Transcript The adapted application of appreciative enquiry as a

The adapted application of
Appreciative Enquiry as a
qualitative research methodology
Exploring academic staff experiences of
engaging in learning and teaching
development interventions, and the ways
in which these have enhanced pedagogic
practice and student learning.
Appreciative Enquiry: Background
• It began in the 1980s as group
discussion/teamwork methodology
• to improve organisational systems without being
too critical
• by focusing on what is already working well in an
organisation
• and exploring possibilities in terms of
improvement
(Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987)
The unconditional positive question
• Traditionally, in the context of a research
interview, questioning techniques were used to
elicit only positive responses in relation to the
respondents’ experiences and perceptions
• The research thus focuses on:
“The most life giving, life-sustaining aspects of
organisational experience”
(Ludema, Cooperrider and Barrett, 2001)
Appreciative Enquiry in
an educational context
• More recently appreciative enquiry has been increasingly
applied in educational organisation
• As a means of monitoring and evaluation
(Baume, 2008)
• In this context it attempts to give collective and organisation
wide ownership/ authorship for positive transformation
• Evaluation becomes a collaborative means of improving
organisational systems
• And is negotiated, not imposed
• Consequent changes are more likely to be accepted by staff
• Since they have jointly been involved in evaluating themselves
and their organisation
When is Appreciative
Enquiry considered most effective?
• When high levels of participation and cooperation
are required
• The change process needs to be accelerated
• The work requires innovation among diverse
groups in a high stakes environment
• Multiple change initiatives need to be synthesized
(Fitzgerald, Murrell and Newman, 2002, p12)
Traditional Appreciative Enquiry
methodology
• Focus groups
• The four stages of appreciative enquiry:
1.
Discovery
4. Destiny
2. Dream
3. Design
(Ludema et al., 2001, p192)
Description of the 4 stages of
Appreciative Enquiry
1.
2.
3.
4.
Through facilitation of a moderator focus group
participants discuss:
Discovery: the most positive aspects of experience
Dream: ideal future development based on this positive
experience
Design: affirmation and consolidation of plans to work
towards this ideal
Destiny: plans created in the context of the focus groups
are translated into action outside the focus group, and are
owned by the participants
(Ludema et al., 2001, p192)
Appreciative Enquiry in practice:
• How was this methodology applied in 2 different research projects
exploring the experiences of academic staff at the University who
have engaged in learning and teaching development interventions?
• Lecturers’ engagement in Pathfinder, and the e-learning
development programme, and its impact on the application of new
technology in pedagogic practice. A qualitative case study based on
the experience of academic course staff at the University of
Brighton.
• Lecturers’ experience of learning and teaching fellowships within
a community of practice at the University of Brighton: an
exploration of the ways in which being a learning and teaching
fellow has enhanced the teaching practice of fellowship holders;
and their students’ learning experience.
Why adapt the traditional Appreciative
Enquiry methodology in the context of
the research projects I am conducting?
•
•
•
•
The unconditional question....
But not always... positive
A true and balanced research picture will only be created if
Negative responses and opinions are not stifled by a moderator’s
positive questioning
• Negative views should be allowed
• The moderator should then probe to see how participants think
barriers or problems can be overcome
• It is argued that this is the only way to truly generate positive change
through Appreciative Enquiry.
(Bushe, 2007)
Ownership by the researcher
In the context of these research projects the Appreciative Enquiry was owned
by the researcher rather than the participants for the following reasons:
1.
These research projects were not intended to be a formal evaluation of staff; they were
rather a means to explore their experiences, and ways in which learning and teaching
development interventions affected, and would continue to affect their students’ learning,
their teaching and their professional development.
2.
There was no obligation that staff should follow up the research interviews or focus groups
with an action plan. However, they were asked to consolidate ideas and plans they
discussed a the end of the interview/focus group. Some staff may have then put these plans
into action, but this may have been something they would do anyway.
3.
Individual in depth interviews, paired interviews and focus groups were conducted. In the
case of individual or paired interviews, ownership by participants is more difficult than in
focus groups. However, in the focus groups the participants had greater ownership over the
discussion. In all cases, open ended questions were used allowing participants complete
freedom to express themselves.
Putting participants at their ease
At the beginning of each interview or focus group the
moderator emphasised that :
• although the research was seeking to explore positive aspects of
their experience of learning and teaching interventions, that they
should feel free to express themselves freely, and talk about negative
aspects if they wished to. In this way the research would be
balanced, and not biased towards the positive.
• Moreover, it was also emphasised that this research was not a staff
evaluation, but rather an exploration of their experiences.
• In both projects the research data and findings would provide vital
information for the University of Brighton, identifying further staff
and student development needs, and successful strategies to support
staff and student learning.
Design of moderator’s guide
Phase 1: Discovery
• What did you get out of the intensive course redesigns?
• What did you find exciting about it?
• What made it a good experience?
• How do you think it affected your and your colleagues’ success in using e-learning
in their work?
• What made this success possible?
• How do you think the sessions affected students learning?
• What has made this development possible?
Phase 2: Dream
• In an ideal world how would you like e-learning to develop in the university ?
• In your work?
• And in colleagues’ work?
• How do you think your ideal e-learning goals could be realised?
• As a result of engaging in the sessions, how do you really see
e-learning developing in the future in your work?
• How do you see e-learning continuing to develop as a sustainable process?
Phase 3: Design
• How will e-learning developments in your work and your
colleagues’ work be achieved?
• How will sustainable e-learning development in their and your
work be achieved?
• What are the most important factors which will help realise the
goals you have described?
Phase 4: Destiny/ Delivery
• What are your action plans for achieving your goals?
• How will this action plan be carried out?
• Who will be responsible?
• What resources will be needed?
Was Appreciative Enquiry effective?
Case study: E-learning development research
• Because the moderator emphasised that this was not a staff
evaluation; and that participants were free to talk about negative
aspects of their experience, most staff were very honest about what
they felt was positive, what had worked for them, and what hadn’t
worked for them.
• When they did talk about what hadn’t worked or wasn’t developing,
with probing from the moderator, the participants talked about
factors which would help overcome a problem or issue in the future.
• This was very helpful, and without always focusing on the positive,
Appreciative Enquiry was very effective in identifying the very
positive experiences that participants commonly mentioned in
relation to the intensive course redesign sessions they attended; and
the sustained positive effects these sessions had on their
development of e-learning within their courses and practice.
• When participants talked about factors which hindered their
development of e-learning, they were able to give reasons, and
talk about possible solutions.
• Although such solutions may not be always within their
control, and may be things which need to be addressed at an
institutional level, the Appreciative Enquiry will now pass
ownership of positive organisational change to those people in
the institution who have the power to address issues raised by
this research, and summarised in the research findings report,
once it is written.
• In addition, some participants have been able to develop their
e-learning plans as discussed in the focus groups and
interviews. Others have found it more difficult to develop elearning quickly and need more time to initiate development.
Appreciative Enquiry has been very effective in
identifying the most positive and negative aspects
of participants’ experience, and this sense has
created a very honest research picture. It has
provided useful data and findings which may be
used to confirm that the intensive course
redesigns work very well; but that there are still
problems at institutional level which need to be
addressed in order to facilitate e-learning
development further.
Continuing concerns
Despite the fact that most respondents were
honest about both positive and negative factors
in focus groups and interviews, the focus of
this methodology on the positive still means
that the research may be considered biased or
skewed. Therefore, can we call it research? Or
should we simply call it Appreciative Enquiry?
Academics I have talked to about this are still
sceptical about it as a valid research
methodology?
What do you think?
References
•
Baume, D. (2008) “An overview of Monitoring and Evaluating Staff and Educational Development.” REDU,http://www.uclm.es/organos/vic_docencia/innovacion_educativa/congreso_red_u/Evaluation%20Summa
ry.pdf
•
Bushe, G.R. (2007) “Generativity and the Transformational Potential of Appreciative Inquiry.”
Organizational Generativity: Advances in Appreciative Inquiry, Vol.3
•
Bushe, G.R. (2007) “Appreciative Inquiry Is Not (Just) About The Positive”. OD Practitioner, Vol. 39,
No.4, pp30-35
•
Cooperrider, D. L., and S. Srivastva (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life, in R. Woodman and
W. Pasmore (Vol. Eds.), Research in organizational change and development, Vol.1, pp129-169,
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
•
Cooperrider, D. and F.J.Barrett (2002). “An Exploration of the Spiritual Heart of Human Science
Inquiry.”Reflections, Vol.3. No.3, pp56-62
•
Fitzgerald, S.P., Murrell, K.L. and H.L. Newman (2001). Appreciative inquiry – the new frontier, in
J.Waclawski and A.H. Church (Eds.), Organization development: Data driven methods for change. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp203-221
•
Ludema, J.D, D.L.Cooperrider and F.J. Barrett (2006). Appreciative Inquiry: the Power of the
Unconditional Positive Question, in Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury Eds., The Handbook of Action
Research, Sage, pp155-165
•
Wright, M. and A. Baker (2005). “The effects of appreciative inquiry interviews on staff in the UK
National Health Service.” International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 18, No.1, pp41-51