Notes on Appreciative Inquiry 
by Tom Strong
 

Most therapists recognize a major difference in clients when they 
shift from problem talk to discuss things clients appreciate: postures change, untapped energies come forth, and the shared horizon on preferred possibilities seems no longer hemmed in. Is this just some frivolous departure from the grim realities clients 'really' want to talk about, a shared and meaningless digression into wishful fantasy, or a cruel new-age application of "Don't worry, be happy"? 

To narrative therapists (e.g., Doan & Clifton, 1990), problems have requirements of us, and one of them is to stay immersed in the ways of talking they prescribe. The meanings performed in problem-talk are usually anchored in frustration, despair and impotence; while they evoke certain kinds of relationships. Karl Tomm (1991) suggested a route out of such ways of relating ("pathologizing 
interpersonal patterns") was to recognize and discuss competencies 
(healing interpersonal patterns). Appreciative inquiry (Bushe, 1995; 
Cooperrider, 1990; Cooperrider, 1998; Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999; Hammond & Royal, 1998; Srivasta & Cooperrider, 1990), an intervention designed to articulate and build on appreciated practices, is one clear example of engaging organizations, some as large as Chicago (Browne, 1998; Ludema, 1996), in discussing and building on what works for them. 

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) primarily grew out of the work of Suresh 
Srivasta and David Cooperrider (see Cooperrider & Srivasta, 1987) of Case Western Reserve University's Department of Organizational Behavior Departing from the normal problem-solving of most approaches to organizational development, AI views organizations not needing fixing so much as reaffirmation from appreciative understandings of their past and present. From a 'glass half-full' perspective, grounded in social constructionist thinking, AI "is an attempt to generate a collective image of a new and better future by exploring the best of what is and has been" (Bushe, 1995, p. 15). 

AI's aims are deliberate, while it doesn't prevent problem-talk, it doesn't attend to it or inquire about it either, saving its selective focus for what is appreciated. This it does by engaging 
organizational members in an interviewing process designed to distinguish, understand, and amplify the life-giving forces within that organization. 

Such a process could occur in interventions ranging from workshops to more elaborate and lengthy efforts at organizational change. AI seeks to foster desired continuity in organizations by liberating "the socially constructive passion" in its participants (Mary Parker Follett as cited in Ludema et al, 1997) by engaging them in dialogues around questions such as the following: 
 

What memories or images epitomize the things you appreciate about this organization? 

What images capture your hopes for this organization's future? What part could you play in keeping those hopeful images alive? 

Can you relate some heart-warming experiences you've had with the organization? Please elaborate. 

What do you value most about the people you work with? Pick a time when you felt things went most cooperatively and productively and describe in detail what was occurring that you appreciated. 
Since a primary purpose in asking such questions is to generate 
interactive dialogue, facilitators bring much to the discussion in 
outlining and maintaining its focus on the appreciated, and by modeling the forms of interaction they are occurring.  There are no "protocols" or methods in the normal sense one would regard an intervention, save for the questions developed to encourage discussion of the appreciated that can be built upon. In the case of the "Imagine Chicago" project (Browne, 1998; Ludema, 1996), youth, using questions like those above, were recruited as 
interviewers of adults, a move that altered the appreciation both groups had for each other. This was epitomized in a response Browne (1998) shared, "a frequent interview response to the question, '" What image captures your hopes for the city's future?" was for the adult interviewee to point to the young person and say '"You!'"  Above all, AI aims to engage its participants in discussions that lead to the development of a "textured vocabulary of hope", full of possibilities (Ludema et al, 1997). 

The recently published, "Lessons from the field: Applying appreciative inquiry" (Hammond & Royal, 1998) offers a good review of how AI has been used. 

There are other recent examples of this kind of constructive 
research by stimulated dialogue. Many readers will be familiar with the Public Conversations Project in Cambridge, Massachusetts (see Chasin & Herzig, 1993) which uses a structured dialogue format to invite participants holding polarized political views (e.g., abortion) to better understand each other as individuals.  In my own work, I have shifted to workshops asking questions of participants that have them approach their concerns from alternative perspectives, largely to engage them in different ways of relating to the concerns and to each other as they generate preferred possibilities (Strong, 1997). 

Appreciative inquiry, and these other examples, are constructive attempts to generate a multiplicity of understandings, and enhanced relationships through focused dialogue. 

References

Browne, B. (1998) Imagine Chicago. In S. Hammond & C. Royal (Eds.) Lessons from the field: Applying appreciative inquiry. (pp.77-89 ) Plano, TX: Practical Press 

Bushe, G. (1995) Advances in Appreciative Inquiry as and organizational development intervention. Organizational Development Journal, 13 (3): 14-22 

Chasin, R. & Herzig, M. (1993) Creating systemic interventions for the sociopolitical arena. In B. Berger-Gould & D. DeMuth (Eds.) The global family therapist: Integrating the personal, professional and political. (pp. 141-192, Needham, Ma: Allyn & Bacon 

Cooperrider, D. (1998) Getting started. In S. Hammond & C. Royal (Eds.) Lessons from the field: Applying appreciative inquiry. (pp. 148-159) Plano, TX: Practical Press 

Cooperrider, D. (1990) Positive image, positive action: The affirmative basis of organizing. In S Srivasta & D. Cooperrider (Eds.), Appreciative management and leadership: the power of positive thought and action in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass 

Cooperrider, D. & Whitnery, D. (1999) When stories have wings: How relational responsibility opens new options for action. In S. McNamee & K. Gergen (Eds.) Relational responsibility: Resources for sustainable dialogue. (pp. 57-70) Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Cooperrider, D. & Srivasta, S. (1987) Appreciative inquiry into 
organizational life. Organizational Change and Development, Vol.1: 129-169. 

Doan, R. & Clifton, D. (1990) The rules of problem lifestyles: making externalizations more real. Dulwich Centre Newsletter No. 4: 8-21. 

Furman, B. & Ahola, T. (1992) Solution talk. New York: Norton. 

Hammond.S., & Royal, C. (1998) Lessons from the field: Applying appreciative inquiry. Plano, TX: Practical Press. 

Kelm, J. (1998) Introducing the AI philosophy. In S. Hammond & C. Royal (Eds.) Lessons from the field: Applying appreciative inquiry. (pp. 162-172) Plano, TX: Practical Press. 

Ludema, J. (1996) Narrative inquiry: Collective storytelling as a source of hope, knowledge and action in organizational life. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Case Western Reserve University. 

Ludema, J., Wilmot, T. & Srivasta, S. (1997) Organizational hope:Reaffirming the constructive task of social and organizational inquiry. Human Relations, 50: 1015-1051 

Srivasta, S. & Cooperrider, D. (Eds.) (1990) The power of positive thought and action in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Strong, T. (1997) Conversations about conversations on chronic pain and illness: Some assumptions and questions for a one day workshop. Gecko: A Journal of Deconstruction and Narrative Ideas in Therapeutic Practice. 2, 45-63 

Tomm, K (1991) Beginnings of a "HIPS" and "PIPS" approach to psychiatric assessment. The Calgary Participator, 21-24 
 
You are visitor  to this page!