appreciative inquiry for strategic planning: an evaluative
TRANSCRIPT
University of Calgary
PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository
Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations
2013-01-18
Appreciative Inquiry for Strategic Planning: An
Evaluative and Exploratory Case Study of Two
Colleges
Saretsky, Kelly
Saretsky, K. (2013). Appreciative Inquiry for Strategic Planning: An Evaluative and Exploratory
Case Study of Two Colleges (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
doi:10.11575/PRISM/24978
http://hdl.handle.net/11023/424
doctoral thesis
University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their
thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through
licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under
copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.
Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca
UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
Appreciative Inquiry for Strategic Planning:
An Evaluative and Exploratory Case Study of Two Colleges
by
Kelly Lynn Saretsky
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
GRADUATE DIVISION OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
CALGARY, ALBERTA
JANUARY, 2013
© Kelly Lynn Saretsky 2013
ii
ABSTRACT
This case study attempts to analyze and assess the experiences of two colleges,
both of which have chosen and used Appreciative Inquiry (AI) as their strategic planning
methodology. These institutions are The College of the North Atlantic/Qatar (CNAQ)—
in Doha, Qatar—and Northern Essex Community College (NECC)—in Haverhill,
Massachusetts. The specific purposes of this study were to collect empirical data as an
objective assessment of AI’s overall effectiveness; to isolate and define the recurring
themes which seemed to have contributed to the success—or the lack of success—of this
planning methodology; to identify other impacts that AI may have had on these two
college’s communities and campus cultures; and, to look for factors that could potentially
lead to the expanded and sustained us of AI within these different environments.
The results of the study indicate that Appreciative Inquiry has been an effective
strategic planning process as experienced by these two colleges: 91% of NECC survey
respondents and 90% of CNAQ survey respondents (90% overall) felt that the process
resulted in meaningful future directions for the colleges. A large majority of participants
(85% for NECC, 75% for CNAQ, 79% overall) also responded favorably to the planning
process itself: they felt that the process was a good use of their time; that they could see
their contributions in the plan; that they learned something new and valuable about their
colleagues; that the process helped them feel excited about the future of the college; and,
that they had sufficient opportunity to participate.
The major themes which seem to have contributed to the success of the
methodology included AI’s inclusive and collaborative nature; the positive, strengths-
based and solution-focused mind set; and, the energy and enthusiasm created through
working collaboratively toward a preferred future.
Finally, a model is presented at the conclusion of the study, which attempts to
define the most critical factors necessary for the effective utilization of AI—to provide an
indication of the expected outcomes of this strategic planning methodology—and to
summarize the factors that will hopefully lead to Appreciative Inquiry’s continuing
expansion and long-term sustainability.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
One of the people I interviewed for my research study commented that,
“Appreciative Inquiry is a team sport.” So, too, is undertaking a doctoral degree. There
are so many people who collectively made this dissertation possible.
When I first started looking into undertaking a doctoral degree, I contacted Dr.
Margaret Patterson at the University of Calgary. I am indebted to her for taking me on as
a student. This dissertation, and my positive learning experience, were only possible
because of her support and guidance.
I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Janet Groen and Dr. Lane
Glenn for their thoughtful comments and continuous support. This dissertation is much
better because of their input. I also appreciate the time of my examiners, Dr. Joan
McArthur-Blair and Dr. Loren Falkenberg, for evaluating my work and posing such
meaningful questions.
My appreciation goes to Northern Essex Community College for opening up their
community to me. I am grateful to all of the employees who participated in the survey
and in the interviews for the time that they took, for their honesty, and for showing me
what an appreciative, strengths-based campus feels like. Special recognition must go to
Dr. Lane Glenn, for enabling and facilitating my research at NECC and to Judith Kamber
and Ellen Grondine for sharing with me their AI expertise.
I am indebted to my own college, the College of the North Atlantic – Qatar, for
giving me the opportunity to introduce Appreciative Inquiry. Thanks to the employees
who gave their time to respond openly and thoughtfully to the survey and interviews.
Special thanks to Dr. Ken MacLeod, our president, for enabling me to undertake my
iv
research and for being an appreciative leader. My gratitude goes to Rolene Pryor, my
partner in AI, who helped make both the strategic planning process at CNAQ and this
dissertation a reality.
I wish to thank my mom, Carole Josephson, my dad, Joe Josephson, my brother,
Mike Josephson, and my grandma, Marge Lambert, for their continuous support and for
their genuine interest in my research. And finally, to my husband, Mike, and our children
Amy and Daniel, thank you for encouraging me to pursue this dream – and for giving me
the gifts of time and unconditional love.
v
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my dad, Dr. M.I. Josephson – my mentor.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iii
Dedication ...........................................................................................................................v
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1: THE NATURE OF THE STUDY ............................................................1
Appreciating Being Appreciated ..................................................................................1
Appreciative Inquiry: Finding a Label for this Experience ..........................................3
Setting the Context: The College of the North Atlantic – Qatar (Case 1) ....................4
Setting the Context: Northern Essex Community College (Case 2) .............................9
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions............................................................10
Significance of the Study ............................................................................................11
The Importance of Researcher Objectivity .................................................................13
Delimitations of the Study ..........................................................................................15
Limitations of the Study .............................................................................................16
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................18
Purpose of the Literature Review ...............................................................................18
Appreciative Inquiry ...................................................................................................18
History and Origin of Appreciative Inquiry ...............................................................19
Appreciative Inquiry: Definitions ...............................................................................21
Appreciative Inquiry: Process .....................................................................................23
Appreciative Inquiry: Theory and Theoretical Framework ........................................25
Appreciative Inquiry: The Generality and Uniqueness of Its Theory ........................25
Appreciative Inquiry in Higher Education ..................................................................32
Appreciative Inquiry and Strategic Planning ..............................................................34
Examples of Organizations Using AI for Strategic Planning .....................................36
Strategic Planning in Higher Education ......................................................................37
Appreciative Inquiry, Strategic Planning and Higher Education ...............................41
The Longer-Term Sustainability of Appreciative Inquiry ..........................................44
Appreciative Inquiry: A Critical Appraisal ................................................................46
vii
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................51
Introduction .................................................................................................................51
Research Paradigm .....................................................................................................52
Qualitative Research Paradigm: Pragmatism .............................................................54
Methodology: Rationale for an Evaluative and Exploratory Case Study ...................58
Data Collection: A Step-Wise and Generative Process ..............................................60
Data Analysis ..............................................................................................................68
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ................................................................................................71
Introduction .................................................................................................................71
Research Question 1 ...................................................................................................72
Research Question 2 .................................................................................................106
Research Question 3 .................................................................................................143
Research Question 4 .................................................................................................150
Research Question 5 .................................................................................................157
Summary ...................................................................................................................164
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................165
Introduction ...............................................................................................................165
Summary of Key Research Findings and Results .....................................................166
Recommendations for the Use of Appreciative Inquiry as a Higher Education
Strategic Planning Methodology .......................................................................179
Recommendations for Further Research ...................................................................189
Conclusion ................................................................................................................191
References .......................................................................................................................193
Appendix A: Surveys .....................................................................................................204
Appendix B: Interview Consent Forms .......................................................................217
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Data Collection Stages and Timing……………………………... 67
Table 2 Summary of CNAQ Strategic Planning Timing and Activities……………….. 95
Table 3 Summary of NECC’s Strategic Planning Timing and Activities……………... 104
Table 4 Strategic Planning Outcome Question Results for CNAQ……………………. 108
Table 5 Strategic Planning Outcome Question Results for NECC…………………….. 109
Table 6 Strategic Planning Process Effectiveness Question Results for CNAQ………. 111
Table 7 Strategic Planning Process Effectiveness Question Results for NECC………..112
Table 8 Comparison of Perceived Overall Effectiveness with Outcome and Process
Effectiveness……………………………………………………………………… 115
Table 9 Comparison of Other Strategic Planning Processes with the AI Planning
Process at CNAQ…………………………………………………………………. 117
Table 10 Comparison of Other Strategic Planning Processes with the AI Planning
Process at NECC………………………………………………………………….. 118
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The Appreciative Inquiry 4-D Model (adapted from Watkins & Mohr,
2001) ......................................................................................................................... 86
Figure 2. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC in
response to the questions, “What did you like about the process?”, and “What
was the highlight of the process?” .......................................................................... 123
Figure 3. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC in
response to questions about what contributed to the effectiveness of the strategic
planning processes used. ......................................................................................... 128
Figure 4. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC in
response to questions about how this strategic planning process compared with
others. ...................................................................................................................... 133
Figure 5. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC in
response to why they would recommend AI for strategic planning to colleagues. 135
Figure 6. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC in
response to the question “What would you change or ‘want more of’?” ............... 137
Figure 7. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC in
response to the question “Why was the process ineffective?” ................................ 141
Figure 8. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC
about the impacts on the campus communities of using Appreciative Inquiry. ..... 145
Figure 9. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC
regarding why some participants did not feel that there had been positive
changes as a result of using AI for strategic planning at their college.................... 149
Figure 10. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC
as to factors that will foster the sustainability of using Appreciative Inquiry. ....... 151
Figure 11. The major themes related to the success of the Appreciative Inquiry
process for strategic planning at both CNAQ and NECC ....................................... 170
Figure 12. A “word cloud” which visually depicts the words that participants used
during the “Leave Your Mark” activity expressing their feelings about their
involvement in the planning process and the future of the college ......................... 172
Figure 13. The major themes related to dissatisfaction with the Appreciative Inquiry
process for strategic planning at both CNAQ and NECC ....................................... 173
Figure 14. An emerging model for the successful use of Appreciative Inquiry for
strategic planning. ................................................................................................... 191
1
CHAPTER 1: THE NATURE OF THE STUDY
Appreciating Being Appreciated
At an earlier stage of my career in higher education, while working at a well-
respected university in Canada, I experienced a leadership moment that proved to be
unforgettable. The following section describes the background to that moment.
The administrative department I headed, a group of about ten, reported through
the Vice President Academic (VPA) of the institution. However, in the five years that the
VPA had been in this leadership position, he had never visited our offices despite
working in the same building. Many staff members in my department had never met him
or spoken with him other than to say hello and goodbye, and some did not even know
what he looked like.
When this VPA went on sabbatical for a year, an Acting VPA was appointed
and—very soon after taking office—he asked to attend our next staff meeting. I informed
my staff that the first agenda item for that meeting would include a talk with the new
VPA, and it is not an exaggeration to say that we were quite apprehensive as to the intent
of this surprise visit. Our university had been through years of budget and personnel cut-
backs, the formal and informal discussions within all departments had become
increasingly negative, morale on campus was low, and, understandably, all of us assumed
that this meeting would be more of the same.
Instead, however, the Acting VPA began his participation by asking staff
members to tell him what their job was, what they felt they were “best at,” what they
liked most about their job, what they liked about working at the University, and what
2
they liked doing in their personal time. As each person took his or her turn, the
excitement and the energy in the room began to increase. People started talking about
“life giving” moments as opposed to career-threatening ones.
What followed was even more inspirational. The Acting VPA listened very
closely to each person and asked probing follow-up questions when he sensed excitement
in the dialogue. He then related to all of them, individually, as to why and how their roles
were critical to the core mission and vision of their university. He also connected to all
staff members on a personal level by commenting on what they each enjoyed doing away
from the office either as an interest he shared or as an acknowledgement that he wanted
to know more about that activity. In other words, he demonstrated a genuine appreciation
of and respect for every person in that room.
While my recounting of that staff meeting and subsequent events is largely
anecdotal, I think it is fair to say that our team left that meeting very different from how
we felt when we first walked in. All staff members seemed to have more energy,
appeared to be more productive, creative and innovative, and there was a real sense of
teamwork. Also, throughout his one-year term, the Acting VPA continued to drop in to
our offices to catch up with people. He attended many more of our meetings, and he
always contributed positively.
To this day, therefore, if I am asked to describe an experience with an
inspirational leader, it is this story that I tell. It is, unfortunately, a story with an unhappy
ending in that when the tenured VPA returned from sabbatical and brought back his own
aloof and negative administrative style morale deteriorated very rapidly.
3
However, what I did not know then—but know now—is that what made the
Acting VPA so effective is that he was an “appreciative leader”—one who has the
potential to “mobilize creative potential and turn it into positive power—to set in motion
positive ripples of confidence, energy, enthusiasm, and performance—to make a positive
difference in the world” (Whitney, Trosten-Bloom, & Rader, 2010, p. 3).
Appreciative Inquiry: Finding a Label for this Experience
Approximately ten years later, in 2008, I accepted a new job that involved
strategic planning at a Canadian-sponsored college in Doha, Qatar, and I enrolled in a
five-day training course called Labour Market Analysis. On the final day, the instructors
very briefly introduced a concept called Appreciative Inquiry (AI), which was the first
time I had heard that term. They spent very little time discussing the concept, but what
caught my immediate attention was AI’s apparent focus on an unconditionally positive
approach, on dialogue, on solutions and on whole-system involvement. I suspected, then,
that there was something very worthwhile about this methodology and that it might be
effective within the realm of higher education and for my own college. I was reminded,
also, of the approach that the Acting VPA had taken in Canada. At that point in time,
however, I was too busy with more immediate priorities to consider the importance of
this new concept called AI.
One of those immediate priorities that I needed to attend to was to determine what
had actually been done in regard to strategic planning at my new college prior to my first
contract there. I had heard, anecdotally and via the grapevine, about one failed attempt at
planning—because the consultant who was brought in and our Qatari partners did not see
eye-to-eye on the approach. I was subsequently peripherally involved in a second attempt
4
at planning that also did not sustain itself. I believe this happened because it did not
involve the whole system and was very top down. Then, in 2009, we were once again
asked to produce a strategic plan—and this time it sounded even more significant and
urgent because of (1) new competition in the technical college market in our area, (2) the
need to enhance our college’s reputation, and (3) the College’s renegotiation of its
contract to continue to offer technical education in Qatar. A strategic planning committee
was formed, of which I was a member; but from my point of view, the other members
seemed determined to head down the traditional “top down and what are we doing
wrong” road, which was likely to lead to failure again.
While trying to find a more effective alternative to this traditional approach, I
recalled my first brief introduction to AI, and I decided to attend an Appreciative Inquiry
Facilitator Training Course. I came back from this excellent course with a “paradigm
shift,” both personally and professionally. An important moment for me was listening to
an interview with David Cooperrider, who is the founder of AI, when he said that
institutions are not problems to be solved but, rather, are miracles to be embraced and
discovered. I became convinced, then, that developing an appreciative and strengths-
based organization was the transformational philosophy and process that our college
needed to produce an effective strategic plan, and, perhaps most importantly, to change
and enhance our organizational culture.
Setting the Context: The College of the North Atlantic – Qatar (Case 1)
As my dissertation title suggests, this study focused on two colleges, the College
of the North Atlantic – Qatar and Northern Essex Community College. The following
rather detailed background information would therefore seem necessary. The College of
5
the North Atlantic – Qatar (CNAQ), situated in the city of Doha and the middle-eastern
country of Qatar, is a satellite campus of the College of the North Atlantic (CNA) which
has its headquarters in Newfoundland, Canada. CNAQ opened in September 2002
through a ten-year agreement between the State of Qatar; it is presently Qatar’s premier
comprehensive technical college.
CNAQ has approximately 750 staff and 4,500 full- and part-time students. It
combines a Canadian curriculum and industry expertise in five program areas including
Business Studies, Engineering Technology and Industrial Trades, Health Sciences,
Information Technology and Security Training. CNAQ’s Corporate Services and
Continuing Education Division offers specialized courses for corporate clients as well as
evening and weekend courses for individuals.
Using Appreciative Inquiry for Strategic Planning at CNAQ
In 2009, the CNAQ Joint Oversight Board, our joint governing body involving
both CNA and the State, requested that the College create a five-year Strategic Plan.
While we had already undertaken other unsuccessful planning processes, the directive
was clear that a genuinely effective plan needed to be created and delivered. As the
person in the major planning-leadership role at CNAQ at this time, I was compelled to
ensure that this planning process was successful. Our college had a history of negativity,
lack of employee involvement in decision making and lack of confidence in leadership. It
was apparent to me that a unique planning process was required as was a transformation
of our campus culture; therefore, I began researching alternative approaches to strategic
planning.
6
It was at this time that I attended the Appreciative Inquiry Facilitator Training
course mentioned earlier. I was convinced that AI was a process that would prove
successful at CNAQ. On my return to CNAQ/Doha after the course, I did further research
into the AI approach and discovered that many companies and corporations—and even
some colleges—were now achieving great success using AI for strategic planning. I then
decided to create a presentation for our Strategic Planning Core Team called Creating
Magic at CNAQ—Using Appreciative Inquiry for Strategic Planning complete with
wizard pictures and the sounds of magic wands. While this might sound inappropriate for
the conservative academic world of Qatar, I felt that the energy of AI would prove
contagious and compelling; as a result, the committee unanimously agreed that we
needed a new approach to strategic planning and that AI was the best alternative. At this
point we were off and running with a process that we called “Creating Our
Future…Together!”
The first thing that I did as part of our planning process was to involve all of our
strategic planning team in an Appreciative Inquiry session. We wanted them to
experience the process for themselves. We felt they could only be fully supportive
proponents if they understood and believed in AI themselves. The strategic planning team
committed to being completely inclusive in our approach to planning by offering all of
our stakeholders (students, graduates, employees, industry partners, members of the
community) the opportunity to participate in the strategic planning process through
involving them in an Appreciative Inquiry session. Over a four-week time period we had
more than 400 people participate in our AI sessions.
7
The data from all sessions were recorded and used by our strategic planning team
during a two-day session where they reviewed, themed and synthesized that data and
“Created Our Future…Together.” The result of this phase of the planning process was a
high-level plan which outlined a renewed vision and mission, a set of guiding principles
and five compelling strategic directions. We invited all of our stakeholders back to
preview the plan in order to ensure that we “got it right” and that they could “see
themselves” in the plan.
In my opinion, while this fully documented strategic plan was the intended
outcome from the process, what I really noticed was what was happening within and to
the College. We had been plagued by a lengthy period of negativity that was being
reflected, and getting worse, in our annual employee opinion survey. But what I
witnessed now were people sharing their peak experiences, smiling, laughing, attending
sessions, creating provocative, positive statements for the future —and engaging whole-
heartedly in the creative or visual part of the process. People who did not know each
other very well were getting together for one-on-one dialogues and group conversations
and were discovering, dreaming and designing our destiny together. Something powerful
certainly seemed to be happening—and that something was worth exploring further.
Our second phase of planning involved the development of College-wide goals
and initiatives for each of the five strategic directions outlined in the plan we developed,
as well as the guiding principles. Due to the perceived success of the first round of
planning activities and the positive engagement of our stakeholders, we used
Appreciative Inquiry again—adding additional AI elements such as the Strengths,
Opportunities, Aspirations and Results (SOAR) methodology. Also, an additional 400
8
stakeholders were engaged in this process. This phase of the planning was also a success,
and this enhanced version of the plan, CNAQ Strategic Plan 2011-2016, was ratified by
the Joint Oversight Board of CNAQ in June 2011.
With the commencement of the 2011-2012 academic year in September, we
entered the third phase of our strategic planning process—action planning and
implementation, an exciting and eventful time. On the one hand, we believed that we had
selected the right methodology in AI and had already started to build it into other aspects
of our college such as recruitment and hiring, performance development and team
building. On the other hand, we wanted to be able to ascertain, definitively, whether AI
had been successful for our planning process. To be accountable we needed to be able to
assure our stakeholders and our governing body that we were using an effective and
credible approach.
In addition, we currently have many other institutions asking about our
philosophy and process for planning. We have shared our approach freely, and we can
continue to share our perception of the success of this process, but we would like to be
able to demonstrate even more objectively the effectiveness of Appreciative Inquiry for
our strategic planning. There are many claims being made about the effectiveness of AI
and its role in strategic planning, but there is also a dearth of evidence to back up these
claims. Hopefully, therefore, this study will provide the opportunity to add to this
positive-approach body of knowledge, for the sake of our own college, as well as that of
other higher education institutions wishing to implement successful and sustainable
strategic planning.
9
Setting the Context: Northern Essex Community College (Case 2)
Northern Essex Community College (NECC), which opened in 1961, is a two-
year public college located in Essex County in north-eastern Massachusetts. NECC is one
of 15 community colleges in the Massachusetts Higher Education system and serves
16,000 full- and part-time students each year. It offers post-secondary education through
the associate degree level, including career programs in areas such as nursing and allied
health, computers, criminal justice, paralegal studies and deaf studies as well as transfer
programs for students who start their education at Northern Essex and transfer for their
junior and senior years, eventually earning a bachelor’s degree or higher. The College
also offers developmental courses in writing, mathematics and English as a Second
Language, designed to prepare students for college-level work and non-credit programs
for career advancement or personal enrichment.
Using Appreciative Inquiry for Strategic Planning at NECC
NECC was selected, for the purposes of this dissertation, because it is also home
to a strategic planning process based on the principles of Appreciative Inquiry. In mid-
2006 the College began preparations for its third Strategic Plan and made the decision to
use AI as the primary methodology. In the fall of 2006, the Appreciative Inquiry Planning
Committee was formed, comprised of faculty, staff, students, administrators and trustees.
Guided by two nationally known practitioners in the field of AI, the Planning Committee
met in January and March 2007 over a period of several days. Members of the Committee
conducted more than 150 “appreciative interviews,” seeking input and comment from
stakeholders throughout the college community, both internal and external. In May 2007,
10
this planning process culminated in an Appreciative Inquiry Summit, entitled Inspiring
the Future: Achieving Regional Excellence.
NECC embarked on their next strategic planning process in September 2011 and,
once again, used Appreciative Inquiry as the planning philosophy and methodology.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
A major purpose of this doctoral case study is to describe, evaluate and compare
the strategic planning processes used at the College of the North Atlantic – Qatar and at
Northern Essex Community College. To this end the following five research questions
form the basis of the study:
1. How did the colleges plan and implement their strategic planning processes using
Appreciative Inquiry?
2. Did the employees who participated in the strategic planning process believe that
Appreciative Inquiry was an effective tool in the development of college strategy?
If so, how? If not, why?
3. What other impacts did the use of Appreciative Inquiry for planning have on the
college communities?
4. What are the characteristics that foster the sustainable use of Appreciative Inquiry
at the colleges?
5. What similarities exist, if any, between the experiences of the College of the
North Atlantic – Qatar and Northern Essex Community College in using
Appreciative Inquiry for strategic planning? What differences exist, if any?
11
Significance of the Study
In August 2011, I searched the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database to
identify dissertations completed during the past ten years that had the words
“Appreciative Inquiry” in the citation or abstract. My assumption was that any Masters
and Doctoral degree work already conducted would be a good indication of past research
trends and, perhaps, potential future scholarly work. I reviewed each of the 269
dissertations identified to determine whether Appreciative Inquiry was a tool used in the
study, in other words was a component of the actual methodology, or whether AI—its
overall impact or effectiveness—was the actual focus of the study.
Of these 269 dissertations identified by ProQuest, 206 (77%) used AI, in full or in
part, as the methodology. Only 54 (20%) studied some aspect of AI as the focus of the
dissertation whereas only eight (3%) studied both AI as the topic and used AI as the
methodology for the study. Also, over the ten-year time frame the number of published
dissertations increased from a low of 19 in 2002 to a high of 33 in 2005, and this number
has levelled out since then.
In addition, while looking for research that could be relevant for my study, I
searched for dissertations that focussed on the impact and effectiveness of Appreciative
Inquiry and those specifically related to higher education. There were only six studies
within this category. Similarly, a search for dissertations that focussed on the impact and
effectiveness of AI as it related specifically to overall strategic planning resulted in only
two dissertations. Interestingly, however, they were both in the realm of higher
education.
12
Diane Spence (2007) completed an evaluative case study regarding the use of an
Appreciative Inquiry process for futures planning within a college of education at a
public university in Tennessee. Judy Walters (2006) undertook a case study of the use of
AI as a planned change strategy at Merritt College in California. Furthermore, Spence
and Walters both recommended that additional case studies be conducted to understand
the impact of Appreciative Inquiry in other higher education settings. Spence, in
particular, emphasized the need for additional research, in the area of the sustainability of
AI—and in particular the sustainability of genuine transformational changes or outcomes
from using the AI process in planning.
Finally, the results of the foregoing review would seem to show that Appreciative
Inquiry is now, and will continue to be, a popular methodology for collecting qualitative
data in doctoral studies. However, it also signals the need for more research to be
undertaken on the effectiveness of Appreciative Inquiry as a methodology and
organizational development tool.
A more general review of the literature also indicates that AI is being used at an
increasingly growing pace world-wide for organizational culture change, for leadership
development, for performance management, for academic advising, for enhancing
communication, for teambuilding, just to name a few. Given the increasing number of
organizations using AI and given the increasing number of organizational development
activities for which it is being used, having evidence of its value and effectiveness is
increasingly urgent (van der Haar & Hoskings, 2004).
This case study, therefore, should be a valuable addition to the body of knowledge
which attempts to assess the effectiveness of AI for use in strategic planning, specifically
13
within a higher education environment—and in particular within Appreciative Inquiry’s
sustainability.
The Importance of Researcher Objectivity
The mitigation of bias, conscious or sub-conscious is obviously important for
research validity in general. Within this study, however, it has particular significance:
In almost all case studies the researcher is the primary source of the data
collection and analysis; thus all results and conclusions “are limited by the
sensitivity and integrity of the researcher” (Merriam, 2009, p. 52).
Merriam (2009) also emphasizes that researchers as well as readers of case studies
should be very much aware of possible biases that would lessen the study’s
credibility.
I am both the principal investigator of this study and the institutional research
director at CNAQ, one of the two chosen case-study colleges.
Therefore, while I have developed a professional preference for Appreciative Inquiry as a
strategic planning strategy within higher education—on the basis of my own experience
at CNAQ—I also hope to have eliminated possible bias to the greatest degree achievable
in the study I have chosen to undertake.
As further background, during the time frame of the CNAQ case study, I was the
Manager of Planning and Analysis for the College and thus the primary person
responsible for facilitating and managing the strategic planning process. As a certified
Appreciative Inquiry Facilitator, I introduced the strategic planning team to the potential
of AI and encouraged them to consider using the AI methodology for Phase 1 of our
14
strategic planning process. The perceived success of this Phase 1 encouraged all of us to
recommend the continued use of AI in Phase 2 of the planning.
Therefore, to reiterate, I have been a proponent of Appreciative Inquiry, and I do
feel personally, as well as anecdotally, that Appreciative Inquiry has been an effective
strategic planning methodology. On the other hand, as the current Director of Institutional
Research and Planning at CNAQ, I have a professional obligation and a personal
commitment to ensure that I, and all stakeholders, had the opportunity to assess as
objectively as possible the effectiveness—and the lack of effectiveness—of our planning
processes. In order to achieve this I have tried to remain open to contrary findings (Yin,
2009), and I did the following in an attempt to mitigate bias:
I used both quantitative data (an anonymous survey) as well as qualitative data in
the form of one-on-one interviews.
For the interviews done at CNAQ, my own college, I used the expertise of others
on campus who were more at arm’s length from both the research study as well as
the strategic planning process. We had a group of approximately 30 employees
who are trained facilitators. Three of those people conducted the one-on-one
interviews.
During Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the strategic planning process, although I was the
lead person responsible for strategic planning, I did not directly supervise or manage any
employees. Furthermore, the invitation to participate in both the quantitative and
qualitative aspects of the data collection did not come from me, but instead from the
CNAQ President. He has a good reputation at the College, and it was my feeling that our
employees would regard this invitation to participate as a neutral and unpressured request
15
for honest and objective feedback on our planning process—and for the purpose which it
was intended, which was of the continuous improvement of CNAQ.
Finally, it is hoped that incorporating a second case study provided an opportunity
for me to assess a similar planning process within an institution and process in which I
had no personal involvement. The intention, in addition to providing a comparison study,
was to introduce a case in which there would be as little researcher bias as possible.
As a concluding comment for this section, I hope that my experience with and
training in Appreciative Inquiry and my professional involvement in our strategic
planning process was advantageous to this study. I wanted to be able to provide a detailed
and thorough description and analysis of the process at CNAQ; I hope that my “hands-
on” experience in this regard also helped me to determine how best to obtain a similar
depth and breadth of data from NECC and to decide on what questions to ask; and I hope
that my awareness of the benefits and challenges of AI and strategic planning served to
keep me open and objective regarding what materialized from my data-collection
responses and feedback.
Finally, while I have been very impressed with what Appreciative Inquiry has
accomplished at CNAQ, the motivation of my study was and is to ascertain the strengths
and weaknesses of AI as objectively as possible.
Delimitations of the Study
The strategic planning process at CNAQ is not an isolated event but an ongoing
process. Phase 1 took place between March 2010 and June 2010 and resulted in a high-
level plan that outlines the vision, mission, guiding principles and main strategic
directions for the College. Phase 2 took place between November 2010 and June 2011 in
16
order to identify college-wide goals and initiatives and to ensure the success of each
strategic direction as well as guiding principles. Phase 3 began in September 2011 and
will continue to be ongoing. Phase 3 includes the development of actions plans for each
of the initiatives identified in the plan, the determination of performance indicators for
each of the goals in the plan and continuous process of review and modification.
These phases accord with Appreciative Inquiry philosophy in that AI is also not
seen as being simply an event or method that is applied through a start and finish. It is a
generative and relational process that leads to additional inquiries (van der Haar &
Hoskings, 2004), which in turn leads to additional applications and uses.
Similarly, NECC’s high-level plan was approved in January 2012 but
implementation and action planning is ongoing.
For the purpose of this case study, it is Phase 1 and Phase 2 (March 2010 to June
2011) of the strategic planning process at CNAQ and Phase 1 and Phase 2 (May 2011 to
January 2012) of the strategic planning process at NECC that will be described and
analysed.
Limitations of the Study
This case study is limited by its use of just two colleges: it attempted to describe
and evaluate the use of Appreciative Inquiry for strategic planning at the College of the
North Atlantic; it also compared and contrasted AI’s use at Northern Essex Community
College. This was, however, an intentional and considered decision. As the principal
investigator I wished to formulate a set of research questions and a methodology for data
collection that would encourage an in-depth and detailed analysis of the AI processes at
17
both institutions—rather than what might have been a more cursory analysis of several
colleges. It is hoped, therefore:
that the data collection process was multi-faceted and comprehensive enough to
produce a thorough investigation of the manner in which Appreciative Inquiry has
been and is being utilized in each institution;
that this enabled the researcher to analyze and assess the overall impact that AI
seems to have had on the strategic planning process within each institution;
that the flexibility of the methodology enabled the researcher to isolate and
discuss aspects of particular excitement or interest that might not have been
observed in other Appreciative Inquiry studies.
Thus, on the one hand, the results of this two-college study may not be completely
generalizable to all other higher education settings. On the other hand, in combination
with similar studies that have been and will be conducted, this study should make a
contribution to the general body of knowledge about the effectiveness of AI in strategic
planning. In addition, the process of Appreciative Inquiry is flexible and adaptable and it
is hoped that most other higher-education institutions will find value in the process that is
described in this study—and thereby be better able to adapt it within their own
environments.
Finally, and to repeat, a detailed and in-depth analysis of two colleges has the
potential to identify significant and perhaps even unique aspects of Appreciative Inquiry
that other researchers may wish to investigate further.
18
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Purpose of the Literature Review
This review of the relevant literature will attempt to demonstrate whether and why
the research questions of the study, as outlined in Chapter 1, have sufficient significance
as a doctoral dissertation. The review will therefore focus on what has been written and
published, to date, in regard to Appreciative Inquiry, strategic planning and the
applications of both in higher education. The selected literature comes from a wide range
of sources and scholarly areas including psychology, organizational development, human
resources, sociology, business management, leadership, education and higher education.
Appreciative Inquiry
Appreciative Inquiry is a concept that has been developing and expanding over
the past 25 years. While initially regarded as an action-research methodology, AI has
more recently gained momentum and credibility as an organizational-development
philosophy and tool. An analysis, for example, of Masters-degree and Doctoral level
work over the past ten years shows that over 75% of the research projects use
Appreciative Inquiry as the methodology for the study. The other 25% of the theses focus
on the impact or effectiveness of AI in the attempt to bring about major changes within
the culture of organizations. To identify just a few of these newer applications,
Appreciative Inquiry is now being utilized to enhance communication; to determine user
requirements on a variety of projects; to improve performance-management processes; to
facilitate mergers and acquisitions; and, importantly, to ensure that significant shifts in an
organization’s direction are sustainable.
19
AI, therefore, has become both a philosophy and a complex process. It is a way of
being, deciding, thinking, changing, interacting and seeing that leads to new ways of
working together. Cameron, Dutton, and Quinn (2003), editors of Positive
Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, suggest that AI is creating
a positive revolution in the field of organizational development and change management.
At the core of its approach, Appreciative Inquiry:
sees organizations as miracles to be embraced and not problems to be solved
is unconditionally positive and solution-centred
focuses on the generative and “life-giving forces” of a system or organization
is inclusive and collaborative
sparks innovation and creativity at the “speed of imagination”
History and Origin of Appreciative Inquiry
Appreciative Inquiry developed in an unexpected and unplanned way. In the early
1980s, David Cooperrider, a doctoral student at Case Western Reserve University, was
working on his dissertation research at Cleveland Medical Clinic, carrying out a
traditional, problem-based organizational analysis by searching for what was not working
well at the clinic. What struck him, however, was that staff members were enthusiastic,
positive, cooperative and collaborative. In discussions with his advisor, Suresh Srivastva,
Cooperrider was encouraged to make this enthusiasm the focus of his research (Watkins
& Mohr, 2001). He then made a compelling case to the clinic’s chairperson, Dr. William
Kiser, to the effect that he wished to focus on the positive aspects of the Cleveland
Medical Clinic in order to determine what factors were contributing to an already quite
effective environment.
20
As a result, this Cleveland Clinic Project became the basis for analyzing
organizations using AI. Cooperrider completed his doctoral dissertation, Appreciative
Inquiry: Toward a Methodology for Understanding and Enhancing Organizational
Innovation, in 1986, thus creating the essence of the Appreciative Inquiry approach for
the years to come. Cooperrider describes his commitment to AI in this manner:
In sum this dissertation is a call for a humanly significant
process of social-organizational inquiry, an inquiry which
is based on cooperative modes of questioning, valuing,
knowing, choosing and experimenting. As a holistic and
valuable form of knowing, appreciative inquiry represents a
challenge to social systems to reach towards their noblest
aspirations and to enact their ideals through innovations in
social-organizational arrangements (p. 300).
Subsequently, in 1987, Cooperrider and Srivastva published Appreciative Inquiry
in Organizational Life. This article built upon Cooperrider’s dissertation and was the first
time AI’s fuller potential was discussed in a professional publication (Watkins & Mohr,
2001). It articulated more clearly the larger vision and the emerging theory of the
Appreciative Inquiry concept (Ludema, Whitney, Mohr & Griffen, 2003; Stratton-
Berkessel, 2010). However, Cooperrider intentionally delayed proposing a specific
methodology for AI in the belief that the theory and principles would continue to develop
over time and gradually infuse themselves into organizational development activities.
Indeed, and as Cooperrider had hoped, the theory and practice of AI are steadily evolving
and are being shaped by an ever-growing number of practitioners and researchers around
the world who have been, and continue to be, attracted to the potential of AI as an
effective methodology and process for change management, decision making, team
building, business process analysis and planning in general (Dick, 2004).
21
Thus, many full-length books have now been written about Appreciative Inquiry,
primarily for practitioners but also for scholars (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999;
Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005; Cooperrider, Sorensen, Whitney & Yaeger, 2000;
Cooperrider, Whitney, Stavros & Fry, 2008; Hammond, 1998; Watkins, Mohr & Kelley,
2011; Whitney, Trosten-Bloom & Cooperrider, 2010). Several of these original books
have now been published in updated editions. In addition, the collective literature on
Appreciative Inquiry is expanding and is also becoming more specific with recent books
and practitioner guides such as Appreciative Inquiry for Collaborative Solutions
(Stratton-Berkessel, 2010), Appreciative Coaching (Orem, Binkert & Clancy, 2007), The
Appreciative Inquiry Summit (Ludema, Whitney, Mohr & Griffin, 2003), Appreciative
Team Building (Whitney, Trosten-Bloom, Cherney & Fry, 2004), The Appreciative
Organization (Anderson, Cooperrider, Gergen, et. al., 2001), Appreciative Leadership
(Whitney, Trosten-Bloom & Rader, 2010) and Appreciative Intelligence (Thatchenkery
& Metzker, 2006).
Appreciative Inquiry: Definitions
In general terms, AI is both a philosophy and a process. It is a way of being,
thinking, deciding, changing, interacting and seeing that leads to new ways of working
together. Among other key points, Appreciative Inquiry:
is intentionally solution focused
is collaborative and, preferably, involves the whole system
is highly participative
transforms inner dialogue
stimulates vision and creativity (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn , 2003)
22
There are, however, many definitions of this evolving concept. Cooperrider and
Whitney (2001) make these comments in A Positive Revolution for Change:
AI involves, in a central way, the art and practice of asking
questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend,
anticipate, and heighten positive potential. It centrally
involves the mobilization of inquiry through the crafting of
the “unconditional positive question”—often involving
hundreds or sometimes thousands of people.
In AI the arduous task of intervention gives way to the
speed of imagination and innovation. Instead of negation,
criticism, and spiralling diagnosis, there is discovery,
dream and design. AI seeks fundamentally to build a
constructive union between a whole people and the massive
entirety of what people talk about as past and present
capacities: achievements, assets, unexplored potentials,
innovations, strengths, elevated thoughts, opportunities,
benchmarks, high point moments, lived values, traditions,
strategic competencies, stories, expressions of wisdom,
insights into the deeper corporate spirit or soul—and a
vision of valued and possible futures (p. 613).
To paraphrase, the essence of AI is to study, explore, understand and then capitalize on
what gives life to human systems when they function at their very best.
As a somewhat simpler description, Charles Martinetz (2002) breaks down the
term Appreciative Inquiry into its two separate words:
Appreciation: recognizing, acknowledging and valuing the best in people and
organizations
Inquiry: the act of discovery, exploration, examination, looking at, investigation
and study
Finally, to try to summarize, paraphrase and simplify even further, AI is a way of looking
for the best in people and organizations and then analyzing, defining and studying that
information in order to build on what is working exceptionally well.
23
Appreciative Inquiry: Process
Over the last two decades, several specific steps within the larger methodology have
been developed to create effective change processes using an AI approach. At the very
centre of any effective inquiry process is the selection of the topic of choice. The
assumption here is that organizations move in the direction of the inquiry and the process
used to facilitate it. Questions are fateful, and change begins as soon as questions are
asked. The determination of each question for the inquiry is, therefore, ultimately
important. This selection of appropriate questions is done by the AI core team, by
consultants working on the project or through an AI technique used to select and ensure
an affirmative focus. These AI steps follow similar paths but perhaps the best known
approach is called “the 4-D model” (Watkins & Mohr, 2001):
1. Discover: Appreciate – “The best of what is”
In the Discover Phase, participants make inquiries designed to reveal exceptionally
positive moments. This is generally done through a paired interview process in which two
people focus on, and share, their experiences with instances of organizational excellence.
Stories from the paired interviews are then shared in a larger group where common
threads and exciting new ideas for excellence begin to emerge.
2. Dream: Imagine—“What might be”
In the Dream Phase, the focus switches from the best of what is now to the
imagining and envisioning of new possibilities. Grounded in what has previously led to
excellence, participants then discuss and “dream about” their preferred future. In other
words, when processes within the organization are “at their peak,” when the concepts in
the accounts of excellence are the norm, then the question becomes what can the
24
organization aspire to be and do even better? It is at this point that provocative
propositions, or statements of the preferred future, can be created and formulated in order
to bridge the gap between the best of “what is” and participants’ visions of “what might
be.”
3. Design: Determine—“What should be”
In the Design Phase, with the statements regarding the preferred future having been
determined, participants then engage in dialogue to decide how they can attempt,
collectively and individually, to realize their dreams. The organization is thus able to “co-
construct” using all the AI strategies, approaches, methods and techniques—the ways of
“working and being” together that could lead to the successful realization of all their
collective dreams.
4. Destiny: Create—“What will be”
In the Destiny Phase, the organization begins to put into place the innovative
actions needed to achieve the desired future. While specific strategies are developed
during this phase, there also continues to be further learning—additional development,
innovation, and modification.
Thus, whereas processes and methodologies have been developed and articulated
using AI, it remains a flexible and adaptable concept. Appreciative Inquiry is not, and
need not be, created as a rigid construct. Organizations can and should modify the AI
approach so that it works well within their specific environments and cultures.
25
Appreciative Inquiry: Theory and Theoretical Framework
In order to understand the theory and theoretical framework upon which AI is
based, it is necessary to define those general terms—or at least to try to limit them in
relation to the purpose of this study. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines
theory, in part, as “the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art”
and as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles
offered to explain phenomena” (Theory, 2011).
Theory, therefore, informs a theoretical framework. Eisenhart (1991) defined a
theoretical framework as “a structure that guides research by relying on a formal
theory…constructed by using an established, coherent explanation of certain phenomena
and relationships” (p. 205). As one more example, Crotty (1998) defines a theoretical
perspective as the “philosophical stance informing the methodology and thus providing a
context for the process and grounding its logic and criteria” (p. 3).
Appreciative Inquiry: The Generality and Uniqueness of Its Theory
Early in his research into the development of the AI concept, David Cooperrider
intentionally, and in my opinion sensibly, avoided creating or proposing a specific
methodology. To repeat, he wanted the principles and philosophy of AI to become
infused within the minds of researchers and practitioners and thereby to enable AI to
develop, gradually and based on practical experiences, its own strong theoretical
framework. As a result, over the years since the 1980s when the AI concept was created,
this body of theory, research and practice has led to the development of a number of AI
principles and theoretical underpinnings. A review of the related literature also indicates
that the following major theoretical strands are worthy of further investigation:
26
Social Constructionism
The Positive Principle
The Simultaneity Principle
Generativity
Social Constructionism and AI
Appreciative Inquiry is firmly grounded in, and informed by, the theory of social
constructionism—a theory that has seen a great deal of scholarly writing, research,
discussion and debate. Over the past 25 years, many articles and books have been
devoted to its explanation, development and refinement—heralding it as a new
paradigm—as well as to refuting and disputing its claims and its status in the world of
epistemology and research.
By contrast, objectivism is the belief that there is absolute truth, just waiting to be
discovered, and that genuine truth can be found only through complete objectivity. In
other words, an objectivist’s conviction is that appropriately rigorous methods of inquiry
can result in absolute, accurate and certain knowledge; in fact, objectivism has been the
epistemological foundation of Western Science for decades. This kind of science has
played a major role in educational curriculum, medicine, news reporting, policy
development, military decisions and more (Gergen, 2009).
Social constructionism, a post-modernist concept rejects the idea of absolute and
certain truth and questions everything we know and take for granted about objectivism. It
challenges the foundation of scientific theory and “long honoured words like ‘truth’,
objectivity’, ‘reason’, and ‘knowledge” (Gergen & Gergen, 2008, p. 160). This challenge
has not been without consequence. “Few are prepared,” according to Gergen, “for such a
27
wrenching, conceptual dislocation. However, for the innovative, adventurous and
resilient, the horizons are exciting indeed” (Gergen, 1985, p. 271). In addition, David
Cooperrider, whose work on Appreciative Inquiry developed around this time, was
obviously prepared for, and capitalized on, this conceptual dislocation.
To elaborate further, social constructionism is broad and robust—but difficult to
define. For example, according to Vivian Burr (1995), “There is no single description
which would be adequate for all the different kinds of writers whom I shall refer to as
social constructionist. That is because, although different writers may share some
characteristics with others, there is not really anything that they all have in common.
What links them all together is a kin or ‘family resemblance.’…There is no one feature
which could be said to link them all together” (p. 2).
That being said, there still seems to be a core philosophy which is basic to
constructionism, which is the belief that all knowledge, meaning and understanding can
be traced to and are a result of human relationships (Gergen & Gergen, 2008). Also,
Michael Crotty (1998) defines constructionism as being based on the “view that all
knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon human
practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their
world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context” (p. 42).
However, the term constructivism is sometimes used interchangeably with
constructionism. They are, however, different. Social constructionism refers to the
development of phenomena relative to social contexts while social constructivism refers
to an individual's attempt to make meaning of knowledge within a social context
(Vygotsky, 1978).
28
Furthermore, Burr (1995), despite her opinion that that there is no single
definition of social constructionism succinctly summarizes four key assumptions that
“you would absolutely have to believe in order to be a social constructionist” (p. 2):
1. A critical stance toward taken-for-granted knowledge: We must challenge the
view that knowledge and truth are based on objective, unbiased observations of
the world (positivist/empiricist ideas) but instead seek knowledge through human
experience.
2. Historical and cultural specificity: Understanding of the world is culture-bound,
and, therefore, is situational. Our ways are not necessarily closer to the truth than
are other ways.
3. Knowledge is sustained by social process: We construct our knowledge of the
world together through daily interactions and social life with people. What is truth
to us is not derived from an objective observation of the world but from the social
interactions and engagement with others. Language is the essential tool for co-
creating the world as we know it.
4. Knowledge and social action go together: There are many constructions of the
world and every interaction brings with it or invites a different kind of action.
Within a social group reality is defined by complex and organized patterns of
ongoing actions.
These definitions, descriptions and postulations give credence to a key
assumption of Appreciative Inquiry: that organizations can and should construct their
own futures through the interactions of their own people. In other words, through
conversation and collaboration, members of an organization can and should improve their
29
own work-place lives, and the long-term success of their organizations, by discussing and
discovering the “best of what is,” dreaming about the “ideals of what might be,”
designing “what should be” and creating their shared destiny of “what can be”
(Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). Thus, in the truest sense of constructionism, the AI
process has the potential to prove more successful than other approaches because all
stakeholders—and therefore all whole systems—are fully involved and positively
engaged.
Finally, there is an inspiring saying within the AI community that words create
worlds (Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2003). Social constructionism places language,
conversation and communication at the heart of human organization and change
(Stratton-Berkessel, 2010). It argues that “human communication is the central process
that creates, maintains, and transforms realities” (Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2003, p.
51). Appreciative Inquiry, very similarly, is based on dialogue and interaction. The
appreciative interview and the conversation and discourse that follow are cornerstones of
AI.
As Gergen (2009) comments, “the moment we begin to speak together we have
the potential of creating new ways of being” (p. 29). To paraphrase, it seems probable
that the more people talk together, the more we can create meaning together.
The Positive Principle and AI
Appreciative Inquiry is based on a key premise that a positive approach produces
positive results. The AI process assumes that all organizations have examples of success
and begins with the discovery and sharing of individuals’ peak experiences through the
asking of positive questions. Cooperrider and Sekerka (2006) argue that asking positive
30
questions will elicit the human spirit in organizations. Furthermore, they assert that as
people in an organization work appreciatively together they become more aware of the
positive core, stronger relationships develop and energy, creativity, hope and positive
emotions grow. Other research into Appreciative Inquiry has also shown that the more
positive the exploratory questions, the more effective and lasting the actual change
effects (Bushe & Coetzer, 1995).
The Simultaneity Principle and AI
From an organizational development perspective, the connection between
Appreciative Inquiry and the Simultaneity Principle is a very important consideration.
This principle suggests that you cannot separate the research, or the “Discovery” phase,
from the intervention or “Design/Destiny” phases. Inquiry and change are
simultaneous—organizations move in the directions of the questions that they ask as soon
as the questions are asked—as the following comment demonstrates:
The seeds of change—that is, the things people think and
talk about, the things people discover and learn, and the
things that inform dialogue and inspire images of the
future—are implicit in the very first questions we ask.
(Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001, p. 20).
Also “questions are fateful,” and change begins in an organization as soon as the
system engages in inquiry or discovery. For Appreciative Inquiry, therefore, it is
important to identify what the inquiry will focus upon and, in particular, the wording and
provocative potential of the questions being asked (Bushe & Kassem, 2005).
31
Generativity and AI
Before the inception of the Appreciative Inquiry concept, Kenneth Gergen (1978)
authored a paper entitled “Toward Generative Theory.” He argued that traditional
scientific theory could not be applied to studying human social functioning:
It may be useful, then, to consider competing theoretical
accounts in terms of their generative capacity, that is, the
capacity to challenge the guiding assumptions of the
culture, to raise fundamental questions regarding
contemporary social life, to foster reconsideration of that
which is "taken for granted," and thereby to furnish new
alternatives for social action. It is the generative theory that
can provoke debate, transform social reality, and ultimately
serve to reorder social conduct (p. 1346).
Subsequently, Cooperrider and Srivastva also discussed the generative nature of
AI, indicating that it is at the core of the inquiry process (1987). In a recent article
entitled “Generativity and the Transformational Potential of Appreciative Inquiry,” Bushe
(2010b) relates Gergen’s generativity to Appreciative Inquiry by arguing that AI is
successful when groups of people discover and create new ideas and new realities that are
provocative and meaningful to themselves and others; furthermore, Bushe explains that
this kind of inquiry is generative when these new ideas and ways of thinking compel
people to act in new ways.
Thus, generative theory, in combination with the positive principle, discussed
above, gives further credibility to Appreciative Inquiry. One of the most common
arguments against or criticisms of AI is that focusing only on the positive can leave
people feeling that they did not deal fully with organizational issues. In his article, “AI Is
Not (Just) About the Positive,” Bushe (2007) goes as far as to say that Appreciative
Inquiry could be named Generative Inquiry: “A focus on the positive is useful for
32
appreciative inquiry but it’s not the purpose. The purpose is to generate a new and better
future. To design and facilitate appreciative inquiry effectively I think you have to build
generativity into every activity” (p. 33).
Appreciative Inquiry in Higher Education
As a start to understanding whether and how Appreciative Inquiry is currently
being used within higher education settings, I searched for doctoral dissertations over the
past decade using those keywords. Surprisingly, despite the many potential applications
of AI in higher education, the number of relevant theses was limited. Hargis (2005)
researched the effectiveness of AI as a communication tool in higher education.
Thibodeau (2011) examined the effects of using AI in accreditation and other institutional
activities within higher education. Howell (2010) studied the role of AI in academic
advising in higher education. McGough (2006) focussed her research on comparing the
effectiveness of AI and nominal group techniques in evaluating the success of a college
counselling centre. Finally, two researchers focussed on the impact of AI on planning
activities, one in a university setting (Spence, 2007) and one in a college setting (Walters,
2006).
A more general search of publications reveals some additional applications of
Appreciative Inquiry in higher education settings. Giles and Kung (2010) explored the
use of AI to help understand the professional practice of a lecturer in higher education.
Yballe and O’Conner (2000) discussed how to incorporate AI to foster effective
pedagogy. Saunders (2003) dealt with the area of AI impact on student retention.
Perodeau (2004) explored ways to integrate AI into online teaching. Head and Young
(1998) investigated the impact of AI within higher education organizational culture
33
change. While Appreciative Inquiry has not yet become the focus of an abundance of
doctoral or other scholarly research, the applications for and the use of AI in higher
education are significant and expanding.
As an especially relevant example of this growing interest in Appreciative
Inquiry, Nancy Stetson, in 2008, published Stories of Positive Change in the Community
College: Appreciative Inquiry in Action, a book dedicated to the use of Appreciative
Inquiry in college settings. A strong proponent of AI she writes:
This book is designed to help community college leaders
bring about positive change in the community college,
change that will nourish student, employee and
organizational learning, by plugging into the power of
Appreciative Inquiry (AI). Whether you are a trustee, a
chancellor, a president, a faculty member, a support staff
member or student leader, you can use the power of
Appreciative Inquiry (AI) to unleash the human energy in
your community college to bring about positive and,
sometimes, transformational change.
AI also has been used in the community college for faculty
development, departmental self study and program review,
institutional renewal and conflict resolution, organizational
culture, participatory governance, organizational
assessment, celebrating successes, collaboration among
diverse groups, strategic planning, and student orientation
(p. iv).
More importantly, and very relevantly, Stetson lists the names of over 100
colleges which recently had faculty and staff trained in AI facilitation—an excellent sign
that AI is flourishing in the community college level of higher education.
Furthermore, in a very recent personal conversation (August 14, 2011) with Dr.
Jeanie Cockell, President and CEO of a consulting company that specializes in
Appreciative Inquiry, Dr. Cockell revealed that she is currently co-authoring a book, with
34
Dr. Joan McArthur-Blair, former President of Nova Scotia Community College, which
focuses exclusively on the role of AI in higher education. This book, Appreciative
Inquiry in Higher Education: A Transformative Force, was subsequently published in
August of 2012.
In summary, while not all colleges and universities have publicized or published
their work in this area, it is clear that many institutions of higher education are beginning
to embrace Appreciative Inquiry as a philosophy and as an organizational development
tool.
Appreciative Inquiry and Strategic Planning
Because the focus of my dissertation research will centre as much on the larger
strategic planning process as on the effectiveness of AI within this process, this section
will review the literature in which comprehensive strategic planning is a major subject of
scrutiny. Once again, a search of the ProQuest database over the past ten years revealed
only two published academic studies in which the primary focus was on understanding
the impact of Appreciative Inquiry on strategic planning and strategy development.
Interestingly, both of these dissertations were in higher-education contexts, and I will
discuss those studies, and some others, in a later section.
However, outside the realm of education, many companies and corporations have
been attempting to integrate Appreciative Inquiry within their strategic planning. To
reiterate, AI is a strengths-based, future-oriented and open-dialogue approach that has
developed as a way to help any and all organizations, in concert with their stakeholders,
to create a shared and bold vision for the future and a mission to operate in the present
35
(Srivastva & Cooperrider, 1990). For example, Stavros, Cooperrider and Kelley (2003),
three important AI researchers and practitioners, discuss traditional planning as follows:
The AI approach to strategic planning involves identifying
and building on existing strengths and profitable
opportunities rather than dwelling on problems,
deficiencies, weaknesses, and threats. Think about the
traditional strategic planning process—at its very core is
the good old standby SWOT analysis—Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats. If we split it 50/50, we
would spend half of our time thinking about our positives
(Strengths/Opportunities) and the other half thinking about
our negatives (Weaknesses/Threats)…Even though the tool
looks 50/50 human nature tends to dwell disproportionately
on our weaknesses and threats. Unfortunately, by
concentrating on what we do wrong we tend to amplify the
negative. Welcome to the world of AI, where, instead we
disproportionately focus on our strengths and opportunities,
so that we can grow them until they crowd out our
weaknesses and threats (p. 7).
Appreciative Inquiry, therefore, seems to encourage all stakeholders to be
involved in the strategic planning process. Through conversation and collaboration, to
repeat once more, members of an organization create their own future by discussing and
discovering the “best of what is,” dreaming about the “ideals of what might be,”
designing “what should be” and, creating their shared destiny of “what can be”
(Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987).
Thus, and to summarize the views of many practitioners, the advantages of using
an AI approach to strategic planning are that it:
Focuses on the positive in order to de-emphasize the negative
Builds organizational capacity beyond existing boundaries
Invites stakeholders into the strategy process
Builds relationships with partners
36
Encourages input from all levels of the organization
Fosters buy-in from all levels of the organization
Allows the planning to become much more of a process that connects values,
vision, and mission statement to strategic goals, strategies, plans and incorporates
a positive and objective view of goals
Creates a shared set of organizational values and a vision of the future for the
organization
Examples of Organizations Using AI for Strategic Planning
One pre-eminent example is that NASA started using AI in 1996 to create a
common and aligned vision for individual NASA centres. Their motivation was to adopt
this approach in order to build a more inclusive and engaged culture throughout the
organization. NASA used the 4-D model over a nine-month period and concluded with a
full-day meeting of all of the staff (something that had never happened in the past). Aside
from creating a bold vision for the future (“Race for Change”), members of the
organization described a stronger sense of unity, inclusiveness and trust. The organization
itself has also become more employee-focused (Watkins & Mohr, 2001).
Another important example is McDonald’s, which embraced AI in 1999. Their
goal was to become the best employer in every community in the world. They wanted to
create a dynamic shared vision. The initial inquiry—“Becoming the World’s Best
Business Partner”—was undertaken by human resource managers who interviewed all of
their key stakeholders. This was followed by a lengthy multi-day summit which included
a cross-section of McDonald’s stakeholders. According to the participants, the AI process
37
had a dramatic impact: increased positive energy, innovation and enriched organizational
learning (Watkins & Mohr, 2001).
In addition, Hunter-Douglas (Window Fashion Division) experienced a period of
decline after a reorganization decision in 1998. In order to re-focus and to develop a
collective vision within their reorganized company to bring back creativity, teamwork,
innovation and a sense of community, as well as to build internal leadership skills, Hunter
Douglas introduced Appreciative Inquiry. Employees were trained in facilitating AI
interviews and over 1,000 people were interviewed. An “Appreciative Summit” was also
held to develop a compelling strategic plan. According to the senior executives:
Our production and productivity have both improved, largely as a
result of people’s increased participation in problem solving and
decision-making activities. Turnover is the lowest it has been for
six years, despite extremely low unemployment in our local job
market. Our operation improvement suggestions are up 100%. This
in turn has had a big impact on both our quality and our internal
customer service (Watkins & Mohr, 2001, p. 178).
However, while there are many published case studies involving large
governmental and multi-national companies which have embraced the AI process for
their strategic planning process, the problem is that most of these studies are older, in that
these organizations were early adopters of the process. More recent articles on the
success of AI, therefore, are harder to find, especially in regard to its relevance for higher
education. The following section discusses what literature is available.
Strategic Planning in Higher Education
In an article entitled Two Decades of Strategic Planning, Dooris (2003) dates the
beginnings of strategic planning in higher education back to the 1950s. He indicates that
the first formal meeting of higher-education planners occurred in 1959 with 25 planners
38
in attendance at what eventually would formally become known as the Society for
College and University Planning. Strategic planning in higher education, just as in the
corporate world, is a very complex and very important aspect of all reputable higher-
education institutions, as is pointed out in the following comments taken from Strategic
planning in higher education: A guide for heads of institutions, senior managers and
members of governing bodies:
In virtually all universities and colleges, strategic planning
is seen as an essential tool for effective institutional
management. Unless time is invested to analyse the
institution and its environment, and to consider its medium
and long-term direction and goals, it is unlikely that action
will be focused or goals achieved. Effective planning helps
higher education institutions (HEIs) to identify what makes
them distinctive and what they have in common with other
HEIs, and therefore it helps to maintain their individuality
(HEFCE, 2000, p. 4).
Furthermore, as Welsh et al point out, strategic planning is perhaps the most “ubiquitous”
and important leadership activity within higher education (Welsh, Nunez & Petrosko,
2005).
To elaborate, whereas strategic planning has been a part of both public and private
organizations for decades, the traditional approach to it has only been questioned in
recent years. Based on my own academic experience, the most common complaint and
most common problem is that a major organizational-change approach is almost always
formulated by a small group of senior executives, and the usual result is an apparently
impressive document—but one that sits on the shelf. This top-down approach almost
always lacks real innovation and creativity and, obviously, fails to enlist the support of
most other personnel within the organization.
39
By contrast, in “Strategic Planning: An Overview” in New Directions for Higher
Education (1988), Shirley discusses the need for colleges and universities to plan
strategically—to articulate clearly a vision for the future and provide the necessary means
to realize that vision—but he also advises avoiding the “pitfalls” of traditional planning,
which he describes as follows: (1) “an overemphasis on data collection and analysis. The
tendency to quantify inherently qualitative phenomena should be avoided,” (2) “planning
can become too ‘bureaucratized.’…It is important to avoid much of the planning jargon
that has appeared in recent literature in order to maintain credibility with the faculty,” (3)
a “failure to gain adequate campus-wide participation” and (4) “The strategic plan
established for a college must be stimulating and reach for a higher level of institutional
attainment in the future” (p. 13).
Similarly, in an article for Harvard Business Review, Henry Mintzberg (1994)
argues that while “certainly not dead, strategic planning has long since fallen from its
pedestal” (p. 108). Mintzberg’s major points are that organizations, rather than being
frustrated with and eliminating their strategic planning processes, should, instead,
transform the planning process. Strategic planning is “about synthesis. It involves
intuition and creativity” (p. 108). Most importantly, strategic planning often occurs
through informal learning that must be undertaken by people at various levels who are
inextricably involved with the specific issues at hand. He claims that “real strategic
change requires not merely rearranging the established categories, but inventing new
ones” (p. 108).
Furthermore, Mintzberg’s opinion is that if you “search all those strategic
planning diagrams, all those interconnected boxes that supposedly give you
40
strategies…nowhere will you find a single one that explains a creative act of synthesizing
experiences into a novel strategy” (p. 109). He also makes the following comments with
regard to the leadership required for genuinely effective strategic planning:
The problem is that planning represents a calculating style
of management, not a committing style. Managers with a
committing style engage people in a journey. They lead in
such a way that everyone on the journey helps shape its
course. As a result, enthusiasm builds along the way. Those
with a calculating style fix on a destination and calculate
what the group must do to get there, with no concern for
the members’ preference. But calculated strategies have no
value in and of themselves; to paraphrase the works of
sociologist Philip Selznick, strategies take on value only as
committed people infuse them with energy (p. 109).
In a similar vein, in Tired of Strategic Planning?, Beinhocker and Kaplan (2002),
make this comment: “Many companies can significantly raise their game in strategic
planning. Companies should take a fresh look at their annual process and ask whether
they are building prepared minds through real dialogue” (p. 56). Kezar and Eckel (2002)
in a key study of strategic planning cite the importance of collaborative sense-making,
balancing big-picture planning with manageable action plans and developing interrelated
strategies as necessary factors for successful organizational planning and change.
More recently, Hill (2005), while reviewing literature for her case study on
strategic planning in a university setting, refers to Dooris (2003) and his observation that
planning must be “more than a rain dance that may improve dancing but has no effect on
the weather” (p. 31). Hill then goes on to say that “improving ‘dancing’ in the form of
communication and collaboration” (p. 27) should make higher-education planning much
more effective. The metaphors that Dooris and Hill use here are very AI-oriented and
suggest that planning needs to be more than “smoke and mirrors”; it needs to be, instead,
41
an intentional and ongoing living and human process that actively engages all those who
have a stake in and who can contribute to the success of the institution.
These publications, therefore, strongly suggest a need to re-think and re-shape the
traditional strategic planning process within all larger organizations and especially within
institutions of higher education, wherein the welfare of so many people is of primary
concern. The common themes of this literature emphasize how important it is to involve,
engage and excite people in regard to the planning process—to use innovative and
creative methodologies—and not to reinvent what already exists—but instead to search
for bold and stimulating ways to remain successful in a rapidly evolving future.
Appreciative Inquiry, Strategic Planning and Higher Education
In an attempt to draw together these complex strands and to conclude this chapter
with what would seem to be the articles and books most relevant for the role of AI within
higher-education strategic planning—and most relevant for my own dissertation—the
following statement from Tom Gonzales, former president of Front Range Community
College in Colorado, is especially worthy of consideration:
What’s remarkable about AI is its focus on what has
worked successfully in the past and how it applies to the
future. Academic institutions are about tradition. What
better legacy for faculty and administrators than to share
with a new generation an energetic new vision based on
what has been successful? AI is about replicating those
successes in changing times. I am constantly amazed at the
energy that is created when you bring people together and
they talk about the essence of their success. AI is not the
latest feel-good fad; it’s a proven methodology that draws
upon the past to create a new positive organizational
culture. AI is the antithesis of problem solving; AI is about
appreciating people and processes that have worked and
revitalizing the organization by emphasizing its many
successes (Stetson, 2008, p. iii).
42
Gonzales thus confirms that AI is not a fad but that the inclusive and positive focus of AI
is a proven method that can and will succeed even in traditional academic institutions.
There are many additional reasons to believe that AI is an emerging practice in
higher education. As mentioned earlier, Nancy Stetson dedicated an entire book to AI in
the college setting and, in it, listed over one hundred American colleges which have
recently had faculty and staff trained in AI facilitation. Also, in a recent personal
conversation with Kathy Becker, CEO of Company of Experts, a firm that provides
Appreciative Inquiry training and certification, she confirmed that the interest in her
company’s AI training from colleges and universities has increased exponentially.
Finally, my literature review identified two significant doctoral studies in the last
ten years that have addressed the effectiveness of Appreciative Inquiry for strategic
planning in higher education. Judy Walters’ (2006) dissertation was entitled The use of
appreciative inquiry as a planned change strategy at Merritt College: A case study. Her
study tracked and documented Merritt College’s processes as it planned for its future. A
new college president selected Appreciative Inquiry with which to engage the entire
campus community in a process of renewal and development. Walters also used a variety
of data collection sources—interviews, collaborative dialogue, focus groups and reviews
of documents—to explore the impact of Appreciative Inquiry on Merritt’s strategy for
change. In Walter’s own words the process resulted in:
…a new college vision, mission, and value statements and
strategic actions, all grounded in Merritt's past and current
strengths and successes; a rippling positive impact on the
attitudes of the participants; and a continued interest in the
use of a collaborative and strengths-based approach to
planning. As a result of the research, recommendations
were identified that could be applied at other community
43
colleges, especially in California, which could ultimately
change the basic philosophical approach to issues from the
old mechanistic problem-solving approach to a new
appreciative paradigm, a collaborative, strengths-based
approach to change (Abstract).
As one last example, Diane Spence (2007) completed a dissertation with a similar
topic entitled An evaluative case study of an Appreciative Inquiry process for futures
planning with the College of Education at a public university in Tennessee. This research
studied 18 months of the university’s planning cycle, primarily through archival
documents, with the intention of understanding the methodology for implementing an AI
futures planning process, evaluation of its effectiveness and the participants' perceptions
of its high points. Her results showed that the AI process met the requirements of the
process as developed by the strategic planning team, which followed the core strategies
for transformational change outlined by Kezar & Eckel (2002). A very significant finding
emphasizes the high points of the process as acknowledged and reported by the core team
and all participants:
a sense of inclusion
increased awareness of community
equity of voice
collaboration
positive energy, creativity, ownership and commitment
definition of goals and creation of plans
To conclude, it is significant that both Walters (2006) and Spence (2007) suggest
strongly that further research be conducted on the effectiveness of using Appreciative
44
Inquiry for strategic planning initiatives within many other higher education settings and
contexts.
The Longer-Term Sustainability of Appreciative Inquiry
As both a college institutional-research director and an AI practitioner, I have a
particular interest in attempting to determine how it might be possible (and whether it
might be possible) to “keep AI alive.” That is the rationale for one of the research
questions of this proposed study: What are the characteristics that foster the sustainable
use of Appreciative Inquiry for planning in higher education in general? To elaborate,
many researchers claim that AI can produce transformational and sustained
organizational changes and even some organizational-culture shifts, but there is little that
has been written about how to sustain the momentum of Appreciative Inquiry itself as a
long-lasting and genuine organizational-philosophy change.
The deficiency of published work regarding this question, therefore, in AI “how
to” books as well as in the scholarly research, reveals another area of Appreciative
Inquiry knowledge that is under-represented. There have been, however, some
researchers who are attempting to resolve this issue. For example, Simmons and Webb
(2007) published an article in AI Practitioner—a popular journal for people interested in
and utilizing Appreciative Inquiry—entitled Sustaining Appreciative Inquiry in Local
Government: A Challenge of Leadership. This article outlines the experience of the City
of Dubuque Housing and Community Development Department that has been using AI as
a change strategy since 1998.
The authors have been exploring how “leadership has sustained the spirit of
Appreciative Inquiry through its practices, structures and systems and has subsequently
45
created appreciative cultures” (Simmons and Webb, 2007, p. 7). Their experience has
shown that committed leadership and the development of exceptional partnerships are the
cornerstones for sustaining both change and the continued use of Appreciative Inquiry.
While not specifically addressing the issue of what does sustain AI, Bushe (2007)
postulates, “AI does not magically overcome poor sponsorship, poor communications,
insensitive facilitation or un-addressed organizational politics” (p. 35). To paraphrase,
this would suggest that having strong and supportive leadership, excellent
communication, experienced and effective facilitators and a transparent and ethical work
environment might lead to sustaining AI as both an approach and as a philosophy.
Later, in 2010, Bushe also suggests that “while the potential for transformation
has been established, there may be increasing disenchantment with AI amongst managers
and consultants arising from a predictable fad phenomenon that seems to plague all
organizational change methods” (2010b, p. 12). This in turn would imply that focusing
less on the term Appreciative Inquiry and more on the spirit of AI might enhance
sustainability. Further, being mindful of when the AI methodology is being used and
when it might be more appropriate to use another organizational development tool might
guard against the potential overuse of Appreciative Inquiry—and guard against the
possible burn-out effect.
In summary, there is little in the research literature that is relevant to this specific
part of my proposed study—which seeks answers to the questions regarding AI’s
sustainability—but it would also seem to be a clear indication that pursuing this line of
research is needed. Having had the opportunity to use Appreciative Inquiry for more than
two years in the practical setting of the College of the North Atlantic – Qatar, a multi-
46
national and multi-cultural institution, I have developed some hypotheses in regard to
which factors might contribute to the longer-term sustainability of AI—and which factors
are counter-productive—and I hope that this study will provide the necessary objective
evidence, one way or the other.
Appreciative Inquiry: A Critical Appraisal
The literature review to this point has focused on the history and theory of AI—on
a description of AI as a philosophy and as a methodology of organizational
development—and on the use of AI in higher education for the purpose of strategic
planning. However, the great preponderance of the published work in this area is
supportive of AI. This section of the review, therefore, will attempt to determine the
limitations of Appreciative Inquiry.
In my own experience using AI at CNAQ, there have been a few participants who
voiced criticisms of this methodology, but, to reiterate, there has been little scholarly
activity that concentrates on AI’s weaknesses rather than on its strengths. My own initial
searches for this kind of information came up essentially empty, but I was aware of the
name Gervase Bushe, the author of many articles on Appreciative Inquiry, who, while
very supportive of AI, also devotes some time to a critical look at its theory, methodology
and application.
In a personal communication with Bushe via e-mail, he was able to provide me
with sources with which to begin the exploration of AI’s perceived limitations.
According to Bushe (2011), “critiques of AI have gotten more sophisticated in recent
years, overcoming earlier critiques which came from people not very conversant with the
underlying theory” (p. 11). To paraphrase his perspective, it is important for scholarly
47
practitioners who actually use and understand AI—and who know of limitations—to be
forthcoming with that knowledge; furthermore, there is also a need for articles which take
an honest and holistic look at the effectiveness of Appreciative Inquiry to ensure that it
“won’t suffer the usual fate of organizational effectiveness processes that are snuffed out
by the ‘fad’ dynamics their initial success creates” (Bushe, 2010a, p. 234).
In summary, one would hope that this recent critical-research trend will make
possible the emergence of a more in-depth and complete understanding of AI (Fitzgerald,
Oliver, & Hoxsey, 2010). It is also my hope that this dissertation reveals both AI’s
strengths and also its challenges as a tool and as a perspective with which to undertake
institutional planning.
The Challenge of Studying a Multifaceted Phenomenon
Whereas AI has evolved significantly since David Cooperrider first proposed it in
1986, the concept of AI remains complex and elusive. As one more example, Fitzgerald,
Oliver, and Hoxsey (2010) categorize the definitions or descriptions of AI into a set of
nouns such as action research, method, approach, intervention, philosophy, worldview,
spirit—as well as into a set of verbs such as search, discover, practice, highlight,
illuminate, locate. This dichotomy between AI as a “thing” and AI as a “way of being and
working together” adds complexity to research which attempts to assess the overall
effectiveness of AI.
It would seem important, therefore, when undertaking more research on
Appreciative Inquiry (1) to articulate clearly which aspect of the concept is being studied,
(2) to design the research methodology solidly around that aspect, and, when interpreting
research on AI, (3) to understand clearly what aspect of AI is actually being discussed.
48
The Focus on the Positive
According to Bushe (2011), the most common concern regarding Appreciative
Inquiry is that its focus on the positive might completely ignore the negative
organizational experiences that participants may have had. This concern is validated by
my own experience as both an AI facilitator and trainer. Participants often want to
discuss, and understandably so, “what’s wrong” as well as “what’s right.” This possible
“sweeping under the rug” of everything other than positive experiences has the potential
to stifle important and even profound conversations that need to take place.
To this point, however, positivity has dominated the practice of and research into
Appreciative Inquiry (Fitzgerald, Oliver, & Hoxsey, 2010). Among my own library of AI
resources are these titles, to name just a few:
Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change (Cooperrider & Whitney,
2005)
The Power of Appreciative Inquiry: A Practical Guide to Positive Change
(Whitney, Trosten-Bloom, & Cooperrider, 2010)
Appreciative Inquiry: Foundations in Positive Organizational Development
(Cooperrider, Sorensen, Yaeger, & Whitney, 2005)
Encyclopedia of Positive Questions (Whitney, Cooperrider, Trosten-Bloom, &
Kaplan, 2002)
Stories of Positive Change in the Community College (Stetson, 2008)
Appreciative Management and Leadership: the Power of Positive Thought and
Action in Organizations (Srivastva & Cooperrider,1990)
49
It is important, therefore, to consider all aspects of the positive only debate and in
this regard Steven Fineman’s article, “On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints”
(2006) has particular relevance. It is his view that completely separating positive and
negative experiences and emotions, and forcing such a polarity, is potentially detrimental:
In privileging positive experiences and times, appreciative
inquiry counsels against “negative talk” and “deficit
language,” and toward a focus on major successes, peak
performance, and positive visions (Cooperrider & Whitney,
1999). But in exclusively favoring positive narratives,
appreciative inquiry fails to value the opportunities for
positive change that are possible from negative
experiences, such as embarrassing events, periods of anger,
anxiety, fear, or shame (p. 275).
Judging from my own experience with AI, however, celebrating positive
experiences and at the same time understanding and dealing with negative and
uncomfortable experiences can enhance and contribute to organizational improvement to
a greater degree than simply destructive criticism—but the problem remains that the
appropriate balance must be found, and I hope that my research was able to strike that
balance.
There are, however, continuing difficulties. Linguists, those who study language
scientifically, use the terms “honorific” and “pejorative” to describe the words and terms
that people subconsciously like or dislike—so what also complicates the “positive
approach of AI is that for almost all people positive is an honorific term and negative is a
pejorative term. Therefore, AI participants do not usually question what the term positive
means.
As Bushe (2010a) points out “deeper thinking uncovers the ambiguities inherent
in that, as adjective or noun, AI has the potential to be one person’s ‘positive’ and another
50
person’s ‘negative’ ” (p. 234). In addition, Fitzgerald, Oliver and Hoxsey (2010) ask
these questions: “(a) what is deemed positive (and negative) (b) who is it positive for (c)
who decides this (d) who do these determinations influence in regard to our AI
conversations” (p. 223).
These AI researchers further suggest that eliminating the negative and
accentuating the positive in regard to AI participants may in fact promote censuring of
self and others, furthering the “sweep it under the rug” unease.
To summarize, therefore, it would seem to me that I and all researchers
/practitioners must incorporate these recent insights regarding the potential “positive
only” problem.
Thus, as a very general summary comment in regard to the foregoing sections, it
would seem that being objectively aware of all the advantages and all the disadvantages
of an Appreciative Inquiry approach is of very significant contemporary importance.
51
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Selecting the appropriate methodology with which to conduct any valid and
reliable study is, in general, a very important consideration. This was especially
important, however, in a complex study such as this one, which, because of the multi-
cultural aspects, may be unique.
It sought to provide an in-depth description of the strategic planning process at
two colleges, a Canadian-sponsored college in Qatar and a college in America,
both of which have been utilizing Appreciative Inquiry for strategic planning.
It attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of AI within the two specific strategic
planning processes.
It compared and contrasted the similarities and differences of the CNAQ
experience with that of another college, NECC, which has utilized a similar
planning process.
In addition, the study sought to determine if there were other, and especially
unexpected, impacts on the college communities or their planning processes as a result of
their decision to embrace Appreciative Inquiry. Moreover, and most importantly, it
attempted to determine what characteristics seemed to be emerging that would serve to
facilitate the sustainability of AI within higher-education settings.
52
Research Paradigm
With that as background, I chose certain components of qualitative research to be
the primary data collection methodology for this study. My viewpoint was drawn from,
and is similar to that of, John Creswell, a well-known researcher in the area, who states
that he holds “a more objective, scientific approach to qualitative research, as is
documented in my realist projects, use of analytic tools such as computer programs, and
emphasis on rigorous and thorough qualitative data collection and analysis” (Creswell,
2007, p. 11).
Therefore, while I realize that broader philosophies of educational research are
important—and while realizing also that a theoretical framework cannot be separated
from my research procedures—my focus in this section will be on “narrowing down” and
describing the specific framework, design and methodology that seemed best suited to
this particular study.
Having made a preliminary decision in favour of qualitative research, as a result
of my literature review and academic experience in general, I then searched for a
workable definition of this general approach. Not surprisingly, there are many such
definitions. Not surprisingly also, however, given other similarities I have found between
my own research preferences and Creswell’s realist projects, it is his fuller definition,
below, that seemed most appropriate:
Qualitative research begins with assumptions, a worldview,
the possible use of a theoretical lens, and the study of
research problems inquiring into the meaning individuals or
groups ascribe to a social or human problem. To study this
problem, qualitative researchers use an emerging
qualitative approach to inquiry, the collection of data in a
natural setting sensitive to the people and places under
53
study, and data analysis that is inductive and establishes
patterns or themes. The final written report or presentation
includes the voices of participants, the reflexivity of the
researcher, and the complex description and interpretation
of the problem and it extends the literature or signals a call
for action (Creswell, 2007, p. 37).
This working definition, therefore, seemed to accord with my study and its
methodology as well as with my personal research philosophy. As Creswell implies, I do
have some assumptions regarding the effectiveness of Appreciative Inquiry for strategic
planning. For example, the strategic planning processes, at my own college as well as at
NECC, were specifically designed to be collaborative and inclusive and to rely on human
dynamics and relationships. Moreover, observing this process and the interaction between
and among people and groups has to some degree caused me to adopt another set of
assumptions about the additional benefits that AI may have had on CNAQ’s
organizational culture.
It is these beliefs and assumptions that influenced and informed the development
of my research questions. I am aware, however, that my personal involvement in one of
the case-study colleges could potentiate a lack of objectivity. On the other hand, to
attempt to guard against such bias, I collected data not just within my own work
environment (CNAQ) but also within a completely neutral work environment (NECC). It
is my hope, therefore, that my research was carefully structured; that it was scrutinized by
myself and others to ensure that the collection and analysis of data were neutral and
unbiased; and that it also enabled my personal and professional interest in Appreciative
Inquiry to be satisfied—to be resolved logically and objectively, one way or the other and
“for better or worse.”
54
Finally, therefore, I made every attempt to ensure that this study was devoid of
bias. If that is achieved, I would then hope that it will add to the important body of
knowledge regarding strategic planning and organizational development within higher
education; I would then feel more competent in my own professional capacity as a
director of institutional research and planning; and I would then be even more willing to
share the experiences of CNAQ and NECC with other institutions of higher education.
Qualitative Research Paradigm: Pragmatism
The importance of theory in quantitative research is clear and well-documented
(Creswell, 2007), but the articulation of theoretical frameworks in qualitative research,
with regard to research methodology, is less so (Anfara & Mertz, 2006). Authors of
recent books and articles which attempt to describe and explain qualitative research agree
that it is important for researchers to consider the theoretical framework that will govern
their studies, but very few give specific advice. The following, however, were each
helpful in their own ways: Burrell & Morgan, 1979, Cresswell, 2007, Crotty, 1998,
Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, Merriam, 2009, Seale, 2004.
Crotty (1998), for example, asks important and quite specific questions: “What
methods do we propose to use? What methodology governs our choice and use of
methods? What epistemology informs this theoretical perspective?” (p. 2). Merriam’s
(2009) reflection was also relevant as I tried to gain an understanding of my own
theoretical perspective and methodology: “In true qualitative fashion, each writer makes
sense of the underlying philosophy influences in her own way” (p. 8).
Similarly, Creswell was helpful once more in regard to terminology. Based on the
work of other proponents of qualitative research (Crotty, 1998, Denzin & Lincoln, 2005,
55
Guba, 1990, Lincoln & Guba, 2000, and Mertens, 1998), Creswell (2007) uses the terms
paradigms, or worldviews, to define how researchers shape their methodological
processes. He focuses on four such paradigms: positivism, constructivism,
advocacy/participatory and pragmatism. He argues that each paradigm informs the
practice of research differently and that “individuals may also use multiple paradigms in
qualitative research that are compatible” (p. 19).
All of these comments seemed significant for my own study, especially
Creswell’s preference for realist projects and the collection of data in a natural setting. To
reiterate, the study I undertook was based on real projects and involved the collection of
data in settings that were not just natural but unique.
It attempted to describe and provide a thorough understanding of a real process—
a strategic planning processes which has been and is still being carried out using
Appreciative Inquiry at a Canadian satellite college (CNAQ) but situated in the
Middle East.
It attempted to describe the process of AI at another college (Northern Essex
Community College) to compare and contrast that experience with CNAQ’s
experience.
It attempted to investigate the effectiveness of AI (which itself is based on
constructivist theory).
It attempted to assess the impact of AI, specifically on a strategic planning
process and specifically within institutions of higher education.
It attempted to determine the factors that foster sustainability regarding the use of
AI in higher-education environments.
56
Finally, to return to the four paradigms identified by Creswell (2007), each
seemed to have significance for different aspects of my study. However, the predominant
“worldview” that appeared most appropriate for this study is pragmatism, which has been
formulated as a concept in the work of Peirce, James, Mead, Dewey, and Rorty
(Cherryholmes, 1992). It has been called the “quintessentially American philosophy” and
has diverse streams (Crotty, 1998, p.72), and, despite criticism over the last two decades,
in particular because of its tendency toward vagueness, pragmatism has remained a viable
and active framework. Talisse and Aikin (2011) in a recent review of pragmatism entitled
The Pragmatism Reader: From Peirce through the Present theorize that “pragmatism
was alive and well throughout the twentieth century and it continues to be a major force
on the philosophical scene” (p. 7).
However, while there are many and varied definitions of pragmatism, it is
Creswell’s (2007) summary of Cherryholmes’ (1992) and Murphy’s and Rorty’s (1990)
ideas that strongly support the use of this framework for this particular research study:
Pragmatism is not committed to any one system of philosophy and reality.
Individual researchers have a freedom of choice. They are “free” to choose the
methods, techniques and procedures of research that best meet their needs and
purposes.
Pragmatists do not see the world as an absolute unity. In a similar way, mixed
methods researchers look to many approaches to collecting and analyzing data
rather than subscribing to only one way (e.g., quantitative or qualitative).
Truth is what works at the time; it is not based in a dualism between reality
independent of the mind or within the mind.
57
Pragmatist researchers look to the “what” and “how” to research based on its
intended consequences—where they want to go with it (p. 23).
Thus to conclude and summarize this section I would like to attempt to defend
pragmatism as one overall approach to this dissertation:
In my professional experience as a research director, I have found it counter-
productive to adhere strictly to one approach or philosophy.
At times, for example, I have seen the value of a positivist approach while at
other times and in different circumstances I have seen the need to utilize the
constructivist paradigm.
To cite what may or may not be a cliché, the familiar comment “it sounds good in
theory but it won’t work in practice” has some credibility.
In the research study I used qualitative research, but it was of a kind that also
served to quantify participants’ perceptions.
One important component was in the form of written and anonymous surveys in
an attempt to de-emphasize the confounding variable of personal social
interaction (i.e. “telling the interviewer what she or he wants to hear”).
However, as the pragmatic mode would encourage, I used real-people
components to inquire more fully into participants’ thoughts and feelings, such as
one-on-one interviews with participants to create their own reality.
It is my hope, therefore, that the methods of this study were flexible and fluid
enough—as David Cooperrider would have intended AI to be—to be responsive
to all the data (not just to quantifiable “facts”), and to all the ideas and opinions
58
and genuinely human responses and feelings that emerged as the research project
unfolded.
Methodology: Rationale for an Evaluative and Exploratory Case Study
This research study focussed on a specific process (strategic planning for
developing vision, mission, guiding principles, strategic directions and initiatives)—with
a distinct time-frame (March 2010 to June 2011 for CNAQ and May 2011 to January
2012 for NECC)—using a non-traditional methodology (Appreciative Inquiry)—and at
two specific colleges (CNAQ and NECC). The study describes the two processes and
evaluates and analyzes how, why and whether AI has been a successful methodology by
which to enhance the specific components of the overall strategic planning process. In
addition the study sought to explore other consequences for CNAQ and for NECC as a
result of using AI for strategic planning, as well as to explore the factors that have
sustained and might continue to sustain the use of AI at these colleges.
Furthermore, a case-study approach was chosen as the methodology due to the
research questions that were developed and also due to the manner in which the study
was conducted. Case-study research provides a flexible methodology that enables a
researcher to describe a process or program in detail and critically and reflectively
explore and evaluate the phenomenon. According to Yin (2008) a “case study is an
empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life
context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly
evident” (p. 18). He argues that one would use a case study in order to achieve a
comprehensive and in-depth understanding of a real-life process (such as conducting
strategic planning using Appreciative Inquiry) when understanding the phenomenon had
59
important contextual conditions (the particular approach to planning and the unique
environments at CNAQ and NECC).
Yin (1992) also makes a strong case for using the case study method as a tool for
doing evaluation. He suggests that a case study is a distinctive and valuable evaluation
tool because of its ability to attend to program operation and context, accommodate a
single program with a small number of cases, adapt to the availability of different types
of evidence, encourage the use of both qualitative and quantitative data and assess
outcomes and test causal theories and rival theories. These qualities are a good match for
an exploratory and comparative study.
In addition, Merriam (2009) suggests that the single most important characteristic
which defines a case study is the ability to delimit the object of study, which is the case.
This supports my world view of pragmatism: case study research does not claim or
restrict itself to any particular or specific data collection or analysis methodology;
instead, multiple data sources are used. Indeed, as a case study progresses, the
methodology and data collection techniques are emerging and fluid (Creswell, 2007,
Merriam, 2009, Yin, 2009).
To summarize, in this research project I had the advantage of unlimited access to
documents, reports, interview notes, video-taped footage, as well as that of personal
observation. I also had access to the stakeholders involved in the bounded process at both
case study sites. My study also attempted to incorporate quantitative research, in the form
of survey data, which was used to triangulate with the case study and written data and to
inform the development of the qualitative research questions. Therefore, a case study
methodology seemed to be the most appropriate choice.
60
Data Collection: A Step-Wise and Generative Process
The data collection process was carried out in three stages at each of the colleges.
Each phase built on and informed the next phase of the data collection process. The data
collection phases were built around answering each of the five research questions.
Stage 1: Understanding and Describing the Strategic Planning Development and
Implementation Processes (January-February, 2012)
The information for the CNAQ process was obtained primarily through personal
experience: the researcher had the lead role in organizing and facilitating the strategic
planning at CNAQ. Documents, video footage and interviews with planning team
members were also used to understand the process.
Because I was not personally involved in the NECC strategic planning process,
more investigation and discovery were required in order to understand and document
their process. This was done through telephone and email interviews with key planning
personnel, the former NECC president, the current NECC president and the planning
consultant. In addition I received and considered various planning documents and video
footage. I had a one-week site visit to NECC in April 2012 where I personally conducted
interviews with NECC stakeholders. During that time I was able to tour the NECC
campuses and speak with various College personnel. This was an invaluable experience
for better understanding their planning context and clarifying the planning process.
Stage 2: Administration of a Web-Based Survey (February-March 2012)
Informed by the information collected in Stage 1, surveys (one for CNAQ and one
for NECC) were developed by the researcher and approved by the University of Calgary
61
Conjoint Faculties Ethics Review Board (CFREB) and the ethics review boards for each
college.
Key planning personnel at each college were interviewed prior to the
administration of the survey to determine how they would define the success or the
effectiveness of the planning process. These personnel were looking for:
1. Planning Outcomes: the development of a plan with a meaningful and
compelling vision and direction for the future.
2. Process Outcomes: aside from the plan, the colleges wanted the process to:
Be inclusive, collaborative, and one in which people felt heard
Help develop and cultivate relationships among college stakeholders
Generate excitement, engagement and enthusiasm
Survey questions were developed to address the outcome and the process
effectiveness of the planning as well as perceived overall effectiveness of the planning
processes.
The online survey included both Likert scale questions and open-ended-comment
questions (see Appendix A for copies of the surveys). The majority of the survey
questions required a response indicating the participant’s level of agreement with a
specific statement: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. There was
also a response option, “Unsure,” which was excluded from further analysis.
For comparison purposes, and to include the strength of all responses, the
researcher assigned the responses a numeric value with Strongly Agree calculated as 4,
Agree calculated as 3, Disagree calculated as 2 and Strongly Disagree calculated as 1. An
arithmetic mean score out of a maximum of 4 was calculated using the assigned values.
62
Before employees at each institution began to answer the surveys, they were
reminded that Appreciative Inquiry was used as the strategic planning process and were
asked to consent to participate using wording approved by the University of Calgary
Conjoint Faculties Ethics Review Board and the ethics review boards for each college
(see Appendix A). They were then asked to give their opinions about various aspects of
the strategic planning process.
CNAQ: February 5-15, 2012
An invitation to complete a survey designed to evaluate the CNAQ strategic
planning process was sent to all employees on February 5, 2012. The CNAQ President
invited all those who were present during Phase 1 or Phase 2 planning to take ten minutes
to complete the online survey in order to provide feedback on the planning process. A
reminder was sent by the researcher on February 12, 2012. The survey closed on
February 15, 2012.
NECC: February 28-March 9, 2012
An invitation from the researcher to complete the survey to evaluate the NECC
strategic planning process was sent to all NECC employees on February 28, 2012 via the
NECC announcement email system. Employees were invited to take ten minutes to
complete the online survey to provide feedback on the NECC planning process. A
reminder email was sent on March 6, 2012. The survey closed on March 9, 2012.
The surveys focused on the following:
What elements they liked about the strategic planning process
What they would like to have seen more of in the strategic planning process
How the strategic planning process impacted them
63
Their opinions of the effectiveness of the strategic planning process
How they would compare the college’s strategic planning process to other
strategic planning processes that they had been involved with
What contributed to the success of the strategic planning process (if they felt it
was effective) or why they did not feel it was effective
What they thought would lead to the sustainability of the AI philosophy and
methodology at the college
If they felt that each of the pieces of the strategic plan provided a meaningful
direction for the future of the college
If they indicated that they did not participate in the planning process, why they
did not participate
The surveys for both colleges were kept similar to allow for comparison but in
view of NECC’s longer history with using AI for strategic planning the following
additional questions were included:
This is the second NECC strategic plan that was developed using Appreciative
Inquiry (AI). What do you think has contributed to the ongoing use of AI at
NECC? What has made it sustainable?
NECC began using Appreciative Inquiry (AI) in 2006 to inform the strategic
planning process. To what extent would you agree that there has been positive
culture change at NECC due to the use of AI?
Both surveys were anonymous and confidential. No personal or identifying
information was collected.
64
Stage 3: One-on-One Interviews (February-April, 2012)
One-on-one interviews of approximately one hour in length were held with
employees and planning team members at CNAQ and at NECC. Based on the
information gathered from Stage 1 and 2, an interview guide was developed. Prior to
starting the interview, the interviewee read and signed a consent form (see Appendix B).
CNAQ: February-March, 2012
Employees who filled out the survey were asked if they would be willing to
participate in a one-on-one interview. If they assented, they were taken to a separate
survey link to provide their contact information. An additional email was sent to
employees after the survey deadline with an interview sign-up link. The purpose of this
process was to enable employees to sign up for an interview even if they had not
completed the survey. The interviews were conducted by three people who work in
CNAQ’s Institutional Research and Planning Department, and who are also experienced
AI facilitators.
The researcher held a training session with the three interviewers to ensure that
the interviews were carried out in a consistent way. The interviews were held face-to-face
and arranged at a time that was convenient for the interviewee. The interviewer followed
the interview guide prepared by the researcher, and notes were taken during the
interview. Immediately after each interview, the person doing the interview recorded the
details of the interview on the interview sheet in a Microsoft Word 2010 template, which
was formatted by the researcher for exporting to a qualitative software program.
In addition, all CNAQ planning team members were contacted by the researcher
by email and asked if they would be interested in participating in interviews. If the
65
planning team members were currently employees of CNAQ, the interviews were
conducted by the other AI facilitator in the strategic planning process. The interviews
were held face-to-face and arranged at a time that was convenient for the interviewee. If
the planning team member was no longer an employee of CNAQ, the researcher
conducted the interview via telephone.
NECC April, 2012
The interviews for NECC were conducted onsite by the researcher between April
1-4, 2012. Employees who filled out the survey were asked if they would be willing to
participate in a one-on-one interview. If they did wish to participate in the interview, they
were taken to a separate survey link to provide their contact information. In addition, the
NECC president, in consultation with other key planning personnel, identified and invited
specific people who were members of the various planning teams to participate in an
interview. As with previous interviews, the researcher used the interview guide, and notes
were taken during the interview. Questions may have been modified during the actual
interview depending on what role the person had in the strategic planning process.
Immediately following the interview, the researcher transcribed the information from the
interview guide into a Microsoft Word 2010 template which was, again, formatted for
exporting to a qualitative software program.
These interview questions were similar for both CNAQ and NECC. The employee
interviews consisted of the following questions:
What was your participation in the strategic planning process?
66
(If they did participate) What did you like about the strategic planning process?
(If they didn’t participate) Why didn’t you participate? Is there anything that the
College could have done differently to encourage you to participate?
What would you change about the strategic planning process? What would you
like to see more of?
What was the highlight of the strategic planning process for you personally?
In your opinion, what was the most valuable outcome of the process?
Have you noticed any positive changes at the college that may be a result of the
AI process for strategic planning?
Have you been involved in another major strategic planning process? How would
you compare that experience to the planning experience at the college?
If colleagues from another institution asked for your opinion about strategic
planning, would you recommend that they consider Appreciative Inquiry? Why or
why not?
The following question, however, was added to the NECC interviews:
This is the second NECC strategic plan that was developed using Appreciative
Inquiry. What do you think has contributed to the ongoing use of AI at NECC?
What has made it sustainable?
The interviews for planning team members were also similar but some in-depth
questions about the process and outcomes were added:
Why did the planning team choose AI as the SP methodology?
What did you hope to gain from AI as opposed to other planning methods?
67
What were the outcomes of the strategic planning process?
Were there any unexpected outcomes?
Which of the outcomes was most valuable?
Do you think that using AI for the CNAQ strategic planning process was a good
choice? If the answer was “yes,” then what do you think were the critical success
factors for using AI in Strategic Planning (i.e., if they thought it was effective,
what made it so?). If the answer was “no,” what critical success factors were
missing (i.e., what should have been in place to make it successful?).
To summarize the data collection stages, Table 1 indicates the data collection
stage, the timing and the research questions address in each data collection stage.
Table 1
Summary of Data Collection Stages and Timing
Data Collection Stage Timing Research Question
Addressed
Stage 1: Understanding
and Describing the
Strategic Planning
Development and
Implementation Processes
January-February, 2012
Research Question 1 & 5
Stage 2: Administration of
a Web-Based Survey
February-March 2012
Research Questions 2, 3 & 4
Stage 3: One-on-One
Interviews
February-April, 2012
Research Questions 2, 3 & 4
68
Data Analysis
Quantitative Data
The closed-end survey data were “re-coded” and “cleansed” using Microsoft
Excel 2010 and imported into IBM SPSS Statistics 20 for analysis. An alpha level of .05
was used as the level of significance for all statistical tests.
Qualitative Data
The open-ended survey data and the interviews were imported into QSR NVivo 9,
a qualitative data analysis software program. (Note: I chose to use NVivo because I had
recently taken a training course on the use of NVivo and I wanted to use a program that
would assist me with the sorting, analyzing, integrating, theming and quantifying the
large amount of data that was collected during this study.) The following comments by
Bazeley (2007) lend some support to the choice of using a qualitative software program
and, in particular, NVivo:
Qualitative analysis is about working intensively with rich
data. The tools provided by NVivo support the analyst in
making use of multiple strategies concurrently - reading,
reflecting, coding, annotating, memoing, discussing,
linking, visualizing - with the results of those activities
recorded in nodes, memos, journals and models. Each of
these strategies is integrated in a process of learning from
the data, and indeed, they work best when they are carried
out as integrated activities (p. 59).
The NVivo choice, therefore, seemed appropriate. I wanted to be as objective as possible
with the data on the one hand, while also being enabled to use my own experience with
and knowledge of the AI philosophy and process as a framework for the study’s analyses.
Yin (1992) reminds researchers that it is important to create a case study database as well
as a case study report to avoid criticisms of subjectivity.
69
However, it is important to have both “distance and closeness to secure a rounded
perspective on your data” (Bazeley, 2007, p. 60). In this regard, I felt that NVivo would
allow themes and ideas to emerge naturally and spontaneously while also allowing me,
simultaneously, to record these thoughts and ideas within a coding journal. As Bazeley
(2007) also mentions and to repeat: “Qualitative analysis is about working intensively
with rich data” (p. 59). My attempts to analyze the qualitative using NVivo was indeed an
intense and difficult journey; and the approach I decided on to analyze such data might
best be described as an emerging and generative one.
To attempt to clarify, there are some research approaches which have been used to
try to develop a coding structure for quantitative data—often identified as a codebook.
For example, DeCuir-Gunby, Marshall and McCulloch (2011) describe the development
of codes as being theory-driven, data-driven or research question-driven. I decided to use
a combination of all three of these approaches. I made several passes through the data and
several versions of a codebook were developed. Using an auto-coding function, I was
then able to review, code and theme the data without any pre-set themes (data-driven),
paying particular attention to, and organized by, my research questions (research
question-driven). I then used a theory-driven approach to go back through the coding—to
collapse or expand the coding—and to categorize and name the themes and ideas into
larger segments. These segments were based, in part, on themes from the literature
review and in part on my own knowledge of and experience with Appreciative Inquiry
but were mainly informed by the data items themselves.
Also, in order to go beyond merely theming the data, I did additional pass-
throughs to determine all of the ideas emerging which expressed support for the
70
Appreciative Inquiry concept, as well as all those which expressed opposing or divergent
views. This was done in an attempt to develop an overall model of AI’s effectiveness as a
strategic planning strategy regardless of a particular research question. Bazeley (2009)
strongly recommends this approach which she calls “moving from ‘Garden Path
Analysis’ towards a coherent model” (p. 9).
Finally, NVivo also enables the quantification of the ideas and themes through a
query tool. Various queries were run on the themes and ideas; and resultant data were
exported back to Microsoft Excel 2010 for further analysis and for visualization.
71
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Introduction
As presented in Chapter 1, the general purposes of this research are to describe,
evaluate and compare the strategic planning processes utilized by the College of the
North Atlantic – Qatar and by Northern Essex Community College. More specifically,
this study attempts to provide answers to the following five research questions:
1. How did the colleges plan and implement their strategic planning processes using
Appreciative Inquiry?
2. Did the employees who participated in the strategic planning process believe that
Appreciative Inquiry was an effective tool in the development of college strategy?
If so, how? If not, why?
3. What other impacts did the use of Appreciative Inquiry for planning have on the
college communities?
4. What are the characteristics that foster the sustainable use of Appreciative Inquiry
at the colleges?
5. What similarities exist, if any, between the experiences of the College of the
North Atlantic – Qatar and Northern Essex Community College in using
Appreciative Inquiry for strategic planning? What differences exist, if any?
This chapter presents the quantitative and qualitative data which emerged from
the study in order to explore what would seem to be the most significant results and also
to summarize the results and findings from the data collection process.
72
Appreciative Inquiry is based on the importance of dialogue, conversation and
narrative—encouraging people to feel free to talk honestly to and with their colleagues.
Therefore, later sections of this chapter will include many quotations from study
participants. Some of the comments are verbatim quotations from the written documents
and surveys. Other comments are from interview transcriptions. The researcher attempted
to select representative and balanced quotations for inclusion, giving proportional weight
to the positive and negative viewpoints that were voiced in regard to both the strengths
and weaknesses of using Appreciative Inquiry for strategic planning.
Research Question 1
How did the colleges plan and implement their strategic planning processes using
Appreciative Inquiry?
In order to establish the context for the other four research questions, this section
will describe how both CNAQ and NECC used Appreciative Inquiry for their strategic
planning processes including:
The Planning Contexts and Decisions to Use Appreciative Inquiry for Planning
Brief Overview of the Planning Processes and Timelines
Leadership and Facilitation of the Planning Processes
Introducing Appreciative Inquiry: A New Approach to Planning
The Appreciative Inquiry Planning Processes
Using Appreciative Inquiry for Strategic Planning at CNAQ and NECC: A
Reflection
73
The Planning Contexts and Decisions to Use Appreciative Inquiry for Planning
The College of the North Atlantic – Qatar
The College of the North Atlantic – Qatar, situated in Doha and the middle-
eastern country of Qatar, is a satellite campus of the College of the North Atlantic (CNA)
which has its headquarters in Newfoundland, Canada. CNAQ opened in September 2002
through a ten-year agreement with the State of Qatar; it is presently Qatar’s premier
comprehensive technical college.
CNAQ has approximately 750 staff and 4,500 full- and part-time students. It
combines a Canadian curriculum and industry expertise in five program areas including
Business Studies, Engineering Technology and Industrial Trades, Health Sciences,
Information Technology and Security Training. CNAQ’s Corporate Services and
Continuing Education Division offers specialized courses for corporate clients as well as
evening and weekend courses for individuals.
CNAQ’s governance structure is both unique and complex. As a campus of the
College of the North Atlantic, the CNA Board of Governors (BOG) through the President
of CNA governs the Qatar Campus. The College Act, 1996, Chapter C-22.1, An Act
Respecting a Provincial College provides the legal framework for the decisions at CNA
(and, therefore, CNAQ). As a unicameral governance structure the BOG has sole
responsibility for all administrative and academic matters related to CNA. The President
of CNA has overall responsibility for carrying out the decisions of the BOG. The
President of CNAQ reports to the President of CNA and is responsible for carrying out
the decisions of the BOG with regard to CNAQ.
74
There is a Joint Oversight Board (JOB) established for CNAQ. While the CNA
BOG retains overall responsibility for decisions at CNAQ, specific governing functions
have been assigned to the JOB which includes long-term and operational planning and
budgeting. The JOB consists of four members appointed by the State, four members
appointed by CNA BOG, and three members, who are independent members of the
academic or business community, appointed jointly by the State and BOG. The CNAQ
President and Vice President for Academic Affairs are non-voting ex officio members. A
Chair of the JOB is appointed from among the members by the State.
In 2009, the CNAQ Joint Oversight Board asked for CNAQ to create a five-year
Strategic Plan. This particular planning environment was challenging for many reasons:
as described above, the decision making structure is complex and unique; CNAQ and
CNA were both experiencing leadership transition issues; the contract between CNA and
the State of Qatar was due to expire in August 2013 and a new contract had not been
negotiated creating employee morale challenges. These issues, therefore, created a sense
of uncertainty for the future of CNAQ in that there was little stability within which to
create a sustainable long-term planning process.
In December 2009, a cross-functional strategic planning team was formed to
oversee the strategic planning process. As CNAQ had already undergone other
unsuccessful planning processes, and in view of the other issues just listed, the strategic
planning team members were aware of the importance of ensuring that, this time around,
a genuinely effective planning process would be found and then implemented.
During the same time period that the strategic planning team was contemplating
that important mandate, the researcher decided to attend an Appreciative Inquiry
75
Facilitator Training course. The learning experiences from this course turned out to be
even more impactful than anticipated; they convinced the researcher that Appreciative
Inquiry might in fact be the concept and the process that could prove successful for
planning at CNAQ.
The researcher did further investigation about the AI approach and discovered
that many companies and corporations, and even some colleges, were achieving great
success using AI for strategic planning. With that in mind, the researcher delivered a
presentation for the strategic planning team entitled Creating Magic at CNAQ – Using
Appreciative Inquiry for Strategic Planning.
As Appreciative Inquiry was a new process for most of the strategic planning
team members, the presentation outlined the fundamental concepts of AI, highlighted
several major organizations that were successfully using AI and discussed the experience
of a higher education institution that had already chosen AI as the basis of its strategic
planning process.
Immediately following the presentation the strategic planning team unanimously
agreed that they not only needed a new approach to strategic planning but that AI was the
best alternative.
Northern Essex Community College
NECC, which opened in 1961, is a two-year public college located in Essex
County in north-eastern Massachusetts. NECC is one of 15 community colleges in the
Massachusetts higher education system and serves 16,000 full- and part-time students
each year. NECC has two campuses, one in Haverhill and one in Lawrence.
76
NECC offers post-secondary education through the associate degree level,
including career programs in areas such as nursing and allied health, computers, criminal
justice, paralegal studies and deaf studies as well as transfer programs for students who
start their education at Northern Essex and transfer for their junior and senior years,
eventually earning a bachelor’s degree or higher. The College also offers developmental
courses in writing, mathematics and English as a Second Language, designed to prepare
students for college-level work and non-credit programs for career advancement or
personal enrichment.
The community colleges in Massachusetts are governed by a combination of
campus administration, local boards of trustees and the Massachusetts Board of Higher
Education. The day-to-day operation of the college is the responsibility of the college
president and her/his staff. NECC also has an "All-College Assembly" (ACA), which
consists of every employee at the college except the president. The ACA meets regularly
and provides recommendations to the President on a variety of issues, including academic
affairs, student affairs, college finances and information technology.
The local board of trustees, which consists of eleven members (nine appointed by
the governor of the state, one elected by the students and one elected by the alumni)
meets monthly and is responsible for major policy decisions and overall budget authority.
The state Board of Higher Education, along with the local board of trustees, participates
in the hiring and evaluation of the president. The state Board also provides final approval
of new academic programs, allocates performance incentive funds across the colleges and
establishes statewide goals for higher education.
77
Within this governance system, strategic planning at NECC begins with the
President and the Executive Committee of the All-College Assembly, who discuss and
agree on the kind of planning that will done and the outcomes that will be expected. The
President and his/her staff is then responsible for engaging employees in the planning
process and developing the college's strategic plan. Once developed, the plan is reviewed
and approved by the college's local Board of Trustees.
The former President of NECC, who had initially introduced Appreciative Inquiry
as the College’s planning philosophy, was in office during the start-up of this planning
process. A new President took office before the first stakeholder planning session. The
new President was an internal candidate (the previous Vice President Academic). The
new President also believed in and brought with him a strengths-based and positive
approach to leadership. By all anecdotal accounts, the decision making structure was
typical of a college setting, College leadership was effective, organizational culture at
NECC was positive and the environment was stable.
In 2011, NECC embarked on a continuation of its strategic planning process.
NECC’s previous strategic plan was for the period of 2008-2011. The College used
Appreciative Inquiry, again, to develop the strategic plan for 2012-2015; it is this
planning cycle that is the focus of this study. However, as this was the second strategic
plan that had been developed using AI at NECC, the history and experience that NECC
had with AI played an important role in their decision to use this process and in their
overall experience with and use of AI for strategic planning.
NECC has already had a five-year history of using Appreciative Inquiry. In 2007,
the College decided to embark on a strategic planning process for the period 2008-2011;
78
the President at that time thought that NECC needed to use a different approach to
planning. In discussing the planning process with his Executive Committee, the President
indicated he was open to innovative approaches to this important institutional activity.
One Executive Committee member had heard of Appreciative Inquiry and thought that
this methodology would work well for the College.
Presentations were made to the NECC Leadership Team (President’s Cabinet and
the Executive Council of the All College Assembly) suggesting several potential
planning methods. The President and the NECC Leadership Team, in consultation,
decided upon Appreciative Inquiry. They thought that the AI methodology would foster a
more inclusive approach than had past planning methods.
At this point in time, two consultants, both AI experts, were hired to lead the
College through the planning process. A planning framework was developed, one-on-one
Appreciative Inquiry interviews were carried out with stakeholders in the campus
community and, in March 2008, a three-day AI planning session (called a Summit in AI
terminology) was held for various College stakeholders. The information from that
session was collected and used to develop the 2008-2011 Strategic Plan for NECC.
Since that time, there seems to have been many beneficial results and even
unexpected impacts from this strategic planning process, and the AI methodology and
philosophy seem to have become infused into the campus culture.
The previous NECC strategic plan was due to elapse at the end of 2011, and it
was time for the administrative leaders of NECC to begin a new planning cycle to
prepare for the development of the 2012-2015 strategic plan. In July 2011, a new
President of NECC was installed, and as mentioned he had been the Vice President
79
Academic during the previous planning process. He was a supporter of the Appreciative
Inquiry concept, and he was also a certified AI facilitator and trainer.
According to this new President and other key planning personnel at NECC,
continuing to use Appreciative Inquiry for this next round of strategic planning was a
logical decision. The President thought that a tipping point—in terms of support for AI—
had happened on campus: that the Appreciative Inquiry philosophy had already become
part of the culture and that the previous strategic plan using AI was considered to have
been a very successful process. Therefore, NECC wanted not just to give support to the
previous strategic plan but to honour the plan and build on it by using Appreciative
Inquiry, once again, as the planning method.
Brief Overview of the Strategic Planning Processes and Timelines
The College of the North Atlantic – Qatar
The development of the CNAQ strategic plan was carried out in three phases.
Phase 1, which was undertaken from March through May 2010, resulted in the
development of a vision, a mission, five strategic directions and a set of guiding
principles. This was presented to the CNAQ Joint Oversight Board in June 2010 and
CNAQ was then given approval to continue with the development of the goals and the
College-wide initiatives necessary to support the overall strategic plan.
Phase 2, which was carried out from December 2010 to May 2011, resulted in the
development of 16 strategic goals and 34 College-wide strategic initiatives to achieve
those goals. The results of this phase of the strategic plan were presented to and approved
by the CNAQ Joint Oversight Board in July 2011.
80
There was, however, a temporary cessation of planning activities between Phase 1
and Phase 2, during September through December 2010. In September 2010 CNAQ
installed a new President. The President needed to be briefed on the strategic plan and the
planning process to ensure that he could support both the proposed direction that the
College was going to be taking over the next five years as well as giving his support to
using Appreciative Inquiry as the primary planning philosophy for Phase 2. The new
President gave his support to the AI process, and the strategic planning team was given
full approval to initiate Phase 2 of the planning process in December 2010.
Phase 3 is an ongoing process that started in September 2011. This phase involves
developing action plans for the College-wide goals and initiatives as well as the
implementation plan.
Phase 1 and 2 of the planning cycle at CNAQ are the focus of this doctoral study.
Northern Essex Community College
NECC’s strategic planning process was developed to build on the previous NECC
strategic plan. The development of the strategic plan took place between May 2011 and
January 2012.
The planning process included two planning phases. The first planning phase took
place in September 2011 with a full-day session involving a number of NECC
stakeholders. The focus of this session was to reflect on the previous strategic plan, in
particular the strategic directions and values, and to identify themes for the future
strategic directions of NECC.
The second planning phase took place between October 2011 and January 2012.
Several one-hour sessions were held with various College stakeholders. The purpose of
81
these sessions was to build on and clarify the themes that arose from the earlier full-day
planning session.
The information from these two planning initiatives was used to develop a final
strategic plan that included the NECC vision, core values, five strategic directions and
strategic goals.
The activities during this time frame, Phase 1 and Phase 2, for NECC are the
focus of this doctoral study. NECC is currently in the implementation stage of the
strategic planning process.
Leadership and Facilitation of the Planning Processes
The College of the North Atlantic – Qatar
A decision was made by CNAQ officials, at the onset of the planning, to lead the
strategic planning process internally. As a result, CNAQ made use of cross-functional
planning teams and internal facilitators for the various phases of the strategic planning
process.
During Phase 1 of the planning the CNAQ Acting President asked all CNAQ
employees to submit an expression of interest in regard to participating on the strategic
planning team. The Director of Institutional Research and Planning was appointed as the
Chair of the strategic planning team. A team of approximately 15 representatives was
chosen by the Acting President and the Chair, ensuring representation across departments
and employee types (e.g., management, faculty, support staff, etc.). A student
representative was appointed as well as an external representative from industry. The
mandate of the strategic planning team was to oversee and champion Phase 1 of the
82
strategic planning process and to develop the Phase 1 portion of the strategic plan which
included the vision, mission, guiding principles and strategic initiatives.
A new strategic planning team was formed in order to facilitate the development
of the College-wide goals and strategic initiatives (Phase 2 of the strategic planning
process). The CNAQ President approved a strategic planning team that consisted of co-
chairs for each of the five strategic directions and the guiding principles. The President
and the two Vice Presidents had an ex-officio role on the team. The mandate of this
committee was to facilitate collaborative and inclusive discussions and decisions about
what College-wide initiatives should be undertaken to ensure that each strategic direction
was moved forward in a supported and well-planned way.
In both phases of the strategic planning process, the primary planning and the
majority of the Appreciative Inquiry session facilitation were undertaken by two
members of the Institutional Research and Planning Department (one of which was the
researcher) who had both taken an Appreciative Inquiry facilitator training course. The
details of the AI planning process were discussed with the strategic planning teams, and
all decisions were vetted and approved by the teams.
Northern Essex Community College
NECC took a generative and inclusive approach to their strategic planning
leadership and facilitation process. Initially they used external expertise but subsequently
relied on internal personnel to lead and facilitate the planning process.
In May 2011 an Appreciative Inquiry planning consultant was hired by NECC to
initiate the planning process. The new NECC President wanted someone external to the
College to facilitate the planning for the strategic planning process. According to the
83
consultant, the President did not want to overly influence the process but rather to stand
back from the process and let the process be led by other employees. Thus the consultant
indicated that her own role was to facilitate the initial planning and to help bring out the
knowledge and experience of the internal personnel.
A volunteer-based strategic planning team was formed early in the strategic
planning process, and NECC took a very inclusive approach to its membership. The
President appointed one of the NECC Deans as chair of the strategic planning team. An
invitation was sent to all employees seeking people who were interested in participating
on the strategic planning team in the attempt to provide as broad a representation as
possible. Anyone who was interested became a member of the strategic planning team.
The first meeting of the strategic planning team was held in July 2011. However,
because many people were away from the College in July, another call went out for
strategic planning team members at the beginning of the next academic year. In addition,
people from specific employee groups and departments were recruited to ensure
representation from as many constituents as possible. According to the Chair of the
strategic planning team, the team resulted with a solid 14 people. The committee had a
mix of people with Appreciative Inquiry experience including people who had taken an
Appreciative Inquiry facilitator course, people who had experienced the past AI planning
process and also people with no AI experience.
As the strategic planning process progressed, planning sub-teams were formed.
The formation of sub-teams had the added benefit of involving more people in the
planning process and provided an opportunity for more people to develop their leadership
skills. Through calls for volunteers, the following teams were formed:
84
Data Team (23 members): This team reviewed, assessed and disseminated data
gathered throughout the process. The team discussed findings with the strategic
planning team and helped identify the final strategic directions for the NECC
Strategic Plan.
SOAR Forum Facilitation Team (16 members): This team conducted SOAR
sessions (the second planning initiative) with faculty, staff, students and members
of the local community. The facilitators were responsible for collecting, recording
and submitting data to the Data Team from each session.
Communication Team (22 members): This team developed and implemented
effective communication strategies for the strategic planning process.
Design Team (9 members): This team developed the visual themes and designs
for various strategic planning materials including the final strategic planning
document.
Writing Team (11 members): This team developed the text for the strategic plan
and other key documents based on input from and discussions with other teams.
The strategic planning team was expanded, in time, to include the chairs of each
of the strategic planning sub-teams.
Introducing Appreciative Inquiry: A New Approach to Planning
The College of the North Atlantic – Qatar
Once the strategic planning team made the decision to use the Appreciative
Inquiry methodology for the planning process, they then had a discussion about how
much to advertise or specifically refer to the AI terminology. Many AI resources
recommend that time be spent with participants educating them on the AI philosophy and
85
methodology prior to actually engaging them in an AI process. On the other hand, and as
Bushe (2000) warns, AI can be seen as a flavour of the month initiative.
CNAQ had already undergone at least one example of an unsuccessful initiative
that may have been perceived in this way. In addition, the strategic planning team thought
that because of the rather more conservative environment of the College’s geographical
location, the label Appreciative Inquiry might sound vague or trendy. As a result of past
experiences, and because choosing the appropriate planning process was the important
objective as opposed to being seen implementing a new approach, the strategic planning
team made a conscious decision, initially, to minimize the use of and discussion
concerning the terminology of Appreciative Inquiry. Therefore, all stakeholders, Qatari
and Canadian, were invited to participate in a strategic planning process which was
described in early sessions only as being inclusive, collaborative, solution-focused, etc.
The Appreciative Inquiry label was not used.
As CNAQ moved forward and stakeholders became more familiar with and
engaged in the planning process, the AI name and all its terminology were gradually
introduced and explained. The College has offered a number of week-long training
sessions for employees, students and participants external to CNAQ who were interested
in becoming Appreciative Inquiry facilitators and continues to encourage and expand the
use of AI for other activities.
Northern Essex Community College
NECC was transparent from their first round of strategic planning in 2006 that
they would be using the Appreciative Inquiry approach for planning. They held several
information and training sessions on AI to ensure that stakeholders understood the
86
philosophy and the methodology. NECC’s previous planning process was conducted by
two well-known Appreciative Inquiry experts, and an NECC video was made about their
experience using Appreciative Inquiry for strategic planning. NECC has also hosted
Appreciative Inquiry facilitator training for a number of their employees. AI has
continued to be used and seems to have become infused within their campus culture over
the past six years.
The Appreciative Inquiry Planning Processes
CNAQ and NECC both decided to use an Appreciative Inquiry approach to their
strategic planning processes. The AI methodology is structured and, yet, provides the
flexibility for organizations to adapt the process to suit their own organizational
development needs, timelines and environment. As discussed in the literature review,
perhaps the best-known and most-used approach is called the 4-D model (Watkins &
Mohr, 2001). Figure 1 depicts the cycle of the 4-D Model.
Figure 1. The Appreciative Inquiry 4-D Model (adapted from Watkins & Mohr, 2001)
87
This section describes the planning processes for both CNAQ and NECC and
indicates how and where the 4-D Model was used.
The College of the North Atlantic – Qatar
Phase 1: Vision, Mission and Strategic Directions (Discover and Dream)
The strategic planning team made a commitment to be inclusive in their approach
to planning, and with this in mind all stakeholders groups were offered the opportunity to
participate in the strategic planning process through involving them in an Appreciative
Inquiry session. Stakeholder groups included current full-time students, continuing-
education students, graduates, employees of CNAQ, employees from the College of the
North Atlantic in Newfoundland and Labrador (the CNAQ home campus), industry
partners and other members of the Qatar community.
An initial AI session was held with the strategic planning team members. As most
of the team was unfamiliar with Appreciative Inquiry, it was important for them to
experience the process themselves to be able to be fully supportive proponents of the
planning philosophy and methodology.
Subsequently, and over a four-week time period, 14 four-hour AI sessions were
held with more than 400 people attending. The sessions were specific to the stakeholder
group (i.e. sessions for students, graduates, employees, etc.) so that each session had the
appropriate focus. For cultural reasons, there were separate sessions for female students
and for male students. Also, sessions were translated into Arabic for students with lower
levels of English competency.
The structure of each session was similar and was as follows:
88
Beginning with Discovery: Appreciating the best of “what is” (Watkins & Mohr,
2001), participants engaged in a one-on-one interview with another participant and were
encouraged to choose a person that they did not know very well. The focus of this inquiry
was designed to elicit their peak experience with CNAQ. This activity enables
participants to discover what is already working well at the College. Participants were
given an interview guide and asked to follow it closely. The interview followed a
traditional AI structure of looking back (telling a story about a peak experience with
CNAQ), looking within (discussing what they value about themselves and about CNAQ)
and looking forward (describing their three wishes for the future for CNAQ). Participants
were asked to complete a summary sheet of the information from their partner’s
interview to assist them during the next phases of the AI session and also to facilitate data
collection.
Participants then formed groups of four to six at a table with interview partners
staying together in groups. Each person took a turn to share their partner’s peak
experience, values and wishes for the future. Participants then defined the high-energy
themes (i.e. the common, promising, inspiring and unique concepts or ideas that emerged
from the interviews). Each group created a list of the themes they had identified.
Moving on to the next stage, Dream: Create shared images of a preferred future
(Watkins & Mohr, 2001), each group was asked to choose the highest-energy theme (i.e.
the one idea that had created the most excitement or interest for their group as they
considered the future of CNAQ). Groups were encouraged to discuss all the ideas and to
generatively identify their one selected theme.
89
Participants then turned this highest-energy theme from a word image to a visual
image. Participants were asked to consider what their theme would look like if it was
working at its best at CNAQ. A creativity table (a table containing a variety of craft
supplies) was used in some sessions to help the groups express their highest-energy
theme in a visual image. In other sessions, such as the session with industry partners who
are potentially more conservative, participants were asked to create a front page of a
newspaper, five years into the future, which was dedicated to CNAQ and what they
regarded as their highest-energy theme. This group was encouraged to use visuals as well
as words. The groups shared their highest-energy themes with the rest of the participants
and then described how their visuals depicted their themes.
Participants then moved back, again, to words by creating a “Provocative
Proposition” (the more traditional AI term) or what CNAQ called a “Statement of the
Preferred Future.” This statement’s purpose was to encourage participants to articulate as
specifically as possible an ideal vision statement for their high-energy theme at CNAQ.
Statements were to be provocative (stretch, challenge or interrupt the status quo);
grounded (there should be examples at CNAQ that illustrate that the ideal is a real
possibility); desired (if it could be fully actualized, would the group want it as a preferred
future); and affirmative (stated in positive language and in the present tense as if it were
happening already).
At the end of the session participants were asked to think of one word to describe
how they felt right at that moment about the future of CNAQ. They wrote the word on a
sticky note and posted it on a flip chart page as they left.
90
Data collection, review and synthesis. Each participant completed a summary
sheet from their one-on-one interview which was collected at the end of each session.
The flipchart sheets from each group, along with the themes, high-energy themes and
statements of the preferred future, were also collected. Pictures were taken of each visual
image. With so many sessions, and because the members of the strategic planning team
did not participate directly in each one, it was important to capture all of the ideas that
were generated from all the sessions.
Google Docs, an open source web-based data storage system, was used for data
entry. Spreadsheets were created to organize information from each stakeholder group
including highlights of each interview (peak experiences, values, wishes for the future,
"quotable quotes"), the list of positive core themes, highest energy themes and statements
of the preferred future.
All of the session data were entered by the session facilitators. Information from
the Arabic sessions was translated into English prior to data entry. Microsoft Access was
used to sort, separate and present the information to the strategic planning team for
review.
The strategic planning team participated in a facilitated, two-day session during
which they reviewed, themed and synthesized all of the data from the AI planning
sessions. Because there was a great deal of information to consider, this was a very time-
consuming process. However, as one strategic planning team member remarked, "The
themes spoke for themselves when we went through the data” (CNAQ Creating the
Future video, 2010). This session resulted in the development of a draft high-level plan
91
which outlined a renewed vision and mission for CNAQ, a set of guiding principles and
five strategic directions.
A writing sub-team was formed and over a two-week period the work from the
strategic planning team session was compiled into a draft document CNAQ 2011-2016
Strategy: Creating the Future....Together.
Stakeholder check-in sessions. It was important to the strategic planning team
that the information from the stakeholder sessions be clearly represented in the plan. At
each session, participants were reassured that they would see the ideas generated in their
AI sessions reflected in the final plan. To facilitate this, the strategic planning team
hosted an Open House event. All stakeholders were invited to preview the plan in order
to ensure that participants could see their contribution in the plan. Participants were
invited to provide comments and suggestions regarding the proposed plan. Strategic
planning team members were present to answer questions and have conversations with
the participants.
An online feedback system was also available. In addition, a facilitated feedback
session was held with College leaders to review the plan in detail and allow the
leadership team to provide comments and suggestions.
All of the feedback from the check-in sessions was considered by the strategic
planning team and included in the next iteration of the strategic plan.
Phase 1 approval. The high-level strategy was approved by the Joint Oversight
Board in June 2010. The Board directed the College to continue with the development of
the strategic plan by developing and proposing the goals and major initiatives that would
be undertaken.
92
Phase 2: College-Wide Goals and Strategic Initiatives (Discover, Dream & Design)
The next phase of planning took place between December 2010 and April 2011.
This phase involved the development of College-wide goals and strategic initiatives for
each of the five strategic directions and for the guiding principles that had been
developed in Phase 1. Due to the perceived success of the first round of planning
activities and the positive engagement of our stakeholders, the strategic planning team for
this phase recommended the continued use of Appreciative Inquiry as the framework for
planning. The AI elements Discover and Dream components were repeated and the AI
element of Design: Determine what should be (Watkins & Mohr, 2001) was introduced.
Over a two-week time period, 17 additional four-hour Appreciative Inquiry
sessions were held with more than 400 people attending. The focus of the AI sessions in
this phase was on each of the strategic directions identified in Phase 1. Once again the
sessions were specific to the stakeholder group (i.e. students, graduates, employees, etc.)
so that each session was appropriate for the specific population. In this phase the CNAQ
leadership team had its own session, and a session was also held for members of the
Qatar community.
In order to ensure that the student voice was strongly represented, a large student
session was held with over 150 students attending. Each of the schools was assigned a
proportionate number of students to invite to the session in order to ensure representation
across the academic units. An additional session was held in Arabic for those students
with lower levels of English proficiency.
For the student, leadership team, industry, graduate and community sessions, each
table group was assigned one of the five specific strategic directions to focus on in order
93
to distribute the planning for each strategic direction. The strategic planning team wanted
to ensure that employees had an opportunity to contribute ideas to each of the five
strategic directions so shorter sessions were also held with a focus on one strategic
direction. Two sessions were scheduled for each strategic direction in order to
accommodate different employee work schedules. Employees could choose to attend any
of the sessions that interested them.
These sessions followed a traditional AI structure and had a similar format to
Phase 1 sessions. The sessions began with Discovery (one-on-one interviews, group
stories sharing, identification of high-energy themes) and Dream (selecting the highest-
energy theme, creating a visual image and a word image or “statement of the preferred
future” for their high-energy them) for the assigned strategic direction.
Design: Determine what should be (Watkins & Mohr, 2001) was introduced using
the SOAR methodology. This stands for Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations and
Results and is an Appreciative Inquiry technique (Stavros & Hinrichs, 2009). Through
individual brainstorming of ideas, followed by group activities to organize and sort the
ideas, participants identified the strengths, opportunities, aspirations and intended results
in order for CNAQ to achieve the goals detailed in their statement of the preferred future.
Moving to Destiny: Create what will be (Watkins & Mohr, 2001), participants identified
and prioritized specific actions and initiatives that CNAQ could take to realize that
preferred future.
Data collection, review and synthesis. As in Phase 1, participants completed a
summary sheet after their one-on-one interviews. The summary sheets were collected at
94
the end of each session. The flip-chart sheets from each table were also collected and
pictures were taken of each visual image. All data were entered in Google Docs.
The strategic planning team participated in a facilitated full-day session. Each of
the strategic direction co-chairs reviewed and synthesized the information that was
collected from each AI session related to their specific strategic direction to make
recommendations about potential initiatives. Several follow-up planning sessions were
held with the strategic planning team where presentations were made by the co-chairs on
their recommended strategic initiatives and feedback was given from the other members
of the strategic planning team. This format allowed the entire team to contribute to
initiatives for each strategic direction by seeking clarification and providing suggestions
and enhancements based on what they had heard and learned.
The President, new to CNAQ that academic year, wanted to be significantly
engaged in the strategic planning process. Further sessions were held with the strategic
planning team, the President, the President's Advisory Council, the leadership team, and
the College executive team in order to ensure that the goals and initiatives that had been
recommended were widely vetted and accepted.
Over the course of three months, the facilitators worked closely with the strategic
planning team to finalize the strategic initiatives that would be added to the CNAQ
strategic planning document. The result was an updated 2011-2016 CNAQ Strategic Plan
that contained 16 goals and 34 College-wide initiatives that would be submitted to
CNAQ Joint Oversight Board for approval.
Phase 2 approval. The 2011-2016 CNAQ Strategic Plan was approved, in
principle, by the Joint Oversight Board in June 2011. The Board directed the College to
95
develop specific action plans for the initiatives and to submit a budget request at the
December 2011 meeting of the Joint Oversight Board.
Summary of the CNAQ Planning Process
The CNAQ planning process that is the focus of this study started in February
2010 and was completed in June 2011 with the approval of the vision, mission, guiding
principles, strategic directions, goals and strategic initiatives. Table 2 presents an overall
summary of the activities and timelines of the CNAQ planning process.
Table 2
Summary of CNAQ Strategic Planning Timing and Activities
Phase 1
When Activity
February 2010 Presentation to the strategic planning team about the use of
Appreciative Inquiry for strategic planning
Strategic planning team recommends AI for the planning
process
March 2010 Preparation for AI planning session: booking venue,
developing interview guides, agendas, participant invitations,
etc.
AI planning session (Discovery and Dream) held with the
strategic planning team
April 2010 14 4-hour AI sessions (Discovery and Dream) conducted with
students, employees, graduates and industry partners.
Two-day planning session with strategic planning team to
review and synthesize planning data
Strategic plan writing with the strategic planning team
May 2010 Strategic plan check in with CNAQ leadership team
Stakeholder Open House check-in session
June 2010 2011-2016 CNAQ Strategy document approved by Joint
Oversight Board
96
Phase 2
When Activity
September-December
2010
Introduction of the CNAQ planning process and philosophy
to the new CNAQ President
October 2010 Formation of strategic planning team to guide the Phase 2
process
November-December
2010
AI sessions conducted with leadership team, students,
employees, graduates, community, and industry partners
(Discovery, Dream, Design and Destiny)
January-April 2011 Planning session with the strategic planning team to review
and synthesize planning data
Meetings of strategic planning team, President's Advisory
Council and Executive to finalize the Phase 2 plan
Strategic plan finalized and printed
June 2011 2011-2016 CNAQ Strategic Plan approved by Joint Oversight
Board
Northern Essex Community College
Strategic Planning Team Initial Planning Session
In July 2011 the NECC President organized a planning-to-plan session for the
strategic planning team to be facilitated by an Appreciative Inquiry consultant. The
President attended the beginning of the planning session and then let the session proceed
without his presence. He set the parameters for the upcoming strategic planning process
and emphasized that the committee was authorized to make decisions about how to
proceed with the planning. According to the consultant, the strategic planning team
97
members were very engaged in the process and excited at the opportunity to take
leadership roles.
The planning-to-plan day had several objectives, and in particular, the consultant
wanted to energize the team in regard to strategic planning and to educate the team
members about the Appreciative Inquiry philosophy and methodology. To experience the
AI process the strategic planning team participated in an inquiry into “Highly Effective
Strategic Planning at NECC.” The consultant also asked a few of the strategic planning
team members who were already trained Appreciative Inquiry facilitators to speak to the
rest of the team about their experiences with AI, what Appreciative Inquiry meant to
them and their thoughts about using AI for the NECC strategic planning process.
The strategic planning team discussed the scope of the upcoming planning, the
charter for the strategic planning team, planning tasks and timeline, and they discussed a
structure for a collaborative full-day planning session with all stakeholders that would
occur in September 2011. NECC traditionally holds an all-college assembly at the
beginning of the fall semester which they call Fall Convocation. This Convocation was
reserved for the planning session.
An important result of the dialogue and decision making at this planning session
was the decision to continue the facilitation of the strategic planning process using
internal expertise. The consultant had a few mentoring conversations with the President
and key planning personnel to verify that they were on track, but the rest of the planning
was organized and led internally. The consultant acknowledged that her role was not to
lead the process or to tell NECC what to do but, rather, to facilitate their own roles as
members of the strategic planning team so that they could begin to do their own planning.
98
The consultant also emphasized that having external expertise at the beginning of
the planning process allowed internal leadership to emerge and to take ownership of the
strategic planning process and thereby to facilitate the AI process internally. The
consultant and the key planning personnel realized that this was a favourable sign: it
showed that the strategic planning team needed little external involvement and that the
required expertise had already been developed in-house. It also indicated that they had
internalized and incorporated the values and practices associated with Appreciative
Inquiry from their previous strategic planning activities.
Phase 1: All College Assembly (Discover and Dream)
NECC holds an all-college assembly, called Convocation, at the beginning of
each academic year, which provides an opportunity for College stakeholders (faculty,
staff, students, cabinet members and members of the community in which NECC is
located) to come together to discuss items of mutual interest. The strategic planning team
decided to use this Convocation session to engage stakeholders in the initial phase of the
strategic planning process.
To ensure an effective planning session, Convocation Facilitators were used to
provide support and assistance. This also provided an opportunity to build more
Appreciative Inquiry and leadership capacity within the NECC community. Convocation
Facilitators were recruited from people who had leadership roles in various NECC
initiatives including members of the leadership academy, Appreciative Inquiry team,
strengths team, process management team, etc. There were 31 facilitators who
volunteered and were trained to support the Appreciative Inquiry Convocation session.
Each Convocation Facilitator was assigned to assist a table of participants.
99
Approximately 300 people participated in the AI planning session at Convocation
including faculty, staff, students, cabinet members and members of the community in
which NECC is located. The focus of the inquiry involved reflecting on the previous
strategic plan—in particular the strategic directions and values—and considering the
future strategic directions for NECC. There was a great deal of support for, and energy
generated by, the previous strategic plan, and as mentioned, the strategic planning team
wanted to honour and celebrate that plan. They did not want to start over but rather to
build on the success of the previous plan and the previous planning process as well.
The structure of this AI planning session was as follows:
Beginning with Discovery: Appreciating the best of “what is” (Watkins & Mohr,
2001), participants were asked to reflect individually on, and record their answers to, the
following questions/instructions:
Please tell me a story about a time when you have experienced our core values or
our strategic plan in action. How did this experience shape the work that you do at
NECC? Can you tell me where you see alignment with one or more of the
Strategic Directions or Core Values?
If you could create one new strategic direction for our new strategic plan, what
would it be and why?
As you think about the next three years, what three wishes do you have for
NECC?
Participants engaged in a paired interview with another participant and were
encouraged to choose a partner that they did not know very well. They interviewed each
other based on the questions listed above. The interview followed a traditional AI format
100
of looking back (telling a story about a peak experience with NECC), looking within
(discussing what they value about themselves and about NECC) and looking forward
(describing their “three wishes for the future” for NECC). Participants were asked to
complete a summary sheet of the information from their partner’s interview to assist them
during the next phases of the AI session and also to facilitate data collection.
Participants then formed groups of eight to ten at a table with interview partners
staying together in groups. Each person took a turn to share their partner’s stories and
insights. Participants then defined the high-energy themes—the common, promising,
inspiring or unique concepts or ideas—that emerged from the interviews. The table
facilitators recorded the themes on flipchart paper.
Moving to Dream: Create shared images of a preferred future (Watkins & Mohr,
2001) participants were asked to:
1. Reflect on the past: participants at each table were asked to reflect on the stories
they heard and the themes they developed and identify which of the five strategic
directions from the previous strategic plan they were committed to and to choose
one or two to keep in the new strategic plan.
2. Envision the future: participants at each table were asked to identify one or two
new strategic directions that they would like to see reflected in the new strategic
plan.
Each group recorded its themes, strategic commitments and new directions on
flipchart papers and posted them on the wall. Completed interview sheets were also
collected at the end of the session.
101
Data collection, review and synthesis. Each participant completed a summary
sheet from their one-on-one interviews. The summary sheets were collected at the end of
the session. The flipchart sheets from each table with the themes, strategic commitments
and new directions were also collected. The Data Team members reviewed and
synthesized all of the data and presented summaries of data to the strategic planning
team. Together the teams identified five strategic themes from the AI planning session
that would be used during Phase 2 of the planning process.
Phase 2: SOAR Forums (Discover, Dream & Design)
In order to build on the themes that arose from the AI planning session at Fall
Convocation session, 32 one-hour sessions (called SOAR Forums) were held with
students, faculty, staff and members of the community in which NECC is located during
October and November 2011. To repeat, SOAR stands for Strengths, Opportunities,
Aspirations and Results and is an Appreciative Inquiry technique (Stavros & Hinrichs,
2009). Forums were offered over a period of two months and held at various times during
the day to accommodate as many people as possible at both NECC campuses. They were
facilitated by the members of the SOAR Forum Facilitation team.
Five themes were identified from the Fall Convocation and provided the basis for
the Forums. The format of the SOAR Forum sessions which included the Discover,
Dream and Design elements of AI is described below.
Each table in the session room was assigned one of the five strategic themes.
Participants sat at the table assigned the theme that they were most interested in planning
for. They spent ten minutes brainstorming each component of the SOAR:
102
Strengths (What are NECC’s strengths in this area? What’s working? What are
NECC’s greatest assets/resources?)
Opportunities (What opportunities for growth, improvement or change does
NECC have in this area? What can NECC do more of? What can NECC do
differently?)
Aspirations (What are NECC’s highest aspirations in this area? What does
NECC’s preferred future look like? When this area is at its best, how will it be
different?)
Results (What results does NECC expect from its efforts? How will NECC know
it has succeeded? What will be different? What will it measured?)
Each table was asked to select its top three themes from each of the SOAR lists
based on what most interested, energized and excited the group.
Approximately 310 faculty, staff and students participated in the SOAR forums.
Data collection, review and synthesis. Immediately after each forum the
facilitators entered the data from the session so that this information would be
immediately available for review by the Data Team. The Data Team met regularly as the
SOAR Forums were conducted and continued to meet afterward to review the data. Data
were categorized by themes. It was important for the team to make sure that they were
being true to the data and very precise with terms and meanings that appeared there. As
themes were emerging, team members checked data again and held themselves
accountable to show from where the themes emerged. The Data Team updated and
consulted with the strategic planning team frequently.
103
These themes were presented to the Writing Team so they could begin to write the
text for the strategic planning document. The data from the SOAR Forums resulted in six
themes that eventually merged into five strategic directions. The Writing Team received
feedback from the strategic planning team, Cabinet and the NECC local community
during the development of the document. Simultaneously the Design Team worked on
the design aspect for the final strategic planning document as well as on modes of
communication (such as a video) to support the strategic plan.
Strategic plan approval. The final plan, Voices: NECC Strategic Plan for 2012-
2015, included the NECC vision, core values, five strategic directions and five strategic
goals. The plan was finalized and presented to the campus community in January 2012.
Summary of the NECC Planning Process
The NECC planning process that is the focus of this study started in May 2011
and was completed in January 2012 where vision, core values, five strategic directions
and five strategic goals were determined. Table 3 presents an overall summary of the
activities and timelines of the NECC planning process.
104
Table 3
Summary of NECC’s Strategic Planning Timing and Activities
Phase 1
When Activity
May 2011 President engages external consultant to initiate the planning
process
Strategic planning team formed (and finalized in September)
July 2011 Strategic planning team session with AI consultant
September 2011 Appreciative Inquiry stakeholder session held at Fall Convocation
(Discover and Dream)
Strategic Planning Sub-Teams formed
September-October
2011
Data team and strategic planning team review information from
Convocation session
Phase 2
When Activity
October-mid
November 2011
SOAR Forums held (Discover, Dream and Design)
November-
December 2011
Data analysis, writing and plan development
January 2012 Plan revealed to the NECC community
Using Appreciative Inquiry for Strategic Planning at CNAQ and NECC: A
Reflection
As stated earlier, the AI methodology is relatively structured, with the 4-D Model
(Discovery, Dream, Design and Destiny) perhaps being the best-known and most-used
framework (Watkins & Mohr, 2001). The inherent flexibility of Appreciative Inquiry
105
encourages organizations to adapt the process to suit their own organizational
development needs, timelines and environments.
CNAQ and NECC followed the 4-D Model relatively closely, which allows the data
collected during this study to be compared and contrasted in regard to the processes and
results from each college. This enables some of the data to be considered together, thus
providing a richer collection of information from which to understand the effectiveness of
AI for planning, other impacts and sustainability factors.
Each college independently chose to use a multi-phased approach. During the
Discover phase participants focused on identifying the successes of each respective
college. Paired interviews were used which followed a traditional AI interview structure
of looking back (telling a story about a peak experience with their college), looking
within (discussing what people value about themselves and about their college) and
looking forward (describing their “three wishes for the future” for their college).
Participants on each college campus shared stories of success in larger groups and
captured the high-energy themes—the common, promising, inspiring or even unique
concepts or ideas—that emerged from the interviews.
Participants at both colleges then moved to the Dream phase in which the focus of
the inquiry shifts from the current successes to the imagining and envisioning of new
possibilities (Watkins & Mohr, 2001). Groups envisioned the future of the College
through the creation of statements of the preferred future (CNAQ) and through discussing
and suggesting new strategic directions (NECC). In the Dream phase ideas are created to
bridge the gap between current successes and participants’ visions of what is possible or
106
desired at each college. At this point, vision and mission statements, values and guiding
principles and strategic directions began to emerge.
The next stage of both colleges’ planning processes was the Design phase. Strategic
directions were created from the data in the Discover and Dream stages previously
mentioned. Based on the proposed strategic directions, participants engaged in dialogues
about how they would collectively and individually realize their dreams through the
development of goals and initiatives. The colleges used slightly different approaches in
the Design phase, however, both colleges made use of the SOAR technique (Strengths,
Opportunities, Aspirations and Results) to facilitate their designs for their future.
As mentioned earlier, this study focused on the development of high-level strategy
which included vision, values, strategic directions and strategic goals, for NECC, and
with vision, mission, guiding principles, strategic directions and college-wide initiatives
for CNAQ. However, neither strategic planning nor Appreciative Inquiry is a one-time
event but instead are continuous and generative processes. Both colleges have now
progressed to the Destiny phase and are each working, collaboratively within their
campus communities, to ensure that their strategic plans are successful and that living
plans continue to evolve.
Research Question 2
Did the employees who participated in the strategic planning process believe that
Appreciative Inquiry was effective in the development of college strategy? If so, how? If
not, why?
107
Participation in the Strategic Planning Process
In order to provide a quantitative and measurable answer to this research question,
separate online surveys were conducted involving those employees who were employed
by each of CNAQ and NECC during the time of the planning process. At CNAQ 95
employees responded to the survey, and at NECC 63 employees responded, for a total of
158 responses. Of the respondents from CNAQ, 68% indicated that they had participated
in the strategic planning process compared to 78% of the respondents from NECC.
CNAQ respondents who indicated that they did not participate in the planning
process provided the following reasons (more than one reason could be selected):
Scheduling conflicts (53%); Not sure of the process being used (27%); Was not interested
in participating (27%); Did not know about sessions (23%); Was not employed at the
College at the time (17%); and Not sure of deliverables (7%).
NECC respondents to the survey who said that they did not participate in the
planning process provided the following reasons (more than one reason could be
selected): Did not know about sessions (36%); Not sure of deliverables (29%);
Scheduling conflicts (22%); Was not interested in participating (22%); Was not
employed at the College at the time (22%); and Not sure of the process being used (7%).
Strategic Planning Outcome Effectiveness
To assess the overall effectiveness of the outcome of the strategic planning
processes, employees at each college were asked their opinions in regard to two
components of the final strategic plans—the vision and the strategic directions. All
survey respondents were asked for their opinion of the strategic planning outcomes
regardless of whether or not they had participated in the strategic planning process. The
108
survey displayed the vision statement for the College and respondents were asked, “To
what extent do you agree that this is a meaningful vision for the future of our College?”
The survey also displayed the strategic directions for the College and respondents were
asked, “To what extent do you agree that these strategic directions provide a meaningful
direction for the future of our College?”
Table 4 shows the number and percentage of each response for these questions
from CNAQ participants along with the arithmetic mean score calculated out of a
maximum of 4. Table 5 shows the number and percentage of each response for these
questions, from NECC participants, along with the arithmetic mean score calculated out
of a maximum of 4.
Table 4
Strategic Planning Outcome Question Results for CNAQ
Question
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Agree
(3)
Disagree
(2)
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Mean
Score
% no. % no. % no. % no.
To what extent do you agree
that the vision statement (as
listed) is a meaningful vision
for the future of our
College?
38 33 55 48 5 5 3 3 3.26
To what extent do you agree
that these strategic directions
(as listed) provide a
meaningful direction for the
future of our College?
35 31 52 46 6 5 7 6 3.22
109
Table 5
Strategic Planning Outcome Question Results for NECC
Question
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Agree
(3)
Disagree
(2)
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Mean
Score
% no. % no. % no. % no.
To what extent do you agree
that the vision statement (as
listed) is a meaningful vision
for the future of our
College?
42 25 48 28 7 4 3 2 3.29
To what extent do you agree
that these strategic directions
(as listed) provide a
meaningful direction for the
future of our College?
39 24 57 35 3 2 2 1 3.32
The majority of survey respondents from both CNAQ and NECC strongly agreed
or agreed that the strategic planning process resulted in a vision statement that was
meaningful for the future of their colleges (93% and 90%, respectively). Similarly, 87%
of survey respondents from CNAQ and 96% of respondents from NECC strongly agreed
or agreed that the planning process resulted in strategic directions that provided a
meaningful direction for each of the colleges.
To compare the opinions of NECC employees and CNAQ employees in regard to
the outcome effectiveness questions, independent-samples t-tests were conducted using
the arithmetic mean score calculated out of a total of 4.There were no significant
110
differences between CNAQ and NECC responses. Respondents from each college felt
equally as strongly and positively about these two strategic planning outcomes questions.
Strategic Planning Process Effectiveness
In order to assess participants’ perceptions of the various components of the
planning processes used at each of their respective institutions, respondents were asked to
rate their agreement or disagreement with the following statements:
I felt that the strategic planning sessions were a good use of my time.
I could see my contribution in the strategic planning document.
I learned something new and valuable about my colleagues.
After I participated in the strategic planning process, I felt excited about the future
of the college.
I felt that I had sufficient opportunity to participate in the strategic planning
process.
Table 6 shows the number and percentage of each response for these questions,
from CNAQ participants along with the arithmetic mean score calculated out of a
maximum of 4. Table 7 shows the number and percentage of each response for these
questions, from NECC participants, along with the arithmetic mean score calculated out
of a maximum of 4.
111
Table 6
Strategic Planning Process Effectiveness Question Results for CNAQ
Question
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Agree
(3)
Disagree
(2)
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Mean
Score
% no. % no. % no. % no.
I felt that the strategic
planning sessions were a
good use of my time.
27 16 48 29 15 9 10 6 2.92
I could see my contribution
in the strategic planning
document.
22 12 51 28 13 7 15 8 2.80
I learned something new and
valuable about my
colleagues.
21 13 54 34 21 13 5 3 2.91
After I participated in the
strategic planning process, I
felt excited about the future
of the College.
17 10 52 31 17 10 15 9 2.70
I felt that I had sufficient
opportunity to participate in
the strategic planning
process.
32 20 54 34 10 6 5 3 3.13
112
Table 7
Strategic Planning Process Effectiveness Question Results for NECC
Question
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Agree
(3)
Disagree
(2)
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Mean
Score
% no. % no. % no. % no.
I felt that the strategic
planning sessions were a
good use of my time.
24 11 63 29 7 3 7 3 3.04
I could see my contribution
in the strategic planning
document.
12 5 70 29 7 3 12 5 2.81
I learned something new and
valuable about my
colleagues.
21 9 60 25 12 5 7 3 2.95
After I participated in the
strategic planning process, I
felt excited about the future
of the College.
18 8 64 29 9 4 9 4 2.91
I felt that I had sufficient
opportunity to participate in
the strategic planning
process.
43 20 49 23 4 2 4 2 3.30
Overall, respondents answered positively about the effectiveness of the planning
process used at their respective institutions: 85% of CNAQ respondents and 92% of
NECC respondents felt that they had sufficient opportunity to participate in the strategic
planning process; 75% of CNAQ respondents and 87% of NECC respondents felt that the
strategic planning sessions were a good use of their time; 75% of CNAQ respondents and
113
81% of NECC respondents indicated that they learned something new and valuable about
their colleagues; 73% of CNAQ respondents and 82% of NECC respondents could see
their contributions in the strategic planning document; and 69% of CNAQ respondents
and 82% of NECC respondents felt excited about the future of the college after
participating in the strategic planning process.
To compare the opinions of NECC employees and CNAQ employees in regard to
the process effectiveness questions, independent-samples t-tests were conducted using the
arithmetic mean score calculated out of a total of 4. Respondents from CNAQ and NECC
were equally positive about the strategic planning process components, with one
exception. NECC participants felt more excited about the future of the College after
participating in the planning process (M=2.9, SD=.79) than did CNAQ participants
(M=2.7, SD=.93); t(103)=-1.23, p=.035).
Strategic Planning Overall Effectiveness
To obtain a larger and more general assessment of the strategic planning
processes used at each of their institutions, participants were asked to indicate their level
of agreement with this statement: "Overall, I think the strategic planning process was
effective." The majority of respondents from CNAQ (67%) and even more respondents
from NECC (89%) strongly agreed or agreed that the strategic planning process was
effective.
When calculated out of a total of 4, the arithmetic mean effectiveness score for
NECC was 3.16 and for CNAQ it was 2.68. An independent-samples t-test was
conducted to compare the opinions of NECC employees and CNAQ employees.
114
Participants from NECC reported a significantly higher opinion of effectiveness (M=3.16,
SD=.81) than did participants from CNAQ (M=2.68, SD=1.02); t(99)=-2.54, p=.013).
Respondents who felt that the planning process was effective were also asked:
“Would you recommend that other colleges and universities consider using Appreciative
Inquiry for their strategic planning processes?” A large majority of respondents from
both CNAQ and NECC indicated that they would recommend AI to their colleagues
(94% and 97%, respectively).
Comparing Overall Effectiveness, Process Effectiveness and Outcome Effectiveness
Reviewing the results from the above three comparisons, it would appear (for
CNAQ, in particular) that the responses to the overall assessment of the effectiveness of
the strategic planning process (responses to the single question “Overall, I think the
strategic planning process was effective”) were less favourable than the process
questions’ responses and less favourable than the outcome questions’ responses
(satisfaction with the resultant vision and strategic direction). These findings seemed
somewhat contradictory in that if the participants were satisfied with the various aspects
of the process, and if they were also satisfied with the outcome of the strategic planning,
then it seems logical that this satisfaction would have been or should have been reflected
in their overall assessment of strategic planning effectiveness.
Therefore, to determine whether the respondents’ overall effectiveness score
(response to the single question “Overall, I think the strategic planning process was
effective”) was significantly different from the process and outcome effectiveness ratings,
two composite scores were created for comparison with and against respondents’ single
effectiveness rating for responses from the participants at both institutions:
115
1. Outcome Effectiveness Composite Score: an average of the scores on the two
outcome questions
2. Process Effectiveness Composite Score: an average of the scores on the five
process questions
Table 8 shows the arithmetic mean score out of a maximum of 4 for the overall
effectiveness score, and the two composite effectiveness scores and for each of CNAQ
and NECC.
Table 8
Comparison of Perceived Overall Effectiveness with Outcome and Process Effectiveness
CNAQ Mean Score NECC Mean Score
Overall Effectiveness
Score: “Overall, I think the
strategic planning process
was effective.”
2.68 3.16
Process Effectiveness
Composite Score
2.86 3.02
Outcome Effectiveness
Composite Score
3.21 3.29
These results show that the highest level of effectiveness for both colleges was the
Outcome Effectiveness Composite Score with a mean of 3.21 for CNAQ and 3.29 for
NECC. The next highest score for CNAQ was the Process Effectiveness Composite
Score, with a mean of 2.86. The next highest score for NECC was the response to the
single question, “Overall, I think the strategic planning process was effective.” with a
mean of 3.16. The lowest score for CNAQ was the response to the single question
“Overall, I think the strategic planning process was effective.” with a mean of 2.68 and
116
the lowest score for NECC was the Process Effectiveness Composite Score with a mean
of 3.02.
Comparing the results of CNAQ and NECC, there was no significant difference
between the institutions’ Outcome Effectiveness Composite scores or their Process
Effectiveness Composite scores. As mentioned previously, participants from NECC
reported a significantly higher opinion of Overall Effectiveness (M=3.16, SD=.81) than
did participants from CNAQ (M=2.68, SD=1.02); t(99)=-2.54, p=.013).
A one-way ANOVA was then used to look for differences among the
effectiveness scores for CNAQ and for NECC. There was no significant difference
among the three types of scores (Overall Effectiveness, Outcome Effectiveness
Composite and Process Effectiveness Composite) for NECC respondents, F (2, 153) =
2.19, p=.115.
However, the score types differed significantly for CNAQ, F (2, 210) = 8.79,
p=.000. Tukey’s post-hoc comparison of the two Composite Effectiveness scores and the
Overall Effectiveness score showed that the Outcome Effectiveness Composite Score was
significantly higher (M=3.22, 95% CI [3.08, 3.35]) than the Overall Effectiveness score
(M=2.68, 95% CI [2.41, 2.96], p=.000), and was also significantly higher than the
Process Effectiveness Composite score (M=2.86, 95% CI [2.69, 3.03], p=.017.). There
was no significant difference between the Overall Effectiveness score and the Process
Effectiveness Composite score.
Comparison with Other Strategic Planning Processes
This study was not intended, at least as a primary purpose, to compare the two
colleges’ strategic planning processes—both of which utilized Appreciative Inquiry—
117
with other strategic planning methodologies. However, for the sake of additional
information, the survey did ask participants if they had experienced another strategic
planning process outside of CNAQ/NECC—and if so to compare that experience with
their college’s current planning process. Almost half of the respondents from CNAQ
(49%) and more than half of the respondents from NECC (65%) indicated that they had
participated in another strategic planning process.
Table 9 shows the number and percentage of each response for these questions,
from CNAQ participants along with the arithmetic mean score calculated out of a
maximum of 4. Table 10 shows the number and percentage of each response for these
questions, from NECC participants, along with the arithmetic mean score calculated out
of a maximum of 4.
Table 9
Comparison of Other Strategic Planning Processes with the AI Planning Process at
CNAQ
Question
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Agree
(3)
Disagree
(2)
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Mean
Score
% no. % no. % no. % no.
The strategic planning
process at CNAQ was more
collaborative than others.
38 11 21 6 31 9 10 3 2.86
The strategic planning
process at CNAQ was more
effective than others.
15 4 22 6 26 7 37 10 2.15
The strategic
planning process
at CNAQ moved more
quickly than others.
13 4 32 10 32 10 23 7 2.35
118
I was more satisfied with the
strategic planning process at
CNAQ than others.
27 8 20 6 20 6 33 8 2.40
I had more opportunity to be
involved in the strategic
planning process at CNAQ
than in others.
31 10 19 6 34 11 16 5 2.66
I was more involved in the
strategic planning process at
CNAQ than in others.
31 10 16 5 31 10 22 7 2.56
Table 10
Comparison of Other Strategic Planning Processes with the AI Planning Process at
NECC
Question
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Agree
(3)
Disagree
(2)
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Mean
Score
% no. % no. % no. % no.
The strategic planning
process at NECC was more
collaborative than others.
24 4 41 7 29 5 6 1 2.82
The strategic planning
process at NECC was more
effective than others.
23 3 23 3 39 5 15 2 2.54
The strategic
planning process
at NECC moved more
quickly than others.
13 2 27 4 53 8 7 1 2.47
I was more satisfied with the
strategic planning process at
NECC than others.
13 2 33 5 40 6 13 2 2.47
119
I had more opportunity to be
involved in the strategic
planning process at NECC
than in others.
13 2 50 8 25 4 13 2 2.63
I was more involved in the
strategic planning process at
NECC than in others.
19 3 38 6 31 5 13 2 2.63
The majority of respondents felt that the CNAQ and NECC AI strategic planning
processes were more collaborative than others (59% and 61%, respectively) in which
they had participated. Over half of NECC respondents (63%) and half of CNAQ
respondents (50%) indicated that that they had more opportunity to be involved in the
CNAQ/NECC AI planning process. Fifty-seven percent of NECC respondents and 47%
of CNAQ respondents indicated that they were more involved in this process. However,
planning processes not utilizing AI received more positive responses: fewer than half of
respondents from CNAQ (37%) and NECC (46%) felt that the AI process was more
effective, that it moved more quickly at CNAQ (45%) and at NECC (40%) and that they
were more satisfied with the process at CNAQ (47%) and at NECC (46%). None of the
differences between these results at CNAQ and NECC were significant, however.
The second part of Research Question 2 explored the reasons which seemed to
cause participants to feel that the strategic planning processes were either effective or
ineffective. To summarize, and when combined, 76% of CNAQ and NECC respondents
thought that their institutions’ strategic planning processes were effective. Over 90% of
respondents felt that the strategic planning process had resulted in a strategic plan with a
meaningful vision and strategic directions. However, 24% of respondents did not agree
that the planning processes were effective, and 10% did not agree that the planning
120
process had resulted in a meaningful vision and strategic directions. As expected, there
were also various parts of the planning process that some people liked and parts that they
did not like.
Therefore, through open-ended survey questions and through one-on-one
interviews the researcher attempted to determine what caused the general feeling that AI
was an effective planning process, why some people felt that it was not effective and
what could be improved.
As both CNAQ and NECC used similar AI processes in their strategic planning,
and as there were few significant differences in the quantitative data results for the
assessments of the planning process from participants at both institutions, the researcher
decided to group the quantitative data from respondents at CNAQ and NECC together in
an attempt to discover whether recurring themes were emerging—which, in turn, might
provide information on ways to use AI for strategic planning in the future. The
differences that did emerge in the qualitative data between colleges, through analyses
using Nvivo, will be considered in Research Question 5.
Respondents were asked “What elements of the strategic planning process did you
especially like?” and could then select all of the responses listed that applied to them.
Respondents most often liked the opportunity to be involved in creating the College’s
future direction (76%), followed by the opportunity to share ideas with colleagues (63%).
Approximately half of respondents noted the value to them of the opportunity to meet and
foster relationships with colleagues (55%), the opportunity to be involved in a new
planning process (45%), and the opportunity to participate in and learn about a strategic
planning process (44%).
121
The results discussed in the remainder of this section are based on a combination
of responses to the open-ended survey questions, as well as on the one-on-one interviews
that were conducted with employees at both CNAQ and NECC. Seventy-one interviews
were held, 47 at CNAQ and 24 at NECC. The open-ended survey questions and the
interviews prompted a very wide and varied spectrum of responses. For that reason, and
as mentioned earlier, the remainder of this chapter will contain quotations from the
interviews and the responses of quite a large number of the employees at both institutions
who were involved in the planning process. The researcher made a considered decision to
include as many of these actual voices as possible because an essential tenet of
Appreciative Inquiry is that everyone involved must be encouraged and enabled to speak
freely and honestly. However, this researcher also tried to select quotations which were
proportionately representative of those who were supportive of AI and those who were
not supportive of AI.
This section is organized as follows:
Themes Identified for the Effectiveness of the AI Strategic Planning Process and
Process Highlights
o What did you like about the planning process/What was the highlight of
the process?
o What led to the effectiveness of the planning process?
o Why did you prefer the College’s planning process over other planning
processes?
o Why would you recommend AI to your colleagues?
122
Themes Identified for the Ineffectiveness of the AI Strategic Planning Process and
Suggestions for Improvement
o What would you change or “want more of”?
o Why was the planning process not effective?
o Why did you prefer other planning processes over the college’s planning
process?
o Why would you not recommend AI to your colleagues?
The major themes emerging from the qualitative data are summarized and
presented in charts representing an “energy diagram”—a visual portrayal of the relative
strength of each idea in the theme. Sample quotations are given to illuminate the themes.
Themes Identified for the Effectiveness of the AI Strategic Planning Process and
Process Highlights
What did you like about the planning process? What was the highlight of the process?
The survey and the one-on-one interviews sought to discover what participants
from both of the institutions studied liked about their planning processes and what the
highlight of the process was, personally, for each participant. There were approximately
400 references in the qualitative data to what participants liked, and Figure 2 shows the
approximate breakdown of the prevalent themes that were identified by the participants
(combined).
123
Figure 2. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC in
response to the questions, “What did you like about the process?”, and “What was the
highlight of the process?”
Theme 1: Involvement and Inclusion
Many stakeholders indicated that they valued being involved in the strategic
planning process at their institution. As a participant commented:
“I liked being part of the building of the strategy and just being involved in the
process” (Survey Respondent 75).
Similarly, participants appreciated the fact that the process was inclusive and that
all stakeholders were invited to participate. As a participant commented:
“I like that everyone participated; all nationalities, all positions, all roles”
(Interviewee 45).
In addition, participants appreciated that students, in particular, were engaged in
the process. As a participant commented:
Involvement/Inclusion
The Planning Process Itself
Collaboration/RelationshipDevelopment
Positive, Strengths-Based,Solution-Focussed Philosophy
Outcome/Final Product
Energy
124
“The highlight for me was the end of the student session in the gym with 150
students. There was paper all over and students had so much energy. They were
excited about being consulted. They had such great ideas and they were pleased
with their input” (Interviewee 36).
Theme 2: The Planning Process Itself
Participants also discussed and commented on the actual planning processes.
Many referred positively to the Appreciative Inquiry process and philosophy itself.
Examples of participants’ comments included:
“I found the AI sessions to be incredibly empowering and productive...and I
found it remarkable how clearly the themes and directions emerged from the
sessions” (Survey Respondent 10).
“The process seemed seamless, likely due to the generative power of AI”
(Interviewee 27).
Other participants indicated that they liked the planning sessions or a particular
part of the planning sessions. One participant commented:
“The SOAR forums allowed us to revisit where we were before and to determine
where we are going. It was a great recap from the last time” (Interviewee 5).
Others talked about the organization, the facilitation, the speed of the process and
the environment that was created. Examples of participants’ comments included:
“I appreciated that it was organized and informal. It was nicely balanced”
(Interviewee 52).
125
“What might normally take days and weeks of committee debate and discussion
was accomplished in several hours through the AI process. In an action-oriented
environment, this is crucial” (Survey Respondent 10).
Theme 3: Collaboration and Relationship Development
Another prevalent highlight for participants was collaboration and relationship
development. Many people felt that the planning sessions provided an opportunity for
them to get know and work with a wide spectrum of colleagues. Examples of
participants’ comments included:
“Relationships were created and people became connected to each other through
shared experiences. For the first time, many people were learning about the great
things being done in other College groups, and the positive impact of that will be
significant” (Interviewee 39).
“I like getting in the room with other people I didn’t know. Finding out about
them and what they do is amazing. I like seeing people work together. I had no
idea that this is what the college was about and this is how planning happens. It
was so great to see this. I felt that it was awesome to be there. I really gelled with
people that I didn’t know. I found out about what their work culture was like and
what it is like to work where they do” (Interviewee 5).
Many others said simply, but importantly, that their highlight was being with and
planning with their colleagues.
Theme 4: Positive, Strengths-based and Solution-focused Philosophy
Another theme identified as being a positive feature of the planning process was
that the AI approach concentrates on what is working well in an organization in order to
126
capitalize on the strengths which individuals and teams bring to that organization.
Participants liked that the focus was on solutions. Examples of participants’ comments
included:
“AI helps people to avoid dwelling on the problems and obstacles. It really points
out the strengths of the college. Improvements are addressed through the wishes
for the future. It is a really positive approach. People can get stuck in a negative
box. It is a challenge for facilitators to reframe and keep people solution focused”
(Interviewee 11).
“AI isn’t about shoving things under the carpet. It is about what we do well. How
do we do those things so that we can replicate them in other areas?” (Interviewee
5).
Theme 5: Outcome/Final Product
A less prevalent though still important theme focused on the outcome or the final
product that resulted from the planning process. Examples of participants’ comments
included:
“I feel the goals and end results are fantastic and achievable” (Interviewee 57).
“The College was able to engage all stakeholders, create positive connections, and
generate a compelling strategic plan for the next five years. It was amazing to see
a wonderful product (the plan) arise from a wonderfully engaging process”
(Interviewee 39).
127
Theme 6: Energy
One final theme that participants remarked on was the degree of energy and
enthusiasm created by the planning process itself. Examples of participants’ comments
included:
“I like the look of pleasure, fun and happiness on the faces of those people who
participated when they were involved in the process” (Interviewee 35).
“I liked the energy and excitement around the process. I thought that the launch,
the marketing and the communications around the process generated a feeling of
‘this is going to be great’” (Interviewee 56).
“The energy of people being in the same physical space. There was high energy in
the sessions after the one-on-one interviews and when the sharing started”
(Interviewee 32).
What Led to the Effectiveness of the Planning Process?
The survey and the one-on-one interviews attempted to determine, more
specifically, what participants thought had contributed to the effectiveness of the strategic
planning process used at their institution. There were approximately 150 references in the
qualitative data, and Figure 3 shows the approximate breakdown of the prevalent themes
identified. Not surprisingly, the themes were similar to those identified in the previous
section dealing with what people liked about the planning process.
128
Figure 3. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC in
response to questions about what contributed to the effectiveness of the strategic planning
processes used.
Theme 1: Involvement and Inclusion
Participants indicted that the major reason for the effectiveness of the strategic
planning process was because all stakeholders were involved and included in it.
Participants felt a sense of ownership as a result of knowing that their input and
suggestions and the input of others were included. Examples of participants’ comments
included:
“Critical success factors were having people recognize themselves in the
document. People would read the document and didn’t wonder where this came
from. There were several check-ins with people. They had a chance to provide
feedback. They could see that their issues had been raised and flagged. That was
important. The document had endorsement from the masses” (Interviewee 38).
Involvement/Inclusion
Leadership
Organization, Resources,Support
Collaboration/RelationshipDevelopment
AI Process
Positive, Strengths-Based,Solution-Focused Philospohy
129
“The effectiveness of the process was due to the large scope of stakeholder
representation and participation. We included students, faculty, staff, business,
community, our home campus, etc. This stakeholder participation helped to
counteract any skepticism. The collaborative nature of the process was a critical
success factor. It was not just elite decision makers that were included. The plan
reflected a wide spectrum of views” (Interviewee 27).
Theme 2: Leadership
Another success factor with regard to the effectiveness of the strategic planning
processes, as identified by participants, was the kind of leadership that occurred. There
were two key sub-themes in this section. One was that senior college leaders, the formal
leaders of the planning process, were supportive and involved in the process. Examples
of participants’ comments included:
“The President trusted the committee and stood behind them. The planning team
wanted to know what the President wanted…what his vision was. They wanted to
honour that vision. The planning team respected the President—they respected his
knowledge and experience with the internal and external community. There was
mutual respect” (Interviewee 20).
“To be perfectly honest the leadership of the facilitators and the planning team
that were around them made the process effective. The process was nearly 100%
dependent on the facilitators’ ability to carry it out in a positive manner”
(Interviewee 34).
The second sub-theme had to do with the concept of “leaders at all levels”—or,
the development of non-traditional leaders. Participants felt that the strategic planning
130
processes not only encouraged people to get involved but also to lead parts of the process.
Examples of participants’ comments included:
“AI allows leaders to develop. There is so much momentum that is created with
AI as leaders (not formal) develop. I think we could have had no formal leaders
and still moved forward” (Interviewee 38).
“It is the leaders in the background that come out and make this successful. There
are new leaders that emerge through this process. We had facilitators that may not
have ever had a chance to lead—it was such a great opportunity for them. AI is
such a team sport. Not just one person can make it work. It is everyone. You
really need people to shine. The more that people own it…the better”
(Interviewee 18).
Theme 3: Organization, Resources and Support
Another effectiveness theme centered on the organization of the strategic planning
processes, the resources that were dedicated to it, and the support provided by others.
Examples of participants’ comments included:
“The process was effective because it was well organized. We had committed and
hard-working people. People stepped up to keep it moving along in a timely
manner” (Survey Respondent 146).
“The success is from the nature of the process. The sessions, and the end product
had to be well defined. We had a good idea about what product we were looking
for. The sessions were extremely well prepared. We knew what we were going to
do. They all ran smoothly, started on time and ended on time. It was left-brain
thinking around a right-brained process” (Interviewee 36).
131
Theme 4: Collaboration and Relationship Development
Participants also felt that the strategic planning process was effective because it
involved a large number of people working closely together and collaboratively creating
the plan for the future. Examples of participants’ comments included:
“There was collaborative, transparent teamwork towards a common achievable
goal” (Survey Respondent 7).
“It was effective because of the fact that it was created collaboratively, by
engaging all stakeholders” (Survey Respondent 6).
Theme 5: The Appreciative Inquiry Process
Another theme identified was the choice of the Appreciative Inquiry
methodology. Examples of participants’ comments included:
“Using the AI approach. Looking at the strengths within the organization helped
to build pride and enable vision (dreaming) in the discussions with peers” (Survey
Respondent 9).
“If we hadn’t used AI we would have ended up with a document that only 10% of
us were even aware of. We benefited so much from the energy created by AI”
(Interviewee 38).
Theme 6: Positive, Strengths-based and Solution-focused Philosophy
The final theme that participants identified as contributing to the effectiveness of
the strategic planning process was that it used the kind of positive philosophy that AI is
known for. Examples of participants’ comments included:
132
“With regard to the effectiveness, it was due to the underlying philosophy of
strengths and positives and re-framing the negatives, along with relationship-
building” (Survey Respondent 24).
“Using the AI approach. Looking at the strengths within the organization helped
to build pride and enable vision (dreaming) in the discussions with peers” (Survey
Respondent 9).
Why did you prefer the College’s planning process over other planning processes that
you have been involved in?
To repeat, the purpose of this research study was not to compare AI to other
planning processes. However, asking people to think of their previous experiences
provided some insight into what they may or may not have preferred concerning the use
of AI for strategic planning. The survey indicated that just over half of the respondents
(56%) had participated in another strategic planning process. This was also the case
within the interview data. Just over half of those interviewed had experience with another
planning process. However, several interviewees noted this lack of involvement with
comments such as:
“That is exactly the problem. Employees often aren’t asked to be involved”
(Interviewee 5).
“Usually the person in charge wants to make all the decisions and doesn’t really
care what other people think. AI cares what others think” (Interviewee 12).
There were approximately 35 references in the qualitative data which contained
positive comments about the AI planning process compared with others. Figure 4 shows
the prevalent themes.
133
Figure 4. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC in
response to questions about how this strategic planning process compared with others.
Theme 1: More collaborative, less “top down” process
Participants mentioned that the AI process was more collaborative and allowed
people from all levels to participate in the planning. Examples of participants’ comments
included:
“The other processes will get a document done. But what you don’t have is buy
in, ownership and pride. People know this plan” (Interviewee 40).
“This process is dramatically different. It involves dozens and eventually
hundreds of people rather than a committee or a number of committees. AI is
open and transparent and everyone who wants to be involved can see how and
when decisions are made—and have a chance to affect those decisions. It is also a
process that requires a great deal of trust by the President and Board. They must
trust that the faculty and staff will be serious, understand the realities of funding
More collaborative, less "topdown" process
More energizing, less "painful"process
More structured process
134
and support (both political and community) and are willing to dream but also
recognize reality” (Interviewee 24).
Theme 2: More energizing, less “painful” process
Some participants also commented on the preferring of CNAQ’s or NECC’s
strategic planning process in terms of the energy and excitement that it created. Examples
of participants’ comments included:
“The other plan was essentially written by the President. The result is that it sat on
the shelf. Using SWOT is demoralizing. It doesn’t call people to action”
(Interviewee 20).
“Other processes are about getting the document done. It is a clinical step by step
process. With our process the culture shift was the most important part”
(Interviewee 40).
Theme 3: More structured process
Some participants commented on the organization of the AI planning process,
compared with other planning processes, suggesting that it has a structured methodology
which was followed closely by both colleges. Examples of participants’ comments
included:
“Our process was with a bigger group, and more people were involved. The other
process wasn’t as structured as ours. Our process used AI, and therefore had a
clear structure” (Interviewee 51).
“Other processes didn’t have a structure as our College’s process did”
(Interviewee 54).
135
Why would you recommend AI to your colleagues?
During the one-on-one interviews, participants were asked if they would, and why they
would, recommend AI to a colleague who was seeking information about strategic
planning; 88% of interviewees said that they would recommend AI. There were
approximately 50 references in the qualitative data. Figure 5 shows the two prevalent
themes within the answers to this question:
Figure 5. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC in
response to why they would recommend AI for strategic planning to colleagues.
Theme 1: Collaborative and Inclusive Process
The main theme for recommending AI to colleagues was involvement of
stakeholders and the opportunity for people to work together. Examples of participants’
comments included:
“I really feel that the sum is better than all of the parts. The president can have a
vision but people have to be on board. It is important for people to be involved
Collaborative, Inclusive Process
Positive, Strengths-Based,Solution-focused Philosophy
136
and be vested in the process. AI does that. Everyone has an opportunity to
contribute” (Interviewee 13).
“Yes, it is transformative. It changes individuals. And when it changes individuals
it also changes groups. It is life changing and I think it is underutilized”
(Interviewee 12).
Theme 2: Positive, Strengths-based and Solution-focused Philosophy
A final reason that participants would recommend AI for planning to their
colleagues is its positive focus. Examples of participants’ comments included:
“I would definitely recommend AI. If you start from a position of positivity and
focusing on strengths the whole process is just going to be better. If you are
looking to fix things only you get a different feeling. You can find great in any
institution or group and that is a benefit of AI” (Interviewee 6).
“I would and have recommended AI! It is positive and leads to other things that
relate to strengths. You can use the tools that will help you the most. The process
is very encouraging. We aren’t looking at what we do wrong we are looking at
how we do more great things” (Interviewee 17).
Themes Identified for Ineffectiveness of the AI Strategic Planning Process and
Suggestions for Improvement
While the majority of participants felt that AI was effective as a planning process,
some participants considered it to be ineffective or would have wanted something
different from the planning processes used. In addition, all survey respondents and all
interviewees were asked how the strategic planning process could have been improved.
137
What would you change or “want more of”?
In regard to this question, there were approximately 200 suggestions made in the
qualitative data. Figure 6 shows the approximate breakdown of the prevalent themes of
these responses.
Figure 6. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC in
response to the question “What would you change or ‘want more of’?”
Theme 1: Suggestions about a particular part of the planning process
In regard to suggestions for improvements to specific parts of the planning
processes, some participants wanted better communication in order to know more about
what was happening with the planning process. One participant commented:
“More communication around all pieces of the process. Have many updates.
Stakeholders shouldn’t have to consult a website to dig for information on the
status of the plan and the initiatives” (Interviewee 27).
A particular part of the planningprocess
More involvement, collaboration
Timing
Leadership
Address the problems
138
On a similar note, participants talked about wanting more communication about
follow-up and genuine action and progress on the suggestions that had been made. One
participant commented:
“I want more discussion of how specific initiatives are being implemented. There
seems to be a whole lot of silence now. People need to know and be reminded of
what is happening” (Survey Respondent 19).
Other participants seemed to be concerned about the AI process itself or the
overuse of AI. One participant commented:
“I found the AI process too structured and too formulaic” (Interviewee 50).
Theme 2: More involvement, collaboration
While these aspects of the planning process were highlights for many participants,
this was also a theme identified in the responses that participants would like to have seen
more of, with particular reference to people who are traditionally uninvolved. Examples
of participants’ comments included:
“Engage students more. We could have had students as initiative leaders or co-
leaders. We could have student representation on the ongoing teams” (Interviewee
26).
“More engagement of support staff across the campus. Often times, support staff
members have a great deal of insight, but are not able to participate in such events
because their role requires supervisory approval or coverage for their role while
away at a session and I know it made for a difficult situation for some to get
involved and feel as though they were heard” (Survey Respondent 134).
139
Theme 3: Timing
Participants drew attention to the length and speed of the planning processes.
Some people felt that the strategic planning process took too long. One participant
commented:
“I would have liked to see the implementation strategies come together more
quickly. Once the themes and directions were developed, there was tremendous
momentum that might have been segued into the development of specific
deliverables” (Survey Respondent 10).
Conversely, others felt that they would have liked more time for planning. One
participant commented:
“I suppose I would have liked more time. People get worn out and it is often the
same people that get involved in all of the teams” (Interviewee 2).
Theme 4: Leadership
A prevalent theme identified in this thematic area was that participants wanted
more involvement and support from leadership in the planning process. Examples of
participants’ comments included:
“Unfortunately I don't feel that some of the management is 100% behind the
process which is egalitarian, democratic, and non-hierarchical. Our organization
still seems very top down, a shame because there are so many creative and
forward thinking employees” (Survey Respondent 22).
“I think that the reason why I did not get involved was because of leadership and
the lack of optimism in the process by my department leader” (Interviewee 61).
140
Theme 5: Address the problems
This final aspect relates to the perceived positive-only focus of the AI planning
process. Concerns were expressed that problems and other negative issues were not being
adequately considered. Examples of participants’ comments included:
“I would have liked a relaxation of some of the AI protocol in order that specific
problems (of which we know there are many) are put plainly on the table in order
that solutions can be found” (Survey Respondent 73).
“We need to deal with the real issues and the elephants in the room. AI cannot be
the panacea for all ongoing issues at the College or any organization” (Survey
Respondent 46).
Why was the planning process not effective?
Those participants who indicated that the strategic planning process had not been
effective were asked to elaborate on why they held this opinion. There were
approximately 25 qualitative comments made. Figure 7 shows the approximate
breakdown of the prevalent themes identified by the participants.
141
Figure 7. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC in
response to the question “Why was the process ineffective?”
Theme 1: The AI Process
Some participants who felt that the process was not effective criticized
Appreciative Inquiry as a methodology choice. Examples of participants’ comments
included:
“AI was a poor choice for the process to use here. It seems that the decision to use
AI was not well thought out or vetted” (Survey Respondent 83).
“The AI approach is in my mind old and dated. The strategic plan should be more
concrete and provide some on the ground goals and objectives. The strategic plan
we now have does none of this and is not connected to reality” (Survey
Respondent 80).
Theme 2: Leadership
Leadership was another component that some participants mentioned with respect
to their perceived ineffectiveness of the strategic planning process. In summary, some felt
The AI Process
Leadership
Not addressing the problems
142
that individuals or groups in leadership positions were not interested, engaged or
involved in the process. As an example, one participant commented:
“We are asked to spend our time participating in these forums and ultimately the
administration does what they want to do. It is really just done to give the
impression that we have input” (Survey Respondent 148).
Theme 3: Not addressing the problems
Another less mentioned but still an important expression of concern regarding the
perceived ineffectiveness of the planning process had to do with participants’ opinions
that issues and problems were being overlooked. Examples of participants’ comments
included:
“AI has a place at our College but we cannot pretend to be strengths based and all
happy while employees are so disengaged and don't feel they have a voice. It
would have been better to address the contentious issues immediately and allow
people to truly express what needs to be changed in order for our College to move
forward. Ignoring the problems will not make them go away” (Survey Respondent
46).
Why did you prefer other planning processes over the college’s planning process?
Two interviewees who had experienced another planning process commented on
why they favoured the other process over their college’s planning process:
“In a more traditional planning process, the real problems can be identified
because there’s an ability to focus on weaknesses and issues” (Interviewee 57).
“The other process was much better in that the time to begin implementation was
faster; there was an identified timeline for actions and it was achievable; there
143
was more clarity communicated around its implementation; there was
accountability for implementation; and there were checks put in place to ensure
the strategic plan was being accomplished. This was missing from our process”
(Interviewee 60).
Why would you not recommend AI to your colleagues?
A few interviewees indicated that they would not recommend AI to their
colleagues. Examples of participants’ comments included:
“There are things that AI doesn’t answer – what we’re not doing well still needs
to be addressed” (Interviewee 63).
“AI is very superficial and doesn’t allow for following through on the ideas
generated” (Interviewee 60).
Research Question 3
What other impacts did the use of Appreciative Inquiry for planning have on the college
communities?
The foregoing sections attempted to elucidate some of the general or overall
strengths and weaknesses of Appreciative Inquiry as a strategic planning process—as it
was experienced by the employee participants of CNAQ and NECC during the timeframe
in which they were actually involved in the process. However, leaving these shorter-term
merits and demerits of an AI-based plan aside for the moment, the research also
identified answers to another important research question: “What other impacts did the
use of AI seem to have—or seem likely to have—on these two college communities?”
The significance of this question became clear during one-on-one interviews with
the college presidents and other key members of the strategic planning teams at both
144
institutions when they were asked why they chose AI as their strategic planning approach
and what they hoped to gain from its use as opposed to other planning methods. On the
one hand, these college leaders were looking for something different—a collaborative
and inclusive process—one which would mitigate negativity and focus on the positive
aspects and strengths of the colleges. On the other hand, leadership was looking into the
future and hoping for a broader and more profound impact—a sustainable and genuine
culture change within each college.
To determine AI’s effect on college culture, and because it had been utilised at
NECC since 2006, the following survey question was asked of NECC participants:
NECC began using Appreciative Inquiry (AI) in 2006 to inform the strategic planning
process. To what extent would you agree that there has been positive culture change at
NECC due to the use of AI?
The majority of NECC participants (81%) agreed that there had been a positive
culture change at NECC due to the use of Appreciative Inquiry.
Open-ended questions were asked in the survey and in the one-on-one interviews
in an attempt to understand what other impacts the AI process had on the two colleges
and what other outcomes arose from this process.
Similar positive comments were obtained from the one-on-one interviews of
participants from both colleges. Ninety-one percent of NECC participants indicated that
there had been positive changes as a result of the AI planning process, and 71% of
CNAQ participants indicated that there had been positive changes as a result of the AI
planning process. There were approximately 95 references in the qualitative data. Figure
8 shows the approximate breakdown of the prevalent themes.
145
Figure 8. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC about
the impacts on the campus communities of using Appreciative Inquiry.
Theme 1: Positive and Engaged Employees
The most prevalent theme concerning a culture shift focused on the employees
being or feeling more positive and engaged with their workplace. Examples of
participants’ comments included:
“There has been an amazing attitude shift. People are more engaged and positive”
(Interviewee 40).
“We have better morale, greater transparency of the strategic planning process,
greater hopefulness” (Survey Respondent 119).
“Because of AI itself people are starting to take a more constructive approach.
They are looking for opportunities rather than problems. The mindset is
permeating the organization and people are finding other ways to use AI. You can
Positive and EngagedEmployees
Collaboration, Community,Inclusion
Ongoing and Expanding Useof AI
Other
146
hear it in the language and how people approach each other and their issues in a
more constructive way” (Interviewee 36).
Theme 2: Collaboration, Community, Inclusion
Another major theme identified as a positive change fostered by Appreciative
Inquiry was that the participants began to develop a sense of community, transparency,
respect and trust; that they could take more opportunities to work together, across
departments, and feel more included in decision making; and that people became more
thoughtful about who should be included on various teams. Examples of participants’
comments included:
“The plan was a very significant outcome of this process. It is a compelling and
cohesive document. That said, I feel that the other outcomes of the process are
even more valuable. Seeing employees, external stakeholders, and students
engaged in a meaningful way had such a positive impact on the College. People
were meeting others, forming relationships, and sharing stories of success at the
College. We have seen some challenging times at the College, and this was a
reaffirmation that we are, indeed, doing great things for a great many people. I
think the positive relationships and connections that were formed in the planning
process are still paying dividends” (Interviewee 39).
“We now have an expectation of treating each other well. It is a reinforcement of
our values. We appreciate and respect each other. We have seen an increase in
participation. People are stepping up to be involved. At one point when I was here
I didn’t even know a strategic plan was being done—that was how uninvolved we
147
were. Faculty are less combative. People hold each other accountable. It is just a
more positive environment” (Interviewee 2).
“I think that there is a real sense of community here. AI and planning has allowed
for people to do something together. Everyone has different disciplines and their
own “farms” (like silos). But AI and planning brings people together. It mixes
them up so that you are talking to people you don’t know. People think together
and dream together and relationships form” (Interviewee 15).
Theme 3: Ongoing and Expanded Use of AI
A final positive outcome that people commented on has to do with the continuing
usefulness of Appreciative Inquiry for the expansion of other organizational development
activities. For example, NECC has initiated a strengths-based campus initiative,
implemented a process management approach for institutional improvement that has an
appreciative focus and developed a program called LOVE—Living our Vision of
Excellence—to help sustain the work done in the strategic planning process. CNAQ
continues to offer Appreciative Inquiry Facilitator Training courses, is using AI for other
planning and development activities, is implementing a strengths-based campus program
and is also planning to launch an Appreciative Coaching program. Examples of
participants’ comments included:
“It has really become part of the culture. Other initiatives have started (strengths)
and others were in place (process management). AI has strengthened these
initiatives. You can expect if a team gets brought together that the meetings will
focus on strengths and that it will likely start with an appreciative question. This
148
has really shaped how ‘we are together’. You can see it in the emails from the
President right down to team work” (Interviewee 16).
“We are now doing a lot of training on AI and other things. I think what has
happened is people’s confidence level in their own abilities has increased. We
have embraced a leadership at every level approach. This came from the last plan.
AI involves a lot of people. Our leadership academy, for example, is open to
everyone. AI gives leaders (at all levels) another tool kit to add and really builds
confidence. People really feel welcome with AI. For us it has been the factor
behind investing in strengths” (Interviewee 18).
There were, however, a percentage of participants (9% from NECC and 19% from
CNAQ) who did not feel that AI had produced any genuinely positive changes;
particularly in the case of CNAQ, some people felt that not enough time had passed to
witness a real culture shift. There were three prevalent themes in this area as shown in
Figure 9.
149
Figure 9. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC
regarding why some participants did not feel that there had been positive changes as a
result of using AI for strategic planning at their college.
Theme 1: General Comments
Some people were dubious about the worth of AI in general, suggesting that it had
not produced any beneficial results—or that it would be sustained. One participant
commented:
“AI is the flavour of the month. There is a lack of interest around AI on campus”
(Interviewee 48).
Theme 2: Address the Basics
A second theme identified referred to the belief of some that there are basic
institutional effectiveness issues that need to be addressed before any positive culture
change could happen or be observed. Examples of participants’ comments included:
General Comments
Address the Basics
Need more Action
150
“We need the basics in place at the College first before measurable change can be
seen, e.g. trust. Until trust issues are dealt with, nothing else matters. We have a
lot of functional issues and those need to be dealt with” (Interviewee 25).
“We need to focus more on the basics before we can see positive change due to
the plan. We need to work on these and communicate progress. Executive should
advocate for change in all areas. We have small issues here, but a lot of them.
Management needs to work on these” (Interviewee 47).
Theme 3: Need more Action
Third and finally, some people felt that not enough follow-through activity had
been devoted to ensure that the strategic planning initiatives were actually being
implemented and proving to be effective. This seemed to be preventing them from
recognizing positive organizational changes. Examples of participants’ comments
included:
“We need more visible strategic planning results/impacts at the department level.
Departments need to see progress on the plan. We need more progress and more
communication about where we are heading with the plan. We needed to
supplement the process with more traditional strategic planning methods, e.g.
SWOT. Our environment is dynamic and we need to account for the constant
change in our planning” (Interviewee 29).
“More action is needed right now” (Interviewee 70).
Research Question 4
What are the characteristics that foster the sustainable use of Appreciative Inquiry for
planning at the college?
151
Because organizational development methodologies are sometimes instituted and
then either halted or replaced, the researcher was particularly interested in exploring what
some of the critical success factors might be for sustaining the use of AI for institutional
planning. This question was what prompted this two-college case study: it was hoped that
there would be value and increased understanding added through exploring the results
from a college that had used AI for planning for the second time (NECC), as well as
through learning from a college with early experience in using AI for planning (CNAQ).
Through the survey and from the one-on-one interviews, the researcher sought to
determine what participants thought regarding the sustained use of Appreciative Inquiry,
in the case of NECC; and what participants thought might lead to the sustained use of
Appreciative Inquiry, in the case of CNAQ, as an organizational development tool. There
were approximately 140 references made in the qualitative data with respect to these
questions. Figure 10 shows the approximate breakdown of the prevalent themes:
Figure 10. Summary of themes identified by participants at both CNAQ and NECC as to
factors that will foster the sustainability of using Appreciative Inquiry.
Continuing, Expanding Use
Leadership
Success of Process, People"Believe in it"Inclusiveness, Involvement ofStakeholdersAction, Outcomes
Positive, Strengths-Based,Solution-Focused Philosophy
152
Theme 1: Continuing, Expanding Use
Several participants felt that AI would prove to be sustainable as an organizational
development tool through the continued use of AI as a methodology for planning,
through ensuring that new employees were informed about the colleges’ AI and
strengths-based philosophies, through continuing to train and educate people about the
process and through using AI for other organizational development efforts. Examples of
participants’ comments included:
“Keep it in front of people! I think the College has done a great job to this point in
terms of AI capacity building and incorporating it into our language and planning
processes. Just more of the same will sustain (and hopefully expand) AI” (Survey
Respondent 12).
“As a result of the first use of AI our College has developed lots of other ways to
use AI in our culture. We used AI to develop the academic plan and process
management plan. We are using it in lots of ways. The culture has shifted
internally and people have become accustomed to sharing their insights. Even
with a discussion about budget, when there were budget constraints, people were
comfortable using AI. It was just a part of the way that we do business”
(Interviewee 18).
“Managers in all departments should be encouraged to use it for their internal
planning. I strongly believe it will have a huge impact on the success of these
departments and will help boost morale of employees and give them a sense of
ownership once they have a voice in shaping their departments' strategies”
(Survey Respondent 13).
153
Theme 2: Leadership
Leadership is another theme that participants identified as a critical factor for
sustaining AI, and two underlying ideas seemed to emerge. The first, and most prevalent,
was that formal leaders need to support and encourage the continuing and expanded use
of the AI process, philosophy and methodology. Examples of participants’ comments
included:
“Buy in of the leadership. Our President brings and embodies positivity, more
than I can even fathom. But he is positive and visionary and he wants us to
embrace that. When top leadership does things to make us stronger and more of a
community that is very powerful. We work together so much more” (Interviewee
4).
“The belief in the process by senior leadership is key. Our president and other key
people support it. They are real advocates and they can show how and why it
works. You need that buy in at the highest level. If someone else came in and had
a different approach I doubt you would see everyone walking away from AI”
(Interviewee 8).
“It is belief in the process from the leadership. AI is a way of thinking and a way
of life and the leadership team at the College really believe it. The cabinet is on
board with the process. It just makes sense to use this process. You can rule with
an iron fist and people will eventually do what you tell them…but there wouldn’t
be the same sense of buy in. You get more ‘flies with honey’. People really feel
valued and that is important” (Interviewee 13).
154
The second leadership idea indicates that very strong supporters of the AI process
and philosophy are needed, on a day-to-day basis, in order to sustain the AI approach.
This includes people who are responsible for AI as a part of their leadership positions as
well as other champions on campus. Examples of participants’ comments included:
“Need the group of AI champions to keep it alive and ensure it is used whenever
possible during classes, meetings, projects, etc. The more it's used, the group of
champions should grow” (Survey Respondent 11).
“A group of people who are committed to it and continue to integrate it in the
college culture whenever possible. We need leadership from many places. A
train-the-trainer workshop was held on our campus several years ago and our
professional development department ensured the group met on a regular basis to
spearhead its use throughout the college” (Survey Respondent 146).
Theme 3: The Success of the Process, People “Believe in it”
Another theme regarding sustainability is that AI is and will be sustainable
because it works and has proved itself. Examples of participants’ comments included:
“The first one was done so well and everyone liked the results. Why change it?
People liked it and it worked” (Interviewee 1).
“I think the biggest reason it has grown at our college is a very practical one:
people experience it, like it, see that it works, and then use it again. That takes us
much farther than any administrative decree to use a planning process ever could.
Again, I would say the qualities that people find attractive (and that cause them to
want to use it again) are the energy and creativity it unleashes, the way it brings
155
all different kinds of people together (in storytelling), its efficiency as a process,
and the results it delivers” (Interviewee 23).
Theme 4: Inclusiveness, Involvement of Stakeholders
Participants commented that the sustainability of AI was due to, and would
continue to be due to, the collaborative and inclusive philosophy of the process. The more
that the colleges encourage people to be involved in their planning and development
activities, the more supportive in regard to outcomes people will become. Furthermore,
while this theme is similar to the previous one—AI is sustainable because “it works”—
the theme is more specifically related to the involvement and inclusion of people.
Examples of participants’ comments included:
“You need to build allies. Asking people to participate and be an ally is really
empowering to them” (Interviewee 18).
“Appreciative inquiry allows ALL employees of the College to express ideas and
concerns and voice their opinions. Contribution from all levels is important for
success. A ship is not sailed by the captain alone. It does require open
participation, team work, and a willingness to be open to change” (Survey
Respondent 96).
Theme 5: Actions, Outcomes
Another theme identified by participants regarding how to ensure AI’s
sustainability was the need to identify and communicate clear and identifiable outcomes
from the planning processes that were undertaken. There was a general sense that in
many planning processes the promised outcomes never actually materialized or that the
plans were simply ignored and abandoned. Examples of participants’ comments included:
156
“Sustainability will come from implementation of the ideas from the process.
Some of these have ended up on the shelf” (Survey Respondent 22).
“AI will be sustained if follow-through takes place as quickly as possible. Live
meetings to celebrate milestones (email communications are insufficient). It needs
to become a ‘lived’ philosophy demonstrated by leaders at all levels. The follow
up processes need to be highlighted and taught in much the same way as the
initial planning was” (Survey Respondent 71).
“To sustain we need significant, and perceptible, movement on the Strategic Plan
and using AI for other types of information gathering sessions” (Survey
Respondent 6).
Theme 6: Positive, Strengths-Based, Solution-Focused Philosophy.
The final theme identified by the participants concerning sustainability was that
colleges should continue to embrace and capitalize on what is working well, on the
strengths of all their people, their teams and the colleges themselves—and on finding
solutions rather than problems. Examples of participants’ comments included:
“By focusing on what we do well we can feel good about what we do. It helps
spread motivation. We will keep this going” (Survey Respondent 107).
“It also focuses on the positive things that are happening and helps us to expand
or better them. It also helps us to see things that may not be working so well or
perhaps have reached their peak and no longer need as much attention” (Survey
Respondent 105).
“The model behind it is great. We talk about what we do best and how we can do
it even better. It works. We recognize and always come from a place of strengths.
157
This has worked really well for us and our community. The positive focus makes
a big difference” (Interviewee 17).
Research Question 5
What similarities exist between the experiences of the College of the North Atlantic –
Qatar and Northern Essex Community College in using Appreciative Inquiry for
Strategic Planning? What differences exist, if any?
The researcher decided to conduct a two-college case study, and the selection of
two quite different colleges, one in the Middle East and one in the U.S.A, in the hope of
shedding new light on the effectiveness of AI as a methodology for higher-education
strategic planning. In this comparison and contrast study, regarding the experiences of
both CNAQ and NECC, the following six areas of similarities and differences were
noteworthy:
The AI process
Internal versus external facilitation
Labeling Appreciative Inquiry
Timeframe for planning
Leadership and environment for planning
Results of the study
The AI Process
Whereas Appreciative Inquiry has a structured, though flexible methodology,
both colleges followed the standard AI procedures quite closely, and, therefore, the
processes used were quite similar. Both colleges used a two-phase approach. The first
planning phases allowed for the discovery of stakeholders’ general ideas, themes and
158
suggested directions that they thought would improve the futures of their own colleges.
This phase utilized Appreciative Inquiry interviews and group dialogue. In the second
phase, both colleges delved more specifically into these various ideas that had been
identified using the AI/SOAR technique in order to allow each institution to proceed with
the necessary, appropriate and more detailed aspects of the strategic planning process.
One notable difference in the planning processes used was that NECC employed
one large planning session to engage all of their stakeholders at the same time. This is
called a “summit” in Appreciative Inquiry terminology. CNAQ, by contrast, decided to
utilize several smaller sessions, each of which was stakeholder specific.
Internal versus External Facilitation
NECC has now gone through a second round of utilizing AI for their strategic
planning. During the first round of their planning, they relied heavily on external
consultants to develop and lead their process. At this earlier time, they had no internal
resource with the required AI expertise and the then-president felt that it would be crucial
to the success of the process to engage someone with those skills externally. As this
previous president said, “We had two AI experts who were able to lead us through the
process. Their knowledge and skill at facilitation was critical to the success of our
planning. Because this was the first time that we had used this new approach and it was a
considerable diversion from our previous planning process, we needed outside expertise.”
Another key NECC planning representative indicated that having two expert and well-
known consultants the first time AI was used for strategic planning helped a great deal to
lend credibility to the process.
159
However, during the most recent round of strategic planning, some of NECC’s
own staff were able to lead and facilitate the process internally. While they brought in an
AI consultant at the early stages to ensure that they were on the right track, they quickly
confirmed that, after having used AI for a number of years, they were ready and able to
lead this process themselves. One of the planning success factors identified by the current
NECC president was that they could and did facilitate the process themselves.
By contrast and from the outset of their planning, CNAQ facilitated the process
internally. The college’s senior administrators had decided that this planning should be
done internally—partly because a previous attempt at strategic planning using external
consultants, and not using AI, had been unsuccessful. Coincidently to this internal-
expertise mandate, two staff members from CNAQ’s Institutional Research and Planning
Department attended a week-long training session on Appreciative Inquiry and became
convinced that AI was an appropriate planning process for the College. They then made a
presentation to the strategic planning team to recommend AI as the planning approach.
As one of these facilitators remarked:
When we returned from the training, we were enthusiastic
that there could be a significant role for AI in the strategic
planning process, which was still in early stages. We felt
that using AI could meet the challenging timelines that
were facing the existing strategic planning committee, and
we were willing to take on the logistics and facilitation in
order to use AI for strategic planning at CNAQ. Given this
enthusiasm, and willingness to take on a great deal of
responsibility for the process, the strategic planning
committee gave us the go-ahead to use AI for strategic
planning.
Many other members of the strategic planning team indicated that this internal
facilitation was important to the effectiveness of the process. One member of the strategic
160
planning team said, “We had champions and they understood the process and applied it
properly. People bought in because they [the facilitators] knew what they were doing. It
was done right.”
Labelling Appreciative Inquiry
NECC was transparent from their first round of strategic planning in 2006 that
they would be using an Appreciative Inquiry methodology for their strategic planning.
Leaders at NECC held several information and training sessions on AI to ensure that
people understood the philosophy and the methodology that would be used.
Conversely, CNAQ’s strategic planning team decided not to label the process as
AI initially. The thought was that in the College’s more conservative culture, the name
Appreciative Inquiry might sound vague, trendy or faddish. Therefore, all stakeholders,
Qatari and Canadian, were invited to participate in a strategic planning process which
was described in early sessions only as being inclusive, collaborative, solution-focused,
etc. The Appreciative Inquiry label was not used at this time.
As CNAQ moved forward with their planning and stakeholders became more
familiar with and engaged in the process, the AI name and all its terminology were
gradually introduced and explained. It is difficult to determine from the data whether or
not labeling AI initially was the right choice. CNAQ has had too few years of experience
to determine whether AI will prove as sustainable for them as it has been for NECC.
Timeframe for Planning
NECC developed a firm timeline from the beginning of their planning. The initial
planning-to-plan stage started in May 2011. The all-College AI session (Convocation)
was held in September 2011with the SOAR sessions held in October and November
161
2011. The plan was written, sent out for feedback and approved by January 2012.
Because this was the second round of planning using the AI methodology, NECC was not
starting from the beginning with their planning process. They were building on a previous
plan and were thus able to move through the process relatively quickly. The NECC plan
that was approved included the vision, the values, the strategic directions and the
strategic goals. The NECC planning process, in its entirety, was carried out in
approximately nine months.
In contrast, for CNAQ, this was the first strategic plan that had been developed
and also was the first time that the AI methodology had been used. The approval
timelines and deliverables required by the Joint Oversight Board were not specifically
articulated initially. CNAQ began the planning-to-plan stage in March 2010. This first
iteration of the strategic plan included the vision, the mission, the guiding principles and
the strategic directions and was approved in June 2010. However, before final approval to
move forward was given and resources made available, the CNAQ Board asked for a
more detailed plan with initiatives developed for each strategic direction. A plan for the
next phase of planning, therefore, took time to develop.
Another significant factor affecting the CNAQ timing was that a new president
was installed part-way through the planning process. There was a delay of about three
months during which the planning was put on hold as the new president was being
briefed on the plan and the process. Phase 2 planning was then recommenced in
December 2010, was completed by April 2011 and was submitted to the Joint Oversight
Board and approved in June 2011.
162
Phase 1 of the planning took approximately four months. Phase 2 of the planning
took approximately seven months. Total elapsed time for both phases was approximately
17 months (in contrast to NECC’s nine months).
Leadership and Environment for Planning
Two other notable and potentially informative differences between NECC and
CNAQ have to do with leadership and with the planning environments at each of the
institutions. NECC’s former president initiated and supported the first round of planning
using AI in 2006. Additionally, the current NECC president, who was the college’s Vice
President Academic during the first round of planning, was not just a very strong
supporter of the AI process but is, in fact, a certified Appreciative Inquiry facilitator and
trainer. Partly for that reason, NECC participants often praised the key role that their
college leadership played in their satisfaction with and acceptance of the planning
process.
CNAQ, on the other hand, was experiencing leadership transition during the time
of the strategic planning process. In the initial stages of planning, the College had an
Acting President who was supportive of Appreciative Inquiry. However, the executive
team was also going through transition at that time and some of the members were not
very involved in the planning process. During the later phases of strategic planning
CNAQ appointed a new president, who was also supportive of the planning process after
being briefed. But neither the acting president nor the current president had any previous
knowledge of, or experience with, AI as a strategic planning resource.
163
Results from the Study
The survey and the one-on-one interviews posed various questions about the
effectiveness of the strategic planning processes in the two colleges of this case study,
and it must be acknowledged that in most instances NECC had slightly higher, as in more
positive results, than did CNAQ. For almost all questions, however, the results were not
significantly different, with two exceptions. One exception was the rating of the “overall
effectiveness” of the strategic planning process: NECC participants rated their planning
process as being significantly more effective than that of CNAQ. A review of the
qualitative data provided some answers as to why NECC may have scored higher in this
particular and important overall effectiveness area.
For example, one major difference occurs in response to the question: “What
would you change or ‘want more of’?” Several CNAQ participants answered by
mentioning two aspects of the planning process more often than did NECC participants:
leadership and the need to address the problems. Conversely, no participant from NECC
raised the issue of needing to address the problems and few mentioned leadership. It is
also interesting to note that with regard to the timing of the strategic planning process,
comments about it taking too long came mostly from CNAQ participants, while
comments about wanting a little more time came primarily from NECC participants.
The other difference in the results was that NECC participants responded more
favorably to the statement, “I felt excited about the future of the College after
participating in the planning process.”
164
Summary
Both colleges involved in this study have instituted and followed through with
comprehensive strategic planning processes, which were also carried out in a number of
different phases. Each college engaged and involved hundreds of people in their planning
processes, including a very wide spectrum of stakeholders. The comments and
suggestions from these participants, in the form of surveys and interviews, have provided
a great deal of evidence relating to the effectiveness of Appreciative Inquiry for strategic
planning within higher education as well as some suggestions for how its effectiveness
could be increased.
These results will be discussed further in Chapter 5.
165
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The purposes of this research study were to analyze how Appreciative Inquiry
(AI) has been used for strategic planning at two colleges, and to assess and explore AI’s
effectiveness as a methodology for this kind of organizational planning. With these
objectives in mind, the study described the methodology used for both the development
and implementation of the planning processes and evaluated the effectiveness of such
processes from the perspective of employees and planning-team members. Furthermore,
the study explored the themes and ideas which appeared to affect the utility of AI for
strategic planning—with attention also given to what additional positive outcomes, other
than the implementation of the plan itself, might have emerged from the use of AI.
The study also sought to identify the diverging views of those who are opposed
to the AI concept in order to make recommendations which might enhance its use within
higher education strategic planning. Finally, the researcher wanted to ascertain the factors
which appear critical in order to sustain and expand the use of Appreciative Inquiry in a
college setting.
This last chapter (1) summarizes the key findings and results of the study, (2)
makes recommendations to other planners interested in AI based on the evidence that
emerged from the study, (3) proposes areas in which further research might need to be
conducted in order to continue to expand AI’s knowledge base and research base and (4)
presents an emerging model for the effectiveness of AI for strategic planning within
higher education and beyond.
166
Summary of Key Research Findings and Results
The Effectiveness of Appreciative Inquiry for Strategic Planning
The results of the study indicate that AI was, indeed, an effective tool for strategic
planning at these two colleges. The vast majority of survey respondents (91% of NECC
respondents and 90% of CNAQ respondents) felt that the AI process had resulted in
meaningful future directions for the colleges.
Similarly, large numbers of participants (85% for NECC, 75% for CNAQ, 79%
overall) also responded favourably to specific aspects of the AI planning process.
Respondents commented that the process was a good use of their time; that they could
see their own contributions in the plan; that they learned something new and valuable
about their colleagues; that the process helped them feel excited about the future of the
college; and that they had sufficient opportunities to participate. With regard to an overall
assessment of the effectiveness of the planning process, most NECC participants were
satisfied (87%); many CNAQ participants were satisfied (67%); and the average
satisfaction of overall effectiveness, considering both colleges, was 76%.
Several reasons might explain CNAQ’s somewhat less favourable response than
that of NECC: this was the first time the college had used Appreciative Inquiry for
planning; participants may have needed more time and more experience in order to
become familiar and comfortable with this non-traditional process; CNAQ had been
experiencing negativity and low employee morale; and the college’s responses to
previous organizational satisfaction surveys had been much less favourable than the
results of this study, suggesting that the college climate and culture may have improved,
in part perhaps, due to the use of Appreciative Inquiry for their planning. As the CNAQ
167
acting president said of the process, “Right from the beginning, the enthusiasm was there
and the excitement of going forward. And then came the magic of Appreciative Inquiry
and the warmth and welcoming that came with that. So we knew that this was going to be
a good experience. This was probably one of the greatest experiences I have seen at the
college” (CNAQ Strategic Planning Video, 2010).
What Leads to the Success of AI? What Other Benefits Does AI Present?
The findings of this study suggest that much more than “just a plan” resulted from
the use of Appreciative Inquiry for both CNAQ and NECC—in other words, changes
occurred beyond the determination of future directions. A large majority (81%) of NECC
survey respondents agreed that there had been a genuine and overall culture change that
could be attributed to the use of AI. Similar results were obtained from the interviews:
91% of NECC interviewees and 71% of CNAQ interviewees indicated that there had
been positive changes as a result of the AI process.
The strategic plan itself is almost always the most important outcome of
traditional organizational-planning methodologies. Unfortunately, this too often seems to
be the only outcome. By contrast, the benefits of AI are believed to go well beyond the
development of plans which in many organizations and institutions are formulated in
isolation, by small groups of people. For such reasons, strategic planning in higher
education has come under fire in recent years with scholars and practitioners calling for
new approaches.
In The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Mintzberg (1994) suggests that
organizations, rather than being frustrated with and eliminating their traditional planning
processes, should, instead, transform them. Strategic planning, he argues, is “…about
168
synthesis. It involves intuition and creativity” (p. 108). Most importantly, such planning
often occurs through informal learning, which needs to be experienced by all the people
who are involved with the specific issues at hand. Mintzberg also claims that “real
strategic change requires not merely rearranging the established categories, but inventing
new ones” (p. 108).
As Mintzberg implies, both colleges in this study were hoping for, and needed,
more than “just a plan.” They wanted a process that would involve stakeholders, be
engaging and exciting, help to strengthen and develop relationships, and move the
organizational culture to one of capitalizing on strengths and focusing on solutions rather
than on problems. The use of AI at these two institutions appears to have done that.
Furthermore, much of the Appreciative Inquiry literature suggests that
organizations will reap many additional benefits from the use of AI. Cameron, Dutton,
and Quinn (2003) say that this approach views organizations as miracles to be embraced
and not problems to be solved, is unconditionally positive and solution-centred, focuses
on the generative and life-giving forces of a system or organization, is inclusive and
collaborative and sparks innovation and creativity.
Cooperrider and Whitney (2001) comment that, “In AI the arduous task of
intervention gives way to the speed of imagination and innovation. Instead of negation,
criticism, and spiraling diagnosis, there is discovery, dream and design” (p. 613). Diana
Spence (2007) in her recent study—which reported the highpoints of participants in a
university-level AI futures-planning process—found that participants reported a sense of
inclusion, increased awareness of community, equity of voice, collaboration, positive
energy, ownership and commitment and definition of goals and creation of plans.
169
Similarly, returning to NECC and CNAQ, this study’s participants reported many
such AI benefits to a degree indicating that changes in both campus cultures had occurred
or were beginning to emerge as a result of the planning process itself. Participants felt
that employees were now more fully engaged and optimistic about the future; that there
was an enhanced sense of community which was more open, transparent and full of trust;
that more people were working together cross-departmentally; and that stronger
relationships had been formed.
Study participants also spoke about the benefits of the continued and expanded
use of Appreciative Inquiry within other areas of institutional development—such as
leadership programs, on-campus Appreciative Inquiry Facilitator Training sessions and
the initiation of strengths-based projects—as well as opportunities for implementing other
new initiatives based on the AI philosophy.
These comments would tend to indicate a broad and positive change in both
campus cultures. As one planning team member observed, “We got the plan done and a
culture shift as well!” (Interviewee 40).
Themes Illustrating the Success of AI for Strategic Planning
To provide an inclusive analysis from the study of the generative and positive AI-
related responses that emerged, the researcher compiled all of the relevant qualitative
responses and then considered them together. Five major themes were identified. These
are listed in Figure 11.
170
Figure 11. The major themes related to the success of the Appreciative Inquiry process
for strategic planning at both CNAQ and NECC
To summarize, participants responded favourably to the AI process itself, overall,
and to specific aspects of the planning process as well. Participants felt energized when
working together knowing that their contributions were valued. Participants enhanced
their relationships with colleagues and other college stakeholders; participants were
honoured to be involved in the process. Many participants indicated that they had never
been involved in a planning process before. They therefore felt a sense of ownership for
the plan because of their significant involvement, because their voices were heard and
because they could see their contributions in the resultant plan.
Participants also praised the positive focus of the process and what they saw as
the lasting impact of being involved in a solution-focused process. They appreciated the
concept of reframing or looking at a negative situation or problem from the perspective of
what they “want more of.” They mentioned the energy that was generated during and
after the planning sessions, the sense of engagement and the prospect of a positive culture
The AI Process
Collaboration/RelationshipDevelopment
Involvement/Inclusion
Positive, Strengths-Based,Solution-Focused Philosophy
Leadership (College and Process)
171
shift being experienced. Finally, people were generally pleased with the involvement and
support of both colleges’ leadership teams and the manner in which the actual planning
process was organized and facilitated; they also felt that AI allowed for the development
of leaders-at-all-levels.
The researcher and the other CNAQ and NECC facilitators were especially
impressed by the high energy levels observed during the planning process. During the AI
sessions, participants seemed enthusiastic about being involved in planning with their
colleagues. They seemed to feel and share a sense of hope, optimism and
accomplishment as they worked together through each planning session. While some of
these feelings might be forgotten, in time, by participants, they will be remembered and
cherished by the AI facilitators.
As a way of further illuminating this “in the moment” feeling, it might be
instructive to look at an activity used by one of the colleges, called Leave Your Mark. At
the end of each planning session, the facilitators asked participants to consider how they
felt, at that moment, about their involvement in the planning process and about the future
of the college. They were then asked to write a single word on a card and post in on a
flip-chart as they left the session.
There were approximately 500 such entries in this activity. The following are the
15 words most frequently expressed by participants:
Optimistic
Excited
Great
Hopeful
Proud
Inspirational
Successful
Interesting
172
Energized
Exciting
Happy
Collaboration
Fun
Positive
Bright
The “word cloud” in Figure 12 provides a visual illustration of the “Leave Your
Mark” single-word choices: the larger that word appears, the more times it was
expressed.
Figure 12. A “word cloud” which visually depicts the words that participants used during
the “Leave Your Mark” activity expressing their feelings about their involvement in the
planning process and the future of the college
173
Diverging, Dissenting, Opposing Views and Suggestions for Improvement
To provide an accurate and complete assessment of Appreciative Inquiry, it is
important to consider and understand the feedback from those who did not feel that using
AI for strategic planning was effective, even though negative or dissenting comments
comprised less than 5% of the qualitative data from all of the surveys and interviews.
These diverging ideas/themes are identified below but are considered separately from the
suggestions for improvement, which came from everyone, including the most happy and
satisfied participants. The major themes related to some participants’ dissatisfaction fall
into three categories as shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13. The major themes related to dissatisfaction with the Appreciative Inquiry
process for strategic planning at both CNAQ and NECC
To elaborate, some participants felt that the AI process in its entirety was not
appropriate, enjoyable or effective for strategic planning. Some criticized the outcomes of
various parts of the process. Other participants expressed a concern also identified in the
literature which is that AI’s focus on the positive might completely ignore the negative
The Planning Process orProduct
Leadership
Not Addressing theProblems or the Basics
174
(Bushe, 2011); some participants felt that problems and issues were not being addressed
through the planning process or that there were basic organizational issues that needed to
be handled but were not being addressed. Leadership was also an issue for some
participants. They commented that institutional leaders should be more involved with and
supportive of the process—and that institutional leaders were not genuinely interested in
employee feedback.
In regard to suggestions for improvement, all participants at both institutions were
asked how they would improve the strategic planning process or, using AI terminology,
“what they wanted more of.” These themes were quantified and listed in Figure 6 in
Chapter 4. In summary the suggestions included:
Improved communication regarding the process and the outcomes
More structure, less structure/modify specific parts of the process
More involvement and collaboration particularly from stakeholders who
traditionally have not been involved
Movement of the process slower or faster
More support or engagement from leaders
Making sure to address problems and issues
Sustaining Appreciative Inquiry
This study explored the factors identified by participants that might enable the
colleges to sustain and expand their use of Appreciative Inquiry. These themes were
quantified and listed in Figure 10 in Chapter 4. To paraphrase, these suggestions and
comments included:
Simply put “it works”—therefore it will be sustained.
175
Keep the energy of AI by just continuing to use it. Keep it in front of people.
Encourage formal leaders to support and encourage the continuing and expanded
use of the AI process, philosophy and methodology.
Ensure that you have knowledgeable and effective champions of AI and people
whose primary responsibility at the college is to “keep AI alive.”
Continue to involve many people in planning and organizational development
activities. The more that people are involved, the more people want to be
involved.
Show results—people need to see the plan moving forward and to see
measureable outcomes.
Continue to embrace and capitalize on what is working well, on the strengths of
all their people, their teams and the colleges themselves—and on finding solutions
rather than problems.
One other important sustainability factor mentioned by some key planning
personnel requires further discussion. It is the recommendation to use Appreciative
Inquiry appropriately—that organizations should be careful not to overuse the
methodology. In other words, AI should be thought of and utilized as a very effective
approach—but an approach that can, and should, be used in conjunction with other
planning and organizational development tools. This idea will be discussed further in the
recommendations section.
Lessons Learned from Comparing the Processes at Two Colleges
This study reviewed the experiences of two colleges who used AI for strategic
planning. This was beneficial as it enabled learning from the experiences of a college that
176
had used Appreciative Inquiry as its planning process for the second time (NECC)—as
well as from a college that had used AI for the first time (CNAQ). There were two key
issues which emerged from the results of this comparison and contrast which merit
further consideration. Both issues may relate to the fact that NECC appeared to have
somewhat better success using AI than did CNAQ. But what were—or what might have
been— some possible reasons for this difference?
Leadership and Environment
NECC had consistent, supportive and AI-knowledgeable senior leadership during
both of its AI-based strategic planning processes. As mentioned previously, NECC’s
former president initiated and supported the first round of planning using AI in 2006.
Moreover, the current president, who was the college’s academic vice-president during
the first round of planning, was not only a very strong supporter of the AI process but is
also a certified Appreciative Inquiry trainer; NECC participants often praised the key role
that their college leadership played in their satisfaction with and acceptance of the AI-
based strategic planning process.
In an interview that the researcher had with the former college president, he
commented that the organizational culture had begun to improve in the years leading up
to their first planning process using AI. In addition, the college leadership was fully
supportive of, and involved with, the process of using AI for strategic planning. In other
words, it was his belief that both organizational stability and strong leadership increased
the effectiveness of NECC’s first planning process. He also said that using AI would not
likely have been as effective a few years before that when the institutional environment
177
was not as strong. The former president said, “I can’t imagine trying it then. People
would just not have been ready for it.”
By contrast, CNAQ was in a period of leadership transition during the
implementation of its Appreciative Inquiry strategic planning process. In the initial stages
of planning, the college had an acting president who was supportive of AI. However, the
College’s senior leadership team was also going through changes at that time, and the
team members were not fully involved in the process. Also, during the later phases of
strategic planning, CNAQ appointed a new president, who also became supportive of the
planning process after being briefed. But neither the acting president nor the current
president had any previous knowledge of, or experience with, AI as either a methodology
or as a possible approach to strategic planning.
Despite this quite different leadership context, AI was perceived by CNAQ
participants as being successful to almost the same degree as that experienced within
NECC. As one planning-team member commented about the lack of leadership stability
at CNAQ: “Thinking about leadership, you have enough people on board with AI
because it is inclusive, so does it matter? AI allows leaders to develop. There is so much
momentum that is created with AI as informal leaders develop. I think we could have had
no formal leaders and still moved forward. But there was so much momentum and so
many people involved—it was perhaps the only method that would have worked in our
situation” (Interviewee 39).
An important finding here, therefore, would seem to be that Appreciative Inquiry
could be an effective strategic planning choice regardless of leadership experience or
178
institutional culture—providing that committed supporters and facilitators of the AI
process are in place and continue to develop.
The AI Summit
One other noteworthy difference between the NECC/CNAQ approaches is that,
while both colleges followed the AI 4D Model, NECC chose to use a day-long summit
with stakeholders during their initial implementation round. Furthermore, in the first
strategic planning process NECC hosted a three-day summit. To clarify this concept, “An
appreciative inquiry summit is a large-group planning, designing, or implementation
meeting that brings a whole system of 300 to 1,000 or more internal and external
stakeholders together in a concentrated way to work on a task of strategic, and especially
creative, value” (Cooperrider, 2012a, p. 107).
By contrast, CNAQ chose, because of its own circumstances, to hold smaller
stakeholder-specific sessions with the exception of one larger student session with 150
participants. Many NECC participants in this study, and those from CNAQ who
participated in the fairly large student session, commented on the energy, excitement and
enthusiasm that were generated in larger sessions. As a result of this finding, the
researcher would now recommend that Appreciative Inquiry higher-education planners
consider holding an all-stakeholder session early in their planning process which includes
as many stakeholders as possible (a concept that will be also be discussed further in the
forthcoming recommendations section).
This concluding chapter, to this point, has presented the key findings and results
of the study. In the final sections the researcher will make recommendations to other
planners interested in using AI, based on the findings that emerged from this study and
179
will suggest areas in which further research may be considered to expand the AI
knowledge and research base—and thereby perhaps to enhance the effectiveness of
Appreciative Inquiry for planning in higher education and beyond.
Recommendations for the Use of Appreciative Inquiry as a Higher Education
Strategic Planning Methodology
Recommendation 1: Decision Makers Should Consider Using AI and “Trust the
Process”
On the basis of personal experience with Appreciative Inquiry, and on the basis of
the evidence of this study, the researcher would recommend AI to other universities and
colleges. Appreciative Inquiry proved effective for both NECC and CNAQ despite their
very different environments and cultures. AI does, however, remain a quite novel and
untraditional process, particularly within higher education, and it is important for senior
leaders and key decision makers to feel comfortable in “trusting the process.”
Fortunately, while this study’s findings will provide some of the necessary
justification for using AI, this evidence is also supported and verified by other studies
referred to in earlier chapters. The following scholarly work, in particular, helps provide
additional support to planners attempting to implement Appreciative Inquiry within
college and universities.
First, from a theoretical perspective, Gergen and Gergen (2008) point out that
Appreciative Inquiry is informed by and firmly grounded in the theory of social
constructionism; and, at the very core of constructionism is the idea that knowledge,
meaning and understanding can be traced to and are a result of human relationships. In
180
other words, AI is based on the premise that organizations can and should construct their
own futures through the interactions of their own people.
Similarly, Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987) argue convincingly that through
conversation and collaboration, members of an organization have the potential to improve
their own work-place lives and the long-term success of their organization by discussing
and discovering the “best of what is,” by dreaming about the “ideals of what might be,”
by designing “what should be” and by creating their shared destiny of “what can be.” In
the truest sense of constructionism, therefore, the AI process has the potential to be more
successful than other approaches to planning because all stakeholders—and therefore the
whole system—are fully involved and positively engaged.
However, even with this theoretical justification in mind, readers of this study
may still ask, “Will AI be effective in other higher education institutions?” Fortunately
again, there are other well-respected experts in this field who have already made the case
that AI should be given serious consideration for planning in higher education.
In Engaging the Six Cultures of the Academy, Bergquist and Pawlak (2008)
suggest that AI is a sensible choice for strategic planning regardless of the culture of the
higher education institution, and, in fact, because of the phenomenon of the very different
cultures that exist in all organizations. They initially pose the following quandary about
the complexity of higher education:
Now that we have explored the profound differences that
exist between the six cultures of the academy with regard to
their history, assumptions, perspectives, values and models
of leaders and institutional influence, it would be quite easy
to conclude that the gulf between them is too great to cross
(p. 219).
181
They respond to this dilemma at the end of their manuscript when they turn their
focus to looking at strategies “that are most effective in addressing the varying concerns
of the six academic cultures” (p. 219). Their first recommendation is the use of
Appreciative Inquiry “as a way of helping institutions of higher education deal with the
difficult challenges that we face in ways that build on the strengths and values of the six
cultures...leaders must learn to appreciate rather than annihilate culture” (Bergquist &
Pawlak, 2008).
Further, in How Colleges Work, Birnbaum (1988), while not specifically
addressing the issue of best practices or methods for planning or strategy development,
gives credence to the AI philosophy even before it became a well-established concept. He
suggests that the basic purpose of strategic planning is not to develop strategic plans but
to provide a forum in which collaboration and interaction may be applied in order to
inform the data—and thereby to construct a socially preferred future. This idea indirectly
supports the use of AI for strategic planning since providing this forum for collaboration
is at the heart of the Appreciative Inquiry process. Birnbaum also suggests, regarding
strategic planning, that “the emphasis is not on producing a plan but on the process of
planning itself” (p. 222).
Birnbaum’s concept of reaping benefits from the planning process itself is a
substantial benefit of the Appreciative Inquiry approach to planning. By capitalizing on a
planning process that has social constructionism at its core, Appreciative Inquiry can
have wide-ranging benefits: helping an organization to understand its current culture;
facilitating the co-creation of future organizational strategy aligned firmly (and
182
inextricably) to that culture; and, moving the organization toward a preferred future and
enhanced culture.
Recommendation 2: Know the Situational Context—Use AI Appropriately/Do Not
Overuse It
Knowing when, and with whom, to use Appreciative Inquiry are also important
considerations. AI is an effective addition to organizational development and planning
processes but it is just one of the methods that, depending on circumstances, could or
should be used. For example, one experienced planner that the researcher interviewed
made these comments: “I also think that AI needs to be used strategically. The AI
process is not a panacea that can be used everywhere for all things. The AI philosophy
needs to be pervasive, but the AI method needs to be strategic. Perhaps this is counter-
intuitive, but the selective use of AI will help foster its ongoing use” (Interviewee 39).
Thus AI might have the potential to be overused, and it is important that those
involved do not feel coerced into participating. For example, Bushe’s 2011 studies of the
use of Appreciative Inquiry in different groups have led him to conclude that AI works
differently with pre-identity social systems—those groups where the majority of the
members do not identify themselves with the system—and post-identity social systems—
those groups where the majority of the members do identify with each other (Bushe &
Coetzer, 2007; Bushe, 2002).
Bushe goes on to argue that pre-identity groups are best served by inquiring into
the “ideal” because doing so helps them move toward a post-identity state. Post-identity
groups, however, are better served by inquiries into what “should be” because they will
be impatient with and view an inquiry into the ideal as being simply speculation.
183
Referring to David Bright’s work, Bushe (2010a) says “AI is likely to have the most
emotional impact when organizations are in a period of dysfunctional, negative deviance
and less when they are in a position of extraordinary, positive deviance” (p. 236).
Another key college planner interviewed as part of this study advises leaders to
ensure that the process is appropriate for the environment and for the particular group of
participants in the AI session. “Some people are AI purists and think that AI has to be
done in a certain way. I don’t think so. I think that things should be taken out and put in
and be flexible. Use what works. Fatigue can set in. You have to think about how you can
wrap it up on a high note. With tiredness comes dread. Think about this with your AI
sessions” (Interviewee 18).
In other words, this methodology, while structured, also provides great flexibility
for design and for implementation. To illustrate this point:
While the “4 Ds” (Discover, Dream, Design and Destiny) are usually carried out
in a specific order they do not have to be.
Planners could choose to structure one longer session in which participants are
involved in all of the Ds. Alternatively, they could also structure several shorter
sessions where each session builds on the previous one.
They could involve a variety of people in different aspects of the process.
AI sessions can be quite small and AI sessions can be very large.
Not all parts of the AI process will be appropriate for all organizations and
cultures, so it is important for planners to know their environment and be flexible.
184
Recommendation 3 (a): Consider How and When To Introduce the Terminology of
Appreciative Inquiry
There is a relevant saying within the AI community that “words create worlds.” In
the researcher’s experience, “wording” is particularly important when considering how to
introduce Appreciative Inquiry to a campus community. CNAQ, for example, made a
considered decision to minimize the use of the term Appreciative Inquiry during the early
stages of planning. As mentioned, newer theories within higher education are often
dismissed as the latest fads. Because AI has the potential to fall victim to that sentiment,
institutions should be aware of this possible problem.
In the researcher’s experience, when CNAQ did begin to use the word
“appreciative,” some people focused on that term’s more limited meaning and labeled the
methodology as “fluffy talk,” or “being nice to one another” or “saying please and thank
you.” While such misconceptions did not seem to have lasting negative impacts at CNAQ
or NECC, strategic planners should be aware of, and be prepared to deal with, this
possible reaction.
Recommendation 3 (b): Attempt to Overcome Initial Resistance to “Appreciative
Inquiry” by Considering Alternative Terms
To reiterate, the researcher has become aware that the word “appreciative” can be
troublesome, even beyond academia, and recommends and hopes that the terminology of
AI will continue to be the subject of further consideration. Fortunately, AI practitioners
and scholars have begun to recognize and discuss this issue.
David Cooperrider, the originator of Appreciative Inquiry and its best-known and
most influential practitioner, emphasizes that of the two words, “inquiry” is the more
185
important term (Master’s Work Video Productions, 2000). Also, one of the concepts now
being closely associated with AI is the idea of “generativity.” Therefore, perhaps a new
name should begin to be used.
The researcher’s choice would be Generative Inquiry and for the following
reasons. Before the inception of the Appreciative Inquiry concept, Kenneth Gergen
(1978), who is now significantly linked with AI, authored a paper entitled “Toward
Generative Theory.” He argues that traditional scientific theory could not be applied to
studying human social functioning:
It may be useful, then, to consider competing theoretical
accounts in terms of their generative capacity, that is, the
capacity to challenge the guiding assumptions of the
culture, to raise fundamental questions regarding
contemporary social life, to foster reconsideration of that
which is “taken for granted,” and thereby to furnish new
alternatives for social action. It is the generative theory that
can provoke debate, transform social reality, and ultimately
serve to reorder social conduct (p. 1346).
Cooperrider and Srivastva also discussed the generative nature of AI, indicating
that it is at the core of the inquiry process (1987). Bushe (2010b), in a recent article
entitled “Generativity and the Transformational Potential of Appreciative Inquiry,”
relates Gergen’s construct of generativity to Appreciative Inquiry by arguing that AI is
successful when groups of people discover and create new ideas and new realities that are
provocative and meaningful to themselves and others; this kind of inquiry is generative
when these new ideas and ways of thinking compel people to act in new ways.
Finally, in his article, “AI Is Not (Just) About the Positive,” Bushe (2007) does in
fact suggest that Appreciative Inquiry could be re-named Generative Inquiry.
186
Recommendation 4: Focus on the Generativity and Invite the Negative
A common misconception about Appreciative Inquiry has emerged because the
process is often described by practitioners as being “unconditionally” positive. This
notion can leave people feeling that they were not able to deal fully with problematic
organizational issues. As Bushe (2007) comments, “A focus on the positive is useful for
appreciative inquiry but it’s not the purpose. The purpose is to generate a new and better
future. To design and facilitate appreciative inquiry effectively I think you have to build
generativity into every activity” (p. 33). Also, in a recent plenary session at the World
Appreciative Inquiry Conference 2012, Bushe said, “I am not so convinced that positivity
is required for generativity…Generativity is actually a greater predictor of whether AI
will actually result in something rather than simply positivity” (Bushe & Fry, 2012).
To facilitate generativity, Bushe (2007) suggests using a line of appreciative
questioning that considers “what is missing, what they want more of, what their image of
the organization ought to be that is creating this gap between what they want and what
they see” (p. 5). Similarly, a key NECC planner interviewed for this study commented,
“When people get concerned that AI might not work and issues are not being addressed, I
invite that conversation. In fact, I wait for it and hope for it. It is a perfect opportunity to
bring those emotions in and bring people on board. I generally respond with ‘I hear there
is a concern. What would you wish for?’ I bring that into the process” (Interviewee 18).
Further, Kolodziejski’s (2004) doctoral thesis focuses on the organizational
“shadow”—which is described as “that which is feared and suppressed, that which is
considered inappropriate and shunted, that which is unbearable to hold consciously and
denied” (p. 64). She concludes that AI is an affirming and non-judgmental way to bring
187
out the undesirable or negative aspects of an organization and to look behind them and
mine them for potential prospects and possibilities. She also advocates an intentionally
appreciative inquiry process into the organizational shadow with questions such as:
What topics are the most challenging to discuss frankly or
openly around here? Why is that? What issues are the
hardest for the organization to take responsibility for, to
own versus avoid, and why? What are this organization’s
‘sacred cows’, and why? (pp. 184-185).
To elaborate further, Fitzgerald, Oliver and Hoxsey (2010), learning through
experience when dealing with a real-life shadow in a particular AI session, intentionally
designed and reframed appreciative questions in order to facilitate the resolution of the
negativity and discomfort that participants were feeling. These questions included: “(a)
when do you feel the freest to offer opposing opinions (b) when do you feel most
included in the agency’s overall goal setting (c) what are your best experiences speaking
up (d) what is the best thing your full and authentic participation in this inquiry will lead
to?” (p. 229).
Along a similar line, Bushe argues that creating the most effective questions for
the inquiry is difficult, yet crucial, and recommends asking participants to describe a
provocative experience, rather than a positive or peak experience, when they felt the most
challenged, when their thinking may have been upended, when their values and ideas
were challenged, when their emotions were provoked or when they were forced to
question their choices (Bushe & Fry, 2012). These questions, in the researcher’s opinion,
may be fundamental to the success of using Appreciative Inquiry in higher education.
To conclude this section on the positive vs. negative focus of AI, Bushe (2010a)
also emphasizes that focusing only on the “best” was never David Cooperrider’s intention
188
for Appreciative Inquiry; instead Cooperrider’s focus was on what gives life to
organizations—or what generates the best in life and brings out the best in people. To this
effect, Bushe (2007) says that AI is about the generative not the positive.
Recommendation 5: Go Big! Consider Using an AI Summit
The researcher also believes that using an Appreciative Inquiry summit, a large
multi-stakeholder group planning session, may enhance the AI experience. As mentioned
earlier in this chapter, the NECC participants who experienced their large scale summit
and the CNAQ participants who experienced the large student session commented often
on the energy, excitement, enthusiasm and creativity generated in these larger sessions.
In further support of the summit concept, David Cooperrider has written a recent
article (2012a) entitled, “The concentration effect of strengths: How the whole system
‘‘AI’’ summit brings out the best in human enterprise” which explains the value of this
unique approach:
In fact, because of the natural positivity that’s unleashed
when we collaborate beyond silos and artificial separations
keeping us apart, it is often profoundly easy. The use of
large group methods for doing the work of management,
once a rare practice, is soaring in business, but this is the
first article to focus on the positive human and
organizational dynamic involved—what this article calls
the concentration effect of strengths (p. 106).
As additional evidence of the growing interest in the AI summit concept,
Cooperrider and others are now in the process of authoring a book with the suggested
title The Appreciative Inquiry Summit: Explorations into the Magic of Macro-
Management and Crowdsourcing. In the call for submissions they say:
We are convinced that the AI Summit will continue to grow
in significance and positive possibility as our aching world
189
calls for mindsets, management methods and governance
structures that go beyond enterprise resource planning and
value chains optimization, and move toward design—to the
joint design of whole systems and bio-regions, whole
organizations, and whole communities by everyone
(Cooperrider, 2012b).
Furthermore, at the recent World Appreciative Inquiry Conference 2012, there
was much attention paid to the benefits of the large-scale summit. Therefore, like David
Cooperrider and others, the researcher believes that the summit is a very important basis
for successful AI planning processes of the future.
Recommendation 6: Use Experienced and Adaptable Facilitators
AI facilitators are central to, and instrumental in, the success of any planning
process using AI. To be credible and effective, facilitators should be well versed in the
theory and methodology of AI, and they should stay current in regard to research trends.
Facilitators need to understand the situation that they are entering by researching it very
thoroughly; they should remain flexible in order to devise an appropriate inquiry process
for specific issues, groups and cultures.
Even more importantly, perhaps, is the facilitator’s ability to “read” the
participants and the situation in “real time.” When things are not going as planned, or
when disengagement or negativity become apparent, it is essential that facilitators
competently and confidently adjust to the circumstances, deal with the issues and modify
the approach accordingly.
Recommendations for Further Research
The findings of this study suggest that continuing research on the use of
Appreciative Inquiry should be conducted in the following areas:
190
How does AI compare to other strategic planning processes used in higher
education in terms of effectiveness? How does AI compare to other strategic
planning processes in fostering positive organizational culture change?
Is AI appropriate for strategic planning in all higher education institutions?
Does using AI for strategic planning continue to have a positive impact on the full
cycle of a strategic planning process? What tangible outcomes have arisen from
the use of AI for planning?
Why do some stakeholders, but not all, find AI effective? Are there demographic
variables that can predict the likelihood of participants finding the AI process
effective?
How have higher education institutions modified the use of Appreciative Inquiry
to suit their institutional contexts?
Are there particular parts of the Appreciative Inquiry process that people feel are
more or less effective and why?
What impact does higher education culture have on the use of Appreciative
Inquiry in higher education?
What impact does the use of Appreciative Inquiry have on higher education
culture?
What are the impacts of using a whole-system, large scale summit on the success
of AI?
191
Conclusion
To bring this study to an end, the researcher has attempted to synthesize the most
important findings and results—and to present them in an emerging model for the
effective use of Appreciative Inquiry for strategic planning in higher education (Figure
14). The model presents the critical success factors for using AI (the inputs), provides an
indication of expected results from the planning process (the outputs) and suggests some
of the factors that might lead to the sustained use of Appreciative Inquiry.
Figure 14. An emerging model for the successful use of Appreciative Inquiry for
strategic planning.
192
In conclusion, therefore, and looking back at all the learning experiences of this
doctoral journey, the researcher is reminded in particular of one comment by Gervase
Bushe in regard to Appreciative Inquiry: “This is such a rich theory with so many
hypotheses waiting for someone to just study them” (Bushe & Fry, 2012).
Lastly, and personally, I have very much appreciated an opportunity to become
more familiar with this rich theory and to test some of its hypotheses in the context of a
two-college case study; I would especially like to thank everyone at those two colleges,
CNAQ and NECC, for all their very valuable co-operation and assistance; and, I
sincerely hope that this dissertation will add in some way to the rapidly growing and very
important body of Appreciative Inquiry knowledge and research.
193
REFERENCES
Anderson, H., Cooperrider, D., Gergen, K., Gergen, M., McNamee, S., & Whitney D.
(2001). The appreciative organization. Chagrin Falls, Ohio: Taos Institution
Publications.
Anfara, V.A., & Mertz, N. T. (2006). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Bazeley, P. (2009). Analysing qualitative data: More than ‘identifying themes’.
Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research (2)2, 6-22.
Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Beinhocker, E.D., & Kaplan, S. (2002). Tired of strategic planning? The McKinsey
Quarterly, 2, 49-57.
Bergquist, W.H., & Pawlak, K. (2008). Engaging the six cultures of the academy. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis:
London: Heinemann.
Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.
Bushe, G.R., & Coetzer, G.H. (1995). Appreciative Inquiry as a team development
invention: A controlled experiment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31(1),
19-31.
194
Bushe, G.R. & Coetzer, G.H. (2007). Group development and team effectiveness: Using
shared cognitions to measure the impact of group development on task performance
and group viability. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, (43)2, 184‐212.
Bushe, G.R. & Fry, R. (2012). Generative engagement: Going beyond the positive for
transformational change. Plenary session conducted at the World Appreciative
Inquiry Conference, Ghent, Belgium, April.
Bushe, G.R., & Kassam, A.F. (2005). When is Appreciative Inquiry Transformational? A
Meta-Case Analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(2), 161-181.
Bushe, G.R. (2002). Meaning making in teams: Appreciative inquiry with preidentity and
postidentity groups. In Fry, R., Barrett, F., Seiling, J. & Whitney, D. (Eds.)
Appreciative Inquiry and Organizational Transformation: Reports from the Field
(pp. 39‐63). Westport, CT: Quorum.
Bushe, G.R. (2000). Five Theories of change Embedded in Appreciative Inquiry. In
Cooperrider, D., Sorensen, P., Whitney, D. & Yaeger, T. (Eds.) (2000) Appreciative
Inquiry (pp. 99-109). Champaign, Illinois: Stipes Publishing.
Bushe, G.R. (2007). Appreciative inquiry is not (just) about the positive. Organization
Development Practitioner, 39(4), 30-35.
Bushe, G.R. (2010a). Commentary on “Appreciative inquiry as a shadow process”.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(3), 234.
Bushe, G.R. (2010b). Generativity and the transformational potential of appreciative
inquiry. In D. Zandee, D. L. Cooperrider, & M. Avital (Eds.), Generative
Organization: Advances in Appreciative Inquiry, Vol. 3 (in press). Bingley,
England: Emerald Publishing.
195
Bushe, G.R. (2011). Appreciative inquiry: Theory and critique. In Boje, D., Burnes, B. &
Hassard, J. (Eds.) The Routledge Companion To Organizational Change (pp. 87-
103). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E., & Quinn, R.E. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Cherryholmes, C.H. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational
Researcher, 21(6), 13-17.
Cockell, J., & McArthur-Blair, J. (2012). Appreciative Inquiry in Higher Education: A
Transformative Force. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cooperrider, D.L. (1986). Appreciative inquiry: Toward a methodology for
understanding and enhancing organizational innovation (theory, social,
participation). (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (AAT 8611485).
Cooperrider, D.L. (2012a). The concentration effect of strengths: How the whole system
‘‘AI’’ summit brings out the best in human enterprise. Organizational Dynamics,
41, 106-117.
Cooperrider, D.L (2012b). Call for papers: The Appreciative Inquiry Summit:
Explorations into the magic of macro-management and crowdsourcing. Retrieved
from http://www.davidcooperrider.com/2012/04/20/call-for-papers-the-
appreciative-inquiry-summit-explorations-into-the-magic-of-macro-management-
and-crowdsourcing/.
196
Cooperrider, D.L., & Sekerka, L. E. (2006). Toward a theory of positive organizational
change. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Organizational Development: A Jossey-Bass Reader
(pp. 223-228). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cooperrider, D.L., Sorensen, P.F., Whitney, D., & Yaeger, T.F. (2000). Appreciative
inquiry: Rethinking human organization toward a positive theory of change.
Champaign, Illinois: Stipes Publishing.
Cooperrider, D.L., Sorensen, P., Yaeger, T., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry:
Foundations in positive organization development. Champaign: Stipes Publishing.
Cooperrider, D.L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life.
Research in Organizational Change and Development, 1(1), 129-169.
Cooperrider, D.L., & Whitney, D.K (1999). Collaborating for change: Appreciative
Inquiry. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Cooperrider, D.L. & Whitney, D.K. (2001). A positive revolution in change. In
Cooperrider, D.L. Sorenson, P., Whitney, D. & Yeager, T. (Eds.) Appreciative
Inquiry: An Emerging Direction for Organization Development (pp. 9-29).
Champaign, IL: Stipes.
Cooperrider, D.L., & Whitney, D.K. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution
in change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Cooperrider, D.L., Whitney, D., Stavros, J.M., & Fry, R. (2008). Appreciative inquiry
handbook: For leaders of change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc
197
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. Australia: Allen & Unwin.
DeCuir-Gunby, J.T., Marshall, P.L., & McCulloch, A.W. (2011). Developing and using a
codebook for the analysis of interview data: an example from a professional
development research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136-155.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research.
Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Dick, B. (2004). Action research literature: Themes and trends. Action Research, 2(4),
425.
Dooris, M.J. (2003). Two decades of strategic planning. Planning for Higher Education,
31(2), 26-32.
Eisenhart, M. (1991). Conceptual frameworks for research circa 1991: Ideas from a
cultural anthropologist; Implications for mathematics education researchers. In R.
Underhill (Ed.), Proceedings of the thirteenth annual meeting of psychology of
mathematics education – North America. Blacksburg, VA: Psychology of
Mathematics Education.
Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. The academy of
management review, 31(2), 270-291.
Fitzgerald, S.P., Oliver, C., & Hoxsey, J.C. (2010). Appreciative inquiry as a shadow
process. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(3), 220-233.
Gergen, K.J. (1978). Toward generative theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36(11), 1344-1360
198
Gergen, K.J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology.
American Psychologist, 40, 266-275.
Gergen. K.J. (2009). An invitation to social constructions: Second edition. London: Sage
Publications.
Gergen, K.J., & Gergen, M.M. (2008). Social construction and research as action. The
Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (pp.159-
168). London: Sage Publications.
Giles, D., & Kung, S. (2010). Using appreciative inquiry to explore the professional
practice of a lecturer in higher education: Moving towards life-centric practice.
Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 50(2), 308-322.
Guba, E.G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The Paradigm
Dialog (pp.17-30). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Hammond, S.A. (1998). The thin book of appreciative inquiry. Plano, Texas: Thin Book
Publishing.
Hargis, L.C. (2005). Appreciative inquiry in higher education as an effective
communication tool: A case study. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 3188223)
Head, R., & Young, M. (1998). Initiating culture change in higher education through
appreciative inquiry. Organization Development Journal, 16, 65-72.
HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England). (2000). Strategic Planning in
Higher Education: A guide for heads of institutions, senior managers and members
of governing bodies. England: HEFCE.
199
Hill, M. (2005). A cast study of strategic planning at a public, mid-south university.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(AAT DP18349)
Howell, N. (2010). Appreciative advising from the academic advisor's viewpoint: A
qualitative study. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (AAT 3398312)
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P.D. (2002). The effects of institutional culture on change strategies
in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? The
Journal of Higher Education, 73, 435-460.
Kolodziejski, K. (2004). The organization shadow: Exploring the untapped, trapped
potential in organizational settings. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 3166383)
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and
emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds)., The Handbook of
Qualitative Research, (pp. 163-188). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Ludema, J.D., Whitney, D., Mohr, B.J., & Griffin, T.J. (2003). The Appreciative Inquiry
Summit: A practitioner’s guide for leading large-group change. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Martinetz, C.F. (2002). Appreciative inquiry as an organizational development tool.
Performance Improvement, 41(8), 32-37.
Master’s Work Video Productions (2000). Appreciative Inquiry: An interview with David
Cooperrider. Los Angeles, California.
200
McGough, E.M. (2006). A comparison of appreciative inquiry and nominal group
techniques in the evaluation of a college counseling center. (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 3226874)
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mertens, D.M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating
diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Newbury Park, California:
Sage Publications.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review,
72, 107-107.
Murphy, J.P., & Rorty, R. (1990). Pragmatism: From Peirce to Davidson. Boulder,
Colorado: Westview Press.
Orem, S.L., Binkert, J., & Clancy, A.L. (2007). Appreciative coaching: A positive
process for change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perodeau, A. (2004). Lessons for instructors from appreciative inquiry. Best Practices in
e-Learning Newsletter. The University of Calgary.
Province of Newfoundland (1996). Chapter C-22.1, An Act Respecting a Provincial
College. Retrieved from
http://www.assembly.nl.ca/legislation/sr/annualstatutes/1996/C22-1.c96.htm.
Saunders, M.D. (2003). Institutionalizing Retention Activity: Toward a Theory-Based
Model. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 4(4),
329-335.
Seale, C. (2004). Researching society and culture. London: Sage Publications Ltd
201
Shirley, R.C. (1988). Strategic Planning: An Overview. In D. W. Staples (Ed.), New
Direction for Higher Education, 64, 5-14.
Simmons, D., & Webb, L. (2007). Sustaining Appreciative Inquiry in Local Government:
A Challenge of Leadership. AI Practitioner, November, 7-11.
Spence, D. (2007). An evaluative case study of an appreciative inquiry process for
futures planning with the college of education at a public university in Tennessee.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(AAT 3287745)
Srivastva, S., & Cooperrider, D.L. (1990). Appreciative management and leadership: The
power of positive thought and action in organizations. Cleveland, OH: Lakeshore
Communications.
Stavros, J.M., & Hinrichs, G. (2009) The thin book of SOAR: Building strengths-based
strategy. Bend, OR: Thin Book Publishing Co.
Stavros, J., Cooperrider, D., & Kelley, D.L. (2003). Strategic Inquiry—Appreciative
Intent: Inspiration to SOAR. A new framework for strategic planning. AI
Practitioner, November, 10-17.
Stratton-Berkessel, R. (2010). Appreciative inquiry for collaborative solutions: 21
strengths-based workshops. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Stetson, N.E. (2008). Stories of positive change in the community college: Appreciative
Inquiry in action. Palm Springs, CA: Company of Experts.net.
Talisse, R.B., & Aikin, S.F. (2011). The pragmatism reader: From Peirce through the
present. Princeton University Press.
202
Thatchenkery, T., & Metzker, C. (2006). Appreciative intelligence: Seeing the mighty oak
in the acorn. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Theory. (2011). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved May 8, 2011, from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
Thibodeau, J. (2011). Appreciative accreditation: A mixed methods explanatory study of
appreciative inquiry-based institutional effectiveness results in higher education.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(AAT 3228078)
van der Haar, D., & Hoskings, D.M. (2004). Evaluating Appreciative Inquiry: A
relational constructionist perspective. Human Relations, 57(8), 1017-1036.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. London: Harvard University Press.
Walters, J.E. (2006). The use of appreciative inquiry as a planned change strategy at
Merritt College: A case study. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 3228078)
Watkins, J.M., & Mohr, B.J. (2001). Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the speed of
imagination. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Watkins, J.M., Mohr, B. J., & Kelley, R. (2011). Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the
speed of imagination. Pfeiffer.
Welsh, J.F., Nunez, W.J., & Petrosko, J. (2005). Faculty and administrative support for
strategic planning: A comparison of two-and four-year institutions. Community
College Review, 32(4), 20.
Whitney, D.,Cooperrider, D., Trosten-Bloom, A., & Kaplin, B. (2002). Encyclopedia of
Positive Questions. Lake Shore Communications.
203
Whitney, D., & Trosten-Bloom, A., (2003). The power of Appreciative Inquiry: A
practical guide to positive change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Whitney, D., Trosten-Bloom, A., Cherney, J., & Fry, R. (2005). Appreciative team
building. Taos, NM: iUniverse Inc.
Whitney, D., Trosten-Bloom, A., & Cooperrider, D. (2010). The power of Appreciative
Inquiry: A practical guide to positive change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Whitney, D., Trosten-Bloom, A., & Rader, K. (2010). Appreciative leadership: Focus on
what works to drive winning performance and build a thriving organization. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Yballe, L., & O’Connor, D. (2000) Appreciative pedagogy: Constructing positive models
for learning. Journal of Management Education, 24(4): 474-483.
Yin, R.K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Yin, R.K. (1992). The case study method as a tool for doing evaluation. Current
Sociology, 40, 121-137.
204
APPENDIX A: SURVEYS
CNAQ Online Survey
Strategic Planning At CNA-Q: Feedback on Process
For the purpose of using the information for doctoral work, the Ethics Committees of CNA-Q and the University of Calgary require that participants consent to participate. Please read the following information and, if you consent to participate, click on “submit” to begin the survey.
Dear CNA-Q Employee: I, Kelly Saretsky, am conducting a study of the use of Appreciative Inquiry for strategic planning higher education as part of my Doctor of Education in Higher Education Leadership at the University of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada. My thesis is entitled Appreciative Inquiry for Strategic Planning: An Exploratory and Comparative Case Study of Two Colleges. The two colleges are the College of the North Atlantic – Qatar (CNA-Q) and Northern Essex Community College in Massachusetts.
As you are probably aware, CNA-Q has been engaged in a strategic planning process for the past 18 months. The College selected to use a non-traditional approach – Appreciative Inquiry – for its planning process. As both a leader in the strategic planning process and a doctoral student, I am interested in assessing the effectiveness of CNA-Q's planning process to set the future direction of our College. Briefly, AI is both an organizational development philosophy and process that is collaborative, inclusive and solution-focused. CNA-Q is moving forward with action planning and implementation of our strategic plan and we want to ensure that we continue to utilize the best planning and decision making model for our college. We are committed to continuous quality improvement in all of our initiatives.
Over the next two months I will be collecting information from those individuals who have been involved in the planning process, through this survey as well as one-on-one interviews. The one-on-one interviews will be conducted by one of the “organizational development facilitators” who are members of faculty and staff. They are not connected with this study. The purpose of this survey is to understand your overall opinion of the effectiveness of the planning process used at CNA-Q. If you agree to participate, your involvement will include completing this survey. The survey will take about 10 minutes to complete. Your responses are anonymous and no personal or identifying data is asked for, or stored with, your responses. Participation is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw from the survey at any time and your responses will not be used.
You will be asked at the end of the survey if you are willing to participate in a face-to-face
205
interview to further explore your thoughts and opinions about the CNA-Q planning process. You will be directed to a separate link to provide contact information if you are willing to participate in a one-on-one interview. This information cannot be linked with your survey responses. Because the survey is anonymous, once you have submitted your responses, they will be retained for use in the study. The results from the survey will be reported in aggregate and will be used to assess the effectiveness of the CNA-Q planning process and will also be used to formulate questions for selected one-on-one interviews. All of the data will be stored electronically on the researcher’s computer and will not be accessible to anyone else. The researcher’s computer is password-protected. The anonymous data will be stored for three years, at which time it will be permanently erased.
By submitting the completed survey you are indicating your consent to participate in this study. The online survey is being administered by Zoomerang©, an American-licensed software company. As such, your responses are subject to U.S. laws, including the USA Patriot Act. The risks associated with participation are minimal, however, and similar to those associated with many e-mail programs, such as Hotmail© and social utilities spaces, such as Facebook© and MySpace©.”
This study has been approved by the Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary. You may contact the Ethics Resource Officer at [email protected] or +1.403-220-3782 if you have any comments or concerns. If you have any other questions, please contact Kelly Saretsky, Director of Institutional Research and Planning at [email protected] or via phone at 4495.2038. Thank you in advance for your time in completing this survey. Your participation is very much appreciated and your collective responses will ensure that CNA-Q stays on the cutting edge of planning and decision-making processes. If you have read and are in agreement with the process and information provided please click SUBMIT to proceed.
Page 2 - Question 1 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets) []
Did you participate in the strategic planning process at CNA-Q?
Yes [Skip to 3]
No [Skip to 8]
Page 3 - Question 2 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
What elements of the strategic planning process did you especially like? (Please select all that apply)
Opportunity to be involved in creating the College's future direction
Opportunity to meet and foster relationships with colleagues
Opportunity to share ideas with colleagues
Opportunity to be involved in a new / novel process (i.e. an Appreciative Inquiry)
Opportunity to participate in, and learn about, a strategic planning process
Other, please specify
206
Page 3 - Question 3 - Rating Scale - Matrix
Thinking of your experience in the strategic planning process, to what extent would you agree with the following statements?
Page 3 - Question 4 - Open Ended - Comments Box
What was your favourite part of the strategic planning process?
Page 3 - Question 5 - Open Ended - Comments Box
What would you have liked to see more of in the strategic planning process?
Page 3 - Question 6 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets) ]
Was this the first strategic planning process that you've experienced?
Yes [Skip to 5]
No [Skip to 4]
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Unsure
I felt that the strategic
planning sessions were a good
use of my time
I could see my contribution in
the "CNA-Q Strategy 2011-
2016" document (available on
www.cna-qatar.com )
I learned something new and
valuable about my CNA-Q
colleagues
After I participated in the
strategic planning process, I
felt excited about the future of
the College
I felt that I had sufficient
opportunity to participate in
the strategic planning process
207
Page 4 - Question 7 - Rating Scale - Matrix
Thinking of your experience with other strategic planning processes, to what extent would you agree with the following statements?
Page 5 - Question 8 - Rating Scale - Matrix []
Thinking of your experience with strategic planning at CNA-Q, to what extent would you agree with the following statement? "Overall, I think the CNA-Q strategic planning process was effective."
Page 6 - Question 9 - Open Ended - Comments Box
What do you think contributed to the effectiveness of the CNA-Q strategic planning process?
Page 6 - Question 10 - Open Ended - Comments Box
What do you think will help to sustain the Appreciative Inquiry process and philosophy at CNA-Q?
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Unsure
I felt that the strategic
planning sessions were a good
use of my time
I could see my contribution in
the "CNA-Q Strategy 2011-
2016" document (available on
www.cna-qatar.com )
I learned something new and
valuable about my CNA-Q
colleagues
After I participated in the
strategic planning process, I
felt excited about the future of
the College
I felt that I had sufficient
opportunity to participate in
the strategic planning process
Strongly Agree
[Skip to 6]
Agree [Skip to 6] Disagree [Skip to 7] Strongly Disagree
[Skip to 7] Unsure [Skip to 9]
208
Page 6 - Question 11 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Would you recommend that other colleges and universities consider using Appreciative Inquiry for their strategic planning processes?
Yes
No [Skip Unconditionally to 9]
Page 7 - Question 12 - Open Ended - Comments Box
Why wasn't the CNA-Q strategic planning process effective? In your opinion, what would have made it more effective?
[Skip Unconditionally to 9]
Page 8 - Question 13 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
Why didn't you participate in the strategic planning process? (Please select all that apply)
Scheduling conflicts (i.e. didn't have time, had class during session timings, etc.)
Did not know about sessions
Was not interested in participating
Unsure of process being used
Unsure of deliverables
Was not employed at CNA-Q at the time
Other, please specify
Page 9 - Question 14 - Rating Scale - Matrix
As part of the strategic planning process, our CNA-Q Vision was revised. Our CNA-Q Vision is: CNA-Q aspires to be recognized as a premier technical college that will provide the best education for the State of Qatar by offering all learners the opportunity to reach their full potential. To what extent do you agree that this is a meaningful vision for our future?
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Unsure
209
Page 9 - Question 15 - Rating Scale - Matrix
As part of the strategic planning process, our CNA-Q Mission was revised. Our CNA-Q mission is: CNA-Q fulfills the technical education needs of the State of Qatar by delivering innovative, internationally recognized programs that prepare individuals to be active contributors to their local communities, the State of Qatar and the Gulf Region. To what extent do you agree that this is a meaningful mission for CNA-Q?
Page 10 - Question 16 - Rating Scale - Matrix
As part of the strategic planning process, five large scale strategic directions were collaboratively identified. These strategic directions are: Learners First: Ensuring the success of past, present and future learners Educational Innovation: Broadening our horizons through innovation and research Exceptional Collaboration: Developing fully integrated partnerships with the State of Qatar, CNA, and industry CNA-Q Pride: Creating the place to learn, work, and grow Leaders in Communication: Listening carefully and sharing freely To what extent do you agree that these directions provide a meaningful direction for the future of CNA-Q?
Thank You Page
Thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback on the CNA-Q strategic planning process. Your feedback will help us improve further planning processes. In order to discover more in-depth information about your thoughts on the effectiveness of the planning process we would like you to consider participating in a one-on-one interview. This will add tremendously to the richness of our data. If you are willing to participate in an interview, please provide your contact information by clicking below<http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22EJTMDFQH5>
. NECC Online Survey
Strategic Planning at NECC: Feedback on Process
For the purpose of using the information for doctoral work, the Ethics Committees of NECC and the University of Calgary require that participants consent to participate. Please read the following information and, if you consent to participate, click on “submit” to begin the survey.
Dear NECC Employee: I, Kelly Saretsky, am conducting a study of the use of Appreciative Inquiry for strategic planning higher education as part of my Doctor of Education in Higher Education Leadership at the University of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada. My thesis is entitled Appreciative Inquiry for Strategic Planning: An Exploratory and Comparative Case Study of Two Colleges. The two colleges are the College of the North Atlantic – Qatar (CNA-Q) and Northern Essex Community College in Massachusetts.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Unsure
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Unsure
210
As you are probably aware, NECC has recently been engaged in a strategic planning process, Voices: 2012-2015. The College selected to use Appreciative Inquiry, once again, for its planning process. I am interested in assessing the effectiveness of NECC's planning process to set the future direction of the College.
Over the next two months I will be collecting information from those individuals who have been involved in the planning process, through this survey as well as one-on-one interviews at NECC in early April. The purpose of this survey is to understand your overall opinion of the effectiveness of the planning process used at NECC. If you agree to participate, your involvement will include completing this survey. The survey will take about 10 minutes to complete. Your responses are anonymous and no personal or identifying data is asked for, or stored with, your responses. Participation is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw from the survey at any time and your responses will not be used.
You will be asked at the end of the survey if you are willing to participate in a one-on-one interview to further explore your thoughts and opinions about the NECC planning process. You will be directed to a separate link to provide contact information if you are willing to participate in a one-on-one interview. This information cannot be linked with your survey responses. Because the survey is anonymous, once you have submitted your responses, they will be retained for use in the study. The results from the survey will be reported in aggregate and will be used to assess the effectiveness of the NECC planning process and will also be used to formulate questions for selected one-on-one interviews. All of the data will be stored electronically on the researcher’s computer and will not be accessible to anyone else. The researcher’s computer is password-protected. The anonymous data will be stored for three years, at which time it will be permanently erased.
By submitting the completed survey you are indicating your consent to participate in this study. The online survey is being administered by Zoomerang©, an American-licensed software company. As such, your responses are subject to U.S. laws, including the USA Patriot Act. The risks associated with participation are minimal, however, and similar to those associated with many e-mail programs, such as Hotmail© and social utilities spaces, such as Facebook© and MySpace©.”
This study has been approved by the Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary. You may contact the Ethics Resource Officer at [email protected] or +1-403-220-3782 if you have any comments or concerns. If you have any other questions, please contact Kelly Saretsky at [email protected] or via phone at +974-4495-2038. Thank you in advance for your time in completing this survey. Your participation is very much appreciated and your collective responses will ensure that NECC stays on the cutting edge of planning and decision-making processes. If you have read and are in agreement with the process and information provided please click SUBMIT to proceed.
How long have you been working at NECC?
Less than 1 year
Between 1 and 3 years
Between 3 and 5 years
More than 5 years
211
Page 2 - Question 2 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets) andatory]
Did you participate in the recent strategic planning process at NECC? This process included the Fall convocation and the SOAR Forums.
Yes [Skip to 3]
No [Skip to 8]
Page 3 - Question 3 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Which planning sessions did you participate in?
Fall convocation session only
SOAR Forum(s) only
Both the Fall convocation and SOAR Forum(s)
Page 3 - Question 4 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
What elements of the recent strategic planning process did you especially like? (Please select all that apply)
Opportunity to be involved in creating the College's future direction
Opportunity to meet and foster relationships with colleagues
Opportunity to share ideas with colleagues
Opportunity to be involved in an Appreciative Inquiry process
Opportunity to participate in, and learn about, a strategic planning process
Other, please specify
212
Page 3 - Question 5 - Rating Scale - Matrix
Thinking of your experience in the recent strategic planning process, to what extent would you agree with the following statements?
Page 3 - Question 6 - Open Ended - Comments Box
What was your favourite part of the recent strategic planning process?
Page 3 - Question 7 - Open Ended - Comments Box
What would you have liked to see more of in the recent strategic planning process?
Page 3 - Question 8 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets) ]
Have you participated in another strategic planning process outside of NECC?
Yes [Skip to 4]
No [Skip to 5]
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Unsure
I felt that the strategic
planning sessions were a good
use of my time
I could see my contribution in
the NECC "Voices: 2012-
2015" strategic plan document
I learned something new and
valuable about my NECC
colleagues
After I participated in the
strategic planning process, I
felt excited about the future of
the College
I felt that I had sufficient
opportunity to participate in
the strategic planning process
213
Page 4 - Question 9 - Rating Scale - Matrix
Thinking of your experience with other strategic planning processes outside of NECC, to what extent would you agree with the following statements?
Page 5 - Question 10 - Rating Scale - Matrix ]
Thinking of your experience with the recent strategic planning process at NECC, to what extent would you agree with the following statement? Overall, I think the recent NECC strategic planning process was effective.
Page 6 - Question 11 - Open Ended - Comments Box
What do you think contributed to the effectiveness of the recent NECC strategic planning process?
Page 6 - Question 12 - Open Ended - Comments Box
This is the second NECC strategic plan that was developed using Appreciative Inquiry (AI). What do you think has contributed to the ongoing use of AI at NECC? What has made it sustainable?
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Unsure
The strategic planning
process at NECC was more
collaborative than others
The strategic planning
process at NECC was
more effective than others
The strategic planning process
at NECC moved more
quickly than others
I was more satisfied with the
strategic planning process
at NECC than others
I had more opportunities to be
involved in the strategic
planning process at NECC
than in others
I was more involved in the
strategic planning process
at NECC than in others
Strongly Agree [Skip to 6]
Agree [Skip to 6] Disagree [Skip to 7] Strongly Disagree
[Skip to 7] Unsure [Skip to 9]
214
Page 6 - Question 13 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
Would you recommend that other colleges and universities consider using Appreciative Inquiry for their strategic planning processes?
Yes
No [Skip Unconditionally to 9]
Page 7 - Question 14 - Open Ended - Comments Box
In your opinion, why wasn't the recent NECC strategic planning process effective? What would have made it more effective?
[Skip Unconditionally to 9]
Page 8 - Question 15 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
Why didn't you participate in the strategic planning process? (Please select all that apply)
Scheduling conflicts (i.e. didn't have time, had class during session timings, etc.)
Did not know about sessions
Was not interested in participating
Unsure of process being used
Unsure of deliverables
Was not employed at NECC at the time
Other, please specify
Page 9 - Question 16 - Rating Scale - Matrix
Voices: 2012-2015 presents the following vision for NECC.The NECC Vision is: To create a supportive learning environment that embraces diversity and inspires initiative and excellence. To what extent do you agree that this is a meaningful vision for the future at NECC?
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Unsure
215
Page 9 - Question 17 - Rating Scale - Matrix
As part of the strategic planning process, NECC's core values were identified. They are: Student Engagement We are committed to fully engaging our students as active learners by providing a diverse range of educational experiences. Collaboration We are committed to developing productive, collaborative relationships within the college and among our various constituencies in the greater Merrimack Valley. Personal and Professional Growth We are committed to the personal and professional growth of faculty, staff, and students alike. We believe that lifelong learning is essential to the personal enrichment and professional growth of each individual. Respect We are committed to fostering mutual respect that enables faculty, staff, and students to grow and work together in a supportive environment of shared governance, open communication, and fairness. Diversity We are committed to creating an institutional climate that deepens our appreciation for diversity and for the unique attributes of each individual. Access and Opportunity We are committed to providing affordable access to educational opportunity. Excellence We are committed to a high standard of educational excellence in teaching, learning, and academic content. To what extent do you agree that these are meaningful values for NECC?
Page 10 - Question 18 - Rating Scale - Matrix
As part of the strategic planning process, five large-scale strategic directions were identified. These strategic directions are: 1. Support Success 2. Strengthen Community 3. Respect Diversity 4. Foster Leadership 5. Maximize Resources To what extent do you agree that these directions provide a meaningful direction for the future of NECC?
Page 10 - Question 19 - Rating Scale - Matrix
As part of the strategic planning process, five large-scale strategic goals were collaboratively identified. These strategic goals are: 1. Develop a comprehensive urban campus in downtown Lawrence. 2. Improve Student Learning, and Retention and Graduation Rates. 3. Improve Academic Support Services. 4. Improve Student Career Preparation. 5. Expand a “Culture of Learning” across the college. To what extent do you agree that these are meaningful goals for NECC?
Page 11 - Question 20 - Rating Scale - Matrix
NECC began using Appreciative Inquiry (AI) in 2006 to inform the strategic planning process. To what extent would you agree that there has been positive culture change at NECC due to the use of AI?
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Unsure
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Unsure
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Unsure
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Unsure
216
Page 11 - Question 21 - Open Ended - Comments Box
Do you feel that there have been any other changes at NECC that resulted from the use of Appreciative Inquiry (AI)?
Thank You Page
Thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback on the NECC strategic planning process In order to discover more in-depth information about your thoughts on the effectiveness of the planning process I would like you to consider participating in a one-on-one interview. This will add tremendously to the richness of the data. If you are willing to participate in an interview, please provide your contact information by clicking below (please note your contact details will not be linked to your survey results) <http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22EW3WRBPX2>
217
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW CONSENT FORMS
CNAQ Interview Consent Form
Name of Researcher, Faculty, Department, Telephone & Email:
Kelly Saretsky
Doctoral Student in the Doctorate of Education program at the University of Calgary
974-5506-3294
Supervisor:
Dr. Margaret Patterson
403-220-6291
Title of Project:
Appreciative Inquiry for Strategic Planning: An Exploratory and Comparative Case
Study of Two Colleges
This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of
informed consent. If you want more details about something mentioned here, or
information not included here, you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read
this carefully and to understand any accompanying information.
The University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board has approved this
research study.
Purpose of the Study:
I am conducting a study into the use of “Appreciative Inquiry” for strategic planning in
higher education as part of my Doctor of Education in Higher Education Leadership at
the University of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada. My thesis is entitled Appreciative Inquiry
for Strategic Planning: An Exploratory and Comparative Case Study of Two College.
The two colleges are the College of the North Atlantic – Qatar (CNAQ) in Doha, Qatar
(my home institution) and Northern Essex Community College.
As you are probably aware CNAQ has been engaged in a strategic planning process over
the past18 months. CNAQ, like NECC, elected to use a new and non-traditional
approach – Appreciative Inquiry – for its planning process. Briefly, AI is an
organizational development philosophy that is collaborative, inclusive and
unconditionally positive. My study will attempt to determine not only the effectiveness of
218
this process so far but also whether it is likely to produce sustainable change. The results
of the study will help both CNAQ and NECC to make decisions in regard to on-going
strategic planning and add to the knowledge surrounding collaborative planning strategies
in higher education.
What Will I Be Asked To Do?
The study, should you agree to participate, will involve an interview with one of our
organizational development facilitators (members of faculty and staff that are not
connected with this study and were not involved in leading the planning process) that
should last approximately one hour. The focus of the interview will be to provide your
personal assessment of and experience with CNAQ’s use of Appreciative Inquiry for
strategic planning. The interview will be arranged at your convenience and can be in
person or delivered over the phone. The interview will include a number of qualitative
questions.
At any time during the interview you may refuse to answer any questions or may at any
time choose to discontinue participation without any penalty. Should you choose to
discontinue the study at any time the data provided will not be used in the study and the
data will be immediately destroyed by the researcher.
What Type of Personal Information Will Be Collected?
No personal identifying information will be collected in this study, and all participants
shall remain anonymous. Participants will be referred to using a number, e.g.
“interviewee 1”
Responses to the interview will be entered by the interviewer into a database. Your name
will not be attached to this information.
Are there Risks or Benefits if I Participate?
Any risks associated with your participation are minimal and would be similar to those
encountered in everyday life.
Participation, non-participation or withdrawal will have no effect on your continued
professional or academic relationship with CNAQ.
What Happens to the Information I Provide?
Participation is completely voluntary, anonymous and confidential. You are free to
discontinue participation at any time during the study. The data collected will be used to
219
inform the researcher in her study required for the successful completion of her doctorate
of education program. There are no names on the interview questionnaire the sources of
any direct quotes will be masked by the use of a pseudonym such as “interviewee 1 said”.
Only group information will be summarized for any presentation or publication of results.
The interview information will be entered into a database by the interviewer only
accessible by the researcher and her supervisor. The anonymous data will be stored for
three years on a computer disk, at which time, it will be permanently erased.
Signatures (written consent)
Your signature on this form indicates that you 1) understand to your satisfaction the
information provided to you about your participation in this research project, and 2) agree
to participate as a research subject.
In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, sponsors, or
involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free to
withdraw from this research project at any time. You should feel free to ask for
clarification or new information throughout your participation.
Participant’s Name: (please print) ___________________________________________
Participant’s Signature _________________________________Date: _______________
Interviewer’s Name: (please print) ___________________________________________
Interviewer’s Signature________________________________ Date: _______________
QUESTIONS/CONCERNS
If you have any further questions or want clarification regarding this research and/or your
participation, please contact:
Kelly Saretsky
+974-5506-3294
or
Dr. Margaret Patterson
Faculty of Education
403-220-6291.
220
If you have any concerns about the way you’ve been treated as a participant, please
contact the Senior Ethics Resource Officer, Research Services Office, University of
Calgary at (403) 220-3782; email [email protected].
A copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference.
The investigator has kept a copy of the consent form.
NECC Interview Consent Form
Name of Researcher, Faculty, Department, Telephone & Email:
Kelly Saretsky
Doctoral Student in the Doctorate of Education program at the University of Calgary
974-5506-3294
Supervisor:
Dr. Margaret Patterson
403-220-6291
Title of Project:
Appreciative Inquiry for Strategic Planning: An Exploratory and Comparative Case
Study of Two Colleges
This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of
informed consent. If you want more details about something mentioned here, or
information not included here, you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read
this carefully and to understand any accompanying information.
The University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board has approved this
research study.
Purpose of the Study:
I am conducting a study into the use of “Appreciative Inquiry” for strategic planning in
higher education as part of my Doctor of Education in Higher Education Leadership at
the University of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada. My thesis is entitled Appreciative Inquiry
for Strategic Planning: An Exploratory and Comparative Case Study of Two College.
221
The two colleges are the College of the North Atlantic – Qatar (CNAQ) in Doha, Qatar
(my home institution) and Northern Essex Community College.
As you are probably aware NECC has been engaged in a strategic planning process over
the past 6 months. NECC elected to use a non-traditional approach – Appreciative
Inquiry – for its planning process. Briefly, AI is an organizational development
philosophy that is collaborative, inclusive and unconditionally positive. This is the
second round of strategic planning that has been done at NECC using AI and my study
will attempt to determine not only the effectiveness of this process so far but also in
whether it is likely to produce sustainable change. The results of the study will help both
CNAQ and NECC to make decisions in regard to on-going strategic planning and add to
the knowledge surrounding collaborative planning strategies in higher education.
What Will I Be Asked To Do?
The study, should you agree to participate, will involve an interview with me that should
last approximately one hour. The focus of the interview will be to provide your personal
assessment of and experience with NECC’s use of Appreciative Inquiry for strategic
planning. The interview will be arranged at your convenience and can be in person or
delivered over the phone. The interview will include a number of qualitative questions.
At any time during the interview you may refuse to answer any questions or may at any
time choose to discontinue participation without any penalty. Should you choose to
discontinue the study at any time the data provided will not be used in the study and the
data will be immediately destroyed by the researcher.
What Type of Personal Information Will Be Collected?
No personal identifying information will be collected in this study, and all participants
shall remain anonymous. Participants will be referred to using a number, e.g.
“interviewee 1”
Are there Risks or Benefits if I Participate?
Any risks associated with your participation are minimal and would be similar to those
encountered in everyday life.
Participation, non-participation or withdrawal will have no effect on your continued
professional or academic relationship with NECC.
The research involves the collection of unencrypted data via electronic means (e.g. email,
Skype, social networking sites, etc.); as such your information may be seen by others, and
may also be subject to US laws including the USA Patriot Act (2001).
222
What Happens to the Information I Provide?
Participation is completely voluntary, anonymous and confidential. You are free to
discontinue participation at any time during the study. The data collected will be used to
inform the researcher in her study required for the successful completion of her doctorate
of education program. There are no names on the interview questionnaire the sources of
any direct quotes will be masked by the use of a pseudonym such as “interviewee 1 said”.
Only group information will be summarized for any presentation or publication of results.
The interview information is kept in a locked cabinet only accessible by the researcher
and her supervisor. The anonymous data will be stored for three years on a computer
disk, at which time, it will be permanently erased.
Signatures (written consent)
Your signature on this form indicates that you 1) understand to your satisfaction the
information provided to you about your participation in this research project, and 2) agree
to participate as a research subject.
In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, sponsors, or
involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free to
withdraw from this research project at any time. You should feel free to ask for
clarification or new information throughout your participation.
Participant’s Name: (please print) ___________________________________________
Participant’s Signature _________________________________Date: _______________
Researcher’s Name: (please print) ____________________________________________
Researcher’s Signature: ________________________________Date: _______________
QUESTIONS/CONCERNS
If you have any further questions or want clarification regarding this research and/or your
participation, please contact:
Kelly Saretsky
+974-5506-3294
or
Dr. Margaret Patterson
223
Faculty of Education
403-220-6291.
If you have any concerns about the way you’ve been treated as a participant, please
contact the Senior Ethics Resource Officer, Research Services Office, University of
Calgary at (403) 220-3782; email [email protected].
A copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference.
The investigator has kept a copy of the consent form.