Sensemaking in a Sandbox
Using Arts-Based Dialogue Workshops to Observe Conversational Dynamics in Times of Technological Disruption
MA in Transformative Leadership · CIIS · Mar 16, 2026
Spectra A. I. Asala · Capstone Action Project · Prof. Jocelyn Chapman & Prof. Justin Moore
Overview
The Core Question
AI is destabilizing higher education
The real debate isn't about the tools—it's about the people using them. Questions of identity, relevance, value, and security surface beneath every AI conversation.
My focus: collective sensemaking
How do groups use conversation to process changes that threaten their professional identities—through humor, metaphor, deflection, and reframing?
Overview
Project at a Glance
01
Prototype Workshop — April
Small, cross-institutional arts-based dialogue workshop as an inquiry environment.
02
Observe Conversational Dynamics
Surface reframing, humor, deflection, and narrative reinterpretation in real time.
03
Inform Summer Series
Insights from the prototype refine facilitation design for a broader workshop series.
04
Develop Shadow Literacy
Build leadership capacity to remain present to what groups cannot easily integrate.
Theory
Theoretical Foundations
Systems & Complexity
Institutions are living systems. Small conversational shifts signal deeper structural tensions.
Collective Sensemaking
Meaning is made in interaction. Groups prioritize coherence preservation over destabilization.
Arts-Based Inquiry
Creative prompts surface tacit knowledge—uncertainty and ambivalence that analytical discussion cannot reach.
Organizational Shadow (OCST)
Groups protect coherence by shaping how destabilizing information is engaged—visible in split-second interactional moments.
Theory
Experiential Lenses
Emerging Tech & Org Change
Sensitivity to how "technical" changes become questions about identity, legitimacy, and values.
Afrofeminist & Intersectional
Attention to whose interpretations are treated as credible and what becomes unsayable when institutions protect their self-image.
Autistic Pattern Recognition
Focus on structure, repetition, and subtle tone shifts—useful for noticing conversational mechanisms dismissed as noise.
Goals
Research Objectives
A · Inquiry Design
Develop and pilot a workshop-based method for observing conversational mechanisms of collective sensemaking.
B · Theory Insights
Identify preliminary patterns in how higher education leaders metabolize destabilizing interpretations of technological change.
C · Method Guidelines
Assess feasibility and enabling conditions for psychological safety and candid exploration.
Goals
Leadership Development Goals
Self-Regulation
Remain grounded and relational in power-charged contexts rather than withdrawing or over-accommodating.
Resisting Closure
Stay present to rupture long enough to observe what it regulates—resist premature coherence-restoration.
Designing Processes
Craft emotionally attuned, methodologically rigorous participatory environments for destabilizing topics.
Generating Theory
Translate observed conversational patterns into structured conceptual insights and questions.
Design
Workshop Design: Four Phases
A 120–150 minute Zoom session in a single main room—no breakouts—so all conversational dynamics remain fully observable. 6–10 cross-institutional participants engage as individuals, not institutional representatives.
Design
Prompt Design
Narrative Prompts
A mundane scenario (e.g., automated scheduling) paired with a provocative scenario (e.g., large-scale AI-generated course materials)—intentionally mixed to surface diverse interpretive responses.
Creative Prompt Example
"If generative AI were a person working at your institution, how would you describe their role?"
Participants write, sketch, or map responses privately before sharing a word or phrase in chat—surfacing tacit reactions before group discussion.
Design
Witnessing-Based Dialogue
Witnessing, Not Debate
Participants share images, stories, or phrases and listen for resonances and differences—curiosity over argument.
Guiding Questions
"Where did you notice tension or discomfort as you listened? Were there ideas you found yourself softening, joking about, or steering away from?"
Facilitation Stance
Hold space for multiple interpretations; attend to how people talk around difficult ideas as much as how they address them directly.
Actions
Actions & Activities
A. Recruitment
6–10 higher ed leaders; cross-institutional; personal capacity
B. Facilitation Prep
Refine prompts; HRRC compliance; consent materials; collaborator feedback
C. Live Workshop
Welcome, norms, prompt engagement, witnessing dialogue, collective reflection
D. Transcripts & Notes
Audio recording (with consent); observational notes; immediate reflective memo
E. Analysis & Shareout
Thematic review; member check with participants; leadership reflection
Coalition
Coalition of Co-Creators
Luisa — Design Expert
Feedback on workshop structure, pacing, and accessibility; global design firm experience.
Lisa — AI & Ethics
Frames AI-related narratives; reflective partner on inquiry focus; may co-facilitate.
Nina — Researcher
Education sector lens; follow-up question design; early-stage interpretation of workshop data.
Advisory Committee
Natalia, Yarimee, Chuin, Prof. Moore — informal updates, feedback, and safe container for reflection.
Evaluation
Evaluation Methods
What Success Looks Like
  • Participants describe the workshop as reasonably safe and well-framed
  • Transcript yields multiple identifiable instances of conversational sensemaking mechanisms
  • Coalition input is visible in at least one design refinement
  • Reflection identifies specific moments illustrating movement on all four leadership capacities
OCST
Organizational & Collective Shadow Theory
What is "Structural Shadow"?
Truths a group senses but cannot openly articulate because doing so would threaten its capacity to remain coherent—organized around specific identities, legitimacy structures, or power arrangements.
Where It Becomes Visible
In split-second interactional moments: a difficult point joked away, a claim reframed into something safer, an idea absorbed to keep the conversation comfortable.

Shadow is not individual discomfort—it names structural-relational, power-mediated processes through which groups protect coherence.
FOR THE ACADEMICS
Summary of the Inquiry
"What I'm studying is how groups regulate meaning in real time when they encounter ideas that don't fit easily within their existing frames."
The Claim
Groups actively reshape what can be said, known, or safely explored to maintain coherence—visible in humor, reframing, deflection, and silence.
The Method
Arts-based prompts bypass over-structured debate, surfacing responses that reveal how participants interpret, soften, or redirect destabilizing ideas.
The Contribution
Not generalizable findings—a structured observational foothold for studying boundary dynamics as they actually unfold in interaction.
All Learning is Valuable
This project is intentionally exploratory—a first iteration in observing how groups engage with destabilizing narratives in real time. Insights will be partial and context-specific. These limitations are not shortcomings; they are part of the inquiry itself.
If it goes as planned
Early patterns in how groups metabolize destabilizing narratives; insight into conditions that support candid dialogue.
If it doesn't
The work of translating OCST and leadership philosophy into tangible developmental goals is already invaluable.