Created realities

But is it a research method?

The result of both these methods are created realities more than discovered realities. They are intensely naturalistic, and depend heavily on a post-modern belief that a communally-generated belief is a reality. In some ways, it is related to action research, appreciative enquiry, Delphi, focus groups, and old-fashioned brainstorming. It is also like ethnography in that the researcher gets some of the credit for the cultural genius of research subjects.

While they might have uses, they seem unsuitable for academic projects.

One of their main limitations lies in the kind of people who attend. Ideas are only as good as the sum of the people who attend and the way they constructively interact. Even in very good groups, the input is collected in a short, intense burst designed to get the greatest diversity and amount of comment. However, it gives little time for the reflection, exploration, detail, and evaluation that makes good ideas into useful ideas.

Having very capable people produces better answers and can to some extent overcome most of the potentially negative assumptions that could be made of Open Spaces:

• Truth is sociologically determined.
• The most persuasive people have the best ideas.
• People will identify the worth of good input.
• People will dismiss worthless input.
• People will arrive at the best answers.
• Lobby groups cannot hijack the process.

The notion that the researcher could be passive, voiceless, and powerless is also inconsistent with the role of researcher. By comparison, the Delphi Technique naturally requires the researcher to be objective either with no input, or with no more input that any other consultee. Yet some Delphi users have overcome such limitations to use the technique in research.

Consequently, to use these as research methods, the researcher should also analyse and critique the dynamics and outcomes, in the same way that other qualititative methods include analysis. That is, it could be used as a phenomenological approach. For example, you might ask:

• Why did particular ideas arise? Were there ideological, cultural, or sociological agendas?
• What kinds of interactions produced the final results?
• Did the process ignore serious blind spots?
• What unexpected new directions, ideas, innovations or perspectives emerged? What are their implications? How would you evaluate them?
• How would you define or describe the created reality?

It might be helpful to use multiple populations at separate sessions and compare them. The obvious example is different cities where it is not really possible to gather people in one place. But sociological distance might be equally important, for example, when different ethnic or social groupings do not associate with each other and an Open Spaces meeting would create tensions or exacerbate animosity.

Wikis (a kind of online interactive page that anybody can edit) also seem well suited to an open spaces approach, in that they gather ideas in a naturally occurring marketplace. The only step to go is analysis.

An open spaces session is much like a focus group and a brainstorm that is done in writing. It might be more fun, and the participants do the work of writing. It is not very effective for people who are not skilled in writing their ideas.

Reference: www.openspaceworld.org

 

Appreciative inquiry

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a way of understanding and innovating in organizations. The main idea is to gather positive aspects (images, stories and interactions) as the basis to encourage the development of what could be.

AI is a planning tool for strategic vision and empowering, helping groups of people in organizations to generate collectively a new vision of what is possible, and ways to achieve that vision, both as beliefs and practice.

It is action research in that the researcher is actively involved in creating a new environment, and is not a passive, objective observer. AI is theoretically postmodern in that it deals with created realities and does not claim to be objective. However, for formal academic research, a student also needs to incorporate the requirements of program development research. Almost certainly, just envisaging and planning a program won't be enough; one would also need to track and evaluate the implementation.

The four basic steps are:

1. What is best about what you do? Discover what you value most about yourself and those around you. What is improving the quality and effectiveness of what you do?

2. Form a vision of what might be. Imagine new possibilities and get inspired.

3. Share and discuss discoveries and possibilities. During this process, individual aspirations and goals become a collective vision. 

4. Innovate and implement. If you know that it is now possible, you can make things happen.

 

Open Spaces

Open Spaces is a way of getting people together and using their interaction to collect, generate and develop ideas as quickly as possible.

It is based on the analogy of a market place. Some people want to sell ideas, other want to buy. The only people who come are those who want to. They mill around, each with their own list of what they want. They leave a stall if they've got what they want or don't find what they want, and move on to another stall. They might stay and chat. It might look like chaos but, in the end, all buyers and sellers get what they need.

How to do it

1. Preparation
   • First, define the issue or topic that you need to explore, and the purpose.
   • Then decide whom you will invite. They'll be stakeholders in the issue or topic. You'll also need to decide how you'll invite them. It could be by flyer, email, memo, announcement, or any number of means. Then send invitations well beforehand so that anybody who really wants to come is able to do so. State the theme or topic, and the purpose.
   • Set up the room so that everybody will sit in a circle in one room. Even if there will be lots of people, use a large room, with multiple rows of chairs if necessary. Leave the central space empty.
   • Leave one wall blank where you can put up large sheets of paper with notes. Provide large sheets of blank paper and marker pens in the middle of the room.
2. Opening
   • Let people socialise before you start; it's part of the process.
   • The leader then introduces him/herself, welcomes everybody, and briefly describes the topic and purpose. The leader also explains:
   • "The empty wall is the agenda
   • "There are four principles:
   • "The people who came are the right people"
   • "Whenever it starts is the right time"
   • "Whatever happens is the only thing that could have happened"
   • "When we finish, it's over"
   • "There are also several rules:
   • Move to another stall whenever you want.
   • Use your time as effectively as possible.
   • If you disagree with an idea, be constructive in your criticism.
   • The leader then instructs people on what to do, as described below.
3. Start
   • People are invited to come to the centre of the room, get a marker and piece of paper, and write down their most urgent question, their most important issue or their best idea.
   • Then they briefly read it out to others, and put it on the wall. Of course, not everybody will do this, just those who want to.
4. Interaction
   • The interaction sessions may be more than one session or more than one day. During these sessions, you'll gather comments, which are anything that people think are important to addressing the topic, and write them on the sheets of paper. Put all finished pages of comments up on the wall.
   • Encourage people to write their comments out in whole sentences so that their intent is easy to interpret; the intent of a phrase by itself is usually unclear. Comments might be:
   • insights
   • problems
   • perspectives of different people or interest groups
   • ideas
   • innovations
   • explanations
   • interpretations
   • questions
   • answers
   • special cases
   • resources
   • perspectives
   • implementation issues
   • theoretical issues
   • constructive criticisms
   • legal or ethical issues
   • synergies between other comments
   • Break up into groups around the pieces of paper and add written comments to each topic. The leader also instructs all participants:
   1. People can move from group to group whenever they like and give comments to any group they like. They can also look at ideas already posted up, or wander over for a coffee or snack when they need it.
   2. Anybody can start a new group if they have a new topic that attracts enough people and comment.
   3. Groups can be whatever size according to the amount of interest.
   4. Groups can close down when people aren't interested anymore and there are no more comments.
   5. Groups can merge if they are dealing with convergent issues.
5. Results
• As you go, have someone type the comments from the filled sheets into a computer. Some collation and editing may be necessary to make a useful document, especially for a large conference where a highly professional document for widespread use is required. A small organization in a shorter meeting might produce only a few pages of rough notes that are photocopied or emailed for distribution to participants only.
• By the time you've finished, you have a clear, fully-explored view of all the main issues, with a set of new ideas and innovations ready for exploration and testing. You might also have the basics of an implementation plan. Findings are presented in a document that is ready for circulation.
• During the process, the participants mostly likely:
• become a network
• have some level of emergent consensus
• feel ownership of the results
• become willing to develop ideas further
• become ready to implement them, and
• become ready to tell others.
• You may even have a different, better understanding of the overarching purpose and may need to redefine it. Don't worry; fundamental changes in direction are part of what you are learning.
6. Evaluate the whole process
• Did the open spaces work for you? Did the benefits outweigh the costs? How could you have managed it to be more effective than it was?

Risks

Inform people beforehand what you will do with the results so that their expectations are realistic. When people are empowered to express opinions and develop loyalty to ideas, they need to know that they will lead to worthwhile action. If the whole process does not lead to a positive course of action, people can become disillusioned or frustrated. That means you should disclose beforehand how far you can go with implementation.

Depending on the group, you might also need a statement of who will own the resultant intellectual property. You may need to prevent intellectual property claims if ideas have monetary worth as a publication or lead to patentable ideas.