Search results

Briefly reviews the standard Poisson distribution and then examines a set of derivative, modified Poisson distributions for testing hypotheses derived from positive deviation‐amplifying feedback models, which do not lend themselves to ordinary statistically based hypothesis testing. The “reinforcement” or “contagious” Poisson offers promise for a subset of such models, in particular those models with data in the form of rates (rather than magnitudes). The practical difficulty lies in distinguishing reinforcement effects from initial heterogeneity, since both can form negative binomial distributions, with look‐alike data. Illustrates these difficulties, and also opportunities, for various feedback models employing the self‐fulfilling prophecy, and especially for confidence loops, which incorporate particular self‐fulfilling prophecies as part of a larger dynamic process. Describes an actual methodology for testing hypotheses regarding confidence loops with the aid of a “reinforcement” Poisson distribution, as well as its place within sociocybernetics.

It’s been thirty years since the original articulation of “Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life” was written in collaboration with my remarkable mentor Suresh Srivastva (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). That article – first published in Research in Organization Development and Change – generated more experimentation in the field, more academic excitement, and more innovation than anything we had ever written. As the passage of time has enabled me to look more closely at what was written, I feel both a deep satisfaction with the seed vision and scholarly logic offered for Appreciative Inquiry, as well as well as the enormous impact and continuing reverberation. Following the tradition of authors such as Carl Rogers who have re-issued their favorite works but have also added brief reflections on key points of emphasis, clarification, or editorial commentary I am presenting the article by David Cooperrider (myself) and the late Suresh Srivastva in its entirety, but also with new horizon insights. In particular I write with excitement and anticipation of a new OD – what my colleagues and I are calling the next “IPOD” that is, innovation-inspired positive OD that brings AI’s gift of new eyes together in common cause with several other movements in the human sciences: the strengths revolution in management; the positive pscyhology and positive organizational scholarship movements; the design thinking explosion; and the biomimicry field which is all about an appreciative eye toward billions of years of nature’s wisdom and innovation inspired by life.

This article presents a conceptual refigurationy of action-research based on a “sociorationalist” view of science. The position that is developed can be summarized as follows: For action-research to reach its potential as a vehicle for social innovation it needs to begin advancing theoretical knowledge of consequence; that good theory may be one of the best means human beings have for affecting change in a postindustrial world; that the discipline’s steadfast commitment to a problem solving view of the world acts as a primary constraint on its imagination and contribution to knowledge; that appreciative inquiry represents a viable complement to conventional forms of action-research; and finally, that through our assumptions and choice of method we largely create the world we later discover.

It’s been nearly 30 years since the original articulation of Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life was written in collaboration with my remarkable mentor Suresh Srivastva (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). That article generated more experimentation in the field, more academic excitement, and more innovation than anything we had ever written. As the passage of time has enabled me to look more closely at what was written, I feel both a deep satisfaction with the seed vision and scholarly logic offered for Appreciative Inquiry (AI), as well as well as the enormous impact and reverberation. Following the tradition of authors such as Carl Rogers who have re-issued their favorite works but have also added brief reflections on key points of emphasis, clarification, or editorial commentary we have decided to issue a reprint the early article by David L. Cooperrider and the late Suresh Srivastva in its entirety, but also with contemporary comments embedded. To be sure the comments offered are brief and serve principally to add points of emphasis to ideas we may have too hurriedly introduced. My comments – placed in indented format along the way – are focused on the content and themes of furthermost relevance to this volume on organizational generativity. In many ways I’ve begun to question today whether there can even be inquiry where there is no appreciation, valuing, or amazement – what the Greeks called thaumazein – the borderline between wonderment and admiration. One learning is that AI’s generativity is not about its methods or tools, but about our cooperative capacity to reunite seeming opposites such as theory as practice, the secular as sacred, and generativity as something beyond positivity or negativity. Appreciation is about valuing the life-giving in ways that serve to inspire our co-constructed future. Inquiry is the experience of mystery, moving beyond the edge of the known to the unknown, which then changes our lives. Taken together, where appreciation and inquiry are wonderfully entangled, we experience knowledge alive and an ever-expansive inauguration of our world to new possibilities.

This article presents a conceptual refiguration of action-research based on a “sociorationalist” view of science. The position that is developed can be summarized as follows: For action-research to reach its potential as a vehicle for social innovation it needs to begin advancing theoretical knowledge of consequence; that good theory may be one of the best means human beings have for affecting change in a postindustrial world; that the discipline's steadfast commitment to a problem solving view of the world acts as a primary constraint on its imagination and contribution to knowledge; that appreciative inquiry represents a viable complement to conventional forms of action-research; and finally, that through our assumptions and choice of method we largely create the world we later discover.

To consider aspects of a theory of systemic construction by discussing two concepts which will assist in our understanding of the surrounding world which it is considered is made of both systemic and non‐systemic entities.

Considers how these entities (metasystem, network, transitron etc.) can be conceived and defined. Systemic frames notions are presented and examples of systems given. Discusses the historic use of the word “system” and systemic thinking and its varieties.

Discovered that on the basis of these concepts, an understanding of the surrounding world can be achieved which is not homogeneous but made of both systemic and non‐systemic entities. These can change when certain systemic properties are reached as well as in their specific degrees in their limitations and paradoxes.

Introduces an original approach to the life support system by proposing concepts that are discussed and defined and that will provide cyberneticians and systemists with a revised view of systemic thinking.

To provide an overview of the historical development of non‐reductive currents in science that underpinned the sociocybernetic movement and from that perspective assess the importance of the movement for social science.

Examines the principles of general system theory, cybernetics, and sociocybernetics, in a relevant selection of the founding literatures as an outgrowth of the long‐term development of the structures of knowledge in the modern world and as related to contemporary geopolitics and the world‐economy.

Indicates how sociocybernetics, as a holistic alternative, may be a part of the solution to the crisis of analytic approaches in applications targeting an understanding and interpretation of human reality.

Suggests how scholars may confront today's world as active agents without losing their status as producers of authoritative knowledge.