A Story About Storytelling

Questions as Catalysts in Stimulating

Community Change

Craig Talmage, Mikulas Pstross, & Richard Knopf

Arizona State University
Partnership for Community Development
 Stories and Science
“Perhaps the central function of storytelling is to reflect the forces,
within and without us, that govern our lives, both good and bad. This
is a very simple notion, but it is profound. Stories are pools of
reflection in which we see ourselves through the prism of the
imagination.”
– N. Scott Momaday, The Man Made of Words (1997, p. 169)

“As in all branches of science, discovery leads to a more detailed and

satisfying story of the past while simultaneously creating new
questions that call out for answers.”
– Greg Graffin, Anarchy Evolution (2010, p. 74)
 Presentation Purposes
To present an applied approach to community development
research that illustrates the powerful catalytic influence of
questions in an inner city area of Phoenix, Arizona.

To present a applied research project that integrates multiple

approaches and traditions in community development.

To challenge the notions that researchers are always outsiders

in the applied research process.
 Four Traditions Shaping the
Balsz Community Scan
Catalysts in
Asset Based Appreciative
Community Inquiry
Development

Scan

Planning
Versus Storytelling
Searching
 Asset Based Community
Development (ABCD)
Communities can overcome challenges if assets are identified
and mobilized (Haines, 2009).

Community members are the true experts regarding

community issues (Haines, 2009).

Community development researcher is charged to help (not

lead) the community to discover and amplify solutions that
already exist (Pascale et al., 2010).

Community leaders best contribute to development by

facilitating democratic conversations, where members are
treated equally in the process of change (Block, 2009).
Catalytic Community Development
A Complement to ABCD

Catalysts are nothing new to ABCD.

People (individually or in associations) catalyze the
community development process (Mathie & Cunningham,
2005).
“Effective catalysts from outside of the community don’t do
anything directly for people. They encourage people to do
things [on] their own.” (Bergdall, 2003, p. 3).
Catalysts help communities identify their own assets and
connect members to these assets (Bergdall, 2003).
Catalysts may help facilitate the planning efforts that follow.
Catalytic Community Development

To be catalytic, the researcher must first ask the right questions.

What we can often overlook is that the researcher can be

catalytic (both as an insider and outsider) in helping
community members continue to ask the right questions.

Questions can be designed to be quite powerful, “to create

more of themselves” (called autocatalysis) (Graffin & Olson,
2010, p. 322).

Community members and researchers can seek ways to

facilitate the continual reintroduction of newer and better
questions into future community conversations.
Limitations of ABCD and CCD

ABCD may overlook outside political and economic forces

(Christensen & Levinson, 2003).

Requires a sufficient amount of public participation (Haines,

2009).

“Difficult, time-consuming, and costly” (Haines, 2009, p. 46).

Difficult maintain interest and commitment to the ABCD

process (Haines, 2009).

Reports include recommendations for the community and

future questions, but can lack the medium to continue the
conversation.
Countering ABCD’s Limitations

The best questions need to be asked first and onward

promoting interest and commitment to the ABCD process.

The best initial research questions arise from informal

conversations with community members and secondary data
gathered before primary data collection (i.e., questionnaires,
interviews, focus groups, etc.) (Haines, 2009).

Effective questions should be generated not only by

researchers but also by community members throughout the
process.

Questions should not solely focus on assets (Alred, 2011).

 Appreciative Inquiry (AI)
“An organization is a mystery to be embraced.”
(Whitney & Cooperrider, 2005, p. 13).

“People inquiring together into the infinite potentials and

varieties of human organizing” (Fitzgerald, Oliver, &
Hoxsey, 2010, p. 221).
Uses deep-reaching, existential questions that stimulate
dialogue and help create cohesiveness and trust between
members (Whitney & Cooperrider, 2005).
What is working well in an organization or a community
(“high points”), and then using that to amplify that
exceptionality.
Community members are the true owners of social
knowledge; they know the best (catalyzing) questions to ask.
 Limitations of AI
Can deceive participants of the process into thinking their
limitations are their strengths (Alred, 2011).

May achieve more episodic than long-lasting forms of

individual and community empowerment (Alred, 2011).

Can neglect that negative experiences can lead to positive

outcomes as well (Fineman, 2006)
Countering AI Limitations
Effective questions should be generated not only by
researchers but also by community members throughout the
process.

Questions should not only focus on assets (Alred, 2011).

Questions should elicit the telling of stories.

 Storytelling
“A primary function of a family, neighborhood, or community
is to create its story” (McKnight & Block, 2010, p. 95).

Research in itself can be seen as storytelling (Usher, 1997)

“Stories gain in credibility as they are retold and as they are
assimilated into our actions and beliefs.” (Mendelbaum,
1991, p. 210).
Stories help prophesy the future (Throgmorton, 1996).
Storytelling can be thought of as a model of planning as well
as for planning (Van Hulst, 2012).

“Stories and storytelling can be powerful agents or aids in the

service of change, as shapers of a new imagination of
alternatives” (Sandercock, 2003, p. 18).
Limitations of Storytelling
Some stories may dominate over others.

Too much of a catalyst can prevent a reaction or cause an

unintended reaction.
Questions that are too focused on a particular need or strength may
overemphasize a particular story that is generated.

Too little of a catalyst can prevent a reaction from occurring.

Questions that overlook important aspects of communities fail to
elucidate an important story waiting to be told.

Storytelling success depends on context (film, dance, theatre,

conversations, etc.)
Countering the Limitations of
Storytelling
Effective questions should be generated not only by researchers but also by
community members throughout the process.
Questions should not only focus on assets (Alred, 2011).
Questions should elicit the telling of stories.
A balance should be ensured that no one story dominates
over another.
Researchers can help communities “to wrestle with difficult
questions that will engage community in self-inquiry and
self-knowledge” (Hustedde & King, 2002, p. 342).
Effective storytelling in practice should involve multiple
sectors (Steffensmeier, 2010).
 Planners versus Searchers
Disposition of planning is symptomatic of researchers and
agencies that enter a community with a specific vision of
how the residents’ life situation should be improved (Easterly,
2006).
Emphasizes the design and implementation of plans.
Disposition of searching means seeking local wisdom and
being able to adapt to the situation in the community
(Easterly 2006).
Emphasizes sensitivity to new possibilities.
“Planners announce good intentions but don’t motivate
anyone to carry them out; searchers find things that work
and get some reward” (Easterly, 2006, p. 5-6).
Balancing the Two Dispositions
Planners versus Searchers
Effective questions should be generated not only by researchers but also by community
members throughout the process.

Questions should not only focus on assets (Alred, 2011).

Questions should elicit the telling of stories.

A balance should be ensured that no one story dominates over another.

Researchers can help communities explore their inner ‘soul’ by asking their members, “to
wrestle with difficult questions that will engage community in self-inquiry and self-
knowledge” (Hustedde & King, 2002, p. 342).

Effective storytelling in practice should involve multiple sectors (Steffensmeier, 2010).

Understand that the researcher constantly moves across the

outsider and insider continuum (both planner and searcher).
 The Balsz Community Scan:
A Story Woven by the Community for the Community

With the help by:

ASU Partnership for Community Development

Richard Knopf, Mikulas Pstross, Craig Talmage, Kendra Smith
 Essential Questions
Vision.
What do you envision for yourself ?
What do you envision for the people you love?
What do you envision for your community?

Pathways.
What are different pathways to community prosperity?
What are barriers that block pathways to community prosperity
What can people do together to clear the pathways of the
barriers and strengthen the pathways?
Using Essential Questions
Stimulate the interests of community members.

Engage them in the process of thinking about how the vision

of their community can be shaped and how they can
contribute to that vision.

These notions were derived as well from our counter

strategies to the limitations of the four approaches.

We used variations of these questions in our interview

protocols catering each version to fit the different groups of
participants and individuals persons that we interviewed.
 5 Parts of the Scan
Name Purpose
Prologue: Executive To introduce the community development efforts in the BESD
Summary and the role of the scan
Part A: The Story of Our To summarize findings and catalyze community conversations
Community
Part B: Scan Methods, To provide a thorough narrative of findings and academic
Findings, and Resources resources to help the community with taking ownership in
Toolbox community building
Part C: Community Vital To provide an overview of key social and demographic
Signs and Assets Inventory indicators regarding the community, and a list of key
organizations and institutions that can be contacted for help
Epilogue: Bridging Two To show how the scan can be use in synergy with indicators
Planning Approaches that guide planning in the community (searching and
planning)
Characteristics of a Catalytic
Storytelling Report
Accessibility. The language was kept simple and free of
academic terms. Spanish-translation (44.5% Hispanic).

Reader-Friendliness. We took advantage of graphics,

metaphors, direct quotes, and a structured page layout.

Tentativeness. Even though Part A summarizes some of the

findings from community conversations (it is essentially a
storybook), we emphasized to potential readers that this is
only a starting point of the conversation to which they are
invited to contribute .

Fun. We added interactive pieces (like a crossword)

The Chapters of Their Story
1. Our Kids: Our Hope 7. It Really Does Take a Village

2. Believing in Children & Youth 8. Enriching the Experiences

3. Pathways to Success 9. Hubs of Engagement

4. The Nurturing Family 10. Linking Together

5. The Nurturing School 11. Growing Leaders

6. The Nurturing Neighborhood 12. Involving our Children & Youth

 1 - Opening Question

Example:
2 - Summary of Community Voices
Children and youth want to hear more words of
encouragement from adults.

They want to be recognized as distinct individuals

and want to be treated with respect.

They also seek guidance, support and understanding

of things that are important to them.
3 - Reflective Moment
 4 - Buzz of the Community
Example:
 5 - What Can We Do?
Example:
How the Scan is Being Used
Responses from a user questionnaire show that the scan is
being used in the community.

One respondent wrote:

“Since I am constantly engaged with some part of the community
on a daily basis the questions have helped guide me in my
communications with them. I am working on conversations with
diverse groups of refugees in the area and the questions have
helped me shape these conversations.”

Though episodic as evidence, this quote highlights the

catalytic power of questions, because the refugee population
in the neighborhood was understudied in the scan .
 Lessons Learned
Insiders and Outsiders
Throughout a development project, the researcher moves along
a continuum of community insider and outsider.
Understanding this, researchers and community members
together are able to devise more catalytic questions.

Using the Catalytic Effect

We worked to counter the limitations discussed earlier.
We saw our research as a way to stimulate more community
conversations that would take place in the future, without our
lead.
 Lessons Learned
Beyond Appreciative Inquiry
The community’s future should be co-constructed
systematically, democratically, and collectively.
Resources and points of pride were elucidated that, without
community deliberation, may have remained unutilized.

Insider versus Outsider

During the community development process, researchers
become more familiar with the community and contribute to the
development of stories from a perspective that is much closer to
being insiders.
 Lessons Learned
Going to Stories
Stories were already being told before we arrived.
New questions were tied to every theme, every answer
A model of and for planning (Van Hulst, 2012).
Storytelling should be ongoing, especially when the
researchers are absent. Only then is a community able to
tell and re-tell its own story (McKnight & Block, 2010).
 Model of Catalytic Storytelling
1/2
Outsider

1. Role of
Researchers

Insider

2. Research Research design Writing of the Handing Scan Community taking

and data Scan to the ownership in
Progress Collection community story telling

Time
 Model of Catalytic Storytelling
2/2
3. Storytelling Evolution

Strengthened Storytelling in
Organic Storytelling in the community the community

Community
conversations for
the Scan

Time
 Thank You
Craig Talmage (craig.talmage@asu.edu)
Mikulas Pstross (mikulas.pstross@asu.edu)
Richard Knopf (richard.knopf@asu.edu)
 Our Stories
We can’t choose where we come from, but we can choose were
we go from there – Charlie Kelmeckis, Perks of Being a Wallflower
(2012 film)

Your story may not have such a happy beginning, but that
doesn't make you who you are. It is the rest of your story, who
you choose to be – Soothsayer, Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011 film)

By now, you have seen the story told by your neighbors about
how to build a better community. But the story has become even
better, because you have now added your own ideas.’
(Balsz Community Scan, Part A, p. 35)
 Our Stories Continue
We now turn to you. The conversation needs to be broadly
expanded. What do you think? What are your ideas? How can
we all work better together to help our children succeed? The
booklet gives you ideas of what your neighbors are saying, and
it gives you some ideas of what the youth themselves are saying.
But most importantly, it asks YOU for YOUR ideas. And it
provides a way for sharing your ideas with your neighbors!
So again, welcome to the conversation! Your ideas are
important and will truly help our children succeed! They are
counting on you. We are counting on each other! Turn the page,
join your neighbors, and begin to build the story of hope!’
(Balsz Community Scan, Part A, p. 2)
 References
Alred, R. (2011). From community participation to organizational therapy? World Café and
Appreciative Inquiry as research methods. Community Development Journal, 46(1), 57-71.

Bhattacharyya, J. (1995). Solidarity and agency: Rethinking community development. Human

Organization, 54(1), 60-69.

Bergdall, T. (2003). Reflections on the catalytic role of an outsider in asset based community
development. Unpublished manuscript. Asset-Based Community Development Institute at the
Northwestern University.

Block, P. (2009). Community: The Structure of Belonging. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.

Christensen, K. & Levinson, D. (2003). “Asset-Based Community Development”. Encyclopedia of

Community: From the Village to the Virtual World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. D. (2005). Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Easterly, W. (2006). ‘Planners versus searchers’ (chapter 1). In The White Man's Burden: Why the
West's Efforts to Aid the Rest have done so much Ill and so Little Good. Oxford: Penguin Group USA.

Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. Academy of Management

Review, 31(2), 270-291.
 References
Fitzgerald, S. P., Oliver, C., & Hoxsey, J. (2010). Appreciative Inquiry as a Shadow Process. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 19, 220-233.

Graffin, G., & Olson, S. (2010). Anarchy Evolution. New York, NY: HarperColins Publishers.

Haines, A. (2009). Asset-based community development. In Phillips, R., & Pittman, R. H. (eds.). An
Introduction to Community Development, (pp. 38-48). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hustedde, R. J., & King, B. S. (2002). Rituals: Emotions, community faith in soul and the messiness of
life. Community Development Journal, 37 (4), 338-348.

Knopf, R. C., Pstross, M., Talmage, C. and Smith, K. (2012) Balsz Community Scan, Partnership for
Community Development, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ.

Mandelbaum, S. (1991). Telling Stories. Journal of Planning Education and Research 10(3), 209-214.

Mathie, A., & Cunningham, G. (2005). Who is driving development? Reflections on the transformative
potential of asset-based community development. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue
canadienne d'études du développement, 26(1), 175-186.

McKnight, J., & Block, P. (2010). The Abundant Community: Awakening the Power of Families and
Neighborhoods. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
 References
Momaday, N. S. (1997). The Man Made of Words: Essays, Stories, Passages. New York, NY: St. Martin's
Griffin.

Pascale, R., Sternin, J., & Sternin, M. (2010). The Power of Positive Deviance. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Press

Sandercock, Leonie, (2003). Out of the Closet: The Importance of Stories and Storytelling in Planning
Practice. Planning Theory & Practice 4(1), pp. 11-28.

Steffensmeier, T. (2010). Building a public square: an analysis of community narratives. Community

Development 41(2), pp. 255–268.

Throgmorton, J. (1996) Planning as Persuasive Storytelling About the Future: Negotiating an Electric
Power Rate Settlement in Illinois. Journal of Planning Education and Research 12, 17-31.

Usher, R. (1997). Telling a story about research and research as story-telling: Postmodern approaches to
social research. In G. McKenzie, & J. Powell, & R. Usher (Eds.), Understanding social research. Perspectives
on methodology and practice. (pp. 27-41). Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press.

Van Hulst, M. (2012). Storytelling, a model of and a model for planning. Planning Theory, 11(3), 299-
318.