I have been looking into appreciative inquiry as a method (or should that be a methodology?) suited to my SIP. Catherine very kindly pointed toward Appreciative Inquiry at our last tutorial, suggesting that it might be of interest. It is indeed thought-provoking.

I am still reading about Appreciative Inquiry, but it already feels useful to my interests. My SIP will involve a group online discussion with my Performance Program colleagues relating to how our academic and technical teams interact in support of our students. I am interested in making this a positive interaction (of course) and am aware that there is the potential to get mired in negativity if our discussion starts to focus on what is lacking or the problems facing us. Appreciative Inquiry (AI) seeks to avoid this pitfall that is a potential in any organisational discussion by consistantly focussing on the positive in order to move forward in a positive direction.

I think that the notion of focussing on group successes and positive interaction in order to move forward toward more success seems really valid. Equally, I do find the AI critique of other change strategies including Action research as dwelling on problem solving and defecit-based thinking quite provocative. I do think most strategies have similar goals which relate to positive change. The real question is how to get to that positive change. I intuitively connect with the idea that positive interaction and positive thinking will tend more to positive change.

Propoents of AI are quite clear that if people are going to say that they are using the technique, that they should follow it completely. This involves quite a specific set of protocols. Certain interview techniques. I am more interested in the general principles of AI, so I am planning to make it clear that I am taking inspiration from the broad ideas of AI but not actually engaging in an Appreciative Inquiry study.

So, I have embarked on the odyssey that is the SIP.  I must confess that I find it all overwhelming.  Starting with making a choice of subject, and deciding on how focussed the inquiry should be.  Next reading into methodology, the rich range of possibilities for exploring a subject. Thinking about the overall project structure.  Who do I talk to? what questions to ask,? how to evaluate the results? will there be enough time for it all?

As well as wanting to address a subject which is directly part of my work at CSM I also want to explore methods which are outside of more traditional investigation techniques.  Working in the Performance program, and being a creative myself, I am interested in engaging in evaluative and communicative methods which reflect our practice.  These might be less literal and explanatory and more esoteric and emotive.  I am interested in seeing if I can develop a meaningful dialogue with my colleagues regarding the important and practical issue of how we work together using the lingua-franca of live art rather than relying on standard intellectual discussion.  Is this possible?  Is it useful? Am I experienced enough to attempt it?  Will I be able to evaluate this in a meaningful way? ( I’m a technician after all, shouldn’t I be attempting something more pragmatic?)