1211
good.
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
Our key finding is that AI gives people the experience of personal and collective
power. It gives them practice exercising power – and doing so responsibly, for
the good of the whole. Having once experienced this liberation of power and the
effect it has on their lives and the world, people are permanently transformed
(Whitney and Trosten-Bloom 2003).
Trosten-Bloom shows that these transformations are sustainable over several
1219
years (Trosten-Bloom 2002), but does not report of participants experiencing all ten
1220
stages of TL (Mezirow 1978; Lytle 1989; 1990; 1991; 2000; Cesar 2003).
1221
43
Van Buskirk’s (2002) case study provides an analysis of an AI conducted in an
1222
urban school system includes a discussion of the individual transformations that resulted
1223
from the AI experience. For example, Van Buskirk describes the transformation
1224
experienced by some of his case studies participants.
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
Its power is exerted through three transformations: (1) it transforms perceptions of
how individuals relate to their past experiences in the organization, (2) it
transforms how they relate to the best experiences of others, and (3) it transforms
how they relate to the cherished traditions of the organization (Van Buskirk
2002).
Van Buskirk attributes these individual transformations to the shift from a
1232
negative to positive resulting in the positive aspects becoming explicit rather than tacit.
1233
Privately held assumptions become public, and energy, creativity, and spontaneity are
1234
unleashed to reframe the new vision of the organization at its best (Van Buskirk 2002).
1235
These individual transformations described by Van Buskirk also indicate TL as defined
1236
by Mezirow but do not report if any of the participants experienced all ten stages of TL
1237
(Mezirow 1978; Lytle 1989; 1990; 1991; 2000; Cesar 2003).
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1238
44
The studies outlined by Bushe and Khamisa (2004) give anecdotal confirmation
1239
that transformations do take place at an individual level. They also confirm stages of TL
1240
are experienced by participants of appreciative inquiries. These studies, however, do not
1241
show that any of the participant’s have experienced all ten stages of TL as described by
1242
Mezirow (Mezirow 1978; Lytle 1989; 1990; 1991; 2000; Cesar 2003). Schiller (2002)
1243
and Van Buskirk’s (2002) studies report AI participants have integrated their
1244
transformations into their lives, implying stages of TL have been experienced by some
1245
participants of the AI event. Schiller and Van Buskirk’s studies do not make explicit that
1246
these participants have experienced all ten stages of TL. This analysis of AI case studies
1247
reveals a need for research that makes explicit the relationship, or the lack of relationship,
1248
between the AI event participants’ experience of transformation with the theory of TL.
1249
1250
Discussion of the Critique of Appreciative Inquiry
Although the theory of AI is twenty years old, there is very little scholarly critique
1251
of this theory. Scholarly literature has been focused on methods and success stories.
1252
Golembiewski offers the most thorough critique. First, Golembiewski (1999; Livingston
1253
1999; 2000) states that AI’s basis in social-constructionism limits its ability to develop an
1254
empirical base of research and leads researchers to a form of advocacy rather than a
1255
scientific approach. Golembiewski notes the tendency for practitioners to be satisfied
1256
with asking,
1257
What is your best experience of X and what are you doing to support it?
1258
This minimizes the power of narrative and storytelling endemic to true AI.
1259
Second, Golembiewski notes that the enthusiastic exploration of the positive is
1260
‘heliotropic.’ This positive focus may be ignoring the whole of the organizational
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
45
1261
unconscious and the very real and important negative or neutral internal dialogue
1262
necessary to institute organizational change. This may lead to a ‘crisis of agreement’ or
1263
an ‘Abilene paradox’ and lead to benchmarking only positive progress.
1264
Bushe (1998) worries that any inquiry with a positive focus might be called AI
1265
while neglecting the theoretical foundations of AI leading to a dilution or corruption of
1266
the practice and dooming it prematurely. Bushe is also concerned that the zeal for
1267
positive appreciation without a practical foundation can disappear as quickly as the
1268
energy and enthusiasm grew to begin with.
1269
These critiques caution the AI practitioner to attend to the theoretical foundations
1270
of AI and follow through completely in its practice. AI practitioners should also be
1271
aware of the tendency to see situations through rose-colored glasses to the exclusion of
1272
the whole dialogue necessary for organizational change.
1273
Summary of Appreciative Inquiry
1274
The literature of AI shows that individuals experience transformations in
1275
perception, attitude, and behavior that can be compared to TL. Mohr, Smith, et al (2000)
1276
found these transformations resulted in increased confidence and competence in addition
1277
to an increased transfer of learning and data. Schiller (2002) reports improved gender
1278
relations, and appreciation for gender issues. Trosten-Bloom (2002) reports increases in
1279
morale, profitability and sustainability. Van Buskirk (2002) reports transformations in
1280
relation to past experiences, others best experiences, and the organizations traditions.
1281
Bushe and Khamisa (2004) found these studies represent organizations, which
1282
exhibited signs of transformation consistent with transformational learning: a major shift
1283
in the state of being or the identity of the organization, developed a persistent generative
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
46
1284
metaphor, and developed a new set of background assumptions. The case studies in
1285
Bushe and Khamisa’s meta-analysis also report individual transformations consistent
1286
with TL but do not show all ten stages being experienced by the participants of the
1287
appreciative inquires studied. In this section, I have discussed AI outcomes for the
1288
organization and for the participants and found them similar to TL. I have also discussed
1289
critiques of AI. In the next section, I will discuss the possible relationship between AI
1290
and TL.
1291
The Relationship between Appreciative Inquiry and Transformative Learning
1292
As I have discussed in the previous sections, the experiences of individuals
1293
participating in AI events can be viewed as similar to experiences of TL as described by
1294
Mezirow. In this section, I describe the possible theoretical relationships between
1295
appreciative inquiry and transformative learning by comparing the 4D design of the
1296
appreciative inquiry summit, as defined by Cooperrider, et al. (Cooperrider and Whitney
1297
2000) and the phases of transformative learning as defined by Mezirow (1981).
1298
The AI event is focused on a specific topic, which could be construed as a
1299
disorienting dilemma in TL. In the AI event’s discovery phase the appreciative
1300
interviews, positive core mapping, and the continuity search create a climate of critical
1301
assessment of assumptions and self-examination of feelings along with developing the
1302
recognition that their desire for change and the process of change are shared. This
1303
context also promotes reflective dialogue in the AI interviews and in small and large
1304
group discussions. It is of interest to my research that AI event causes the participants to
1305
self-examine their positive feelings of hope, strengths, competencies, relationships,
1306
etcetera, while TL encourages the self-examination of fear, anger, guilt, and shame.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1307
47
In the AI event’s dream phase the participants are encouraged to share, bring to
1308
life, and enact their dreams. This provides summit participants the opportunity to explore
1309
and provisionally try new roles, relationships, and actions. In the AI event’s design
1310
phase, the participants select high impact design elements and craft provocative
1311
propositions. This affords them a chance to acquire new knowledge and skills and build
1312
their sense of competence and their sense of confidence in their new roles, relationships
1313
and courses of action. In the AI event’s destiny phase participants generate lists of
1314
possible actions, select inspired actions, and form emergent task groups to begin a
1315
reintegration into their lives their new perspectives.
1316
Positive Psychology
1317
The field of positive psychology was introduced by Martin Seligman and Mihaly
1318
Csikszentmihalyi in an effort to understand and foster the factors that allow individuals,
1319
communities, and societies to survive and flourish. Research in the field of positive
1320
psychology is quickly gaining empirical evidence that positive emotions, character
1321
strengths, and virtues are vital to human creativity and resilience (Seligman and
1322
Csikszentmihalyi 2000; Fredrickson 2001). Seligman (1995) theorizes that positive
1323
psychology might be used to help gain mastery, positivity, and an explanatory style that
1324
build optimism, an important trait in mental health. Positive Psychology might hold
1325
clues to the role of positive emotions in the AI event experience and the role of negative
1326
emotions in TL. Fredrickson’s (2001) research shows that positive emotional
1327
experiences invoke a broadening of responses and an increase in the creativity in
1328
problem-solving. Positive emotions also motivate the subject to continue in a line of
1329
reasoning or course of action longer than subjects experiencing negative emotions. This
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
48
1330
indicates that subjects experiencing positive emotions are more likely to find more viable,
1331
and more sustainable solutions to their problems.
1332
1333
Summary of the Literature Review
According to Mezirow, TL is a transformation of meaning schemas, which takes
1334
place through three reflective processes: critical self-reflection, reflective dialogue, and
1335
reflective action, and they occur over ten stages. These transformations result in the
1336
acquisition of new perspectives, attitudes, and behaviors integrated into new roles and
1337
relationships as these changes are integrated into the subject’s life (Mezirow 1978; 1990;
1338
1991; 2000). These transformations are evident both to the participant and to others.
1339
Many, but not all participants will experience TL, and only those who experience the first
1340
nine steps will meet the final stage of TL: a re-integration into the participant’s life (Lytle
1341
1989; Cesar 2003). For the transformative learning of the individual leads to greater
1342
transformations for the other members (O'Hara 2005) and the individual’s transformation
1343
co-emerges with the organization’s transformation (Scott 2003).
1344
Mezirow’s theory of TL is not a complete and universal theory of adult learning
1345
and development, so this research will consider other theories of TL, transformation,
1346
adult learning, and adult development. Theorists such as Gould (1979) Cranton (1994),
1347
Kolb (1984; 1985), and Boyd (1989; 1991) may describe the experience of AI
1348
participants as well as, or more fully than Mezirow. These theorists among others will be
1349
considered when analyzing the data collected in this research project.
1350
The literature of AI shows that individuals experience transformations in
1351
perception, attitude, and behavior, which can be compared to TL. These transformations
1352
have a positive and beneficial effect on the organization as a whole. Bushe and
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
49
1353
Khamisa’s (2004) meta analysis of AI case studies report organizations whose
1354
participants exhibited TL. At the organizational level, these transformations consist of a
1355
major shift in the state of being or the identity of the organization, developed a persistent
1356
generative metaphor, and developed a new set of background assumptions.
1357
These appreciative inquiries resulted in individual transformations consistent with
1358
TL, including increased confidence and competence in addition to increased transfer of
1359
learning and data (Mohr, Smith et al. 2000). These transformations improved gender
1360
relations, and appreciation for gender issues (Schiller 2002), and led to increases in
1361
morale, profitability and sustainability (Trosten-Bloom 2002). Personal transformations
1362
in relation to past experiences, others best experiences, and the organizations traditions
1363
are also reported (Van Buskirk 2002). None of these studies report all ten of Mezirow’s
1364
stages were met (Mezirow 1978; Lytle 1989; 1990; 1991; 2000; Cesar 2003).
1365
The field of positive psychology might also give insight into the ability of learners
1366
to complete the process of TL while engaging in a self-examination with negative
1367
feelings. The field of positive psychology (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000) might
1368
help explain the differences between the positive emotional experiences of AI
1369
participants and TL emphasis on a self-examination with negative feelings, and explain
1370
how the AI event becomes so significant for the creativity and insight claimed by its
1371
participants.
1372
1373
The Gaps in the Literature
It is apparent that during an appreciative inquiry, transformation for some
1374
participants co-emerges with the organization’s own transformation and that these
1375
transformations are consistent with TL. It is also possible that the AI summit enables TL
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1376
for some of the participants. While this review of the literature supports these
1377
conclusions, I have not found research that specifically compares Mezirow’s theory of
1378
TL to the experiences of participants of organizational development initiatives, in
1379
particular appreciative inquiry.
1380
1381
50
Research Questions
The review of the literatures and research concerning the theories of TL and AI
1382
with the possible relationship between TL and AI, and the gaps in the literature lead me
1383
to the following research questions, which I will address in this study. My primary
1384
research questions are:
1385
How do participants of appreciative inquiry summits or training understand and
1386
make meaning of their experiences of change relating to their participation in an
1387
appreciative inquiry event?
1388
1389
1390
How do the AI event participant’s experiences compare to the theory of TL as
defined by Mezirow, and how does TL theory describe their experiences?
Of secondary interest to this study, is the research question: How does AI’s focus
1391
on positive emotions compare to TL theories emphasis on the examination of feelings of
1392
anger, guilt, and shame?
1393
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1394
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
1395
1396
51
Introduction
The literature review indicates changes occur in individuals during organizational
1397
development initiatives such as an AI event, and that some of those changes might be
1398
described as transformative learning (Mohr, Smith et al. 2000; Schiller 2002; Trosten-
1399
Bloom 2002; Van Buskirk 2002). This study explores, describes, and analyzes these
1400
experiences as described by the participants in this study. In this chapter, I explain the
1401
research design, including the interview protocol and the methods of data collection and
1402
the method of data analysis.
1403
Research Design
1404
This study consisted of semi-structured in-depth interviews with twenty-one
1405
research participants who indicated by self-selection that they could attribute positive
1406
changes in their lives to an AI event. The research participants discussed in depth their
1407
understandings and the meaning they made of their experiences. Using this research
1408
design, I pursued emergent patterns and themes that relate to the study through both an
1409
inductive method of open and axial coding and a deductive method of coding for TL in
1410
the data. This approach allowed for the exploration of emergent patterns and themes. It
1411
also supported the incorporation of the early findings into the data collection process
1412
through several iterations of data analysis. An iterative approach is common in
1413
qualitative research.
1414
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1415
1416
52
Sample Selection
After receiving Institutional Review Board approval for my research methods and
1417
interview protocol, I recruited potential participants who indicated they could speak to
1418
the dissertation topic. They indicated they were available for interviews, both face-to-
1419
face and by telephone. Please refer to Appendix A for the Institutional Review Board
1420
Approval form. I approached potential research participants through facilitators of
1421
appreciative inquiries, whom I found on the AI Commons, a web site dedicated to the
1422
sharing of knowledge and resources related to AI, and by searching the Internet for
1423
consultants and consulting groups using AI. I also contacted research participants
1424
through the AI Commons list serv and with a posting to a university’s community web
1425
site. I used the written recruitment script for these postings. Please refer to Appendix C
1426
for the written recruitment script. Consultants and students who saw and responded to
1427
my recruitment postings also referred potential research participants. The recruitment
1428
process included emailing and telephoning potential research participants. I selected a
1429
sample population of twenty-one research participants based from those who responded
1430
to my recruitment. All participants were able to commit to an interview during the
1431
interview period. Since the sample was limited to respondents who met my criteria and
1432
agreed to be interviewed in the research timeframe available it is a convenience sample.
1433
It was important to limit the participants to those respondents who believed
1434
changes in their behavior, attitudes, or values were related to their positive experience of
1435
an AI event. Since this population was self-selected, it may not be representative of other
1436
populations or the population of AI participants as a whole. Nineteen of the interviews
1437
were conducted by telephone, one was conducted by telephone and instant messaging,
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
53
1438
and one interview was conducted face-to-face. The variation in the interview approach
1439
was due to the geographic dispersion of the population sample and time constraints. The
1440
sample population included people who were participants of AI summits, facilitators of
1441
AI summits, and participants of AI foundations training. Some participants were both
1442
participants and facilitators of AI Summits.
1443
A risk of interviewing a self-selected population is that some of the interviewees
1444
may not be able to articulate their experiences, or be able to be sufficiently introspective,
1445
to express themselves concerning the topic of this study. I mitigated this risk by
1446
presenting multiple examples from the literature reviewed and from early interviews. It
1447
was important to present these as examples of possible experiences, not as an indication
1448
of the limit of possible experiences. For example, some of the early interviews indicated
1449
changes in physical appearance, the loss or letting go of negative relationships, a
1450
sensation of energy and the feeling of enthusiasm. All research participants indicated
1451
they were willing to be interviewed again if I needed to clarify something in their
1452
transcript.
1453
Procedure
1454
Recruitment. Research participants were recruited through referrals by AI
1455
facilitators who identified potential research participants. There were participants who
1456
self-selected by responding to postings on the AI Commons list serv and a university
1457
community site. Those who nominated potential research participants, and the potential
1458
research participant’s group or organization, did not learn who ultimately chose to
1459
participate, or did not choose to participate, in this study. Potential research participants
1460
were approached by email, in person, or by phone to determine their interest and
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
54
1461
availability for this study. The verbal recruitment script, Appendix B, was read to each
1462
research participant to inform his or her decision to participate in the study. I was aware
1463
of the possibility of influencing the participant early in the process so I provided the same
1464
information to all potential participants during this phase. The research participants were
1465
encouraged to discuss their experiences in their own manner and without regard to the
1466
language of the theories of TL and AI.
1467
Participants were informed that procedures are in place to ensure their anonymity
1468
and the confidentiality of their responses. I explained to participants they would be
1469
referred to by a pseudonym and their actual names will not appear on any of the research
1470
materials. Pseudonyms were provided for their organizations and other people mentioned
1471
in their interviews. Interviewees were told the Informed Consent Forms are stored
1472
separately from other research materials. I explained that access to their data is
1473
controlled by placing the data in a locked filing cabinet in my home office and that their
1474
audio recordings will be stored in an encrypted folder on a hard drive on my personal
1475
computer. I explained that transcripts, recordings, and other research materials may be
1476
used in future research and publications, maintaining the same confidentiality and
1477
anonymity.
1478
Once participants indicated their willingness to participate in this study, an
1479
appointment was arranged for conducting the interview. Arrangements were made to
1480
ensure the meeting locations would protect the confidentiality and security of the
1481
participant.
1482
1483
Informed consent. Before beginning the interview or collecting any data, I read
the implied consent document to the potential participant. I explained, in detail, how
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1484
confidentiality and security of data are addressed and maintained. The research
1485
participants who choose to sign the informed consent form were thanked for their
1486
willingness to participate in the voluntary study and were given a signed copy of the
1487
form. Please refer to Appendix D Informed Consent Form.
1488
55
Data collection. I conducted the interviews in a semi-structured format, which
1489
provided enough structure to maintain a focus on the research participant’s AI event
1490
experience. This semi-structured format allowed me to remain present and alert, and to
1491
adapt the interview to the participant’s responses. I prepared for each interview by
1492
reading the Literature Review and the interview protocol. The semi-structured interview
1493
schedule included introductory comments, key questions, associated probing questions,
1494
and closing comments. The semi-structured interview schedule allowed me to remain
1495
directive and responsive during the interview maintaining a focus on the research topic
1496
through the careful use of the probing questions: for example, “Can you explain what that
1497
felt like to you?” And, “Do you have any specific examples of …?” The research
1498
participants expressed divergent thoughts and experiences, which were recorded. The
1499
interview schedule assisted in managing and organizing the data collected.
1500
I carried out twenty-one qualitative, in-depth interviews of sixty to ninety minutes
1501
in length. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed later. I took notes during
1502
the interview to contribute to my recollections of the interview. I noted tone and
1503
hesitation in the telephone interviews, and tone, hesitations, facial expression, and body
1504
language in the face-to-face interview. I also noted themes as they emerged. I followed
1505
the semi-structured interview protocol described. I used clarifying and probing questions
1506
to clarify a key question for a participant or to probe deeper into a participant’s response.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
56
1507
I conducted the semi-structured interviews in a manner that gave the participants enough
1508
freedom to speak honestly from their experience while maintaining enough control of the
1509
interview to stay on topic. The sequencing of the key questions and use of the probing
1510
questions were responsive to the research participant’s comments and receptiveness.
1511
Setting
1512
The setting for the interviews was dependent on the availability of a suitable
1513
setting that ensured privacy for the research participant. I conducted nineteen interviews
1514
by phone due to the geographic disbursement of the research population and time
1515
constraints. I conducted one interview by both phone and instant messaging. Instant
1516
messaging is a form of internet communication where participants communicate
1517
synchronously rather than asynchronously as is done in traditional email. For this
1518
interview, I conducted the introduction to the interview and read the oral recruitment
1519
script and the informed consent documents to the research participant over the telephone.
1520
I then posed the questions in the interview protocol in instant messenger sessions. As
1521
each posting was answered, I posted the next question or a probing question. I conducted
1522
one interview face-to-face in a conference room. All research participants were able to
1523
be in a quiet room, which evoked a safe environment, free from interruption, disturbance
1524
or eavesdropping. This setting was designed to allow the research participant to speak
1525
freely and comfortably.
1526
Background information questionnaire. Each potential participant was asked to
1527
complete a basic background information questionnaire before conducting the interview.
1528
The basic background data collected was used for locating trends or patterns in the data.
1529
Please refer to Appendix E for the Background Information Questionnaire.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1530
Interview Protocol
1531
Introduction to the interview. To provide structure and direction for the
1532
interview, I developed a series of questions designed to elicit a descriptive narrative of
1533
their AI event experiences. The questions also were concerned with the process and
1534
stages of Mezirow’s TL. Basing the interview protocol on a theoretical foundation
1535
provided direction and structure for the interview and allowed me to understand the
1536
responses in relation to the research study. I opened the interview by thanking the
1537
participant, making her or him feel welcome, and briefly describing the research study
1538
with some introductory remarks.
1539
57
To make the interview more personal and relevant I sometimes substituted words
1540
and phrases in questions. The interview protocol included questions relating to the
1541
context of the experience, the emotions they felt during the experience and the stages of
1542
TL. The phrase AI event was replaced with the name or the topic of the event the
1543
research participant attended. For example, “Revisioning Any Corp for the year 2000:
1544
Becoming more competitive in a global market place,” the group or organization would
1545
become “Any Corp”, and the AI topic was changed to “Becoming more competitive in a
1546
global market place.”
1547
Question 1 is open-ended and intended to allow the research participant to tell the
1548
story of their participation in the AI event (Wengraf 2001; Fontana and Frey 2003). The
1549
questions that follow are moderately structured and are intended to probe and clarify the
1550
research participants’ response to question 1. I concluded the interview by inquiring if
1551
there was anything the research participant would like to add to the interview. Some of
1552
the interviews covered a wide range of emotions and sensitive topics for the research
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
58
1553
participants. To be responsive to the research participants I inquired if there were any
1554
questions that I could answer, or if there was anything I could do for them before the
1555
interview was considered finished. Asking these questions put the research participants
1556
at ease. Most asked for details of the research I was conducting and when they might see
1557
the summary of the results.
1558
Research Protocol
1559
In this section, I present the primary interview protocol minus the clarifying and
1560
probing questions that I will use to further delve into the participants’ experience of the
1561
AI event.
1562
1. I would like you to tell me in your own words about your experiences in
1563
the (insert the name of the appreciative inquiry event), such as how you
1564
came to participate and what it meant to you to participate? What
1565
significant events occurred? Who was involved?
1566
1567
1568
2. What were you thinking about or focused on during the (insert the name of
the AI event)?
3. I would like you to tell me about any changes in your relationships,
1569
personally or professionally, you have experienced since you attended the
1570
(insert the name of the AI event)?
1571
1572
1573
1574
4. How would the people close to you characterize you before you
participated in (insert the name of the AI event)?
5. Please describe for me in what ways might you have changed since you
participated in (insert the name of the AI event)?
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1575
59
6. Has anyone noticed and commented on a difference in you since you
1576
attended the (insert the name of the AI event)?
1577
7. What emotions did you experience during the (insert the name of the AI
1578
event) and how did you express them?
1579
8. Did you become aware of any issues or problems during the (insert the AI
1580
event)?
1581
9. Do you have any stories you can share of people you developed a sense of
1582
camaraderie with at the (insert the name of the AI event)?
1583
10. How would you characterize your role in the organization that you
1584
attended the (insert the name of the AI event) with?
1585
Body language, non-verbal cues, tone of voice, hesitations, and facial expressions
1586
provided supplemental data, which aided me in interpreting the verbal response. I shared
1587
my observations with the research participants and asked them to verify their meaning to
1588
ensure they are understood. I listened for both explicit and implicit messages during the
1589
interview process. I avoided discussing personal knowledge of AI and TL so I did not
1590
influence respondents or any implicit data interpretation during the interview. Please
1591
refer to Appendix F for the complete interview protocol.
1592
Debriefing
1593
I shared the outcomes of the research with the research participants by sending a
1594
summary of the final research findings to each participant who expressed interest. I have
1595
also made myself available to discuss the research outcomes with each participant. The
1596
participants were made aware that the research outcomes are presented in a summarized
1597
fashion not including individual results. Any direct quotes used were attributed to a
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
60
1598
pseudonym in accordance with the informed consent form. The participants were
1599
reminded that there is no link between them and their data, and their participation in the
1600
research is confidential.
1601
Data Management
1602
I took handwritten notes throughout the interview. Following the interview, my
1603
notes were marked with their pseudonym and were placed in a locked file. I referred to
1604
these notes later when transcribed materials were available. I managed the data in a
1605
manner that ensured the confidentiality and anonymity of responses. I refer to the
1606
research participants by a pseudonym and their actual names do not appear on any of the
1607
research materials. Access to the data is controlled by me and the data is locked in a
1608
security file in my home office. Audio recordings are stored in an encrypted folder on
1609
my personal computer. Audio recordings were transcribed by a professional
1610
transcriptionist. The transcripts were formatted in Microsoft Word documents, which
1611
allowed for a comprehensive and structured analysis of the transcripts. The
1612
transcriptionist completed a Professional Assistant Confidentiality Form. Please refer to
1613
Appendix G the Professional Assistant Confidentiality Form.
1614
1615
Pilot Study
I tested my research design and the interview protocol in a pilot study. This pilot
1616
study gave me an opportunity to assess the quality and effectiveness of my interview
1617
questions and to practice my skills as an interviewer. The six respondents to my initial
1618
recruitment provided me with much data and a clear idea of what I could expect from an
1619
interview. The pilot research participants were open and giving of their stories. They
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
61
1620
taught me the value of hesitating before asking the next question, and the value of
1621
silence. I learned to let go of a line of questioning, which had run its course. During this
1622
pilot study, I practiced the sequencing of questions and practiced using open-ended
1623
questions and direct questions.
1624
I made no changes to the research design and only minor changes to the interview
1625
protocol to make the questions more open-ended. The open-ended questions coupled
1626
with my own effort to remain silent and listen, yielded more and richer data. The pilot
1627
study was successful in gathering appropriate data to the research study and in addressing
1628
the research questions. All the pilot research participants were included in the
1629
dissertation research.
1630
Method of Data Analysis
1631
The data analysis consisted of a series of open and axial coding in a constant
1632
comparative analysis with the data similar to the methods used in grounded theory
1633
(Glaser and Strauss 1967; Glaser and Bassok 1989; Strauss and Corbin 1998). Grounded
1634
theory as originally conceived by Glaser and Strauss (1967) is an inductive means of data
1635
analysis used where theory is being discovered rather than verifying an existing theory or
1636
theories. Grounded theory is used in areas where little or nothing is known, the study is
1637
conducted with no preconceived theory to guide it. The researcher defines codes and
1638
through constant comparative analysis of the codes with the data develops the codes into
1639
multiple comparison groups. Comparing these groups to the data leads to concepts and
1640
eventually a hypothesis based on what is found in the data. The researcher achieves this
1641
through a four step process: 1) comparing incidents to each category, 2) integrating
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1642
categories and properties, 3) delimiting the theory, 4) writing the theory (Glaser and
1643
Strauss 1967).
1644
62
Glaser and Strauss vary greatly in their subsequent definitions of grounded theory.
1645
Glaserian grounded theory relies heavily on emergence, or having no preconceived
1646
theory, and avoiding hypothesis until as late in the analysis of the data as possible (Glaser
1647
and Bassok 1989; Glaser 2002). Glaser prefers that there is no literature review prior to
1648
the study to prevent premature hypothesizing of the data into theory. Glaser also states
1649
that the results need not be reproducible or verifiable beyond the original study because
1650
the human systems being studied are constantly changing. Strauss and Corbin (1998)
1651
have developed a highly rigorous process for developing a grounded theory. Straussian
1652
grounded theory uses several data analysis methods in a specific order: open coding, axial
1653
coding, selective coding, coding for process, matrix for conditions and consequences,
1654
theoretical sampling, then memoing and diagramming. Scholars debate the merits and
1655
limitation of each school of grounded theory, Glaserian and Straussian, as it is used in a
1656
wider variety of settings and methods every year.
1657
This research study relies heavily on a priori knowledge of two theoretical schools
1658
of thought, AI and TL. I preconceived no theory of how they might be related, beyond
1659
my initial intuition. There is little or no knowledge of this possible relationship, or theory
1660
to test and verify. Like grounded theory, I am starting with no more than a grand tour
1661
question. Unlike grounded theory, I have a literature review, which will inform my
1662
analysis of the data. My research calls for both an inductive analysis and deductive
1663
analysis of the data to both describe the AI event experience and to compare the resulting
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1664
descriptions to TL. Since this study is not a pure grounded theory, using all of the
1665
methods above would not fit well with the needs of this study.
1666
63
First, I read each transcript individually. Then I conducted an open coding which
1667
led to discrete concepts, and then to clusters of concepts. Please refer to Table 4 for an
1668
example of the initial open coding.
1669
Table 4
1670
Sample of Coding for Clustered Concepts.
Concepts
Clustered
Stage of AI
Beginning, its about where you start, hard to get your head
around, process felt sloppy, what is going on? time
constraints, hopelessness, in a real pissy mood, I was so
nervous, desperate, it was a hard time for me, very
nervous, I was still reeling, feeling put upon, I'm not so
happy, livid, brainwashing day, ready to find a new job, I
was bitter, I was angry, I was done, I was furious, They're
not hearing me, not a lot of patience, felt superior, didn't
have a voice, kind of stuck, felt stagnant, Job is beneath
me, I was a snob, going through a terrible break up, fear of
failure, anxiety, concerned, feeling anxiety, chewing nails,
if you haven't walked in my shoes, dismissive, didn't want
others to say this sucked, afraid of being heavy handed,
just there for the AI education piece, disengaged how to
engage energy? how to get real ownership, etcetera
Emotions,
sensations,
and
descriptors
Before
1671
1672
Then using axial coding I looked for relationships between the clustered concepts.
1673
This revealed a pattern of relationship between the research participants’ experiences
1674
before, during, and after the AI event. See Table 5 for clustered concepts from the axial
1675
coding. In a second round of coding, I developed a TL coding key of five categories,
1676
which included the three reflective practices and the ten stages of TL. I used this TL
1677
coding key to analyze the transcripts. For this study, it is important to establish
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1678
operational definitions for each of the thirteen points in the TL coding key. These
1679
definitions illustrate how I determined if the research participant expressed or indicated
1680
points of the TL coding key. Please refer to Appendix (H) for a glossary of operational
1681
definitions and terms.
1682
Table 5
1683
Clustered Concepts from the Axial Coding.
Clustered Concepts
Stage of AI
Organization; emotions, sensations, descriptors; focus; actions;
insights; relationships; beginning
Before
Emotions, sensations, descriptors; relationships; insights;
actions; stories; focus
During
Relationships; emotions, sensations, descriptors; actions;
insights; sharing; organization; continual learning and process;
stories; mentoring; connections; trauma and tragedy; realities;
focus; change; opportunity and professional growth; forward
intent, learning; confidence; spiritual; creating/making: personal
attributes: general results
After
64
1684
1685
I placed these thirteen points into five descriptive categories to analyze the data:
1686
Reflective practices, Examination of self, Examination of roles and relationships,
1687
Planning according to the new perspective, Re-integration of new perspective. These
1688
five categories of TL represent the thirteen points of Mezirow’s model. Please refer to
1689
Table 6 for the TL coding key.
1690
Table 6
1691
The Transformative Learning Coding Key.
Categories of TL
TL points
Reflective practices
1 Did they experience Critical Self Refection?
2 Did they experience Reflective Dialogue?
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
Categories of TL
65
TL points
3 Did they experience Reflective Action?
Examination of self
4 A disorienting dilemma?
5 Self-examination with feelings of fear, anger, guilt, or
shame?
6 A critical assessment of assumptions and relationships?
7 Recognition of one’s discontent and the process of
transformation are shared
Examination of roles and
relationships
8 Exploration of options for new roles, relationships, and
actions?
9 Provisional trying of new roles?
10 Building competence and confidence in new roles and
relationships?
Planning
11 Planning a course of action?
12 Acquiring knowledge and skills for implementing one’s
plans?
Reintegration of new
meaning schema
13 A reintegration into one’s life on the basis of conditions
dictated by one’s new perspective?
1692
1693
In a third round of coding, I triangulated the results of the first two coding
1694
sessions back to the original data and developed profiles of each participant to increase
1695
the accuracy and validity of the research findings. This triangulation of the data shows
1696
the appropriateness of the categories assigned to each participant.
1697
Summary of the Methods
1698
The focus of this research was to explore and to describe how the participants
1699
understood and made meaning of changes in behavior, attitudes, or values they attribute
1700
to their participation in an AI event and to compare these findings to Mezirow’s theory of
1701
transformative learning. This was accomplished through an exploratory, qualitative and
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
66
1702
descriptive research methodology. It was not be the purpose of this research to validate
1703
theory or to determine a truth. This approach allowed for the exploration of emergent
1704
patterns and themes and for incorporating the early findings into the data collection
1705
process in several iterations of data analysis as is common in qualitative research. The
1706
research design, interview protocol, data management and data analysis were described
1707
and explained. I also discussed the sample selection and the resulting sample.
1708
1709
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1710
67
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS
1711
Introduction
1712
In this chapter, I begin to discuss the analysis of this research project. In the
1713
following chapter, Findings, I present the findings specifically in relation to my research
1714
questions. I began analyzing the data in several coding sessions, using a constant
1715
comparative analysis, including open and axial coding, coding for TL, and triangulation
1716
of the data. I present a profile of each research participant, which represents their
1717
experience of the AI event, and includes discussion of the categories of their experiences.
1718
The research participants’ profiles show their understanding of the AI event and the
1719
meaning they made of the AI event. I discuss the experiences of negative emotions,
1720
which exists in the data.
1721
Data Analysis
1722
The open and axial coding revealed a large number of concepts. After the initial
1723
coding, I coded the transcripts by clustering concepts into related groups. As I clustered
1724
these concepts, I realized that the clustered concepts related to the participants’
1725
experiences at the beginning of the AI event, other clustered concepts related to the
1726
participants’ experiences during the AI event, and other clustered concepts related to a
1727
participant’s experiences after the AI event. I coded the data accordingly.
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
An example of the open coding for concepts, clustered concepts, and categories
is shown in the following quote.
Overall, I am appreciative and look for the best in myself and in others. It’s
changed my relationships in my family, socially, and professionally. It’s
refreshing and I do things now that I enjoy, Mary.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
68
1733
1734
This statement yielded the concepts appreciative and I enjoy, which I coded into a
1735
clustered concept I labeled personal attributes. This also yielded the concept of changed
1736
relationships, which I coded into the clustered concept of relationships. In the axial
1737
coding, I placed personal attributes and relationships in a category labeled After, which
1738
represented concepts Mary expressed as resulting from attending the AI event. Please
1739
refer to Table 4 in Chapter 3 for an example of the open coding for concepts, clustered
1740
concepts, and categories.
1741
Then using axial coding I looked for relationships between the clustered concepts.
1742
This revealed a pattern of relationship between the research participants’ experiences
1743
before, during, and after the AI event. Clustered concepts such as, Emotions, sensations,
1744
and descriptors; relationships; insights; and etcetera emerged from this analysis. Please
1745
refer to Table 5 in Chapter 3 for clustered concepts from the axial coding.
1746
1747
Coding for Understanding and Meaning Making in the AI Event
The axial coding revealed a variety and diversity of understanding and meaning
1748
making of the positive experience. There were marked differences between the
1749
participants who said they were impacted directly and positively by their AI experience,
1750
and the participants who said they were not directly affected by their AI experience
1751
No Direct Effect (NDE) refers to participants who said the AI event discussed in
1752
their interview had no direct effect on them or their lives, or that it was difficult to
1753
attribute changes in them or their lives to the AI event. For example,
1754
1755
1756
1757
Yeah, but I don’t know if it is attributable to this event or appreciative inquiry, I
have gone through a lot of growth in the last three or four years and a lot of
changes. How much of that is appreciative inquiry and that experience? It’s
impossible to relate to, Laurent.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1758
1759
69
Direct Positive Effect (DPE) refers to participants who expressed a positive
1760
change in their perspectives and expectations of the future and directly attributed this
1761
change to their participation in the AI event. For example,
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
I have gotten better, and that confidence, and [the] confidence I have has made it
more possible for me to increase [my] knowledge and experiences to take me to
the next levels, Annie.
To clarify the analysis, I entered the clustered concepts into a spreadsheet divided
1767
between the Categories DPE and NDE. This analysis revealed a tendency for the
1768
participants to express or indicate concepts based on the phase of their experience,
1769
Beginning, During, and After. I further divided the clustered concepts by these
1770
categories. Please refer to Table 7 for the clustered concepts by experience and phase.
1771
Table 7
1772
Clustered Concepts by Experience and Phase.
Before
During
After
Direct Positive Effect (DPE)
No-Direct Effect (NDE)
Organizational State: Emotions and
Sensations: Insights: Focus: Actions:
Relationships
Emotions and Sensations: Insights: Action:
Stories: Relationships
Relationships: Actions: Insights: Emotions
and Sensations: Sharing: Organizational
State: Stories: Mentoring: Learning:
Connection: Trauma and Tragedy: personal
attributes: Create Reality: Focus: Change:
Opportunity and Professional Growth:
Forward intent: Confidence: Spiritual
Beginning: Emotions and
Sensations: Constraints
Emotions and Sensations:
Insights: Focus
Learning: Confidence:
Spiritual: Create Reality:
Forward Intent
1773
1774
To reduce the data further I made note of common clustered concepts by circling
1775
and drawing lines between them on a printed copy of the spreadsheet. This action
1776
revealed common and unique clustered concepts between the DPE and NDE research
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1777
participants. Please refer to Table 8 for the common and unique clustered concepts by
1778
experience type.
1779
Table 8
1780
Common and Unique Clustered Concepts by Experience.
70
Common to both
DPE and NDE
Emotions and Sensations Insights: Focus: Learning: Confidence:
Spiritual: Create Reality: Forward Intent
Unique to DPE
Organizational State: Action: Relationships: Sharing: Stories:
Mentoring: Trauma and Tragedy: personal attributes: Change:
Opportunity and Professional Growth
Beginning: Constraints
Unique to NDE
1781
1782
As I analyzed the data, I made note of the volume of data reported in each
1783
clustered concept. Some clustered concepts were more voluminous in the quantity of
1784
concepts represented in the data and I considered those as major clustered concepts. I
1785
found that there was some difference between the DPE and NDE research participants.
1786
Please refer to Table 9 for the major and minor clustered concepts by experience
1787
Table 9
1788
Major and Minor Clustered Concepts by Experience.
DPE Major concepts
Emotions and Sensations: Insights: Relationships:
Organizational State
DPE Minor concepts
Focus: Action: Sharing: Mentoring: Learning: Connection:
Trauma and Tragedy: Personal attributes: Create Reality:
Change: Opportunity and Professional Growth: Forward Intent:
Spiritual: Confidence
NDE Major concepts
Emotions and Sensations: Insights: Forward Intent
NDE Minor concepts
Beginnings: Constraints: Focus: Learning: Confidence:
Spiritual: Create Reality
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1789
71
At this point, I realized that the coding for DPE and NDE were representational of
1790
the research participants’ whole experience. I returned to the data. There I discovered a
1791
difference in the experience of change between two groups of research participants,
1792
which separated the category of DPE into categories of aligned values (AV) and changed
1793
perspective (CP). Please refer to Figure 1 for the Categories of participant experience.
1794
Research participant’s assessment of their experience
NDE
DPE
AV
CP
1795
1796
Figure 1. Categories of participant experience. NDE = no direct effect, DPE = direct
1797
positive effect, AV = aligned values, CP = changed perspective.
1798
During the coding of the transcripts for TL I found that many of the DPE
1799
participants also indicated or expressed an alignment or reinforcement of their personal
1800
values with the principles and methods of AI. Other DPE participants expressed or
1801
indicated a change in meaning schema or perspective consistent with Mezirow’s
1802
description. I then coded the DPE research participants as aligned values (AV) or
1803
changed perspective (CP).
1804
Aligned values (AV) refers to research participants who indicated that their
1805
experience of the AI event aligned with or reinforced their own personal values. For
1806
example, Sarah said of her AI experience in response to inquires about how her
1807
participation might have changed her:
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
72
I don’t know if it’s heightened my awareness of using that style or made me more
aware of when things are going well to be more vocal about it or more positive. It
may have, you know. It’s hard for me to point out specific increases or, you
know what I’m saying, Sarah.
Changed perspective (CP) refers to research participants who indicated their
1814
experience of the AI event had a positive effect and changed their meaning schema. For
1815
example, Igor expressed some of the changes in his perspectives:
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
And so, for me, I’m going through personally, to a certain extent professionally, a
real, I don’t know whether you want to call it a renaissance, that’s a little more of
a word than I would chose to describe anything I do, but I’m going through a
tremendous amount of reflection and personal growth, Igor.
1821
Coding for Transformative Learning
1822
I used the TL coding key seen in Table 6, Chapter 3, to code the data for
1823
expressions of or indications of Mezirow’s model of TL. During the coding of the data
1824
for TL, I discovered the category CP contained two subsets of research participants. I
1825
realized some of the CP research participants had also reintegrated their change in
1826
meaning schema but did not follow Mezirow’s model. I coded these participants as other
1827
transformative learning (OTL). Then, I coded the CP research participants to include a
1828
subset of Mezirow’s TL (MTL). Please refer to Figure 2 for the Categories of participant
1829
experience.
1830
1831
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
73
Research participant’s assessment of their experience
NDE
DPE
AV
CP
OTL
MTL
1832
1833
Figure 2. Categories of participant TL experience. NDE = no direct effect, DPE = direct
1834
positive effect, AV = aligned values, CP = changed perspective, OTL = other
1835
transformative learning, MTL = Mezirow’s transformative learning.
1836
Other transformative learning (OTL) refers to changed perspective (CP) research
1837
participants who expressed or indicated their experience of the AI event was positive,
1838
they could attribute changes in their meaning schema to the AI event, and they re-
1839
integrated their new meaning schema into their lives, but did not follow Mezirow’s
1840
model. For example, Sulaiman’s meaning schema was changed to become more open
1841
and tolerant of those who do not practice his religious beliefs and that change was re-
1842
integrated into his life. Sulaiman did not express or indicate a disorienting dilemma or
1843
the self-examination with negative feelings.
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
My experience interacting with Jewish people was great. We can find common
ground, we can share views, we can share our beliefs, we talk about the Old
Testament and there are certain common threads in our literary fields, Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam, Sulaiman.
Mezirow’s transformative learning (MTL) refers to changed perspective (CP)
participants who expressed that the AI event had a positive effect on their life, expressed
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
74
1851
or indicated a change in their meaning schema, and they experienced the three reflective
1852
practices and the ten stages of TL. For example,
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
I am a different person, and [I] have spent the past two years talking about AI, and
using it wherever it fits both professionally and personally. I think its just part of
me, and I find myself encouraging others to look at thing from what it is that they
do well, Mary.
Please refer to Appendix (I) for the results of the coding of the data for TL by
research participant.
Triangulating the Coded Data
1861
In this section of the data analysis, I triangulated the data by comparing the two
1862
sets of results from coding the transcriptions and then compare that analysis back to the
1863
original transcripts to test for accuracy and validity in my data analysis. First, I compared
1864
the categories of No-Direct Effect (NDE) and Direct Positive Effect (DPE) and the
1865
clustered concepts found in the open and axial coding of the data. Then I compared the
1866
categories found in the open and axial coding of the data to the categories of Aligned
1867
Values (AV), Changed Perspective (CP), Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (MTL),
1868
and Other Transformative Learning (OTL) resulting from the coding for TL.
1869
The triangulation of the data revealed several of the research participants engaged
1870
in a re-examination of their roles and relationships, planning new courses of action,
1871
acquiring new skills and knowledge, and acted on their plans using their new skills and
1872
knowledge. The triangulation of the data also revealed a progressive increase of the
1873
research participants, by category AV, OTL, and MTL, to engage in reflective dialogue, a
1874
disorienting dilemma, and the self-examination with feelings of fear, guilt, shame, and
1875
anger. The AV research participants were least likely to engage in these points of the TL
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
75
1876
coding key, while the OTL research participants were more likely to engage in these
1877
points. The MTL research participants engaged in all these points in the TL coding key.
1878
To show the result of the triangulation of the data, I present a profile of each
1879
research participant, which represents their experience of the AI event. The research
1880
participants’ profiles show their understanding of the AI event and the meaning they
1881
made of the AI event, and the appropriateness of the categories assigned to the
1882
participants.
1883
1884
Profiles of the Participant’s AI Event Experience
In this section, I will profile each of the research participant’s experiences. These
1885
profiles are offered as a synopsis of those experiences grouped by category: Direct
1886
Positive Effect – Aligned Values (DPE-AV), No-Direct Effect – Aligned Values (NDE-
1887
AV), Direct Positive Effect – Other Transformative Learning (DPE-OTL), and Direct
1888
Positive Effect – Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (DPE-MTL).
1889
Direct Positive Effect – Aligned Values (DPE-AV) research participants are
1890
research participants who expressed that their AI event experience had a direct positive
1891
effect on them and their lives and found that the principles and methods of AI aligned
1892
with or reinforced their personal beliefs.
1893
Annie had taken an AI foundations course and was co facilitating and AI summit
1894
with an experienced AI facilitator at a major children’s hospital. Annie was an
1895
experienced executive coach but had never worked collaboratively on a large project such
1896
as this. Annie gained many skills and an opportunity to work with a well known AI
1897
consultant. Annie flowered under this attention and her sense of competence and
1898
confidence grew.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
76
And I felt sometimes myself like a low sunflower turning toward XXX to see how
she was doing it because I was just aware that there was so much energy and yet I
think XXX is very masterful. XXX herself encouraged the greatness and others
and as a recipient of that I felt my strength in greatness and I felt the strength in
greatness in her, Annie.
Annie mentioned several times during the interview that AI was a natural
extension of who she already was.
Sarah has a Ph.D. in psychology and is the Director of Research at a K - 12
1908
school for orphaned children. Sarah was influenced to attend an AI foundations course
1909
after seeing the effect it had on Hillary and how AI meshed with her own sense of
1910
‘positive psychology.’ Several times during her AI foundations training Sarah reminded
1911
herself and others:
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
One of the things that I said was to remember that as you’re going through the
experience, it is a simulated experience and that you have to constantly be
observing yourself, Sarah.
Sarah was also not interested in the emotional and spiritual side of AI. She was
1917
worried that it detracted from the practical use of AI and was concerned with becoming
1918
an AI cult member.
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
So when, you know, you talked about sort of emotional changes, I feel like I’m
coming at this personally from a very cognitive place without denying the
emotional part of it, Sarah.
Sarah has created a cohort with Hillary and their VP to bring AI to their work.
1924
Sarah indicated changes in relationships with other board members, and how she uses AI
1925
to keep the board focused on positive outcomes.
1926
Burt is a Director of Human Resources for a large private enterprise and a student
1927
in a Ph.D. program at a major northwestern university. Burt was intrigued by his class
1928
work in AI and put AI into practice as a practical experience by facilitating and
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1929
participating in an AI summit at his place of employment. Burt found that AI matched
1930
his natural inclinations toward being positive.
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
It struck me as something that has a lot of merit for human resources activities,
which is my career field, because so much of what we do is either preventive or
reactive or from a negative perspective. And I liked the whole idea of an
organization development intervention that emphasized the positive side of things,
the focus on positive organization scholarship, Burt.
Burt initiated an AI event at his workplace with buy-in from the CEO. The event
1938
was successful and he has been asked to ‘do more AIs.’ Burt reported being a little
1939
nervous at the beginning but felt he had reached a ‘decision point’ and his ‘reputation
1940
was on the line.’ Burt did receive some assistance and guidance from his professor and
1941
his classmates.
1942
77
Ding is the director of a large and geographically dispersed state agency governed
1943
at its highest levels by ‘politically appointed bureaucrats.’ Ding’s organization is
1944
populated with ‘long-term,’ ‘dedicated’, ‘practical’, and ‘scientific minded’ employees.
1945
Ding planned an organizational intervention to help redefine the purpose and vision of his
1946
organization in the face of changing needs and use of his agency in which he both
1947
participated and co-facilitated the AI summit. He was introduced to AI by the consultant
1948
he hired and found AI an ‘interesting fit with my own management style.’ Since Ding
1949
played a dual role he felt he was not able to fully experience the AI event.
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
I was the instigator and I had the most at stake because I convinced this whole
room of people that this was a good thing to do and my fingers were crossed that
in fact at least most of them would agree with me when this was all done. That
was mostly what I focused on is how things are being presented, how things are
being explained, watching for signs of positive support for it, that’s what I was
doing, Ding.
Ding found the AI event experience ‘satisfying’ and ‘rewarding.’ Ding also
recommended AI to a sister agency who, which was panning an organizational
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
78
1959
intervention similar to Ding’s agency. Ding helped develop and co-facilitate the AI event
1960
with the lead AI consultant.
1961
Valdez was a professor of organizational behavior at a major university. His
1962
students were upset at the school’s administration for what they perceived as a lack of
1963
performance of their basic duties. Valdez decided to use this as an opportunity for an
1964
experiential exercise in AI, hoping its focus on the positive would offset the student’s ill
1965
will. Although this was Valdez’s first attempt at facilitating an AI event he was confident
1966
until he realized that the ‘students didn’t grasp the concept’ of the principle of positivity.
1967
Valdez felt ‘anxious’ and knew his ‘reputation was on the line.’ He returned to the
1968
subject several times before the group finally hit on the metaphor ‘of running a
1969
marathon’. They were then able to think in terms of how the university faculty could
1970
support them as marathon runners. Since Valdez was part of the administration also there
1971
had been some resentment expressed toward him until that classroom exercise.
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
We had a more of a bonding between me and the class, that is the individuals in
the class…. [We had] greater camaraderie, freer and easier conversations,
because I was one of the administration. They weren’t focused on me thank
goodness in terms of their anger, Valdez.
Valdez now teaches at a different university and he plans and prepares AI events
over the western United States.
1979
Ian was a senior manager in a US Government agency who attended an AI event
1980
as a professional development opportunity. Ian found that he ‘understood AI’ and it was
1981
a ‘natural fit’ with his personality because ‘I have always considered myself an optimist
1982
anyway.’ Ian also could apply it to his own personal life when he began to see AI as
1983
more than a business tool and a methodology.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
79
As I went through the course, I started looking at it in a different context, from my
personal view of the world. I started looking at it from how I would view my
family, how I dealt with personal issues within my family or how I dealt with
personal issues in my family or in my personal relationships, Ian.
Ian began to apply AI freely at work and found that his clients began to like
1990
working with him almost too much, making it difficult to change to new projects. They
1991
often ‘became possessive of my attention.’
1992
Jerry taught conflict resolution at a graduate level when he became exposed to AI
1993
as a model for conflict resolution. Jerry is an active consultant on the East Coast using
1994
his J.D. and AI to resolve conflicts in municipalities and schools. Jerry led an AI summit
1995
at a public high school where violence and racial tensions were flaring. The AI event
1996
was open to the entire community and was well attended. Jerry was sure the event would
1997
work after a short time. Jerry encountered many negative emotions at the start of the AI
1998
event. By the end of the AI interviews many of the participants had forged ‘new
1999
friendships’ and ‘alliances.’ The ‘anger and hatred’ gave way to ‘joy’, ‘elation’ and
2000
‘relief.’ In his role as an observer Jerry was able to witness changes in attitude and
2001
behavior first hand.
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
And it was an emotional experience because you watched the layers of guarding
come down… Some of the highlights were people began to say I never had a
friend who was Hispanic or I never had a friend who was Asian, and people were
reaching out from across the room verbally, Jerry.
2008
Jerry’s concerns ranged from promoting the event, identifying and inviting stakeholders,
2009
attending to the logistics, and building interest and participation of the parents. The event
2010
met Jerry’s expectations and reinforced his confidence in AI as a method for mediating
2011
situations of conflict.
As the facilitator of the AI event Jerry had other concerns that occupied him also.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
80
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
We slotted it in and promoted it. I promoted it and anybody who would stand still
long enough to hear about it, from the internal stakeholders in the school district
to community leaders, religious leaders, social action groups, anyone that I felt
had a stake either got a call or an email or both from me…. No, I always knew it
would work. I trust the process and I had worked with AI often enough to know
that all the ingredients were there, Jerry.
2020
mentors some of the high school faculty. Jerry has made ‘new friends’ in the community
2021
and was ‘honored by the NAACP’ for his role in averting certain conflict.
2022
Jerry mentored many of his former students as co-facilitators of the event and
Hall co-facilitated and participated in an AI event designed to revision his state
2023
government agency’s purpose and direction. Hall’s organization is a ‘top down
2024
bureaucracy’, ‘geographically dispersed’ with a mix of ‘long-term employees’ who are
2025
‘dedicated’ and ‘practical.’ Hall was initially concerned that the AI event would produce
2026
results of value. The AI event was successful in developing a common sense of purpose
2027
and direction and that caused Hall to feel a closer bond with his co-workers.
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
We’re a very results-oriented group…. I think a lot of my colleagues would have
questioned it’s value so I was concerned with that…. Like I said before, the
biggest thing was feeling close. We’re all in this together; we’re all pulling in the
same direction. We all value the same things and the whole positive emotion of
feeling part of a single group whereas it is real easy like I said to spend an entire
career, everybody is busy and you don’t connect on that group level in your day to
day work, Hall.
Carr was a middle manger for an outdoor leadership and group development
2037
organization when he attended AI foundations training for professional development.
2038
Carr found he was not really engaged and then became interested when faced with the
2039
appreciative questions in the AI interview.
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
But it wasn’t until being asked those questions that that’s what really brought me
in, and seeing the power that this person I’d never met suddenly were, you know,
really engaged in this conversation and pulling these things out of each other.
And from then on I was just really hooked, Carr.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
81
2045
While Carr said he was ‘blown away’ by AI and its positive approach, he also
2046
expressed that AI matched his ‘optimistic’ and enthusiastic’ nature. Carr brought AI
2047
back to his organization, and is now using AI in his current position as an organizational
2048
development specialist at major northwestern university.
2049
Emily is a minister for a major protestant denomination in the northeast. Emily
2050
participated in AI foundations training as an optional class for her Ph.D. She found it
2051
‘interesting’ but was not sure of its ‘practical’ nature. Emily was taken with the example
2052
of living AI her AI event facilitator personified, and how she handled some men who
2053
were not enthused about being at the AI event. Emily also realized that AI contained
2054
what her mission in the church was really about.
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
They were… totally obnoxious, and I watched XXX, who I just totally fell in love
with cause she’s just absolutely brilliant. I mean she’s just a wonderful teacher
and a wonderful person, and watched her just, she was so kind and so patient and
so just careful with them…. It is, has, the potential to really shift people’s
perspective, to really transform how they view the world, to really move them to a
different space. And, I just saw that in the training and I saw it in myself, and I
became totally enamored with appreciative inquiry and I started studying it and
reading it and doing it and became a certified facilitator, whatever that means,
through the company of experts, Emily.
Emily now studies AI at a well-known Midwestern university while still working
2066
on her Ph.D. Emily also uses AI in her position as an interim minister to assist
2067
congregations in healing after poor relations with their prior pastor.
2068
Zöe attended an AI Summit as an experiential exercise for an organizational
2069
behavior class in a Ph.D. program at a major northwestern university. Zöe and her
2070
classmates learned about AI and then conducted an AI event at a local not-for-profit. Zöe
2071
was interested in the realization of potential in the interview results, and how it felt
2072
natural to her. Zöe realized that AI enabled her natural dialogue and facilitation style of
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2073
conversation to include fully hearing other people’s stories. Zöe carries this over from
2074
her profession as an executive coach to her personal life now also.
82
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
The part of an AI where it talks about… your potential to be resides within the
people, you could just see it… You could just kind of look at the interviews and
the transcripts and see in front of you the richness and the really untapped
potential of the organization. And the future direction was just… it was there….
So, I’ve done lots of interviews in my career and would walk out feeling drained,
and I had none of that experience with this, I mean, you’d walk out just feeling
like, “Wow, this is exciting stuff.”…. I think they’ve changed in the way that I
strive more to ask questions and I’ve even found myself, like, I took the cab from
the airport the other day and say, “Well, tell me your story. How did you get
here?” Zoë.
2087
that this indicates something deeper. Zoë felt AI allowed her to ‘operate from a different
2088
part of my being’ and get back to ‘my more bohemian self.’ This shows the importance
2089
of stories in maintaining her interpersonal relationships with everyone in her life.
2090
While these quotes illustrate a shift in Zoë’s communication style, Zoë expressed
The Direct Positive Effect –Aligned Values DPE – AV are research participants
2091
who expressed that their AI event experience had a direct positive effect on them and
2092
their lives and found that the principles and methods of AI aligned with or reinforced
2093
their personal beliefs. Additionally, the DPE – AVs were a mix of research participants
2094
who were participants, facilitators, participant/facilitators of both AI summits, large and
2095
small, and AI foundations training. The DPE-AV participants show a high level of
2096
interest in the AI methods and principles. They have made AI a part of their work lives
2097
and personal lives. However, they are not as deeply affected by their AI event experience
2098
as the Direct Positive Effect – Other Transformative Learning (DPE-OTL) and Direct
2099
Positive Effect – Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (DPE-MTL) participants were.
2100
This is revealed in the DPE-AV’s reported lack of experience of conflict or strong
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
83
2101
negative emotions. This may show that for many AI event participants AI represents an
2102
alignment of values and principles, which does not require the process of TL.
2103
No Direct Effect – Aligned Values (NDE – AV) research participants are research
2104
participants who expressed that their AI event experience had a no direct positive effect
2105
on them and their lives and found that the principles and methods of AI aligned with or
2106
reinforced their personal beliefs.
2107
Sophia was a practicing AI consultant when she attended a community building
2108
AI summit with an organizational development group to which she belonged. Sophia
2109
stated her purpose was to observe the outside facilitator of this event, express her positive
2110
self, and to connect with others in this community. In her role as a participant, Sophia
2111
was a keen observer of the others at her AI event.
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
Sure, collaboration happens as it always does. So for instance, there were two
people who discovered that they were doing similar work. They wanted to get
together after that. There was somebody that recognized that they could bring
some expertise that somebody else needed right there in the room. I need his
expertise I have it. I need this so piece of software I have it, that kind of thing,
Sophia.
Sophia expressed that the AI event did not have any direct effect her or her life.
2120
Sophia did express that the AI event was an opportunity to ‘expand’ on her personal
2121
beliefs and values.
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
To that degree, I was not changed in terms of my appreciative outlook on life and
my more abundant outlook on life. But afterwards, I would have had even more,
more of that outlook on life, Sophia.
Laurent was attending a major university in California studying organizational
2127
behavior in an MBA program. Laurent was exposed to AI in a one day training session
2128
with a well known AI consultant. On the next day, with his classmates, conducted part of
2129
an AI summit for a real client. Laurent expressed some initial confusion and difficulty
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2130
with the concept of AI. Laurent was also focused on his role as a student and his
2131
responsibility to the client when he spoke of the experience and the AI interviews.
2132
Laurent did express that AI also aligned with his ‘spiritual practice.’
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
84
It probably clouded that part of it… That made it a little harder to get to our
around it. Saying, what is this all about? Where do I start? And she said you can
use it in a number of ways, and that was frustrating…. Because this is kind of like
a split in two kinds of experience. That's why we're really focused on a
methodology and its application including our own experience in it….
Personally, I went from, you know, I really enjoyed the interviews. After doing
nine or 10 of them I was tired…. The philosophy and what it does really matched
the processes I'd been through with my spiritual practices. So it was for me, a
great alignment, and I felt this great relief, because I found something that my
values totally aligned with, Laurent.
No Direct Effect – Aligned Values (NDE – AV) research participants are research
2145
participants who expressed that their AI event experience had a no direct positive effect
2146
on them and their lives and found that the principles and methods of AI aligned with or
2147
reinforced their personal beliefs. Additionally, the NDE – AVs included a participant of
2148
an large scale AI summit and a participant/facilitator of a large scale AI summit and AI
2149
foundations training. While the NDE-AV participants have made AI a part of their work
2150
and personal lives, they experienced no conflict within themselves or extremes of
2151
emotion, positive or negative. These participants might represent AI event participants
2152
who experience their alignment with AI in a more cognitive-rational manner than the
2153
other categories represented in this research. It might also be that Lauren’s two roles in
2154
the AI event experience and Sophia’s long association with AI prevented them from fully
2155
engaging in the AI event.
2156
Direct Positive Effect – Other Transformative Learning (DPE-OTL) research
2157
participants are research participants who expressed that their AI event experience had a
2158
direct positive effect on them and their lives and expressed or indicated that their
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
85
2159
experience of the AI event changed their perspective but did not follow Mezirow’s model
2160
of TL.
2161
Hillary is a student in a Ph.D. program for psychology and is a senior research
2162
assistant at a large K - 12 school for orphaned children when she attended AI foundations
2163
training for professional development. Hillary’s work was used to support decisions and
2164
long-term plans without addressing how the successful students achieved their success or
2165
what success meant. Hillary was frustrated to the point where she felt ‘I had been
2166
hammering my head on the desk all day.’ The VP of Organizational Development
2167
introduced Hillary to AI and she then attended AI foundations training as a form of
2168
professional development. During the AI event, Hillary experienced ‘joy’ ‘tears’ and ‘the
2169
peace which passeth all understanding.’ Hillary has also shared her new viewpoint with
2170
her husband who wishes he could have participated also. She also cut her hair by a
2171
drastic length to reflect her new positive self. Hillary felt reconnected to her childhood
2172
self and focused on positive outcomes.
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
I fully recognize that AI brings that kind of thing in but to imagine this, which is,
[it] just makes it appear so different to you, it takes you back to your childhood. I
think. A lot of days I think about this is how I felt as a kid that I was an artist and
I love music I love to being creative I love building a fort those kind of things
they're not allowed. This brings you back to that place where you say I can think
in that way, Hillary.
Hillary discovered in AI a means to bring her whole self to her work and use AI
2181
to address her research. Hillary instituted a new pattern of research where AI based
2182
research is done first, then further planning and research is based on the initial findings.
2183
These changes have led the executives and the planning boards to find new uses for the
2184
research department and to begin looking at student success rather than student failure
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2185
and how to support that success. This includes a new project based on AI, and the
2186
facilitator from her AI event assists her informally.
2187
86
Gwen was a personal and executive coach in an uncertain relationship with her
2188
boyfriend who introduced her to AI and then conducted an AI summit with just the two
2189
of them to explore their relationship and their future together. Gwen was feeling ‘very
2190
sensitive’ ‘independent minded’ and like she ‘didn’t really need man in her life.’ Gwen
2191
also felt ‘vulnerable’ and ‘fearful of looking like a fool.’ Gwen also realized how ‘fragile
2192
their relationship had been’ until that point where she discovered ‘how much they had in
2193
common.’
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
I can remember the bubbles just, you know, in my stomach and the butterflies
thinking, oh my God what if I have a future image he doesn’t, and lucky for me
he went first, and I was…. I can remember [being] just moved to tears thinking
about realizing that what he wanted and what I wanted were the same thing, and
how close and how fragile our relationship was, how close it came to not even
existing anymore until we had engaged in this conversation to realize that we both
wanted the same thing, Gwen.
Gwen has indicated a change in perspective and has successfully integrated this
2203
new perspective into her life. Gwen is now an AI consultant with an international firm
2204
and is actively engaged in living her new perspective. Gwen also discussed an AI
2205
summit she recently led with her husband Tom in Guyana in her interview. The content
2206
of this portion of the interview was not included in this research.
2207
Igor in his position as a senior executive in a military organization and in his
2208
profession as a commercial airline pilot, now retired, was used to a top down command
2209
and control hierarchy of organization. These are also organizations that are not open to
2210
expressions of emotions. Igor was introduced to AI through some executive training and
2211
found it interesting. He decided to attend an AI foundations training certification course
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
87
2212
as a form of professional development. During the AI event he was initially disengaged
2213
and was ‘focused on the AI piece.’ As the event progressed Igor realized that he ‘learned
2214
more when I was engaged.’
2215
Igor found a new language and means to make himself ‘more emotionally
2216
accessible’ to his wife and coworkers. Igor also found a common language he could use
2217
to improve his relationships with his wife and co-workers.
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
What this has done for me is to get me to talk a language that she understands.
It’s given me a way of communicating that makes a lot of sense to her because,
you know, frankly, I’m not a terribly emotionally available person…. Just saying,
“You know when I signed in I noticed you had 6,000 hours in this airplane. You
must be awfully tired of looking over here and seeing some old guy like me
sitting here.” That, just engaging in that conversation would create a pretty good
working harmony, Igor.
2227
not-for-profit organization where she worked. As part of the administrative staff she felt
2228
overworked and under appreciated by the leadership. The only leader she got along with
2229
was laid-off when some funding ran out days before the event. Marie was hostile, angry
2230
and not willing to participate. During the event, she realized that she had been accepted
2231
at her workplace as if she were family in a short time and was given responsibilities that
2232
made her indispensable. She realized also that her personal style of dress, behavior and
2233
communication were ineffective and caused others discomfort. During this event Marie
2234
saw that she was so rebellious because of what she held back. Marie became willing to
2235
speak her mind without her usual attitude and also to listen to others. Her break through
2236
came when she noticed she was chiding a co-worker for not trusting others and she
2237
realized felt the same way.
2238
2239
Marie was required to participate in an AI summit to improve the culture of the
And has there ever been an instance where someone complains and gets fired and
has there ever been an instance where someone is unhappy with their job and gets
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2240
2241
2242
2243
fired for it. And so there was a lot of hold on what’s the reality here and then I
think that point was when the room started to change, Marie.
Marie learned to confront her director when she was overloaded, gained a
2244
supervisory position, learned how to direct her co-workers appropriately. She bought a
2245
small house and began reconciling her relationship with her mother.
2246
88
Sulaiman is the head of a religious based not-for-profit organization for the
2247
Muslim community in a South American country. Sulaiman attended an AI foundations
2248
training voluntarily as part of a community building event. Sulaiman would normally
2249
have sent a junior person to this event but he was intrigued with the stated principles of
2250
AI and how they matched his own faith. Sulaiman found it easy to accept the AI
2251
philosophy but had difficulty with the concept of working with people of other faiths and
2252
moral convictions he felt were inferior to his own.
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
Let me put it this way. As I mentioned earlier, some of my own philosophy, my
own way of looking at things were addressed and AI gives me a framework
through which, what do we call it, a theoretical framework through which I can
put my personal beliefs into practice in a practical way…. Ok those people they
consume alcohol, they party and so on. AI opened that world for me, to look at
people from another perspective, rather than to just look at some of the things you
are not happy with they may be doing. Look at the things that make you happy
rather than the things that do not make you happy, Sulaiman.
Sulaiman also reported changes in his personal relationships and with the
2263
members of his community. His teenage daughters call him ‘Super-dad.’ In his
2264
community people are more likely to interact with him. ‘I get more interrupted by people
2265
in the open society more, Sulaiman.’ Sulaiman has co-founded a multi-religious and
2266
multi-racial foundation to build community in his country, which is rife with violence,
2267
kidnapping, death squads, and murder.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
89
2268
Direct Positive Effect – Other Transformative Learning (DPE-OTL) participants
2269
are participants who expressed that their AI event experience had a direct positive effect
2270
on them and their lives and expressed or indicated that their experience of the AI event
2271
changed their perspective but did not follow Mezirow’s model of TL. The DPE – OTL
2272
participants’ were participants of large or small AI summits, AI foundations training.
2273
Most of the DPE-OTL participants experienced some level of conflict or negative
2274
emotion, with the exception of Hillary and Sulaiman. With further investigation, these
2275
participants might reveal how personality type might influence the AI event experience of
2276
the participants. They may also reveal how life stage, psychological, or cognitive
2277
development might influence the participants’ experience of the AI event.
2278
Direct Positive Effect – Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (DPE-MTL) research
2279
participants are research participants who expressed that their AI event experience had a
2280
direct positive effect on them and their lives and expressed or indicated that their
2281
experience of the AI event changed their perspective and follow Mezirow’s model of TL.
2282
Mary was required to attend an AI summit and approached it with mistrust and
2283
skepticism. Her first thought when hearing the AI principles was ‘This is absurd.’
2284
Mary’s organization had recently experienced some lay-offs and just prior to the event
2285
information was leaked that many executive had received bonuses resulting from the lay-
2286
offs. Additionally, Mary’s organization is a major children’s hospital treating many
2287
children in their final stages of life. The internal culture of this organization was very
2288
negative and the AI event was planned to attempt to change this. Mary felt there were
2289
better uses for her time than attending the AI event. Although, Mary was struck by the
2290
facilitator’s statement ‘If you are open to it appreciative inquiry can change your life.’
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2291
90
During the event, Mary realized how she envied others for their competence and
2292
their happiness, and she felt unworthy of her position. Mary then realized she shared a
2293
strong bond of camaraderie with her fellow nurses. Mary also realized that the most
2294
important times to her as a nurse were had at the bedside of dying children where she
2295
could offer comfort to the patients and their families. After the event, Mary felt she
2296
should try applying AI to her own life. Mary changed her position at work to work at the
2297
bedside again. Mary joined a weight loss program and had lost seventy pounds at the
2298
time of our interview. Mary also stopped taking anti-depressants, took up pottery as a
2299
hobby again, and became more socially active. Mary started a mentoring program for
2300
senior nurses using AI principles and stories as a means of communicating AI values.
2301
Mary continued to work on applying AI in her life with the assistance and encouragement
2302
of the AI facilitator, although many of the AI champions were later fired or quit, leaving
2303
Mary somewhat alone in her new perspective.
2304
Mary describes her experience as important in initiating and maintaining her new
2305
positive outlook on life. Mary describes her change in perspective and AI’s role in her
2306
transformation this way:
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
I began to see that I did not value me... Somehow through the AI process, I
could see that I did not appreciate the things that I was doing good in my life, I
was always putting myself down, and felt that I didn't measure up to others.
Going through this process helped me to see that I deserve to care for me, and I
lost 70 lbs the year after this process and really became a happier and more
appreciative person overall, Mary.
Chris was attending an organizational behavior class at a major southern
2315
university when she participated in an AI summit as a classroom experience. She had
2316
previously worked as a rape crisis counselor and was herself raped by a group of men
2317
after work one night. Chris became withdrawn, ‘gothic’ and ‘fearful of others’ and
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
91
2318
wouldn’t leave her home without an escort. This event caused her to become very vocal
2319
about allowing women to tell their stories of surviving rape as a form of healing. Chris
2320
was ostracized from the rape crisis community for this viewpoint. Chris left this position
2321
and returned to school in search of a new direction.
2322
She was initially unimpressed with AI as it was presented to her in class because
2323
it appeared too passive. After the classroom exercise, Chris decided she had nothing to
2324
loose by applying AI to her life. Chris began to exercise, became more socially active,
2325
and lost weight.
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
There was like, biological and physical changes that took place at that time. So
the people said, well I didn't even recognize you…. That AI was kind of the
impetus to start this biological change, and the biological changes changed my
mental makeup. Does that make sense? Chris.
Chris joined a music heritage center and soon initiated an AI event, which she
2332
facilitated. The AI event was successful and Chris is now the president of that
2333
organization. She credits AI with opening her up to new experiences and new friends she
2334
would not have made in her past.
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
It's kind of inspired in me this kind of lifelong learning process is kind of
constantly looking at where can I make things better working to make things
different event also the beauty of this is I've really started to think about how we
face challenges and what's the best solution for that challenge, Chris.
2341
the Director of Human Resources at major northwestern telecom firm. Bev attended an
2342
AI summit as a classroom exercise and initially though ‘oh God, this is so foo foo.’ She
2343
soon found herself feeling extremes of emotions.
2344
2345
2346
Bev is a student in a Ph.D. program in leadership in the Northwest. Bev is also
It was truly a gut feeling that I’ve never felt before, like moving through my
whole body. A physical feeling of charging, almost electricity coming through
me and to actually proclaim it out loud, what we had just done I broke into tears
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2347
2348
2349
2350
92
and actually I went into a hysterical crying where I couldn’t stop. I had never
experienced that before and I was just like ‘wholly cow,’ Bev.
Bev soon began to examine her childhood of physical and mental abuse by her
2351
parents and realized that her classmates and her professor had created a ‘safe container
2352
for her.’ Bev regained relationships with her estranged sisters, reconciled her self with
2353
her dead parents, and found her personal relationships impacted. Bev is also using AI to
2354
mentor co-workers through her position at work where tensions are high as the firm
2355
openly seeks a buyer. Bev has lost ‘old and dear friendships’ with people who find her
2356
new attitude ‘too Pollyanna.’
2357
Direct Positive Effect – Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (DPE-OTL) research
2358
participants are research participants who expressed that their AI event experience had a
2359
direct positive effect on them and their lives and expressed or indicated that their
2360
experience of the AI event changed their perspective but did not follow Mezirow’s model
2361
of TL. Additionally, the DPE – MTL’s were participants of AI summits, one was a large-
2362
scale summit and two were small scale-summits. With further research, it may be
2363
discovered that the DPE-MTL participants might represent a specific personality type,
2364
life stage, psychological, or cognitive development. It should also be noted that the DPE-
2365
MTL participants are all women. It may be that Mezirow’s model of TL more fully
2366
describes a particular subset of women’s experiences of the AI event.
2367
While the Direct Positive Experience-Changed Perspective (DPE-OTL and DPE-
2368
MTL) participants were both women and men, and attended large or small-scale AI
2369
summits, or AI foundations training, there are some interesting patterns revealed in this
2370
analysis of the data. Of the eight DPE-CP participants six were participants of large or
2371
small-scale AI summits and two were participants of AI foundations training. Only three
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
93
2372
of thirteen Aligned Values AV research participants were participants of an AI summit.
2373
Three AV research participants were participants of an AI foundations training. The
2374
remaining seven AV research participants were facilitators or participant/facilitators of
2375
AI summits, with the exception of Laurent, No-Direct Effect – Aligned Values (NDE-
2376
AV), who was a participant of an AI foundations training on one day and a facilitator of
2377
an AI summit on the next day. All eight of the DPE-CP participants were engaged in the
2378
AI event in the role of participant. This study reveals that eight of eleven (73%)
2379
participants who attended an AI summit experienced a change in perspective and were
2380
able to integrate that change into their lives. Two participants out of ten (20%) who
2381
attended AI foundations training experienced a change of perspective. No facilitator of
2382
an AI summit experienced a change in perspective.
2383
2384
Summary of the Data Analysis
In this chapter, the data analysis was conducted in a constant comparison of the
2385
data in several coding sessions. The initial coding session included open and axial
2386
coding and revealed the categories DPE and NDE to describe the research participant’s
2387
experience of the AI event. This initial coding further revealed the research participants
2388
could also be divided into categories of AV and CP to reflect their alignment with AI or
2389
that AI could be attributed to a change in meaning schema. A second coding session for
2390
TL in the data revealed that the CP research participants could be divided into two
2391
categories MTL and OTL representing those who followed Mezirow’s model and those
2392
who did not.
2393
2394
A triangulation of the data between the two coding sessions with comparison to
the transcripts was also conducted. The triangulation revealed the AV research
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
94
2395
participants were least likely to engage in reflective dialogue, express or indicate a
2396
disorienting dilemma and engage in the self-examination with negative feelings, while
2397
the OTL research participants were more likely to have engaged in reflective dialogue,
2398
expressed or indicated a disorienting dilemma and engaged in the self-examination with
2399
negative feelings. Profiles of each research participant were presented to provide a more
2400
full understanding of the appropriateness of the categories the participants were assigned
2401
to during the data analysis.
2402
2403
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2404
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS
2405
2406
95
Introduction
In this chapter, I continue by discussing the findings in the context of each of the
2407
research questions. In response to research question one, I discuss the significance of the
2408
AI event experience for the participants and the categories and themes developed in the
2409
data analysis. In response to research question two, the findings of the coding for TL in
2410
the data were compared with the five categories in the TL coding key. In response to
2411
research question three I discuss the findings in relation to the field of positive
2412
psychology.
2413
2414
Research Question 1
“How do participants of appreciative inquiry summits or training understand and
2415
make meaning of their experiences during the appreciative inquiry event?” To respond to
2416
this question I will discuss the categories and themes discovered in the data analysis,
2417
which show the significance and meaning of the AI event experience for the participants.
2418
While the profiles of the research participants in the previous chapter show how they
2419
understood and made meaning of their AI event experience, individually, an analysis of
2420
the results of the open and axial coding shows how they understood and made meaning of
2421
their AI event experience collectively.
2422
The significance of the participant’s AI event experience
2423
2424
Many of the research participants described their AI experience as an opening of
their minds and hearts to a deeper learning and understanding of their roles and
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
96
2425
relationships and the importance of using appreciative questioning and positive imaging
2426
of the future. There are many examples of individual experiences where the participants
2427
expressed an opening of the heart and mind to a deeper learning. Sulaiman found he
2428
could work with non-Muslims toward the settling of unrest in his country. Marie found
2429
she could assert herself without compromising her individuality and became more
2430
effective in her presentation of self at her workplace. Igor found a new language and
2431
means to make himself more emotionally accessible to his wife and coworkers. Ding and
2432
Hall were able to accomplish a sense of common vision and direction for coworkers in a
2433
decentralized and geographically disperse organization.
2434
These personal changes occurred although many of the research participants came
2435
to the event in uncertain or negative circumstances. Mary described her organization as
2436
‘negative’, ‘mistrustful’, and ‘skeptical.’ Mary’s first thought was “This is absurd!”
2437
Gwen described her relationship as fragile and close to nonexistence at the point before
2438
she participated in an AI event. Travel in Sulaiman’s country is dangerous: murder,
2439
kidnapping, violence, and overt racism threaten everyone. Many of the research
2440
participants expressed skepticism, mistrust and doubt when they first encountered the
2441
principles and methods of AI. Ding and Hall felt concern for delivering tangible results
2442
in organizations driven by “Doers.” Sarah was concerned with the spiritual side of AI,
2443
“…Don’t want to be sucked into the vortex, become a cult member of AI.”
2444
Other research participants expressed a curiosity with or an attraction to AI. Burt
2445
said, “I liked the whole idea of an organizational development intervention that
2446
emphasized the positive side of things, the focus on positive organizational scholarship.”
2447
Emily said, “I mean it sounded like an interesting thing to do…”
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2448
97
For most of the participants, the AI event experience was a time of positive
2449
emotions and increased insights, which had an impact on their relationships with and
2450
views of others. An examination of the major clustered concepts by volume of concepts
2451
expressed or indicated in data revealed that the AI event experience was emotionally
2452
involved for the participants, with the most concepts related to emotions, insights,
2453
relationships, and actions being found during and after the AI event. Please refer to
2454
Figure 3 for the categories of experience by stage of experience.
Number of concepts
300
250
200
150
Before
During
100
After
50
0
Emotions,
sensations,
descriptors
Insights
The
Relationships
Organization and others
Actions
Focus
Categories of experience
2455
2456
Figure 3. Categories of experience by stage of experience.
2457
This analysis shows an interesting relationship between the participant’s reports
2458
of predominantly positive emotions and the number of insights reported during and after
2459
the AI event. The increase in reports of insights may show an increase in the creativity of
2460
the participants. Their engagement in the positive emotions may have fostered and
2461
promoted the creativity, openness, ability to make connections, and broad-minded
2462
thinking necessary for the insights to occur.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
98
2463
AI’s use of a positive lens to view the world we see and the world we would like
2464
to see is helpful in promoting the factors leading to insight. Figure 3 shows a significant
2465
increase in the reports of concepts related to relationships and views of others along with
2466
an increase in reports of action. Figure 3 shows an interesting decrease in reports of
2467
concepts related to the participant’s organization and a similar change in reported
2468
concepts related to the participant’s focus. Figure 3 also shows a progressive increase in
2469
the number of reported insights over the AI event experience, with a 500% increase
2470
overall. The increase in the number of reported insights is accompanied by a broadening
2471
of the categories of insights, with more than double the categories of insights reported
2472
after the AI event. This increase indicates the AI event caused the AI event participants
2473
to become more insightful and broadened their thought responses.
2474
The increase in reported insights might also be a result of this study’s
2475
retrospective nature. Many of the participants were removed in time from the AI event
2476
by three months to six years. This length of time may have given the participants a
2477
chance to reflect on the experience more fully.
2478
The emotions reported were predominantly negative in nature at the beginning of
2479
the AI event experience and became less numerous as the AI event progressed. Positive
2480
emotions spiked during the AI event and remained well reported after the AI event.
2481
Please refer to Figure 4 for the changes in reported emotions by stage of experience.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
99
140
Number of emotions concepts
120
100
80
Negative
Neutral
Positive
60
40
20
0
Before
During
After
Stage of experience
2482
2483
2484
Figure 4. Changes in reported emotions by stage of experience.
At this point, a discussion of the major categories: Emotions, sensations, and
2485
descriptors; Insights; Relationships and others, might be beneficial to further the
2486
understanding of their effect on the participants. The research participants indicated
2487
many clustered concepts in common, from emotions and insights to positive changes in
2488
their roles and relationships. The following clustered concepts yielded the greatest
2489
volume of data.
2490
Emotions, sensations, and descriptors. In this category, I included sensations and
2491
descriptors of states of being since most of the research participants used those to answer
2492
questions related to emotions. Some of the research participants only experienced
2493
positive emotions and sensations. Many of the research participants expressed that they
2494
experienced both positive and negative emotions. For many of the research participants
2495
mistrust, anger, fear, bitterness and skepticism gave way to tears cried, laughter, joy and
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
100
2496
peace. Gwen said, “The joy had a physical presence.” Hillary experienced, “The peace
2497
which passeth all understanding.” Bev cried openly, then felt a new sensation, saying:
2498
2499
2500
2501
It was a gut feeling that I’ve never felt before, like moving through my whole
body. A physical feeling of charging, almost electricity coming through me, Bev.
For some the AI event became a forum where negative emotions were surfaced,
2502
confronted, and coped with. For example, Marie became willing to ‘express anger’,
2503
experience ‘a sense of hope’, and a sense of ‘relief’. Many research participants spoke of
2504
a sense of energy, and how it built up and manifested it self.
2505
I was just aware that there was so much energy… Annie.
2506
2507
2508
2509
And I guess the other example is, that there really comes a feeling, I don't know if
you want to call it a feeling, but you really feel an incredible energy, Hillary.
It is clear that the AI event was for most of the participants an emotional
2510
experience and for some an intensely emotional experience. While the AI literature
2511
emphasizes the positive emotional experiences it is clear that a broad range of negative
2512
emotions are also experienced during the AI event by some participants. Negative
2513
emotions might be required to be experienced and resolved before some participants can
2514
achieve a positive emotional state. It is important for AI practitioners to be aware of this
2515
process of experiencing and resolving negative emotions to enable more AI event
2516
participants to attain positive emotional states. It was shown in the section above that
2517
positive emotional experiences may lead to increased insight.
2518
Insights. Many DPE research participants said they experienced new insights.
2519
Hillary said, “This is powerful.” Marie said, “I realized I had supports.” And, “I am
2520
ready to hear the truth.” Igor realized he was ‘learning more while I was engaged.’
2521
Others expressed that ‘my voice had meaning,’ ‘we are working together toward a
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
101
2522
common goal’ and that ‘is powerful.’ Many research participants expressed a sense of
2523
‘connection to their organization,’ they realized ‘the power of the group’, and they had
2524
‘common bonds with others’.
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
For example, Burt reported that many of the participants of the AI summit he led
at his workplace discovered a sense of empowerment.
Once they saw those themes, they began to recognize that they had a very
powerful voice in the direction the company might head with the new program...
One of the participants said, ‘I did not realize that I had so much power, that my
voice meant so much,’ Burt.
Bev said that she began to see patterns and connections in a very visual way that
affected her sleep and helped her in her transformative process:
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
I was able to physically and mentally feeling-wise see the patterns and the
connections. It was really interesting, as I was going through these processes at
night, I had I was going through these very strange dreams, that I would wake up
and I was exhausted from. And it was colors and numbers and words and things
going into boxes and moving very fast, Bev.
2541
of positive outlook. These insights also contained the new visions of empowerment and
2542
positive future outcomes that gave the participants hope. These insights coupled with
2543
positive emotions were powerful in their ability to guide and strengthen the participants.
These insights empowered the research participants to continue on their new path
2544
Relationships. All the DPE research participants expressed positive changes in
2545
their relationships, either personal or professional. These positive relationship changes
2546
include: improved bonding with others, a greater sense of camaraderie, improved
2547
communications, and an increased sense of value in the others whom they interacted. For
2548
example, Mary said, “As the event progressed, I was feeling that I had so much in
2549
common with the thirty-two people in the room” and “it’s changed my relationships in
2550
my family, [also] socially and professionally.” Igor spoke of improved relationships with
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2551
his co-pilots resulting from his willingness to be more open and frank with them.
2552
Sulaiman spoke of improved relations with his two daughters, and of feeling able to
2553
initiate and maintain relationships with non-Muslims:
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
102
They may have values different from mine and in my own interaction with Gwen
and Tom, I visited them in RI at their home and I felt as if I was at one of my
relatives homes, because of the bond and relationship that developed and people
at the AI foundation workshop…. And there are other people I reached later on
that came to Guyana promoting AI, Christian, Jewish, and we interact so well….
My experience interacting with Jewish people was great. We can find common
ground, we can share views, we can share our beliefs, we talk about the Old
Testament and there are certain common threads in our literary fields, Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam, Sulaiman
Some of the research participants said they lost or ended relationships that were
2565
either negative or non-supportive in nature. All the research participants who indicated
2566
this loss or ending of relationships indicated that they were now ‘too Pollyanna’ for some
2567
of the others in their lives. For example, Mary ‘lost AI champions’ she had formed close
2568
bonds with, and Chris was ostracized from her community of sexual abuse counselors for
2569
‘advocating that victims tell their stories openly.’ It is important to note that all changes
2570
in relationships were not positive and did cause some of the participants’ distress.
2571
Nevertheless, these participants, who might have explained these events differently
2572
before the AI event, were able to say the changes were for the best.
2573
2574
2575
There are some minor categories, which may be interesting to discuss here:
Language, Stories, Turning point, Mentoring, Organization, and Focus.
Language. Many DPE research participants expressed a discovery or learning of
2576
a common language that enabled or reinforced their positive viewpoint and enabled better
2577
communication in their relationships, personal and professional. This common language
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
103
2578
also enabled better workplace communications and reinforced stronger relationships in
2579
their organizations.
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
What this has done for me is to get me to talk a language that she understands.
It’s given me a way of communicating that makes a lot of sense to her because,
you know, frankly, I’m not a terribly emotionally available person, Igor.
If anybody got too negative, so forth, we had the shared language to say well
what’s working, you know, Carr.
This research makes it apparent that many AI event participants gain linguistic
2588
tools to better describe and explain their newfound realities and future expectations.
2589
These linguistic tools are important in improving relationships, strengthening
2590
interpersonal connections and clarifying communications.
2591
Stories. Many of the DPE research participants also mentioned the importance of
2592
stories, both the telling of stories and of listening to stories in the positive changes they
2593
experienced resulting from their participation in the AI event. Igor used stories to
2594
develop relationships with his co-pilots and encourage their best performance. Igor also
2595
used the theme of stories to illustrate how he used AI in his work:
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
The minute I said, “Tell me a story” his entire body relaxed into the sitting around
the campfire look to tell a story and every junior officer who’d been looking out
the window, looking at their notes, looking at something else, heads immediately
swung to him, Igor.
Zoë often engages in conversations with new people she meets by asking them to
2602
tell her their story, from the taxi driver to the appliance repairman. Mary also speaks of
2603
stories and their importance in mentoring at her workplace.
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
This repair guy comes over and he’s really great and, you know, I get to hear his
story about how he started this little repair business, and it’s, like, wow, it’s not
all for naught because I got to hear this great story, Zoë.
Everyone loves it, it's emotional and it connects us…. I also believe that nurses
love to tell their stories and talk about what brings them back day after day...its
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2610
2611
2612
2613
104
not the pay, benefits or hours...no one ever asks them these questions and we
always run out of time with many stories untold, Mary.
This category shows that stories are more than forms of entertainment. They help
2614
redefine, share, maintain, and support positive visions of the present and future outcomes.
2615
Some participants use these stories as forms of meditation, reinforcing their positive
2616
visions and as explanations of good that comes from negative happenstances.
2617
Turning point. Many research participants said they experienced a sensation of
2618
reaching a turning point in their lives. This was a point where they were so open and
2619
ready to embrace a positive viewpoint in life that it was easy to change on the spot and
2620
they could go forward without their old negative or cynical selves. Others felt the
2621
approach of the turning point as more gradual, but just as deeply.
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
It was a turning point for me in the way that I looked at what I did for a living,
and how important the experiences that I had as a nurse really shaped my values
and who I was, Mary.
2633
positivity. In a sense, it was like reaching a turning point in a journey or a hilltop. The
2634
way home or downhill is always easier. The participants who expressed this category
2635
reported feeling a sense of relief and peace, or building of energy after the turning point.
2636
So I would say there wasn’t a particular event. It was much more about a sort of
building up to the place where they could change, appreciative inquiry in a
nanosecond…. It wasn’t really a nanosecond because it took a while to take us to
the nanosecond in which change would occur, but it was once we got to that
space, Emily.
Turning points gave some of the participants strength in their sense of hope and
Mentoring. All of the MTL and OTL participants expressed or indicated they
2637
were being mentored, and/or were mentoring others. Some of these mentoring
2638
relationships are formal arrangements and others are informal in nature. For example,
2639
Mary mentors the senior nurses, while teaching them mentoring skills. Mary is also
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
105
2640
mentored informally by the AI event facilitator. Sulaiman mentors the members of his
2641
community and maintains a formal and informal relationship with the AI event
2642
facilitators. Igor is coached by the faculty person who recommended AI training to him.
2643
Mentoring may be a key social support in furthering the AI journey of the participants
2644
and may also support and maintain perspective changes.
2645
Organization and focus. It is interesting to note that during the AI event there
2646
were no reports of concepts in the categories of the organization and focus. The
2647
participants might have been caught up in the AI event experience enough that they were
2648
not narrowly focused on cause and effect relationships and specific actions. The
2649
participant’s mode of thinking may have been broad-minded. These topics are
2650
opportunities for further research.
2651
Many of the research participants also expressed other aspects of the positive
2652
effect the AI event had on them and their lives. They mentioned a ‘tendency for acting
2653
on their new knowledge and skills’ or the ‘intent to act on it soon,’ and ‘positive changes
2654
in their organizations.’ The research participants also referred to their role as ‘mentors to
2655
others’ or in ‘being mentored,’ the ‘opportunity for learning and professional growth,’
2656
‘being AI is a continual process’, ‘connection’ and ‘being connected’, ‘increased
2657
confidence’, gaining a ‘positive focus,’ and the experience of ‘spirituality.’
2658
The participant’s positive experiences occurred although many of them came to
2659
the event in uncertain or negative circumstances and states of mind. Mary described her
2660
organization as negative, mistrustful, and skeptical. Mary, like others, was also skeptical
2661
of AI and the claims of the AI event facilitator and her first thought was “This is absurd!”
2662
Gwen described her relationship as fragile and close to becoming nonexistent before she
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
106
2663
participated in an AI event. Travel in Sulaiman’s country is dangerous: overt racism,
2664
violence, kidnapping, and murder threaten everyone’s safety. Many participants of this
2665
AI event came under gunfire on their way to the AI event. Sulaiman traveled outside the
2666
safety of his community and though these dangers to participate.
2667
Other participants were preoccupied with the success or logistics of the AI event.
2668
For example, Ding and Hall felt concern for delivering tangible results in organizations
2669
driven by “Doers.” Sarah was concerned with being overwhelmed by the spiritual side of
2670
AI and said,
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
[I] Don’t want to be sucked into the vortex, become a cult member of AI.
Other participants expressed a curiosity with or an attraction to AI, Sarah.
I liked the whole idea of an organizational development intervention that
emphasized the positive side of things, the focus on positive organizational
scholarship, Burt.
There are apparent long-term effects of the AI event experience on the
2678
participants.
2679
event experiences. At the time of our interview, Sarah had just returned from an AI
2680
foundations training event the previous week. All of the participants continue to practice
2681
the principles and methods of AI in their personal and/or professional lives. For some
2682
participants this required a conscious effort, but they were willing to continue to engage
2683
in AI principles and methods.
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
Twenty participants were three months to six years removed from their AI
I suppose I can say that for AI to work you have to live it...it's a continual process
for me but one that has really made a difference in my life and hopefully in the
people I come in contact with, Mary.
It really can be, it can be very powerful in the way that it has an impact on people.
It really can. I’m still wrestling with all that I learned, Igor.
Many of the participants have made AI a part of their work life also. Gwen,
Laurent, Sophia, Annie, Igor, and Jerry are AI facilitators. Mary, Hillary, Sarah, Burt,
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
107
2693
Bev, Ding, Hall, Ian, Valdez, Carr, Emily, and Zoë are making AI principles and methods
2694
part of their practices at their workplaces. Sulaiman, Chris, and Marie use AI in their
2695
personal lives. All of the participants in this study still involve AI principles and methods
2696
in their lives and this indicates the durability of the AI event experience in the
2697
participant’s life. It should be pointed out the research population for this study was self-
2698
selected for a positive AI event experience. These results might be common for the
2699
population this sample is drawn from. This indicates an opportunity for further study
2700
involving more diverse research populations.
2701
2702
Research Question 2
“How do the AI event participants’ experiences compare to the theory of TL as
2703
defined by Mezirow, and how does TL theory describe their experiences?” In this
2704
section I will discuss the participants experiences by category of TL experience and by
2705
comparing the categories to each other.
2706
The participants’ experiences of TL
2707
To understand the participant’s AI event experiences in terms of TL I compared
2708
the data to a TL coding key, which is comprised of Mezirow’s three reflective practices
2709
and ten stages of TL. I also kept in mind the two central objectives of TL. First, a
2710
change in meaning schema that effects a positive reappraisal of the subject’s expectations
2711
of the future, and secondly, a successful integration of that new meaning schema into the
2712
subject’s life. Using these criteria, I found interesting patterns in the data for the Direct
2713
Positive Effect – Changed Perspective (DPE-CP) participants, those who expressed a
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
108
2714
direct positive benefit from their AI event experience and expressed or indicated a change
2715
in perspective.
2716
In this deductive analysis of the data, I found that three DPE-CP participants,
2717
Mary, Chris, and Bev expressed or indicated the thirteen points of the TL coding key.
2718
These participants were coded as Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (MTL). For
2719
example, Mary changed her meaning schema to include a more positive and realistic
2720
viewpoint of herself and the importance of her work and successfully integrated her new
2721
perspectives into her life. Mary no longer sees herself as unworthy and less capable in
2722
relation to her coworkers. Mary has reassessed what is important to her about her work.
2723
She has given up her administrative position as a senior nursing manager to care for the
2724
dying children at the children’s hospital where she works. Mary has also undergone
2725
some physical changes as well. Mary enrolled in a weight loss program within two days
2726
of the AI event and over the year and a half between the AI event and our interview had
2727
lost 70 pounds. Mary reports that she no longer needs anti-depressants, and she stopped
2728
taking them shortly after the AI event. Mary also reports improved relations with her
2729
family, and her coworkers.
2730
Chris reclaimed her normally proactive and outgoing self after several years of
2731
fear, withdrawal from others, and cynicism after suffering the trauma of being raped by a
2732
group of men. Chris describes herself in this period as gothic, fatalistic and realistic.
2733
After her AI event, Chris became an active member of a local not for profit, encouraged
2734
the organization to hold an AI summit and is now the president of the organization. Chris
2735
has changed the focus of her Master’s of Public Administration program to include
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
109
2736
organizational development. Chris has also become more physically active and has lost a
2737
noticeable amount of weight since the AI event.
2738
Bev has resolved conflicts with her family regarding physical and mental abuse,
2739
which allowed her to normalize relations with her sister. Bev was then able to attend to
2740
her sister during her fight with breast cancer. Bev, as a senior manager, also is applying
2741
AI principles and methods to her workplace where strife, confusion, politics and poor
2742
communication are the norm as the senior executives seek to sell the telecom business
2743
where she works. Bev is actively applying her knowledge of AI to other long-term
2744
personal relationships. Bev has quit smoking and gained some weight since the AI event.
2745
I found that five of the DPE-CP participants, Hillary, Gwen, Igor, Marie, and
2746
Sulaiman, expressed or indicated a change in meaning schema and successfully
2747
integrated it into their lives, which is consistent with the two central objectives of TL.
2748
These participants were coded as OTL, or Other transformative learning. For example,
2749
Hillary experienced a disorienting dilemma, a changed meaning perspective, and
2750
successful integration of the new meaning schema. Hillary expressed an intense
2751
frustration with her position at work where she felt as though she was suffering from an
2752
“identity crisis” and was left feeling as though she had been “slamming my head on my
2753
desk” by the end of her day as a disorienting dilemma. Hillary discovered the power of
2754
positive imagery and positive questioning at the AI foundations training and was
2755
instrumental in initiating a new research methodology at her workplace. The k-12 school
2756
for orphaned children where she works now looks at the factors for student success and
2757
builds the one-year and five-year plans to support and accommodate those successes.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2758
She also uses AI principles in her relationship with her husband, who notices and
2759
appreciates the difference.
110
2760
Gwen experienced a change in meaning schema and successful integration of that
2761
meaning schema without experiencing a disorienting dilemma and self-examination with
2762
negative feelings. Although Gwen described her relationship as fragile before her AI
2763
event she did not consider it a disorienting dilemma. Gwen’s change in meaning
2764
perspective came in the form of her understanding how she behaved in intimate
2765
relationships and what she expected of those relationships, and in what effect she wanted
2766
her career to have on society. After the AI event Gwen and Tom, who conducted the AI
2767
event with Gwen, actively pursued the life together that they envisioned and planned for
2768
during the AI event. Gwen is now an AI consultant and facilitator working
2769
internationally. She is also married to Tom and is a mother to their daughter.
2770
Igor experienced a change of meaning perspective and integration without a
2771
disorienting dilemma and a self-examination with negative feelings. Igor, a senior level
2772
officer in a military organization and pilot for a commercial airline, who was used to a
2773
very top down, hierarchical, command and control style of communication and driving
2774
initiatives. Igor did not express or indicate a disorienting dilemma. Igor learned a new
2775
language and style of communication that enabled him, “to talk a language that she
2776
understands.” Igor used the new language and communication skills to set his co-pilots
2777
at ease and improve relationships with them. Igor also initiated some training programs
2778
within his military organization, “And I know I wouldn’t have done that a couple of years
2779
ago.” Igor’s co-workers describe him as more collaborative and participative since the
2780
AI event. Igor expresses how the AI event has affected him:
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
111
My wife pointed out that I have lived my life in a left brained world…. Well,
what she says she’s watching is somebody whose right side of his brain has said,
“It’s my turn,” Igor.
Marie experienced a disorienting dilemma, self-examination with negative
2786
feelings, a change in meaning schema, and successful integration of the new meaning
2787
schema, without experiencing planning. Marie faced internal crises on many fronts
2788
before her AI event. Her fiancé abandoned her, she was forced to take a job she felt was
2789
beneath her and she had a poor relationship with her mother. This caused her to act out at
2790
work distancing her from and angering her coworkers. She often left work in tears. Many
2791
times Marie had to pull her car over on the way home to vent before she could continue
2792
on her way home. Days before the AI event the only manager Marie identified with, was
2793
laid off due to budget shortfalls. Through the AI event, Marie discovered she could
2794
express her individuality and that she was respected for the quality of her work. Marie
2795
became more willing to express herself in a manner appropriate to her workplace. Marie
2796
also discovered an avenue of communication and a level of friendship with the acting
2797
CEO of her organization. Marie has bought her own home and has begun working on
2798
improving her relationship with her mother.
2799
Sulaiman represents a change in meaning schema and successful integration of
2800
the new meaning schema without a disorienting dilemma or a self-examination with
2801
negative feelings. Sulaiman, as a conservative and moral Muslim leader of a community
2802
based not for profit had little experience with members of Guyana’s general society,
2803
limiting himself to interactions with others of his faith and convictions. Through his AI
2804
event experience, he was able to discover that everyone had his or her own truth and this
2805
meant there might be multiple truths with which to interpret the world. Sulaiman also
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
112
2806
discovered common ground with others he might have avoided in the past. Sulaiman has
2807
co-founded a community wide organization designed to teach AI to the people of
2808
Guyana, and to use AI to resolve the issues that inhibit the growth of society in his
2809
country. He is partnered with Jews, Christians, fellow Muslims, Indo-Guyanese, men
2810
and women in this effort.
2811
Comparing the AV, OTL and MTL Research Participants
2812
In this section, I will begin by comparing the categories of Aligned Values (AV),
2813
Other Transformative Learning (OTL), and Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (MTL)
2814
to the categories of the TL coding key in a series of charts, which reflect my analytic
2815
process. In an effort to define the differences between the AV, OTL and MTL categories,
2816
I placed them in tables for comparison. While the population size of this research is
2817
small for developing generalizations it helps in understanding the data more fully. Please
2818
refer to Figure 3, for categories of experience by TL category.
2819
In this analysis of the AV, OTL, MTL research participants by TL category I
2820
found the following trends data. First, the AV research participants were least likely to
2821
engage in the reflective practices, and the self-examination. The OTL research
2822
participants were more likely than the AV research participants to engage in the reflective
2823
practices and the self-examination. In the remaining three categories of the TL coding
2824
key there is significantly less difference between the AV and the OTL research
2825
participants. The MTL research participants scored 100% on the TL coding key.
2826
To understand these differences between the AV, OTL and MTL research
2827
participants more thoroughly I examined categories by comparing the TL points that
2828
make up the TL categories of reflective practices and self-examination. Those TL points
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
113
are: critical self-refection, reflective dialogue, reflective action, disorienting dilemma,
2830
self-examination with negative feelings, a critical assessment of assumptions and
2831
relationships, recognition of one’s discontent and the process of transformation are
2832
shared. In this analysis I could see the specific TL points that define the difference
2833
between the AV and OTL research participants. Please refer to Figure 5 for categories of
2834
experience by TL category.
Total percent met
2829
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
AV Totals
OTL Totals
MTL Totals
Reflective
Practices (3)
2835
2836
Examination of
Self (4)
Examination of
roles and
Relationships
(3)
Planning (2)
Reintegration
(1)
TL categories
Figure 5. Categories of experience by TL category.
2837
The AV research participants were least likely to express or indicate a
2838
disorienting dilemma or the self-examination with feelings of guilt, shame, fear, and
2839
anger. The AV research participants were also less likely to express or indicate reflective
2840
dialogue or critical self-reflection. The OTL research participants were less likely to
2841
express or indicate a disorienting dilemma and the self-examination with feelings of guilt,
2842
shame, fear, and anger. The OTL research participants were slightly less likely to
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2843
express or indicate reflective dialogue also. Please refer to Figure 6, Categories of
2844
experience by TL categories of reflective practices and self-examination.
114
100%
Total Percent experienced
90%
80%
70%
60%
AV % of TL
points met
50%
OTL % of TL
points met
40%
30%
MTL % of TL
points met
20%
10%
0%
Critical selfrefection
Reflective
dialogue
Reflective
action?
Disorienting
dilemma
Selfexamination
with negative
feelings
A critical
Recognition of
assessment of one’s discontent
assumptions and the process
and
of
relationships
transformation
are shared
TL Points in categories of Reflective Practices and SelfExamination
2845
2846
Figure 6. Categories of experience by TL categories of reflective practices and self-
2847
examination.
2848
This shows a progressive trend among the categories with the AV research
2849
participants least likely to express or indicate the points in the TL coding key analyzed
2850
above. The OTL research participants more likely to express the points in the TL coding
2851
key analyzed above. The MTL research participants by definition met all of these points.
2852
This analysis revealed several of the research participants indicated a re-
2853
examination of their roles and relationships, planning new courses of action, acquiring
2854
new skills and knowledge, and acting on their plans using their new skills and
2855
knowledge. This analysis of the data revealed a progressive increase, by category, from
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
115
2856
AV to OTL and then MTL to express or indicate reflective dialogue, a disorienting
2857
dilemma, and the self-examination with feelings of guilt, shame, fear, and anger. The
2858
AV research participants were least likely to engage in these points of the TL coding key,
2859
while the OTL research participants were more likely to engage in these points. The
2860
MTL research participants completed 100 percent of the TL coding key. The AV
2861
research participants were also least likely to express critical self-reflection.
2862
Research Question 3
2863
“How does appreciative inquiry’s focus on positive emotions compare to the
2864
emphasis in TL theory on the examination of feelings of anger, guilt, and shame?” To
2865
respond to this question I will discuss the emotional experiences of the participants, and
2866
how positive psychology might explain how the participants coped with or avoided
2867
negative emotional experiences.
2868
The role of negative and positive emotions for the research participants. Most of
2869
the research participants expressed or indicated they experienced positive emotions.
2870
Common was a sense of energy and excitement that was palpable. Others shared
2871
laughter and a sense of joy. For example, Gwen felt a sense of energy that was physical.
2872
Hillary felt ‘a peace which passeth all understanding’ and joy in the possibilities in the
2873
positive viewpoint.
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
It’s like the joy in the room is physically touching you and you see the widening
eyes and the open mouths and the contentment, beyond contentment, the real hope
that just reverberates across the room, Gwen.
And that's what happened in the NEW BEGINNINGS training was in the
community of the other folks in this training it was a time of creating joy and
imagining the possibilities and the creativity that existed it just filled me with
utter joy, Hillary
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2883
116
The AV research participants tended to experience personally positive emotions
2884
and only reported negative emotions expressed by others when asked in the interview.
2885
The MTL and OTL research participants expressed both positive and negative emotions,
2886
which they personally experienced. Some research participants also experienced or
2887
encountered negative emotions, which might not be expected when AI is focused on the
2888
positive. Annie saw resentment and people who refused to participate.
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
There were some pretty cranky people and they were not feeling very appreciative
about their working experience in the hospital and basically viewed our
workshop, as… as an annoyance. Why is the hospital asking us about things that
were happy about when actually we're cranky they were being divided. And so it
was interesting saying, and we really let people go, you know if you're not
interested in participating in this you can head out, Annie.
Igor experienced anger with a fellow participant at his AI event who ‘should walk
a mile in my shoes.’ Igor saw another participant at his event have a panic attack:
One of the people in my group had a near death experience and had had to have
an emergency tracheotomy. And it still would cause her to have panic attacks, if
you will, where she just couldn’t breathe and in the midst of the group she began
to have one of those panic attacks and the entire group began to breathe for her,
Igor.
It appears that for some research participants AI allowed them to experience or
2905
confront negative emotions. AI gave Mary the strength to confront her own depression
2906
and lack of self-worth and change to fit her new self-image.
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
Depressed. I was sad, felt sorry for myself, looked at others and wished that I had
a life like theirs...overweight and physically drained. On antidepressants. Now, I
still have a few pounds to lose but otherwise, I am content, positive, more
satisfied and grateful for all that I have. Off antidepressants, happier overall. Now
I feel that others see me as a positive confident person, Mary.
Bev went from a sense of mild ‘irritation’ to ‘crying hysterically, and a sensation
2914
of energy that was ‘physically charging.’ Bev also confronted her own physical and
2915
mental abuse as a child. Expressions of positive and negative emotions that were
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
117
2916
personally experienced might be an indication of or a result of perspective change in AI
2917
event participants.
2918
2919
Additional Findings
Results such as those presented above should be expected of a research population
2920
that self-selected for a positive AI experience. Many of the research participants
2921
expressed a heightened awareness of their relationships and connections to others, along
2922
with positive changes in relationship. There are some clustered concepts from the initial
2923
coding session that might be significant, including mentoring and loss of relationships.
2924
These concepts may be key factors in the TL experience of AI participants.
2925
Mentoring
2926
The OTL and MTL research participants expressed mentoring and its importance
2927
in sustaining their new perspectives and the reintegration into their lives. For MTL
2928
research participants Mary and Bev and OTL research participants Hillary, Gwen, Igor,
2929
Marie, and Sulaiman mentoring meant maintaining a relationship, formal or informal,
2930
with the facilitator of the AI event. For MTL research participants Mary, Bev, and Chris
2931
and for OTL research participants Gwen, Igor and Sulaiman it meant being a mentor
2932
others. For some research participants this expressed it self as being in both types of
2933
mentoring relationships. For example:
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
I found a place to use AI as part of a mentoring program for nurses that I
developed with another nurse. We teach a 4 hour workshop to train nurses to be
mentors, and we spend the last hour talking about our personal experiences, our
values, what it means to be a nurse, and we tell stories. Everyone loves it...it's
emotional and it connects us. Mary.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2940
118
Loss of relationships
2941
Several of the research participants spoke of relationships changed for the
2942
positive. For example Gwen’s relationship progressed from uncertainty to engagement,
2943
marriage, and running an AI consulting practice together. Igor is better able to
2944
communicate with his wife. Ian has a renewed understanding of his son’s enthusiasm as
2945
it is expressed through ADD. What might be unexpected is that the MTL research
2946
participants expressed that they lost relationships that were negative or non-supporting
2947
because they were perceived as being too ‘Pollyanna.’ Others in their lives who did not
2948
participate in the AI event were unable or unwilling to accept the MTL research
2949
participant’s new positive viewpoint. Mary lost AI champions, who she became close to,
2950
in her organization to lay-offs, and changed her ‘social interactions to focus on the
2951
positive relationships.’ Bev has lost ‘old and dear friends.’ Chris was ostracized by
2952
fellow crisis counselors after speaking up about her new perspective on expressing
2953
experiences of rape as a form healing.
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
I’ve lost some really good friends…. Well it made me look at myself and go
“wow, why are you allowing this person to do this to yourself?” That was pretty
hard on a couple of them…. I was sad when it happened but now it’s like there’s
not so much responsibility and I’m a little bit more freer now, Chris.
Summary of the Findings
In this chapter, I explained the significance and meaning of the AI event for the
2961
participants by discussing the categories and themes developed in the data analysis. Then
2962
I analyzed the differences between the categories AV, OTL, and MTL, which revealed a
2963
progressive tendency to engage in reflective dialogue, express or indicate a disorienting
2964
dilemma, and engage in self-examination with negative feelings. Additional findings
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
119
2965
reveal the categories of experiencing negative emotions, mentoring, and loss of negative
2966
relationship might be key factors of the AI event for some of the research participants.
2967
2968
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
2969
120
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION
2970
Introduction
2971
To understand more fully the discussion to follow, first I summarize the research
2972
study to this point. This establishes the context and findings of this research. In Chapter
2973
2, the Literature Review, I discussed several studies, which indicate the experiences of AI
2974
participants were similar to TL (Mohr, Smith et al. 2000; Schiller 2002; Trosten-Bloom
2975
2002; Van Buskirk 2002). This research study was designed to explore, through
2976
qualitative interviews, the experiences of twenty-one participants who attended an AI
2977
summit or foundations training. Through a constant comparative analysis of the data in a
2978
method suggested by grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss and Corbin
2979
1998; Glaser 2002), emergent patterns were pursued as they were presented by the data.
2980
In this chapter, I will discuss the findings of the data analysis.
2981
The initial inductive coding revealed the general categories of Direct Positive
2982
Effect (DPE) and No Direct Effect (NDE). The two NDE participants and eleven of the
2983
DPE participants who reported they found AI principles and methods aligned with or
2984
reinforced their personal values and were therefore categorized as Aligned Values (AV).
2985
The eight remaining DPE participants expressed or indicated a change of meaning
2986
perspective, which they attributed directly to their participation in the AI event, and were
2987
coded as Changed Perspective (CP).
2988
In the second round of deductive coding for TL the direct positive experience –
2989
changed perspective (DPE-CP) participants were further categorized as Mezirow’s
2990
Transformative Learning (MTL) or Other Transformative Learning (OTL). Both the
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
121
2991
MTL and the OTL participants experienced a change in meaning schema and
2992
successfully integrated it into their lives. The three MTL participants expressed or
2993
indicated the thirteen points of the TL coding key, which included Mezirow’s three
2994
reflective practices and Mezirow’s ten stages of TL (Mezirow 1978; 1990; 1997; 2000).
2995
The remaining five DPE-CP participants, who were coded as OTL, did not express or
2996
indicate all thirteen points of the TL coding key. The OTL participants expressed or
2997
indicated a different path to their change in meaning perspective. While all thirteen
2998
points of the TL coding key were expressed or indicated by the individual OTL
2999
participants, as a group, did not experienced all thirteen points. The OTL participants
3000
were less likely to express or indicate reflective dialogue, a disorienting dilemma, and
3001
self-examination with negative feelings than the MTL participants.
Research participant’s assessment of their experience
NDE
DPE
AV
CP
OTL
MTL
3002
3003
Figure 7. Categories of participant’s experience. NDE = no direct effect, DPE = direct
3004
positive effect, AV = aligned values, CP = changed perspectives, OTL = other
3005
transformative learning, MTL = Mezirow’s transformative learning.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
3006
Discussion of the Findings
3007
Participants indicated by their agreement to participate in this study that their
122
3008
experience of the AI event was positive. This positive experience of the AI event had
3009
either a direct positive effect (DPE) on them and their lives or a non-direct effect (NDE)
3010
on them and their lives. The DPE participants were affected in two general ways. They
3011
experienced an alignment or reinforcement of their values (AV) with the principles and
3012
methods of AI, or they experienced a change in perspective (CP). The NDE participants
3013
experienced an alignment or reinforcement of their values (AV) with the principles and
3014
methods of AI.
3015
Discussion of the Significance of the AI Event Experience
3016
AI’s intent is to initiate organizational change by changing the focus, narrative,
3017
and dialogue of the organization. Although AI’s intent is to affect an organizational
3018
change, the AI event had profound effects for some of the individual participants. Most
3019
of the participants in this research study reported a direct positive effect resulting from
3020
their participation in the AI event. For thirteen of the participants in this AI event
3021
experience aligned with or reinforced their values. For eight of the participants the AI
3022
event resulted in changes in their perspectives.
3023
Participation in the AI event led many of the participants to experience a wide
3024
range of emotions. These emotions changed in focus from negative or neutral to become
3025
predominantly positive. The experience of positive emotions and positivity might have
3026
enabled the increase in the number of and breadth of insights that were reported during
3027
and after the AI event. Insights reported, such as ‘empowerment,’ ‘I am ready to hear the
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
123
3028
truth,’ ‘a common bond with the group,’ a sense of connection,’ and ‘the power of voice’
3029
reveal how powerfully the AI event affected many of the participants.
3030
The major and minor categories of AI event experience developed in this research
3031
reflect the principles of AI. Language and stories relate to the poetic principle. The wave
3032
of positive emotions and energy experienced, the emphasis on positive focus and
3033
positivity in general relate to the positive principle. Visions of positive outcomes and a
3034
positive future reflect the anticipatory principle. Insights such as ‘we create our own
3035
reality,’ ‘patterns of interconnectivity,’ and ‘knowledge is power’ reflect the
3036
constructionist principle. The insights ‘self-fulfilling destiny,’ ‘we are what we ask
3037
about’ and ‘it is all about the questions’ relate to the principle of simultaneity. While
3038
these insights and categories of experience reinforce the goals of AI they might also
3039
reflect a recitation of instrumental knowledge passed from an authority figure. This
3040
might be expected of a group of AI event participants who self-selected for a positive
3041
experience.
3042
The AI event is designed as a finite experience with clear parameters of time. Yet
3043
all but one of the Changed Perspective (CP) participants has maintained a relationship
3044
with the facilitator of their AI event. Many of the CP participants are also engaged in
3045
mentoring others using the principles of AI. The mentoring relationship might serve as
3046
an opportunity for role playing or reinforcing new attitudes and behaviors. This
3047
relationship might also signify some form of personal commitment to acting on the new
3048
skills and knowledge gained in the AI event. Mentoring AI event participants might
3049
promote long-term relationships, provide opportunities for networking, and strengthen
3050
the AI community.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
3051
Discussion of the Critique of Appreciative Inquiry
3052
Golembiewski’s assertion that social-constructionism prevents AI from
3053
developing a basis in empirical research is certainly arguable. Empirical research can
3054
include rigorous qualitative analysis, which this research has revealed in the methods
3055
chapter, and through this research study.
3056
124
Golembiewski is concerned the focus on positive appreciation might inhibit the
3057
examination of the organization’s full internal dialogue might be reconsidered when the
3058
negative thoughts and emotions of the participants of study are examined. Many of the
3059
research participants moved from negative or neutral thoughts and emotions to a sense of
3060
positivity and positive emotions while remembering their original states of thought and
3061
emotion. Some of the participants moved freely back and forth from negative to positive
3062
before settling on a positive outlook. Many of the participants were clearly able to relate
3063
negative states of being, attitudes, and behaviors after settling into their new positive
3064
frame of reference. They could ‘benchmark’ their progress against these negative states
3065
with confidence. For example, Mary was able to relate her beginning state of depression,
3066
mistrust and frustration clearly a year after adopting her new positive outlook. Bev
3067
moved from disdain and worry that AI was ‘foo-foo’ and a ‘waste of her time’ to
3068
experiencing a positive physical and emotional charge, to an overwhelming sadness and
3069
anger with her parents, to reconciliation and an adoption of a positive outlook.
3070
All of the participants in this research study have applied AI to their professional
3071
and personal lives, and are pursuing further knowledge of AI methods and theory through
3072
academics and practice. For example, despite the stressful situation where Laurent
3073
experienced only the first two stages of AI for the first time he has attended AI
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
125
3074
certification and practices AI in his consulting firm. Some of the participants in this
3075
study may lose their zeal for AI having only recently been exposed to AI. Many of the
3076
participants have maintained their interest and active participation in AI over periods of
3077
years. For example, Bev, Mary, and Chris are two, two and a half, and three years
3078
removed from their AI event experience respectively and are actively involved in
3079
learning more about and practicing AI. The participants’ increased interest in the theory,
3080
practice, and application of AI offsets Bushe’s concern for the practice of AI being
3081
diluted or corrupted.
While this study appears to disagree with Golembiewski and Bushe’s critiques of
3082
3083
AI practitioners and scholars of AI should attend to the expressed concerns in their
3084
practice to ensure the validity of AI. The positive results these participants experienced
3085
might be the result of skilled facilitation of the AI event on the part of the practitioner and
3086
not the result of the good intentions of the participants.
3087
Discussion of the MTL and OTL Participants
The three Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (MTL) participants support
3088
3089
Mezirow’s theory that TL requires the subject to engage in the three reflective practices
3090
and to experience the ten stages of TL. The Other Transformative Learning (OTL)
3091
participants support critics of Mezirow’s theory by revealing other patterns in the process
3092
of TL.
3093
The OTL participants expressed or indicated eleven or twelve of the thirteen items
3094
in the TL code key. The five OTL participants show four patterns in the process of TL,
3095
they might represent several patterns for attaining TL. Hillary did not report a
3096
disorienting dilemma, reflective dialogue, and self-examination with negative feelings as
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
126
3097
part of her process of TL. Marie did not express or indicate planning a course of action
3098
to implement her TL. Sulaiman’s pattern did not include a disorienting dilemma or the
3099
self-examination with negative feelings in his process of TL. In their process of TL
3100
Gwen and Igor did not express or indicate a disorienting dilemma.
3101
Mezirow’s model requires the disorienting dilemma as a starting point for the
3102
critical self-reflection that motivates the subject toward TL. Mezirow also requires self-
3103
examination with negative feelings such as guilt, shame, fear, and anger to promote the
3104
process of TL in the subject. The AI event experience may promote or facilitate TL in
3105
the participants without their experiencing strong negative effect and may not require a
3106
disorienting dilemma to initiate a change in meaning schema. It should also be stated it is
3107
possible that the interview protocol, or my qualitative interviewing skills may not have
3108
revealed the TL points not expressed or indicated for the OTL participants.
3109
Another interesting factor is the difference in the levels or amounts of reflective
3110
dialogue, disorienting dilemma, and self-examination with negative feelings reported
3111
between the Aligned Values (AV), Other Transformative Learning (OTL), and Mezirow’s
3112
Transformative Learning (MTL) research participants. The AV research participants
3113
were least likely to experience these three points in the TL coding key, while the OTL
3114
participants were more likely to experience them. The MTL participants experienced all
3115
three points fully. This may indicate that the process of perspective change requires
3116
engaging in these points of Mezirow’s model of TL for most participants. It may also
3117
show that realizing your values are being reinforced or aligned with AI does not require
3118
these points in Mezirow’s model of TL. Experiencing these points from Mezirow’s
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
127
3119
model may also indicate a depth or level of TL that is measurably different than it is for
3120
those who do not experience them.
3121
3122
Discussion of E. Taylor’s Critique of TL
In the literature review, I discussed Taylor’s seven issues with TL theory:
3123
individual change versus social action, decontextualized view of learning, universal
3124
model of adult learning, adult development: shift or progression, emphasis on rationality,
3125
other ways of knowing, and the model of perspective transformation. In this section, I
3126
will discuss those seven points in relation to the findings of this research.
3127
Individual Change Versus Social Action
3128
Critics of TL question whether the goal of individual TL is enough. Should it be
3129
the goal of TL to inspire social action? Should TL be an instrument of social change and
3130
used to free people from oppression? In this research, all the participants who
3131
experienced TL were motivated to act on behalf of, or with others. For example, Mary
3132
mentors others and speaks at Healthcare related AI events. Chris mentors some of her
3133
former colleagues in the crisis-counseling field in the use of AI to give victims hope and
3134
promote their sense of healing. Gwen has led AI events in Guyana, which have inspired
3135
positive social changes in a country burdened with violence. Sulaiman, who attended
3136
Gwen’s first AI event in Guyana, was instrumental in founding a non-sectarian positive
3137
change organization, which has accomplished many positive social changes in a short
3138
year. He also has plans to take the knowledge and skills he is gaining to other South
3139
American and Caribbean countries. This study indicates that while AI may or may not
3140
lead to social action, TL for the individual may lead to social action.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
3141
3142
128
Decontextualized View of Learning
The Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (MTL) and Other Transformative
3143
Learning (OTL) participants engaged in the process of TL while remaining or becoming
3144
aware of their context. They were aware of their organizations and others around them at
3145
the beginning of their event and became aware of their connections to and
3146
interdependence with others in the AI group, their organization, families and friends. The
3147
TL experienced by these participants was not decontextualized but occurred in the
3148
context of their relationship with others. For example, others at the AI event reminded
3149
Igor to become engaged in the AI process. Igor learned about his own anger with people
3150
who empathized with him regarding his learning challenged son when another participant
3151
said, “walk a mile in my shoes.” Igor’s TL also occurred in relationship with his wife,
3152
with whom he was better able to communicate. Igor’s TL also occurred in relationship
3153
with his subordinates at his workplace, who had to cope with Igor’s new emphasis on a
3154
collaborative leadership style. These new relationships and ways of being in relationship
3155
did as much to cement the TL as they did to foster it. For example, Sulaiman has become
3156
a ‘super dad’ to his daughters and Igor has a new language for communicating with his
3157
wife. Bev’s husband has noticed the change and appreciates it. Mary and Chris have
3158
become more active within their families and socially. This research shows that TL is
3159
dependent on context.
3160
Universal Model of Adult Learning
3161
The Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (MTL) participants reinforce Mezirow’s
3162
model of TL but the Other Transformative Learning (OTL) participants show that
3163
Mezirow’s model is far from universal. The five OTL participants represent four
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
129
3164
variations of the TL model. This indicates that other paths to TL do exist. Cultural,
3165
social, and personal influences and preferences may foster a myriad of possible TL
3166
models and may make the definition of a universal model difficult. These findings are
3167
similar to those of other current research (Harvie 2004; McEwen 2004; Wasserman 2004;
3168
Wilson 2004; Frank 2005).
3169
Adult Development: Shift or Progression
3170
While Taylor maintains that Mezirow sees TL as a parallel process with adult
3171
development this study did not investigate the participant’s stage of adult development,
3172
the normative psychological development, or the socially constructed nature of their
3173
development. Mezirow does however state that the process of TL can be either epochal
3174
(shift) or incremental (progression). The Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (MTL)and
3175
Other Transformative Learning (OTL) research participants in this study reported their
3176
TL as occurring in short periods, which might be defined as epochal. Many of the
3177
research participants reported they felt themselves approaching a turning point over a
3178
period during the event and then experienced a sudden change in their perspective. For
3179
others the awareness of their changed perspective caught them off guard. The No-Direct
3180
Effect (NDE) participants might indicate the existence of AI event participants who
3181
experience TL over much longer periods. This research may indicate three forms of TL:
3182
epochal, a short progression to an epochal event, and progression.
3183
An Emphasis on Rationality
3184
3185
Taylor argues that Mezirow relies too heavily on critical self-reflection in the
model of TL and that this is an overly western view of knowledge construction. All of
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
130
3186
the Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (MTL) and Other Transformative Learning
3187
(OTL) participants did report critical self-reflection, supporting the claim of rationality in
3188
the process of TL. Of the MTL and OTL participants, only Sulaiman and Hillary
3189
reported they experienced only positive emotions. The other six research participants
3190
reported negative emotions of varying intensity. For example, Marie, Gwen, and Bev
3191
reported their experience as a catharsis of emotional release ranging from anger or tears
3192
to crying. Igor reported some anger and irritation, Mary reported shame and feelings of
3193
inadequacy, Chris expressed fear, isolation, and dread. All the TL participants
3194
experienced a move from negative emotions and feelings to joy and energy, and some a
3195
reported a sense of peace. Overall, this was a very emotional experience for the
3196
participants who were coded for TL. This research supports the argument that TL
3197
involves more than the rational aspect of the subject. This confirms Mezirow’s assertion
3198
that TL make involve subjective reframing, which can be very emotional as old
3199
perspectives are challenged and transformed. This research supports the assertions that
3200
the process of TL involves the cognitive-affective along with the cognitive-rational.
3201
Other Ways of Knowing
3202
Taylor states that Mezirow sees TL as something that impacts the student’s
3203
relationships but does not acknowledge that TL might occur ‘in relationship’ with others
3204
in the student’s life. As I discussed in the section on Mezirow’s decontextualized view
3205
of TL, the Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (MTL) and Other Transformative
3206
Learning (OTL) research participants learned in relationship as much as they learned
3207
about their relationships. Their new positive views of relationships and their new ways
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
131
3208
of being in relationship with others led to insights and understandings of themselves and
3209
others for the participants coded as TL.
3210
3211
Other Models of Perspective Transformation
As I discussed in the section on Mezirow’s universal model of TL there were four
3212
other variations of the TL model exhibited in this research. The research protocol’s bias
3213
toward Mezirow’s model may have prevented the research from revealing other complete
3214
patterns of TL along with the four variations reported here. I was able to discover the
3215
four variations reported in this research by distilling TL down to its basic assumptions: a
3216
change of perspective and the successful re-integration of the new perspective into the
3217
subject’s life. Emphasizing Mezirow’s model of TL might prevent other models from
3218
being discovered. For example, Yorks and Kasl (2002) redefine Mezirow’s meaning
3219
schema as habits of being, which is more inclusive of the learner’s whole person
3220
experience of the process of TL. I suggest future researchers base their research on the
3221
basic assumption of TL’s outcomes: a change of meaning schema and its integration.
3222
Researchers should de-emphasize Mezirow’s model of TL, and focus on the learner’s
3223
experience of TL inclusive of their whole person experience. This will no doubt uncover
3224
models of TL that are more descriptive and adaptable, and might lead to a clearer
3225
understanding of the process of TL.
3226
Scholars theorize that TL might effect the psychological, convictional, behavioral,
3227
and spiritual aspects of the person leading to mystical experiences, increased sense of
3228
connection with others, increased compassion for others, increased creativity, and an
3229
increased sense of freedom (Morgan 1987; Coffman 1989; Clark 1993; Saavedra 1995;
3230
Pope 1996; Taylor 1997; Scott 2003). This research supports at least some of these
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
132
3231
claims. Since the research did not include any psychological testing or investigation, I
3232
can make no statement of psychological changes although they are indicated. For
3233
example, Chris ended her self-imposed exile and became her natural outgoing self, which
3234
shows a change in her psychological state from fear to happiness, her conviction of dread
3235
changed to hope, her behaviors changed from introverted and withdrawn to out going and
3236
engaged in life, expressing her freedom. Hillary reported a spiritual experience. All the
3237
Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (MTL) and Other Transformative Learning (OTL)
3238
participants reported feeling a greater sense of connection with others. Mary expressed
3239
compassion for others in her new role as nurse to the dying patients at her hospital and
3240
returned to her hobby of pottery.
3241
3242
Discussion of Other Models of Adult Learning and Development
In this section, I will discuss other theories of learning from the literature review
3243
as they relate to this research. Cranton (Cranton 1994; Cranton 2006), used Mezirow’s
3244
model of TL as a benchmark to determine how individual learners might experience the
3245
model of TL. Cranton defined eight components of TL: awareness of values and
3246
assumptions, receptiveness to trigger events, questioning values, content and process
3247
reflection, premise reflection, rational discourse, revision of values and assumptions,
3248
revision of meaning perspectives. Cranton determines the subject’s likelihood of
3249
engaging in a component of TL based on their Jungian Archetype, or MBTI assessment.
3250
I did not gather information regarding the participant’s MBTI assessment. Cranton’s
3251
components of TL are useful in analyzing the TL experiences of the Mezirow’s
3252
Transformative Learning (MTL) and Other Transformative Learning (OTL) participants
3253
and I will discuss them here.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
133
Discussion of Cranton’s Model of TL
3254
3255
Awareness of Values and Assumptions, Questioning Values, Revision of Values and
3256
Assumptions
3257
Through the AI event and the process of TL the participants coded as Mezirow’s
3258
Transformative Learning (MTL) and Other Transformative Learning (OTL) engaged in
3259
critical self-reflection, which caused these participants to be come aware of their values
3260
and assumptions along with an awareness of the values and assumptions of others. This
3261
critical self- reflection led the participants to question their values and assumptions, and
3262
later to plan and act to change values and assumptions that were not valid. For example,
3263
Sulaiman became aware of his value on religious conviction and clean living, and his
3264
assumption that if others were not as strong in their convictions nor lived as clean a
3265
lifestyle as he did they were not able to contribute to the solution of his countries issues.
3266
Sulaiman began to question these values and assumptions when he realized there might
3267
be more than one truth. Sulaiman revised his values and assumptions when he saw that
3268
others, different from himself, were able and willing to contribute to solving his countries
3269
issues and they were as committed as he was to solving them.
3270
Responsiveness to Trigger Events
3271
Not all of these participants indicated a receptiveness to trigger events
3272
specifically, although some of the participants may have indicated receptiveness to
3273
change prompted by trigger events. For example, Mary, although mistrustful and cynical
3274
of the claims of AI, noticed when the AI facilitator said, “If you are open to it, AI will
3275
change your life.” Chris, Hillary, Igor, and Bev may have indicated receptiveness by
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
134
3276
willingly attending the classes where they had their AI event experience. Gwen and
3277
Sulaiman willingly attended the AI event they participated in. Marie attended her AI
3278
event unwillingly, was very angry, and was in a state of agitation but she realized
3279
through the AI event experiential exercises that there might be more truths than her own
3280
and she became interested in hearing from the other participants in her AI event.
3281
Content, Process, and Premise Reflection
3282
Those engaged in TL will examine the construct of an issue or problem they are
3283
facing. They will also examine alternatives for the process of overcoming the issue or
3284
problem, and they will question the premise of the assumptions that define the issue and
3285
the solutions. Cranton, like Mezirow, asserts this takes place through critical self-
3286
reflection. The Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (MTL) and Other Transformative
3287
Learning (OTL) participants indicated critical self-reflection. For example, Marie
3288
realized her basic assumptions about her job being beneath her caused her to examine the
3289
assumptions she held concerning her self-worth and the value of the tasks she performed.
3290
She examined the process of changing her behavior and attitudes, seeing how others had
3291
supported her and nurtured her at her workplace. This led Marie to question her premise
3292
of isolated superiority. She could build a new set of assumptions about the nature of her
3293
work, its value, the community of co-workers and friends who made it possible, and how
3294
the workplace could function more like a happy family.
3295
Rational Discourse
3296
3297
Cranton equates rational discourse with Mezirow’s reflective dialogue, which is
engaged with others. This is one item in Cranton’s model where there is variation in my
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
135
3298
research. The Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (MTL) participants and all but one of
3299
the Other Transformative Learning (OTL) participants, Sulaiman, reported engaging in
3300
reflective dialogue. Examples of rational discourse are Igor’s dialogues with his class
3301
cohorts, his wife, and his faculty mentor. Hillary engaged in reflective dialogue with her
3302
husband and her father on the nature of the universe. Chris had a sincere talk with her
3303
brother and engaged in dialogue with her friends from the crisis-counseling field.
3304
Sulaiman did not report reflective dialogue. He may have been able to hold this dialogue
3305
internally or it was not necessary for him. Cranton might say that Sulaiman was high in
3306
feeling, sensing, or intuition functions as defined in Jung’s personality archetypes. This
3307
raises the question of whether rational discourse might occur internally or not at all. It
3308
may also mean that the research protocol or my interview skills did not reveal Sulaiman’s
3309
use of rational discourse.
3310
Revision of Meaning Perspectives
3311
The Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (MTL) and Other Transformative
3312
Learning (OTL) research participants indicated a perspective change and a re-integration
3313
of the meaning schema into their lives. They can be considered to have revised their
3314
meaning perspectives. For example, Bev revised her understanding of family and her
3315
role in her family. She was then able to reconcile with her sister and assist her in a time
3316
of need. Gwen revised her definition of herself as a strong and independent woman to
3317
include being relationship with a man working toward the same dream of family, and
3318
married her partner. Mary revised her value as a senior nurse, her self-worth, and
3319
changed her position to include more fulfilling work and take better care of herself,
3320
physically and emotionally.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
3321
136
Cranton’s model of TL describes the MTL and OTL participants more completely
3322
than Mezirow’s more largely accepted model of TL. Cranton’s model warrants further
3323
attention from researchers and may lead to a more descriptive or adaptable model of TL.
3324
3325
Discussion of J. Taylor’s Model of TL
J. Taylor’s (Mezirow 2000) model of the process of TL is more general in nature
3326
and does not include many of the specific process or events that Mezirow’s model
3327
proposes. Taylor sees the process of TL proceeding of three phases in which the learner
3328
becomes conscious of a new reality, transforms their consciousness, and integrates the
3329
new consciousness into their life. Taylor reports the disorienting dilemma may be
3330
internally induced by the learner or externally induced and is a result of confronting a
3331
new reality through a trigger event. Transcendence can be sudden or gradual but the
3332
learner is aware of a conscious leap of faith. Personal commitment to the new
3333
perspective and using grounding experiences reinforces the new perspective in its
3334
integration of the changed meaning perspective. Hillary became aware of positivity as a
3335
viable outlook on life, changed her outlook to include positivity, and integrated positivity
3336
into her work life, where she now does ‘appreciative’ research.
3337
3338
The Role of Positive Emotions
Barbara Fredrickson’s work on the value of positive emotions (Fredrickson 2001;
3339
2003) may have relevance to the findings of this study. Fredrickson, among others, has
3340
found that positive emotions broaden people’s patterns of thought. People experiencing
3341
positive emotions have patterns of thought that are more unusual, flexible, integrative,
3342
open to information, efficient and people experiencing positive emotions have an
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
137
3343
increased preference for variety and accept a broader array of behavioral options.
3344
Fredrickson theorizes positive emotions produce a broader thought-action repertoire,
3345
while negative emotion focus on a narrow thought-action repertoire. For example, fear
3346
leads to thoughts of fight or flight, in other words a specific set of actions. Fredrickson’s
3347
research shows that positive emotions such as joy broaden the thought-action repertoire
3348
into creativity, play and boundary exploration. Interest broadens the thought-action
3349
repertoire into the urge to explore, take in new information, and expand the self.
3350
Fredrickson states that experiences of positive emotions build on each other to
3351
build enduring personal resources, which can be used later to buffer and manage future
3352
threats to well-being. The personal resources accrued while experiencing positive
3353
emotions are durable and outlast the transient positive emotional states that produced
3354
them. Fredrickson calls this the Broaden and Build theory of positive emotions.
3355
Fredrickson’s broaden and build theory also states the experience of positive emotions
3356
and accrual of personal resources has an Un-doing effect on the damage caused by
3357
negative emotions. Positive emotions may assist in placing negative events and emotions
3358
into a broader context, lessening their impact, enabling the regulation of negative
3359
emotions and leading to personal resilience. This has a spiral effect: the more positive
3360
emotions experienced, the more personal resources accrued, the more likely one is to
3361
experience positive emotions in the future, accrue more positive emotions, and the more
3362
negative emotional damage is undone. Frederickson’s theory also states positive
3363
emotions lead to the accrual of durable positive resources and the un-doing of negative
3364
emotions.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
3365
3366
138
Positive Emotions and the AI Event Experience
In the discussion of research question one the participants described their AI event
3367
experience as a time of positivity: positive emotions, energy, thoughts, insights, bonding,
3368
relationships, and problem solving. This study revealed a marked increase in positive
3369
emotions during the AI event and an increase in concepts reported after the AI event.
3370
This research supports Fredrickson’s theory that positive emotions broaden people’s
3371
patterns of thought and their preferences for variation in behaviors, which leads to an un-
3372
doing of negative experiences.
3373
The Role of Positive Emotions in TL
3374
It is possible that the experience of positivity and positive emotions, which
3375
facilitates broad-minded thinking, creativity and finding positive meaning may allow
3376
some AI event participants to change their focus from the narrow, response specific
3377
examination of a disorienting dilemma and self-examination of negative feelings
3378
(Fredrickson 2001; 2003). For the Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (MTL) and Other
3379
Transformative Learning (OTL) participants the AI event experience may have led to a
3380
broader-minded focus on positive solutions to problem solving and enabled their ability
3381
to experience TL.
3382
Fredrickson’s theory of positive emotions might explain how the MTL and some
3383
of the OTL participants were able to experience strong negative emotions, confront
3384
negative attitudes and behaviors, which resulted in positive solutions to their personal
3385
issues and experiencing TL. This may have been a result of experiencing a sufficient
3386
level of positivity, which enabled broader minded thought patterns, a sense of positive
3387
connection to others, positive solutions, and a positive outlook. Fredrickson’s Broaden
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
139
3388
and Build theory of positive emotions might explain the AI event experiences apparent
3389
un-doing of the negative damage done to these participants. For example, Chris was able
3390
to explore a personal tragedy, her resultant behaviors, attitudes, and expectation of future
3391
experiences in a new positive light. This may have enabled her ability to change he
3392
outlook, behaviors and attitudes, and the integration of her new meaning schema.
3393
Fredrickson’s theory may also explain how some of the OTL participants
3394
experienced TL without experiencing strong negative emotions. The experience of a
3395
sufficient level of positivity may negate or alleviate the experience of negative emotions
3396
for some of the AI event participants. This study has shown reports of negative emotions
3397
experienced by some participants at the beginning of the AI event dropped during the AI
3398
event and were almost non-existent after the AI event. Some AI event participants did
3399
not experience negative emotions during the AI event and experienced TL. For example,
3400
Sulaiman realized that his view of religious truth might only represent one truth among
3401
many, and that his preferred lifestyle was not the only source of people who wished to do
3402
good works. Sulaiman was able to reconcile this dilemma without experiencing negative
3403
emotions or the need to examine negative emotions. He was able to come to new
3404
conclusions about working closely with people who did not share his religious
3405
convictions and lifestyle. Sulaiman has initiated positive solutions to his country’s
3406
problems and issues with those people.
3407
The TL theories of Dirkx (2000; 2001), in which emotions play a significant part
3408
in the process of TL, may also explain how positive emotions might ameliorate, alleviate,
3409
or negate strong negative emotions in the TL experience for the Mezirow’s
3410
Transformative Learning (MTL) and Other Transformative Learning (OTL) participants.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
140
3411
Dirkx theorizes that emotional experiences are a direct link between the conscious and
3412
unconscious self and they enable deep TL experiences. Emotions suggest inner voices or
3413
images that are a direct link to the inner life and our initial construction of meaning.
3414
Spontaneous images are often able to link the inner and outer lives, the unconscious and
3415
the conscious. If the participants of an AI event experience positive imagery, that
3416
positive imagery might reconnect her or him with their initial positive constructions of
3417
meaning and expectations of the future making them available in the present for use in
3418
coping with negative emotions, and for creating a new vision of the self and the future.
3419
The experience of negative or positive emotions in the process or TL might be dependent
3420
on the spontaneous images or voices experienced by the participants and might reveal
3421
their initial meaning constructions at the earliest and deepest levels.
3422
It is clear in this study that positivity and positive emotions have a role in the
3423
experience of TL for the Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (MTL) and Other
3424
Transformative Learning (OTL) participants. Positivity and positive emotions
3425
experienced in the AI event may assist the MTL and OTL participants in gaining a sense
3426
of mastery in roles, relationships, skills, and knowledge; gaining a sense of positivity; and
3427
developing a positive explanatory style (expectation of the future). Seligman and
3428
Csikszentmihalyi suggest these are necessary for humans to survive and thrive (Seligman
3429
1995; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000). The theory of TL may benefit greatly from
3430
research in positivity and positive emotions in the process of TL. Mastery, positivity, and
3431
positive explanatory style might provide a means for defining and describing TL.
3432
Positive emotions and positivity may be necessary to enabling TL.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
3433
141
Implications of this Research
3434
This research has implications for both the theory and the practice of
3435
transformative learning and of appreciative inquiry. In this section, I will discuss the
3436
implications for each of these areas and I will suggest some directions for future research.
3437
Using AI to promote TL in the educational setting
3438
In Mezirow’s (2000) edited work, Learning as Transformation, educators and
3439
scholars propose methods and processes for promoting or fostering TL. In this section, I
3440
will review those that apply to this study and discuss them in light of the findings of this
3441
research. Educators interested in promoting TL among their students are interested in
3442
more than sharing knowledge and experience with their students. These educators teach
3443
with the intent to promote the development of their students. Taylor, Marienau, and
3444
Fiddler (Taylor 2000) describe this development as a movement on the student part along
3445
five major dimensions of development:
3446
Toward knowing as a dialogical process
3447
Toward a dialogical relationship to oneself
3448
Toward being a continuous learner
3449
Toward self-agency and self-authorship
3450
Toward connection with others
3451
Since there is no guarantee that students will respond to these outcomes, Kathleen
3452
Taylor (2000) calls the outcomes, intentions, and it is with developmental intent that
3453
educators interested in promoting and fostering TL design their curriculums. Educators
3454
design their curricula to include experiential exercises that begin with the student’s
3455
beliefs and ideas, and move to exploring those beliefs and ideas through several
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
142
3456
frameworks of analysis, then reassessing the initial beliefs and ideas. The educator
3457
becomes a facilitator of, partner with, and catalyst for the student’s engagement in his or
3458
her own development.
3459
Cohen and Piper (2000) propose the following process for promoting TL in
3460
learners of a residential adult learning program: a setting that evokes adventure,
3461
exploration and reflection; a detachment from the student’s everyday roles, an extended
3462
time for reflection and developing relationships with peers and educators, a student
3463
determined and student designed study plan, a self-assessment of their work.
3464
Cranton (2000), focuses on individual differences in responding to TL and
3465
theorizes that different Jungian personality types will engage or not engage in different
3466
stages of Mezirow’s model of TL based on their personal preferences. With these
3467
differences in mind Cranton recommends that educators foster their student’s self-
3468
awareness of their psychological predispositions, encourage individuation, promote
3469
transformation, and become more self-aware themselves.
3470
Educators have a special advantage over practitioners of AI in their relationship
3471
with the learner is generally for longer periods and affords them the time to develop a
3472
relationship wherein the learner finds empowerment, discourse, and support and for
3473
engaging in mentoring of the kind defined by Daloz. Mezirow, Cranton, and Taylor’s
3474
models of the process of TL do not address the role of, or the actions required of the
3475
educator in promoting or fostering TL for the learner.
3476
It is apparent that educators have some new choices in providing the context and
3477
in promoting or fostering TL in their learners. AI events and AI summits in particular
3478
can provide a context, which promotes and fosters TL. Eight out of eleven (73%)
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
143
3479
participants who attended an AI summit experienced TL. These participants made use of
3480
the positive emotional experiences generated in the AI event to promote their TL
3481
experience. Educators interested in teaching with developmental intent should learn AI
3482
methods and principles and engage them in the practice of their craft. Researchers should
3483
further investigate the role of positive emotions in fostering and promoting TL. They
3484
should also explore AI as a methodology for fostering and promoting TL in the learning
3485
environment.
3486
Supporting TL in the AI event
3487
In this study of the experiences of AI event participants, I have shown that the
3488
participants experienced an increase in positive emotions and insights. For most of the
3489
participants, the AI event reinforced their meaning schemas. For many of the AI event
3490
participants, the AI event led to a change in meaning schema that was successfully
3491
integrated into their lives, or TL. For these participants in the research study the process
3492
of TL was enabled or enhanced by being mentored or mentoring, in either formal or
3493
informal arrangements, and by acting on their new meaning schema. This process of TL
3494
(change and integration of a new meaning schema) often takes more than the period of
3495
the AI event.
3496
Practitioners of AI, particularly facilitators of AI events and of AI foundations
3497
training should be aware that a change in meaning schema might occur for some AI event
3498
participants to accept and embrace the principles of AI might begin the process of TL for
3499
them. AI practitioners should become aware that TL is a possible component of the
3500
participant’s experience of the AI event and educate themselves in the theories and
3501
processes of TL to prepare for assisting participants through the TL process. AI
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
144
3502
practitioners can make use of the participant’s experience of TL to establish longer-term
3503
relationships with the participants in the form of mentoring. This mentoring relationship
3504
might be formal or informal. These longer-term relationships might also offer the
3505
opportunity to encourage or enable positive action using the AI event participants’ new
3506
meaning schema.
3507
For some practitioners of AI this may raise ethical questions: should they engage
3508
in promoting or fostering TL in their AI events? How far does that responsibility go?
3509
These questions should be examined in further research and be debated among the
3510
scholars and practitioners of AI. The practice of AI is not limited to organizational or
3511
community based interventions, it is often applied in a wide variety of fields and
3512
practices. If AI practitioners wish to have the greatest possible impact, they must be able
3513
to focus on the needs of both the larger entity and the individuals that comprise them.
3514
Avoiding the emotional intimacy on the person to person level required of mentoring as
3515
Daloz suggests, and fostering and promoting TL as Cranton suggests leaves the task of
3516
initiating positive change partially done for some of the event’s participants. Leaving
3517
those engaged in the process or TL to their own devices would be a disservice to the
3518
gains achieved in the AI event.
3519
3520
Toward a More Complete Model of TL
In her most recent work, Cranton (2006) outlines a set of suggestions for
3521
promoting TL in the educational setting. These suggestions include empowering
3522
learners, fostering critical self-reflection and self-knowledge, and supporting
3523
transformative learning. Cranton proposes that students must become empowered as
3524
agents of self-authoring or self-agency to undertake the tasks required of TL. To
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
145
3525
empower the learner the educator must be aware of the power relationships that might
3526
enable or inhibit the student from undertaking TL, including their own exercise of power.
3527
Educators can foster TL by offering learning activities that cause the learner to
3528
begin questioning their beliefs and assumptions in discourse with themselves, with their
3529
peers and their instructors. Supporting TL once it is underway requires the educator to be
3530
authentic in their relations with the learners and within the context of the class.
3531
Supporting TL also requires a supportive environment where self-expression and
3532
questioning can take place in a safe but dynamic environment. The educator must be
3533
willing to help the learners with personal issues and actions based on their new insights.
3534
Cranton’s suggestions propose key elements for promoting TL that apply not only to the
3535
educational setting but also to the practice of AI. I will discuss those in the next section.
3536
Please refer to Table 10 for Cranton’s model for promoting transformative learning.
3537
Table 10
3538
Cranton’s Suggestions for Promoting TL
Empowering Learners
Awareness of power relations; exercising power responsibly;
empowerment through discourse; learner decision making;
considering individual differences
Fostering critical selfreflection and selfknowledge
Questioning; consciousness raising activities (journal writing,
critical incidents, arts-based activities, experiential learning,
exploring individual differences)
Supporting
transformative learning
Educator authenticity; group support, learner networks; help
with personal issues; supporting action; awareness of conflict
and ethical issues; awareness of individual differences
3539
3540
3541
Laurent Daloz (1999) further defines the role of the educator in empowering,
dialoguing with, and supporting the learner. Daloz defines the Mentor’s role as one of
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
146
3542
supporting the student in acts that build trust in the relationship and validate the learner’s
3543
present experience. Mentors also challenge the learner to see contradictions and question
3544
assumptions, which creates tension and calls for closure. Finally, mentors provide vision
3545
by enabling self-reflection and proof that the journey can be made. Supporting,
3546
challenging, and providing vision all occur in a mix, moving back and forth as the
3547
situation calls for according to a set of principled tasks: engendering trust, see the
3548
student’s movement, give the student voice, introduce conflict, emphasize positive
3549
movement, and keep an eye on the relationship.
3550
As this research study has shown, AI might be a method for the educator to make
3551
use of when teaching with developmental intent. AI events begin with some training in
3552
the principles of AI and methods for conducting the AI event in a way that respects and
3553
empowers the individual. AI provides the opportunity to surface the learner’s beliefs and
3554
ideas through the initial appreciative interviews, which could be conducted in the context
3555
of the curriculum’s context. AI events are generally conducted in a setting separated
3556
from the everyday demands and lives of the participants, over a suggested four days
3557
(although AI events are held for various lengths of time) providing some time for
3558
reflection and developing relationships. As the event progresses, small and large groups
3559
examine these interviews for patterns and themes, and engaging in self-assessment of the
3560
initial beliefs and ideas. The discourse around these patterns and themes as the AI event
3561
progresses allow the student opportunities for engaging in TL as described by K.Taylor
3562
(2000), Cohen and Piper (2000), and Cranton (2000; Cranton 2006).
3563
3564
Educators have a special advantage over practitioners of AI in their relationship
with the learner is generally for longer periods and affords them the time to develop a
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
147
3565
relationship wherein the learner finds empowerment, discourse, and support and for
3566
engaging in mentoring of the kind defined by Daloz. Mezirow and Cranton’s models of
3567
the process of TL do not address the role of the educator, or the actions required of the
3568
educator in promoting or fostering TL for the learner. I propose a more complete model
3569
of TL, which is an amalgam of the models of TL from Mezirow, Cranton, and Taylor,
3570
Cranton’s suggestions for supporting TL, Daloz’s work on mentoring, and my insights
3571
based on this research. It has become obvious to me that the previous models of TL and
3572
the model of TL proposed above are learner centric. The model should include the
3573
educator also. The educator becomes essential to the process of TL through their roles
3574
and actions, which promote and foster TL. Including the educator emphasizes the
3575
dialogic nature of the TL process.
3576
This model is limited in that it does not account for all forms and processes of TL
3577
that might be experienced. It is possible that individuals experience TL on their own and
3578
with no intercession or assistance from an educator or a mentor. This model does not
3579
account for the process of TL experienced communally within a group where multiple
3580
people might have held the role of educator or mentor.
3581
3582
A Proposed Model of the Process of TL
In previous sections of this chapter, I have explained how Mezirow’s model of TL
3583
did not universally describe the experience of the participants in this study. In this
3584
section, I propose a refinement of Mezirow’s model of TL. My proposed model is not a
3585
negation of Mezirow, Cranton, and Taylor’s work, nor is it a new model of the process of
3586
TL. This model is intended to flesh out and make more complete the understanding of
3587
the process of TL and the learner’s experience of that process. This model will reflect
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
148
3588
Mezirow, Cranton, and Taylor’s models of the process of TL and significant points
3589
learned from this research project. I begin by discussing my proposed model and its basis
3590
in Mezirow, Cranton, and Taylor’s work.
Mezirow’s model proposes that TL begins with a disorienting dilemma, but not
3591
3592
all participants who experienced TL reported a disorienting dilemma. I propose that the
3593
process begins with awareness of dissonance between our currently held meaning
3594
schema and a new experienced reality. This dissonance results from failed or inconsistent
3595
meaning schemas. This awareness might be triggered by experiencing of a new contrary
3596
truth or truths through critical self-reflection, rational discourse, a disorienting dilemma,
3597
and etcetera. The resulting awareness creates a dissonance between the previously held
3598
meaning schema and the new experienced reality. This dissonance is similar to
3599
Festinger’s cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when the subject holds
3600
two cognitions that are psychologically opposed or inconsistent and a drive to resolve the
3601
dissonance is experienced (Festinger 1957; Festinger 1964; Aronson and Thibodeau
3602
1992).
3603
Although, Mezirow has more clearly defined the disorienting dilemma as
3604
covering a broad range of experience, from subtle to overwhelming, his use of the term
3605
implies a sense of being lost in a predicament or choice between two undesirable
3606
outcomes. Several participants in this study reported that disorienting dilemma did not
3607
describe their experience. For example, Gwen described her experience as ‘more of a
3608
paradigm shift’ and Igor thought of disorienting dilemma as a ‘grieving process,’ which
3609
did not fit his experience. Sulaiman described his cognitive dissonance as a ‘curiosity’
3610
he wished to explore when he realized that Christians, Jews, Women, and Indo-Guyanese
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
3611
might have something valuable to offer. Cognitive dissonance better describes the
3612
experiences of the participants in this study.
3613
149
Next, the learner is faced with a decision to continue exploring this dissonance or
3614
retreating from the new experienced reality. The outcome of this decision may depend
3615
on the emotions experienced, which result from this awareness and our explanatory style.
3616
If the learner chooses to continue exploring the dissonance, they will begin a process of
3617
reflection, self-examination, examination of their roles and relationships, planning to re-
3618
integrate the new meaning schemas, transitions. This leads to the final stage, re-
3619
integration of the new meaning schemas. The proposed model would progress in a linear
3620
fashion moving from Phase I: awareness of dissonance, the Phase II: TL processes would
3621
be met in no particular order, then Phase III: re-integration. When the learner moves
3622
from Phase I to Phase II they might address any of the first four processes in any order,
3623
then moves to transitions. The events in each stage may or may not be experienced as
3624
the learner engage in that TL process in Phase II. The learner may engage in multiple
3625
stages of Phase II concurrently.
3626
This model of TL describes the TL experience of both the MTL and OTL
3627
participants in this study more fully than Mezirow or Cranton’s models. The stages and
3628
processes of TL in this model are more descriptive of the MTL and OTL participants’
3629
experiences and may be universal to a larger population of TL experiences. The events in
3630
each stage of this model may not be inclusive of the TL experiences of a larger
3631
population of TL experiences.
3632
3633
The model I propose is a more complete model of TL, which amalgamates
Mezirow and Cranton’s models of the process of TL, Cranton’s suggestions for
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
150
3634
supporting TL, Daloz’s work on mentoring, and my insights based on this research.
3635
Please refer to the section above entitled Using AI to promote TL in the educational
3636
setting. It has become obvious that the previous models of TL and the model of TL
3637
proposed above are learner centric. The model should include the educator also. The
3638
educator becomes essential to the process of TL through their roles and actions, which
3639
promote and foster TL. Including the educator emphasizes the dialogic nature of the TL
3640
process.
3641
It should also be noted that several of the research participants reported engaging
3642
in mentoring others as a part of their TL process. It may be possible that the role of
3643
mentor is a form of role-playing or an expression of commitment on the part of the
3644
learner. Some participants, Igor and Bev, mentioned the importance their class or
3645
learning cohort played in encouraging, supporting, and challenging them during the
3646
process of TL. Members of the learning cohort or class might also engage in the
3647
educator’s role.
3648
I would also like to note that the process of TL does not occur in the vacuum of a
3649
classroom or learning cohort, and among learner, the educator, and the members of the
3650
class or learning cohort. The participants in this study engaged in rational discourse and
3651
the provisional trying of roles with members of their families, friends, other educators,
3652
and coworkers and in the context of their real world lives. Please refer to Table 11 for
3653
Wood’s proposed model of TL including the educator’s role and actions.
3654
3655
3656
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
3657
Table 11
3658
Wood’s Proposed Model of TL.
Phase of
TL
TL process in
the phase of
TL process
Phase I
Cognitive
dissonance
Awareness of
dissonance
between our
currently held
meaning
schema and a
new
experienced
reality
Decision to
continue or
turn back
Phase II
Engaging in
the process of
TL
151
Events in the
phase of TL
process
Educator’s role in
the phase of TL
process
Educator’s actions
in the phase of TL
process
Encounter trigger
events, confront a
new reality or
experience of a
new contrary
truth(s) through a
disorienting
dilemma, critical
self-assessment,
etcetera
Encouraging and
supporting
Engendering trust,
suspend agendas
and judgments,
surface reflections,
maintain
awareness of
power
relationships,
encourage learner
decision making,
attend to individual
differences
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
152
Phase of
TL
TL process in
the phase of
TL process
Events in the
phase of TL
process
Educator’s role in
the phase of TL
process
Educator’s actions
in the phase of TL
process
Phase II
(cont.)
Reflective
practice
Critical selfrefection;
reflective
dialogue;
reflective action;
content reflection;
process
reflection;
premise reflection
Encouraging,
supporting,
challenging, and
providing vision
Maintain
awareness of
power
relationships, see
the students
movements, initial
diagnosis for
growth, give the
student a voice,
introduce conflict,
watch the growing
edge, emphasize
positive
movement,
encourage selfreflection…
Examination
of self
Self-examination
in a critical
assessment of
assumptions,
beliefs, values,
attitudes, and
behaviors with
Positive feelings
of joy, hope,
elation, and peace
and/or negative
feelings of fear,
anger, guilt, or
shame; rational
discourse,
experience of
spirituality
(continued)
Encouraging,
supporting,
challenging, and
providing vision
(continued)
Questioning;
consciousness
raising activities
(journal writing,
critical incidents,
arts-based
activities,
experiential
learning, exploring
individual
differences),
encourage critical
self-reflection…
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
153
Phase of
TL
TL process in
the phase of
TL process
Events in the
phase of TL
process
Educator’s role in
the phase of TL
process
Educator’s actions
in the phase of TL
process
Phase II
(cont.)
Examination
of roles and
relationships
A critical
assessment of
assumptions and
relationships;
recognition of
one’s discontent
and the process of
transformation
are shared;
exploration of
options for new
roles,
relationships, and
actions;
provisional trying
of new roles;
Building
competence and
confidence in new
roles and
relationships;
experience a
deeper sense of
connection to
others
(continued)
Encouraging,
supporting,
challenging, and
providing vision
(continued)
Educator
authenticity; group
support, learner
networks; help
with personal
issues; supporting
action; awareness
of conflict and
ethical issues;
attend to individual
differences
Planning
Planning a course
of action;
acquiring
knowledge and
skills for
implementing
one’s plans,
personal
commitment to
the new meaning
perspective
(continued)
Supporting,
challenging, and
providing vision
(continued)
Encourage selfreflection, personal
commitment, and
reflective planning
Transition
Reaching a
transition point,
Shift or epochal
transition
Supporting action
and providing
vision
Encourage
personal
commitment, and
reflective action
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
Phase of
TL
TL process in
the phase of
TL process
Phase III
Reintegration
and Action
Re-integration
of new
meaning
schema
154
Events in the
phase of TL
process
Educator’s role in
the phase of TL
process
Educator’s actions
in the phase of TL
process
Acting, or
enacting plans,
with regard to the
new meaning
perspective, A reintegration into
one’s life on the
basis of
conditions
dictated by one’s
new perspective,
make personal
commitments,
and ground one’s
self in experience
Encouraging,
supporting,
challenging,
providing vision,
and celebrating
Support actions,
encourage selfreflection and
reflective action,
celebrate the
learner’s
accomplishments
3659
3660
3661
Comparing Wood’s Model of TL to Other Models of TL
My proposed model of the process of TL restructures Mezirow’s model of TL by
3662
breaking it into distinct phases, clarifies the initial event where the learner experiences
3663
dissonance and decides to explore the dissonance toward its resolution. The second
3664
phase includes the experience of positive emotions, which may sustain her or his
3665
experience of the process of TL. This model also includes Cranton’s suggestions for
3666
fostering and promoting TL, and Daloz’s suggestions for mentoring in the role of
3667
educator. These changes assist in understanding more completely the process of TL and
3668
more completely describes the experiences of the participants of this study.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
3669
3670
155
Phase I
In Mezirow’s model of the process of TL, the learner experiences a disorienting
3671
dilemma that causes them to begin the process of TL. In Cranton’s model of TL, the
3672
learner becomes more aware of their values and assumptions. With this new baseline of
3673
awareness, the learner is able to see that their values and assumptions might be unique or
3674
not shared by everyone. The learner is receptive to trigger events. In Taylor’s model of
3675
TL, the learner also becomes aware of trigger events, and confronts a new reality. The
3676
key differences in Phase I of my proposed model of the process of TL are that the learner
3677
becomes aware of a cognitive dissonance and makes a decision to continue exploring the
3678
dissonance for a resolution. The learner is joined in the process by the educator. The
3679
educator’s role is to support and encourage the learner in her or his reflections,
3680
engendering trust.
3681
Phase II
3682
In Mezirow’s model of the process of TL, the learner engages in self- examination
3683
with negative feelings, examines roles and relationships, tries new roles, and plans for a
3684
new future. The learner becomes aware that her or his experience is shared, and develops
3685
confidence and competence in their new skills, knowledge, roles, and relationships. In
3686
Cranton’s model of the process of TL, the learner begins questioning their values and
3687
assumptions, reflecting on content, process, and premise of assumptions, and engaging in
3688
rational discourse. In Taylor’s model of TL the learner reaches a point of transcendence
3689
and then has an epochal or shifting transcendent experience.
3690
3691
In Phase II of my model of TL, the learner begins engaging in reflective practices
such as critical self-refection, reflective dialogue, reflective action, content reflection,
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
156
3692
process reflection, and premise reflection. The learner makes use of these reflective
3693
practices to begin an examination of themselves, their roles and relationships, acquiring
3694
new skills, and planning for a new future. The key differences in Phase II of my model is
3695
the self-examination can include positive emotional experiences that offset or exclude
3696
negative emotions and sustain the TL process. The learner’s experience of Phase II is
3697
rather fluid, she or he can experience any of the events in the phase in any order or may
3698
not experience some or the events. In addition, the educator joins the learner in this
3699
phase by continuing to support, challenge and provide the learner with motivating
3700
visions. The educator must maintain awareness of power issues in their relationship and
3701
attend to their individual differences. In this role the educator must balance her or his
3702
role between educating and counseling the learner. Educators must maintain a greater
3703
awareness of their own knowledge and abilities where the learner’s development is
3704
concerned. Once they become aware that they are not able to be of help educators should
3705
be ready to intercede or advocate on the learner’s behalf, or recommend qualified
3706
counselors or therapists as it is appropriate.
3707
Phase III
3708
In Mezirow’s model of the process of TL, the learner re-integrates their new
3709
perspective into her or his life. In Cranton’s model of the process of TL, the learner
3710
revises her or his values and assumptions and exhibits a change in meaning perspective.
3711
In Taylor’s model of TL, the learner makes personal commitments to their new meaning
3712
schema and grounds herself or himself in experiences that reinforce the new meaning
3713
schema. In Phase III of my model of TL, the learner reintegrates a change in meaning
3714
schema. The key difference in Phase III of my model is that the educator is supporting
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
157
3715
the learner’s actions and reflections, providing vision, and celebrating the learner’s
3716
accomplishments. At this point in the journey of transformation the educator is helping
3717
the learner prepare for their own further journeys through providing vision, interceding or
3718
advocating on behalf of, and supporting the grounding experiences of the learner. Under
3719
any circumstance, the educator and student should be free to maintain their relationship
3720
as long as it is comfortable and practical for each of them.
3721
3722
Summary of the Discussion of the Findings
This research has revealed that participants of AI events experience this event in
3723
two general ways, No Direct Effect (NDE) and Direct Positive Effect (DPE). The two
3724
NDE participants and eleven of the DPE research participants also experienced the AI
3725
event as an alignment of or reinforcement of their personal values, and were coded as
3726
Aligned Values (AV). The eight remaining Direct Positive Effect-Changed Perspective
3727
(DPE-CP) participants experienced a change in their meaning perspective. This change
3728
in meaning perspective was successfully integrated into their lives, which meets the basic
3729
definition of TL for these participants. The DPE-CP participants experienced the process
3730
of TL in two general ways. Three DPE-CP participants experienced Mezirow’s ten stage
3731
model of TL and reported Mezirow’s three reflective practices and were coded as
3732
Mezirow’s Transformative Learning (MTL). The remaining five CP participants
3733
experienced four different patterns of TL and were coded as Other Transformative
3734
Learning (OTL).
3735
The No-Direct Effect (NDE) and Direct Positive Effect (DPE) participants of AI
3736
events described the AI event as an opening of their hearts and minds. This is exhibited
3737
by the increase in reports of emotions and insights over the course of the AI event
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
158
3738
experience. The emotions experienced during this event moved from negative or neutral
3739
to overwhelmingly positive. For many the AI event was an opportunity to express and
3740
experience strong negative emotions. For example, several participants cried openly,
3741
examined feelings of anger, revisited experiences of shame and guilt, and felt fear. For
3742
many of the participants the AI event was a time of positivity. For example, all the
3743
participants reported experiencing an irresistible sense of positive energy, a sense of
3744
enthusiasm, joy, and laughter. Some of the participants reported feeling a sense of peace
3745
or contentment.
3746
The insights reported by the participants increased progressively from the
3747
beginning to after the AI event. Participants reported insights ranging from a sense of
3748
personal empowerment and discovering their voice to being better able to hear and
3749
understand others. Insights also included realizations about their relationships with
3750
others, their views and understandings of others, and their connection to others.
3751
Participants also reported learning or discovering a new language with which to
3752
communicate with others in their lives. Participants also realized the importance of
3753
stories in communicating values and insights to others.
3754
The Changed Perspective (CP) research participants experienced TL. They
3755
experienced a change in meaning schema, and integrated the changed meaning schema
3756
into their lives. The process of TL was expressed in two general ways. The Mezirow’s
3757
Transformative Learning (MTL) participants followed Mezirow’s model of TL and the
3758
Other Transformative Learning (OTL) participants followed other paths in their process
3759
of TL. For the MTL participants the AI event inspired them to confront ant resolve
3760
disorienting dilemmas in their lives through Mezirow’s reflective practices. The TL
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
159
3761
process for the MTL participants included self-examination with negative feelings. The
3762
OTL research participants were less likely to experience the disorienting dilemma and
3763
self-examination with negative feelings. For some of the OTL participants the
3764
experience of negative emotions was not of strong negative affect, rather were
3765
acknowledged and resolved. For two OTL participants there were no reported negative
3766
feelings associated with their participation in the AI event. It might be possible that not
3767
all who experience TL will experience disorienting dilemmas or strong negative affect.
3768
This research shows that positive emotions and positivity were dominant themes
3769
in the experience of AI event participants. These experiences of positivity and positive
3770
emotions broaden the participant’s thought-action repertoire, leading to more experiences
3771
of positive emotions, insights, creative problem solving, and for some and un-doing of
3772
the effects of negative experiences and negative emotions. It is possible that the
3773
experience of positivity and positive emotions promoted or fostered the TL process and
3774
TL experiences for some of the participants in this study.
3775
During the course of this research, it became clear that a new model of the TL
3776
process could be proposed that was more descriptive of the experiences of the
3777
participants in this study. This model includes insights from both Mezirow’s model of
3778
TL and Cranton’s description of the TL process and moves the focus from learner
3779
centricity to include both the learner and the educator. This model also includes self-
3780
examination with positive feelings as a counterpoint to the self-examination with
3781
negative feelings. An individual’s experience of TL might include an examination of
3782
both positive and negative emotions or include only self-examination with positive
3783
feelings.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
160
3784
This research has several implications for practitioners of TL. Among them, the
3785
inclusion of positivity and positive emotions in the self-examination involved in the TL
3786
process. Positivity and positive emotions might be fundamental in fostering TL among
3787
learners. TL practitioners must also recognize their active participation in the learner’s
3788
TL process. Their participation includes, challenging, supporting, providing vision,
3789
assisting with personal issues, while attending to the power relationships and maintaining
3790
the health of the learner educator relationship.
3791
This research also has several implications for practitioners of AI, including
3792
awareness that accepting AI principles and methods might require a change in meaning
3793
schema for some AI event participants and can initiate the TL process. AI practitioners
3794
need to be aware of the participant’s engagement in the TL process and need to be
3795
educated in the theories and processes of TL to be of assistance to their participants who
3796
become engaged in the process of TL. This process might include surfacing, confronting
3797
and resolving negative experiences and emotions, from which AI practitioners should not
3798
shy away. This presents the AI practitioner with an opportunity to develop longer-term
3799
relationships with their AI event participants as mentors, formal or informal. This
3800
research also presents the AI practitioner with ethical questions concerning their
3801
involvement in the participant’s TL process, and how far that involvement should go.
3802
This research has further defined the experiences of AI event participants and the
3803
role of positivity and positive emotions in that experience. This research has provided a
3804
more descriptive model of TL, which includes positivity and positive emotion in the
3805
process of TL and further describes the educator’s role and responsibilities in that
3806
process. This research has also described a new role and responsibilities for the AI
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
161
3807
facilitator in fulfilling that role of mentor to the AI event participants who are inclined to
3808
engage in the process of TL.
3809
Limitations
3810
This research study has the following limitations, which should be considered
3811
along with the data analysis, findings, and discussion presented here. This study consists
3812
of a small sample size, twenty-one participants, based on a self-selection for a positive AI
3813
event experience. This study does not include any participants who reported a negative
3814
AI event experience. This study is also retrospective in nature. The retrospective
3815
examination of personal experience is subject to bias, romanticism, and advocacy for a
3816
preferred memory of the experience.
3817
3818
Implications for Future Research
This research study has implications for future research. Scholars and
3819
practitioners of AI should examine the role of mentoring suggested earlier in the
3820
discussions. Mentoring may be an opportunity to extend the length of their relationship
3821
with AI event participants, improve the odds of successful adoption of the principles and
3822
methods of AI, and strengthen the AI community. AI scholars and practitioners might
3823
also focus more research attention on the role of positive emotions in the AI event
3824
experience and their role in promoting and fostering TL for the AI event participants who
3825
experience a change in meaning perspective and in reinforcing the positive experience of
3826
the Aligned Values (AV) participants.
3827
Researchers should also study the experiences of the No-Direct Effect (NDE)
3828
participants and those who have a negative AI event experience. Such research might
3829
yield further information on how to make the AI event more inclusive still. Research
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
3830
should also focus on the relationship between negative and positive emotions
3831
experienced, and how they promote a successful AI event experience.
3832
162
I encourage scholars and practitioners of TL to further research the model of TL
3833
proposed here in this research. TL does not happen in isolation. It happens in
3834
relationship, often with an educator and a class or learning cohort, and affects the other
3835
significant relationships of the learner. Further defining and clarifying the relationships
3836
involved in promoting and fostering the process of TL might make the theory and
3837
practice of TL more accessible to a wider arena than adult education.
3838
Researchers should also explore the role of positive emotions and positivity in
3839
promoting and fostering TL. Positive emotions and positivity might give confidence and
3840
fortitude to those who encounter strong negative emotions during the process of their TL.
3841
Positive emotions and positivity may attract other learners and educators to TL who
3842
might otherwise have avoided it due to the negative emotional content reported in the
3843
process. Additionally, researchers should focus some attention on learners who
3844
experience cognitive dissonance and turn away from the process of TL, or those who
3845
change their minds once they have begun the process of TL. There may be much to learn
3846
from them and their experiences of the process of TL.
3847
Researcher’s Reflections on the Study
3848
The dissertation process and the accomplishment of any major research project
3849
such as this one must necessarily have an impact on the learner and the researcher. For
3850
me the effects and impacts are numerous enough to be difficult to relate to others. Much
3851
of what I gained from this process was a sense of competence and confidence in the
3852
techniques and process of qualitative research and the skills of scholarship.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
3853
This process has often been arduous and emotionally tasking, leaving me
3854
physically and emotionally drained. I brought a certain natural tendency toward
3855
persistence and a motivation toward completing tasks, lessons well learned from
3856
Grandparents who survived two world wars and the great depression. I often felt my
3857
Grandfather’s hand on my shoulder.
3858
163
Throughout the interviews, I often heard remarkable tales of courage, strength and
3859
survivorship, which in themselves were inspirational. Yet these qualities were not what
3860
really affected me. I did not expect to share experiences of tears, heartbreak, positive
3861
energy, joy and enthusiasm the participants so freely shared with me, a stranger on the
3862
other end of a phone conversation. Hearing how positivity and positive emotions were
3863
used to create a new narrative and expectation of future outcomes began to affect me. I
3864
often found myself thinking, ‘If Mary or Chris could…’ or ‘How did Sulaiman or Igor…’
3865
I also began to meditate on the physical qualities of the positive energy that Bev
3866
experience and the physical presence of joy and peace that Gwen and Hillary described.
3867
I began to construct positive narratives for the obstacles and roadblocks that
3868
presented themselves. I made a ‘positive’ playlist in all the forms of music I enjoy to
3869
listen to while reading research, coding the data, and writing. I soon found myself
3870
listening to this playlist more often and noticed that I began to react differently to
3871
setbacks at work and in my life. I have begun working actively on developing my sense
3872
of optimism through mastery, positivity, and a positive explanatory style as described by
3873
Seligman (1995).
3874
3875
These changes in and of themselves may not be easily seen by others, but I have
found that I am more apt to take good care of myself, have more energy, and rebound
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
164
3876
from setbacks more quickly. As Annie said, ‘I am stronger for it.’ This represents my
3877
own process of TL inspired by the research participants’ stories given so freely.
3878
What I have learned to appreciate most is hope. Optimism, along with future
3879
mindedness and future orientation are constructs of the positive trait Hope, as defined by
3880
Peterson and Seligman (2004) when defining the character strength Transcendence.
3881
Hope is the reasonable expectation that desired outcomes will come to pass and that
3882
thinking and acting in ways to make them occur gives confidence and sustained
3883
optimism. It is clear to me now that hope must come first in the process of
3884
transformation. Hope enables us to confront dissonance. Hope enables us to continue
3885
experimentation until we gain mastery. Hope enables us to use a positive explanatory
3886
style in the face of negative outcomes. It is hope that allows us to envision a new and
3887
different future. It is hope that buffers us, sustains us, and lifts us from who we are to
3888
who we would be. And, it is hope that within us dies last. Little did I know how
3889
portentous Voltaire’s quote would be when I choose it to begin Chapter 1 and set the tone
3890
and tenor of my research. Appreciation of the participants’ sense of hopefulness has
3891
given me hope.
3892
Appreciation is a wonderful thing: it makes what is excellent in others belong to
3893
us as well, Voltaire.
3894
Encourage and support hope, optimism, and positive emotional experiences in
3895
your practice. Hope, optimism, and positive emotional experiences sustain, assists in
3896
maintaining positive direction for learning and growth when faced with challenges and
3897
difficult times.
3898
3899
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
165
3900
REFERENCES
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
Antonacopoulou, E. P. and Y. Gabriel (2001). "Emotion, learning and organizational
change: Towards an integration of psychoanalytic and other perspectives."
Journal of Organizational Change Management 14(5): 435-452.
Argyris, C. and D. Schon (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.
Reading MA, Addison-Wesley Publishers Co.
Argyris, C. and D. A. Schön (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and
practice. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.
Aronson, E. and R. Thibodeau (1992). "Taking a closer look: Reasserting the role of selfconcept in dissonance theory." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18(5):
591-602.
Bowditch, J. L. and A. F. Buono (2001). A primer on organizational behavior. New York
NY, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Boyd, R. D. (1989). "Facilitating personal transformation in small groups, Part I." Small
Group Behavior 20: 459-474.
Boyd, R. D. (1991). Personal transformations in small groups. New York, NY,
Routledge.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2004). Making human being human: Bioecological perspectives on
human development. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
Bushe, G. (1998). Five theories of change embedded in appreciative inquiry. 18th Annual
World Congress of Organizational Development, Dublin, Ireland.
Bushe, G. R. and A. Khamisa (2004). "When is appreciative inquiry transformational? A
meta-case analysis." Unpublished Working Paper.
Cesar, C. J. (2003). Adult motivation to complete their baccalaureate degree. Graduate
School of Education and Psychology. Malibu CA, Pepperdine University: 163.
Clark, M. C. (1993). Changing course: Initiating the transformational learning process.
34th Annual Adult Education Research Conference Proceedings, University Park,
Pennsylvania State University, ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
Coffman, P. M. (1989). Inclusive language as a means of resisting hegemony in
theological education: A phenomenology of transformation and empowerment of
persons in adult higher education, University of Tennessee.
Cohen, J. B. and D. Piper (2000). Transformative learning in a residential adult learning
community. Learning as transformation: Critical perpectives of a theory in
progress. J. Mezirow. San Francisco CA, Jossey-Bass: 205-228.
Cooperrider, D. (1986). Appreciative inquiry: Toward a methodology for understanding
and enhancing organizational innovation, Case Western Reserve University: 353.
Cooperrider, D. (2002). Forward: The coming epidemic of change. Appreciative inquiry
and organizational development: Reports from the field. R. J. Fry, F. Barrett, J.
Seiling and D. Whitney. Westport CT, Quorum: ix.
Cooperrider, D., P. F. Sorrensen, Jr., et al. (2000). Appreciative inquiry. Champaign IL,
Stipes Publishing.
Cooperrider, D. and S. Srivastva (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life.
Research in organizational change and development. W. A. Pasmore and R. W.
Woodman. Greenwich CT, JAI Press. 1.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
166
Cooperrider, D. and D. Whitney (2000). "The appreciative inquiry summit: An emerging
methodology for whole system change." OD Practitioner 32(1): 13-26.
Cranton, P. (1994). Understanding and promoting transformative learning. San Francisco
CA, Jossey-Bass.
Cranton, P. (2000). Individual differences and transformative learning. Learning as
transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. J. Mezirow. San
Francisco CA, Jossey-Bass: 181-204.
Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for
educators of adults. San Francisco CA, Jossey - Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with
everyday life. New York NY, Basic Books.
Daloz, L. A. (1999). Mentor: Guiding the journey of adult learners. San Francisco CA,
Jossey-Bass.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY, Touchstone.
Dirkx, J. (2000). "Transformative learning and the journey of individuation." ERIC
Digest 223.
Dirkx, J. (2001). "The power of feelings: Emotion, imagination and the construction of
meaning in adult learning." New directions for adult and continuing education
89: 63-72.
Eisen, M.-J. (2001). "Peer-based professional development viewed through the lens of
transformative learning." Holistic Nursing Practice 16(1): 30-43.
Erikson, E. H. and J. M. Erikson (1997). The life cycle completed. New York NY, W.W.
Norton & Company.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. New York NY, Harper and Row.
Festinger, L. (1964). Conflict, decision, and dissonance. Stanford CA, Stanford
University Press.
Fontana, A. and J. H. Frey (2003). The interview:From structured questions to negotiated
text. Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. N. K. Denzin and Y. S.
Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications: 67-106.
Frank, S. L. (2005). Transformative learning: The transformative experiences of workers
who support people with developmental disabilities. Edmonton AB, University of
Alberta.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). "The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The
broaden and build theory of positive emotions." American Psychologist 56(3):
218-226.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). "The value of positive emotions." American Scientist 91(4).
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York NY, Continuum International
Publishing Group.
Fry, R. J. and F. Barrett (2002). Appreciative inquiry in action: The unfolding of a
provocative invitation. Appreciative Inquiry and Organizational Transformation:
Reports from the Field. R. J. Fry and F. Barrett. Westport CT, Quorum Books: 123.
Fry, R. J., F. Barrett, et al. (2002). Appreciative inquiry and organizational
transformation: Reports from the field. Westport CT, Quorum Books.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
167
Gergen, K. J. (1999). Affect and organization in postmodern society. Appreciative
Management and Leadership. S. Srivastva and D. Cooperrider. Euclid OH,
Williams Custom Publishing: 153-174.
Glaser, B. G. (2002). "Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded
theory." International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1(2).
Glaser, B. G. and A. A. Strauss (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago IL, Aldine.
Glaser, R. and M. Bassok (1989). "Learning theory and the study of instruction." Annual
Review of Psychology 40: pp. 631-666.
Golembiewski, R. T. (1999). " Fine-tuning appreciative inquiry: Two ways of
circumscribing the concept's value-added " Organizational Development Journal
17(3): 21-29.
Golembiewski, R. T. (2000). "Three perspectives on appreciative inquiry." OD
Practitioner 32(1): 53-58.
Gould, R. L. (1979). Transformations. New York, NY, Touchstone.
Harvie, P. L. B. (2004). Transformative learning in undergraduate education. Toronto
CA, University of Toronto.
Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern
perspectives. New York NY, Oxford University Press.
Holman, P. and T. Devane (1999). The change handbook: Group methods for shaping the
future. San Francisco CA, Berrett-Koehler, Inc.
Illeris, K. (2004). "Transformative learning in the perspective of a comprehensive
learning theory." Journal of Transformative Education 2(2): 79-89.
Imel, S. (1999). "Using groups in adult learning: Theory and practice."
Kasl, E., V. J. Marsick, et al. (1997). "Teams as learners: A research-based model of team
learning." The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 33(2): 227-247.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D. a. (1985). Learning-style inventory. Boston, MA, McBer & Company.
Laiken, M. E. (2002). "Managing the action/reflection polarity in the OD classroom: A
path to transformative learning." Organizational Development Journal 20(3): pg.
52.
Leadership, C. (2000). "Appreciative inquiry model for organizations." Retrieved
December 3, 2005, 2005, from
http://www.velinperformance.com/downloads/appreciative_inquiry_5D_model.pd
f.
Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of a man's life. New York NY, Ballantine.
Lewin, K. (1997). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Washington
DC, American Psychological Association.
Livingston, J. (1999). "The human and organizational dimensions of global change:
An appreciative inquiry interview with Robert Golembiewski, Ph.D, RODC."
Organizational Development Journal 17(2): 87-93.
Ludema, J. D., D. Whitney, et al. (2003). The appreciative inquiry summit: A
practitioner's guide for leading large-group change. San Francisco CA, BerrettKoehler Publishers, Inc.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
168
Lytle, J. E. (1989). The process of perspective transformation experienced by the
registered nurse returning for baccalaureate study. Department of Leadership and
Educational Policy Studies. Dekalb IL, Northern Illinois University: 178.
Marton, F. (1981). "Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us."
Instructional Science 10: 177-200.
McEwen, C. (2004). Transformative learning - A personal journey, Royal Roads
University.
Merriam, S. B. (2004). "The role of cognitive development in Mezirow's transformational
learning theory." Adult Education Quarterly 55(1): 60-68.
Mezirow, J. (1978). Education for perspective transformation: Women's re-entry
programs in community colleges. New York NY, Teacher's College, Columbia
University.
Mezirow, J. (1990). Conclusion: Toward transformative learning and emancipatory
education. Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. J. Mezirow. San Francisco
CA, Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. fostering
critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory
learning. J. Mezirow. San Francisco CA, Jossey-Bass Publishers: 1-20.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco CA,
Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1997). "Transformative learning: Theory to practice." New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education 74: 5-12.
Mezirow, J., Ed. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in
progress. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco CA,
Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult. Learning as transformation. J.
Mezirow. San Francisco CA, Jossey-Bass.
Mohr, B. J., E. Smith, et al. (2000). "Appreciative inquiry and learning assessment: An
embedded evaluation process in a transnational pharmaceutical company." OD
Practitioner 32(1): 36-52.
Morgan, J. H. (1987). Displaced homemaker programs and the transition for displaced
homemakers from homemakers to independent person. New York NY, Teacher's
College, Columbia University.
O'Hara, M. (2003). "Cultivating consciousness: Carl R. Roger's person-entered group
process as transformative andragogy." Journal of Transformative Education 1(1):
64-79.
O'Hara, M. (2005). "Cultivating consciousness: Carl R. Roger's person-entered group
process as transformative andragogy." Journal of Transformative Education 1(1):
64-79.
Peterson, C. and M. E. P. Seligman (2004). Character strengths and values: a handbook
and classification. New York NY, American Psychological Association.
Pietrykowski, B. (1996). "Knowledge and power in adult education: Beyond Freire and
Habermas." Adult Education Quarterly 46(2): 82-97.
Pope, S. J. (1996). Wanting to be something more: Transformations in ethnically diverse
working class women through the process of education. Santa Barbara CA,
Fielding Institute.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
169
Porter, T. B. (2002). "Personal and organizational transformations through action
inquiry." Management Learning 33(4).
Revens, R. (1982). The origins and growth of action learning. London UK, ChartwellBratt.
Robinson, P. (2004). "Meditation: its role in transformative learning and in the fostering
of an integrative vision for higher education." Journal of Transformative
Education 2(2): 107-109.
Rooke, D., D. Fisher, et al. (2001). Personal and organizational transformations through
action inquiry. Boston MA, Edge/Work Press.
Rooke, D. and W. R. Torbert (1998). "Organizational transformation as a function of
CEO development stage." Organizational Development Journal 16(1): 11-28.
Saavedra, E. R. M. M. (1995). Teacher transformation: Creating texts and contexts in
study groups, The University of Arizona.
Schiller, M. (2002). Imagining inclusion: Men and women in organizations. Appreciative
inquiry and organizational transformation: Reports from the field. R. J. Fry, F.
Barrett, J. Seiling and D. Whitney. Westport CT, Quorum Books: 149-164.
Scott, S. M. (2003). "The social construction of transformation." Journal of
Transformative Education 1(3): 264-284.
Scribner, J. P. and J. F. Donaldson (2001). "The dynamics of group learning in a cohort:
From nonlearning to transformative learning." Educational Administration
Quarterly 37(5): 605-636.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). "Building Optimism." Parents 70(9).
Seligman, M. E. P. and M. Csikszentmihalyi (2000). "Positive psychology: An
introduction." American Psychologist 55(1): 5-14.
Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization.
New York, NY, Currency/Doubleday.
Sokol, A. V. and P. Cranton (1998). "Transforming, not training." Adult Learning 9(3):
14-17.
Srivastva, S. and D. Cooperrider (1999). Appreciative management and leadership.
Euclid OH, Williams Custom Publishing.
Strauss, A. A. and J. Corbin (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park CA, Sage.
Taylor, E. W. (1997). "Building on the theoretical debate: A critical review of the
empirical studies of Mezirow's transformative learning theory." Adult Education
Quarterly 48(1): 34.
Taylor, E. W. (1998). "The theory and practice of transformative learning: A critical
review." Eric Clearing House on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education: 90.
Taylor, E. W. (2000). Analyzing research on transformative learning theory. Learning as
transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in practice. J. Mezirow. San
Francisco CA, Jossey-Bass: 285-328.
Taylor, J. A. (1989). Transformative learning: Becoming aware of possible worlds,
University of British Columbia.
Taylor, K. (2000). Teaching with developmental intention. Learning as transformation. J.
Mezirow. San Francisco CA, Jossey-Bass.
Tennant, M. (1993). "Perspective transformation and adult development." Adult
Education Quarterly 44(1): 34-42.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
170
Trosten-Bloom, A. (2002). Creative applications of appreciative inquiry in an
organization-wide culture change effort: The Hunter Douglas experience.
Appreciative inquiry and organizational transformation: Reports from the field. R.
J. Fry, F. Barrett, J. Seiling and D. Whitney. Westport CT, Quorum.
Van Buskirk, W. (2002). Appreciating appreciative inquiry in the urban catholic school.
Appreciative inquiry and organizational transformation: Reports from the field
R. J. Fry, F. Barrett, J. Seiling and D. Whitney. Westport CT, Quorum: 67-97.
Wasserman, I. (2004). Discursive processes that foster dialogic moments: Transformation
in the engagement of social identity group differences in dialogue. Santa Barbara
CA, Fielding Graduate Institute.
Weisbord, M. R. (1987). Productive workplaces: Organizing and managing for dignity,
meaning and community. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Weisbord, M. R. (1992). Discovering common ground. San Francisco CA, BerrettKoehler Publishers, Inc.
Weisbord, M. R. (1992). Inventing the search conference. Discovering common ground:
How future search can conferences bring people together to achieve
breakthrough, innovation, empowerment, shared vision, and collaborative action.
M. R. Weisbord. San Francisco CA, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks CA, Sage.
Whitney, D. and A. Trosten-Bloom (2003). The power of appreciative inquiry: A
practical guide to positive change. San Francisco CA, Berrett-Koehler.
Wilson, L. (2004). A shared inquiry into transitional and transformative learning.
Antigonish NS, Saint Francis Xavier University.
Yorks, L. and E. Kasl (2002). "Toward a theory and practice for whole-person learning:
Reconceptualizing experience and the role of affect." Adult Education Quarterly
52(3): 176-192.
Yorks, L. and E. Kasl (2002). "Toward a theory and practice of whole-person learning:
Reconceptualizing experience and the role of affect." Adult Education Quarterly
52(3): 176.
Yorks, L. and V. J. Marsick (2000). Organizational learning and transformation. Learning
as Transformation. J. Mezirow. San Francisco CA, Jossey-Bass.
Yorks, L. and L. Sharoff (2001). "An extended epistemology for fostering transformative
learning in holistic nursing education and practice." Holistic Nursing Practice
16(1): 21-30.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4162
Appendix (A)
4163
Fielding Institutional Review Board (HOD Subcommittee)
4164
Request For Review of Proposed Research
4165
COVER PAGE FORM
171
4166
Complete this form and attach to the front of your application. Submit this via email
4167
attachment (Word .doc or Rich Text Format (.rtf)) only to Peggy Collins at
4168
pcollins@fielding.edu. Please type all materials and number all pages sequentially.
4169
Please use one set of page numbers and one set of line numbers from the beginning of the
4170
application to the end. Thank you.
4171
Researcher's Name: Kelley D Wood
4172
Email address: kdwood@hotmail.com
4173
Telephone: 603-443-8449 (d), 802-356-2166 (n)
4174
Researcher is a student, please also provide:
4175
KA Reader and Dissertation Chair Name: Dr. Steven Schapiro
4176
Program: HOD
4177
Title of Proposed Research: Appreciative Inquiry Participant’s Understanding and
4178
Meaning Making of Transformative Experiences and Transformative Learning
4179
Project is a:
4180
__X__ Dissertation
4181
____ Pilot Study
4182
____ Assessment (specify area) ___
4183
______Other (please specify) ______
4184
Project Involves:
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4185
__X__ Prospective data collection (will collect data after full approval)
4186
_____ Analysis of archival or existing data set
172
4187
Submission Date: January 23, 2006
4188
Review by KA Assessor or Dissertation Chair: "I have read this application and find that
4189
it meets the Fielding Research Ethics Guidelines and that it is ready for review by the
4190
Institutional Review Board." (Please ensure approval is sent to the IRB prior to
4191
submitting the application.)
4192
KA Assessor and Dissertation Chair Signature:
4193
____________________________________ Date: __________
4194
Last updated 2/10/2005
4195
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4196
Appendix (B)
4197
Verbal Recruitment Script for Research Participants
4198
173
As a doctoral student in the School of Human and Organization Development
4199
with the Fielding Graduate University, I am recruiting interested people who have
4200
participated in an AI to volunteer to participate in my dissertation study. Your
4201
organization was referred by (X), who facilitated an AI with your group or organization.
4202
Your group or organization has given me permission to solicit people to interview. The
4203
facilitator and your group or organization will not know if you choose to participate in
4204
the study or not.
4205
I am interested in talking to people who have experienced changes in their
4206
attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, relationships, or actions resulting from participation in an AI
4207
process. I want to learn how you understand and make meaning of these different
4208
experiences. In my dissertation research, I will analyze whether or not the
4209
understandings and meanings from some or all of the research participants adheres to our
4210
current understanding of a theory of TL.
4211
I will be conducting confidential interviews that will take approximately 60-90
4212
minutes of your time. We could meet at a location that is convenient to you that would
4213
ensure privacy and be free of distraction. I will be taking notes and I will audio record
4214
the interview solely for academic and research purposes. The research data will be stored
4215
and evaluated in a way that will prevent your interview responses from being connected
4216
to you.
4217
4218
You will have an opportunity to review the entire transcript and to remove any
portions of it that you choose. In addition, you may choose to withdraw from this study
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
174
4219
at anytime, without any penalty and all of your data will be removed from the study and
4220
destroyed. If you choose to participate in this study, you will receive a summary of the
4221
results if you choose.
4222
If you are interested in participating in this research, we can set up a time to
4223
conduct the interview, which will include further explanation of confidentiality and a
4224
thorough explanation of the informed consent materials.
4225
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4226
Appendix (C)
4227
Written Recruitment Statement for Research Participants
4228
175
Dear Research Participant,
4229
As a doctoral student in the School of Human and Organization Development
4230
with the Fielding Graduate University, I am recruiting interested people who have
4231
participated in an AI to volunteer to participate in my dissertation study. Your
4232
organization was referred to me by (X) who facilitated an AI with your group or
4233
organization. Your group or organization has given me permission to solicit participants
4234
for this research. The facilitator and your group or organization will not know if you
4235
choose to participate in the study or not.
4236
I am interested in talking to people who have experienced changes in their
4237
attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, relationships, or actions resulting from participation in an AI
4238
process. I want to learn how you understand and make meaning of these experiences. In
4239
my dissertation research, I will analyze whether or not the understandings and meanings
4240
from some or all of the research participants adheres to our current understanding of TL.
4241
I will be conducting confidential interviews that will take approximately 60-90
4242
minutes of your time. We could meet at a location that is convenient to you that would
4243
ensure privacy and be free of distraction. I will be taking notes and I will audio record
4244
the interview solely for academic and research purposes. The research data will be stored
4245
and evaluated in a way that will prevent your interview responses from being connected
4246
to you.
4247
4248
You will have an opportunity to review the entire transcript and to remove any
portions of it that you choose. In addition, you may choose to withdraw from this study
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
176
4249
at anytime, without any penalty and all of your data will be removed from the study and
4250
destroyed. If you choose to participate in this study, you will receive a summary of the
4251
results if you choose.
4252
If you are interested in participating, we can set up a time to conduct the
4253
interview, which will include further explanation of confidentiality as well as a thorough
4254
explanation of the informed consent materials. I can be reached by email at
4255
kelleywood_FGU@Yahoo.com, or by phone at 802-356-2166 at your convenience if you
4256
wish to participate. I look forward to hearing from you.
4257
Sincerely,
4258
Kelley D. Wood
4259
4260
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4261
Appendix (D)
4262
Informed Consent Form
4263
Appreciative Inquiry Participant’s Understanding and Meaning Making of
4264
Transformative Experiences and Transformative Learning
4265
My name is Kelley D Wood and I am a Human and Organization Development
4266
doctoral student with Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, California. I am
4267
conducting this research study. The research supervisor for this study is Dr. Steven
4268
Schapiro. Our contact information is available at the end of this form.
4269
177
You have been asked to participate in a research study conducted by Kelley D
4270
Wood, a doctoral student in the School of Human and Organization Development at
4271
Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA. This research involves the study of
4272
how participants understand their transformative leaning experiences in appreciative
4273
inquiries, and is part of Kelley's Fielding course work and may be included in his
4274
dissertation research. You have been selected for this study because you have participated
4275
in an appreciative inquiry in your organization. The facilitator of that appreciative
4276
inquiry has recommended that I solicit participants for this research from your
4277
organization and your organization has agreed to allow me to ask for research
4278
participants from the participants of that appreciative inquiry. No one will know who has
4279
chosen to participate or who has not chosen to participate in this research.
4280
This study involves a basic background information questionnaire, an interview, a
4281
possible follow up interview, and a debriefing and verification of my findings to be
4282
arranged at your convenience, each of which is expected to last approximately of 1 – 1.5
4283
hours. The total time involved in participation will be approximately 1.5 – 2 hours
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4284
178
The information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and anonymous.
4285
The informed consent forms and other materials will be kept separate in locked file
4286
cabinets, on a computer with special encrypted access. The audio recordings will be
4287
listened to only by the researcher and Faculty Supervisor, Dissertation Chair and possibly
4288
a confidential Research Assistant or transcriptionist, who will sign the attached
4289
Professional Assistance Confidentiality Agreement. Emails and instant messenger
4290
transcripts will be copied without any identifying text. Only the body of the interview
4291
will be saved, all other information will be destroyed.
4292
I will seek your permission, and use a pseudonym for you, before using any direct
4293
quotes, which might be included in the final research report or published. I will also use
4294
pseudonyms in the place of your organization’s name and for your appreciative inquiry
4295
event to prevent readers from identifying you with the direct quotes used. You will also
4296
have the opportunity to review a transcript of your interview and remove any material
4297
you do not wish to have used by the researcher. In addition, all related research
4298
materials, including the audio recordings, will be kept in a secure file cabinet. The results
4299
of this research will be published in the researcher's dissertation or used in a Knowledge
4300
Assessment paper and possibly in subsequent journals or books.
4301
You may develop greater personal awareness of your own personal and
4302
professional learning and development goals resulting from your participation in this
4303
research. The risks to you are perceived to be none, or minimal.
4304
You may withdraw from this study at any time, either during or after the
4305
interview, without negative consequences. Should you withdraw, your data will be
4306
eliminated from the study and will be destroyed.
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
179
4307
There is no financial reward for participating in this study.
4308
In addition to discussing the preliminary results with the researcher by phone, you
4309
also may request a copy of the summary of the final results by indicating your interest on
4310
the attached form.
4311
4312
4313
If you have any questions about any aspect of this study or your involvement,
please tell the researcher before signing this form.
Two copies of this informed consent form have been provided. Please sign both,
4314
indicating you have read, understood, and agreed to participate in this research. Return
4315
one to the researcher and keep the other for your files.
4316
4317
The Institutional Review Board of Fielding Graduate University retains access to
all signed informed consent forms.
4318
I have read and understand the above and agree to participate in this study.
4319
NAME OF PARTICIPANT (please print): _____________________________________
4320
SIGNATURE OF PARTICIPANT: ___________________________________________
4321
DATE: ______________________
4322
Yes, I would like to receive a summary of the study results, please send a copy to:
4323
NAME OF PARTICIPANT: ________________________________________________
4324
ADDRESS: _____________________________________________________________
4325
ADDRESS: ____________________________________________________________
4326
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research,
4327
Kelley D Wood
4328
256 Route 5 South
4329
Norwich, Vermont 05055
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4330
(802) 256-1044
4331
KelleyWood_FGU@yahoo.com
180
4332
4333
The research supervisor for this study is Dr. Steven Schapiro and he can be reached at:
4334
4335
Dr. Steven Schapiro
4336
School of Human and Organization Development
4337
Fielding Graduate University
4338
2112 Santa Barbara Street
4339
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
4340
805-687-1099
4341
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4342
Appendix (E)
4343
Background Information Questionnaire
181
4344
Each potential participant will be asked to complete a basic background information
4345
questionnaire before being selected for interviewing. The basic background information
4346
questionnaire follows:
4347
How is your group or organization characterized?
4348
For profit
Not for profit
4349
Health Care
Community based
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
Education
Did you volunteer or were you required in some way to attend?
Volunteer
Required
What organization did you participate in this event with?
____________________________________
What is your position with this group or organization?
___________________________________
How long have you been associated with this group or organization?
___________________________________
Was there a stated purpose for this appreciative inquiry event?
4359
___________________________________
4360
How long has it been since the appreciative inquiry event?
4361
___________________________________
4362
4363
4364
How many of the 4D Appreciative Inquiry stages did you participate in?
___________________________________
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4365
Sex of the participant:
4366
Female
4367
Male
Approximate age of the participant
4368
Under 18
18-25
26-35
4369
46-55
56-65
66-75 Over 75
4370
36-45
182
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4371
Appendix (F)
4372
Interview Protocol
4373
Thank you for taking time to participate in my dissertation study. I appreciate
4374
your willingness to contribute to my research project. Would you like a beverage, a
4375
snack, or to make use of the rest room before we begin?
4376
183
I am interested in talking to people who have experienced transformations in their
4377
attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, relationships, or actions resulting from participation in an
4378
appreciative inquiry. I want to learn how you understand and make meaning of these
4379
different experiences. I will compare the understandings and meanings to a theory of TL.
4380
I recognize that it is sometimes difficult to talk about yourself, your experiences,
4381
and your feelings so openly to someone who is unfamiliar to you and in an interview
4382
situation. This interview will be conversational and not highly structured so that you are
4383
free to speak about your experiences, and your thoughts and feelings about those
4384
experiences. It will be helpful for you to provide as much detail as you can. To assist in
4385
drawing out that detail I will be taking some notes and I may ask related clarifying
4386
questions. If at any time you are uncomfortable, or if you do not wish to answer a
4387
question, you may feel free to say so and we will, take a break, change subjects, or stop.
4388
Would you like to ask any questions or make any comments at this time?
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
Question 1.a is open-ended and intended to allow the research participant to tell
the story of their participation in the appreciative inquiry event.
11. Lightly structured open-ended question.
a. I would like you to tell me in your own words about your
experiences in the (insert the name of the appreciative inquiry
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
184
4394
event), such as how you came to participate and what it meant to
4395
you to participate? What significant events occurred? Who was
4396
involved?
4397
4398
4399
4400
12. Moderately structured open-ended questions.
a. What were you thinking about or focused on during the (insert the
name of the AI event)?
b. I would like you to tell me about any changes in your relationships,
4401
personally or professionally, you have experienced since you
4402
attended the (insert the name of the AI event)?
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
c. How would the people close to you characterize you before you
participated in (insert the name of the AI event)?
d. Please describe for me in what ways might you have changed since
you participated in (insert the name of the AI event)?
e. Has anyone noticed and commented on a difference in you since
you attended the (insert the name of the AI event)?
f. What emotions did you experience during the (insert the name of
the AI event) and how did you express them?
g. Did you become aware of any issues or problems during the (insert
the AI event)?
h. Do you have any stories you can share of people you developed a
4414
sense of camaraderie with at the (insert the name of the AI event)?
4415
i. How would you characterize your role in the organization that you
4416
attended the (insert the name of the AI event) with?
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4417
4418
185
j. Let me take a moment to review my research questions to see that
we have covered everything I intended to in this interview.
4419
Concluding the interview
4420
Would you like to add to anything you have said, or to say anything you feel has
4421
been unsaid? Is there anything that you feel we did not cover sufficiently enough? Is
4422
there anything that we did not discuss that you feel is important? Is there anything that I
4423
can do for you before we consider this interview finished? Let me thank you again for
4424
your participation in my dissertation study. I will be in touch with you when I have a
4425
completed transcript of the interview for review. I will also send you a summary of the
4426
research findings when my dissertation research is completed and approved. Would you
4427
like to offer a pseudonym that I will use to code your data?
4428
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4429
Appendix (G)
4430
Professional Assistance Confidentiality Agreement
4431
Title of Research Project: Appreciative Inquiry Participant’s Understanding and
4432
Meaning Making of Transformative Experiences and Transformative Learning
186
4433
4434
Kelley D Wood, School of Human and Organization Development, Fielding Graduate
4435
Institute, Santa Barbara, Ca
4436
4437
I have agreed to assist Kelley D Wood in his research study of how participants of an
4438
appreciative inquiry make meaning of their transformative learning experiences during
4439
the event in the role of [research assistant, transcriptionist]. I understand that all
4440
participants in this study have been assured that their responses will be kept confidential
4441
and anonymous. I agree to maintain that confidentiality and anonymity. I further agree
4442
that no materials will remain in my possession beyond the operation of this research
4443
project and I further agree that I will make no independent use of any of the research
4444
materials from this project.
4445
Signature: ___________________________________________ Date: ______________
4446
4447
Printed Name: ___________________________________________________________
4448
4449
4450
Title: ___________________________________________________________________
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4451
Appendix (H)
4452
Glossary of Operational Definitions and Terms
187
Method of data analysis
Open coding
Coding the data by noting incidents and codes in the data
as they emerge without forcing to meet a preconceived
theory through constant comparative analysis
Axial coding
Selectively coding the data in a constant comparative
analysis looking for relationships between multiple
groups of codes and developing clustered concepts
Triangulating
Comparing the data to the results of the open/axial
coding and the TL coding
Grounded Theory
A method of data analysis that begins with no
preconceived theory to validate, from which a theory
emerges
Constant comparative
analysis
A means of data analysis where the researcher constantly
moves back and forth from codes and concepts to the
data to test for accuracy and generalization
Categories of participant experience of the
Appreciative inquiry event
Direct positive effect (DPE)
Refers to participants who expressed a positive change in
their perspectives and expectations of the future and
directly attributed this change to their participation in the
AI event.
Non-direct effect (NDE)
Refers to participants who said the AI event discussed in
their interview had no direct effect on them or their lives,
or that it was difficult to attribute changes in them or
their lives to the AI event
Aligned values (AV)
Refers to research participants who indicated that their
experience of the AI event aligned with or reinforced
their own personal values
Changed perspective (CP)
Refers to research participants who indicated their
experience of the AI event had a positive effect and
changed their meaning schema
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
188
Other transformative
learning (OTL)
Refers to changed perspective (CP) research participants
who expressed or indicated their experience of the AI
event was positive, they could attribute changes in their
meaning schema to the AI event, and they re-integrated
their new meaning schema into their lives, but did not
follow Mezirow’s model
Mezirow’s transformative
learning (MTL)
Refers to changed perspective (CP) participants who
expressed that the AI event had a positive effect on their
life, expressed or indicated a change in their meaning
schema, and they experienced the three reflective
practices and the ten stages of TL
Transformative learning
Critical self-reflection
Reflective dialogue
Reflective action
A critical assessment of the self concerning prior
learning, beliefs, attitudes, assumptions, behaviors, or
values
An engagement in discourse with another or others with
the intent to understand others or themselves more
clearly or in greater depth. Other researchers refer to this
as Critical Reflective Dialogue or Rational Dialogue, i.e.
Laiken, Eisen, Cranton.
An informed and reflective decision to act on the insights
gained from critical self-reflection and reflective
dialogue, which could be immediate, delayed, or a
reaffirmation of an existing pattern of action
Disorienting dilemma
An event that causes the research participant to begin
questioning their currently held learning, beliefs,
attitudes, assumptions, behaviors, or values
Self-examination with
negative feelings
An examination of learning, beliefs, attitudes, behaviors,
or values that causes the research participant to confront
or experience strong negative affect or emotions
Critical assessment of
assumptions and
relationships
The discovery and exploration of the basic subconscious
and underlying assumptions that define their meaning
schemas and relationships with others
Recognition of one’s
discontent and the process of
transformation are shared
When the research participant expresses or indicates that
others are involved in their transformative process, or a
new understanding of other’s perspectives and meaning
schemas in relation to their own process of
transformation
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
189
Exploration of options for
new roles, relationships, and
actions
Exploring new and different ways of being in the world,
in relationship with others, or of behaving in the world
and in relationship
Provisional trying of new
roles
Engaging in role playing or experimenting with new and
different ways of being in the world, in relationship with
others, or of behaving in the world and in relationship
Building competence and
confidence in new roles and
relationships
Expressing successful behaviors, actions, and roles for
acting, and ways of being in relationship according to
insights gained in the process of transformation
Planning a course of action
Evidenced by the active planning for putting the insights
gained in the process of transformation into action
Acquiring knowledge and
skills for implementing one’s
plans
The research participant has identified and is actively
acquiring new knowledge or skills with which to put into
action their plans
Re-integration into one’s life
on the basis of conditions
dictated by one’s new
perspective
Evidenced by the research participant successfully acting
on the insights gained in the process of transformation
Appreciative inquiry
The Constructionist Principle Meaning, knowledge, and learning are constructed
through “discursive interchanges and social interactions,
through processes of negotiation, conflict, improvisation,
and the like (Gergen, 1999)” thus the way we know is
fateful
The Principle of
Simultaneity
Inquiry and change in organizations are not separate
incidents but are the self-fulfilling destiny of the
questions we ask and the images of the future that they
provoke, change begins with the questions we ask and at
the moment we ask them
The Poetic Principle
Organizational systems are not closed books but are
narratives constantly unfolding in a never-ending story,
constantly being co-authored by its members, and AI
writes the next chapter in that story
The Anticipatory Principle
In human systems the anticipated or projected future
state influences the expectations, language and behaviors
of the members, thus deep change is a result of changing
the system’s imagery of the future
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4453
4454
190
The Positive Principle
Hope, interest, motivation, caring, positive effect and
social bonding, long lasting and sustainable change are a
response to the unconditional positive question. Positive
inquiry creates positive anticipation, positive images of
the future, and leads to positive response freeing
members of the system to construct a new positive reality
Discovery
A search to understand the "best of what is" and "what
has been." This phase begins with collaboration in
constructing appreciative interview questions, and
constructing an appreciative interview guide
Dream
An exploration and envisioning what might be in light of
the best of what the system might be
Design
Participants design through dialogue the ideal future state
for the system, or what should be
Destiny
Participants commit to plans and action steps that will
create and sustain the highest potential of the
organization, co-constructing the future designed above,
and leading to ‘inspired actions
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
4455
Appendix I
4456
Results of Coding for TL in the Data by Research Participant
191
Mary
Chris
Hillary
Annie
Sophia
Laurent
Gwen
Sarah
Igor
Burt
Critical Self Refection
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
Reflective Dialogue
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
Reflective Action
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
Subtotal Reflective Practices
3
3
2
2
0
1
3
3
3
1
Disorienting dilemma
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Self-examination with negative
feelings
A critical assessment of
assumptions and relationships
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
Recognition of one’s discontent
and the process of
transformation are shared
Subtotal Examination of Self
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
4
4
3
1
1
1
3
2
3
2
Exploration of options for new
roles, relationships, and actions
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Provisional trying of new roles
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Building competence and
confidence in new roles and
relationships
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
Subtotal Examination of roles
and Relationships
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
Planning a course of action
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
Acquiring knowledge and skills
for implementing one’s plans
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
Subtotal Planning
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
Reintegration into one’s life
based on new perspective
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
Subtotal Reintegration
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
Annie
Sophia
Laurent
Gwen
7
3
6
12
Expressed Change in Meaning
Perspective
CP
CP
CP
Type of TL expressed
M
TL
M
TL
OT L
A
V
Burt
Hillary
8
Igor
Chris
13
Sarah
Mary
13
Total TL experienced
192
10
12
9
CP
A
V
A
V
A
V
CP
A
V
-
-
OT L
OT L
4457
4458
Coding for transformative learning in the data by research participant (continued).
Bev
Ding
Marie
Valdez
Ian
Jerry
Sulaiman
Hall
Carr
Emily
Zoë
Critical Self Refection
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Reflective Dialogue
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
Reflective Action
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Subtotal Reflective
Practices
3
1
3
2
1
2
3
2
3
3
2
Disorienting dilemma
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Self-examination with
negative feelings
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
A critical assessment
of assumptions and
relationships
Recognition of one’s
discontent and the
process of
transformation are
shared
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Subtotal Examination
of Self
4
2
4
1
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
Exploration of options
for new roles,
relationships, and
actions
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
Transformative Learning in the Appreciative Inquiry Event
Marie
Valdez
Ian
Jerry
Sulaiman
Hall
Carr
Emily
Zoë
4461
Ding
4460
Bev
4459
193
Provisional trying of
new roles
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
Building competence
and confidence in new
roles and relationships
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Subtotal Examination
of roles and
Relationships
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
Planning a course of
action
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
Acquiring knowledge
and skills for
implementing one’s
plans
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Subtotal Planning
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
Reintegration into
one’s life based on
new perspective
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Subtotal Reintegration
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Total TL experienced
13
9
11
6
9
6
11
8
11
10
9
AV AV AV
AV
Expressed Change in
Meaning Perspective
CP
AV CP
Type of TL expressed
MTL -
AV AV AV CP
OTL -
-
-
OTL -
-
-
-