AI and a relational style of thinking
This section can be seen as an examination of how AI could be constructed, given the relational constructionist thought style that is outlined on this website.
- An ongoing process. The idea of the ongoing four D-cycle can be seen as consistent with the idea that relational processes are assumed to be ongoing. AI then, becomes viewed as an ongoing process rather then as a method that is applied and which then comes to an end.
- Positive and appreciatve. A central assumption of AI is that organizations, or any patterned ongoing relational processes, develop and change in the direction of that on which attention is being focused. It seems that the appreciative feature of AI presumes socially constructed realities and so presumes that self and other are in co-constructive relation. This means that subject-object relations are viewed as relational constructions and so could be other than S-O. In addition, both AI and relational premises here outlined emphasise the importance of reflecting upon the questions we pose and the nature of our relations. However, relational constructionist premises have nothing to say about focussing on what is positive. Therefore, to insist that only positive ways of relating be allowed, does not follow from the relational constructionist assumptions outlined on this website and such an injunction could hinder the openness of the process and therefore the realities that can be 'made'.
- Here and now, potential not problem. Avoiding a problem orientation is advocated as a way to stay positive and appreciative; as we have said this is not a consequence of relational premises. However, an emphasis on the 'here and now' is. The relational premise that processes are ongoing collapses past, present and future. In this view, constructing is 'here and now' - although historically resourced and constrained - and having implications for what somes next.
- Dialogue to open up to multiple local realities. From a relational constructionist perspective, AI is important for the emphasis it gives to dialoguing and for the space it gives to multiple local-cultural realities. AI can be seen as a certain sort of relational process that invites a particular way of participating. The invitation is to open-up to possibilities and multiple local ontologies. Relatedly, an AI process would warrant not one expertie, but multiple local knowledges (as praxis). Given this way of thinking, the AI practitioner is part of (not apart from) the appreciative process and contributes one expertise amongs many.
- Challenging assumptions and conventions. It is not only that AI should be positive or affirmative. AI practitioners also argue that inquiry should have 'generative capacity', i.e. the capacity to challenge the guiding assumptions of the culture, to raise fundamental questions regarding contemporary social life, to foster reconsiderations of that which is 'taken for granted' and thereby furnish new alternatives for social action (Gergen in Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987, p. 131). Again, this proposal does not seem to follow directly from a relational constructionist thought style. However, conventions, by definition, limit possibilities and so may (re)construct dominance relations. So generative proceses may open-up multiple social realities and 'power to'.
- Collaborative - social construction process in which design & application are joined. The AI process is intended to be collaborative, providing the opportunity for large numbers of employees and stakeholders to come together and co-create their organization. In this process of co-creation it is important to strive for equality of voice. Differences and conflicts between different voices should not be avoided, but constructively dealt with. When viewed from a relational constructionist thought style, this should not mean that the process should result in a consensus of all voices. Consensus is not necessary for joint action and is undesirable if it means neglecting differences and excluding voices.
To read more about AI in relation to the relational constructionist thought style that is outlined on this website, see the article "Evaluating appreciative inquiry: a relational constructionist perspective" by Dorieke van der Haar and Dian Marie Hosking.