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.

Shadow is not individual discomfort—it names structural-relational, power-mediated processes through which groups protect coherence.
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.