Community Development Through Ethnographic Futures Research

One of the overriding concerns of community development is the question of how to get people more involved in deciding the fate of their community. Community developers have relied on many different approaches to organizing participation in the past. One approach offering promise, which should be more fully explored, is Ethnographic Futures Research (EFR).1 EFR taps into people's general interest in the future and can serve as a catalyst for community development. The process generates feelings of ownership in the type of future people want most for their community.

Futures research is a systematic inquiry into possible or probable alternative futures. The methods are useful for: determining the state of knowledge about a particular trend, identifying implications and consequences of a possible future, and describing possible alternatives. EFR is one method concerned with the cultural aspects of studying the future. It's important to note that EFR doesn't study the future. There's no one predetermined future, but many potential futures. EFR is interested in people's perceptions of what the future will be and their preferences for what the future should be.

EFR is built around gathering scenarios. A scenario is an imagined "future history." It's a story that's usually complex and might contain a number of projections or forecasts. The scenario used in EFR contains a number of related elements, for example: natural resources, population, social institutions, economy.

The first step of EFR is to define the population of people to be interviewed. In our case, we'll choose a group from the community we're working in. The group need not consist of experts in a particular area. We're seeking a broader social view of the future and not a specialized one. The direction for community development will come from the broader social view.

A series of interviews make up the basis of EFR. Three scenarios are asked of each person interviewed. The interviewee will construct an optimistic, a pessimistic, and a most probable scenario for a particular time, say the year 2015. To help visualize the relationship between the scenarios, the interviewee is asked to imagine a scale of 1 to 100, with one representing the worst possible social future for the community and 100 representing the best possible social future. The most probable future for the community will presumably fall somewhere in between.

The interviewee is asked to concentrate on a possible optimistic scenario, about 90 on the continuum. This isn't the very best (100), but it's desirable from the perspective of the interviewee. After the optimistic scenario is completed, a pessimistic scenario, about 10, is collected. Again, 10 isn't the very worst (1) that could happen, but it's clearly undesirable. The process of collecting optimistic and pessimistic scenarios can help clarify the interviewee's personal values.

After the pessimistic scenario is completed, the most probable scenario is done. In this scenario, it's important to note that it's no longer what the interviewee wishes, but what he or she believes will happen. This tension between what's wanted and what's expected is potentially the greatest realm for learning. The interviewee is first "stretched" in an optimistic direction and then in a pessimistic direction. This results in a longer, richer, more interesting, most probable scenario than would be the case without the "stretching."

It's important to keep the interview open-ended. The interviewee should feel free and spontaneous. Some categories may be used to direct the interview and to help solicit a well-rounded scenario. Examples of categories that can be used are: demography, natural resources, energy, economy, environment, politics and government, social structure, communication, education, religion, the arts, and community identity.

In keeping with the open-ended nature of the interview, a copy of the summary of the interview should be sent to the interviewee as soon as possible after the interview. The interviewee should be encouraged to change anything that was said or add more after reflecting on it. After the revised material is received, it should be organized into a final report. The final report will examine commonalities and differences and point out some of the implications of the scenarios for the community.

A team of volunteers could be trained in the methods of EFR and carry out the interviewing and writing of the final report. Once the document is released, it could provide the focal point for discussions about the community. Panels and forums could be formed to discuss the vision of what the community's future should be. The present conditions of the community, along with the most probable future of the community, should be discussed in public forums.

The gaps between what is, what might be, and what should be are brought into public discussion through the EFR method. The question then becomes, how do we get from where we are to where we want to be? Volunteer action groups can form to explore the steps needed to be taken. Community development results from people putting their vision of what should be into practice.

The future is of concern to all of us. The study of the future can serve as a rallying point for community development. By using EFR, members of a community will be guided into thinking more intently about the future.2 These views on the future of the community can be collected and used to spark a dialogue in the community. EFR can thus be one of the tools for Extension community development.

1. EFR was developed by Robert Textor, Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305. For more detailed information on the method, see Robert B. Textor, A Handbook on Ethnographic Futures Research (Stanford, California: Cultural and Educational Futures Research Project, Stanford University, 1980).

2. Ethnographic Futures Research has excellent educational benefits for the interviewee. See Robert B. Textor, "Ethnographic Futures Research and Its Educational Potential," in Educational Futures: Sourcebook, Fred Kierstead and others, eds. (Washington, D. C.: World Future Society, 1979).