Future search conferences (and the related search conferences) have been conducted in various parts of the world since the late 1950s. They are large-group planning conferences, using face-to-face dialogue to develop plans, including the identification of action steps. They begin with a focus on visions and use these to guide the proposals for action.
The implementation methods vary. Some proponents of this technique argue for limiting the number of future search conference participants to about 60–80, all meeting in one room and in active dialogue, on the grounds that more than this number means that productive dialogue is not feasible. Others are comfortable with far more participants. In these instances, participants are broken up into smaller groups and meet in separate break-out rooms, coming together for plenary sessions at which experts provide inputs. At the plenary session reporters for the smaller groups also provide feedback to the other participants. The tasks of the conferences are expressed as ‘The future of…’.
The Future Search Network has documented a number of conditions for the success of future search conferences. They include:
getting the ‘whole system’ in the room; invite a significant cross-section of all parties with a stake in the outcomes of the conference
exploring the ‘whole elephant’ before seeking to fix any part; get everyone talking about the same world; explore the global context before focusing on local issues
emphasising common ground and future focuses, while treating problems and conflicts as information, not action items
encouraging self-management and responsibility for action by participants before, during and after the conference (adapted from material at <http://www.futuresearch.net/>).
The Future Search Network provides an example of a typical three-day future search conference, with the following stages identified. The network recommends a three-day schedule, as the two intervening nights provide time for participants to process or reflect on the events of the day.
Day 1, afternoon. Focus on the past: people make timelines of key events in the world, their own lives and in the history of the future search topic. Small groups tell stories about each timeline and the implications of their stories for the work they have come to do.
Focus on present, external trends: the whole group makes a ‘mind map’ of trends affecting them now and identifies the trends that are most important for their topic.
Day 2, morning. Focus on present, external trends (continued): stakeholder groups describe what they are doing now about key trends and what they want to do in the future.
Focus on the present: stakeholder groups report what they are proud of and sorry about in the way they are dealing with the future search topic.
Day 2, afternoon. Ideal future scenarios: small groups put themselves into the future and describe their visions—their preferred future—as if it has already been attained.
Identify common ground: small groups post themes they believe represent common ground for everyone.
Day 3, morning and early afternoon. Confirm common ground: the whole group meets to agree on common ground, integrating the diverse visions for the future elicited in the previous stages.
Action planning: volunteers sign up to implement action plans.
Future search conferences have been conducted in many different sectors, including commerce and industry, local communities, religious communities, schools and higher education, the environment, government, health care and human services. A recent example was the ‘Bendigo+25 Future Search Conference’, at which ‘community members gathered to consider what kind of place Greater Bendigo would be in 2030. They worked together to develop a shared vision, values and key future directions’ (City of Greater Bendigo n.d.).
Future search conferences are particularly useful in situations of rapid change (for example, changes in knowledge, society, technology, the environment) where various stakeholders can be expected to make different judgments about the implications of change for the future. Indeed, the first future search conference, held under the auspices of the Tavistock Institute (London) in 1959, provided an opportunity for two aircraft manufacturing companies that were merging to create Bristol-Siddley to integrate the different knowledge, technologies, practices and perceptions of the future held by the staff and managers of the two companies. The result was a new type of aircraft engine—one that is still in use today.
Because of its focus on the future, the future search conference has a strong emphasis on vision as part of the overall judgment. It helps clarify the visions of researchers and stakeholders and can draw them together into a shared vision for the future.
What was the context for the integration?
In the early 1990s, repetitive strain injury (RSI) was an important public health issue in many nations. It was characterised by an uncertain and ambiguous nature, the area was conflict ridden and many interconnected individual, organisational and societal phenomena were involved (Polanyi 2001).
What was the integration aiming to achieve and who was intended to benefit?
Polanyi’s involvement in the field in Canada led him to conclude that
the need [existed] for various stakeholders involved with RSI to meet in a nonadversarial setting in order to communicate effectively and safely with one another. There was a feeling that there exists unnecessary conflict and division between groups, which could be overcome by effective dialogue and increased collaboration. Future Search seemed to provide an inclusive forum that could stimulate dialogue among researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and injured workers to build the innovation and collaboration needed to better prevent and treat these injuries. (Polanyi 2001:468)
The specific aim of the conference, as articulated by the design team and consultants (see below), was ‘[t]o stimulate collaborative action to reduce the human and economic burden of upper limb musculoskeletal disorders’.
What was being integrated?
Stakeholder groups were identified (designers and engineers, employers, ergonomists, healthcare providers, health and safety professionals, government officials, injured workers and their advocates, labour representatives, researchers and the media, the provincial compensation board and private insurers). Lists of individuals to be invited were developed from within each stakeholder group with the aim of maximising the diversity of conference participants. It was the judgments of these diverse groups of participants that were being integrated.
Who did the integration and how was it undertaken?
A team comprising a range of stakeholders was established to design the future search conference and it was funded primarily by the (Ontario) Institute for Work and Health. It engaged two consultants experienced in implementing this intervention to have carriage of the project.
The conference had 56 participants and was held over three days in May 1998 following the standard, staged approach advocated by Weisbord and Janoff (2000):
reviewing the past
assessing the present
developing future scenarios (shared visions)
reality checking and action planning.
What was the outcome of the integration?
The future search conference was evaluated systematically (Polanyi 2001) using the grounded theory method of Corbin and Strauss (2008). (As is commonplace with the evaluation of the application of dialogue methods, the research integration processes and outcomes of the conference were not evaluated.) The evaluation revealed a high level of participant satisfaction with its process and outcomes. The conference succeeded well in building common ground between the participants, with agreement that
(a) RSI is a ‘real’ concern for many and is having a serious impact both on people’s lives and on economic costs, (b) RSI is complex and caused by several factors including individual behavior and conditions in the workplace, (c) all stakeholders need to work together to prevent and treat RSI through a systematic approach, and (d) further research is needed to identify and disseminate best prevention practices and treatments. (Polanyi 2001:473)
There was also agreement that action was needed on a number of fronts, including:
(a) the identification and transfer of best practices in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, and the establishment of the economic benefits of taking action to prevent RSI; (b) raising awareness through education and training based on what is known about the nature, scope, and effects of RSI; (c) promotion of a multistakeholder process through which all parties have input into solutions and accept shared responsibility for the problem, and (d) the provision of appropriate incentives for action, although this meant very different things for different people (Polanyi 2001, p. 473)
It was not possible, however, to reach common ground on all the issues. Four remained unresolved:
which approach is needed: legislated standards or voluntary action?;
do we know enough to act?,
the relationships between productivity and worker health, and
the right to pain-free work (Polanyi 2001).
The conference agreed on a range of actions to be taken and a follow-up conference was held to review the implementation and outcomes of the actions agreed on.
The establishment of common ground and a degree of shared visions for the future, and the preparation of actions plans that involved multi-stakeholder collaborations, were seen by many participants to be key achievements of the conference.
This method contrasts with some of the others discussed in that the conferences are frequently very large, sometimes including hundreds of participants. This provides scope for great diversity, including significant opportunities for researchers’ inputs to the process and shaping its outcomes. In the example provided—concerned with finding a shared approach to RSI in Canada—researchers were among the 56 conference participants providing an opportunity for research insights and products to be integrated with the inputs from other participants. This research-based knowledge came from a number of disciplines and was integrated with the knowledge, perspectives and visions of other stakeholders, including people adversely affected by RSI.
Unlike some other dialogue approaches, future search conferences focus explicitly on developing action plans for implementation after the conference concludes, action plans that reflect the shared understandings, visions and common ground established in the conference itself.
The method has been used in diverse settings. In terms of research integration specifically, one can envisage it being used in research institutions where disciplinary barriers need to be addressed to produce an integrated approach to a program of research, based on a set of agreed goals and action plans.
Eric Trist and Fred Emery developed the search conference approach (the predecessor of the future search conference) at the Tavistock Institute in 1959. Others have subsequently modified the initial model, with Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff particularly prominent in recent decades as developers and proponents of future search conferences. Bryson and Anderson (2000) and Oels (2002) explore the similarities and differences between search conferences and future search conferences. They include the selection of participants, with search conferences limiting participants to people with the capacity to implement action plans rather than the broad cross-section of stakeholders in future search conferences; grouping, with large groups dominating search conferences and a mix of small and large groups in future search conferences; and the methods of handling conflicts, with time spent discussing and clarifying differences in search conferences, whereas in future search conferences any disagreements are acknowledged but not discussed further.
Emery, M. and Purser, R. E. 1996, The Search Conference: A powerful method for planning organizational change and community action, Jossey-Bass Public Administration Series, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif.
Future Search Network 2003, Future Search Network, <http://www.futuresearch.net/>
Weisbord, M. R. (ed.) 1992, Discovering Common Ground: How future search conferences bring people together to achieve breakthrough innovation, empowerment, shared vision, and collaborative action, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.
Weisbord, M. R. and Janoff, S. 2000, Future Search: An action guide to finding common ground in organizations and communities, Second edition, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.