Context

The University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW) is a public, 4-year institution located on the southeast coast of North Carolina with an undergraduate student population of 14,650 and a graduate student population of 3,265. UNCW is dedicated to learning through the integration of teaching and mentoring with research and service. UNCW was reclassified in 2018 as a Doctoral University: Higher Research Activity (R2) by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Several factors led to this reclassification including expenditures for research and development over $5 million as well as awarding over 20 research/scholarship doctoral degrees (UNCW Doctoral Transition Task Force, 2020b). During the 2017–2018 academic year, the Department of Educational Leadership in the Watson College of Education (WCE), which houses the Doctor of Education (EdD) in Educational Leadership, graduated 19 of those doctoral students. The Department of Educational Leadership (EDL) consists of 21 members across five graduate programs and an undergraduate minor. It is also the only department in the university with an EdD program. The focus of the department is developing a learning community that improves leadership in education at all levels.

Within the EDL department, the Faculty Development Committee (FDC) is a multidisciplinary group of scholars who meet regularly to advance professional development. The committee also reviews the procedures, policies, and implementation of the professional development process and makes recommendations for strengthening faculty development. The professional development process is a required component of WCE’s “commitment to assurance of program quality, academic rigor, and growth and development of personnel” (WCE, 2019, p. III-9). Each department in the WCE implements the professional development process for its faculty members.

The FDC consists of three individuals with different backgrounds and experiences (e.g., educational, disciplinary, practitioner) who sought to improve professional development in the department for new and existing faculty. One person was a tenured faculty member with a decade at the university. One faculty member was a tenure-track faculty member coming from another university, and this was the first tenure-track position for another member. We were all drawn to the university because of the high-quality student-centered teaching approach and the perceived culture of support.

As our institution has embraced the new Carnegie status there is uncertainty surrounding issues such as the influence on overall institutional identity and culture, changing expectations of faculty roles and responsibilities, the impact on the promotion and tenure policies, and identifying what resources are needed for successfully moving forward and sustaining the R2 status. Several needs have already been identified that particularly impact our own department faculty regarding maintaining the student-centered teaching focus, increasing support for graduate student scholarship, and concerns about continuing and increasing doctoral education without adequate support (UNCW Doctoral Transition Task Force, 2020a). In addition to the changes surrounding the new classification, within the EDL department, numerous leadership transitions as a result of department chair turnover created inconsistencies in department operations, inconsistent application of policies and procedures, apprehension about departmental decision-making, and shifting team dynamics.

Integrating Appreciative Inquiry Into the Professional Development Process

I (Symphony Oxendine) joined the FDC during the spring of my first year at UNCW. We discussed being intentional about realigning the professional development process to facilitate faculty success. We wanted to create opportunities to share collegial guidance (Miller et al., 2019) and build relationships within the department. The emphasis on community building (e.g., Hara, 2000; Morgan, 2014; Sawarkar et al., 2019; Trower, 2010; Willingham-McLain et al., 2019) could be woven together with clear requirements for evaluation of tenure and promotion, especially sought by pre-tenure faculty (Trower & Gallagher, 2010).

In February of 2018, I (Symphony) participated in an Appreciative Inquiry Facilitator Training (AIFT). As a former student affairs practitioner and then a faculty member, I have incorporated AI as an instructional strategy and tool to provide students with methods for facilitating AI as a change process in their work as practitioners for 7 years before attending the AIFT. I sought to become certified as an AI facilitator to learn new skills for facilitating whole-systems change within higher education institutions. After the AIFT, I asked FDC members about using an appreciative inquiry approach to guide our efforts to realign the professional development in the department. We agreed that using an appreciative inquiry approach corresponded with our department’s values.

Appreciative Inquiry

Appreciative inquiry (AI) is defined as “the study and exploration of what gives life to human systems, at their best” (Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2003, p. xii) by focusing on the positive core (Cooperrider et al., 2008) and is a generative, strengths-based approach to change. AI is a paradigm, methodology, and process. Reframing is an essential component of AI as it shifts from a deficit, or problem-based, focus to inquiring and describing the positive core. Cooperrider et al. (2008) explain that an organization’s positive core includes strengths, values, assets, capacities, wisdom, potential, and achievements that represent the best of an organization and contribute to its success. The generative impact of AI occurs by using the positive nature to envision new possibilities and compel action. Cooperrider and Whitney (2005) described AI as “the cooperative, co-evolutionary search for the best in people, their organization, and the world around them. It involves systematic discovery of what gives life to an organization when it is most effective and most capable” (p. 8).

The principles that form the foundation of AI are constructionist, simultaneity, poetic, anticipatory, and positive (Cooperrider et al., 2008; Watkins et al., 2011; Whitney & Cooperrider, 2011). Since AI’s introduction, other principles have evolved, including awareness, narrative, wholeness, enactment, and free choice (Cockell & McArthur-Blair, 2020). The principles are interrelated and produce generativity that is also an “action. It’s not just about generating new ideas of working, but it’s also a ‘doing’ of collective future forming through generative connections” (Grieten et al., 2018, p. 106). AI is not only about positivity but is about appreciating and generating new ideas, ways of thinking, and inquiring into change. AI “creates a language and climate of interaction that embraces differences, accepts polarities, and helps create new cultures where diverse values are heard and honored” (Srivastva et al., 1999, p. 9).

The basic model for utilizing AI in practice is a 4-D cycle including Discover, Dream, Design, and Deliver/Destiny (Cooperrider et al., 2008). The 4-D cycle is one of many ways to implement an AI process. However, all AI frameworks are collaborative, engaging, and emergent. Emergent design is a minimally structured framework to follow the group’s energy and adapt as the inquiry process unfolds (Cockell & McArthur-Blair, 2012). The first phase in the 4-D cycle is to Discover using interviews, storytelling, or sharing into “the best of what is.” Discovery intentionally inquires into the positive core by focusing on exceptional experiences to uncover the assets and strengths that made that experience exceptional. In the next phase, building upon the themes that emerged in the Discover step, stakeholders Dream about future possibilities. As stakeholders are “envisioning what might be” (Cooperrider et al., 2008), they create images of the future grounded in past strengths and assets. The Design phase is when stakeholders “identify what should be the ideal” future by co-constructing provocative propositions or possibility statements for the ideal future. These possibility statements drive stakeholders to create strategies or action plans for achieving their desired future.

The final phase of the 4-D cycle is Deliver/Destiny, when the action plans are implemented and change is sustained. This phase is ongoing and “is a time of continuous learning, adjustment, and improvisation … because of the shared positive image of the future, everyone is invited to align his or her interactions” to collectively contribute to the fulfillment of the shared future (Cooperrider et al., 2008, p. 47). “The generativity of Destiny can also be enhanced by iteratively using AI—making the lessons and outcomes of one AI the focus of inquiry for the next AI” (Bushe, 2007, p. 7). As the stakeholders celebrate the successes and learn from the process, the iterative nature of the 4-D cycle eventually goes back full circle to the Discover phase.

Though AI originated in 1987 by Cooperrider and Srivastva as an action research method within organizational development, it has evolved and been applied in many other contexts. Within higher education, AI has been used in areas such as pedagogy (Bush & Korrapati, 2004; Calabrese, 2006; Neville, 2008), research methods (e.g., Giles & Alderson, 2008; Giles & Kung, 2010; Lewis & Emil, 2010), leadership development (Hart et al., 2008), appreciative education (Bloom et al., 2013), appreciative advising and coaching (Bloom et al., 2008; Helens-Hart, 2018), curriculum development (Bester, 2011; Chacko, 2009), strategic planning (He & Oxendine, 2019; Priest et al., 2013), experiential learning (Priest et al., 2013), course evaluations (Kung et al., 2013), academic program development (Priest et al., 2013), graduate student professional development (Falk et al., 2020), and diversity and inclusion programming (Alston-Mills, 2011).

Embedding Appreciative Inquiry and the 4-D Model Into Our Process

Recognizing the powerful framework that AI provides, our goal was to revise the professional development process using the 4-D model. The next section of this article describes the overall AI into the broader professional development process and the transformation of one component of the more extensive process, the peer evaluation meeting.

Discover

The process of using an AI approach starts with agreeing on an affirmative topic. For this inquiry, the positive topic was aligning our professional development process. The committee then practiced the first step of AI, Discover, into past exceptional professional development practices by sharing our experiences with one another. We also reviewed what our colleagues’ needs were via surveys and departmental meeting notes regarding professional development. This anonymous survey was distributed a year before our committee was formed and did not utilize an appreciative inquiry approach, yet our colleagues shared experiences that were meaningful and generative. “A focus on the positive is useful for appreciative inquiry but it’s not the purpose. The purpose is to generate a new and better future” (Bushe, 2007, pp. 3–4). The following examples from the survey results allowed us to ascertain what was missing and what the future might look like:

• Tenure-track group meetings tend to heighten my anxiety and give me indigestion. The sessions are well intended, but the lack of clear RTP guidelines, until recently, meant guidance was based on anecdotes and shifting expectations. As the reappointment and tenure document we submit has changed, the lack of clarity only adds stress.

• Some faculty members are being supported more than others, and this inequitable support has been recognized college-wide.

• Tenure-track faculty meetings with tenured faculty meetings would be helpful if the faculty member could be present. If we shared the information and removed the formality.

• I have only attended one tenure-track group meeting, so I cannot answer if they are helpful. I don’t find the tenured faculty feedback incredibly helpful. I would still advocate for opportunities to talk with them directly to understand one’s research focus and connection across teaching, research, and service.

Dream

After the Discover phase, the committee identified themes critical to the potential future for transformative professional development experiences. These were the aspirational statements created for the preferred future of our department:

• create and nurture relationships across the department, the college, and the institution;

• personalize the professional development process and assist faculty members in their professional growth and development activities through a structure that builds trust in one another and the process;

• engage with one another’s research and teaching; and

• create a more collegial learning community both outside of and as a part of the evaluation process.

Using the themes that came from the Discover phase and acknowledging the newly created aspirational statements, I (Symphony) drafted two provocative propositions. A provocative proposition is “like a vision statement. It provokes action” (Cockell & McArthur-Blair, 2012, p. 28). The provocative propositions are written in the present tense, expressing our hope for what the experience would be in the professional development process within the department. The first concerns our culture: “The Educational Leadership Department aligns our professional development process with the tenure and promotion process by celebrating our collective successes and encouraging collaboration.” The second proposition is explicitly about the professional development process: “The department is a collegial and appreciative learning community of diverse and dynamic educators and scholars committed to improving leadership at all levels of education by fostering individual and collective growth and innovation.”

Design

We created the provocative propositions to envision a more significant departmental culture shift. After discussing the many opportunities for implementing the change process, we decided to focus on the peer evaluation meeting for reviewing tenure-track faculty progress toward RTP as a critical place to begin this work. Though the idea behind a RTP review is to highlight the tenure-track faculty member’s contributions at designated intervals, tenure-track faculty often felt unsure, uncomfortable, anxious, and confused about the process. We envisioned the new approach to the peer evaluation meeting as a way “to engage in a learning and valuing process” (Grieten et al., 2018, p. 106) as a learning community. By utilizing a framework focused on strengths while incorporating an actual means of collaboration within the department, we reframed the peer evaluation meeting to actualize our departmental values “by celebrating our collective successes and encouraging collaboration.”

Process

The peer evaluation process’s original structure followed a familiar, traditional model similar to mid-term review that “is used as a formative yet informal evaluation to ensure all faculty are on track to earn tenure” (Bowers & Ryan, 2013, p. 96). Previous iterations had tenure-track faculty prepare and submit a report of their teaching, research, and service to the department’s tenured faculty. The tenured faculty would then meet to review and discuss all tenure-track faculty reports together. The faculty discussed the tenure-track faculty members’ progress toward reappointment, tenure, and promotion based on the university RTP criteria. Following the meeting, the department chair compiled notes and scheduled an appointment with each tenure-track faculty to provide feedback from the tenured faculty. The department chair shared copies of the written statement of major points with all tenured faculty and each tenure-track faculty. This process situated all feedback as a one-way exchange with the tenure-track faculty member receiving a meeting with the department chair and written feedback.

We deconstructed the peer evaluation process and reconstructed it by reframing how faculty conducted the peer evaluation process to contribute to our department’s ideal future. The newly created peer evaluation process and accompanying Appreciative Peer Evaluation Meeting Guide (APEMG) were designed to utilize an appreciative inquiry group interview. The tenured faculty and the tenure-track faculty member being evaluated were all together during the meeting. The peer evaluation meeting became a critical part of the professional development process of faculty within the Department of Educational Leadership to ensure progress toward RTP and provide ongoing development for faculty.

Deliver

We presented the peer evaluation meeting process and APEMG for faculty members to comprehend and get buy-in. The entire process was described and discussed. For instance, we re-envision mentoring and annual evaluation meetings being used along with the guide. In the first piloting of the guide, all tenured faculty received a copy of the guide. Two tenure-track faculty members were preparing their tenure dossiers for fall submission. This pilot would allow them to engage in the appreciative peer evaluation process before finalizing their materials. A pre-meeting by the tenured faculty was held first to discuss the personal materials and decide who would ask specific questions (as long as we had sufficient time). We allotted 1 hour per meeting and went through the questions in sequential order. The individuals meeting had an opportunity to ask questions on the guide and probe the feedforward they received. A tenured faculty member projected the materials assembled for the session (e.g., CV or draft RTP application) for everyone to see simultaneously in the room. One person managed this visual and scrolled through the material as needed.

The process was well received by the tenured faculty members as well as both tenure-track faculty participants. One tenure-track faculty member shared feelings after completing the pilot.

As long as I’ve been here, we’ve never had any formal or informal process in our department that honors individual strengths and accomplishments and needs for support in such a thoughtful, supportive, and affirming way. It also appropriately acknowledges the need for connectedness and synergy across an individual’s work. We need more thinking and activities that build this kind of departmental culture.

The new evaluation meeting process was equally affirming for other tenure-track faculty members who engaged in the pilot. The first shared his positive experience with the new strategy faculty and a stronger connection with tenured colleagues after the experience:

As part of the meeting, we were encouraged to share our perceived appreciative inquiry strengths as educators, administrators, and researchers. We were also allowed to explain aspects of our materials that might not be evident in the application form. The committee highlighted the strengths of our materials and provided feedback to improve the submission. Although we had received feedback in the past, the feedback came through the department chair in a letter. It felt impersonal and was easy to misinterpret information. By contrast, the face-to-face meeting was helpful and affirming. I walked away with a stronger sense of my colleagues’ appreciation of my work and a better understanding of what I needed to change. The entire experience was more positive and more effective.

At first jaded about the new format, a second tenure-track faculty member initially “felt an unusually high level of frustration and resentment.” He continued, “After my hostility subsided, I cautiously accepted the intent of the tenure-track review meeting.” His change in belief was evident as he stated he was:

feeling good about my application and how colleagues regarded my work. It was a powerful feeling that my department, not only individual colleagues, appreciated my contributions to teaching, scholarship, and service both at that moment and cumulatively since I arrived. The powerful experience lasted longer than the meeting and immediately afterward but still lingered months later. I can easily recall the powerful emotions I felt after the meeting, including joy and a sense of pride in the feedback I received.

Although the process was affirming for these tenure-track faculty members during the pilot as they prepared to submit their materials, all department members participating in the pilot realized we needed more time for the entire process.

Discussion

In this discussion, we focus on four areas that were most affected by implementing this new practice. First was the embracing of the appreciative inquiry practice. Second, with a unique opportunity to establish connections, relationship building in the department also developed positively. A third development was the opportunity to explore the professional development process and tailor individualized learning to a faculty member’s needs. Fourth, there was the transformational and organizational change that occurred within the department.

Conclusion

Using appreciative inquiry provided an opportunity for us to shape our departmental and faculty community by examining how we have and continue to construct and enact the shared values and goals of our department. This approach has much potential because it was initiated by the faculty. The empowerment of faculty comes from being participants and beneficiaries in co-constructing change and influencing a positive culture. The process of professional development we describe here contributes to faculty development individually and as a collective while creating a sense of belonging through a culture of support. Finally, we believe that sharing this information can improve faculty development by encouraging the use of AI at all levels of the institution to improve the academy.