From appreciative inquiry to ‘transformative inquiry’: Explorations in pedagogy

1. From appreciative inquiry to ‘transformative inquiry’: Explorations in pedagogy Real Estate and Planning Dr. Richard J. Nunes Dr. Angelique Chettiparambil Rajan Development Studies Association Conference, London Insert footer on Slide Master 03 November 2012 www.henley.reading.ac.uk

2. Overview • Compares ‘critical inquiry’ and ‘appreciative inquiry’; • Introduces ‘transformative inquiry’ • Discusses potential for pedagogy • Presents two early attempts to use this framework in pedagogy 3

3. Critical Inquiry • Systematic inquiry that seeks to reveal the operation of wider societal structures such as power; • Claims to objective knowledge; • Claims to ‘truth’ and understanding; • Can be inclusive and dialogical; • Includes a vision of a better world; • It can be argued that it often results in a problem focus with an emphasis on solutions 3

4. Differences between critical and appreciative inquiry

5. Similarities between critical and appreciative inquiry

6. Combining critical and appreciative inquiry

7. Transformative inquiry (TI) • Claims to retain the mobilizing appeal of AI with the reason of CI. • Claims to foster informed positions on change (whether transformative or conservative) conducive to action. • Can result in the inclusion of new voices. • Potentially expands the circle of influence. • Recognizes the power/reality of the whole in the specific. • More awareness of consequences (practical reason). • Can result in second order learning 7

8. TI in Pedagogy?Some experiments 7

9. Case study 1 –Cross-faculty sustainability learning: Background • University initiative • Optional undergraduate module (Part 1) • Iteration between academic knowledge and unique/shared experience • Cross-disciplinary learning in ‘place’; ‘situated judgments’ • ‘Sustainability literate’ professionals and active citizenship 8

10. Case study 1 –Cross-faculty sustainability learning: Background • The Debate: • Affirmation of ‘sustainability literacy’ ensures students acquire knowledge, skills and values that will assist them in living and working sustainably (AI). • An apriori stance on the political issue of development and the environment (i.e. sustainability) undermines critical inquiry (CI). • As mutually exclusive statements, the debate reaches an impasse. Together they carry a demand for a new pedagogy (TI) 8

11. Case study 1 –Cross-faculty sustainability learning: Assessment • Assessment -1: Reflective learning (tracking learning experience and development) – Log (online) (RI) • Assessment – 2: Inquiry project (students develop criteria to judge their own learning; second order learning) (TI) • Stage 1: – Topic Choice (CI); • Stage 2: – Progress Report (AI) • Stage 3: – Project Development Blog (CI/AI) • Stage 4: – Final Project Presentation: (CI/AI) • Stage 5: – Final Project: (TI) 8

12. Case study 2 – International work based learning: Background • Capping module • Iteration between professional knowledge and action: Reflective practitioners • Situated nature of ‘truth’ and ‘ethics’ • Cross-cultural learning • Professional managers 9

13. Case study 2 – International work based learning: Process • Assessed process: formative assessment • Focus on Work placement: • Assessed pre-engagement: assessment-1 (CI) • Monitored ethnographic engagement: (CI and AI) • Assessed post engagement: assessment -2 (AI) and Assessment 3 (TI) • Focus on Individual/Career/Profession: • Assessed reflection – Assessment – 3 (RI) 10

14. Case study 2 – International work based learning: Assessment • Assessment -1: Critical pre-engagement ( background of country, organisation, work) – Report • Assessment –2: Appreciative post engagement presentation. • Assessment -3: Reflective report (ethnographic TI and ‘professional’ RI to lead to double loop learning). 11

15. TI in pedagogy TI draws on a: • Social constructivist view of education • Privileges the learner and his/her prior experiences • Conversational learning • Reflective learning • Appreciative learning • Analytical learning 15

16. References • Cuypers, S. E. (2004) Critical thinking, autonomy and practical reason. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38(1) 75-90. • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105 • Giroux, H. (1991) Postmodernism, feminism, and cultural politics: Redrawing educational boundaries. Albany: State University of New York Press. • Grant, S. and Humphries, M. (2006) Critical evaluation of Appreciative Inquiry. Action research. 4(4), 401-418. • Hedberg, P. R. (2009) Learning through Reflective Classroom practice. Journal of Management Education, 33(1), 10-36. • Neville, M. G. (2008) Using Appreciative Inquiry and Dialogical Learning to Explore Dominant Paradigms. Journal of Management Education, 32(1), 100-117. • Van der Haar, D. and Hosking, D. M. (2004) Evaluating appreciative inquiry: A relational constructionist perspective. Human Relations, 57(8), 1017-1036. • Verma, N. 2012. ‘Generative inquiry. A mindful harmonisation of appreciation and critiquing’. Unpublished paper. World Appreciative Inquiry Conference • Yballe, L. and O’Connor, D. (2000) Appreciative Pedagogy: Constructing Positive Models for Learning. Journal of Management Education, 24(4), 474-483. 11 11