Looks like I need to be a little clearer. Merely to describe what is working at present is to be stagnant. That we can describe, for example, that a heavy armored force is able to conduct a forced entry operation (like the run into Baghdad) successfully, makes little difference. However, if one is working to understand/explain why what works today is working, then one has a basis for getting ahead. To continue the forced entry example, an explanation that tells us why the heavy armored force is able to be successful and why it may (or may not) be better/more successful than using a light infantry force for the same kind of operation would be valuable for informing/planning/evaluating what might be a way ahead (Of course we also need to be able to explain/describe/appreciate what it means to be successful and to justify making the normative judgements that one approach will be more or less successful, i.e.,a better or worse, than another.) If endeavoring to explain why something is working is the sense of "appreciative" that is operative in appreciative inquiry, then I think it has merit as an approach.
Bookmarks