A Search Conference is a large-group task-oriented conversation" (Emery and Purser 1996)
The Search Conference methodology, an exercise in collective problem identification, discussion, and agenda setting, has been used for over 40 years to explore ambiguity and difference, in the interests of forwarding research and action.
There are a number of assumptions underlying the Search conference methodology. In the right situation (such as that developed through the Search Conference conversation):
(Emery and Purser 1996)
Search Conferences have been utilised across a wide range of business, government and intellectual disciplines. The archetypal example is that of the very first Search Conference which brought together two merging aircraft companies, each with fixed world views about how airplanes should be powered: one produced pistons, the other jets, and the result was a new product, still in service today (Futuresearch 2001-2). At a very practical level, it has also been used to bring together trade experts (eg bakers) to develop curricula, a group who it might be suggested would otherwise not be prepared to individually document trade craft and skills (Anderson 1986).
The method can be equally applied in a community setting. For example, the method has been used to obtain the meaningful participation of 'ordinary' citizens with their local knowledge in developing plans for economically depressed regions of NY state, in contrast to more traditional, controlled, and frequently exclusionary, hierarchical methods of social planning. (Schafft and Greenwood 2002)
It has been long recognised by observers of community development processes that there are a series of ongoing tensions between the different perspectives of stakeholders, and it can be argued that these are familiar across the policy process, and it can be suggested, to the environment surrounding technology in the community sector. It is likely that discussion at the Search Conference will reflect some of these viewpoints particularly since the focus is upon relationships between community and funders (particularly government) in using a complex and resource-intensive system (information and communications technology).
Of course, the meaning of 'participation' is one that has enormous variation in practice, ranging form pure tokenistic consultation to full citizen control of the agenda (and outcomes). Furthermore, achieving effective representation in participation is another challenge -- how are people chosen?, and even if there is that representation, will the dangers of group think, community politics, fear of challenging those who hold resources, and personal styles prevent effective participation by those who are usually under-represented.
Rothman and Tropman (Rothman 1972), in a widely-cited article, argue that at least three perspectives come to play in understanding some of the ideologies held by participants in community-oriented processes:
Locality Development Model
This is most closely identified with a democratic, participatory, grass-roots community development model
Social Planning Model
This emphasises rational, planned, and technically-linked processes, with or without community involvement. The commitment to democratic processes or change cannot be assumed.
Social Action Model
This is most closely identified with an activist model of community development, including changes in power, resources, and decision-making processes.
If we match these three perspectives (at the minimum) to interactions with ICT there are at least 6 domains interacting, and of course each of these can contain many different perspectives
| Locality Development Model | Perspectives on ICT & Community Based Organisations |
| Social Planning Model | Perspectives on ICT & Community Based Organisations |
| Social Action Model | Perspectives on ICT & Community Based Organisations |
As a collaborative enterprise, Search conferences aim to facilitate not just knowledge sharing, but knowledge production. One might add a further dimension, that the aim of a Search Conference is knowledge utilisation through the generation of ideas that have a likelihood of implementation. The Search Conference thus serves as a form of on the spot, dialogue-oriented, action-research outcome evaluation whose outcome is owned by the search conference community. (Schafft and Greenwood 2002, Patton 1997).
Search Conferences emphasise the importance of face-to face interaction between stakeholders to (ideally) create a new community of interest. The process of meeting and discussing engenders new ideas, recognising that there are differences. This is in contrast to methods such as Delphi Technique which were originally developed to use email systems to vote and rank issues amongst widely dispersed members of known knowledge communities. Delphi also tends to be hierarchical, in that the control and processing of information remains with a small group. It also looks to build consensus -- but in the case of exploring the many options for the use of technology in society, is this necessarily the right solution? (Ministry of Education 1985).
Search Conference interaction can take place over one or more days, in a location that is comfortable and likely to be conducive to good relationship building. Even the seating plan is of importance, as the idea is to bring all into the conversation, rather than focus on one expert. Such ideas are also familiar from adult education where experiential learning and recognition of life skills in an appropriate learning seeting are integral to the learning and change process (Knowles 1984).
Given the current uncertainly and questioning about the how community-based organisations' use ICT, the Search Conference Methodology would appear to well placed as a method for engendering discussion and developing new agendas and pathways.
Of course, given the stresses and strains in ordinary dialogue between known and unknown partners (eg in business negotiations) it is somewhat optimistic to expect that all these conditions will be met in a Search Conference meeting However, Emery and Purses have argued that their method is consistently successful, and in particular, issues of conflict and fear of dispute can be overcome by setting in place a discussion about things held in common. What is held in common then sets in place confidences to discuss what is not shared. Indeed, Search Conferences are not about consensus, but constructive engagement and conversation about the unknown, the potential, and if conditions are right, the ideal from which more practical solutions can be found.
Interestingly, this model of dialogue is somewhat different from that proposed by Sharon Beder, who has suggest that a consensus-based model consultation on technological issues, similar to that used in Denmark be adopted. Such a model could be criticised for being somewhat innapropriate to the more culturally and politically sharp-edged Australian community (Beder, 2002)
Search Conference commonly have three stages:
In terms of the current event Search Conference, Community and Information Technology: the Big Questions, the following elements have been developed in conjunction with a professional group facilitator
The use of outside experts may appear to go against the principles of equally valuing all ideas, collaboration etc, but it is felt that the following reasons support their use:
The aim of the morning session, which will including the overviews offered by keynotes is to promote discussion about where we have come from, where are we now, what is working/not working. Out of this interactive discussion it is hoped that themes will emerge to set the scene for after noon work in small teams upon identified issues.
CCNR staff will also over a brief overview of current research into the use of information and communications technology by community -based organisations.
Based on key issues identified in the morning, participants will be asked to work in breakout groups for about 90 minutes to develop SWOT analyses, options for future research and action in ways that are meaningful to them. Groups will appoint a faciltator, rapporteur and scribe
After a break, groups will report back in a plenary and discussion is aimed to lead to future priorities, actions, and hopefully, commitment of participants to utilisation and action. It is also intended that people walk away with a sense of investment and commitment, and as part of the reward for this, there will also be a social function.
The test of the conference will be the use of the capacity for future action, engendered through new understandings, to have an impact on policy, implementation, and future research directions.
Anderson, T. (1986). The Facilitation of Curriculum Research Workshops in TAFE. Adelaide, TAFE National Centre for Research and Development.
Beder, S. (2002). "Consensus Conference and the 'People's Enlightenment'." Arena Magazine 60: 20.
Emery, M. and R. Purser (1996). The Search Conference: A Powerful Method for Planned Organisational Change and Community Action. San Francisco, Jossey Bass Publisher.
Futuresearch (2001-2). Historical Roots and Theoretical Basis. http://www.futuresearch.net/the_method/overview/history_theory.cfm
Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in Action. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Ministry of Education, V. (1985). Destination: Decisions. Decision-making strategies for school communities. Melbourne, Ministry of Education, Victoria.
Rothman, J. (1972). Three Models of Community Organization Practice. Strategies of Community Organization. F. M. Cox (ed.). Itasca, Ill, FE Peacock: 20-36.
Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-focussed Evaluation. Beverly Hills, Sage.
Schafft, K. A. and D. J. Greenwood (2002). The Promises and Dilemmas of Participation: Action Research, Search Conference Methodology and Community Development.http://www.cardi.cornell.edu/canal/Gre enwood_Schafft.PDF
Larry Stillman, Centre for Community Networking Research