Integral Review

A Transdisciplinary and Transcultural Journal For New Thought, Research, and Praxis

Posts Tagged ‘William R. Torbert’

Listening into the Dark: An Essay Testing the Validity and Efficacy of Collaborative Developmental Action Inquiry for Describing and Encouraging Transformations of Self, Society, and Scientific Inquiry

William R. Torbert

Abstract: Collaborative Developmental Action Inquiry (CDAI) is introduced as a meta-paradigmatic approach to social science and social action that encompasses seven other more familiar paradigms (e.g., Behaviorism, Empirical Positivism, and Postmodern Interpretivism) and that triangulates among third-person, objectivity-seeking social scientific inquiry, second-person, transformational, mutuality-seeking political inquiry, and first-person, adult, spiritual inquiry and consciousness development in the emerging present. CDAI tests findings, not only against third-person criteria of validity as do quantitative, positivist studies and qualitative, interpretive studies, but also against first- and second-person criteria of validity, as well as criteria of efficacy in action. CDAI introduces the possibility of treating, not just formal third-person studies, but any and all activities in one’s daily life in an inquiring manner. The aim of this differently-scientific approach is not only theoretical, generalizable knowledge, but also knowledge that generates increasingly timely action in particular cases in the relationships that mean the most to the inquirer. To illustrate and explain why the CDAI approach can explain unusually high percentages of the variance in whether or not organizations actually transform, all three types of validity-testing are applied to a specific study of intended transformation in ten organizations. The ten organization study found that adding together the performance of each organization’s CEO and lead consultant pn a reliable, well-validated measure of developmental action-logic, predicted 59% of the variance, beyond the .01 level, in whether and how the organization transformed (as rated by three scorers who achieved between .90 and 1.0 reliability). The essay concludes with a comparison between the Empirical Positivist paradigm of inquiry and the Collaborative Developmental Action Inquiry paradigm.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The Power of Balance: Transforming Self, Society, and Scientific Inquiry

William R. Torbert

Abstract: The “power of balance” as conceived by Torbert represents an integral paradigm of principles, theory, and praxis. Deployed, the paradigm is one that can indeed inform and shape the development of self, society, and scientific inquiry. To explicate that fulsome vision, the book’s fifteen chapters develop the themes of three sections: Theory and Strategy, Heart and Practice, and Vision and Method. Here, we have excerpted from several chapters in Theory and Strategy, and from one chapter in Vision and Method.

This means, of course, that we present but a small fraction of this integral classic, leaving out all of the rich, in-depth illustrations, including the author’s learning practice as he first attempted to enact the principles.

Yet, we hope even this abbreviated form of The Power of Balance supports at least two goals: to offer deployable insights and practices for developing politics and the political; and to take root as part of a foundational canon for integral political thought, research, and praxis. How we readers deploy these principles in our own actions will determine the degree to which self, society, and scientific inquiry transform.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Reliability and Validity Tests of the Harthill Leadership Development Profile in the Context of Developmental Action Inquiry Theory, Practice and Method

William R. Torbert and Reut Livne-Tarandach

Abstract: In this paper, we describe how the Harthill Leadership Development Profile (LDP), a language-based instrument has evolved from Jane Loevinger’s Washington University Sentence Completion Test (WUSCT), and has been redesigned to assess and offer feedback about adults’ action logics in work or educational settings, in the context of Developmental Action Inquiry (DAI) theory, practice, and method (Torbert, 1972, 1976, 1987, 1991; Torbert & Associates, 2004). Next, we challenge a recent critique of the LDP as a soft measure unsupported by published, quantitative psychometric reliability and validity studies (Stein & Heikkinen,2009) and present both previously unpublished and previously published-but-not aggregated studies illustrating Harthill LDP as a well-calibrated measure of adult ego development. Because the DAI approach to social inquiry and social practice invites us all to interweave first-, second-, and third-person inquiry and everyday action, the validity studies reported tend to concern field-based experiments seeking to generate developmentally transforming change in adults, including the researchers and/or interventionists, as well as in the organizations in which they participate. In our conclusion, we briefly consider what a social science and a social practice based on the developmentally late action-logics will look like, once social science is recognized as embracing, not just 3rd-person empirical positivist research “on” subjects, but also 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-person research and action with co-participants in live settings.

Tags: , , , , , ,






Current Issue

Recent Issues



Facebook
LinkedIn
Google+
TWITTER