appreciative inquiry for strategic planning: an evaluative

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Case Study of Two Colleges (Unpublished doctoral thesis).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




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


response to questions about what contributed to the effectiveness of the strategic

planning processes used. ......................................................................................... 128


response to questions about how this strategic planning process compared with

others. ...................................................................................................................... 133


response to why they would recommend AI for strategic planning to colleagues. 135


response to the question “What would you change or ‘want more of’?” ............... 137


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


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


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


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


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 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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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


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,




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.


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


valuable about my

colleagues.

21 9 60 25 12 5 7 3 2.95



felt excited about the future

of the College.

18 8 64 29 9 4 9 4 2.91



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,




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


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


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.


process at NECC was more

collaborative than others.

24 4 41 7 29 5 6 1 2.82



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



NECC than others.

13 2 33 5 40 6 13 2 2.47

119

I had more opportunity to be


planning process at NECC

than in others.

13 2 50 8 25 4 13 2 2.63



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


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


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).


Leadership

Organization, Resources,Support


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.


“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.


“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).


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


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


“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:


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).


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.


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


“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


“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


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


“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


“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


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


“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.


“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



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.


(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.


(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?


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


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 )


valuable about my CNA-Q

colleagues



felt excited about the future of

the College



the strategic planning process

207


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."


What do you think contributed to the effectiveness of the CNA-Q strategic planning process?


What do you think will help to sustain the Appreciative Inquiry process and philosophy at CNA-Q?

Strongly Agree


Unsure



use of my time


the "CNA-Q Strategy 2011-

2016" document (available on

www.cna-qatar.com )


valuable about my CNA-Q

colleagues




the College




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]


Why wasn't the CNA-Q strategic planning process effective? In your opinion, what would have made it more effective?

[Skip Unconditionally to 9]


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



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


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?


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.



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]


Which planning sessions did you participate in?

Fall convocation session only

SOAR Forum(s) only

Both the Fall convocation and SOAR Forum(s)


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


212


Thinking of your experience in the recent strategic planning process, to what extent would you agree with the following statements?


What was your favourite part of the recent strategic planning process?


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


Unsure



use of my time


the NECC "Voices: 2012-

2015" strategic plan document


valuable about my NECC

colleagues




the College




213


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.


What do you think contributed to the effectiveness of the recent NECC strategic planning process?


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



collaborative than others


process at NECC was

more effective than others

The strategic planning process

at NECC moved more

quickly than others



at NECC than others

I had more opportunities to be


planning process at NECC

than in others



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


Would you recommend that other colleges and universities consider using Appreciative Inquiry for their strategic planning processes?

Yes

No [Skip Unconditionally to 9]


In your opinion, why wasn't the recent NECC strategic planning process effective? What would have made it more effective?

[Skip Unconditionally to 9]


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



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?


215


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?


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?


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?


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




216


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

[email protected]

974-5506-3294

Supervisor:

Dr. Margaret Patterson

[email protected]

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

mailto:[email protected]


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

[email protected]

+974-5506-3294

or


Faculty of Education

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

974-5506-3294

Supervisor:


[email protected]

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

[email protected]

+974-5506-3294

or



223

Faculty of Education

[email protected]

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.

