Sensemaking in a Sandbox

Using Arts-Based Dialogical Workshops to Observe Conversational Dynamics in Times of AI Disruption

MA in Transformative Leadership · CIIS · SPRING 2026

Spectra A. I. Asala
· Capstone Action Project
· Instructor: Prof. Jocelyn Chapman
· Advisor: Prof. Justin Moore

BACKGROUND & CONTEXT

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?

BACKGROUND & CONTEXT

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.

SCHOLAR STANCE

Theoretical Foundations

My project is draws from the following theories and traditions—including a provisional theory of my own making, OCST.

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 & Collective Shadow Theory

In OCST, a theory I'm conceptualizing, groups protect coherence by shaping how destabilizing information is engaged—visible in split-second interactional moments.

OCST

Organizational & Collective Shadow Theory

What is "Structural Shadow"?

OCST, "Structural Shadow" for short, explains why there are truths that a group can sense but cannot openly articulate: doing so would threaten a group's capacity to maintain coherence—organized through its self-articulation of "we."

Where It Becomes Visible

Shadow’s mechanisms surface in split-second interaction: a difficult point joked away, a claim reframed into something safer, an idea absorbed—or a stance masked—to preserve a comfortable, “we”-centered conversation.

SCHOLAR STANCE

Observational Lenses

I've designed this study—and will facilitate and analyze data from the upcoming workshops—with heightened awareness of the following lenses.

Disruptive Tech & Organizational Change

Sensitivity to how technological changes and adoption expectations can trigger questions about identity, role, legitimacy, and even values.

Afrofeminist & Intersectional

Attention to whose voices dominate, whose perspectives are treated as evidence, and conversational norms that shape conversational rhythm.

Autistic Pattern Recognition

Attunement to structure, repetition, and subtle tone shifts—useful for noticing conversational mechanisms that might be dismissed as noise.

LEARNING AGENDA

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.

LEARNING AGENDA

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.

METHODOLOGY

Workshop Structure: 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. The goal is to host at least 3 workshops.

METHODOLOGY

Facilitation Plan

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.

STUDY 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.

STUDY Design

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

Workshop design, facilitation, and accessibility guidance; global design firm experience.

Risa — AI & Ethics

Frames AI-related narratives; reflective partner on inquiry focus; may co-facilitate.

Nina — Researcher

Digital transformation in education; collaborator on workshop conversation coding.

Advisory Council

Peers and personal network for updates, feedback, and safe container for reflection.

STUDY EVALUATION

Traditional Evaluative Criteria

In order to evaluate the project against stated implementation and personal development goals, I’ve selected a range of qualitative indicators to validate our progress across these four dimensions of implementation and development.

Confirming Goal Achievements

  • Participants describe the workshop as safe and well-framed
  • Transcript yields multiple identifiable instances of conversational sensemaking mechanisms
  • Coalition input is visible in at least one design refinement
  • Facilitator reflections identifies specific moments illustrating movement on all four leadership capacities
STUDY EVALUATION

Constructivist Evaluation

Consistent with a constructivist evaluation approach, criteria are not used to assess the workshop against fixed benchmarks of success, but to examine the extent to which the workshop generates insight into how participants respond to destabilizing interpretations.

Collaborating on Analysis

  • Participants articulate how they define key concepts (such as leadership, legitimacy, threat, value etc)
  • Participants identify or imply boundaries of acceptability, whether in person or after the workshop
  • Participants respond directly to statements or synthesis from the workshop—with corrections, clarifications, celebration.
  • Participants share sentiments about the experience—surprise, discomfort, new insights, or shifts


EVALUATIVE INSTRUMENTS

Evaluation Instruments

To ensure alignment between the evaluation criteria and the methods used to assess them, each criterion is supported by specific instruments and forms of evidence. Rather than measuring outcomes through quantitative indicators alone, this evaluation examines how patterns of meaning-making become visible through live playback, participant responses, and coalition feedback.


A. Intake Form (Pre-Workshop)

Capture participant context and baseline orientation

B. Generative Opening Prompt

Surface affective and metaphorical interpretations

C. Structured Prompts

Clarify definitions and coherence anchors

D. Destabilization Scenarios

Introduce strain to existing interpretations

E. Observation Template

Capture response patterns in real time

F. Insights Memo (Shareout)

Document emerging patterns and insights from the workshop

G. Post-Workshop Reflection

Elicit feedback from participants and coalition towards collaborative synthesis


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 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 container for studying boundary-maintenance 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.

Seeking Volunteers

Interested in supporting this project as an early participant, co-moderator, or contributor to the analysis phase?

  • Email Spectra, sasala@mymail.ciis.edu
  • Request an invitation to an upcoming event here.