A developmental approach to social science: A model for analyzing Charles Alexander's scientific contributions

Author: William R. Torbert

Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/4250

This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries.

Published in Journal of Adult Development, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 255-267, 2000

Use of this resource is governed by the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons "Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States" (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/) _nl ofAdult Development, Vol. 7, No.4, 2000 j(}Uf'-

~ Developmental Approach to Social Science: A Model for ~nalyzing Charles Alexander's Scientific Contributions

William R. Torbertl

A seven-paradigm developmental model of social science is presented (behaviorism, gestalt sociologism, empirical positivism, multi-method eclecticism, postmodern interpretivism, co­ operative ecological inquiry. and developmental action inquiry). Charles Alexander's re­ search is interpreted as bridging aspects of several paradigms, using third-person empirical positivist experiments to demonstrate the effects of a first-person research/practice called Transcendental Meditiation. The author suggests the possibility of complementing current research on TM with explicit double- and triple-loop research on the second- and third­ person practices within the TM movement.

KEY WORDS: Scientific paradigms: first-person research practice: third person research practice: double loop research: triple loop research.

It is an honor and a pleasure to be able to join tiveasks what kind of science is generated when we with you in this journal issue. as at the 1999 conkr­ go beyond separating research from action and begin ence on "Consciousness and the Future of Psychol­ to inquire in the midst of action (i.e., when we begin ogy.·· to celebrate the significant contribution that to engage explicitly in "research/practice"). Such Charles (Skip) Alexander has made to the study of research/practice can occur within ourselves (first­ the possible evolution of human consciousness. Skip person research/practice), in our conversations and Alexander's energy. intelligence. and compassionate face-to-face groups at home. at work, and at play actions amidst a wide circle of co-research/prac­ (second-person research/practice). in the wider insti­ titioners have been at the center of a major contribu­ tutions in which we participate (third-person tion to psychology. In the view I will offer in this research/practice). and in relation to the more-than­ article. moreover. this contribution has an even more human space/time environment (Abram. 1996). In significant future. this vIew. consciousness potentia))y seeks/exercises/ From the perspective I take. the third-person relaxes to encompass the dynamic. recursive inter­ social psychological field experiments that Alexander play of enactment and feedback across the aesthetic and his associates conducted on the effects of the continuum (Northrop. 1947) from the high-densityl first-person research/practice called Transcendental low-frequency inanimate, material world to low­ Meditation (TM) open us toward a wide new field density/high-frequency phenomena such as our at­ of psychological research on consciousness. For the tention (see Fig. 1). purpose of this article I will examine his work from From focusing primarily on a single layer ofreal­ a "Developmental Action Inquiry" perspective. ity (such as what is going one outside us, or what Through this lens. I believe we can more fuBy under­ is going on in our thoughts), first-person researchI stand the depth. the complexity. and the gaps in Skip's practice can potentially attune one's awareness to the work. The Developmental Action Inquiry perspec- interplay among four distinctive "territories" along the aesthetic continuum of experiencing (see first col­ 180ston College. Organization Studies Department. The Wallace umn. Fig. 1). Through such "four territory aware­ E. Carroll School of Management. Fulton Hall. 140 Common· ness" one can study to what degree one is in fact wealth Avenue. Chestnut Hill. Massachusetts 02467-3808. accomplishing one's intentions in real time. OUf

255

1068-0667100/]000-0255$18.0010 <0 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation 2S6 Torbert

First-Person Second-Person Third-Person "Fourth­ Awareness Conversation Organizing Person"

Intentions! ~ (Re)Framing ~ Visioning ~ Cosmic Attentions ~< ~...... World ~ '\.,.-.-.------.-.---~==~~-=~~~=: ::~.::=--::~;~;: Triple-loop I .. ..--. Feedback i ; Advocating Strategizing GlobaV i Thoughts! ; Feelings Human World i ~ ! I , I I Double-loop I I I , I I Feedback I I I ,: Actions! Illustrating Performing Animate ! Sensations World ,, ! ./f , I I. ,.I Single-loop I" t I: Feedback Ir il., Inquiring Assessing I' Effects/ Inanimate ~ Perceptions World

Fi~. 1. Tht: ~pan ()f research/practice.

"consciousness sonar receives pre-linguistic feed­ As I see it, the work of Alexander and his associ­ back impulses as our intent (Territory 1) undergoes ates offers a highly articulated developmental theory "simultaneous translation" into language (Territory of the possible evolution toward "four territory," 2). embodied action (Territory 3). and outcome (Ter­ "triple-loop" consciousness over a lifetime of first­ ritory 4). This research amidst practice can regIster person meditational research/practice based on a incongruities and test what kind of change realJ~n~ Hindu. Vedic tradition (Alexander & Langer, 1990). intent with outcome. Typically. we try sin~k-Ioop In addition. his work is at the center of an extremely changes first: if you don't respond when I speak to impressive body of third-person. quantitative, empiri­ you. I may raise my voice. or repeat my ad\"ocac~ cal studies. These studies typically demonstrate that but add an illustration (i.e. change my behavIOr. Ter­ .first-person research/practice of Transcendental ritory 3 see second column, Fig. 1). If you still don't Meditation among cohorts of many different kinds is respond. I feel differently and may try a douhle-Ioop positively associated with various measures of human change (depending on my interpretation of my feel­ flourishing, adult development, and increased social ing): I change my strategy (Territory 2), mayhe by civility (e.g., Alexander, Rainforth & Gelderloos, apologizing and inquiring whether I've done some­ 1991: Schmidt-Wilk, Alexander, & Swanson, 1996; thing to offend you. If, still without speaking. you Mason, Alexander, et ai., 1997). turn and look at me calmly, I am mystified and may Along with the contemporary studies of adult use this benign pause as triple-loop feedback. becom­ human development in this Vedic tradition, comple­ ing more present (Territory 1) to all four layers and mentary work in adult development is occurring in all four horizons of my experiencing. developmental psychology (Kegan, 1994; Overton, A Developmental Approach to Social Science 257

1997), in association with Buddhist disciplines (Wil­ TRANSFORMING SOCIAL SCIENCE ber, 1995, 1998, 2(00), and in association with trans­ personal approaches (Miller & Cook-Greuter. 1994). In my view, in addition to its theoretical and My colleagues and I in organization studies have also empirical contributions, the work of Alexander and been re-visioning and re-searching developmental his associates makes a major contribution to an ongo­ theory for the past thirty-some years (Torbert. 1976, ing transformation occurring within social science it­ 1987; Fisher & Torbert, 1995). We study adult devel­ self. In the remainder of the article, I will articulate: opment from an action inquiry point of view-how (a) where this transformation within social science developme.nt occurs (and, more commonly. does not may lead; and (b) how the work of Alexander and occur) through our own and others' daily leadership his associates contributes to the increasing credibility practice in the teams and organizations in which of this possible transformation. we participate. In recent years, I have been advocating that so­ Timely, transforming action inquiry catalyzes cial scientists adopt (and adapt) a developmental per­ personal. group, and organizational development spective, not only for studying our own and others' from the inside out in real-time. Each new partici­ personal and organizational development, but also pant begins with first-person research/practice. in order to examine ourselves as social scientists and which generates second-person research/practice the social science methodologies we use (Torbert, within the groups in which one participates. These 1997,1999; Sherman & Torbert. 2(00). Table I offers groups (whether they be r&d teams. sales teams. a first glimpse ofdevelopmental analogies across per­ .or senior management teams) in turn generate third­ sons, organizatmns, and approaches to social science, person organizational and research designs (which and the next section offers sketches of each social invite and support widening circles and deepening science paradigm (how it acts on and interprets the intensities of first-. second-. and third-person world), along with references to exemplary scholar! research/practice ). practitioners of that approach. Offering a preliminary Our third-person. empirical research confirms acquaintance of this "paradigm of paradigms" will the statistical validity and the practical and emanci­ permit me to show the direction in which Alexander's patory significance of developmentally late-stage work can point future social science. action-logics for encouraging adult development In analogy with the four "territories of experi­ (Merron. Fisher. & Torbert. 19~n: Torbert. 19Y1. ence" for persons. conversations. and organizations 1994). For example. one statistical analysis that shown in Fig. 1. the four comparable territories in accounts for a robust 42CJc of the variance across social science can be named, from top to bottom: ten organizations shows that late-stage "Leader" 1. Paradigm CEOs (see Table I). scored at Loevinger's Autono­ 2. Theory mous stage (Loevinger. 1998: Cook-Greuter. 1(99). 3. Method are more likely to facilitate successful organizational 4. Data (or 'Capta'!) transformation than earlier-stage CEOs (Rooke & Torbert. 199H). In another study (Torbert & Fisher. The early-paradigm sciences (Behaviorism. Gestalt 19(2). a statistical analysis that accounts for a strik­ Sociologism. Empirical Positivism, and Multi­ ing 92l7c of the variance shows that partlC1patJn~ Method Eclecticism) are well designed to digest sin­ in late-stage org.anizing processes (Stage 0 and latcr !!Ie-Ioop feedback. For example. in Behaviorism and in Table I) facil1tates personal developmental tran... ­ Empirical Positivism a given study is methodologi­ formation in managers. cally designed to generate unambiguous data to con­ In general. just as Alexander and his assoclatcs firm or disconfirm a given hypothesis or set ofhypoth­ find that daily long-term first-person practICe of eses. Inquiry about the world out-there is carried on awareness-deepening TM supports adult develop­ by a professional observer/researcher who rigorously ment, we find that interweaving first-person. second­ separates his or her inquiry from the observed action person. and third-person awareness-deepening. ac­ (or measured perceptions) in order to generate ana­ tion inquiry experiments supports adult development lytic. impersonal certainty about the past. (both sets of studies measure development with the Ironically, because early-stage social sciences Washington University Sentence Completion Test seek impersonal, universalizable generalizations, [Loevinger & Wessler. 1970: Hy & Loevinger. 1996: they fail to generalize to any action context and Westenberg. Blasi. & Cohn, 1998]). moment that any particular person faces. To learn Torbert

Table I. Ana)ogies Among Persona), Organizational, and Socia) Scientific Developmental Paths (adapted from Torbert. 1987. 1991. 1997) Persona) Organizational Social scientific development development development I. Birth-impulsive 1. Conception I. Anarchism (Feyerabend. 1975) (multiple, distinctive impulses gradually resolve into characteristic approach [e.g. many fantasies into a panicular dream for a new organization]) II. Opportunist II. Investments II. Behaviorism (dominant task: gain power [e.g.. bike riding skill) to have desired effect on outside world) III. Diplomat III. Incorporation III. Gestalt Sociologism (looking-glass self. understanding others' culture/expectations and molding own actions to succeed in their [e.g., market] terms) IV. Expert IV. Experiments IV. Empirical Positivism (intellectual mastery of outside-self systems such that actions = experiments that confirm or disconfirm hypotheses and lead toward valid cenainty) V. Executive V. Systematic Productivity V. Multi-Method Electicism (pragmatic triangulation among plan/theory. operation/Implementation. and outcome/evaluation in incompletely pre-defined environment: reliably digests and responds to real-time single-loop feedback) VI. Leader VI. Collaborative Inquiry VI. Postmodern Interpretivism (self-conscious mission/philosophy, sense of timing/hiswricity. invitation to conversation among multiple voices and to reframing of boundaries; can occaslOnallr digest and respond to double-loop feedback) VII. MagicianlWitch/Ciown VII. Foundational Community VII. Cooperative of Inquiry Ecological Inquiry (l(fe/science = a mind/matter, love/deathitransfof'mallOn pra:CLS among others. cultivating interplay and re-attunement among inquiry, friendship. work. and eanhlmalt'nul goods; seeks to digest triple-loop feedback) VIII. lronist VIII. Liherating Disciplines VIII. Developmental Action Inquiry (full acceptance of multi-paradigmatic nature of human con.wousnesslrealily. including distances/alienations among paradigms. such that (1) fe", recognize paradigm differences as cause nf wun. (.?) fe\',' seek paradigm disconfirmation and transformation. and (3) few face di­ lemma/paradox of "empowering leadershIp": thar f! mlLSl K'urk mdirectl\' through ironic words. gestures. and event-structures that create bOlh a momem'!II-mllmenl and an Inlergenerational field ofchoice)

about any particular action context and moment digms of social science tum to these tasks (but these in which we are participating. wt: must conduct a paradigms are much less fully defined and exempli­ type of scientific inquiry into the situation. ourselvcs. fied at this point in history because they are just and the interaction between thc two ill rcal-flInt' emerging). Furthermore. whereas the early-stage as we are acting. And. in order for any of us to paradigms of social science are mono-logical. regard­ act effectively. with a potential for catalyzing. not ing their particular logic as isomorphic with "the just first-order change in our own or others' hypoth­ way the world is." the later-stage paradigms of social eses about the situation. but also second-order trans­ science recognize multiple possible and actual para­ formations of interpretive/social structures (Arg­ digms (personal. organizational. or scientific) in inter­ yris & Schon. 1974) and third-order transformations play. The early-stage social sciences separate third­ of consciousness (Bartunek & Moch. 1~~4: !'It:bt:n. person. impersonal research methods and voice from 1996: Torbert. 1994: Torbert & Fisher. lW2). we first-. and second-person methods and voices. In con­ must, in the ongoing present. listen for and attune trast, the later-stage social sciences seek to triangu­ to. not just what is explicitly decipherable in general­ late among first-. second-. and third-person voices, izable. third-person terms. but also what are the testing propositions explicitly in the midst of action implicit and possibly unique historical/develop­ with the very persons the propositions concern (Arg­ mental opportunities for the interacting systems yris, 1971.1980,1994; Torbert. 1981b, 1989, 2000b). (including. of course. oneself). The later-stage paradigms recognize that all research Through their rigorous efforts to separate re­ is implicitly a form of practice and all practice is search from action. the early-stage paradigms of so­ implicitly a form of research as well. The question is cial science forswear this task. The later-stage para- how to craft increasingly valid, timely, and transfor- A Developmental Approach to Social Science 259

mational first-, second-, and third-person research/ Let us now review each paradigm in somewhat practice. more detail.

BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF SEVEN SOCIAL BEHAVIORISM SCIENTIFIC PARADIGMS Behaviorism emanates from an assertive, physi­ Here I offer brief descriptions of each of the cal quest for reliable, unilateral control through "op­ seven paradigms, Behaviorism, Gestalt Sociologism, erant conditioning" of an objectified and atomized Empirical Positivism, Multi-Method Eclecticism, external world. B. F. Skinner (1953, 1971; Argyris, Pos~modem Interpretivism, Cooperative Ecological 1971) is the most generally recognized behaviorist, Inquiry, and Developmental Action Inquiry. Each and he explicated the assumptions of the approach later paradigm is more inclusive than the previous clearly. Only the outside world (including behavior one. Thus, Behaviorism treats only the outside seen from the outside) is regarded as reaL and behav­ world as real. Gestalt Sociologism treats two worlds iorism makes the nominalist presumption of isolat­ as reaL exploring how people's and cultures' "inside able "stimuli" and "responses." Its preferred method worlds" result in different behavioral patterns in is the controlled experiment. This method maximizes the outside world. Empirical Positivism examines the scientist's unilateral control over variation and the relationship among three worlds, or three "terri­ hence his or her ability to reduce undesirable behav­ tories of experience" (Fig. 1)-thought/theory, iors. Its experimental subjects tend to be rats and behavior/method, and outcomes/data in a deductive pigeons (who are unlikely to interpretively reframe framework that excludes all variables other than the experiment andfrustrate the scientist's goal). This those determined by the scientist at the outset. approach is particularly applicable and successful Multi-Method Eclecticism joins deduction with in­ with populations who share its assumptions about duction, permits the generation of new variables the world (the Opportunist worldview, Table I) and during the course of the study (so that one learns who inhabit total institutions where unusual degrees during the process of the study as well as from of unilateral control can be exercised (e.g., prisoners, the results of the study), and examines the same asylum inmates, young children in orphanages). three territories in the less controlled "field" in The special brilliance of the greatest lab experi­ addition to the more controlled laboratory. ments-such as the Asch experiments on conformity Postmodern Interpretivism attempts to reach and the Milgram experiments on obedience to au­ back behind the externalization and formality of thority-is that they reveal the underlying lateral and the early stage paradigms that study only the world hierarchical social pressures, structures, and pre­ outside oneself to include the implicit assumptions sumptions through which this paradigm works in the that govern the entire interpretive framework of human world. In so doing, such studies raise the ques­ the persons or institutions studied. including scientist tion whether. how, and when the human world (e.g., the scientist's own paradigm). However. Post­ works otherwise. modern Interpretivism. as we know it in the.: acad­ emy. remains primarily a reflective. rdatiVlstlC. tt:X­ tual exercise. not exercised in real-time.: practice.:. GESTALT SOCIOLOGISM Cooperative Ecological Inquiry explon.:s how the multiple voices of persons with initially often Gestalt Sociologism in effect explores this ques­ different implicit assumptions can engage ont: an­ tion about how different cultural or psychological other directly in I-Thou, second-person. mutual. assumptions generate human worlds that work differ­ potentially transforming inquiry and action in .the ently. Whether in the form ofbusiness cases or ethno­ real time of their lives, their everyday work, family. graphies, Gestalt Sociologism emanates from an ap­ and spiritual relationships. Finally, Developmental preciative, emotional quest to understand the overall Action Inquiry explores how larger. third-person patterns of behavior of given "Other" cultures as collectivities can organize for action and inquiry in these are determined by beliefs, values, and myths. Its real time in such a way as to encourage first- and preferred method is non-interventionist, ethnographic second-person research/practice as well. field observation that generates ideographic case 260 Torbert studies of human groups. By contrast to the nomi­ its very claim to generalizability, it obscures the very nalist presumption ofBehaviorism, Gestalt Sociolog­ possibility ofliberating and self-transforming types of ism makes an essentialist presumption of integrative constitutive rationality that reach beyond inductive, ideas, norms, and selves (Cooley, 1956~ Mead, 1934). deductive and instrumental reason. Thus, Simon's The greatest such studies-such as Mead's Com­ propositions about 'bounded' tationality may ob­ ing ofAge in Samoa (1960), or Whyte's Street Comer scure the overall act of "'constitutive" rationality that Society (1981)-have now become as controversial Simon's work itself also is. as well as alternative con­ as they deserve to be. As others' contest the authors' stitutive rationalities (i.e., those of each of the other assumptions (Kirk & Miller, 1986), the controversy paradigms in Table I). and the possibility of trans­ reveals the underlying mechanisms, categories, and forming from one to another over the course of a presumptions through which our own encultured un­ lifetime. derstanding works by contrast to the alien culture the original authors depicted. The debate thereby, implicitly if not explicitly, raises the question MULTI-METHOD ECLECTICISM whether. when, and under what conditions our own assumptions are valid, and how to test whether they As Simon's notion of "satisficing" suggests, are valid. Multi-Method Eclecticism emanates from a practical quest to increase the percentage of the variance ex­ plained by studies. This approach triangulates among EMPIRICAL POSITIVISM quantitative and qualitative methods and permits the emergence ofnewvariablesduring the courseofstudy. Empirical Positivism emanates from a critical It is currentlyfashionable and in flower in the manage­ (but not hermeneutically self-critical). intellectual rial disciplines (e.g. Eisenhardt. 1989; Dyer& Wilkins, quest for valid cerrain('l-' about deductive!.\· logical. 1991: Bartunek et al.. 1993). Early in his career, the universally generalizable. empirical propositions best-known management scholar today, Karl Weick, (Cook & Campbell. 1979: Hunt. 1994). Not necessar­ offered a fine example of this approach in collabora­ ily identified with a particular method. this paradigm tion with Campbell, Dunnette. and Lawler (Campbell privileges randomized sample. hypothesis testing et al., 1970). Theygathered a vast array ofquantitative studies. along with computer modeling of intelli­ and qualitative methods together into a "multitrait­ gence. These approaches are valued because of the multimethodmatrix" in theirbook Managerial Behav­ crisply clear quantitative. binary certainty about dis­ ior, Performance, and Effectiveness. They recognized tinctions between confirmation and disconfirmation the difficulty of aggregating the world within a single of hypotheses. perspective: "Disagreement between different ob­ Nobel Prize winner Herbert Simon's theoretical servers should not necessarily be viewed as a mark of and empirical demonstrations of the concept of unreliability... , but should instead be viewed as a "bounded rationality" (Simon. 1947. 1957. 1969. possibly valid indication that differing aspects of the 19R9. PN!: March & Simon. 195K Hammond & Rit­ manager's behavior are being accurately perceived chie. 199.3: Turkle. 1991) exemplify the best of such and reported (p. 115)." Of course, still another possi­ studies in demonstrating the limits of deductive ratio­ bility is that disagreement among observers may result nality itself. Simon's work uses the Empirical Positiv­ from apparently noncomparable interpretive schemes ist paradigm. language. and precision to POint toward of the observers. a possibility that opens toward the the triangulating. "satisficing" logic of the next para­ next paradigm, Postmodern Interpretivism. digm-Multi-Method Eclecticism. At the same time. the concept of "bounded rationality" that "satisfices" points to the plight of all the developmentally early POSTMODERN INTERPRETIVISM paradigms. which do not encourage self-transforma­ tion. This bounded quality that does not initiate test­ Postmodern Interpretivism emanates from a self­ ing and transformation of its own boundaries empiri­ consciousness encountering the dilemmas ofaccount­ cally includes the psychology of well over 909(' of ing for the radical subjectivity and fragmentariness of all adults today (Cook-Greuter. 1999: Kegan. 1994~ perspective that embraces every languaged perception Torbert. 1991). and conception. No matter how validly and elegantly The special danger of Simon's work is that, by the strange, object-ing reality at issue be clothed in the A Developmental Approach to Social Science 261

statistical, methodological, and theoretical construc­ date, however, this first-person research/practice in tions of the earlier, pre-participative social sciences, which we all engage is more often stated in third-per­ the postmodern Interpretivist (e.g. Denzin & Lincoln, son, abstract terminology than practiced in first-per­ 1994; Macey, 1993; Miller, 1993) wishes to deconstruct son accounts ofongoing research/practice. For exam­ the implicit, presumedly neutral background of the ple, Fine does not explore how she may act differently objects foregrounded in the study, as well as of the re­ with Jackie in the future, nor describe efforts to do searcher and even of the author ofthe critique. so. Integrating research with practice and integrating An excellent brief exemplar of this genre is Mi­ first-, second-, and third-person research/practice in a chelle Fine's (1994) inquiry, describing how she and self-transcendingprocess-guided by single-, double­ others sought to evoke her niece's white/Jewish, , and triple-loop feedback among the four territories. innocent/victim identities in preparation for her ap­ of experience (Fig. 1)-is a project for the two still pearance in court after being sexually assaulted by a later-stage paradigms and for the third millenium. departmentstore security officer. "Jackie is now being asked to draw her self-as-good-middle-class-white­ woman and to silence her Other-as-bad-Latina-un­ wed-mother (p71)." But, "no surprise. Jackie danced COOPERATIVE ECOLOGICAL INQUIRY through the deposition shining with integrity. style, and passion. She told all as proud mother. lover. Cooperative Ecolpgical Inquiry emanates from a (adopted) daughter. niece, and survivor. With a smile real-time commitment to creating "communities ofin­ and a tear. she resisted their, and she resisted our. Oth­ quiry" (Torbert, 1976) that bridge subjectivities and ering (p. 71)." differences ofperspective and support transformation, New types of validity are being constructed to as well as day-to-day living (Spretnak, 1991). For ex­ guide this post-formal inquiry beyond objectivity into ample, Gregory Bateson (1972), Margaret Mead the relation of subject to object. Four newly consti­ (1960, 1972), and their daughter, Mary Catherine tuted types of validity are called reflexive validity. Bateson (1984, 1990) have all been academicsocialsci­ ironic validity. rhi:.omaric validit.v. and sicuaced validity entists independently, but have also been a "family of (Lather. 1993). Reflexive validity concerns the degree inquiry" in their everyday lives who have acted and to which a text attempts to challenge its own validity inquired together and written about their trans­ claims (e.g. note abstract. unillustrated voice of the forming, trans-conventional relationships. A scene foregoing description of reflexive validity. typical of when the male, paternal Bateson questions in a Postmodern Interpretivist writing). Ironic validity is friendly way whether he and his daughter should vio­ raised by inviting further interpretation hy reader late the incest taboo, and she responds in a friendly (e.g.. as I explicitly ask of you now. since these para­ but conclusive way thatshe does not wish to, is a partic­ graph-long evocations of paradigms can only suggest ularly powerful demonstration of the real-time prac­ their roughest shape). Rhizomatic validity is raised tice of second-person inquiry. mutuality, and discon­ when a text presents multiple voices defining the situa­ firmation (Bateson. 1984). tion differently (e.g.. prior to inclusion of these paren­ This kind of cooperative inquiry (Cooperrider & thetical illustrations. my colleague Oal Fisher com­ Srivastva, 1987; Heron, 1996: Kaplan, 1996; Nielsen, mented on this paragraph: "Can't help on thl .... one. 1996: Reason, 1994. 1995; Bravette, 1997; Bradbury, since I don't understand even a fragment of it. I ~ue ... 199R) occurs in real time with partners also commit­ I can suggest fewer terms (many fewer) and mon: illu - ted to integrating action and inquiry (to integrating tration."). And, finally, situated validity mean~ that first-, and second-person research/practice). In this the text includes not just a disemhodied authorial perspective. one does not first learn the truth, then voice. but an embodied. emotional. reflective voice act upon it. Rather research itself and our lives as (e.g.. "I love Dal's and my differences": see also Mi­ wholes are appreciated as actions. Thus, we act be­ chelle Fine's comments about her niece Jackie). fore we deeply care about truth, we act as we seek Postmodern Interpretivism strongly implies the truth, we act as our sense of the truths we seek trans­ need for a first-person research/practice. Karl Weick. forms. And the truths we seek come to include, not whose own work has evolved in this direction. de­ just reflective explanations of the past or strategies scribes such first-person research/practice in Sense­ for the future, but how our present awareness and making (1995) as a more or less self-sealing or self­ actions work, play, and transform as well (MacMur­ transcending process in which all of us engage. To ray, 1953; Reason, 1995; Torbert, 1981a). Social con- 262 Torbert structivism is an epistemological approach consistent purpose of truth-seeking in that paradigm. Finally. with Cooperative Ecological Inquiry (Gergen. 1994). however, in Developmental Action Inquiry general­ The difficult and important questions come to ization is recognized as occurring one person at a be seen as how, in the midst of participating intersub­ time, and "slowly" within that person (i.e., ~ver a jectively in specific situations, to listen, experiment, lifetime), as slhe practices awareness-expandIng ac- seek disconfirmation (Argyris, 1970; Argyris. Put­ tion inquiry at more and more moments. . nam & Smith, 1985; Torbert, 2000b), and encourage Fisher & Torbert (1995) illustrates research In one's own, others', or organizations' transformation multiple, complementary modes, interweaving cases in a timely fashion (Torbert, 1991). How to create of "observant participants" exercising real time first­ an off-line community of inquiry among scientific and second-person research/practice in their, w~rk writers and journal editors becomes a secondary (Cooperative Ecological Inquiry) with quantItatIve question, and how to create a real-time community laboratory experiments using psychometric measures of inquiry within one's family. at work. or within (Empirical Positivism), and multi-voiced. qualitative voluntary organizations to which one belongs be­ culture studies (Postmodern Interpretivism). comes a primary question. Behaviorism, Gestalt Sociologism, Empirical Positivism, and Multi-Method Eclecticism have been the predominant social scientific paradigms for most DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY of the twentieth century. The enormous controversy throughout the arts and sciences during the past de­ Finally. Developmental Action Inquiry ema­ cade and more, surrounding "deconstruction" and nates from a growing appreciation that different per­ "the language tum" re-presents the turmoil of trans­ sons. organizations, and cultures are complex. chaotic formation within the social sciences themselves to­ interweavings of the six prior paradigms and this one ward what I call Postmodern Interpretivism and the (Pondy & Mitroff. 1979). No one of these paradigms other later-stage paradigms. At present, the two lat­ will win the paradigm-war once and for all. Indeed. est-stage paradigms, Cooperative Ecological Inquiry this very metaphor for the situation is illusory. Not and Developmental Action Inquiry, are the least ar­ martial arts and paradigm wars. but the arts of healing ticulated, the least practiced, and the least known and inter-paradigmatic conversation and work he­ within the modern scientific canon. come a beckoning and shareable (but not easily shareable) purpose. An interweaving of first-. sec­ ond-. and third-person research/practice makes such THE CURRENT AND POTENTIAL ROLE OF inter-paradigmatic conversation and work sustain­ ALEXANDER'S CONTRIBUTIONS able. In third-person research/practice. Ironist lead­ ership creates Liberating Disciplines (see Tahle I and The foregoing general and preliminary distinc­ Torbert. 1991) that introduce organizational mem­ tions between earlier- and later-stage social sciences bers to the interplay of first-. second-. and third-per­ permit me to sketch how I understand Skip Alexan­ son research/practice. such that they can gradually der's work as positioned to contribute to the transfor­ elect to practice first- and second-person research mation of social science. I offer this sketch, not at aU more and more continually. as an authoritative conclusion. but as an opening to From the integrative Developmental ActIOn In­ conversation. Looking at Alexander's work through quiry perspective. each distinctive paradl!!matll" per­ the seven-paradigm lens I have outlined, I see him spective is a positively powerful and henet1l:lal ana­ and his associates predominantly conducting third­ logue of the preeminent features of a situatIOn at person. quantitative Empirical Positivist research su­ different moments and in recognized complementar­ perimposed on persons who are conducting a type of ity to the other approaches. By contrast. each para­ first-person research/practice (TM) in their everyday digmatic perspective becomes demonic if it IS asserted lives, Such first-person research that goes beyond a as the only legitimate kind of truth in all moments merely academic, professional form to an activity (Heron, 1998)...An active consciousness holds all conducted in the midst ofone's life is the most mature ideas lightly" (Marshall. 1995). All types of validity form of Postmodem Interpretivism. One seeks ap­ testing described in earlier paradigms are accepted proaches that, in Foucault's words toward the end of as conditionally appropriate. depending upon the de­ his life, "permit individuals to effect a certain number gree to which one's current aims correspond with the of operations on their own bodies, on their souls, on A Developmental Approach to Social Science their own thoughts, on their own conduct, and this Sacred Cows invite inquiry, or are they regarded as in a manner so as to transform themselves (Miller. beyond inquiry? Moreover, this community of re­ 1993, p. 322)." searchers is nested, in tum, within a still larger, third­ At various points in his work, through inter­ person, intergenerational Vedic philosophy and insti­ views, Alexander also conveys qualitative tastes of tution. So the question arises, to what degree and in the experience of this first-person research/practice what ways is the larger institution dedicated to the through the first-person voices of the practitioners general enhancement and integration of transform­ themselves. This qualitative method gives his re­ ing first-, second-, and third-person research/ search a Multi-Method Eclectic flavor as well. practices, and to the general encouragement of sin­ Overall, I take the research of Alexander and gle-, double-, or triple-loop feedback? Or. conversely, his colleagues to be an artful, Trojan-horse type of to what degree is the institution dedicated-say-to research. It introduces a later-stage. first-person propagating a particular technique for first-person research/practice, as well as findings concerning dif­ research/practice based on authority and hierarchical ferences between persons who engage in such exer­ structure that remain unquestioned? cise and those who do not, all dressed in the rhetorical and methodological costume of accepted earlier­ stage research paradigms. Alexander's research con­ DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION firms both the mundane benefits and the develop­ mentally transforming effects of participating in Early-stage academic faculties and scientific Transcendental Meditation through familiar. ac­ journals issue few calls to address such questions. But cepted types of third-person research-Empirical a growing body of researchers, including myself, are Positivism and Multi-Method Eclecticism. In doing groping toward new versions of social science and so. it brings increasing attention to an initially rela­ are deeply interested in hearing them addressed. In tively unfamiliar form of first-person research/prac­ any event. these questions indicate some of the types tice (a form of Postmodern Interpretivism available of study and reporting that increasingly qualify a to any citizen). body of work as Cooperative Ecological Inquiry or The entire Empirical Positivist project in this as Developmental Action Inquiry. case is dependent on the action-commitments of per­ The Developmental Action Inquiry perspective sons across millenia to certain Liberating Disciplines highlights a mutual empowerment and mutual valida­ (in this case. Hindu spiritual exercises) as well as on tion process among first-person, second-person, and contemporary communities of co-inquirers guiding third-person research/practices. In my vision. instead the fIrst-person research/practices (in this case Skip's of primarily seeking intellectual understanding. pre­ colleagues at Maharishi University of Management). diction. and control like the earlier-stage social sci­ In other words. the backdrop to Alexander's research ences. the later-stage social sciences seek critical sub­ is a process that bears some resemblance to what I call jectivity. compassionate intersubjectivity, and Cooperative Ecological Inquiry and Developmental constructive objectivity in action. We gradually de­ Action Inquiry. This backdrop is not hidden and is velop these through a lived postmodern self-inquiry, sometimes described at some length. but second­ through lived communities of cooperative inquiry, and third-person dynamics remain largely Implicit and through lived leadership practice in institutions and unexp)on:d in Alexander's studies. a~ Joe:, thl' where others do not share our aims. strategic lan­ first-. and second-person research/practlce~ of the: guage. or research/practices. Our research/practices authors of the studies. This is an aspect of the studies' can increasingly teach us how to listen beyond the artfulness. At the same time. it points to queslJons cacophony of voices we hear within and around us they do not address. to those of our own (first-person) voices and others' For example. given that Alexander's research (second-person) voices that flourish amidst continu­ appears to be largely conducted by a second-person ing inquiry. Still more gradually, we may learn how community of research/practitioners committed to to speak, write, and act in a third-person voice ad­ the same first-person research/practice that they dressed to strangers that reliably invites them into study. to what degree and in what ways is that com­ their own version of this lifelong tri-partite conversa­ munity engaged in single-. double. or triple-loop sec­ tion among first-, second-, and third-person voices. ond-person research/practice with one another as Doing so expresses a very different sort of objectivity they continue to co-create it? Do the community's from Empirical Positivism-not, a static, universaliz- Torbert

't'] biectl'vity but an active. timelv. ing of Ken Wilber (1995.1998), Heron offers a strong able, proposl lona 0 J '.. • • transformationallY constructive obJectzvlty. contrast between a peer-inquiry-and-action orienta­ Ifthe TM movement has yet to examine and pub- tion and authoritarian-quietistic-developmental tra­ lish data on its own ongoing second- and third-person ditions (as Maharishi's movement might also be char­ research/practices as an institution, Skip Alexander's acterized). Moreover. Heron offers a strong lifetime body of social scientific work nevertheless il­ injunction against developmental theory per se and lustrates active, timely, transformationally construc­ in favor ofeach first-person researcher reconstructing tive objectivity. Insomecases, his experimentsdirectly his or her own map of the life-journey back and forth involved timely second-person political organizing on among the spirituaL the social, the personal. and the behalf of peace that challenged everyday (third-per­ mundane. I offer Heron's two introductory para­ son) Western assumptions about causation. graphs on this topic: Perhaps the most striking example of Alexan­ der's timely. transformational. interventionist coop­ (A) sound map will not give an authoritative account of the predetermined return route to the divine. erative inquiries is his research on the "Maharishi Rather it will modestly presuppose that what is going Effect." the hypothesis that as few as 19(" of a popula­ on in our cosmos is an undetermined. innovative tion practicing TM (or the square root of 10(- practic­ process of divine becoming in which we are all im­ ing the more advanced TM-Sidhi method) can mea­ mersed. The map will offer a range of possible op­ surably improve the coherence of the local society. tions for a person's idiosyncratic path in a co-creative relation with this divine becoming. Some of these Organizing a small "army" of TM meditators in Leb­ options. as states of being. will overlap with tradi­ anon in the midst ofwar there in the 19ROs. Alexander tion~1 mystical accounts: others will point to contem­ and his colleagues hypothesized that their meditation porary explorations. All of them will be provisional could directly affect the collective field of conscious­ in status. ness toward greater harmony. in ways that would The map ... will honour a variety of routes. and will commend each person to ground their develop­ result in measurable reductions of deaths. as well as ment in their own inner light and life. And the map changes in related variables chosen by a panel of will. in principle and in every respect. be open to neutral observers. Astonishingly to most peoplt:. the revision as a function of experiential and reflective results strongly supported the hypotheses and were inquiry. More radically. the ultimate rationale of the published in the prestigious Journal ofConflict Rc'.''lO· map is to empower people to make explicit their own maps grounded in their own experiential knowledge ~e\"­ Iwion (Orme-Johnson. Alexander. et al.. Il}SH). (Heron. 1998: 86). ertheless. there was great controversy surroundmg. the publication of the study. Strenuous efforts were I agree with Heron's view of the aim of theoreti­ made both to prevent publication. even after ap­ cal maps. but my own experience suggests to me that proval by several reviewers. and to delegltlmi/e it it is possible to hold and to explore developmental after publication (Orme-Johnson. Alexander. & Da­ theory itself in just the way Heron enjoins us to treat vies. 1l)l)()). The fact that other SOCial scientists had any map offered to us. Indeed. it should be easier to difficulty remaining objective in their responses sug­ do so with developmental theory than with most gests the paradigm-challenging nature of the study. maps. since each later worldview or paradigm repre­ Once again. Alexander had engaged in TrOlan-h{lr,e sents a fundamentally different way of construing or type research. this time showing signs of the Coopera­ "mapping" our participation in life. leading us to tive Ecological In4uiry and Developmental :\ctlon skepticism about the ultimate validity of our current Inquiry approaches. packaged within an l:mplfH... J1 map. as well as toward a trans-cognitive awareness Positivist external design. of the aesthetic continuum within which "mapping" In conclusion. I would like to highlight thL' dL'­ IS hut one. highly variable aspect of one's ongoing ac­ servedly controversial nature of the de\'l:lopment~J1 tivit\". theorizing that is central to both Alexander's anLt m~ Given Heron's important warning about over­ efforts to appreciate timely. transformational human identifying with developmental theory as a cognitive being and doing. John Heron (199X) ha" recentl~ construct. let me close by offering several powerful published a book entitled Sacred Science': Penn,,· advantages of bringing developmental theory into centered Inquiry into the Spiriwal and the Suht/c' that relation with Thomas Kuhn's (1962) much debated is particularly germane in this context. With particu­ notion of paradigms in the sociology of science. First, larly critical reference to the developmental theori/- the paradigms elaborated in this article have signifi- A Developmental Approach to Social Science 265 cant face validity as general approaches that have in Argyris. C. (1980). Inner contradictions of rigorous research. San fact been adopted in the social sciences during the Diego. CA: Academic Press. Argyris, ~c. (1994). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming 20th century (I offer further illustration in Torbert. organizational barriers to change. San Francisco CA: Jos­ 2000a). Second. this developmental" understanding of sev-Bass. Argyri~, scientific paradigms helps to explain a major anomaly C. & Schon. D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossev-Bass. in Kuhn's argument. As one critic has noted (Wein­ Argyris, c., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. (1985). Action scie;'ce: Con­ berg, 1998), although different paradigms are in many cepts, methods. and skills for research and intervention. San ways incommensurable, later paradigms (e.g., Ein­ Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bartunek, J., Bobko. P., & Venkatraman. N. (1993). Toward inno­ steinian as compared to Newtonian physics) often vation and diversity in management research methods. The encompass the findings of earlier paradigms and even Academy of Management Journal, 36(6). 1362-1373. treat the earlier theory as relatively valid within local Bartunek. J" & Moch, M. (1994). Third-order organizational change and the Western mystical tradition. Journal ofOrgani­ limits.' Moreover. as Weinberg argues and illustrates, zational Change and Management, 7(1).24-41. the earlier paradigms often continue to fuel work Bateson, G. (1972). Metalogues and Theological Categories of alongside later paradigms. Both of these observations Learning and Communication. In Steps to an ecology ofmind. San Francisco: Chandler. are entirely compatible with a developmental view Bateson, M. C. (1984). With a daughter's eye: A memoirofMargaret of paradigm-change. Later-stage worldviews. organi­ Mead and Gregory Bateson. New York: HarperCollins. zational cultures, and scientific paradigms embrace Bateson, M. C. (1990). Composing a life. New York: Plume! Penguin. and offer conditional validity to earlier action-logics. Bradbury, H. (1998). Learning with the natural step: Cooperative Moreover. persons operating from different develop­ ecological inquiry through cases, theory, and pracrice for sus­ mental worldviews often work or live in close proxim­ tainable development. Chestnut Hill MA: Boston College. Bravette, G. (1997). Toward biculrural competence: researching ity to one another with regular. non-transforming for personal andprofessional transformation. Bath, U .K.: Uni­ interaction over long periods (Kegan. 1994; versity of Bath. Overton. 1997). Campbell, D .. Dunnette, M., Lawler. E .. & Weick, K. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New Indeed, as I have suggested in my comments on York: McGraw-HilI. Alexander's work. given scientific projects and whole Cook, T .. and Campbell. D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design scientific careers can display an interweaving of meth­ and analysis issues for field serrings. Chicago IL: Rand McNally. ods that emanate from different paradigmatic bases. Cook-Greuter, S. (1999). Unpublished Dissertation. Postautono­ Thus. the different paradigms are not entirely incom­ mous ego development: A study ofits nature and measurement. mensurable (though they may appear so from early­ Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. 1999. Cooley. C. (1956). Two major works: Social organization. Human stage perspectives). Social scientific work may gain nature and social order. Glencoe. IL: Free Press. power from the artful interweaving of methods ema­ Cooperrider, D .. & Srivastva, S. (1998). Appreciative inquiry in nating from different paradigms. as I believe Skip organizational life. In R. Woodman & W. Pasmore (Eds.), Research on organizational change and development. Green­ Alexander's lifetime scientific contrihution does. wich. CT: JAI Press. Both the outcomes and the designs of his research/ Dcnzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Handbook ofqualitative research. practice may encourage more of us to explore how Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. first-. second-, and third-person research/practices Dyer. W.. & Wilkins. A. (1991). Better stories. not better con­ structs. to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. can interweave to support adult and institutional Academy of Management Review, 16(3). 613-619. transformation and development. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academ.v of Management Review, 14(4). 532-550. Fine. M. (1994). Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.). REFERENCES Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. Ahram. D. (1 Y(6). The spell of the sensuous: Perceprum alltl Ian· Fisher. D.. & Torbert, W. R. (1995). Personal and organizational guag£' In a more than·human world. New York: Vlnlagl: transformation: The true challenge of continual quality im­ Alexander. C. & Lanl!er. E. (Eds.) (I990). Hi~her staRes ofhuman provement. London: McGraw-HilI. development. Ne~ York: Oxford University Press. Gergen. K. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social Alexander. C. Ralnforth. M.. & Gelderloos. P. (1991) Tran"cen· construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. dental MedItation. self actualization. and psychologIcal hc:allh· Hammond, S., & Ritchie, J. (1993). Models of learning, models A conceptual overview and statistical meta-analysis. Journal of life: A review of Herbert A. Simon's autobiography. Jour­ of SOcial BehaVIOr and Personalin· 6(5). I 89-2~7. nal of Management Inquiry, 2(4). 326-330. Argyris. C. (1970). Intervention theory ~nd method. Reading.. MA: Heron, J. (1996). Cooperative inquiry: research into the human Addison-Wesle\". condition. London: Sage. Argyris. C(1971 ). E"ssay review of B. F. Skinner's Beyondfret'donl Heron, J. (1998). Spiritual science: Person-centered study of the and dignity. Harvard Educational Revie}\·. 4/(4) 550-567. spiritual and the subtle. Ross-on-Wye, UK: PCCS Books. 266 Torbert

Hy,L.,& Loevinger,J. (1996). Measuring ego development. Second Reason P. (1996). Reflections on the purpose of human'inquiry. In edition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. special issue ofQualitative inquiry: Quality in Human Inquiry. Hunt, S. (1994). On the rhetoric of qualitative methods: Toward 2,(1), 15-28. historically informed argumentation in man~gement inquiry. Reason, P., & Rowan, J. (Eds.). (1981). Human inquiry. a Journal of Management Inquiry, 3(3),221-234. sourcebook ofnew paradigm research. Chichester: Wiley. Kaplan, M. (1996). Sexual justice: Democratic citizenship and the Rooke, D., & Torbert, W. (1998). Organizational. transformation politics ofdesire. New York: Routlege. as a function of CEOs' developmental stage. Organization Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands ofmod­ Development Journal, 16,(1), 11-28. em life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schmidt-Wilko J., Alexander. c., & Swanson, G. (1996). Devel­ Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, oping consciousness in organizations: the Transcendental IL: University of Chicago Press. Meditation program in business. Journal ofBusiness and Psy­ Lather, P. (1993). Fertile Obsession: Validity after poststructural­ chology, 10, 429-444. ism. The Sociological Quanerly, 34(4). 673-693. Sherman, F., & Torbert, W. (2000). Transforming social inquiry, Loevinger, J. (Ed.) (1998). Technical foundations for measuring transforming social action: New paradigms for crossing the ego development: The Washington University sentence comple­ theory/practice divide in universities and communities. Boston, tion test. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Loevinger, J., & Wessler, R. (1979). Measuring ego development: Simon. H. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan. Volume 1. Construction and use ofa sentence completion test. Simon, H. (1957). Models ofman. New York: Wiley. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Simon. H. (1969). The sciences of the anificial. Cambridge, MA: Macey. D. (1993). The lives of Michel Foucault. New York: Pan­ MIT Press. theon. Simon. H. (1989). Models ofthought. New Haven. Cf: Yale Uni­ MacMurray. J. (1953). The self as agent and persons in relation. versity Press. London: Faber. Simon, H. (1991). Models ofmy life. New York: Basic Books. March. J.. & Simon. H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley. Skinner. B. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Mac­ Marshall. J. (1995). Spoken comment at Quality in Human Inquiry millan. Conference. Universitv of Bath. Skinner. B. (1971). Beyondfreedom and dignity. New York: Knopf. Mason. L.. Alexander. C. "Travis. F.. Marsh. G .. Orme-Johnson. Spretnak. C (1991). States ofgrace: The recovery of meaning in D .. Gackenbach. J..Mason. D .. Rainforth. M.. & Walton. K. the postmodem age. New York: HarperCollins. (1997). Electrophysiological correlates of higher states of con­ Torbert. W. (1976). Creating a community of inquiry. London: sciousness during sleep in long-term practitioners of the Tran­ Wiley. scendental Meditation program. Sleep. 20(2). 1O~-110. Torbert, W. (1981a). Why educational research is so uneduca­ Mead. G. (1934). Mind. self. and society from the standpomt of a tional: toward a new model of social science based on collabo­ social behaviorist. Chicago. IL: University of Chicago Press. rative inquiry. In P. Reason & J. Rowan (Eds.). Human in­ Mead. M. (1960). Coming ofage in Samoa: A psychologlCalswch ofprimitive youth for western civili:.ation. New York: Mentor. quiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research. London: Mead. M. (1972). Blackberry winter: My earlier year.\. !\t:y, Wiley. York: Morrow. Torbert. W. (1981 b). Interpersonal competence. In A. Chickering Merron. K .. Fisher. D.. & Torbert. W. R. (1987). Meaning makJn~ (Ed.). The modern american college. San Francisco, CA: Jos­ and management action. Group and OrRalll:.al/l1f/ Swdl('.\. sey-Bass. J2(3). 274-286. Torbert. W. (1987). Managing the corporate dream: Restructuring Miller. J. (1993). The Passion of Michel Fouctlulr. !'iey, York: for long-term success. Homewood. lL: Dow Jones-Irwin. Simon & Schuster. Torbert. W. (1989). Leading organizational transformation. In R. Miller. M.. & Cook-Greuter. S. (1994). Transcendence and mawr(' Woodman & W. Pasmore (Eds.). Research in organizational thought m adulthood: The further reaches of adult del'e/op­ change and development. Vol. 3. Greenwich Cf: JAI Press. ment. Lanham. MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Torbert. W. (1991). The power ofbalance: Transforming self, soci­ Nielsen. R. (1996). The politics ofethics. New York: Oxford ljm­ ety. and scientific inquiry. Newbury Park. CA: Sage. versity Press. Torbert. W. (2000a). Creating a transformational science that inte­ Northrop. F. (1947). The logic ofthe sciences and the hunwflItlt'\ grates quantitative. qualitative. and action research. In F. New York: Macmillan. Sherman & W. Torbert (Eds.). Transforming social inquiry, Orme-Johnson. D .. Alexander. C. Davie~. J .. Chandkr. H. transforming social action. Boston MA. In F. Sherman & & Larimore. W. (19HH). International peace project In tht.' W. Torbert. (Eds.) Transforming social inquiry, transforming Middle East: The effect of the Maharishi Techn(ll(l~\ (II social action. Belgium: Kluwer Academic Publishers.: Kluwer the Unified Field. Journal of ConflIct Re.m/w/(If/ . .e 77h­ Academic Publishers. 812. Torbert. W. (200Gb). The challenge of creating a community of Orme-Johnson. D.. Alexander. C. & Davies. J. (!IN()) Tht.· dkcl\ inquiry among scholar-consultants critiquing one another's of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified FIeld. Repl~ theories-in-practice. In F. Sherman. & W. Torbert (Eds.), to a methodological critique. Journal of Conflict Rl'wlwlt1fl. Transforming social inquiry. transforming social action. Bos­ 34, 756-768. ton. MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Overton. W. (1997). Developmental psycholog)': philosophy. con· Torbert. W. R., & Fisher, D. (1992). Autobiographical awareness cepts. and methodology. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.). Tht'Ort"lIcal as a catalyst for managerial and organizational development. models ofhuman development. (Volume 1 of W. Damon rEd­ Management Education and Development, 23(3), 184-198. in-Chief] Handbook of child psychology (5th ed.). !'icy, Turkle. S. (1991). And machines with big ideas: A review of H. York: Wiley. Simon's Models of my life. New York Times Book Review. Pondy. L.. & Mitroff. I. (1979). Beyond open system model.. of 317/91. 1. organization. Research in Organizational Behavior. I. 3-39. Weick. K. (1995). Sensemaking. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reason. P. (1994). Three approaches to participative inqUIry. In Weinberg. S. (1998) The revolution that didn't happen. The New N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualuatil'e re· York Review of Books. 10/8/98,48-52. search (pp. 324-339). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. Westenberg, P., Blasi. A., & Cohn, L. (Eds.) (1998). Personality Reason. P. (1995). Participation in human inquiry. London: Sage. Development: Theoretical, empirical and clinical investigations A Developmental Approach to Social Science 267

of Loevinger's conception of ego development. Mahwah. Wilber. K. (2000). IntegralPsychology: Consciousness, Spinty. Psy­ NJ: Erlbaum. chology, Therapy. Boston, MA. Shambaka. Wilber, K. (1995). Sex. ecology, spirituality. Boston: Shambala. Whyte. W. (1981). Street comer society: The social structure ofan Wilber. K. (1998). The marriage of sense and soul: Integrating Italian slum (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago science and religion. New York: Random House. Press.