WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT THE FUTURE: IMPLICATIONS FOR NONTRADITIONAL GRADUATE EDUCATION

Ernest M. Schuttenberg Sheldon Eisenberg

A B S T R A C T : Post-secondary educational inst i tut ions are char- acterized by the i r seemingly inheren t resistance to the nontradit ional . Unders tand ing ways of th ink ing about the future, however, will help the educator who has nontradi- t ional ideas to plan and implement these ideas more effectively. This article presents different orientat ions to th ink ing about the future and employs futures analysis tech- niques for discussing some of the major ideas in the previous articles in this special journal issue.

In all insti tutions of our society the motivation to design and implement new programs is fueled by the availability of new knowledge, by a dissatisfaction with what currently exists, or by a feeling that changing conditions will make present practices obsolete. In post-secondary educational insti tutions pressure for change has been increasing. On the one hand, the needs of adult students for more flexible modes of learning are being more clearly understood. On the other hand, insti tutions of higher learning are faced with the challenge of thriving in a less hospitable economic and social environment.

Post-secondary educational insti tutions are characterized by their seemingly inherent resistance to the nontraditional. A university 's traditions reflect and maintain its identity. Thus, proposed changes that run counter to traditions are likely to encounter resistance, for they may threaten a number of established institutional constituencies.

To design a nontraditional educational program is to create some- thing different from what has existed in the past in order to meet the

Drs. Schut tenberg and Eisenberg are Associate Professors of Education at The Cleveland State Universi ty, Cleveland, Ohio, 44115.

Alternative Higher Education, Vol. 4(1), Fall, 1979 77

0361-6851/79/1500-0077500.95 O 1979 Human Sciences Press

78 ALTERNATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

needs of the present and the future. The authors of this article believe that understanding ways of thinking about the future will help the educator who has nontraditional ideas to plan and implement these ideas more effectively. The purpose of the article is to present different orientations to thinking about the future, to show how these may apply to the planning of non-traditional educational programs, and to dem- onstrate that futures thinking may be used as a framework for analyz- ing the major ideas of the previous articles in this special journal issue.

Thinking about the future can never produce completely accurate predictions of future conditions, especially in the area of social issues. But systematic contemplation regarding the future can reveal new possibilities to guide present-day practitioners and planners.

THINKING ABOUT THE FUTURE

Ziegler (1972) has proposed three points of view that can be adopted in considering the future: an adjustive viewpoint, a preventive viewpoint, and an inventive viewpoint. The adjustive ap- proach to futures thinking holds that there are a number of forces which have been set in motion by past decisions that make certain future consequences inevitable. The adjustive thinker, therefore, seeks to identify these trends and to derive their implications for coping behavior in the present and in the future.

Preventive thinkers believe that a number of disastrous occurrences for the future are very possible. The preventive approach attempts to recognize these potential dangers and to suggest actions that will block their occurrence.

The inventive thinker emphasizes the malleability of the future and believes that people can shape the future in line with their values and priorities. This futurist thinker develops ideas or descriptions about what is possible and uses these descriptions as the basis for making plans to bring these desired conditions into being.

Certain thought processes are associated with these three schools of futuristic thinking. The adjustive and preventive stances require thought processes dealing with probabilities. What is the likelihood that certain events or conditions will come to pass in the future? Once probable events have been identified, reactive thinking can help de- termine what should be done to cope with or to prevent such future conditions.

The inventive stance requires a different set of thought processes. Rather than probabilities, the inventive futurist considers pos-

E. M. SCHUTTENBERG AND S. EISENBERG 79

sibilities, especially those possibilities that have high value (that is, those that would be desirable for the majority of people concerned.) Creative or proactive thought processes are then useful in identifying what may be done in the present to make desirable future events more likely.

SCENARIOS AND THE PLANNING PROCESS

A scenario may be thought of as an expanded image or description of a possible set of specific future events. Some scenarios are designed to help imagine what things would look and feel like if a desired event were to come about (for example, Carl Rogers' ideas about new forms of interpersonal relationships in the year 2000; Ro- gers, 1970). Generally the purpose of these scenarios is to help plan- ners decide how to make their desired events happen. Thus they tend to emerge from the inventive stance. Other scenarios, such as those of Paul Ehrlich (1971) are designed to warn of possible future disasters so that planners can take preventive action. An interesting irony about these kinds of scenarios is that they are wri t ten so as to render their actual occurrence unlikely. Some scenarios are drawn primarily from imagination (such as science fiction); others, such as those wri t ten by Herman Kahn, Brown, & Martel (1976) include carefully projected trends extrapolated from systematically gathered data. An important part of any systematic planning proce~,s is the development of a scenario that describes how things will be when plans have been im- plemented. Scenarios help clarify the goals and underlying values and priorities of any planning effort. Later sections of this article will be devoted to analyzing scenarios concerning nontraditional graduate education implied or stated in the previous articles.

A Futures Analysis Window

The Futures Analysis Window (Figure 1) helps to clarify some of the underlying assumptions behind any given scenario. It indicates tha t scenarios can be analyzed along two dimensions: whether or not the wri ter hopes the scenarios will come about, and whether or not the wri ter expects the scenario to come about. Scenarios such as Rogers', in which the wri ter both hopes and expects to see a change in interpersonal relationships, exemplify cell number one. Such conditions have high value and high likelihood. Scenarios de- scribing a general economic recession with accompanying high levels

80 ALTERNATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

P,robab.ility Expect Will Thinkin$ Happen

Value Thinking

Hope Will Happen

Hope Will Not Happen

Expect Will Not Happen

I 2

3 4

Figure 1: Futures Analysis Window

of unemployment as a result of rapid inflation would fit cell number two of this matrix. No one wants these events to occur, but most people may expect them. Scenarios in cells two and three generally imply a sense of crisis, urgency, or pessimism. Therefore, they call for action planning. Cell number four of the matrix is reserved for unlikely events which, however, merit concern lest they move into quadrant two.

A Futures Planning Window

For future events located in quadrants 2 and 3 of the Futures Analysis Window, plans need to be made to cope with, prevent, or increase the likelihood of their occurrence. For events in quadrant 2, those with high probability but low value, both reactive and proactive thinking are required to cope with or prevent their occurrence. Quad- rant 3 also calls for proactive and reactive plans to increase the proba- bility of highly valued events. Use of the Futures Planning Window (Figure 2) can be helpful in both kinds of planning. On the vertical axis is reactive thinking, associated with the adjustive and preventive ap- proaches to the future. The concern here centers on those actions that should or should not be taken in order to deal with a predicted situa- tion. The horizontal axis features proactive thinking, where the ques- tions center around possible enhancing or restraining actions that might be taken in order to bring about desirable future conditions.

In planning for situations within quadrant 2 of the Futures Analysis Window (expected occurrences of low value) or quadrant 3 (highly val- ued, but low probability occurrences), the Futures Planning Window divides plans into four categories: enhancing actions that should be taken (quadrant 1); restraining actions that should be taken (quadrant

E. M. SCHUTTENBERG AND S. EISENBERG 81

Proactive Thinkin$

Possible Enhancing Actions

Possible Restraining Actions

Reactive Should Be Thinkin$ Done

Should Not Be Done

1 2

3 4

Figure 2: Futures Planning Window

2); enhancing actions tha t should not be taken (quadrant 3); and re- straining actions that should not be taken (quadrant 4). Plans in quad- rants 1 and 2 should be implemented while those in quadrants 3 and 4 should be modified or abandoned.

ALTERNATIVE FUTURES

Ideas expressed by other contributing authors in this issue suggest mixed possibilities for the future of nontraditional graduate education. Emerging roles for faculty members may open up new opportunities, but they may also place new pressures upon in- structional staff. Greater access to graduate programs by new audi- ences has the potential for enriching curriculum but also for polarizing program planners and evaluators. The formation of new linkages among people and insti tutions shows promise of breaking down artifi- cial barriers, but there are also dangers of erecting new ones. The next sections of this paper will identify and discuss some of the possible scenarios tha t can be created from the ideas of the authors in this journal issue.

Desirable Future Scenarios

In their article on adult development and learning styles, Tarule and Weathersby suggest a desirable view of the future which can be expressed in the following scenario:

Graduate programs in the future will reach a new developmental stage. They wilt be conceived and designed with more of a realization that adult develop-

82 ALTERNATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

ment and subject-matter content are inextricably related, and together they comprise the curriculum. Such a realization will result in the incorporation of planned opportunities for both experiential and reflective learning. There will be encouragement for students and instructors alike to interrelate information and ideas with personal values and self-expression.

While the integrat ion of subject content and human development in graduate programs is a desirable goal, it cannot be assumed tha t this will inevitably come about on a large scale. Widespread publication and in-service efforts, as well as funding for curr iculum development projects will be needed to enhance the probability of bringing this scenario to reality.

Another desirable future scenario can be developed from the con- cepts expressed in the article on networking by Fonte and Davis, and the article, on Strategies Toward Cooperation by Johnson:

The increased use of networking will break down existing communications barriers between persons in various social institutions. Whereas some institu- tions (i.e. higher education, research agencies) are currently seen as knowledge-producers, and others (i.e. business, industry, government) are viewed as knowledge-users, the spread of the networking idea and other strategies for cooperation between educational and other organizations will promote the concept of all social institutions serving as knowledge discoverers, communicators, sharers, and appliers. Such developments will also decrease the needs of educational institutions to compete for graduate students, thus releasing more of their energies and resources for program and faculty de- velopment efforts.

A var ie ty of graduate programs, tradit ional as well as nontradit ional, have been utilizing networking systems. Such plans are more likely to be successful if they include built-in structures for mainta in ing close and open communication. This requires heavy faculty-staff commit- ment to maintenance activities, and is apt to be less successful if faculty are unwill ing or unable to make such t ime and energy commitments.

New possibilities for the roles of faculty members and students in graduate programs are envisioned by Somers, in his article, Graduate Credit for Prematriculation Experiences, and by McDonnell from the student perspective:

The role of faculty members will be broadened to encompass the evaluation of students' learning from outside learning experiences. Requiring graduate stu- dents to present in-depth documentation of experiential learning can be ex- pected to result in a lowering of faculty resistance to this concept. Graduate programs will also redefine the roles of professor and student. Instead of the

E. M. SCHUTTENBERG AND S. EISENBERG 83

one-way knowledge transmittal model from ~superior" to ~inferior," professors and graduate students will come to view each other as ~colleagues in learning." In addition, learning support among peers will be considered highly desirable, and competition among learners will be deemphasized.

Current t rends toward more mature students in graduate programs can be expected to enhance the likelihood of widespread realization of this scenario. Graduate program directors, however, will need to work with faculty to reexamine the requirements and teaching-learning methodologies in thei r programs.

A future of enhanced opportunity for adult learners is foreseen by Doyle in his article on emerging pat terns for graduate external degree programs. One desirable development he foresees is described in the following scenario:

Nontraditional graduate programs will enable mature adults to successfully achieve their own learning goals while also satisfying the requirements of employers and administrators of advanced degree programs in higher educa- tion. Such programs will be especially helpful to prospective students who, because of personal, career, or geographic circumstances, cannot attain access to more traditional campus-based graduate programs.

Undesirable Future Scenarios

While the scenarios in the foregoing section depict a promising future for nontradi t ional graduate education, less desirable possibilities are suggested by some of our authors ' ideas. Many of the articles in this issue suggest polarization and devisiveness within the academic community as likely and undesirable results of nontradi- t ional graduate program proposals. McCarty, for example, implies a power struggle between tradi t ional and nontradi t ional educators, which may well be targeted toward the accrediting process:

Established political factions in graduate education will use the accreditation process as a means to enforce traditional standards on nontraditional graduate programs. This situation will result either in the formation of new ~nontradi- tional" accreditation agencies or in the development of new approaches to the validation and funding of nontraditional graduate programs. Such a move- ment would signal a power-struggle between traditional and nontraditional programs and institutions for the participation of potential graduate students.

Extrapolat ing from the articles by Fonte and Davis and by Somers a scenario of devisiveness might develop as follows:

84 ALTERNATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

The recruitment of faculty of traditional programs to serve in learning net- works will divide faculty loyalties and time commitments and will compound problems of fhculty evaluation, tenure, and compensation. Moreover, propo- nents of ~'training" and those of ~education" will become further and further polarized. Some graduate degrees will be considered inferior or superior based on the learning strategies emphasized. Put off by such wrangling, non- academic organizations (for example, business, industry, government, or social agencies) will come to rely less on degree-granting institutions to meet the learning needs of their employees, with the result that higher education will be viewed as less and less relevant to the needs of society.

Action to prevent such scenarios would surely include public de- bates, interorganizat ional planning conferences, and faculty develop- ment efforts. Erosion of academic standards is a typically used argu- ment against nontradi t ional programs. Somers provides a model to suggest tha t it is possible to create new programs without sacrificing standards. Clear demonstrat ion tha t standards will be maintained should help considerably to reduce resistance to new programs as well as possible polarization effects.

In describing the clientele of a graduate external degree program, Doyle suggests a fur ther aspect of polarization, which is supported by a recent study of adult education enrol lment t rends (Rosenthal, 1978). Doyle's ideas lead to a scenario such as the following:

Nontraditional graduate programs may come to serve primarily the affluent, majority, male, upward-mobile, generally privileged persons in society and omit those who are poor, members of minority groups, female, and under- privileged. The consequence of this condition would be that non-traditional graduate programs would become a force to further polarize our sc~ciety along socio-economic lines.

Prevention of this scenario can occur through political action as well as insti tutional and program policies and planning designed to make such programs re levant and at tract ive to minori ty group members.

As an al ternat ive future scenario to the ear l ier desirable one regard- ing redefined faculty and student roles, the ideas expressed in the articles by Somers and McDonnell suggest the possibility of growing frustrat ion and antagonism:

Resistance to the concept of graduate credit for prematriculation experiences can be expected among traditionally-oriented faculty members, who will inter- pret the process as compromising the quality of graduate programs. In addi- tion, pressures towards a ~'collaborative learning" model will threaten estab-

E. M. SCHUTTENBERG AND S. EISENBERG 85

lished reward systems in higher education, and they will increase faculty's resistance to sharing power and influence with graduate students, even though such students may be experienced and mature. Alienation of mature adult students from graduate degree programs will result, and such persons will adopt alternative avenues for personal and professional growth.

Th i s scenario , l ike all u n d e s i r a b l e scenar ios , points up the need and va lue of f u tu r e s ana ly s i s and p l a n n i n g t echn iques in t h i n k i n g abou t the fu tu r e of n o n t r a d i t i o n a l g r a d u a t e educat ion. W h e n one is con- f ron ted w i th a scenar io of undes i r ab l e fu tu re even t s conce rn ing non- t r ad i t i ona l g r a d u a t e educat ion , the necess i ty for p roac t ive and reac t ive t h i n k i n g is e m p h a s i z e d in order to reduce the l ikel ihood t h a t the po- t en t i a l of th i s p r o m i s i n g educa t iona l approach will go unrea l ized .

R E F E R E N C E S

Ehrlich, P. The Population Bomb. New York: Ballantine, 1971. Kahn, H., W. Brown, and L. Martel. The next 200 years: A Scenario for America and the

World. New York: Morrow, 1976. Rogers, C. R. Interpersonal relationships: USA 2000. M. Dunstan and P. W. Garland

(eds.) Worlds in the making: Probes for students of the Future. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

Rosenthal, E. L. Lifelong learning: For some of the people, Lifelong Learning: The Adult Years, 1978, II (4), 12-13.

Ziegler, W. An argument for a center for policy invention for metropolitan Syracuse. Syra- cuse, N.Y.: Educational Policy Research Center, 1972.