William R. Torbert - Abstract

<  back to publication list

Download Draft Paper

Listening into the Dark:

An essay testing the validity and efficacy of
developmental action inquiry for describing and encouraging
the transformation of self, society, and scientific inquiry

Developmental action inquiry (DAI) is introduced as a meta-paradigmatic approach to social science and social action that encompasses seven other more familiar paradigms (e.g. behaviorism, empirical positivism, and postmodern interpretivism) and that triangulates among third-person, objectivity-seeking social scientific inquiry, second-person, transformational, mutuality-seeking political inquiry, and first-person, adult, spiritual inquiry and consciousness development in the emerging present. DAI tests findings, not only against third-person criteria of validity as do quantitative, positivist studies and qualitative, interpretive studies, but also against first- and second-person criteria of validity, as well as criteria of efficacy in action. DAI introduces the possibility of treating, not just formal third-person studies, but any and all activities in one’s daily life in an inquiring manner. The aim of this differently-scientific approach is not only theoretical, generalizable knowledge, but also knowledge that generates increasingly timely action in particular cases in the relationships that mean the most to the inquirer. To illustrate, all three types of validity-testing are applied to a specific study of intended transformation in ten organizations, in order to explore why the DAI approach explains unusually high percentages of the variance in whether or not the organizations actually transform. The ten organization study found that the Harthill Leadership Development Profile (a reliable, validated measure of developmental action-logic) of the organization’s CEO and lead consultant predicted 59% of the variance, beyond the .01 level, in whether and how the organization transformed (as rated by three scorers who achieved between .90 and 1.0 reliability). The essay concludes with a comparison between the empirical positivist paradigm of inquiry and the developmental action inquiry paradigm.