I completed my portfolio review via a phone conference discussion with Dr. Valerie Bentz and Dr. Keith Melville on September 2.

This brief summary outlines the key points of my Portfolio Review discussion:

Keith commented that I present a self-confident voice in my writing and that my work is clear and coherent. Valerie highlighted the depth of my work and my ability to reach out and connect with outside scholarly communities.  However, I need to develop my ability to critique scholarly research and theory.  Keith suggested I revisit the DOCS (Doctoral Competencies) modules pertaining to those topics to develop a lens through which I can identify what’s missing or ambiguous in a piece of research.  These skills are critical to a successful dissertation literature review.

Keith posed a question to me that I need to answer as I develop my scholarship: what is my home discipline?  What are the main questions that I’m curious about?  What puzzles me?  In other words, I need to become clear about my curiosities and key questions.  I spent time thinking about and articulating these questions two years ago when I first entered into the program.  Now it’s time to revisit them so that I find a home in a scholarly community (or two).

Valerie suggested that I narrow down my interests as I enter into my final KA’s.  My interests have intentionally been broad and varied during the first part of my studies.  I agree that it is time to reduce scope and define a focus for the remainder of my studies.

Another suggestion from Valerie, which she had mentioned to me in the past as my mentor, is to explore sociological theories in order to ground and inform my future research.  This is a gap in my foundation as a scholar.  I will include readings on symbolic interaction theory, structural-functional theory and critical theory in one of my elective KA’s.

Valerie pointed out that my career in business has focused on the Fortune 100, working with very wealthy and privileged individuals.  Do I want to continue to work with this elite group, or do I want to extend my work to other groups?  Of course I want to work with other groups and am already doing so (Women’s Addiction Services Leadership Institute is one example).  However, I believe that a significant tipping point exists within the corporate world.  A leadership team from a Fortune 100 company affects the lives of 50,000 – 100,000 employees, which in turn affects the lives of the employees’ families and communities.  A company’s products, services and practices also affect the lives of potentially millions of consumers, investors and thousands of business partners.  If we don’t work to help shift the consciousness of the leadership teams of these corporations so they operate within a framework of sustainability, what hope do we have of finding the tipping point to effect world-wide systemic change?  That’s why I’m interested in the inner lives of leaders of large organizations.

At the end of the call, we talked about the Fielding journey in three “acts.”  Act I concludes with the portfolio review.  Act II concludes after I have finished most, but not all of the electives, completed the comprehensive exams and have an approved concept paper.  I’m already part of the way through Act II.  I look forward to the remaining journey with enthusiasm and appreciation toward all of the faculty members who have nurtured my growth during the past two years.  I am especially grateful to Valerie for providing guidance, support and opportunities to participate in the scholarly conversation.

What follows is the reflection paper that I wrote for my portfolio review.  Some of the terminology I used is Fielding University-specific, but I included it anyway in this post.

This has been an amazing two years of my life.  I experienced a huge shift in my sense of identity and in my worldview as I quit my executive position to pursue this program.  At first, I found it difficult to adjust to the slower pace (I didn’t consult during the first nine months) and the fact that I didn’t have an administrative assistant and all the perks of working in the corporate environment.  However, I really enjoyed having the flexibility and time to dive deeply into my studies.

My worldview also changed radically.  As I came to understand human development and systems, I let go of my success-oriented approach to life.  I now see everything in life as connected, with multiple ways to understand and make changes to systems.  As a result, I have a renewed interest and appreciation for social activism.  At first, I rejected post-modernism as an “anti-everything” perspective.  I now see it as a “beyond-modernist” view, accepting that my reality is relative and context-based.  I had to let go of my complete reliance on my rational mind in order to embrace this worldview.  It was a painful process for me, as I feel that I no longer have solid ground on which to stand.

The Learning Curve

I knew nothing about scholarly writing before I started this program.  Coming from the business environment, I wrote good business documents, plans, and reports.  Scholarly writing is completely different – it took time to acquire the basic skills.  I still have a lot to learn about writing arguments and critiquing others’ work.

The Doctoral Competencies (DOCS) course gave me a taste of what I needed to learn in several areas, most notably in conducting database research for a literature review and the importance of accurately citing references.  I immediately bought a copy of EndNote and learned how to use it.  I am quite fluent with EndNote at this time, automatically downloading citations into it from my library searches and inserting and editing citations while I write my papers in Microsoft Word.

During my first year, I decided to conduct a research project for Knowledge Area (KA)702 so that I could experience the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process and all of the steps required to conduct qualitative research.  I learned a huge amount while completing that KA.  Not only did I get IRB approval, I applied for and received a Fielding Research grant, learned how to use a digital recorder for in-person and phone interviews, sent the recordings off to a transcriptionist, and conducted a phenomenological and hermeneutic analysis of the interview texts.  Dr. Valerie Bentz provided wonderful guidance and mentorship throughout the project and invited me to present my paper on a panel at the Society for Phenomenology and Human Sciences. Finally, I created a research poster, which was displayed at the 2009 Winter Session.

Going into my second year, I taught a graduate level course at California Lutheran University.  The learning curve was much larger than I anticipated.  I learned how to create a syllabus, grading rubrics, and homework assignments.  I learned to use WebCT and set up the course online.  I was really nervous about teaching and I believe it set me off on the wrong foot with my students.  The preparation time and time to grade homework was far greater than expected.  I received mixed reviews from the course evaluations.  Even so, the university asked me to teach the course again the following summer (2009), which I turned down due to a busy travel schedule.

One would think that conducting one research project to support KA work would be enough.  However, after completing 753B and attending a talk by William Torbert at the Academy of Management last year, I decided to conduct an Action Research – Appreciative Inquiry project for my KA703.  The IRB process for this project was much more complicated and took longer than for my first project.  I decided to finish my KA703 In-Depth/Applied paper prior to completing the research project and now I plan to write up the results of the research for a future KA.

My Topic and Questions

I began the program with several dissertation ideas.  I desired the freedom to explore many topics rather than decide on a topic too early in my program.  I created two concept papers and included my second idea in the portfolio review.  Therefore, my concept paper is still in a preliminary draft form.

Finding My Scholarly Community

I established close relationships with four of my anchor-teammates.  We maintain regular contact via a private blog, where we post all of our trials and triumphs.  We read each other’s papers and provide feedback as well as share our learning experiences as we all progress through the program.  I was very active in the Santa Barbara cluster the past two years and co-organized a regional KA706 intensive in collaboration with the San Diego cluster connect in May 2009.  Last month, after polling students who live in Ventura and western LA counties, I founded the Ventura County cluster and will be the initial cluster connect this coming year.

Since I’m an extrovert, I reach out to others and form new connections with ease.  I have serendipitously met so many wonderful new colleagues outside of the Fielding community, especially with Academy of Management members.  I am well-connected with scholars and doctoral students from the organizational development and Change (ODC), Organizational Behavior (OB) and Management, Spirituality and Religion (MSR) divisions.  I see many possibilities for future collaboration with scholars in these communities.  Through a separate introduction, Andrew Newberg and Mark Waldman (2006, 2007, 2009)  recently asked me to co-author a paper and assist in a research project with of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Spirituality and the Mind.

I created a blog in September 2007, called “phdconfidential” and post regularly to it (www.phdconfidential.wordpress.com).  I receive many hits and comments on my blog from all over the world.  I plan to use this blog and my anchor team blog as sources for my comprehensive exams.  Finally, I have met Fielding students and alumni with whom I see future potential opportunities for collaboration.

The Fielding Experience

I really like the balance between independent study and group study that I have achieved at Fielding.  Both are stimulating and positive.  With one exception, my faculty assessors have all been very responsive.  I greatly appreciate the guidance and support from my faculty mentor, Dr. Valerie Bentz.  She has provided gentle, yet specific guidance to me throughout the past two years. My faculty assessors have also taken the time to answer my questions and follow up with me after an assessment is complete, for which I am grateful.  I believe the faculty are genuinely interested in nurturing students’ development.

I like the KA framework that has been provided to guide students through the program.  The New Student Orientation (NSO) was helpful, but the doctoral program flow was still a mystery to me during the first year.  DOCS helped to clear up some questions, and recent improvements in program content on FELIX (Fielding’s online forum) provided to students also clarified milestones and graduation requirements.

Now that I know how to use the Fielding library databases, I can find most of the articles I require for my studies.  However, Fielding’s limited eBook resources force me to purchase any books that I need for KA work.

I enjoy the national sessions and attend about three per year.  As mentioned previously, I really enjoy the cluster connections.  I also use Facebook and email to connect with fellow students.

I have two major issues with Fielding’s resources.  The first is a significant lack of scholarship funds.  I applied a couple of times unsuccessfully.  There is so much competition for very few scholarships and the award amounts are so small ($2,500 maximum) considering the high tuition costs.  Since I am funding this program myself, I have taken out tens of thousands of dollars in loans.  The second issue is the ancient technology in use for FELIX.  The forums are cumbersome and difficult to use.  There is no easy way to stay in touch with people or to update content.  Therefore, we tend to use outside technologies, such as SKYPE, Facebook, and Blogspot or WordPress to create communication venues.  At least Fielding has started to use WebEx for the Final Oral Reviews (FOR’s) and other meetings.  I see this as progress.

Loves and Dislikes

I love conducting qualitative research and writing.  The process of exploring questions, collecting research data and analyzing the results is fun.  I love to write.  Though I’m not yet up to speed on scholarly writing techniques, I enjoy the process of putting ideas, explorations and critiques into words and communicating to an audience of readers.  I also love to read, as long as the articles and books are well-written.  The jury is out regarding teaching.  I need more experience to decide if it’s for me.  I love consulting and will continue as a consultant regardless of other aspirations when I graduate (and I will graduate).

Newberg, A. B., & Waldman, M. R. (2006). Why we believe what we believe : uncovering our biological need for meaning, spirituality, and truth. New York: Free Press.

Newberg, A. B., & Waldman, M. R. (2007). Born to believe : God, science, and the origin of ordinary and extraordinary beliefs (1st Free Press trade pbk. ed.). New York: Free Press.

Newberg, A. B., & Waldman, M. R. (2009). How God changes your brain : breakthrough findings from a leading neuroscientist. New York: Ballantine Books.

I have not posted for four months…I’ve been really busy traveling, working and writing.  This week, I completed a major milestone on my PhD journey: the portfolio review.  I have compiled a collection of documentation of my progress and writing samples for review by my faculty adviser and an assigned second faculty reader.  Here’s what goes into the portfolio review:

• A short reflection paper (7 pages) on my doctoral journey thus far
• An annotated bibliography of all my writing during the program for all courses, outside paper presentations, seminar participation and outside training certifications
• A complete set of all faculty comments received as part of my course assessments
• A dissertation concept paper first draft (more on this in a later post)
• A revised learning plan, indicating my choices for the few remaining courses
• Selected writing samples – I chose four samples; two from the beginning of my studies and two of my most recent papers

The complete package is 154 pages.  I formatted it to print and copy 2-sided, with margins to support a bound copy.  I printed off a separate title page in color, using a nice template from Avery.  Staples made three copies with bindings for me in about 15 minutes.  I learned a few things with using Staples: you can send in the order electronically and save a few cents per page.  However, making color copies costs 49 cents per page, so make sure you limit color.

I’m really pleased with the result.  I can now hold in my hands a representation of two years’ worth of work.  I can see the progress and the growth assembled in one place.  My phone conference with my faculty reviewers is this week.  After that, I need to write a paper that summarizes the conversation and my learning from the review.

So yesterday, I had a great day at jury duty! Nothing to bother me as I read several articles that I had on my pile for ages. I revisted Thierry Pauchant’s 100 books project website and spent some time thinking about my dissertation. He and I had talked about three different ideas for dissertations, and of course, he was trying to steer me to the model he’s using for his 100 book project on integral leaders. It wasn’t appealing to me until yesterday. The idea is to take one person who fits the following three criteria and study them in-depth:

1. Has the leader had an impact on a large community during his or her life time?
   
2. Is the leader admired by a diverse population over a long period of time?
3. Has the leader been publicly recognized as having achieved a self-decentered consciousness (meaning they’ve been described as a saint, elevated soul, spiritual, enlightened, divinely inspired, selfless, etc.)
   

Other criteria include:

• was this person actively involved in the world or did she live remotely on the margins of society?
• is the data available on this person rich enough to understand her epiphanies, her different levels of development and their relationship with the notions used in the research?
• is an autobiography or biography available? Other articles or papers about this person?
• can this person be interviewed? Their associates?
  

So I started thinking about who would be good to study.  I thought about studying Jane Goodall, since a close friend of mine works for her and can get access to a lot of information and possibly interview her, but it appears that another student is already writing about her.  My other ideas are Pema Chodron, Barbara Marx-Hubbard or Frances Hesselbein.  I have access to interview Barbara and her associates. I have no known access (haven’t explored 6 degrees of separation yet) to the other two but a great interest in especially Pema Chodron’s work because of the buddhist teachings and meditation research that I’m doing.  I would like to study a living woman leader.  Someone who is making an impact on the world. That’s why Jane Goodall was so attractive to me as I’m very familiar with her Roots N Shoots program and other work. What do you think?

I just came back from a Human Development intensive training with Susann Cook-Greuter, who developed a maturity assessment profile (MAP) test that extends Loevinger’s stage-theory work with well-defined descriptions of higher stages of development (and has conducted research to support them). Susann is one of the founders of the Integral Institute and a close colleague of Ken Wilber’s. The MAP measures the level of complexity of meaning making.

This was an amazing, humbling and transformative experience for me. The students were a mix of younger master’s degree students and older professionals. The master’s students were in the Integral Psychology program at JFK University and blew me away – they were all at more advanced development levels than I (that was the humbling part).  The seminar was a combination of experiential, theoretical and applied learning.  I’m now certified to use the MAP in my professional consulting and coaching practice, and I’m considering using it in my dissertation research.

The seminar contained a wonderful group of people – each unique and it was so easy to enter into deep dialogue with each person.  At one point, we were put into coaching pairs and my coach, a twenty-something young man was my partner. We were sitting in Starbucks, and the first part, when I coached him, went well and I felt he had gotten something of value from it. Then it came to my turn and after a couple of minutes, I burst into tears as I realized how uncomfortable I have been feeling in the developmental space that I’m in currently.

Without boring readers with too much detail, I tested at the first postconventional stage, which is callled “Pluralist/Individualist.”  What came out of the assessment is that my conventional self, called “Achiever” has been battling with my Pluralist. As a pluralist, I feel that there is no ground beneath me, I can no longer rely on my rational mind, everything is context-dependent, and truth is relative. However, I functioned as an Achiever for so long that it is disturbing and uncomfortable to leave the solidity (even though it was an illusion) of my former life. I also worry that I won’t be able to function in the work world as a Pluralist. There was a lot more to the discussion, but it would take too long to write it all down.

The emotional acknowledgement was HUGE for me. I cried all night, but felt a great sense of release and a shift in my acceptance of being in this postconventional meaning making place. Earlier in the week, we created a life story picture to illustrate our personal developmental path. I drew the picture before I had this epiphany. I would draw a very different picture now….

Susann Cook-Greuter, myself, Beena Sharma and my life story poster

Besides being a student, I have a family, do consulting work 25 hours per week, and am a licensed prayer practitioner of the Center for Spiritual Living in Simi Valley.    As part of my continuing education to maintain my license, I took an eight-week course on Emerson’s essays.  I found his writings to be fascinating and relevant to the current times, though his writing style is very flowery and sometimes difficult to decipher.  I needed to translate his use of idioms to 21st century prose in order to gain understanding.

So, a question on my mind about Emerson; he’s considered to be a “transcedentalist“, but is he also a “pragmatist?”  I’m interested in the question because I’ve just had exposure to the pragmatists through a short seminar on Social Constructionism through my doctoral studies.  According to Wikipedia, “pragmatism is the philosophy of considering practical consequences or real effects to be vital components of meaning and truth.   Pragmatism is generally considered to have originated in the late nineteenth century with Charles Peirce” and was expanded through the work of  William James and John Dewey.  I believe that Emerson was also focused on the practical consequences of meaning and truth.  Yet he wrote his essays at least 50 years before the pragmatists came onto the philosophical scene.

Here are some ideas from reading some of Emerson’s essays (1926):

In the first half of Self-Reliance:

Our words and beliefs create our reality. “The inmost becomes the outmost” (p.31). We must become sensitive to and aware of our intuition and creative thoughts. We should pay attention to them and give them value. We must embrace our divinity and consciously and courageously use our minds to create good in our lives. We should think and express original thoughts without apologizing for them “. . . that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide” (p. 32) .

We have created norms and values in our culture and chosen conformity over independence. Self-reliance is the opposite of conformity.  When we conform to standards of society, we lose the truth of who we really are. We stop thinking for ourselves and take on the majority viewpoint and belief system. “This conformity makes them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars. Their every truth is not quite true” (p. 39).   Emerson also claims that man is “clapped into jail by his consciousness” (p. 34). We imprison ourselves because we worry about what others think of our opinions and ideas.  Emerson says to be unique. “Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of our own mind” (p. 35). We must challenge the external status quo and learn to know and trust our internal wisdom.

Value judgments of “good” or “bad” depend on one’s perspective and biases. We must stop giving value to “badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions” (p. 36). Most people act out of guilt or beliefs about what they should or should not do. They act out of fear; they are generous or helpful in order to earn a place in heaven. Emerson argues that he has a right to heaven and his good and doesn’t need to do or be anything other than himself to receive good. “My life is not an apology, but a life” (p. 37).

It is a challenge to be true to oneself when surrounded by a world that has set expectations for behavior. Don’t do what others expect – do what is right for you. “What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think” (p. 38).  We want to appear predictable to others. Perhaps we are justifying our sanity by thinking sanity is defined as “consistency.” By placing our focus on appearing consistent to others, we lose trust in ourselves.  It takes a lot of psychic energy to remember our past in order to appear consistent to others. Emerson suggests we listen to our inner voice. “Trust your emotion” instead and live in the moment (p. 41).

A person’s character is revealed through words, action and being. Being is the essence of a character and it shows itself consistently if we pay attention. “A character is like an acrostic or Alexandrian stanza; – read it forward, backward, or across, it still spells the same thing” (p. 42).  When we stand back and see ourselves and others from a distance, we see the authentic person. “The force of character is cumulative” (p. 43).

By allowing the true thinker/actor to express, we allow creativity, greatness and newness. “Every true man is a cause, a country, and an age . . . an institution is the length and shadow of one man” (p. 44). We have the power within to transform the world if we remain true to ourselves.  You need not live a public life for your actions and opinions to have great impact and importance.

Instinct is “primary wisdom” and we are a conduit for Truth if we allow it to express through us freely. We must trust our intuition as Truth. “We lie in the lap of immense intelligence . . . When we discern justice, when we discern truth, we do nothing of ourselves, but allow a passage to its beams” (p. 47).  Emerson is saying that God or Spirit is infinite and available to us. By recognizing Spirit, we recognize the sacred in all. There is no time and space in Spirit. History obscures the light of the soul. “The centuries are conspirators against the sanity and majesty of the soul. Time and space are but physiological colors which the eye maketh, but the soul is light; where it is, is day; where it was, is night” (p. 48).

We must live in the present moment. When we live in the past, we question ourselves and insert doubt and worry. We tend to quote others from the past rather than speak our own minds and thoughts. “There is simply the rose; it is perfect in every moment of its existence. . . But man postpones or remembers; he does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or, heedless of the riches that surround him, stands on tiptoe to foresee the future” (p. 49).  By changing our thinking, we can let go thoughts and beliefs that no longer serve us. “If we live truly, we shall see truly . . . When we have new perception, we shall gladly disburthen the memory of its hoarded treasures as old rubbish” (p. 49).

Emerson, R. W., & George, A. J. (1926). Essays by Ralph Waldo Emerson. New York,: Y. Crowell.

My University (Fielding Graduate University) just implemented a new website.  I recommend a visit to explore what FGU has to offer distance learners.  On the right side of the “Why Fielding?” page is a box titled “Research at Fielding is MINDFUL” – it has a link to a page about my first research project on meditation.  It was a nice surprise for me to see my research highlighted on the new site.

My personal answer to the question, “Why Fielding” is:

The faculty are excellent - they come from many disciplines and have had distinguished careers at noted universities around the world.   FGU has a focus on bridging social research and practice.  They have an important objective to make the world a better place through active involvement in communities around the world as a key element of its research.  The faculty and students are mindful and interested in personal growth and evolution for all.  The program is self-directed, meaning I have lots of choices in how I approach each of the knowledge areas for my required course-work.  This approach doesn’t work well for those who like lots of structure.  The people I have met, whether faculty, students or alumni, have all been interesting, thoughtful, loving people.  I am very fortunate to feel that I have found my home here because the doctoral program journey is not easy.  You really have to love it or it isn’t worth the time, money and hard work.  I do love it.

I just completed reviewing six paper submissions for the Academy of Management conference coming up in August 2009.  Though it took some time to complete the reviews, I found it to be a rewarding and educational experience.  I believe that most of the papers were submitted by my peers (meaning PhD students).  A couple were really well written and the rest were so-so.  I was concerned that I would not be able to critique them, but found the process fairly smooth after the first paper.

This experience will help me in the future when I submit papers for conference presentations.  The best papers clearly stated the research literature gap that was being addressed by the paper.  They also provided a complete set of definitions and theoretical background to set the foundation of their research question.  The worst papers meandered, had grammatical errors or failed to address the promise of their introduction.

These are the reviewer guidelines provided to us by AOM.  I recommend anyone who is preparing to submit a paper to a conference apply these guidelines while reading their own paper.  Better yet, have one of your friends or colleagues read your paper and use the guidelines.

Introduction: is there a clear research question, with a solid motivation behind it? Is the research question interesting? After reading the introduction, did you find yourself motivated to read further?

Theory: Does the submission contain a well-developed and articulated theoretical framework?  Are the core concepts of the submission clearly defined?  Is the logic behind the hypotheses persuasive?  Is extant literature appropriately reflected in the submission, or are critical references missing?  Do the hypotheses or propositions logically flow from the theory?

Method (for empirical papers): Are the sample and variables appropriate for the hypotheses? Is the data collection method consistent with the analytical techniques applied? Does the study have internal and external validity? Are the analytical techniques appropriate for the theory and research questions and were they applied appropriately?

Results (for empirical papers): Are the results reported in an understandable way? Are there alternative explanations for the results, and if so, are these adequately controlled for in the analyses?

Contribution: Does the submission make a value-added contribution to existing research? Does the submission stimulate thought or debate? Do the authors discuss the implications of the work for the scientific and practice community?

The above guidelines came from the Academy of Management reviewer website (this may be a member-only site).

I recently received a not-so-nice rejection of my paper “Higher Consciousness Through Meditation: Phenomenological Explorations” from the Journal of Consciousness Studies.   On the bright side, the reviewers sent back in-line comments which were very helpful.  For that I’m grateful.  Some of the comments appropriately reflected the values and requirements of the journal’s readership.  Some of the comments reflected personal opinion on the part of the reviewers.  Some of the comments were just plain “rude” (a term supplied by my writing partner).

Here’s what I learned from this experience:

Read several articles from the journal in question to become familiar with the writing style and formats of the authors.

I only skimmed a couple of articles posted to the journal’s website before submitting my paper.  I didn’t take the time to read and think about the approach the authors/editors take in their writing.  I would have gained valuable insight into the requirements and criteria for publication had I spent more time reading the journal’s articles.

Ask the editor (in advance of submission) if they accept student papers and what criteria they use to evaluate them.

It turns out they do accept student papers, but possibly only within certain topics or research approaches.  Again, I would have gotten some good advice had I had the courage to send an email to the editor first.  I think I just said a prayer and sent the article off to get it done.  Talk about consciousness….I could have taken a more conscious path in this endeavor.

Carefully edit and/or re-write your paper to fit the requirements of each journal to which you are planning on submitting.

I did carefully edit my paper to fit the formatting specifications on the the journal’s website.  However, format is only a small part of the requirements for publication.  Had I known what I know now, I would have added back some parts of my paper that I had taken out when I presented it to the Society for Phenomenology and Human Sciences conference.  Specifically, I took out my scholarly critique of the consciousness theories that I used for the paper.  I did this to shorten it for the purposes of the conference.  The journal reviewers wanted to see the critique and it was missing.

Develop a thick skin and keep on writing and submitting.

Hey, this was my first rejection and I’ve learned a lot from it.  This paper will be published.  I may even re-submit it to the same journal if I think it’s appropriate after following my advice above….

Fielding University has a Winter Session in Santa Barbara each year for a week and a summer session in Kansas City. These sessions are filled with many choices of half day sessions, small “tastes” of topics that might be of interest for in-depth study. Faculty also may conclude an online study course by having a day or two with students face to face (F2F) to conclude the course.

My two favorite sessions were: “Social Constructionism” and “Becoming an Inclusive Scholar.” This post focuses on social constructionism. The presenters were Dr. W. Barnett Pearce and Dr. Frank Barrett.  Dr. Pearce is the “father of Coordinated Management of Meaning” (more on CMM in a future post) and Dr. Barrett is one of the originators of Appreciative Inquiry. I feel very fortunate to have them on our faculty.

What is Social Constructionism?

Most simply, social constructionism is a philosophy which contends that we create our reality through our thoughts and beliefs.  Language is the medium of thought.  According to Heidegger, we “speak things into being.”

A very brief overview

The seminar began with a “history of ideas” leading to social constructionism. We began with the Greeks, followed by St. Augustine’s “City of God,” the “Great Chain of Being” and then Descartes’ positivist ideas. Hume, Kant and Locke, who were philosophers of the “enlightenment” espoused dualism and the concept of a separation between mind and body (inner/outer). In the centuries that followed, the prevalent view as that”true knowledge” needed to be expressed through mathematical and scientific language. Vico, an Italian philosopher began to challenge the Cartesian vision.

What follows next almost reads like Genesis – it’s the geneaology of social constructionist philosophy.  Weber, the father of social organizational theory, focused on understanding people’s values related to their actions.  Husserl, the father of phenomenology, focused on the internal experience of knowing and understanding.  Schutz, who also wrote about phenomenology, was Husserl’s student.  Heidegger, founder of existentialism, was influenced by Husserl.  Gadamer, who was a student of Heidegger, made a significant contribution to hermeneutics, which focuses on interpretation of text.

According to Hubert Dreyfus, a professor at UC Berkeley, Heidegger defined the notion that we are totally embedded and engulfed in the world and therefore have access to all knowledge.  This idea reminds me of my consciousness studies – where especially in non-Western theories, our individual consciousness is embedded in a Universal Consciousness.  Gadamer said that “knowledge is dialog.”  The world projects its horizon toward me and I project my horizon toward it.  Knowledge occurs in the middle, where there is a fusion of the horizons.

Eventually, the post-modern philosophers have added their ideas to this set of ideas.  Though Foucault and Derrida did not give credit to Heidegger during their lifetimes, just before each died, they said something to the effect of “I owe everything to Heidegger.”  Here are some further notes from the seminar:

• If we accept that we are always living in a world of our own making, we have to give up any sense of certain reality.  The world is unfinished and continually changing.
• We are imprisioned by our language.  The limits of one’s language are the limits of that person’s world.
• If you want to change the world, change the way we talk

Key criticisms of social constructionism

• The concepts are not “provable” in the language of science and mathematics
• There is an implied revolution to the dominant world view – to accept S.C. you need to give up the idea of certainty
• Social constructionism does not distinguish between the moral and ethical values
  of various courses of action (per Peter Marshall – 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems,  Social Constructionism & Pragmatism in IS; 2005)

I find these ideas challenging and exciting.  I look forward to taking a detailed course in the topic to gain further understanding.