See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283887940

Collaborative Developmental Action Inquiry: An

Opportunity for Transformative Learning to
Occur?

Article in Journal of Transformative Education · November 2015

DOI: 10.1177/1541344615614964

READS

18

2 authors:

Aliki Nicolaides Leanne Dzubinski

University of Georgia Biola University
12 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Aliki Nicolaides
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 14 April 2016
Running Head: COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY

Abstract

The demands placed on adult learners in early 21st century life are complex, paradoxical, and
ambiguous, bringing into question the ways that graduate adult education programs function. In
this article we describe an action research study involving the method of collaborative
developmental action inquiry conducted with key stakeholders of a program in adult education at
a research one university. By using the method of collaborative developmental action inquiry,
the study itself appeared to create opportunities for transformative learning to take place. Thus,
the study process and outcomes suggest that the method and practices of collaborative
developmental action inquiry could themselves create favorable conditions for transformative
learning to occur.

Keywords: Collaborative Developmental Action Inquiry, Transformative Learning, Adult

Learning, Critical Reflection
 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY                                                                                                                                                                              2  
 

Introduction

Early 21st century reality described as “the new normal” (McNamee & Diamond, 2004) features
a constant diet of complexity, paradox, and ambiguity. Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman (2007)
refers to our current era as “liquid” due to the constant change that now characterizes ordinary,
daily life. This pace of change requires adults to be flexible and adaptable, or risk being left on
the sidelines as work processes, technology, and even mundane tasks like grocery shopping shift
to new forms and patterns. Adults now face unprecedented demands to learn how to cultivate the
capacity for skillful responsiveness (Nicolaides, 2015) to this new “curriculum” that leaves many
adults in over their heads (Kegan, 1994).
The field of education, and adult education in particular, has been somewhat slow to
adjust to this hyper-compressed reality that adults now face (Fenwick, 2003). The result is that
modern rational approaches to learning persist in a time of post-modern liquidity (Bauman,
2007). Current education models continue to struggle to adapt to more dynamic forms of adult
learning while continuing to operate through educative structures that are aligned with more
static and instrumental learning favoring the traditional approaches (Ginsberg & Wlodkowski,
2009) with a focus on training in specific skills or behaviors (Merriam & Brockett, 2007).
Through the growth of critical theory and an increased recognition that education can function as
a liberatory practice (Bridwell, 2012), the field continues to undergo a shift towards more
transformative approaches to teaching and learning (Merriam & Bierema, 2014; Merriam &
Brockett, 2007). Various types of action inquiry are also becoming more common, as adult
education seeks to address some of the major societal needs of today (Ginsberg & Wlodkowski,
2009; Innes & Booher, 2010). However, the degree to which a developmental action inquiry
study might, in itself, function as a move towards transformative learning for researchers and
participants alike remains to be considered.
In this paper we reflect on the potential for transformative learning we experienced while
conducting a developmental action inquiry study into possibilities for different futures for Adult
Education graduate programming. The purpose of the original study was to use a Constructive
Developmental Action Inquiry (CDAI) (Fisher, Rooke, & Torbert, 2003; Nicolaides &
McCallum, 2014; Torbert & Associates, 2004) approach to investigate how adult education as a
profession, field, and practice, could support adults, organizations, and society to better meet the
demands of 21st century life. The purpose of the current reflection is to evaluate the
transformative learning effects which seemed to emerge through the study process itself. As
Coryell (2013) points out, forms of collaborative inquiry are particularly suited for educators to
use in inquiring into their own practices of learning and teaching; in this article we take precisely
that approach to deepen our understanding of how CDAI might prompt transformative learning
for both ourselves and our study participants.
Our paper features the method and discusses the conditions that generated space where
transformative learning could emerge. We begin with a brief overview of the literature that
informed our approach. Then we will describe our methodology in some detail, showing how
CDAI created conditions for a possible transformative experience-in-the-midst of the actions of
the study. Rather than focus on our findings, we will discuss our reflections and some
implications of the applicability of CDAI as a research methodology that could undergird and
support space for transformative learning to occur.
 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY                                                                                                                                                                              3  
 

Literature Review

Transformative learning draws on a variety of conceptual frameworks (Baumgartner, 2012); in

this review we focus on educational theories of adult learning (Brookfield, 1986; Knowles,
Holton, & Swanson, 2005; Kolb, 1984) and the psychological theory of constructive-
developmentalism (Kegan, 1982, 1994, 2000). Transformative learning theory has expanded and
developed significantly in the decades since Mezirow proposed his model (Baumgartner, 2012;
Taylor, 1997). In this section we review the highlights of the theory as it is currently expressed,
having been developed and refined to respond to various critiques (Baumgartner, 2012;
Kitchenham, 2008; Taylor, 1997). Then we briefly discuss the role of loop learning in
transformative learning, and end with a consideration of some of the critiques of transformative
learning that are addressed by using a CDAI method.
According to Mezirow (2000), “transformative learning refers to the process by which we
transform our taken-for-granted frames of reference (meaning perspectives, habits or mind-sets)
to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and
reflective so that they may generate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to
guide action” (pp. 7-8). Frames of reference, which are sets of fixed assumptions and
expectations, are the lens through which individuals understand the world (Mezirow, 2000) and
they “influence their thinking, beliefs and actions” (Taylor, 2008, p. 5). Mezirow (2000)
describes frames of reference as “meaning perspectives” (p. 16) that are composed of two
dimensions: habits of mind and points of view. Habits of mind imply the broad predispositions
people use to interpret experience. Points of view are “clusters of meaning schemes, or habitual,
implicit rules” (Cranton, 2006, p. 37) which function as articulations of habits of minds
(Mezirow, 1991, 2000); they are subject to continuing change as one reflects on experiences
(Mezirow, 2000). A cumulative series of transformed meaning schemes leads to a perspective
transformation, which is the change (re-vision) in a frame of reference (Taylor, 2008). Further,
transformative learning is “a process by which individuals engage in critical self-reflection that
results in a deep shift in perspective toward a more open, permeable, and better justified way of
seeing themselves and the world around them” (Cranton & Wright, 2008, p. 33). Critics of
Mezirow have suggested that this process is not as linear, as individualistic, or as contextually
independent as this description suggests (Baumgartner, 2012; Kitchenham, 2008; Taylor, 1997).
However, adult educators continue to use the model as a tool for learning and individual change
(Merriam & Bierema, 2014).
In the process of transformation, Mezirow (1994) highlighted that ongoing critical
reflection on assumptions leads to sustained transformation. Mezirow also noted that
transformation occurs through rational critical self-reflection and communicative discourse-
engagement in conversation with others (Cranton, 2006; Mezirow, 2000) and leads to
reflectively and critically taking action on the transformed frame of reference (Mezirow, 1991).
In particular, Mezirow (1991) emphasized that “to take the perspective of other involves an
intrapersonal process . . . [and] also involves an interpersonal dimension, using feedback to
adapt messages to the other’s perspective” (pp.59-60, italics added). In this expression of his
model, Mezirow draws attention to the environment and interactions in which transformation can
take place (Baumgartner, 2012).
 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY                                                                                                                                                                              4  
 

Learning Loops and Transformative Learning

Loop learning is a specific type of feedback and meaning making that functions as a means of
adult learning in the midst of action (Torbert & Associates, 2004). Loop learning can operate on
three levels: a) single-loop learning with a focus on behavioral adjustments, b) double-loop
learning with a focus on the exploration and potential revision of underlying assumptions for
meaning making, and c) triple-loop learning or “awareness-in-action,” which is vigilance about
how one’s intentions, actions, and impacts are aligned (Fisher et al., 2003; McCallum, 2008;
Nicolaides, 2015; Nicolaides & McCallum, 2014; Torbert & Associates, 2004).
Single-loop learning is the level of learning and behavioral adaptation that brings about
more effective performance. Single-loop learning means we adjust our behavior to achieve a
different outcome without having to adjust our habits of mind. This level of learning relies on
past achievements and routinized responses to tasks. For example, a supervisor asks a novice to
make a presentation for the first time and the novice reads a book about how to prepare a good
presentation. In the context of the action research group this level of learning would be an all too
comfortable fallback in response to the demands of co-inquiry integrating both task and
relationship.
Double-loop learning means we transform our “structure or strategy, not just amend [our]
behavior” (Torbert & Associates, 2004, p. 18). Double loop learning enquires into the
assumptions that guide the development of action; it requires a greater awareness and a more
challenging degree of learning in order to surface, understand, and revise those assumptions
(Nicolaides & McCallum, 2014). In the case of an action research group, this might mean re-
thinking our strategy for engaging each other and with the study, adjusting each of our
assumptions about what it meant to be co-inquiring and co-laboring to execute the goals of the
study as a group and not as individuals.
Triple-loop learning is the most complex, requiring a shift in our attention, intention, or
vision (Fisher et al., 2003). Triple-loop learning involves unpredictable and un-controlled
learning that integrates how individuals seek and make meaning, and then act based on values
and beliefs that are permeable, in order to re-vision action from moment to moment. In the case
of action inquiry groups, this could involve questioning the value of collaboration and how to
maintain integrity with the process of co-laboring in a mutual discovery process compared to
independent work. Or it could involve questioning our internal resistance to collaboration and
why we are perpetually in a state of work avoidance when engaged with others in discovery. If
individuals and members of the action inquiry groups come to value full presence and
engagement over independence and control, or come to a new personal perspective on mutual
discovery, then transformation has likely occurred.
While single-loop learning might suffice as learning that increases the fund of knowledge
and technical know-how, double- and triple-loop learning are necessary in today’s complex,
ambiguous world in order for adults to adapt and thrive. It is at the levels of double-and triple-
loop learning where truly transformative learning takes place (Fisher et al., 2003).
Transformative learning is essential to help adults transcend the limits of informational and
behavioral single-loop learning in order to foster both perspective shifts and possibly even the
conversion of strategies, goals, and guiding intentions entailed in double-and triple-loop learning
(Argyris & Schön, 1974; Fisher et al., 2003; Torbert, 1999; Torbert & Associates, 2004; Torbert,
Herdman-Barker, Livne-Tarandach, McCallum, & Nicolaides, 2010).
 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY                                                                                                                                                                              5  
 

Critiques of Transformative Learning Theory

Some of the more common critiques of transformative learning are that it is overly
individualistic, does not take issues of positionality into account, and is overly linear
(Baumgartner, 2012; Taylor, 1997). A CDAI study has the potential to overcome each of these
barriers. The collaborative nature of the study can assist adults to engage in critical reflection
upon our own thoughts; it encourages a willingness to consider others’ perspectives, so that we
do not remain stuck in old meaning patterns. However, good intentions alone are insufficient.
For example, when writing about the difficulties of uniting black and white feminists, hooks
(1994) laments precisely the lack of developmental capacity among some white feminists which
prevents them from considering the black women’s perspective, and learning from and therefore
being transformed by it. She argues that although the desire for transformation was sincere,
without growth in understanding, it was not successful.
Another issue hooks and other critical scholars address is that of power. As a discipline in
the tradition of Freire, CDAI is directly concerned with power, and in so doing addresses the
critique that transformative learning fails to deal with issues of positionality (Baumgartner,
2012). Traditional research has focused on the power of the researcher over the participants; the
researcher makes choices regarding the study, the participants, and the representation of the
findings (Hesse-Biber, 2007). In CDAI, with researchers and participants integrally involved
together throughout the process, the emphasis is not on status and power-over differences; rather
it seeks to create “mutually transforming power” which can lead to authentic, sustainable change,
both personally and organizationally (Torbert & Associates, 2004, p. 8).
Finally, CDAI, with its developmental emphasis, does not insist on a linear process; to
the contrary, the entire premise of loops of learning is that feedback loops generated in action
and reflection with others can lead adults into cycles of growth and transformation (Torbert &
Associates, 2004).
One function of adult education, therefore, should be to create an environment for adult
cognitive and emotional development, in order to support their capacity for single-, double-, and
triple-loop learning (Merriam, 2004). Another function should be to create an environment that
fosters critical reflection and a willingness to examine taken-for granted assumptions, creating
space for transformational learning to occur. These threads of the theory informed our choice of
CDAI as a methodology that is focused in timely and transformative action and relies on
transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991, 2000) because we believe that this is precisely the kind
of learning needed in the process of leading adults to grow in their cognitive capacities and to
develop more complex ways of knowing in order to meet the ambiguous and paradoxical
demands of early 21st century life. Additionally, we chose a reframing process that engages deep
reflexive inquiry on and in action (Argyris & Schön, 1974) to bridge the gaps between intention
and impacts. This combination of theory and practice led us to choose CDAI to conduct our
study.

Methodology: Enacting the CDAI Cycles

The question guiding the research project was “How does adult education help adults,
organizations, and society meet the demands of 21st century life?” To answer this question, a
class in Program Planning and Development, under the guidance of the professor and with IRB
approval, conducted a collaborative developmental action inquiry (CDAI) study (Fisher et al.,
 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY                                                                                                                                                                              6  
 

2003; Torbert, 1999; Torbert & Associates, 2004). CDAI is a transformational method of
inquiry in and on action (Coghlan & Brannick, 2006). Fisher, Rooke, and Torbert (2003) define
it as:

a method to explore a kind of behavior that is simultaneously inquiring and productive. It

is behavior that simultaneously learns about the developing situation, accomplishes
whatever task appears to have priority, and invites a redefining of the task if necessary.
(p. 115)

In other words, CDAI combines conscientious reflexivity in the midst of action, along with the
potential for adaptation in the moment. Like all action research, it “aims at both taking action and
creating knowledge or theory about that action” (Coghlan & Brannick, 2006, p. xii). As such, it
works on a cyclical, iterative process and in itself is “a lifelong process of transformational
learning” (Torbert & Associates, 2004, p. 1).
Collaborative developmental action inquiry identifies three main units of experience: the
first person (subjective); the second person interpersonal (inter-subjective); and the third person
(objective & systemic). Based on principles of action research (Chandler & Torbert, 2003;
Lewin, 1948/1997; Reason & Bradbury, 2008) and action science (Argyris & Schön, 1974),
CDAI proposes a means of personal, interpersonal, and organizational development that
integrates inquiry and action. More specifically, by using feedback loops of learning and
knowing, CDAI directs attention toward gaps that exist between individual, team, and
organizational intentions, strategies, actions, and outcomes.
Action research becomes explicitly developmental when it incorporates the expectation
of and capacity for growth (Fisher et al., 2003; Reason & Bradbury, 2008; Torbert et al., 2010)
because each successive loop requires a greater level of developmental capacity to initiate, to
learn through, and to complete. At the individual level, the researcher is consciously attentive to
the perspective they take and the meaning they make of unfolding events; they reflect critically
on their own subjective meaning-making and test its validity. At the second-person or
intersubjective level, researcher and participants interact and communicate regarding goals,
perspectives, and intentions, in a consciously attentive way that gives space for trying new
perspectives and learning from one another. At the third-person, objective level, the system or
organization itself may validate the process through the resulting outcomes, or lead us back into
another cycle of thinking, acting, and reflecting. Thus as we engage in the cycles of inquiry, we
also continually engage in critical reflection about the way we are thinking; this is the aspect of
action inquiry sometimes called reflection on action and it is simultaneous and ongoing with the
process of reflection in or during action (Argyris & Schön, 1974). Therefore, as we conducted
this study among fellow students, faculty, staff, and graduates—the major stakeholders in the
graduate program—we paid careful attention to our first-, second-, and third-person inquiry
cycles.
First, we divided into four teams for our initial round of investigation. One team
interviewed students, alumni, and faculty of our online Master’s degree program; they also
conducted a spontaneous focus group interview when the topic of online education arose in
another class. The second group interviewed several College of Education deans, the third group
interviewed faculty who teach in our adult education program, and the fourth group conducted a
focus group with master’s degree students. Of course, this process was somewhat delicate, as we
were actively engaging our colleagues, professors, and supervisors in a process of questioning
 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY                                                                                                                                                                              7  
 

our own program; action inquiry is somewhat subversive because it encourages that act of
questioning (Coghlan & Brannick, 2006). Since these people were the key stakeholders in the
graduate program and the ones with most knowledge of the topic, they were the ideal CDAI
participants for the study. Once we had completed their interviews, we gathered together as a
class to present our findings to one another. Each group presented its research and together began
to compile a preliminary collection of themes across the groups. This step represents the inter-
subjective stage of CDAI, where together we consider the questions and answers.
The second round of investigation took place at our home institution’s annual research
symposium for adult education graduate students. By bringing the initial findings to a larger
group, we engaged in the process of third-person inquiry, asking everyone present to reflect on
and engage with our findings. At the same time, we were also conducting another round of first,
second, and third person inquiry. During our hour-long session, each student researcher hosted a
round table discussion with five or six symposium participants. We followed the three-part
process of: a) individually reflecting on the research question; b) then mutually reflecting as
small groups; and c) finally collaborating together with all participants to look for themes and
similarities in the data. Again, after the symposium, we met as a class to analyze the findings and
merge them with our first round data. At this point we were still engaging in the second-person
level of inquiry, and our findings indeed led us back to another round of inquiry.
For the third round of investigation four of us presented our collected findings at the
American Association of Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE) conference in November
2011. In that session as well, we invited attendees to participate in the same three rounds of
inquiry as they interacted with and added to the current body of data. At each step of the way,
both generating and analyzing data was carried out in a reflective, participatory process that
allowed space for critical reflection, dialogue, and growth among researchers and participants
alike. By developing our own capacities to inquire at the personal, group, and organizational
level, we called attention to our own and others’ capacity for transformation, especially in the
ways in which we became mindful of moments of emergence throughout our inquiry.
Finally, moving into the third-person or objective level, we attempted to validate our
findings through the broader system. At the 10th International Transformative Learning
Conference in November 2012 we hosted a conversation to present the findings of our study and
invited attendees to engage in a critical review of the CDAI method. At this conference we posed
three questions to aid in the collective critique and discussion of the method and findings of our
study. These questions were: a) How, if at all, does CDAI match and/or differ from pedagogical
practices used in a variety of learning contexts such as higher education, the workplace, and
society represented in our audience? b) What types of conditions do those in the audience
intentionally create to scaffold double and triple loop learning? and c) What discoveries have
they made about integrating generative learning methods such as CDAI to create educative
spaces for not-yet-imagined knowledge to take shape? The focus of the conversation at the
conference was to bring into relief the gap between adult education approaches that met 20th
century demands and the current ambiguous demands that are placed on adults in the 21st
century. The conversation yielded two insights for ourselves and the attendees. The first was that
there is much more rapid prototyping of novel learning approaches in organizational settings
than in higher education and the social context such as community development settings and/or
citizen engagement programs. Perhaps organizations have better implemented the idea of the
learning organization (Marsick, Volpe, & Watkins, 1999) than has higher education. The second
insight was the surprising discovery that many adults graduate from adult education programs,
 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY                                                                                                                                                                              8  
 

yet do not graduate with a developed reflective capacity. The 2013 findings from the Survey of
Adult Skills, a product of the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies
(PIAAC) produced by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development found that
adults in the United States are below average in skills related to reflectivity and critical
reflection. These findings support our study’s inquiry for intentionally creating conditions for
adults to develop the capacity for double loop and triple loop learning. Both require higher order
cognitive capacities for self-reflection and timely action.

Analysis of Transformative Learning Opportunities

A detailed report of our findings can be read in our article in Adult Learning, 23(3); in brief we
found that students appreciate the nimbleness of online learning while simultaneously feeling
overwhelmed by its demands, and that community, especially in online classes, is critical to adult
learning (Dzubinski, Hentz, Davis, & Nicolaides, 2012). In this section we will highlight some of
the transformative opportunities that occurred as we conducted our research. Cranton (1994)
states that “transformative learning is defined as the development of revised assumptions,
premises, ways of interpreting experience, or perspectives on the world by means of critical self-
reflection” (p. xii). One group with whom we interacted clearly demonstrated some revised
assumptions and shifting perspectives; two other groups, although the possibility of a shift
emerged, did not in the end experience transformative learning.
A visible shift happened in the focus group with master’s degree students. Until that
discussion, although they were studying adult education, they had not actually perceived
themselves to be adult learners. Rather, they thought of themselves as preparing to work with
those older than themselves. As the discussion unfolded, however, they began to ask for
definitions of terms such as “adult” and “adult education.” This led them to consider how society
understands those terms and how their own thinking had changed as a result of their studies.
Eventually, they began to realize that they themselves are actually adult learners and that much
of what they were learning about adult education actually applied to themselves as well. In that
one conversation their entire meaning structure shifted to enable them to consider themselves as
adult learners (Mezirow, 1991, 2000). The process of engaging with them in first- and second-
person inquiry appeared to allow the whole group to simultaneously shift their understanding of
what it means to be an adult.
In contrast to that group of students, a perspective shift began but failed to gain traction
with the focus group on the topic of online learning. The students were taking a traditional, face-
to-face course in feminist pedagogies, and the instructor asked them to describe how online
learning could support feminist pedagogical principles. Initially, the group seemed poised to
revise their assumptions favoring traditional classrooms and accept that online learning offered
many benefits. One student pointed out that online classes seem more democratic; another added
that the online environment offers an opportunity for “voice and self-disclosure” to develop. A
third said that both the “creation and distribution of knowledge are broader due to increased
access.” The comment that most resonated with the group was that “you can’t see people, so
race, class, ethnicity, and maybe even gender are obscured.” This makes it less likely that
traditional stereotypes will “kick in” and take over the interactions, she added. At this point the
group seemed ripe to enter into a double-loop learning experience, where they could question the
traditional model of face-to-face education most of them were pursuing, and consider the value
of other approaches. However, a few women quickly began to argue for the status quo. One said
 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY                                                                                                                                                                              9  
 

that she “couldn’t let go of family responsibilities to participate in an online class.” For her, the
only successful way to study was to leave home. Another described her inability to manage the
technical aspects of online learning. A third thought that since online learning requires access to
a computer, online learning is just as limited to privileged groups as traditional classrooms. The
students who favored the traditional classroom were able to persuade the group, so that the final
conclusion was that instructors may not be able to negotiate their power and positionality online,
or create a safe space and community for learning. Therefore, the class concluded that online
learning is probably “not done well by faculty and has lessened value for the students.” What
initially started as an opportunity to reconsider their taken-for-granted assumptions about
pedagogical methods became instead a review of their own personal preferences for traditional
classrooms.
Finally, a moment that seemed ripe for a transformational learning experience never quite
materialized for one group of study participants, though it did for some of the researchers. This
group had interviewed the online students, and in combining the findings realized how hard
those students worked to simplify issues of complexity in their daily lives. For example, when
asked what demands adults face in the 21st century, juggling competing demands for time and
energy was a prominent theme. One student commented that “time is probably my biggest
challenge. How can I schedule everything and not let anyone get shorted?” Another said,
“Keeping up with technology is a big challenge. It is always changing; I feel like I am always
behind. Am I taking full advantage of what’s available to be the most efficient?” Several
discussed the competing demands of work, children, ageing parents, and personal interests as an
impossible juggling game. They sought to define the demands of life in a bifurcated manner of
work versus leisure, and “go fast versus go deep” in their learning. They tended to differentiate
strongly between people skills and technical skills, even though the demands of an online
learning environment require a blend of both. Thus it was clear that demands and constraints on
time were an ongoing obstacle for them as for many modern Americans; yet rather than adjusting
their mental expectations, they sought to accomplish increasing amounts of work by
multitasking, working from home, and taking classes online.
Not one of them commented on the very real possibility that these demands are too big,
too time consuming, and impossible to fulfill completely to everyone’s satisfaction. In the end,
they did not move towards double-loop learning that would allow them to question their
fundamental assumptions about life. Rather than recognizing that their mental models were
perhaps insufficient in meeting the current demands placed on them (Kegan, 1994), they
remained in single-loop learning as they fought to reduce the ensuing complexity and make the
world fit their conventional and well-honed mental models.
As researchers, we were struck by the energy invested in simplifying complex demands
to meet the ideals of an earlier era, rather than critically reflecting on and even questioning the
demands society placed on them (and us) to be perfect parents, partners, students, employees,
and neighbors, as Kegan (1994) would have us do. When we asked what skills adults need to
meet the 21st century demands, some form of being “in control” was a common answer.
“Keeping up your skills,” said one; “learning to learn” and “taking responsibility for yourself”
said another. Another crucial skill was “willingness to do what it takes” thought one student;
another said learning to “manage change” would make it possible to meet the demands placed on
adults. These answers reflect a view of life that appears simple, almost mechanistic. They
seemed to believe that if things could be measured, analyzed, broken into pieces, fixed, and
reassembled, then life would keep running along smoothly (Innes & Booher, 2010). No one
 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY                                                                                                                                                                              10  
 

seemed to consider that perhaps the modern world is more like a living organism than a machine,
or that things interact, evolve, and change rather than remaining stable and simple (Innes &
Booher, 2010). None of them seemed to realize that multitasking, juggling, managing, and above
all “doing whatever it takes” might actually be counterproductive. Rather than evaluating the
validity of the competing demands, they strove to find ways to meet them all in an endless
attempt to “manage” the unmanageable. The problems adults face are complex, perhaps even
“wicked” in the sense that it is impossible to fully satisfy the competing and mutually exclusive
demands of family, parents, children, employers, and self (Innes & Booher, 2010). Yet by trying
to “manage” all of them without questioning the demands themselves, they remained stuck in a
perpetual condition of overextension, with neither time, nor space, nor capacity to develop the
skills they truly needed.
We wondered whether the inability to entertain a new perspective reflected a lower level
of cognitive development, as Merriam (2004) suggested it could; we wondered if the acceptance
of social demands reflected an “uncritical assimilation” to the culture (Merriam, 2004); we also
wondered if it were somehow our own responsibility that they could not question their
assumptions, in that we failed to create conditions for double-loop learning to occur (Merriam,
2004). We were struck by their behaviors of avoidance and of working their single loop learning
into an ever-deepening groove, and we questioned ourselves as we reflected on them.
These participants were not experiencing transformation as a result of their dilemma, but
we as researchers had the opportunity to reflect on ourselves as the mirror of graduate demands
and higher education was held up for us. As we compiled and discussed the participants’
responses, we also engaged in critical reflection on our own need not to simply repeat the same
old patterns that no longer work. In fact, we found that the tension involved in engaging the
complex demands of our lives as professors and graduate students influenced our own
willingness to interrogate the complexity, just as it did the students. It was temptingly easy to
revert to instrumental, single-loop approaches ourselves. “We could reconfigure online classes
this way” or “We could recommend the university do this or that” ran through our discussions, as
we reverted to the machine view of organizations (Burke, 2002; Morgan, 1997). Yet at another
level we recognized that the 21st century world may well require a whole new approach to
education, one that has not occurred to any of us yet.

Discussion & Implications

As we sought to make sense of the different responses and experiences we encountered during
the study process, we realized that CDAI seemed to hold a tantalizing promise for transformative
learning to occur. Both participants and researchers struggled to move from our preconceived
mental models, and from a tendency to repeat our well-learned behaviors, to a space where we
could question and then revise our assumptions about graduate life and education. As we further
examined the CDAI model, it seemed clear that the potential is there for transformative learning
events to occur in the midst of a study.
One reason for this is that the collaborative developmental action inquiry approach to
research allows researchers to engage in co-inquiry with one another and participants at every
phase of the study. By bringing this three-level awareness to our inquiry, we were able to
recalibrate as needed along the way. This led to the discussion of “adult” with the master’s
degree students, and led to the spontaneous focus group with the students in a feminist
pedagogies approach. Taking advantage of those emerging opportunities rather than sticking
 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY                                                                                                                                                                              11  
 

with the pre-planned approach could be viewed as a move towards double-loop learning. In this
way, we as researchers were able to “mind the gaps” in the inquiry and in ourselves, as well as
in the participants, as the research progressed (Torbert & Associates, 2004).
Another reason is that CDAI offers the opportunity for researchers and participants to
question their existing mental models and taken-for-granted assumptions. The potential for this
questioning was visible in the discussions we had with online students, as our study questions
themselves brought to the students’ conscious awareness the impossibility of meeting the
multiple, complex demands on their lives. With these increasingly complex demands of modern
life, when our existing mental models fail us because they cannot attend to the multiplicity of
calls on our attention and energy, we are ripe for a transformative shift in our thinking, both
personally and organizationally (Kegan, 1994; Shaw, 2002). The students’ comments revealed
this tension and could have created a “disorienting dilemma” for them as they recognized the
mismatch between how they had previously thought and the realities of their current lives.
Because of its emphasis on critical reflection, and its willingness to challenge assumptions and
entrenched thinking patterns, CDAI could create a “holding environment” (Kegan, 1994) where
they could test new ideas and explore new perspectives. By engaging in the cycles of CDAI
together, we could create space for transformative learning to occur both individually and
collectively. However, in the press of the moment, most of the students seemed unable to make
that shift, and even we as researchers with a deeper understanding of the potential for
transformation as well as the process of single-, double-, and triple-loop learning struggled to
make the shift. The pull of single-loop learning is strong, and moving beyond it requires
collaborative strength as well as a secure environment.
The fact that one group of respondents did experience a changed perspective
(Kucukaydin & Cranton, 2012) of transformation, and another group at least briefly considered
the possibility of a new viewpoint as they reflected on our questions, seems to indicate that
CDAI as a research methodology might, in itself, create conditions ripe for a transformative
learning moment. The fact that a third group did not experience a shift may indicate that we as
researchers failed to engage, challenge, or create conditions for that transformation, or it may
indicate that they were not yet ripe for that kind of experience in regard to the demands of 21st
century life.
What interests us as researchers is the relative lack of discussion about using CDAI as a
method to create transformational learning opportunities. In 2004, Merriam argued that it is
“imperative” for adult educators to create the conditions where transformative learning can occur
(p. 65) and yet ten years later the conversation does not appear to have moved forward much.
Outside of venues like the transformative learning conference and such specialized events, the
question of how to create environments for transformative learning to occur appears quite
limited. The everyday adult learning classroom may teach transformative learning as one of
multiple adult learning theories, but as far as integrating it into our praxis we appear to be falling
short of fulfilling the capacity and promise offered by the literature. Further, although action-
inquiry approaches could easily serve our field to help us fulfill our historical and ongoing
mandates of social justice and equity (Johnson-Bailey, Baumgartner, & Bowles, 2010; Merriam
& Brockett, 2007) it would appear that we are neglecting this resource and too often continuing
to support an instrumental, career-development model of education that serves business more
than it does the field of adult education.
 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY                                                                                                                                                                              12  
 

Conclusion

The original study explored the learning demands placed on adults, and considered to what
extent current curricula of Adult Education programs met those demands for learning. In our
reflections on that study, we discovered that both researchers and participants had vacillated
between single- and double-loop learning as we attempted to interrogate the current practice of
an adult education graduate program. Reflecting on ourselves and our participants leads us to
believe that CDAI holds great potential to create and enable a transformative learning experience
for all of us. For the researchers, CDAI encouraged us to be authentic, to develop integrity in
ourselves, and to be consciously aware of the gaps in our ways of knowing (Torbert &
Associates, 2004). At the intersubjective level, CDAI encouraged mutuality rather than
hierarchy, encouraging us to learn from and be transformed by our interactions with one another
and our participants (Torbert & Associates, 2004). And at the social and communal, or objective
level, it offered the ability to tackle complex problems and allow solutions to emerge, rather
than using linear methods to arrive at relatively predetermined answers (Shaw, 2002).
Because it could allow space for transformative experience-in-the-midst of the actions,
we believe that using a CDAI approach to a study could create conditions where the study itself
might become a transformative learning experience. Our findings offer tantalizing hints of ways
in which graduate Adult Education programs might adjust to more transformative approaches to
teaching and learning (Bierema, 2010; Merriam & Brockett, 2007). Further research on CDAI as
a means for promoting transformative learning seems warranted, and could provide additional
support for the suggestions we have presented here.
As we discussed, early 21st century life places unprecedented demands on adults to learn
how to cultivate the capacity for skillful responsiveness. Transformative learning is necessary for
effective shifts in frames of reference to occur. CDAI appears to provide a space within which
the growth of critical reflection could be possible, and in which shifts in perspective might
emerge. Using CDAI allowed for possibilities for different futures for Adult Education graduate
programs to be generated in our study. We would suggest that use of the method could provide
the same learning environment for a range of problems facing adults. CDAI could be used not
only in academic settings, but in corporate and community settings as well. Each time we lead
adults into developing the capacities for transformative learning, we are one step closer to
discovering how to move forward together (Shaw, 2002) in these times.
 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY                                                                                                                                                                              13  
 

References

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bauman, Z. (2007). Liquid times: Living in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Baumgartner, L. M. (2012). Mezirow's theory of transformative learning from 1975 to present.

In E. W. Taylor & P. Cranton (Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory,

research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bierema, L. L. (2010). Professional identity. In C. E. Kasworm, A. D. Rose & J. M. Ross-

Gordon (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 135-146). Los Angeles,

CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Bridwell, S. D. (2012). A constructive-developmental perspective on the transformative learning

of adults marginalized by race, class, and gender. Adult education quarterly, 63(2), 127-

146.

Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Chandler, D., & Torbert, W. R. (2003). Transforming inquiry and action by interweaving 27

flavors of action research. Action Research, 1(2), 133-152.

Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2006). Doing action research in your own organization (2 ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY                                                                                                                                                                              14  
 

Coryell, J. E. (2013). Collaborative, comparative inquiry and transformative cross-cultural adult

learning and teaching: A western educator metanarrative and inspiring a global vision.

Adult education quarterly, 63(4), 299-320.

Cranton, P. (1994). Understanding and promoting transformative learning. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for

educators of adults (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cranton, P., & Wright, B. (2008). The transformative educator as learning companion. Journal of

Transformative Education, 6(1), 33-47.

Dzubinski, L., Hentz, B., Davis, K. L., & Nicolaides, A. (2012). Envisioning an adult learning

graduate program for the early 21st century: A developmental action inquiry study. Adult

Learning, 23(3), 103. doi: 10.1177/1045159512452844

Fenwick, T. J. (2003). Learning through experience: Troubling orthodoxies and intersecting

questions. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

Fisher, D., Rooke, D., & Torbert, W. R. (2003). Personal and organizational transformations:

Through action inquiry. London, UK: Edge \Work Press.

Ginsberg, M. B., & Wlodkowski, R. J. (2009). Diversity and motivation: Culturally responsive

teaching in college (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2007). Feminist research: Exploring the interconnections of episemology,

methodology, and method. In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research:

Theory and praxis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY:

Routledge.
 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY                                                                                                                                                                              15  
 

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative

rationality for public policy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Johnson-Bailey, J., Baumgartner, L. M., & Bowles, T. A. (2010). Social justice in adult and

continuing education: Laboring in the fields of reality and hope. In C. E. Kasworm, A.

D. Rose & J. M. Ross-Gordon (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp.

339-349). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problems and process in human development. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R. (2000). What "form" transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to

transformative learning. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation (pp. 35-70).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kitchenham, A. (2008). The evolution of John Mezirow's transformative learning theory.

Journal of Transformative Education, 6(2), 104-123. doi: 10.1177/1541344608322678

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The Adult Learner: The Definitive

Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development (6th ed.). Burlington,

MA: Elsevier.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kucukaydin, I., & Cranton, P. (2012). Critically questioning the discourse of transformative

learning theory. Adult education quarterly, XX(X), 1-14. doi:

10.1177/0741713612439090
 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY                                                                                                                                                                              16  
 

Lewin, K. (1948/1997). Action research and minority problems. In K. Lewin (Ed.), Resolving

social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics (pp. 144-154). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Marsick, V. J., Volpe, M., & Watkins, K. E. (1999). Theory and practice of informal learning in

the knowledge era. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1, 80-95.

McCallum, D. C. (2008). Exploring the implications of a hidden diversity in group relations’

conference learning: A developmental perspective. (EdD), Teachers College, Columbia

University, New York, NY.

McNamee, R., & Diamond, D. (2004). The new normal: Great opportunities in a time of great

risk. New York, NY: The Penguin Group.

Merriam, S. B. (2004). The role of cognitive development in Mezirow's transformational

learning theory. Adult education quarterly, 55(1), 60. doi: 10.1177/0741713604268891

Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2014). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., & Brockett, R. G. (2007). The profession and practice of adult education: An

introduction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning San Francisco, CA: Jossy-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult education quarterly, 44(4), 222-

232.

Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in

progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTION INQUIRY                                                                                                                                                                              17  
 

Nicolaides, A. (2015). Generative learning: Adults learning within ambiguity. Adult education

quarterly, 1-17. doi: 10.1177/0741713614568887

Nicolaides, A., & McCallum, D. (2014). Inquiry in action for learning in turbulent times:

exploring the connections between transformative learning and adaptive leadership.

Journal of Transformative Education, 1-15. doi: 10.1177/1541344614540333

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research:

Participative inquiry and practice. London, UK: Sage Publications, Inc.

Shaw, P. (2002). Changing conversations in organizations: A complexity approach to change.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Taylor, E. W. (1997). Building upon the theoretical debate: A critical review of the empirical

studies of Mezirow's transformative learning theory. Adult education quarterly, 48(1),

34-59. doi: 10.1177/074171369704800104

Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), Third update on

adult learning theory (pp.5-15) New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no.

119. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Torbert, W. R. (1999). The distinctive questions developmental action inquiry asks. Management

Learning, 30(2), 189-206. doi: 10.1177/1350507699302006

Torbert, W. R., & Associates. (2004). Action inquiry: The secret of timely and transforming

leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Torbert, W. R., Herdman-Barker, E., Livne-Tarandach, R., McCallum, D., & Nicolaides, A.

(2010). Developmental action inquiry: A distinct integral approach that integrates theory,

practice, and research in action. In S. Esbjorn-Hargens et al. (Ed.), Integral Theory in

Action. New York, NY: SUNY Press.