Models of Action Research – the Search Conference
Essay Preview: Models of Action Research – the Search Conference
Report this essay
The Search Conference
Of all of the tools utilized by action researchers, the one that has been developed exclusively to suit the needs of the action research approach is that of the search conference, initially developed by Eric Trist and Fred Emery at the Tavistock Institute in 1959, and first implemented for the merger of Bristol-Siddley Aircraft Engines in 1960.
The search conference format has seen widespread development since that time, with variations on Trist and Emerys theme becoming known under other names due to their promotion by individual academics and consultants. These include Dannemiller-Tysons Interactive Strategic Planning, Marvin Weisbords Future Search Conference, Dick Axelrods Conference Model Redesign, Harrison Owens Open Space, and ICAs Strategic Planning (Rouda 1995).
Search conferences also have been conducted for many different circumstances and participants, including: decision-makers from several countries visioning the “Future of Participative Democracy in the Americas”; [vi] practitioners and policymakers in the field of health promotion in Ontario taking charge in an era of cutbacks; [vii] and Xerox employees sorting out enterprise re-organization. [viii]
Eric Trist sums up the process quite nicely –
“Searchingis carried out in groups which are composed of the relevant stakeholders. The group meets under social island conditions for 2-3 days, sometimes as long as five. The opening sessions are concerned with elucidating the factors operating in the wider contextual environment – those producing the meta-problems and likely to affect the future. The content is contributed entirely by the members. The staff are facilitators only. Items are listed in the first instance without criticism in the plenary session and displayed on flip charts which surround the room. The material is discussed in greater depth in small groups and the composite picture checked out in plenary. The group next examines its own organizational setting or settings against this wider background and then proceeds to construct a picture of a desirable future. It is surprising how much agreement there often is. Only when all this has been done is consideration given to action steps” [ix]