Home > HCAS > HCAS_PUBS > HCAS_JOURNALS > TQR Home > TQR > Vol. 26 > No. 12 (2021)
Transforming Problematic Into Positive: Practice-Based Recommendations for Resolving Paradigmatic and Methodological Conflicts in Appreciative Inquiry
Researchers have employed Appreciative Inquiry (AI) in a variety of methodological contexts, in a variety of settings, and toward a variety of outcomes. For practitioners seeking to both identity and amplify the best of what is, AI has been a sort of multi-functional toolset, improving outcomes both small and grand. Amidst this successful history of the application of Appreciative Inquiry (AI), little attention has been given to some of the limitations or even risks of applying its practices to whatever extent and toward whichever outcomes. The models supplied by AI may prove problematic in several ways, among them: ontological realism, epistemological objectivism, the potential for axiological denial and ethical deception, the potential for methodological discord, a posture rooted in problems, blind spotting, and a neglect of the integral nature of things. This paper brings together the theoretical premises of Appreciative Inquiry methodologies, emerging considerations from transdisciplinarity and consciousness studies, and practical applications from a recent AI project, so as to construct considerations and recommendations for AI practitioners for resolving some of the methodological and paradigmatic conflicts that may arise.
appreciative inquiry, transdisciplinarity, integral theory, four quadrant model
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.
Recommended APA Citation
Jennewein, B. D. (2021). Transforming Problematic Into Positive: Practice-Based Recommendations for Resolving Paradigmatic and Methodological Conflicts in Appreciative Inquiry. The Qualitative Report, 26(12), 3756-3770. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5040
Organization Development Commons, Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical Methodologies Commons, Theory, Knowledge and Science Commons