Appreciative inquiry, originally developed by David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva (1987), upset the mold of organizational consulting by proposing that, instead of researching the cause of organizational problems as a method for resolving the problem, consultants should inquire into what is working in the organization, what gives it life, and when organizational members feel energized. Originating as a form of organization consultation, AI rapidly became recognized as a form of research that invites innovation (Bodiford and Camargo-Borges, 2014; Hosking and McNamee, 2007; McNamee, 2004). Research reports, such as those presented in the special issue of the AI Practitioner (Bodiford and Camargo-Borges, 2014), offer a variety of illustrations of appreciative inquiry as a research method that invites participants to imagine a preferred future. Through such imagination, research participants join together to create that future. The focus of appreciative inquiry on what is working well in a community, as well as the highpoints in the community's experiences, orients the research process toward the creation of generative ways to go on as opposed to discovery or documentation of ‘what is’.
What Research as Innovation Offers
In terms of knowledge production, these research examples map out opportunities for new formats for engaging in research and, as a consequence, new meanings and opportunities for action and change emerge. The transformation/intervention is the creation of a learning community in which research participants can critically reflect on a topic, co-creating and sharing opportunities for themselves as well as for their context, issue, or challenge.
The illustrations above show some similarities and core values that make research a process of innovation:
1 Shared stories collected throughout the research process: They have the potential to connect people and to increase the sense of belonging.
2 Participatory and process-oriented: The focus is on what is happening in the ‘here and now’ and from there, decisions on how to move on with the research are made as opposed to relying on fixed methods to be followed rigidly that are independent from the context and from what is emerging.
3 Multiple voices invite complexity: Instead of simplifying the topic to come up with one final solution/result, in research as innovation the idea is to embrace the complexity in order to make new combinations, thereby inviting new meanings and actions.
4 Inclusive: Those participating in the research process are part of creating the process.
5 Flexible: Research as innovation understands research as an ongoing, unfolding process; the interest is in creating something new with participants.
What we want to highlight with these illustrations is that innovation in the research process is related to generative learning, engagement, and inclusion in the context researched; it is related to a methodologically pluralistic approach in which the research design unfolds in a relational, flexible and organic manner (Bodiford and Camargo-Borges, 2014). Looking forward, we see research as innovation as a metaphor that opens multiple doors in the research realm, thereby amplifying research as a process of creativity, imagination and transformation, and offering a revolutionary direction for research, particularly for academic research.
We believe that research that is viewed as innovation can be seen as a form of activism, calling attention to ethical dilemmas, political action, and issues of social justice. It can improve our understanding of inequality, oppression, violence, and other social issues. Researchers as innovators are liberated to engage and become more involved in socially significant academic research that has a strong social impact. Research, therefore, becomes an integrated part of daily life.
Note
1 Traditional and popular understandings of research tend to promote a binary view of the world. That is, the research either proves or disproves a theory. It discovers a cause, a cure, a previously unknown ‘fact’ or it does not.
References
Alvesson, M. and Sandberg, J. (2012). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 128–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01070.
Audretsch, D. B., Lehman, E. E., and Link, A. N. (Eds.) (2019). A research agenda for entrepreneurship and innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York and London: Plenum Press.
Bodiford, K. and Camargo-Borges, C. (2014). Bridging research and practice. Designing research in daily practice. The AI Practitioner Journal, 16(3), 4–8. ISBN 978-1-907549-20-5
Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In T. Hughes and T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 83–103). London: MIT Press.
Camargo-Borges, C. (2018a). Creativity and imagination: Research as world making! In P. Leavy (Ed.), Handbook of arts-based research (pp. 88–100). New York: Guilford Press.
Camargo-Borges, C. (2018b). Designing research with creativity: Arts-based methods as a way to co-create with Destinations. Tourism Destination Management Insights Journal, 11, 9–11.
Cooperrider, D. L. and Srivastva, S (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In W. Pasmore and R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organization change and development (vol. 1, pp. 129–169). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Corning, P. A. (2012). The re-emergence of emergence, and the causal role of synergy in emergent evolution. Synthese, 185(2), 295–317.
Cross, N. (2006), Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer-Verlag.
Gergen, K. (2014). From mirroring to world-making: Research as future forming. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 45(3), 287–310.
Gergen, K. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gergen, K. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 309–320.
Gergen, K. Josselson, R., and Freeman, M. (2015). The promises of qualitative inquiry. American Psychologist, 70(1), 1–9.
Griebling, S., Vaughn, L., Howell, B., Ramstetter, C., and Dole, D. (2013). From passive to active voice: Using photography as a catalyst for social action [Special issue]. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(2), 16–28.
Hilary, P. (2000). Rethinking the research agenda. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.icaap.org/iuicode?149.1.1.1
Hjalager, A. M. (2010). A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31, 1–12.
Hosking, D.M. and McNamee, S. (2007). Back to basics: Appreciating appreciative inquiry as not ‘normal’ science. In J. Reed and L. Holmberg (Guest Eds.), The AIPractitioner (http://www.aipractitioner.com), November, 12–16.
Janowski, M. and Ingold, T. (2012). Imagining landscapes: Past, present and future. New York: Routledge.
Karakas,
