Running head: APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND IPSCOPES 1

Appreciative Inquiry and IPscopes:

A Positive Step Forward For Therapy
Tiffany Pierce 30020801
University of Calgary
December 8, 2016
APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND IPSCOPES 2

The IPscope analytical process is a unique process developed by Karl Tomm that is used

in family therapy. It encourages the shift from viewing characteristics of individual family

members, to instead focus on the nature of the relationship between members (Tomm, 2014). The

IPscope is a tool that allows people to create distinguishable patterns while working with

families through therapy to co-construct change (Tomm, 2014)

The purpose of this paper is to present the possibility of including Appreciative Inquiry

(AI) to the IPscope framework as a method of enhancing the framework to encourage the

construction of positive change. The paper will give a brief synopsis of the history of AI and the

methodology that drives the process. It will then take a critical look at the negative aspect of the

current IPscope assessment the PIPs and DIPs and will then propose a framework that

effectively combines AI methodology with the IPscope framework. The paper will conclude with

a discussion on potential deficiencies with the proposed method.

Appreciative Inquiry

The initial usage of AI is attributed to David Cooperrider as the founder in the 1980s

(MacCoy, 2014, Bushe, 2011, Michael, 2005). The original usage for AI has been stated as being

used for organizational development settings (MacCoy, 2014, Michael, 2005), or as an action

research method (Bushe, 2011, MacCoy, 2014). AI is a process that is focused on the discovery

of finding the best in people, in systems, and the world that surround them (MacCoy, 2014).

Since its conception, AI has been used in a variety of ways including strategic planning,

team building, coaching, leadership development, and as a research method (MacCoy, 2014).

Robinson et.al (2012) notes that AI can also be used as a mode of inquiry to discover how a

system works and not necessarily change it.

APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND IPSCOPES 3

Throughout the various forms of use one thing has remained consistent the emphasis on

positivity and the change that manifests as a result. AI has five main principles along with the

4D Framework that inform its use. The principles according to Finegold (2002) are as follows:

The Constructionist Principle Human knowledge and organizational destiny are

interwoven; the way in which we know something has a direct effect on what we do.

Principle of simultaneity Inquiry is the beginning of intervention and the change

process begins with the first question that is asked. There are no right answers in AI but

questions purposefully seek the essential good in a system with the intentions of building a better

system

Poetic Principle - This principle shifts the view of organizations as a machine to view

them as a text, that can be interpreted in endlessly and is constantly being re-written and can be

viewed from any lens that we choose.

The Positive Principle The belief that language matters. The diversity of the application

of AI highlights the fact that the more positive the inquiry is, the more it will endure. People are

drawn together by looking at times when we are at our best, most energized, and most successful.

The extraction of positive data in these situations allows people to move forward with inspiration

to build on strengths.

Anticipatory Principle The greatest resource for generating constructive change is

collective discourse and conversation about the future. The image of the future, and how you

would like things to be is an important guide for actions.

APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND IPSCOPES 4

Although there are no right answers or correct ways to do things in AI because the

process is shaped by the participants, the guide takes participants through the 4D process below.

Figure 1 (San Martin, 2011, Finegold, 2002, Michael 2005, MacCoy, 2014).

AI has been successfully used in several challenging situations such as working with

youth in alterative schools (San Martin, 2011), youth with substance abuse issues (McAdam &

Mirza, 2009)., family services (Madsen, 2009), in addition to its common uses of organizational

change, team building, quality assurance, and coaching (MacCoy, 2014).

Throughout all the various applications, the cornerstone of AI theory is that it remains

relentlessly positive. Despite this focus on the positives of a situation Michael (2005) emphasizes

that this does not mean AI practitioners choose to not see negative situations, but that they

deliberately choose a positive framework to begin intervention. The ability to have the
APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND IPSCOPES 5

opportunity to speak freely often leads to a distinct understanding of both positive and negative

experiences (Michael, 2005).

A basic heliotropic ideal of AI is that things will grow towards that which gives them

light, or that people work towards the best image of themselves that they have (Michael, 2005,

Bushe, 2001). This ideal works well within the context of therapy because families are constantly

working towards the best version of their system. In a study of the effectiveness of AI in being

transformational Bushe (2005) noted that one of the key aspects to change is changing how

people think, not what they do. By changing their thought patterns, the behaviours will naturally

adapt to the new ways of thinking. This could be a crucial component in assisting families

overcoming obstacles.

AI intertwined with the IPscope

The Problematic use of PIPs

As mentioned above, AI practitioners avoid focusing on traditional problem-solving

methods. AI has been used as an alternative to the typical problem-solving model of addressing

difficulties. Practitioners who work with an AI framework highlight that working from a

problem-solving model indicates that a system is sick or deficient and that it is a problem to be

fixed (Finegold, 2002). Finegold (2002) states that viewing people, or a system, in this way can

be limiting and even has the potential to be demoralizing for people involved. This problem-

solving method may involuntarily exacerbate the problem that needs to be fixed (Finegold,

2002).

Tomm (2014) states that the juxtaposition of the negative and positive patterns

highlighted while looking at IPs provides both clients and therapist with a clear direction for
APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND IPSCOPES 6

desired change. The two negative patterns highlighted by Tomm (2014) are PIPs and DIPs. A

PIP is described as an interpersonal interaction that invites or increases negativity, pain, and/or

suffering in one or both persons (Tomm, 2014 p. 21). A DIP creates conditions where one may

be likely to move from a positive pattern to a negative pattern. In contrast to PIPs that are

frequent or reoccurring, DIPs are usually short-lived interactions (Tomm, 2014). If working from

an AI framework within the context of Tomms IPscopic examination of family systems, one

would argue that the focus on the negative PIP and DIP processes may evoke additional negative

feelings. The focus on negative interactions can also create an environment of blame,

defensiveness, distancing, and eroding of trust (Finegold, 2002). Creating this type of

atmosphere has the potential to seriously negate potential for healing in a therapeutic practice.

The purpose of looking at IPs is to be able to distinguish interpersonal patters as means of

systemic assessment (Tomm, 2014). Many parts of the IPscope assessment model lends itself to

AI methodology easily because they are both circular in nature. The following is a proposed a

systemic method of family interviewing that integrates AI methodology with the IPscope model.

Combination of AI and IPscope

St. George and Wulff (2014) note that certain behavioral patterns occur when families are

acting in line within the personal interpretations of their social context. This is similar to the

constructionist principle of AI. Both recognize that behaviors are influenced by our thoughts and

beliefs. Much like the second principle of AI which states that intervention begins with the first

question, one can argue that within the IPscopic assessment the change process would begin at

the initial recognition of two mutually reinforcing behaviors. Therefore, how one begins a

session has the potential to be very impactful on how it progresses.

APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND IPSCOPES 7

The third principle of AI, the poetic principle, is easily maintained throughout therapeutic

interventions as both therapist and clients are continuously reframing and redefining the

relationships and situations involved. The fourth principle, the positive principle, that focuses on

language is again easily considered throughout therapy. As social constructionists, this an easy

principle to understand. Bushe (2001) states Language and words are the basic building blocks

of social reality (p. 2). Throughout class lectures Tomm made it evident that how a question is

worded, or delivered, can have a great impact on its meaning. Thinking about how a question is

put forward is not a new task for therapists. The fifth principle, looking towards the future, is

also already a common theme within therapy as clients work towards their ultimate goals.

Keeping these principles ever present is a key aspect to AI as we move through the next phases.

The Discovery Stage

A typical way of beginning a session with new clients is the simple question what

brought you here today? There is a high probability that a family or couple will respond with a

problematic situation that has become troublesome for them. Instead of focusing on the negative

aspects in this situation I propose that as a therapist one proceeds in positive manner. Madsen

(2009) provides a good example of building initial engagement with a family from a positive

perspective. He first obtained some background information on the family, which highlighted

some problematic behaviors in the teen daughter. He then shifted the discussion to begin the

positive intervention and encouraged the parents to highlight characteristics or behaviors about

their daughter that they respect and appreciate. Madsen (2009) in turn coupled each descriptor

with qualifying remarks about the girl and eventually persuaded the teen to provide additional

positive qualities of herself. With having a base of positive attributes Madsen (2009) was then

able to steer the session to discuss how the parents were able to raise such a daughter. This in
APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND IPSCOPES 8

turn highlighted strengths of the parents as well. This could be qualified as moving through the

Discovery stage of the 4D cycle as it highlights some of the best characteristics of the family.

The Dream Stage

Highlighting both the daughter and parents strengths gave rise to a discussion about the

familys hopes, dreams, and visions for the future. By highlighting positive behaviors, situations

and visions for the future, the family was able to recognize current behaviors that were

preventing them from achieving these goals. Without focusing on the negative behaviors and

reactions of the PIPs that are evidently present, Madsen (2009) was still able to bring the family

to conclusion about areas they needed to work on in order to achieve their family goals. As

Michael (2005) noted, this positive stance would not ignore negative situations, but would

highlight them in a different way. For example, if a daughter was asked to dream about her ideal

relationship with her father she may note that it would be a relationship where her father

supported her dreams and did not always compare her to her sister. Despite the positive frame of

the question, it left space to address potential deficits in their current relationship. In this case,

the lack of support she feels from her father. This Dream phase allows everyone to discuss their

ideals while simultaneously bringing attention to deficits or possible PIP situations. The follow

PIP diagram pictures the PIP that was identified without having to focus on the negative

interactions.

Comparing Withdrawing
APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND IPSCOPES 9

The dream phase would be particularly important phase when working with families that

have problematic family members. A great deal of AI research has noted that people who

participate in AI interviews leave feeling optimistic (Robinson et. al, 2012), excited with dreams

for the future (Elspeth et al. 2009, Finegold, 2002), and empowered (San Martin, 2010). This is

the stage that allows people to view things (and themselves) differently and renews their faith in

the future. Instead of discussing again, someones drug abuse, alcoholism, excessive anger, jail

time, etc, they finally have an outlet to reflect on their strengths. People are more than their

deficiencies and AI reminds them, and others, of that fact.

The Design Stage

After the discussion where everyone has highlighted what their ideal relationships are a

therapist could open the conversation to other family members to reflect on how they feel about

what others said. The main task in this stage would be to build on the dreams identified

previously and create a design that will fit the identified goals and dreams. This would also allow

space for people to recognize that their actions affected other family members in ways they did

not realize. For example, the father simply trying to motivate his daughter by talking about her

sister was unaware it came across as though he was comparing them. Finegold (2002) states that

this process needs to be rich in dialogue in order to bring all participants to a deep level of trust

and commitment to the goals that they design together to live by. Within a family context this

would be an ideal time to recognize other positive family behaviors (HIPs and WIPs) and would

bring to the surface other major deficits that the family would need to address and work through

in order to reach their ideal status. To continue with the above example this could look like father

and daughter making time to spend time together discussing her goals without mention of her

sister.
APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND IPSCOPES 10

Supporting Sharing

The Destiny Stage

After working through the discover, dream, and design stage the family will have a

different view of the family. This new view will be based on the strengths of the family that have

been highlighted throughout the process as well as the dream that was developed collectively.

The creative energy of the family system would move to take on individual and collective action

working towards their goals. Because of the collaborative nature of the desired goals each family

member will value the success of their individual action and will actively seek to continually

improve it (Finegold, 2002). Because the 4D cycle is viewed as circulatory in nature it is

assumed that the destiny would lead to new discovery and so on (Van der Haar, 2004). Much in

the same way that new IPs and continuously being developed.

Appreciative Process

An additional AI process that would be beneficial in a therapeutic process is what Bushe

(2001) described as Appreciative Process. He describes this as a change agent technique that

theorizes an individual can create change by focusing on things you want more of, instead of

things that you want to change (Bushe, 2001). This has resulted in a shift of perspective about a

situation, or person, in several situations. Bushe (2001) notes that this method has seen positive

transformations in families when used with spouses or children. In the therapeutic context, if

throughout the interview process family members are encouraged to view each other in terms of

what they would like to see more of, instead of focusing on what they would like to change, the
APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND IPSCOPES 11

success of the intervention would increase. Although not always an easy task, changing ones

state of mind and how they think about something results in the most effective change (Bushe,

2005).

Critiques

A common critique of AI is that it leaves no room for discussion around what is bad

(MacCoy, 2014). Families may feel that not discussing major problems (anger, alcoholism, etc)

would simply ignore the problem and therefore would not be a helpful. This may cause

resistance to participating in an AI led intervention. It is possibly that families with very complex

needs may not be a good fit for an AI process. If an entire family has felt they have had the

opportunity to air their grievances regarding a difficult situation, they may then be ready and

willing to move on to an AI process.

One limitation I have recognized is the possibility for longevity of this intervention. A

great deal of AI processes are completed all at once, not necessarily over a several weeks.

Although feasible, it may be difficult to maintain the energy and enthusiasm for the process over

several weeks. I feel that leaving with only the completion of one phase of the intervention at a

time (Discover, Dream, Design, Destiny) may be counterproductive to the idea of building on the

momentum and excitement that is developed throughout the process.

Conclusion

Despite the critiques and potential limitations highlighted, I believe that the use of

Appreciative Inquiry in a therapeutic setting, specifically with the use of the IPscopes would be

effective. AI believes that nothing is true or real, that everything is a social construction (Bushe,

2011). Which means that individuals have the power to change their reality. Much like Tomm
APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND IPSCOPES 12

highlighted throughout his lectures, by changing one behavior, or reaction to a behavior, a

problematic pattern can be altered (such as implementing TIPs). By focusing on the positive

aspects of interaction throughout a therapeutic relationship, one could assist a family in breaking

negative cycles and pursuing a positive path towards their ideal relationship as a family.
APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND IPSCOPES 13

References

Bushe, G.R. (2011) Appreciative inquiry: Theory and critique. In Boje, D., Burnes, B. and Hass

ard, J. (eds) The Routledge Companion To Organizational Change (pp. 87103).

Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Bushe, G. R. (2005). When is appreciative inquiry transformational?: A meta-case analysis. The

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(2), 161-181. doi:10.1177/0021886304270337

Bushe, G (2001) Five theories of change embedded in appreciative inquiry. In Cooperrider, D.

Sorenson, P., Whitney, D. & Yeager, T. (eds.)(2001) Appreciative Inquiry: An Emerging

Direction for Organization Development (pp.117-127). Champaign, IL: Stipes

Finegold, M. A., Holland, B. M., & Lingham, T. (2002). Appreciative Inquiry and public

dialogue: An approach to community change. Public Organization Review, 2(3), 235-

252. doi:10.1023/a:1020292413486

MacCoy, D. J. (2014). Appreciative Inquiry and evaluation getting to what works. The

Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 29(2), 104. doi:10.3138/cjpe.29.2.104

Madsen, W. C. (2009). Collaborative helping: A practice framework for family-centered

services. Family Process, 48(1), 103-116. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01270.x

McAdam, E., & Mirza, K. A. (2009). Drugs, hopes and dreams: appreciative inquiry with

marginalized young people using drugs and alcohol. Journal of Family Therapy, 31(2),

175-193. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6427.2009.00461.x

Michael, S. (2005). The promise of appreciative inquiry as an interview tool for field

research. Development in Practice, 15(2), 222-230. doi:10.1080/09614520500042094

APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND IPSCOPES 14

Robinson, G., Priede, C., Farrall, S., Shapland, J., & McNeill, F. (2012). Doing 'strengths-based'

research: Appreciative Inquiry in a probation setting. Criminology and Criminal

Justice, 13(1), 3-20. doi:10.1177/1748895812445621

San Martin, T. L., & Calabrese, R. L. (2011). Empowering atrisk students through appreciative

inquiry. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(2), 110-123.

doi:10.1108/09513541111107542

Tomm, K., St. George, S., Wulff, D., & Strong, T. (2014). Patterns in interpersonal interactions:

Inviting relational understandings for therapeutic change. New York, NY: Routledge.

Van der Haar, D., & Hosking, D. M. (2004). Evaluating appreciative inquiry: A relational

constructionist perspective. Human Relations, 57(8), 1017-1036.

doi:10.1177/0018726704045839