Future  research

172   Contributions    

automatically  judges  the  sensation  of  coldness  as  something  very  negative.  Even  if  P21  had  used   a  more  neutral  word,  such  as  cold,  this  is  still  a  word  that  has  been  used  in  relation  to  many   complex  metaphors  that  has  placed  the  word  in  evaluative  contexts.  Thus,  the  moment  a  word  is   used  to  describe  the  primary  metaphor,  the  history  of  this  word  may  add  something  to  this   metaphor.  Thus,  if  experiencing  through  primary  metaphors  is  a  matter  of  experiencing  a   phenomenon  in  terms  of  sensory-­‐motor  experience,  then  this  action  is  not  exactly  the  same  as   naming  this  sensory  experience,  since  naming  is  already  evoking  complex  metaphors.  Naming  the   sensory  experience  can  be  seen  as  a  way  to  describe  the  experience  that  already  happened  

wordlessly.  For  example,  when  in  AI,  the  participants  spent  time  on  creating  poems,  photographs,   and  drawings  that  evoked  the  same  sensory  experience  as  the  problematic  situation  they  are   exploring,  it  can  be  seen  as  an  activity  that  makes  them  spend  time  sensing  the  actual  sensory   experience  they  use  to  represent  the  problem  –  i.e.  the  simulation.  The  minute  this  simulation  is   called  something,  the  words  used  are  likely  to  evoke  a  complex  metaphor  and,  thus,  a  context  for   evaluation  of  the  sensory  experience.  To  lessen  this  effect,  it  is  important  to  encourage  the  use  of  

‘neutral’  sensory  words  (i.e.  the  sensory  word  cold  rather  than  value  laden  word  ‘indefrossen’)   and  to  encourage  taking  time  to  sense,  before  putting  words  to  the  sensation.  

The  two  practical  contributions  discussed  in  this  section  seem  valid  for  the  facilitation  of  AI  and   MI,  probably  valid  for  other  ABMs  as  well,  and  possibly  valid  for  management  education  in   general,  when  engaging  with  problematic  situations  the  participants  do  not  know  how  to  deal   with.  

7.4. Future  research  

Above,  I  have  suggested  several  areas  for  future  research.  In  this  section,  I  summarise  these  and   provide  further  suggestions  for  future  research.  

7.4.1. New  focus  for  research  on  ABMs  in  management  education  

The  main  contribution  to  the  field  of  ABMs  in  management  education  was  the  view  of  ABMs  as   methods  for  producing  experience  that  later  could  be  used  to  enable  and  support  particular  ways   of  perceiving  and  acting.  This  view  brings  a  particular  perspective  to  the  field  of  ABMs  in  

management  education.  From  this  perspective,  future  research  should  focus  on  asking:  

• What  kinds  of  experience  does  the  inclusion  of  art  and  art  processes  in  learning  interventions   enable?  

Contributions   173  

• How  does  having  had  these  experiences  impact  the  way  managers  perceive  and  act?  

Answering  these  questions  could  include  an  analysis  of  the  kind  of  interactions  participants  may   experience  with  each  other,  with  the  facilitator,  and  with  their  own  moment-­‐to-­‐moment  

experience  during  interventions  where  art  and  art  processes  are  included.  I  believe  this  is  a  more   fruitful  focus  than  the  focus  on  defining  what  kind  of  data  ABMs  enable  participants  to  reflect   upon,  or  what  learning  outcomes  or  even  what  learning  processes  ABMs  facilitate.    

To  illustrate  this  focus  further,  one  could  say  that  the  AI  uses  art  creation  to  create  an  experience   of  non-­‐evaluative,  sensory  perception,  and  that  managers  can  learn  to  let  go  of  judgments  about   others  or  about  themselves  from  having  this  experience.  Similarly,  MI  uses  art  creation  to  create   an  experience  of  connecting  previously  unconnected  experiences,  and  managers  can  learn  to   import  behaviour.    

I  will  now  look  at  some  more  specific  research  projects  this  general  research  programme  could   include.  

7.4.2. Other  ABMs  beyond  AI  and  MI  

AI  and  MI  are  just  two  particular  ABMs.  Future  research  could  explore  what  kind  of  art-­‐based   processes  beyond  AI  and  MI  are  used  today,  and  whether  these  also  generate  learning  outcomes   that  match  the  experience  enabled  by  their  particular  way  of  using  art  in  the  learning  

intervention.  To  give  an  impression  of  the  breadth  of  the  ways  in  which  ABMs  use  art,  consider   the  following  types  of  ABMs:  

Sometimes,  the  managers  will  create  the  metaphors  themselves  using  art-­‐based  media  (as  in  MI).  

In  other  cases,  the  facilitator  will  select  works  of  art  that  he  thinks  are  good  metaphors  (Cowan,   2007).  In  yet  other  cases,  an  artist  is  commissioned  to  create  works  of  art  for  a  specific  

organisation  that  will  create  debate  and  raise  awareness  about  specific  organisational  issues  or   themes  (Barry  &  Meisiek,  2010b).  Sometimes  the  metaphors  will  represent  a  problematic   situation  (as  in  MI),  but  other  times  it  will  represent  abstract  concepts  of  importance  to  

managerial  work  (Cowan,  2007),  the  managers  self-­‐understanding  (Wicks  &  Rippin,  2010),  the   organisation’s  strategy  (Darsø,  2004;  Heracleous  &  Jacobs,  2008),  or  the  organisational  identity   (Stefan  Meisiek  &  Hatch,  2008).  Sometimes  art  is  used  because  it  can  create  naturalistic  

reenactments  of  situations  at  work,  including  emotional  and  physical  dimensions  that  can  be  lost   in  rational  conversational  approaches,  as  is  the  case  in  forum  theatre  (Gibb,  2004).  Sometimes  art  

174   Contributions    

is  used  because  it  can  generate  new  insight  exactly  by  moving  the  conversation  to  a  parallel   universe  that  does  not  reflect  the  work  life  naturalistically.  For  example,  when  leadership  is   explored  through  leading  and  following  in  dance  (Springborg  &  Sutherland,  2014).  Sometimes,   part  of  the  ABMs  is  a  facilitated  reflection  aiming  at  extracting  learning  from  the  experience  and   translating  it  into  something  applicable  in  the  work  context.  Sometimes  there  is  no  such  

facilitated  translation,  and  there  is  a  belief  that  the  experience  impacts  work  life  on  its  own   (Romanowska  et  al.,  2011).    

All  of  these  different  ways  of  using  art  in  learning  interventions  are  likely  to  enable  different   kinds  of  experiences,  and  these  experiences  are  likely  to  have  different  kinds  of  impacts  on  how   managers  perceive  and  act.  Future  research  could  explore  these  different  ABMs    

It  is  important  here  to  mention  that  it  is  not  easy  to  predict  how  having  a  particular  experience   affects  how  managers  perceive  and  engage  with  work  situations.  I  cannot  imagine  that  I  could   have  predicted  that  experiencing  creating  metaphors  would  have  enabled  import  of  behaviour,  or   even  that  focusing  on  sensory  experience  would  have  enabled  a  more  non-­‐judgmental  perception   of  self  and  others.  Even  if  these  effects  seem  almost  obvious  once  they  are  formulated.  Thus,  I   believe  that  empirical  research  is  a  necessary  part  of  answering  the  above  questions.    

7.4.3. Refining  MI  

Whereas  80%  of  the  participants  in  the  AI  groups  experienced  removal  of  judgments,  only  45%  

of  the  participants  in  the  MI  groups  experienced  import  of  behaviour.  In  the  analysis,  I  found  that   those  who  experienced  import  of  behaviour  created  new  complex  metaphors  based  on  different   primary  metaphors.  As  mentioned  in  section  5.4.6,  future  research  could  explore  whether  a   version  of  MI,  specifically  designed  to  generate  new  complex  metaphors  based  on  different   primary  metaphors,  would  increase  the  likelihood  of  participants  importing  new  behaviour.  

7.4.4. Artists’  complex  and  primary  metaphors  for  working  with  art  

My  original  intention  when  creating  AI  was  to  find  a  way  to  take  people  who  were  not  familiar   with  creating  art,  through  a  process  that  resembled  the  process  I,  personally,  go  through  when   engaging  with  art  creation  –  whether  it  is  poetry,  music,  or  dance.  Thus,  AI  is  modeled  on  my  own   approach  to  art  creation.  Thus,  AI  can  be  seen  as  embodying  the  metaphors  I  use  to  support  and   enable  my  particular  way  of  engaging  with  art  creation.  It  is  very  likely  that  other  artists  have   different  metaphors,  which  support  and  enable  their  particular  ways  of  engaging  with  art  

Contributions   175   creation.  Furthermore,  engaging  in  art  appreciation/contemplation  may  be  supported  by  yet   other  metaphors.    

For  example,  I  use  the  primary  metaphor  of  receiving,  for  both  art  creation  and  art  appreciation.  I   sense  an  object  and  receive  whatever  this  perception  triggers.  I  also  use  the  metaphor  of  interest.  

I  try  to  find  something  I’m  truly  interested  in  and  focus  my  awareness  on  that  for  an  extended   period  of  time.  These  metaphors  are  very  much  embedded  in  the  way  I  facilitate  AI  and  MI,  and   thus,  participants  are  likely  to  experience  how  it  is  to  engage  with  art-­‐creation  through  these   metaphors.    

Future  research  could  focus  on  formulating  primary  and  complex  metaphors  other  artists  use  to   support  and  enable  their  own  practices  of  art  creation  and  art  appreciation.  

7.4.5. The  impact  of  reflection  and/or  framing  on  ABMs  

As  mentioned  in  section  5.3.2,  I  did  not  find  clear  evidence  for  any  specific  effects  of  the  pre-­‐

interview  in  combination  with  either  AI  or  MI.  However,  reading  through  the  material  gave  me  a   hunch  that  the  pre-­‐interview  might  frame  the  intervention  in  a  way  that  on  one  hand  limits  its   potential  and  on  the  other  hand  makes  people  feel  more  safe  by  creating  a  sense  of  

understanding  the  purpose  of  the  intervention.  Future  research  could  explore  this  hunch.    

7.4.6. Other  effects  of  AI  and  MI  

As  mentioned  in  section  5.7.1,  AI,  MI,  and  interviewing  might  have  had  different  impacts  on  the   participants’  ability  to  produce  richer  descriptions  of  the  problematic  situation  by  including   emotions  and  sensory  experience  in  their  descriptions  –  as  claimed  by  authors  promoting  ABMs   as  a  way  of  supporting  reflexivity  (Cunliffe,  2002;  Sutherland,  2013).  Similarly,  the  different   interventions  may  also  have  had  different  impacts  on  participants’  ability  to  challenge  and  

develop  their  own  perceptions  through  active  experimentation  and  dialogue,  rather  than  through   theorising  or  through  making  and  interpreting  observations  without  direct  dialogue.  As  

mentioned,  I  did  not  explore  these  effects  in  detail,  because  the  participants  had  different  skill   levels  at  the  start  of  the  research  and  the  research  was  not  set  up  in  a  way  that  was  useful  to   explore  the  development  of  such  skills.    

However,  future  research  could  explore  the  impact  of  AI  and  MI  on  such  skills.    

176   Contributions