Hello Dave.

I could use this advice. If only I could understand it a bit better. I get the exaggerate bit, but could you elaborate a bit on the variation, linking a negative, dangerous or over narrow idea through metaphor?

I am a big fan of analogy, but my metaphors could use some work, and I'm not quite sure how you intend for them to be used in this case, in combating the negative rumor.

Dan

Yes, and thank god for Jon Stewart on that count, without whom American politics would have me near to paranoia.

But Dave, you're not really afraid of appreciative enquiry are you?

Why would you think I was afraid Johnnie? Nothing above would indicate that. I simply believe that people should have the right to tell the story they want to tell, not be forced into some happy land ...

Dan - not sure how to elaborate on metaphor, I have the one example. Happy to look at a real case here or email it if it can't be made public

Funnily enough, I just got an email update today from New York's Dissent Magazine, with an essay about FDR's use of the Riddikulus charm, so to speak, in 1944. They recommend it to Obama as a better way of competing with Clinton than an all-out mud offensive.
I like the author's emphasis on using this for distracting issues, rather than substantive ones: I cannot think of an example right now, but I am sure we have been the poorer for politicians using Riddukulus to avoid substantive issues about their policies.

Dave: I've certainly seen far too many examples of trying to simply impose what we are actually trying to "surface". Appreciative inquiry is not alone in this pathology but does seems prone to it. And my "inner curmudgeon" is certainly in agreement with your own (perhaps less "inner" ;) ).

However, I think we also share the goal of trying to get beyond simplistic inductive and deductive reasoning which presupposes a (generally naive) theory of causality. For me, this path has led to the concept of abductive reasoning, building on the pragmatic philosophy of C.S. Peirce, via J. Habermas. One of the key features of abductive reasoning is the feeling of excitement as we move (iteratively) towards a theory that "feels right", only later to be verified by more conventional logic. AT IT'S BEST, which is probably all too rare, appreciative inquiry appears to be able to tap into some of these "abductive cycles" where viable new theories are being created. I have not yet encountered any other technique that does the same (perhaps only due to not yet having taken your training ;) ).

I've excerpted below a snippet from a piece that crystalized some of these thoughts for me a few years ago, though of course Mr Hirschheim need accept no blame for where I've taken them since. Note that JAIS articles are now available free on their website.

/Keith F.

"Crisis in the IS Field? A Critical Reflection on the State of the Discipline"
http://jais.isworld.org/articles/default.asp?vol=4&art=10
Rudy Hirschheim (http://projects.bus.lsu.edu/faculty/rudy/)
The paper proposes four different types of knowledge for structuring an IS Body of Knowledge (BoK) and following on from that, the value of creating a common BoK for the field - based upon Habermas' 4 Knowledge Types (p. 265). Crucially, what we call "abductive knowledge", Hirschheim calls it applicative or practical knowledge "that is practical and action oriented".

[p 266] The Special Characteristics of Applicative Knowledge:
Freely interpreting Gadamer (1975) and Habermas (1988), we can identify three characteristics in which applicative knowledge differs from the other three types. First, it has a close relationship to a person's identity. It typically takes hard work and painful mistakes to acquire it and therefore becomes part of an individual's personality. It is mostly learned through various forms of apprenticeships, mentoring and the "school of hard knocks." This suggests that applicative knowledge can at least be partially shared among frequently interacting groups, but much of it remains tacit knowledge. As such, it is closely related to personal insight and wisdom. The preferred research approach to make such knowledge visible to outsiders would be hermeneutic field studies (in the form of ethnographies using participatory observations and intensive interviewing, cf. Klein and Myers 1999).
Second, because of the above characteristics, applicative knowledge closely connects to personal emotions and interests. It depends on the whole complex of presuppositions, fundamental beliefs (prejudices) and attitudes that are part and parcel of a person's character. In contrast, technical knowledge is relatively neutral and external to a person's inner core. Insofar as applicative knowledge is acquired from the environment, the process is more one of socialization than cognitive learning even though cognitive, intellectual abilities are important to filter and digest what is acquired through social interaction. This naturally leads to the third characteristic, the holistic nature of applicative knowledge. It cannot be easily split into goals and means, but rather is rooted in the lived experience consisting of work, play, and travel, various forms of symbolic communication and, last but not least, the tradition into which someone is born or into which a person has chosen to integrate when leaving his/her native community.
It is particularly the last characteristic that makes applicative knowledge so critical for achieving mutual understanding and consensus. By relating other cultures to one's own experiences, applicative knowledge allows for cross-cultural dialogue, and by understanding one's place in the tradition in which one lives, it helps to overcome vertical communication barriers, e.g., between government and citizens, between old and young, and in organizations, and between rank and file.