The dynamics of volunteer participation in futures research

168

THE DYNAMICS OF VOLUNTEER PARTICIPATION IN FUTURES RESEARCH Timothy

R. Athey

This article is based on the author’s professional using volunteers in a futures research capacity. the social, psychological and methodological volunteer participation in futures research. Keywords: futures

research;

methods;

experience It focuses dynamics

volunteer

of on of

participation

THE EMERGENCE OF FUTURES RESEARCH over the past two decades has occurred at a phenomenal rate. Since 1960, for example, it is estimated that over 300 futures-oriented groups (including some 30 chapters of the World Future Society) have come into existence around the world.’ Current membership in the World Future Society stands at around 30000, reflecting the magnitude of present interest and involvement in the field of futures research.’ Similarly, the emergence of formal academic programmes in futures research, most notably that of the University of Houston, suggests that the futures research field is gaining momentum as a formally recognized professional discipline.3 The development of futures research is also reflected in the range of organizational settings in which it is being applied. Once the domain of relatively independent, globally oriented research groups (eg the Club of Rome, Worldwatch Institute, etc), futures research has increasingly found its way into state, municipal and organizational planning processes.4 The general diffusion of futures research to include a wider variety of institutional and organizational applications is a reflection of the growing popularity of futures research and its utility to a broad range of planning purposes. Citizen

participation

in futures

research

A particularly important component of the growth of futures research has been the emergence of futures programmes based on voluntary citizen participation. The phenomenon of citizen participation in futures research and planning processes is, perhaps, best described in Clement Bezold’s Anticipatory Democra~y.~

Timothy USA.

R. Athey

is at the Department

00X-3287/87/020168-16$03.000

of Psychology,

Colorado

State

University,

1987 Butterworth & Co(Publishers)

Ltd

Fort Collins,

CO 80523,

FUTURES April 1987

According to Bezold, the ‘anticipatory democracy’ movement has grown out of several important societal trends, most notably the growing inability of governmental institutions to respond to rapid social and economic changes. Consequently, the involvement of citizens in futures-oriented research and planning not only provides a mechanism for directly monitoring the many changes taking place, but also increases the range (and potential quality) of alternative future options available to deal with these changes. In 1977, Bezold identified no fewer than 44 formally recognized anticipatory democracy projects in the USA, with numerous additional projects estimated to have come into existence since then.6 The continued development of futures research as a broad-based social movement (rather than a scientific discipline only) will inevitably result in the involvement of more citizen groups in the futures process.7 Although considerable progress has been made in the field of futures research in developing and refining methodological techniques,’ little is understood about the dynamics involved in utilizing citizen volunteers in the futures research process. An understanding of these dynamics must be based on a consideration of the unique demands of futures research, the nature of volunteer participation in general, and the role of the futures researcher in structuring and facilitating the research process itself. This article is devoted to an analysis of these important research dynamics. The current case The inspiration for this article is based on the author’s work with the Fort Collins Futures Study Project located in Fort Collins, CO. Fort Collins is a rapidly growing community of over 80000 people located on the northern ‘front range’ (ie eastern slope of the Rockies) of Colorado. The Futures Study Project was initiated by the local Chamber of Commerce in February 1982 in an effort to provide the community with a mechanism for identifying and analysing critical issues related to the future of Fort Collins. The project is based exclusively on voluntary citizen participation drawn primarily from Chamber of Commerce membership (although significant participation has also been enlisted from non-Chamber, public sector groups). The project is based on the work of eight committees, each of which addresses a different content area-cultural arts, education, housing, industry and employment, natural resources, public services, public and private finance, and recreation. In addition, a Futures Council exists to coordinate and direct the work of the eight committees, although the committees themselves are allowed to function relatively autonomously. The only paid professional member of staff in the project is the author, who was employed in September 1984 to provide technical support and general coordinative assistance to the project. The author has worked directly with the Futures Committees and Council in all phases of the research process from initial issues analysis and problem selection to the planning and implementation of the research itself. The methodology adopted by the Futures Council can be described as representing three basic operations: (1) Environmental scanning and issues analysis. In this process, committee FUTURES April 1987

members

collect and compile information on the local community in order to identify the range of issues which may affect the community in the future. These issues are then analysed along a number of dimensions (eg urgency, severity of impact, capacity for change, etc) and ranked in terms of current and future importance. Issues of greatest concern are then selected for further study by the committees. (2) Impact assessment and trend analysis. This operation is based on the issues analysis process and reflects an attempt by the committees to collect historical data on the issues of concern, extrapolate potential future outcomes based on these ‘trends’ and identify the impacts of these outcomes on important community dimensions (eg quality of life, economic prosperity, etc). This step involves considerable data collection, integration of secondary resource information (including expert opinion) and committee analysis to identify all possible impacts. (3) Scenario development and action planning. This third and, in most cases, final operation involves the evaluation of trends and impacts identified in the previous step for the purpose of generating alternative future scenarios. In general, three basic scenarios structured around best case, laissez-faire and catastrophic circumstances are generated. Necessary interventions to optimize the community’s future status are then identified and translated into specific policy recommendations to be submitted to local governmental leaders. In some cases, committees may take their own action on these issues. These three operations, although considerably condensed here for the sake of brevity, describe the actual research process in which the citizen volunteers were engaged. The author’s direct involvement with the volunteers in the project provides a basis for understanding the dynamics of citizen participation in futures research presented in this article. The nature

of futures

research

The unique characteristics and demands of futures research present considerable challenges to professional researchers themselves, not to mention amateur citizen volunteers. An understanding of the issues related to citizen involvement in futures research must, therefore, begin with an analysis of the very nature of futures research itself. Although considerable information exists describing futures research, only a few sources provide comprehensive analyses of the characteristics of futurists or futures research in general.g For the purposes of this study, futures research is characterized by live relatively broad dimensions-the infancy of the field, the use of non-traditional research methods, multidisciplinarity of membership, its value-based approach and its long-term time perspective. These five dimensions are intended neither to be exhaustive nor to represent issues not relevant to other forms of research. they do provide a framework for discussing the important However, components of futures research related to the utilization of citizen volunteers. The infancy offutures research. In relationship

to other scientific

disciplines,

futures

FUTURES April 1997

research is still in a state of relative infancy. As already mentioned, not only has the bulk of futures research occurred within the past two decades, but formally recognized academic programmes in the field are only now emerging. The relative newness of futures research has a number of consequences for the field. Foremost among these is the general lack of consensus about the definition of ‘futures research’ among futures professionals themselves.” This lack of consensus contributes to a lingering image of futures research as unscientific and relativistic in nature.” In addition, the recent popularity of futuristic writings (eg Naisbitt’s Meg&en&) has created a ‘faddish’ climate surrounding the futures field that has encouraged the development of unrealistic expectations about the capacity of futures research to anticipate and solve society’s many individuals may be attracted to futures problems. l2 Consequently, research for all the wrong reasons-that the scientific demands are perceived to be minimal, that the field offers a panacea for the solution of impending societal problems, or that involvement in futures research is simply stylish. Non-traditional research methodr. Unlike conventional research in the physical and behavioural sciences, futures research poses considerable methodological problems for the researcher. In the words of W. H. Clive Simmonds, ‘ ‘A typical futures problem is almost exactly the inverse or opposite of normal science”.13 Simmonds goes on to explain that unlike classical scientific research, futures research problems are usually ill-defined, imprecisely (if at all) structured, probability relationships are largely unknown, and basic methodological assumptions are seldom agreed upon. Similarly, Roy Amara has observed that due to the extreme uncertainty with which the future must be studied, the usual tools of scientific research “can be applied only in their most primitive forms” .‘* The result of these methodological constraints has been the development of an interesting paradox for futures researchers. On the one hand, more and more sophisticated, technically complex forecasting methods have been developed in an effort to make futures research more accurate and scientifically respectable.15 On the other hand, futures research is characterized by its reliance on idealism, intuition, imagination and other relatively ‘unscientific’ attributes.“j This paradox can be represented by what David Loye describes as the contrast between ‘left-brain forecasting’ (ie reliance on largely analytical, logical and mathematical research methods) and ‘right-brain foreseeing’ (ie reliance on more intuitive, normative and imaginative methods).” Consequently, futures research requires one to be simultaneously capable of understanding and using complex analytical methods while still being willing to tolerate considerable reliance on intuitive judgment in conducting the research.‘s This requirement places considerable flexibility and ambiguity tolerance demands on futures researchers which many individuals may be unable to accept.ig Multidiscipfinarity of membership. Futures research is marked by its lack of a clearly defined disciplinarity identity. Although the field was originally dominated by the physical sciences and mathematics, it has more recently grown to include members from the social and behavioural sciences, humanities and business.” This multidisciplinarity is a function of a number of factors. Since there are literally no criteria for being a futurist (other than simply identifying oneself as

FUTURES April 1987

172

The dynamics of volunlcer participation in jiium

research

one),*’ the field has attracted

participants from a wide range of social and academic backgrounds. In addition, the complexity and uncertainty of most futures problems have required the enlistment of input from a variety of disciplines to address realistically the myriad of issues related to the solution of these problems. ” Consequently, involvement in the futures field requires not only a certain disregard for the academic credentialism and specialization prevailing today but also a willingness to think eclectically and holistically about the world.23 As the field of futures research progresses, the reliance on multidisciplinarity in method and thinking will become even more important. Value-based approach. Although values are intrinsic to virtually any research process (eg in the very selection of a problem to study or the particular method to use in studying it), futures research is particularly value-driven. Since the future is an essentially unknowable entity to which numerous potential alternatives may apply, the researcher is afforded considerable latitude in selecting potential alternatives which meet that researcher’s criteria for likelihood or desirability. On a more fundamental level, however, values dominate the field of futures research because it is upon values that our decisions to shape the future are based.** In essence, values provide both the motivation for and the subject matter of futures research. A major problem related to the intrusion of values into futures research lies in the influence they have on judgment processes.25 Values not only influence the relative importance assigned to various events or issues, but they affect our assumptions about the relationships between events and the causal factors associated with them. Values can contribute bias to the research process by blinding us to potential, but undesirable or unpopular, outcomes. Consequently, futures research may pose a relatively greater risk to both researcher and recipient/consumer of the research than other scientific disciplines in that the results may reflect only the philosophical or methodological assumptions of the researcher. This problem is, in turn, further compounded when amateur citizen volunteers, who may lack the scientific discipline to identify and avoid value conflicts, are involved in the research process. The problem of values in futures research, even in regard to the more ‘objective’ forecasting methodologies, poses a considerable challenge to the future development of the field.*‘j Long-term time perspectiue. Perhaps the most unique characteristic of futures research is its emphasis upon long-term time perspectives. According to Edward Cornish et al, this time perspective is oriented to both the past and future and reflects the preoccupation of futurists with human evolution through time.” Such a time perspective presents a number of challenges for futures researchers. Most importantly, it requires a keen sensitivity to the subtlety of change. Since most problems do not appear spontaneously, but emerge slowly over time, futures research must be devoted to the analysis of gradual change. This is a process which requires not only the capacity to understand the key indicators of change itself but also the insight (and patience) to recognize subtle changes when they do occur. In addition to an emphasis on gradual change, futures researchers tend to

FUTURES April 1987

focus on the period of time from at least five years to 50 years ahead.28 The main reason for this focus is that it is the period of time that is amenable to basic change (events up to five years ahead are essentially set by decisions that have already been made). As a result, futures researchers must be able to resist social and political forces emphasizing the solution of near-term problems which may have little bearing on significant long-range issues. This challenge is particularly relevant to researchers in applied work settings (eg business or government) where the pressure of immediate survival may dictate research priorities. It is also especially relevant to researchers working with volunteers from these sectors who may view the future only in terms of relatively immediate opportunities and consequences for their respective organizations. The nature of volunteer participation Clearly, futures research presents formidable psychological and methodological challenges for professional researchers. These challenges can, however, be magnified by the inclusion of citizen volunteers in the research process who may possess sufficient interest in futures research but who lack the professional training and discipline to deal with its demands. An examination of the role of citizen volunteers in futures research must include a review of the nature of volunteer participation in general, since it is upon these characteristics that the success (or failure) of a volunteer-based futures research effort may rest. The research on volunteers is voluminous, with numerous comprehensive works available describing the political, organizational and psychological factors (eg components of voluntarism.*’ Certainly, p olitical and organizational the influence on public policy, expansion of an organization’s sphere of control, etc) are important considerations in describing the emergence and operation of voluntary systems in society.30 However, of p rimary concern to the researcher charged with the use of citizen volunteers in futures research are the motivational and psychological attributes of volunteers which contribute to their participation in the research process. For this reason, it is upon these attributes that this brief review is focused. characteristics. Although it is not the intention of this paper to ‘typify’ citizen volunteers, there is considerable evidence that individuals who volunteer for social action programmes possess distinct social and personality characteristics. Among the most predominant findings are that volunteers tend to be high in assertiveness/dominance, have high needs for both achievement and affiliation, and score high on measures of extroversion, sociability and autonomy. 31 It is also apparent that volunteers are more politically active and, in general, represent higher socioeconomic groups than non-volunteers3* The profile of the ‘typical’ volunteer is thus represented as an individual who is action-oriented, who has high expectations of him/herself (and others) in regard to his/her voluntarism, and who enjoys working with (if not dominating) others. These characteristics are consistent with the author’s observations, with particular emphasis on the high degree of political activism and achievement orientation which the citizen volunteers in the current case possess. Given the growing popularity (and visibility) of futures research, and its increasing Personality/social

FUTURES April 1997

influence on public policy formation, it is likely that the field attract more and more politically motivated individuals to attraction is an important consideration for futures researchers volunteer participants for a futures research programme, since may not best serve the research process.

will continue to its ranks. This who must select such individuals

basis. The participation of citizen volunteers in social action programmes is closely tied to the types of rewards derived from such participation. Although the typical dichotomy between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards is usually employed in discussing volunteer motivation, the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction has been called into question due to its oversimplification of the motivational process.33A more approp riate model for discussing volunteer motivation is offered by David Knoke and David Prensky, who identify three distinct types of incentives for volunteers:

Motivational

(1) utilitarian, which represents the direct pragmatic compensation for participation (eg paid employment or indirect economic benefits); (2) normative, which is based upon appeals to the values of the participants (eg moral or political convictions about the purposes of the organization); and (3) affective, which represents the interpersonal and emotional attachments of volunteers to their groups.34 Research indicates the importance of generally normative and affective rewards to volunteers, both because it is for normative and affective reasons that individuals are motivated to volunteer in the first place and because few volunteer associations have the resources directly to compensate participation. In addition, it has been found that although volunteers are especially reliant on social interaction and community service as incentives for their involvement, intrinsic rewards (eg interest in the work itself) are relatively unimportant.35 The author would confirm the importance of normative and affective rewards as incentives for volunteer participation in futures research. The research process requires substantial collaboration and consensus on the part of volunteers and, as a result, can contribute to a strong sense of mission among participants. Due to the growing impact of the futures field on political decision making, however, the attraction of individuals who seek only utilitarian or political benefits through their participation in futures research is likely to increase. Whether such a motivational orientation is beneficial to futures research is up to the individual researcher, although it seems clear that the politicization of futures research by such individuals would quickly destroy the credibility of the field. Consequently, it is erroneous to assume that volunteers participate in futures research necessarily out of intrinsic, normative or affective motives rather than because of what their participation may achieve either personally or politically. Authority structure. Unlike private firms in which authority is largely hierarchical and non-negotiable, voluntary organizations are typically egalitarian and democratic in nature, with participants maintaining a high degree of control over collective affairs.36 Although such a process can resemble what Knoke and Prensky refer to as ‘organized anarchies’ (in which the organization is literally FUTURES April 1987

The dynamics of voluntm partici$ation in futures research 175

held hostage to the vested interests of its members),37 the advantages of a democratic structure in terms of its responsiveness to environmental demands and member values are considerable. 38 In addition, it is clear that participative decision making and policy setting in voluntary organizations enhances member commitment to the organization.3g In essence, volunteers ‘buy’ authority and control within their respective organizations through the contribution of their time and effort. This is no less true in volunteer-based futures research projects in which participants wield considerable control over the selection of research topics, methodological operations, and interpretation and dissemination of results. This democratic approach is in direct contrast to normal research processes in which design and analysis features are under the direct control of a single (or small group of) researcher(s). Certainly, the futures researcher must provide the basic structure within which volunteers can carry on the necessary research activities. However, the researcher must exercise considerable skill in allowing volunteer participants to ‘own’ the research process without seriously compromising the scientific validity of the research itself. Increasing diversity of volunteers. A final issue related to volunteer participation involves the increasing diversity of individuals who volunteer for social action programmes. In the 1960s and early 197Os, volunteers could be characterized as social activists rallying around single social or political issues (eg equal rights). As we move through the 198Os, however, it becomes clear that volunteers are being drawn from a much more diverse range of socioeconomic and political backgrounds and that the issues addressed by volunteers have become more pragmatic in nature (eg weatherproofing houses or collecting food for the homeless).40 Consequently, today’s volunteers are also likely to possess a broader range of values and priorities than ever before. This ideological diversity is especially relevant to futures research for several reasons. Not only does greater. diversity ensure a more representative sample of the social and political values upon which futures research should be based, but it also extends access to the mechanisms of futures planning to a much broader citizenry. In addition, this diversity is likely to intensify the demands placed on futures researchers by requiring them not only to be aware of the many values held by research participants which may influence the quality and nature of their contribution to the research process, but also to be able to accept and understand the various value orientations themselves. Volunteers and the futures research process The inclusion of citizen volunteers in futures research creates both unique opportunities and unique challenges for the futures researcher. The discussion of futures research and volunteer participation presented thus far provides a basis for undertanding what these unique opportunities and challenges might be. This information, combined with the author’s personal experience with the futures research effort described in this article, leads to a number of observations about the nature of volunteer participation in futures research. Table 1 provides a rough summary of these observations and allows the FUTURES April 1987

176

The dynamicsof volun~en participationin futuresresearch

TABLE 1. IMPACTS

OF VOLUNTEER

PARTICIPATION

Characteristics lnlsncy

Ol

the field Personality/

lnltial enthusiasm and

social

interest Is high: some confusion about purpose Of futures research may exist.. demyslificatlon may occur; tlefd may ettrect zealots and opportunists.

eftributes

a,,,,rOach

perspective

The normative nature of futures research eppee,s tcl afflllatlve needs Of vofunteers: misconceptlons may exist *bout the ‘predictive’ power 01 futures research methods; flexibility of methods allows adaptation of research to individual needs of participants.

Atfiliatlve needs may enhanceacceptance of others’ views; social and professlonal diversity can stimulate pnrtlclpants’ sense Of innovation and originality; overze~fous participants *re likely to be tempered by more realistic viewpoints.

Sociellwllticaf activlem contributes strong va,ue perspectives to the research process; lack of sclsntltic dtscipline may detract from quality of research results: vested interests Of participants may bias research priordies.

Action orientatmn of participants mey contlicl with ‘academic’ demands of the research process; issue identification may reflect Shortterm needs of Participants rather than legitimate kmg4erm co”c*m*.

Member diversity can limit group cohesiveness and commitment; interdisciplinary competition can split the group; multiple rewards required to meet wide variety of particapant needs.

Self.expression IS both valued and rewarded; common grwp QIXIS and values may emerge. provide sense of unity and missmn to participants; value laden nature of futures research may be frustrating to more analytical participants.

Immediate gratiticatmn is lacking; success of the research effort itself is ditflcutt to measure; Sense Of vision and innovatweness required by futures research can contrtbute 10 strong *ene* of ‘mission’.

The complexity of futures research can be trustratIng.. clearly Identifiable rewards are lacking; normaIive methods diffuse indwidual recognition.

Authority

Democratic process further confuses basic research issues; expert opinlonlinflusnce is resisted.. leadership becomes diffused: ‘organized anarchy’ view of futures research may prevail detract from Image of futures field.

CXmsensus~based

Improved Chance of obtaining a we,, informed membership; * more pragmatic orientation may permeate the research effort; full agreement on the goals end purpose Of the research may be difficult to obtain.

of volunteers Multldrsclplinary membership

The novelty of futures research enhances participant status; patiiclpsnt achievement motivation contributes to hloh quality work which Improves credibilitv of the field: participants may possess Ulterior mohves (political/ economic).

Dtversity 01 membership

RESEARCH

NORtrad~Ifon~I reseerch methods

M~twat~~n~I basis

s,,“cf”re

IN FUTURES

methods are readily accepted by participants; diffused leadershipcan result methodological disorganization and dtffuslon of research focus; participants may resmt the influence of ‘experts’ In structuring the reseerch process.

of

Dominance of individual participants is not well accepted; equal value is placed in on all contributions andopinions,decisionmaking can be cumbersomeand suboptimal: mterdisciplinary conflict can erode allegiance superordinate group goals.

A vsriety methw,o,o&!lcs, approaches can be used.. multiple talent ISBveltebte; both lntultlve and analytical methods can be employed; e”vlro”ments, scanning process is enhanced; co”ee”s”s on methods to used interpretation Of results Is difficult.

tnterdisciplinary lnteractlon IS enhanced; both academic and popular input Is available: questioning of individual value perspectives is maximized.

“elubbesed

Lwpterm

Variety of value perspectives are tolerated; radical wews are tempered by democratic process; mafority values may overrtde lees popular. but equally valid. views; critical scrutiny of value perspectives tc , may *we way to egalitarian acceptance of all views. Representative crosssection Of eoclal values IS available; chances of politicat dommatlon are reduced; extreme diversity may lead to conflict or chew pragmatic orientabon may restrict range of Issues viewed as important by participants.

De”OCretlC *lr”Ct”re may contribute to confusion about long-term research obfectives; lack of strong leadership may result in diffused eenee of vision abat the future.

Consensus Who”, the most dewable elterne,lVe futures may be dittlcult to achieve; pragmatic orientation of “o,““,eer* may interfere with more imaginatlvethinkmg processes (left v right brain lunctlon).

identification of general areas in which volunteer participation is likely to make a positive contribution to the futures research process. The table further indicates areas in which volunteer participation may be problematic and thus require particular attention from the futures researcher. Obviously, all of the potential ramifications of including citizen volunteers in futures research are not included in Table 1 (readers are encouraged to consider other possible impacts that may exist). However, the results of this analysis provide a basis for identifying some of the fundamental issues underlying the volunteer-based futures research process. These issues are summarized as follows: (1) In general, volunteers are very intrigued byfutures research but understand little about it. As mentioned earlier in this article, most individuals possess a view of futures research that has been shaped by popular ‘futuristic’ writings (eg Naisbitt, Toffler, or even science fiction authors). Consequently, there exists a desire among many individuals to identify themselves with the field and to gain direct

FUTURES April 1987

access to the potential benefits (eg advanced warning of social/economic events) which the field is perceived to provide. These expectations can result in disillusionment when individuals realize that their involvement in futures research offers no easy answers and, in fact, requires a considerable investment of time and energy which may yield few tangible results. For this reason, the involvement of citizen volunteers in futures research should be preceded by several important steps, including: (a) careful assessment of the individual’s prior exposure to the field; (b) a clear statement of the nature and extent of the volunteer’s expected involvement in the research; and (c) the required reading of introductory futures research materials (eg Bezold et al,

The Study of the Future).

These steps can help demystify the futures field for potential participants and discourage the involvement of opportunists who seek to exploit the research process. volunteers. Futures (2) The long-term timeframe offutures research can beproblematicfor research tends to focus on the period of from five to 50 years into the future. Consequently, it requires the capacity to detach oneself from immediate consequences and to consider issues that may not even manifest themselves in one’s lifetime. Volunteers, on the other hand, are characterized by their action orientation and need to demonstrate relatively immediate influence on the issues they address. This situation is further compounded by the absence of clear-cut measures of success in regard to the research process. As a result, futures research can prove to be a very frustrating experience for volunteers. In this regard, the following suggestions may be of value:

(a) emphasis on process-related outcomes (eg participation level, increasing awareness of issues, etc) as measures of success; (b) establishment of immediate goals with identifiable results (eg publication of a report or newspaper article); and (c) the assignment of specific, time-limited ‘projects’ to individuals or small work groups so that individual contributions can be recognized and rewarded.4’ Although these suggestions may seem simplistic, they do provide a motivational basis for volunteer involvement that futures research alone does not. (3)

The normative

nature offutures

research is conducive to volunteerparticipation,

but must

The reliance of futures research on relatively normative methods which stress the integration of social values into the research process is clearly served by the inclusion of citizen volunteers. The range and diversity of social/political values possessed by volunteers can be a valuable resource for the researcher in identifying key issues and potential alternative futures. Similarly, the normative process itself (ie clarification of values and related assumptions in arriving at a consensus about the future) can enhance the sense of unity and purpose that volunteers find most rewarding. However, the normative process is also susceptible to both political influence and even more subtle group processes (eg ‘groupthink’) which can severely bias research outcomes, especially if participants are less interested in the scientific be careful&

controlled

FUTURES April 1987

by the futures

researcher.

178

The dynamics of uolunfen parttcipafion in futures research

integrity of the work than in manifesting their own personal or political objectives. 42 In order to prevent the research process from being abused by dominant individuals or groups, the futures researcher must exercise considerable control over group processes. Although there is certainly no way to remove all bias from the normative process, several considerations should be made, including: (a) the use of relatively anonymous issue analysis procedures (eg Delphi) which minimize the effect of group processes on decision making; (b) the review and evaluation of all group work by independent experts or committees; (c) the careful selection of volunteers who represent minority political or social views; and (d) the requirement of at least minimal empirical support for all research findings (ie observable evidence that an issue is, in fact, significant). These steps can help ensure the representation of all relevant issues in the research process and, ultimately, reinforce the credibility of the research results. (4) The democratic orientation of volunteers conjlicts with the basic research process. As already mentioned, most scientific research is scholarly in nature and under the direct control of one, or a few, individual(s). In addition, methodological design features of the research are usually based upon a logical consideration of the theoretical issues being examined. In volunteer-based futures research, however, major methodological concessions must be made, not only to engage volunteers in the research itself but also to meet their needs for democratic control of the process. These concessions may take many forms, but generally involve breaking down the research process into easily comprehensible steps and then facilitating discussion and consensus on which steps to pursue next. Needless to say, this process can result in extremely slow research progress and a generally diffused methodological focus. A great deal of patience and organizational skill is required on the part of the futures researcher to manage the research process successfully while still providing the necessary latitude and control to the volunteer participants. (5)

The social diversity of volunteers is an asset to futures research, but can be dlijicult to manage. Futures research is marked by its multidisciplinary membership and, in

this regard, the utilization of volunteers has a clear advantage. The rich variety of social and political values contributed to the research process by volunteers has already been mentioned. In addition, the range of professional talents and perspectives provided by many volunteers (eg law, medicine, education, engineering, management, etc) allows a depth of analysis in the research process which would not otherwise be possible. However, this diversity can also contribute to conflict and divisiveness among volunteers who possess radically different professional, political or cognitive orientations. One illustrative example is the generally empirical and extrapolative approach to futures research taken by ‘hard’ science professionals (eg engineers, administrators, bankers, etc) v the more normative and intuitive approach preferred by other professional groups (eg educators, artists, social workers, etc). It is, moreover,

FUTURES April 1987

not uncommon for those belonging to the former group to view those in the latter group as weak and relativistic while being viewed, in turn, as unimaginative and reductionistic. Consequently, the futures researcher must not only be capable of breaking down the research process into both analytical and normative processes for respective participants, but must also have the skill accurately and sensitively to bridge the cognitive gaps between volunteers who possess different methodological perspectives. This process, in turn, places considerable demands for cognitive flexibility and interpersonal skill on the futures researcher him/herself. (6) In general,

volunteers are most valuable during initial and final

stages of the futures

The inclusion of volunteers in the futures research process generally requires the use of relatively normative and subjective methods (eg scenario writing or imaging), since the more analytical methods (eg crossimpact analysis) require technical expertise exceeding that of most volunteers. It is further suggested that volunteer participation is most useful during the initial issue analysis and value clarification stage of research and during the final interpretation/dissemination of results. The initial phase of the research in general relies heavily on the generation of issues and alternatives related to the future, a process which is greatly enriched by the variety of input provided by volunteers. The analytical demands of this preliminary process are minimal and the expression of individual social/political values can be encouraged. In turn, the final phase of futures research involving the general interpretation and dissemination of the results to the public is especially rewarding to volunteers who can satisfy their needs for political action and social recognition. In addition, the diversity of volunteers involved in the research is an advantage at this stage since the results of the research are likely to impact a wider audience than if volunteers were not involved. It is, however, desirable for the bulk of the actual research analysis (be it scenario writing, trend analysis, etc) to be the direct responsibility of the futures researcher him/herself, with volunteers acting primarily as resource and support personnel. This basic distribution of roles not only best utilizes the volunteers themselves, but (most importantly) ensures the accuracy and credibility of the research results. The list of issues provided here is by no means exhaustive, since it is likely that other researchers having worked with citizen volunteers under similar circumstances would submit additional (and, perhaps, contradictory) observations. It is expected, however, that the basic dynamics of volunteer participation in futures research identified in this analysis are relatively enduring and would be applicable to other research settings. Two potential caveats to such a generalization, however, should be stated. First, the author of this article did not initiate the research project at hand but was brought into the process after membership and procedural decisions had already been made. Consequently, the author was afforded considerably less control over the structure of the research process than if he had been included at the outset and allowed to influence participant selection and project design features. Second, the organizational context of the current research is that of a local Chamber of Commerce, an organization with relatively explicit political motivations and selective membership. As mentioned earlier, an attempt was made to elicit participation from a broad range of public research process.

FUTURES April 1987

180

The dynamics of uolunten participation in juturcs research

and private groups. However, membership in the project was still heavily represented by private sector individuals who shared many of the social and political orientations of the Chamber organization. As a result, the research process (especially the selection of issues for study) was heavily influenced by this the fundamental results of this orientation. Despite these idiosyncrasies, analysis should, nevertheless, be of value to research professionals in planning and implementing volunteer-based futures research projects in the future. Conclusions The purpose of this article has not been to indict volunteers for their shortcomings in regard to futures research but, rather, to point out the complex dynamics underlying the participation of volunteers in the research process. Given the growing popularity of futures research and the likely increase in public awareness and participation this popularity will bring, futures researchers will require an understanding of volunteer participation in order to manage the research process successfully. It is hoped that this article has contributed to such an understanding. In addition, there are a number of final conclusions about citizen participation in futures research that can be made at this time. First, volunteers are considered to be an asset to the futures research process. Despite the added demands which they place on the research process (and, volunteers contribute a wealth of indeed, the researcher him/herself), information, resources and perspectives to the futures process that would otherwise be unavailable. Beyond purely pragmatic concerns, however, it is imperative that citizens be engaged in the futures research process, not only to ensure the equal representation of all existing value perspectives but, most importantly, to provide the public with a mechanism for comprehending the range of alternative futures available and selecting desirable (or even necessary) courses of action. It is, perhaps, in the true sense of ‘anticipatory democracy’ that volunteer participation in futures research is most important .43 Second, it is clear that knowledge of futures research methodology alone is insufficient to provide the futures researcher with the skills necessary to manage a volunteer-based research project effectively. Of critical importance to the success of such a project is the researcher’s ability to structure the research experience to be rewarding for volunteers and to provide the facilitative interand effective relations among vention necessary to maintain positive participants. This is no small order, and suggests the need to expose students of futures research to a curriculum in decisionmaking, group process and problem solving, and organizational behaviour. As futures research permeates a wider range of organizational settings, the need for organizational and group skills on the part of futures researchers will increase. Third, and finally, much remains to be known about the process of citizen involvement in futures research. Since most research methodology has been developed for relatively exclusive use by professional researchers, the discussion in this article has focused on the methodological ‘concessions’ that are made to include citizen volunteers in the process. However, it is equally plausible to assume that since citizen volunteers will increasingly be involved in futures FUTURES April 1987

The dynamics of volmtcn participation in futures research 181

research, methodology should be designed accordingly. Such methodology would have to accommodate the unique attributes of volunteers (eg need for short-term results, democratic orientation, etc) while still yielding results of acceptable scientific validity. The development of such methods designed explicitly for use with citizen volunteers would go far in improving the volunteer-based research process. Other areas of development might include the improvement of methods for selecting and training volunteers for futures research, assessing the specific attitudes and preferences of volunteers themselves toward the research process, and the creation of new strategies for translating futures research results into social and political action. The pursuit of these, and other, issues will be necessary to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of how best to utilize volunteers in the futures research process.

References 1. Edward Cornish with members and staff of the World Future Society, The Study ofthe Future (Washington, DC, World Future Society, 1977), page 239. 2. Michael Marien, “Future studies and policy studies: Complementary fields in public affairs”, Policy Studies Review, 4 (l), August 1984, pages 35-42. 3. 0. W. Markley, “Preparing for the professional futures field”, Futures, 15, (2), February 1983, pages 47-64. 4. Abdul Khakee, “Futures oriented municipal planning”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 28, 1985, pages 63-83; Sohail Inayatullah, “Futures and the organization: The F&es, 16, (3), June 1984, pages 302-314. Hawaii judiciary research programme”, 5. Clement Bezold, editor, Anticipatory Democracy (New York, Vintage, 1978). 6. Ibid, pages 7-8; Clement Bezold, personal communication (December 1985). 7. See John McHale, “The emergence of futures research”, page 11, and Eleanora B. Masini, “The global diffusion of futures research”, page 25; both in Jib Fowles, editor, Handbook of Futures Research (Westport, CT, USA, Greenwood, 1978). 8. See Olaf Helmer, Looking Forward: A Guide to Fufures Research (Beverly Hills, CA, USA, Sage, the blunders in forecasting”, Futures, 1.5, (3), June 1983); also see Michel Godet, “Reducing 1983, pages 181-192; also see “Part III: The difficulties of futures research”, in Jib Fowles, editor, Handbook of Futures Research, op tit, reference 7, pages 141-423. 9. Good discussions of the characteristics of futurists are provided in Edward Cornish with members and staff of the World Future Society, op cir, reference 1, chapter 9; and 0. W. Markley, op tit, reference 3, pages 49-50. Also, an excellent discussion of the differences between futures research and policy research is provided in Michael Marien, op cif, reference 2. 10. See discussions in Edward Cornish with members and staff of the World Future Society, op cif, reference 1, Appendix B; and John McHale, op tit, reference 7. 11. Selwyn Enzer, “New directions in futures methodology”, in J. Morrison, W. Renfro and W. Boucher, editors, Applying Methods and Techniques of Futures Research (San Francisco, CA, USA, Jossey-Bass, 1983). 12. Michel Godet, op tit, reference 8, page 185. 13. W. H. Clive Simmonds, “The nature of futures problems”, in Harold Linstone and W. H. Clive Simmonds, Fuures Research: New Directions (Reading, MA, USA, Addison-Wesley Company, 1977), pages 13-26. 14. Roy Amara, “Probing the future”, in Jib Fowles, editor, Handbook of Futures Research, op tit, reference 7, page 41. 15. Michel Godet, op cif, reference 8; Olaf Helmer, O/Jtit, reference 8. 16. Michael Marien, op cif, reference 2, pages 35-42. 17. David Loye, The Knowable Future: A Psychology of Forecarting and Prophecy (New York, Wiley and Sons, 1978), pages 35-36.

FUTURES April 1987

182

The dynamicsof volunfcerparficiptiion in f&res research

18. Alan Ionsdale, “Judgement research in policy analysis”, Fufurcs, 10, (3) June 1978, pages 213-226. “The state of futures research: personal reflections”, Futures, 16, (4), 19. John Richardson, 1984, pages 382-395; also see Edward Comish with members and staff of the World Future Society, op cif, reference 1, pages 205-207. 20. John McHale, op cif, reference 7, page 10. 21. Michael Marien, op cif, reference 2, page 39. “Futures studies and the policy sciences”, Fufures, 16, (6), December 1984, 22. Peter deleon, pages 586-593. 23. Michael Marien, op cif, reference 2, page 41. 24. Edward Cornish and members and staff of the World Future Society, op tit, reference 1, pages 184-187. 25. Alan Ionsdale, opcif, reference 18, page 220; also see Jonathan Evans, “Psychological pitfalls in forecasting”, Fufures, 12, (5), August 1982, pages 258-265. 26. Jib Fowles, “The problem of values in futures research”, op cif, reference 7, pages 125-140. 27. Edward Cornish with members and staff of the World Futures Society, op cif, reference 1, pages 93-103. 28. Ibid, page 98. 29. See Ralph M. Kramer, Voluntary Agencies in fhe We~are Sfafe (Berkeley, CA, USA, University of California Press, 1981); or David Knoke and James Wood, Organizedfor Acfion: Commifmenf in Voluntary Asrociafions for a more comprehensive review of voluntarism. 30. See Amitai Etzioni, X+heActive So&y: A Theory of Societal and Political Processes (New York, Free Press, 1968); or Edward Laumann and Franz Pappi, Networks of Collective Acfion: A Perspective on Community Zn@ence Systems (New York, Academic Press, 1976); or David Smith, Richard Reddy and Burt Baldwin, editors, Volunfary Action Research: 1972 (Lexington, MA, USA, D. C. Heath and Co, 1972) for comprehensive reviews of political and organizational components of voluntarism. 31. Richard Reddy and David Smith, “Personality and capacity determinants of individual in D. Smith, R. Reddy and B. Baldwin, participation in organized voluntary action”, editors, Volunfary Acfion Research: 1972 (Lexington, MA, USA, Lexington Books, 1972). Also see the 1973 edition of this work for additional information. 32. William Verity and Frank Pace, “Volunteering: the policy-maker’s role”, Voluntary Acfion Leadership, Winter 1983, pages 30-32; also see D. L. Phillips, “Social participation and happiness”, American Journal of Sociology, 72, 1967, pages 479-488. 33. R. A. Guzzo, “Types of rewards, cognitions, and work motivation”, Acaakmy of Managemenf Review, 4, 1979, pages 75-86. “What relevance do organization theories have for 34. David Knoke and David Prensky, Social Science Quarferb, 65, (l), 1984, pages 3-20; also see David voluntary organizations?“, “Individual motives and organizational incentive Knoke and Christine Wright-Isak, systems”, in S. B. Bacharach, editor, Perspectives in Organizafional Sociology: Theory and Research (Vol 1) (Greenwich, CT, USA, JAI Press, 1981). 35. Jone L. Pearce, “Job attitude and motivation differences between volunteers and employees from comparable organizations”, Journal of Applied Psycholou, 68, (4), 1983, pages 646-652. 36. John Meyer and Brian Rowen, “Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth American Journal of Sociology, 83, 1977, pages 340-363. and ceremony”, 37. David Knoke and David Prensky, op cif, reference 34, page 13. 38. Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizafions (New York, Wiley and Sons, 1978), pages 323-331. and detachment in voluntary associations”, American Socio39. David Knoke, “Commitment logical Review, 46, 1981, pages 141-158. in America: 1982-83”, Volunfary Action Leadership, 1983 40. Kerry Allen, “Volunteering (Winter), pages 22-26. volunteer jobs for results”, Volunfary Action k&ship, 41. See Richard Lynch, “Designing 1983 (Summer), pages 20-23; or Diane Abbey-Livingston and Doreen Sears, “The Leisurabilily 10, (3), 1984, pages 4-12, for discussion of changing role of volunteers”, methods to enhance volunteer involvement and productivity. 42. ‘Groupthink’ is a concept originated by Irving Janis to describe the process of group policy

FUTURES April 1987

43.

making in which unpopular alternatives and potentially disastrous outcomes of a policy position are omitted from consideration due to extreme group pressures for conformity and unanimity within the group. For a detailed discussion, see Irving Janis, Victim of Croupthink (Boston, MA, USA, Houghton-Mifflin, 1972). Clement Bezold, op cd, reference 5, chapter 1.

FUTURES April 1987