▼
4.2 TOURISM PLANNING INSIGHT
Table 4.2 Comparison of action-research and appreciative inquiry Key criticisms of Justification of Alternative offered by
action-research criticism appreciative inquiry Justification of alternative Underestimates
the power of theory.
Focusing too much on ‘action’ is a major barrier to advancing social knowledge.
• Leaves behind the common dualistic view of theory and practice by trying to achieve both practical action and the generation of new theory.
• Shifts the focus of theory from its predictive capacity to its generative capacity.
Through closing the gap between theory and practice and focusing on the
generative capacity of theory, AI challenges assumptions and generates new
alternatives for social action.
Concentrates excessively on problem solving.
Concentrating on problems creates a discourse of
‘deficit’. It also limits the potential to generate altogether new ideas, visions and theory.
• Focuses on the positive and productive aspects of a situation.
• Assumes that all social systems
‘work’ to some extent and therefore organisational practices can be developed by doing more of what works (rather than less of what does not).
By moving away from negative images, AI is able to create new beliefs rather than reinforce existing ones, create whole system change, and give an organisation or community a sense of identity and strength.
Uses logical positivistic assumptions that consider reality as stable and enduring.
Such assumptions result in the use of standardised rules for solving problems and limit the potential to generate imaginative and creative theory.
• Turns towards sociorationalism, assuming that social order is constructed, fluid, impermanent and open to multiple
interpretations. Under such assumptions, the researcher is also understood to be an active participant of the research process.
Through the adoption of the sociorationalist approach, this improves our capacity to create generative theory and encourages creative thought.
Sources: Derived from Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987); Hammond (1998); van der Haar (2002); Jain and Triraganon (2003); Bushe and Kassam (2004); Reed et al. (2005); Ludema et al. (2006); Reason and Bradbury (2006); Appreciative Inquiry Commons (2007).
▼
Conducting an appreciative inquiry
Conducting an AI typically involves a three-stage process.
1. The change agenda is considered: ‘What are you trying to accomplish? What is your purpose?’
(Whitney and Trosten-Bloom 2003: 24). This step thus focuses on establishing a positive topic and developing clear objectives for the AI.
2. Theform of engagement is considered: ‘What is the most appropriate form of engagement, given your change agenda, your organisation culture,
time frame, and resources?’ (Whitney and Trosten-Bloom 2003: 24). The form of engage- ment that is developed can range from a ‘mass- mobilised inquiry’ (thousands to millions of interviews are conducted throughout a city, com- munity or the world) to a ‘core group inquiry’
(a small group of people select topics, craft questions and conduct interviews).
3. Aninquiry strategy is developed: ‘Having identi- fied the purpose and form of engagement, what decisions and steps must you take along the way to ensure the project’s success?’ (Whitney and
Scientific/theoretical Seeks sociorational
knowledge
DREAM Envisioning
‘what could be’
DISCOVERY Appreciating the best of ‘what is’
DESIGN Co-constructing
‘what should be’
DESTINY Sustaining
‘what will be’
Metaphysical Seeks appreciative
knowledge Pragmatic
Seeks knowledgeable
action
Seeks practical knowledge Normative
Figure 4.5 The 4-D model of appreciative inquiry
Sources: Derived from Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987) and Ludema et al. (2006).
Trosten-Bloom 2003: 24). This stage generally involves micro-level choices regarding how the objectives of the AI are to be met. Existing AIs have tended to adapt the ‘4-D model’ (Ludema et al. 2006) in order to develop an appropriate inquiry strategy. This model is based on the sci- entific, metaphysical, normative and pragmatic approach of AI and is summarised in Figure 4.5.
While the 4-D model can be adapted and applied to suit a variety of different agendas, it is important to consider the eight principles of AI throughout the process (Whitney and Trosten-Bloom 2003). These principles are based on sociorationalism, combined with social constructionism (Gergen 1985), image theory, grounded research and Vickers’ (1980) notion
of ‘appreciative systems’ (Whitney and Trosten-Bloom 2003; van der Haar and Hosking 2004):
1. the constructionist principle (words create worlds) 2. the simultaneity principle (inquiry creates change) 3. the poetic principle (we can choose what we
study)
4. the anticipatory principle (image inspires action) 5. the positive principle (positive questions lead to
positive change)
6. the wholeness principle (wholeness brings out the best)
7. the enactment principle (acting ‘as if’ is self- fulfilling)
8. the free choice principle (free choice liberates power).
▼
Applications of appreciative inquiry
Since its conception in 1986 there has been much experimentation with AI and it has been adapted for use in a variety of settings (see Bushe and Kassam 2004). The following four examples have been selected to highlight the range of scales and applications of AI, as well as the way in which it can be combined with other approaches. They illustrate the potential for applying AI as a means to facilitate positive organisa- tional change, as a community planning approach, as an evaluation technique, and as an interview tool.
Organisation change. The Global Relief and De- velopment Organisation (GRDO) (Ludema et al.
2006) is a non-governmental organisation based in the United States and Canada with 120 partner or- ganisations around the world. The organisations were involved in a three-year AI in order to identify ‘best practices of organisational capacity-building from around the world’. This AI incorporated all four stages of the 4-D process. Initially, large-group con- ferences were held with GRDO staff and partner or- ganisations to introduce AI, craft unconditional positive questions and plan a ‘listening tour’ in which hundreds of organisations and community groups were involved in discovering the core factors that support organisational capacity (discover). Following this ‘listening tour’ a second round of conferences was held in which best practices were shared and possible futures were envisioned (dream). Subse- quently a global summit meeting was held and new initiatives for interorganisational capacity-building were launched (design). Once GRDO staff and part- ner organisations had returned to their respective countries these initiatives were then implemented (destiny). Finally, a third round of conferences was held to discuss experiences with the new approach and develop follow-up initiatives.
A community planning approach. AI can be adapted to plan for, and develop, community-based tourism. Jain and Triraganon (2003) developed a training manual based on an Appreciative Participatory Planning and Action (APPA) approach developed by the Mountain Institute in the 1990s. This approach to planning and management combines AI with Par- ticipatory Learning and Action (PLA). APPA thus in- corporates the 4-D model and focuses on strengths
and successes as a means to empower communities, groups and organisations. However, through the adop- tion of PLA it also places a strong emphasis on the active involvement of local people, so that local com- munities have the ultimate control over the develop- ment process. The three key principles of APPA are thus to focus on success, participatory learning and sustainability. Since its development in the 1990s APPA has gained much popularity and is now used in over ten countries by communities, NGOs, govern- ments and the private sector.
An evaluation technique. Reed et al. (2005) adapted AI as a means to evaluate small voluntary organisations in the United Kingdom. Ten small-scale, not-for-profit schemes for older people were selected as examples of effective, creative and innovatory com- munity action. These schemes were each visited for two days so that AI interviews (with users, volunteers, staff and stakeholders) could be carried out and the projects could be observed. The first three stages of the 4-D process were adapted to form appreciative in- terview questions and data was subsequently analysed using the AI questions as an analytic framework to illustrate the specific characteristics and achieve- ments of each project. AI data was then combined with the ‘impact grid’ (see Reedet al. 2005).
An interview tool. AI has been used specifically as an interview tool for field research. As with Reed et al.’s (2005) adaptation of the 4-Ds, Michael’s (2005) study also suggests that it is possible to select and adapt these four stages in order to meet the spe- cific objectives of a study. In this example indigenous NGOs in Africa were researched over 12 months through conducting interviews that represented ‘mini- versions’ of the discovery phase. Michael (2005) was particularly concerned with understanding what made local NGOs ‘tick’ and therefore chose to focus only on appreciating the ‘best of what is’. She concludes that AI ‘can be as valuable as a research tool for interview- ing in the field as it has proved as a methodology for organisational change’ (Michael 2005: 229).
Appreciative inquiry as a tourism inquiry strategy An AI was conducted to assess the development of good practice within volunteer tourism sending organisations. The form of engagement involved a
▼
Table 4.3 Inquiry strategy
Stage Steps Purpose
multiple case study inquiry, in which ten different sending organisations were selected to represent the variety of different organisations and volunteer tourism programmes that exist. The inquiry strategy essentially followed the 4-D process and is sum- marised in Table 4.3.
The study used relatively conventional data collec- tion techniques, but approached the whole research process as an AI (Table 4.4). It was therefore impor- tant to maintain the eight principles of AI throughout the study. Initially, the focus of the study was carefully selected so that it would generate enthusiasm and ap- preciation within the researched sending organisa- tions (the poetic principle). Subsequently, interview
and focus group questions were carefully developed so that they were successful in stimulating ideas, in- novation and invention, based on the simultaneity principle that inquiry creates change. This was partic- ularly apparent in the dream phase of interviews and focus groups in which questions were developed that would encourage visions and ideals to be enacted in the present (theenactment principle).
In addition, unconditionally positive questions were used throughout fieldwork to shift participants’
attention towards potentials, dreams and visions (the positive principle). This encouraged participants to focus on the positive core of the sending organisation so that positive images could be generated (the DISCOVERY
(appreciating and valuing the best of ‘what is’) AND
DREAM (envisioning
‘what could be’)
a) Contact sending organisations and invite their participation.
b) Observe the positive aspects of volunteer tourism programmes by focusing on what they are visibly achieving and how they are doing this (discovery).
c) Conduct interviews with representatives of sending organisations and host organisations.
Explore what is effective and successful in current practices (discovery) and discuss ideals and aspirations for the future (dream).
d) Conduct focus groups with volunteer tourists.
Explore what is effective and successful in current practices (discovery) and discuss ideals and aspirations for the future (dream)
• Reinforce existing positive imagery and develop positive visions by focusing on the benefits and successful management strategies of each organisation.
• Bring together characteristics of successful management from each organisation so that a preliminary framework of good practice for sending organisations can be developed.
DESIGN (co-constructing
‘what should be’)
e) Encourage comment and discussion between participants from the discovery and dream stages by placing the preliminary framework of good practice in an online forum (blog) f) Revise and adapt framework of good practice
based on comments made in the forum.
• Encourage dialogue between different sending organisations with similar goals. Allow them to find common ground by sharing ideals and empower them to adopt positive ideas from each other.
• Develop revised framework of good practice that represents shared ideas.
DESTINY (sustaining
‘what will be’)
g) Essentially beyond the scope of this study although final results were sent to each sending organisation.
• Communicate stories and good practices to encourage organisations to adopt some of these ideas.
▼
anticipatory principle). Developing an online forum helped transform these images into a collective one, encouraging communication and collaboration (the constructionist principle). In order to incorporate the wholesome principle, the opinions of as many people as possible who were involved with the organisation
were accessed (volunteer tourists, host organisations and sending organisations). However, each individual was given the option of whether or not they wished to participate (the free choice principle). While interviews and focus groups were semi-structured, Table 4.4 provides an example of the steps followed in Table 4.4 The appreciative inquiry interview process
Sample questions (from interviews with representatives
Step* Purpose of sending organisations)
1. Stage- setting questions
Build rapport with interviewee and allow them to relax.
What exactly does your job involve?
Why did you choose to work for . . . (name of sending organisation)? / Why did you choose to set up . . . (name of sending organisation)?
What do you value most about working for . . . (name of sending organisation)?
2. Discovery questions
Discover and appreciate the strengths and successes of the sending organisation in general and the Volunteer travel program (VTP) in particular.
Build an understanding of how these successes are achieved.
Can you tell me a bit more about your organisation? E.g.
What is the aim of your organisation? What is your
philosophy? What makes your organisation special/unique?
In what ways do you think that the programmes run through your organisation are benefiting:
•the host organisations?
•the volunteers?
In what ways are your volunteer programmes having broader or long-term benefits?
What are the main strengths about the way your programmes are organised?
Of all the programmes you are involved with, which one do you think is the most successful? Why?
3. Dream questions
Encourage interviewee to think creatively about how their organisation could be improved.
How do see your organisation in a few years time? Are there any changes that you would make? How? Why?
Imagine that in five years your organisation wins an
international award for its volunteer programmes. What would the award be for? Why would you deserve such an award?
4. Concluding questions
Conclude the interview and allow interviewee to summarise their main opinions and ideas.
What defines a successful volunteer tourism experience?
What are the key factors that ensure your organisation’s success?
*Before the interview began, participants were given a verbal and written explanation of the purpose of the research, the appreciative inquiry approach, the interview process and how the interview data would be used. If they agreed to participate, written consent was collected.
▼
‘Introducing’ planning, then, means the intro- duction of ways and means to bring about changes that would otherwise not occur. ‘The ongoing stream of life does not wait for planners to give it direction’ (Friedmann 1973: 347). Planners act upon social, physical and economic processes in order to guide society towards desired objectives.
Tourism planning in this sense reflects the position of Friedmann (1973: 346–347) that planning is
the guidance of change within a social system.
Specifically, this means a process of self-guidance that may involve promoting differential growth of subsystem components (sectors), activating the transformation of system structures(political, eco- nomic, social), and maintaining system boundaries during the course of change.
Friedmann’s comments also reflect the essentially political nature of planning and policy and the a typical interview, as well as some sample questions
from the interviews conducted with representatives of the sending organisation.
The study highlights a number of potential advan- tages of using an appreciative approach in tourism planning research. In particular, by maintaining the positive principle throughout interviews and focus groups, it was possible to collect imaginative data.
While it has been claimed that focusing only on the positive can lead to distorted results (see Grant and Humphries 2006), it is argued that taking this approach was valuable for this research because it provided opportunities to access new possibilities and capture constructive organisational stories.
In addition, the study parallels previous research that has pointed to the enjoyment and excitement associated with the AI process (e.g. Bushe 1999;
Arcoleo 2001; Michael 2005). Several participants involved in this study stated that they had valued the positive reflection that the AI-oriented interview/focus group had encouraged. Importantly, however, while the researcher attempted to maintain an appreciative approach throughout interviews and focus groups, is- sues and challenges still arose. In particular, during the dream phase of the interview questions partici- pants often compared their ‘dreams’ for the future with current problems they were experiencing. This suggests that although previous researchers have argued that AI limits the potential for discussing feel- ings of frustration (McLean 1996; Egan and Lancaster 2005; Grant and Humphries 2006) this is not always the case. Conducting an AI can enable participants to approach difficulties in a more positive manner by focusing on how the situation could be improved,
rather than on the problem itself (see also Elliott 1999; Whitney and Trosten-Bloom 2003; Reedet al.
2005). In some cases this may also have encouraged participants to speak more openly about the problems they had experienced because they were able to approach these problems in a constructive manner.
The potential of AI for tourism planning
AI has the potential to provide a new approach in tourism planning by focusing on the positive, creat- ing generative theory and shifting towards sociora- tionalism. AI thus represents an attempt to address several of the shortcomings of action-research. AI is commonly associated with the 4-D process, but these steps of discovery, dream, design and destiny should not be interpreted as a fixed structure. In- stead, they provide a number of stages that can be selected and adapted as appropriate to meet the agenda of a particular AI. While AI is firmly based on a number of key ideas and principles, it is an adapt- able process. As Whitney and Trosten-Bloom (2003:
23) state, ‘no two Appreciative Inquiry processes are ever exactly the same’. AI is still developing and new approaches are continuously evolving. Each AI should therefore be ‘home-grown’ (Cooperrider and Whitney 2005: 15) so that it meets the unique change agenda and challenges with which it is in- volved. Taking such an approach can be valuable not only in facilitating positive organisational or commu- nity development, but also as an evaluation tech- nique, as an interview tool and as a research method.
It is therefore argued that AI has significant potential to advance our knowledge in a range of areas within the study of tourism planning.
Source: Eliza Raymond.
difference between planning and policy studies and policy analysis – knowledge of versus knowl- edge in – the planning and policy process (see Figure 4.4). Cullingsworth’s (1997: 5) comment that
Rational planning is a theoretical idea. Actual plan- ning is practical exercise of political choice that involves beliefs and values. It is a laborious process in which many public and private agencies are con- cerned. These comprise a wide range of conflicting interests. Planning is a means by which attempts are made to resolve these conflicts.
reinforces Peter Hall’s (1992) observations on the political nature of planning. Similarly, the significance of politics, who gets what, when, where, how and why is reflected by Wildavsky (1987: 25), with respect to policy, when he ar- gues, ‘we must first exorcise the ghost of ration- ality, which haunts the house of public policy’. A statement that applies equally well to the field of tourism planning and policy.