The Appreciative Design “worksite”

Several decades ago, the institutions responsible for funding civil society at European level, as well as in our respective countries, set out to disseminate the “problem solving” approach. This was necessary because, at the time, those involved in the voluntary sector did not understand this way of thinking very well, or even neglected it completely. So the problem-solving approach initially generated progress. But it was then obsessively propagated and imposed until it became the only accepted approach. Today, problem solving is ‘hegemonic’! It is a particular way of conceiving our projects, but the players in civil society are obliged to apply it permanently, everywhere, whatever their missions. 

The hegemony of problem solving 

Because of the formal requirements of funders, problem-solving has become the way of thinking for any civil society player who needs funding to fulfil its mission. In order to obtain the necessary funding, any project developed by associations, foundations or advocacy networks must be strictly aligned with the problem-solving approach. 

Do you need convincing? Take a look at any grant application form from recent years and you’ll notice that it starts with a section asking the applicant to justify the “problem” or “need” that their project aims to address. In other words, whatever project you want to carry out, it will necessarily have to fill a ‘gap’, a ‘deficiency’, remove an ‘obstacle’, a ‘malfunction’, repair something that is ‘going wrong’.

As a result of the hegemony of the problem-solving approach, all our organisations are now aligned with an implicit demand from all funders, which could be formulated as follows: “Deal exclusively with the things that don’t work in your contexts and leave the things that don’t present identifiable problems to evolve on their own, spontaneously, without touching them!” However, by leaving all the things that don’t present specific problems to evolve on their own, we miss out on a very wide range of ways of understanding our reality. We lose opportunities to be useful to others or to develop ourselves! 

“Problem solving in moderation is beneficial, but problem solving in excess (as is the case today!) has a number of negative consequences. One of these is of particular interest to our community of practice, ClimateCommons.eu: if civil society players focus their attention exclusively on problems (weaknesses, deficits, needs, obstacles, gaps), this makes it impossible to develop projects based on the “strengths” (positive experiences, valuable resources, skills, motivation of players) that exist in our organisations, our territories and our communities. But this is precisely what the appreciative approach aims to do. 

The appreciative approach as an alternative 

If any human collective (organisation, community) functions, it is because it possesses certain assets, strengths and precious resources that give it momentum and energy, enabling it to exist and move forward. Unlike the problem-centred approach, which ignores this “positive core” as a matter of principle, the appreciative approach systematically identifies it, focuses on it, highlights it and develops it proactively.

What is our premise, as civil society players who choose to use appreciative thinking? That our territories, our communities and our organisations don’t always have to be “fixed”! When the strengths of a human community are identified and we know how to put them into action, the community can undergo a considerable positive transformation. Thanks to this transformation, the respective collective will evolve towards a higher stage of development where the initial “problems” are no longer relevant. And the “solutions” that would have been recommended by the problem-solving approach will become unnecessary. So, from an appreciative perspective, the problems that exist at a given moment in a human collective, even if they are not directly addressed and resolved, can be “overcome”. 

The appreciative approach is just one of the possible alternatives to problem solving. But I’m not commenting on these various alternatives, because our current ‘project’ in the ClimateCommons.eu community concerns just one of them: the appreciative approach.

ClimateCommons.eu is committed to developing the appreciative approach for two main reasons. Firstly, because it is particularly relevant to Third Places. These are generally developed by capitalising on the strengths, resources, positive attitudes, motivations and skills of the people who create them. Third Places are innovative sociosystems that develop by looking more to the opportunities offered by the future, rather than to the problems inherited from the past. Problem solving” is therefore a framework that can only offer us a limited understanding of the “Third Places phenomenon”. The second reason is that the problem-centred approach has been widely used for decades in the field we are particularly interested in: “Climate Change Education”. However, as we can see today, it has not produced satisfactory results. We believe that it is now time for climate education to be renewed! And we can only do that by experimenting with alternative approaches, by allowing diversity in learning and initiatives, and by opening up our mental space.

“The major difficulty is not in understanding new ideas, but in getting rid of old ones“, observed J. M. Keynes. We too believe that the major challenge for those who are starting to use the appreciative approach is not to understand it, but to resist the reflex to switch to “problem-solving” mode, which has been instilled in us over time. I’ve tried here to give you a few reasons for doing so…

Instead of concluding

As our appreciative approach ‘project’ has only just begun, I don’t yet have any formal conclusions. I hope we’ll be able to draw some conclusions together, in the course of the appreciative projects we’ll be carrying out. But we can learn a few things by playing with an analogy… 

From some points of view, a ‘way of thinking’ is like a ‘species of plant’. Both germinate in fertile soil, then grow, multiply and tend to spread throughout their ecosystem. When they encounter other thoughts or other plants, they have two options. Immediately consider them as “competitors”. Then their only concern will be to eliminate them, radically. This is the attitude that defines a thought or plant when it becomes “invasive”. Otherwise, the other option is to consider that these other thoughts or plants, precisely because they are different, will contribute to the health of the common ecosystem and deserve their place in the sun. This attitude is characteristic of self-controlled thoughts or plants, which have the “art of self-limitation” that is essential if they are to live and prosper together.  

How does a plant ‘think’ and what can we learn from it?   

– If a plant is beneficial, it does not dominate its ecosystem so as not to monopolise all its resources, which would prevent other plants from thriving; 

– Similarly, a particular way of thinking, even if it is our own, should not seek to occupy all intellectual space, making it difficult for other approaches and perspectives to emerge or be accepted.

– A beneficial plant promotes the growth of other plants by protecting and nourishing their common soil. For example, a nitrogen-fixing plant improves soil quality, which in turn benefits other plants;

– Our way of thinking should encourage the development of public space, which makes discussion and deliberation possible in society. Other ways of thinking will then be able to benefit from the ‘fertility’ of the public space. 

– A beneficial plant supports other plants because it knows that increasing biodiversity in its ecosystem makes it more resistant to external “shocks”.

– Our thinking will have to engage in dialogue, stimulating other ideas and ways of thinking, thereby creating a more pluralistic and complex intellectual environment, less vulnerable to the spread of ideologies. 

– A beneficial plant is self-limiting and avoids “invading” other plants. An invasive plant, which spreads everywhere, will be very difficult to eradicate without affecting the surrounding environment.

– Our way of thinking will also have to be self-limiting, taking care to specify its ‘area of validity’. Because thinking that is “valid everywhere” is by definition an “ideology”. And when an ideology becomes deeply rooted in the collective mind, it is extremely difficult to get rid of it, even if it is contradicted by reality.

So whether we’re talking about plants in nature or ways of thinking in society, increasing their diversity and interaction has beneficial consequences. Both our civil society and our natural ecosystems need variety, momentum and balance if they are to function optimally today, but also if they are to adapt better to future challenges. 

The prospect of climate disruption requires us to foster, both in society and in our natural environment, diverse, pluralistic, relational environments capable of finding solutions to our problems. But also to activate our strengths, our latent resources, our synergies! This is the programme of the appreciative approach! 

___

As part of the appreciative approach, we have developed the guide “Appreciative Design for Climate Activism in Third Places”. It’s an educational resource, open to all, available here.