This is really interesting to me. I think we do have theory about the different pieces and why we use them, but it is another challenge to explain to others WHY they work. So I am very excited to see what emerges in this discussion. We often ask people to trust the process and evaluate after. As if to share too much of the thinking behind the approach might lead to disengagement and skepticism. Sort of a "you have to try it out/ be part of it to believe it" idea. We encourage folks to trust the process, and us the facilitators or hosts, and debrief later. For some reason it almost always works! Why? Because it is collaborative. It takes into account the lived realities of those in the room and what is alive for them, it builds on all of the strengths we each bring. how could it fail to be effective?

I come with a different take on this, I think... What makes this work is too subtle to fall into the 'scientifically testable' framework paradigm. Even when something might not look like it's working to achieve the bottom-line outcomes an organisation is looking for, it is often working at the subtle level of meeting human needs for connection and resonance. I often feel that our real patron in this work is the Kosmos.

I'm curious to see where this conversation goes - and sending a big, big hug to my wayfarer doug!! :-)

@Corina...when I am suggesting that we use developmental evaluation to do this, I mean that we use tools and frameworks to develop a theory as we are practicing.  The is in deliberate contrast to the linearity of "practice first, evaluate later" approach of summative evaluation.

@Doug...I too have practice frameworks like that, both intuitive and explicit.  I'm wondering at an even deeper level what we can say about the theory that gives us a reasonable certainty about those choices.

So we begin eh?   Welcome all to this conversation! 

Indeed, Chris. I was welcoming this opportunity to move outside that framework of "practice first, evaluate later". Thanks for initiating. I want to pay tribute to you and others who have guided the process for me before and shared what I believe to be theoretical pieces that we can build on. A framework for reflecting as we/you go, will help to capture all of this and make it visible. But I believe the theory is there to some extent already. For example, a number of practitioners posted on the list serve about creating a collection of methods or tools for "building a safe container." There is underlying theory here about container building that would presumably surface in clarifying the objectives and parameters of this. Lots of opportunities for building. Exciting!

Awesome Corinna...perhaps I'll start a discussion inside here for pieces of existing theory like the one Fabio posted.  Let's play!

I would suggest to ask ourselves  two questions for the beginning :

1. How do really people learn? change?

2. How are  people  being developed and evolved ? what, how and who empower and enable their processes ?

My believe is that every practice or behavior has underneath a theory ,it could be tacit or implicite or explicite and or consciously or unconsciously. I agree with Corina:"theory is there to some extent already".

 Presence of absence of a theory does not imply its non-existence. 

The chellenge here is to discover  and explore our backbone - Clear and systemic with a  flexible diapason.