Find the empty zone in an explanation you already hold
Check one explanation you rely on against all eight zones, so the boxes it says nothing about become visible.
Pourquoi ça marche
Bowman describes Wilber’s model as one that includes partial truths and removes partially invalid assumptions when they are examined in context with other disciplines (2014, p. 35). Checking an explanation against all eight zones is this page’s way of seeing which parts of it are being examined, and which parts no zone has yet been asked about. The check is built on the framework; the source does not describe it.
Comment faire
- Write the explanation in one sentence, as you currently believe it.
- Draw the eight-zone grid and write one short note in each box about what the explanation would say from that angle.
- Mark the boxes where the explanation says nothing. Those empty boxes are candidates for the next question to investigate.
- Pick one empty box and write one question that would fill it.
Données probantes
The check applies the eight-zone structure that Bowman describes (2014, pp. 31, 35). No study has tested whether it changes the explanations people hold or the outcomes they reach. (anecdotal)
An empty box shows where an explanation is silent, not that it is wrong. Bowman argues that Wilber uses the inside-outside and interior-exterior terms inconsistently (pp. 31, 54), so two people may fill the same box differently. The mechanism is described in the source but not demonstrated here.
Sources
- Wilber, K. (2006). Integral Spirituality: A Startling New Role for Religion in the Modern and Postmodern World. Boston: Integral Books.
- Bowman, K. J. (2014). Correcting Improper Uses of Perspectives, Pronouns, and Dualities in Wilberian Integral Theory: An Application of Holarchical Field Theory. Integral Review, 10(1).
Erreur fréquente
Filling every empty box with a justification for the original explanation, which turns the exercise into a defence of it.
Pratiquez cela avec IX Coach
Plus de pratiques pour Integral Methodological Pluralism: The Eight Zones of Inquiry
- Sweep one question through all eight zones
Take one real question and write what an answer looks like from the inside and the outside of each of the four quadrants.
- Describe one experience from the inside, then from the outside
Write what an experience was like for you, then write what someone in the room could have observed, and keep the two accounts separate.
- Run one inquiry in first, second and third person
Study one question three ways: in your own notes, with the few people directly involved, and through a wider source that none of you controls.
- Match the method to the question before you gather anything
Before collecting data, decide what kind of question you are asking, so a question about meaning is not answered with a count.
- Examine two conflicting views in context before deciding
When two views of the same thing conflict, name what each one is looking at before deciding which one is right.
Concepts associés
- Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory (AQAL), Made Practical
Five elements for catching what your view of a situation leaves out, held as a map rather than a truth
- Using Wilber’s Four Quadrants on a Real Problem
Eight ways to put the I, It, We, Its map to work on a problem you actually have
- First, Second, Third and Fourth Person Perspectives
How the number of viewpoints you can hold grows, what the research does and does not show, and how to practice it in a real disagreement
- States vs Stages of Consciousness: Wilber, Combs and O’Fallon
Why a powerful experience and a lasting change are different things, and how each one grows
- Torbert’s Seven Action Logics of Leadership
Seven ways leaders make sense of pressure, how common each is, and how to work with your own