INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 DRAKE, Matthias C., 1938- qUAKER CONSENSUS; HELPING LEARNERS UNDERSTAND AND PARTICIPATE IN THE QUAKER WAY OF REACHING GROUP DECISIONS.

The ( M o State University, Ph.D., 1973 Education, adult

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

© 1974

MATTHIAS C. DRAKE

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. QUAKER CONSENSUS:

HELPING LEARNERS UNDERSTAND AND PARTICIPATE IN

THE QUAKER Y/AY OF REACHING GROUP DECISIONS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

«

By

Matthias C, Drake, B.Sc., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University

1973

Reading Committee: Approved 3y:

Ross L. Mooney John Ohliger Richard Stov?

Department of Adult Education a c k i ;ov ;l 5 d g ::t :;t s

I have been aided throughout this study by the encouragement,

guidance and assistance of many persons. For such support I

especially thank ny advisor, Dr. John Obligor, ny committee members,

Drc. Ross Mooney and Dick Stow, and my wife, Lynn.

At the early stages of the study I gained a great deal by par­

ticipation in weekend workshops sponsored by Pondle Hill, Wallingford,

Pennsylvania and by Quaker Hill and The Sarlhan School of Religion,

Richmond, Indiana. During the study the contributions of the Delphi

participants were essential. Also the Quakers who suggested names of

possible experts for the Delphi study and who helped with one phase of

the study provided valuable assistance. I was aided in the later stages

of my work by the opportunities to discuss the results of the study with

participants of workshops sponsored by Friends General Conference,

Indiana Yearly Meeting and Powell House, the retreat center of How York

Yearly Meeting.

Further aid came from graduate students, from the library and other

personnel of The Ohio State University, and from ny typist, Sandy

Keiderling.

Thank you.

i VITA

March 2, 1938 . Born, Wilmington, Ohio

I960 B.Sc, in Education * The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1960-1961 World Service Worker - Hong Kong, International Committee of the YMCAs of the United States and Canada, New York

1961-1962 Program Director, Student YMCA- YWCA, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1962-196/f Peace Corps Volunteer - Dekina, Nigeria, Peace Corps, Washington, D. C.

1965 M.A. in Political Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1965-1966 . Teacher, Blanchester High School Blanchester, Ohio

1966-1968 . Research Assistant/Associate, Ohio Legislative Service Com­ mission, State House, Columbus, Ohio

1969 Student, Pendle Hill, Quaker Center for Study and Contempla­ tion, Wallingford, Pennsylvania

1969-1970 . Research Associate, Department of Educational Development, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1971-1972 . Research Associate, Center for Vocational/Technical Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

ii VITA CONTINUED

1972-1973 • • • . • Consultant, Center for Vocational/ Technical Education, The Ohio State University, Colunbus, Ohio

Y/orkshop Leader, The Religious Society of Friends, Friends General Conference, Philadelphia, . Pennsylvania

iii PUBLICATIONS

Community Involvement in Career Education: An. Overview (with Dr, Robert itfeishan), Center for Vocational and Technical Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1973.

Continuing Education; An Annotated Bibliography, Association Referral Information Service (ARIS) of the Ohio Education Association, Columbus, Ohio, 1972.

Educational Change; An Annotated Bibliography, Association Referral Information Service (ARIS) of the Ohio Education Association, Columbus, Ohio 1971.

A Systems Study of the Student Personnel Offices, College of Education, Ohio State University: Interim and Final Reports, (with Drs, Desmond Cook and Gregory Trzebiatowski), 1970,

Substandard Housing in Ohio, Editor and Contributor, Ohio Legislative Service Commission, Report Number 97» Columbus, Ohio, 1968.

Highway Safety in Ohio, Contributor, Ohio Legislative Service Commission, Report Number 67* Columbus, Ohio, 1967.

Inter-party Competition and Legislative Voting on Welfare Bills: A Theory Applied to a Single State. M.A. Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, August, 1965 (unpublished).

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Adult Education

Studies in Adult Education. Professor John Ohliger

Studies in Educational Development. Professor Ross Mooney TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... i

VITA ii

LIST OF T A B L E S ...... iii

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ...... 1

Chapter

I, INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .... k

Background of the Problem Significance of the Study The Research Problem Assumptions Scope Methodology Relationship to Adult Education Definitions Search for a Definition of Consensus The Quaker Setting

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON THE QUAKER WAY OF REACHING GROUP DECISIONS ...... 35

The Literature on Quaker Consensus The Quaker Consensus Process The Monthly Meeting Context Answers in the Literature to the Research Questions

III. THE RESEARCH PROCTESS ..... 7k

Reasons for Contacting Practitioners Selection of the Delphi from Among the Alternatives Background and Literature of the Delphi The Selection of Experts Experts and their Experiences The Delphi Process in this Study Delphi Procedures Chronicled

v Page

IV. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS . . Sk

SECTION 1: Round I Delphi Results Round II Delphi Results Round III Delphi Results Minority Opinions of Experts SECTION 2: The Experts' Responses to the Statements Suggested Additions to the Statements Discussion of the Experts' Comments and Added Statements SECTION 3: An Ordering of the Delphi Statements Combination of the Delphi Statements and the Statements from the Literature Possible Significance of the Similarities and Differences

V. LEARNING AIDS AND EXPERIENCES . . . . 150 « The Learning Task Learning Aids and Experiences Experts' Suggestions Suggestions from the Literature A Search Strategy

VI. SUMMARY, DELPHI EVALUATION, POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTIVITIES, AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . 159

Summary Evaluation of the Delphi Areas for Future Research Next Steps Implications A Final V.'ord

A P P E N D I X ...... 176

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 231

vi LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Summary of the Round II Ratings . . . . . 105

2. Summary of the Round III Ratings . . . . . 113

3. Summary of the Experts' Ratings of the Suggested Additional Statements ..... 228

vii INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

This study looks at the process of group decision-making by

consensus from the viewpoint of adult education. The study is concerned

with the "learnings" and the "knowings" which a participant should bring

to the process.

The setting for the study is the Religious Society of Friends

(Quakers).* Several reasons exist for this choice. One reason is that

Friends have utilized a form of group decision by consensus throughout

their 300 year history. Their accumulation of experience in and practical knowledge about the process may surpass that of any other group. Another

reason for the choice is the researcher's own background in the Religious

Society of Friends. The researcher grew up in a Friends Meeting, became a member during childhood, and has, over the years, continued an active

relationship with Quakerism. For the past three years the author has served as clerk of a monthly meeting, "presiding" at group sessions in which the Quaker way of reaching group decisions was utilized. From these and other experiences, the researcher has become aware of the potentiali­

ties and complexities of the Quaker group decision process.

Another reason for choosing the Quaker setting is the wider impact

of Quaker faith and practice. As a Catholic pamphlet states,

♦Definitions of these and' other terns are presented in Chapter I.

1 All the Quakers in the world add up‘to fewer people than the Catholics in a diocese such as Peoria or Dubuque. Yet the 196,000 members of the Religious Society of Friends have demonstrated for three cen- . turies how a small band of men and women can witness to the world out of all proportion to their members. (121:5)

The wider influence of Quakers in the United States has been pointed out

by several authors (5*57,60). Examples of their influence range histori­

cally from William Penn's experiment in government through Quaker leader­

ship in the abolition of slavery, in the reform of prisons, in the

humane treatment of the mentally ill, and in equal rights for women, to

current activities in war and refugee relief, in conscientious objection

to war, and in education for peace. Perhaps the Quaker influence can

similarly encourage the wider use of group decision-making by consensus.

As with any group procedure, the Quaker process must be learned by its participants in order to be utilized effectively. In the past, such learning took place largely through socializtion, through the indivi­ dual's "growing into" the process.*

Present-day Quakers are less likely to have had such experiences.

Because of this, and of other changes inside and outside the Religious

Society of Friends, the search for additional learning resources is needed to aid the participant in the Quaker group decision process.

This study is a step in that direction. Its approach is that the essentials of the Quaker way of reaching group decisions must first be identified. Also, criteria of the kinds of background most helpful to a

*A humorous example of this is found in Rufus Jones* recollections of business meetings from his childhood (61). participant raust be determined. Then, from this basis, helpful learning resources can be suggested. The study*s investigative methods consist of a combination of the search for agreement among a group of Quaker experts, utilizing the Delphi technique, and a review of the literature on the Quaker group decision process.

In Chapter I the subject matter, the research problem and process, the terminology, and the Quaker setting are introduced. The literature on the Quaker ?/ay of reaching group decisions is reviewed in Chapter II.

In Chapter III the Delphi technique is discussed and the steps in its utilization are described. The results of the Delphi study are pre­ sented in Chapter IV and combined with the results of the literature review. Possible learning aids and experiences are presented in « Chapter V. Chapter VI concludes the study with a summary of the results, an evaluation of the Delphi technique, a presentation of possible future activities, and a discussion of implications of the study. The appendix consists primarily of information on the Delphi participants and of the forms utilized both in the Delphi and in the other questioning of the experts. An extensive bibliography completes the study.

The researcher invites personal inquiries concerning the study.

These may be addressed to his permanent address of 127 N. South St.,

Wilmington, Ohio 4-5177. Also, copies of the raw data from tha Delphi technique and additional materials from the study will be placed in

The Quaker Collection, Wilmington College Library, Wilmington, Ohio 45177. CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Summary Statement

The study is introduced in Chapter I. First, the background of the problem is reviewed, and the research problem is stated. Next, the study's assumptions are identified, its scope and methodology described, and its potential significance is presented. The major relationships of the study to the field of adult education are then identified. This is followed by definitions of important terns used in the study and a delineation of the various uses of the terra "consensus," The chapter concludes with an introduction to the Quaker setting of the study,

«

Background of the Problem

The Need to Learn

Group decisions within the Religious Society of Friends and its re­ lated organizations (Quaker schools and colleges, The American Friends

Service Committee, Friends Committee on National Legislation,..) are reached through a search for unity within the group. This process, an out­ growth of Friends' beliefs, does not employ the standard group decision­ making characteristics of debate, voting, majority rule, or the procedures of Roberts Rules of Order (9A)» The Quaker way of reaching group decisions is, therefore, unfamiliar to most individuals. It must be learned by those associated with Friends, Friends' schools and organizations.

h The Importance of Learning

The individual's learning of the process influences both the

•individual’s and the group's performance. The individual's learning is essential to ensure his or her full participation in the group. This is clearly evident in the case of newcomers. Most newcomers to a group will, until the learning occurs, tend to restrict their participation.

Should a nev/comer begin participation immediately, the individual will, of necessity, base her or his responses upon past experiences in other groups. Likely results of this include such actions as debating the issue or calling for a vote. These are foreign to the Quaker setting; attempts to use them will reduce the effectiveness of the participant.

The individual's learning of the process is also essential to the group's success. To gain the highest level of group functioning, each participant's contributions>must be of a high quality. Such a contribu­ tion includes much more than the content of a presentation. According to one leading Quakor author, the Quaker group decision process requires a spirit of worship, the humble expression of opinion, and affection— if not love— among the participants To gain a minimum level of group func­ tioning each participant must, at least, not obstruct the process. In this instance the Quaker group decision process is especially vulnerable to a minority, however small, who do not understand or appreciate the process.

If their participation occurs in an unhelpful way, such as taking a fixed position, or in a destructive way, such as political maneuvering, the group's search for unity may be diverted. In a group utilizing majority rule, the minority can be outvoted and ignored. The Quaker process dooo not include such a procedure. Therefore, Quaker groups can be severely burdened by a misunderstanding or unappreciative minority, until such persons gain the necessary understanding and appreciation.

Limitations to Learning

In the past, an individual learned the Quaker way of reaching group decisions primarily by observation of and participation within a group of experienced Quakers over a period of time. This remains the best method of learning the process. However, several difficulties now limit the possibilities of such learning. One of the greatest current difficulties in experientially learning the process is the learner’s limited amount of time for the purpose. In the Friends Meeting setting today, the absence of children from business meetings and the geographic mobility of adults eliminates for many the experience of naturally

"growing into" the process. This experience never existed, of course, with most new adult members of the Religious Society of Friends, They bring backgrounds in decision-making from other denominations which differ from the Quaker way. In some Friends Meetings the applicant for membership is encouraged to attend meetings for business and is given some informal instruction in the Quaker way of reaching group decisions before being considered for membership. However, this learning exper­ ience is usually limited and may not exist at all. The lack of learning time is also found in Quaker schools and organizations, where new, non-

Quaker board, staff and committee members often become involved immedi­ ately in group decision activities without benefit of the time to understand the process.

A less common but still important limitation to learning the Quaker group decision process exists when the group with which the learner is associated does not utilize the process correctly. Sxaraples include Friends groups where parts of the process have fallen into disuse and where the presence of a large percentage of participants unfamiliar with the process have caused its deliberate alteration.

A third area of difficulty for the learner is the limited amount and scope of the learning aids and opportunities presently available.

The Quaker literature on the process of the group search for unity is scattered, with few publications concentrating on the process itself.

The publications which do treat the process usually discuss it only in relation to the monthly meeting for business. The monthly meeting is

the most reasonable setting to utilize, since it is the primary decision­ making unit of the Religious Society of Friends. However, the many settings within Quaker schools and organizations seldom receive atten­ tion in the literature. The oversight is important because such settings contain the highest percentage of persons unfamiliar with Quaker practice.

Structured learning experiences for the Quaker group decision participant are also few. In the past, no seminars, workshops or group learning exercises on the Quaker way of reaching group decisions have been available. Recently, planned learning experiences relevant to this topic havo been initiated. They include a small weekend conference in

Pennsylvania in October, 1972, another in Indiana in January, 1-973» and the current work of several Quaker group trainers. These activities nay indicate that a need for such learning opportunities is starting to be recognized. Significance of the Present Study

Interest to Quakers

The study concentrates upon the decision-making procedures of

Quakers in the United States. In numbers, this involves approximately

one-hundred and twenty thousand members (120,000) of the Religious

Society of Friends (95). However, the study also applies to Friends

worldwide, since all Friends utilize the same group decision process.

Counting Quakers outside the United States adds about another seventy-

five thousand (75,000) to the initial population (95). The significance

of this study for Quakers will be as an aid in the clarification and

re-evaluation of their traditional group decision process. It may also

be an aid to Quakers in their retraining in the process.

Interest to Non-Quakers

For other populations, such as students and local community people involved with Quaker schools, colleges and service organizations, the study may be more significant. Such persons are often the subject of

the decisions made through the use of the Quaker group decision process.

They may also be participants in the decisions which concern them. The study should provide these persons with a good basis for understanding and participating in the process.

Beyond Quaker circles, the most likely kinds of interested persons are those studying and training people in group decision-making proce­ dures, especially in decision-making by consensus. Although the Quaker way of reaching group decisions may differ from other formulations of consensus, important similarities exist. Identification of such similarities and the specific learning suggestions of this study may

provide a nev/ source of information and ideas for their own work.

The study is also likely to be of interest to such groups as the

League of Women Voters which regularly utilize decision-making by

consensus. The description of the Quaker process may provide them with

a basis for clarifying their own processes and for training persons in

these processes. Other groups, such as communes and intentional com­

munities, which are engaged in building alternatives to the usual group

structures and decision processes, should be interested in the Quaker

group decision process. The respect for the individual, which is re­

quired by the process, and the constant search for the balance between

individual freedom and group unity, found in the process, are likely i points of mutual interest. The minimum significance of the study to

such groups will be to inform them of a process used with general

success by the Quakers for over three hundred years. More significantly,

the Quaker process provides a model from which other groups could devise

their own decision-making processes,

A Contribution to Knowledge

The study will contribute to knowledge in at least the following

ways. It will gather and analyze references to the Quaker group decision

process from a variety of works in the literature. This has not been

done before. The study will also be the first attempt (to the author's knowledge) to collect data on the process by contacting persons in a

variety of settings who currently utilize the Quaker way of reaching

group decisons. Third, the study will involve the Delphi technique in a subject natter field for which it has not been utilized previously. 10

The results will add to the knowledge about the utility of that technique.

Fourth, the suggestions for learning resources and experiences will provide new possibilities, plus adaptations of current learning aids, for the person who wishes to learn about the Quaker way of reaching group decisions. • Such a resource has not previously existed.

The Research Problem

In order to provide a solid base for the collection and formulation of learning resources and experiences, two general questions must be answered:

1. What is the Quaker way of reaching group decisions, and

2, What background should a participant bring to the situation? * The first question is important because some opinions in the liter­ ature vary. An example of varying opinions occurs with the question of whether a decision by the Quaker process requires unanimity. (20,70,89)

Also, as stated previously, the literature seldom treats the process as found in Friends* schools and organizations. Knowledge from practical experience with the process should provide valuable information to supplement that of the literature. For instance, the process may vary greatly among Friends Meetings, schools and organizations or it may differ in practice from its descriptions in the literature. A search for common elements among settings and sources will aid in the clear understanding of the process.

Answers to the second question are needed to provide criteria for the collection and formulation of helpful learning resources and experi­ ences. Specifically, the second question can be divided into the areas 11 of:

1) tha kinds of information about the process,

2) th.e kinds of abilities needed to participate in the process, and 3) the kinds of beliefs related to the process whicli a participant should possess. The Quaker literature consists of scattered writings in these areas. Opinions arising from current experience should provide a more complete set of criteria.

Assumptions

The following are recognized assumptions of this study:

1) a Quaker way of reaching group decisions exists as an identi­ fiable entity;

2) a person can learn to participate in this group decision process;

3) a description of the process, based on the identification of its essentials, v/ill be helpful to the learner;

If) a person will be better able to participate in the Quaker way of reaching group decisions if he or she has first gained some of the background important to the process;

5) resources and experiences can be collected and formulated which will aid a person learning the process, and

6) such resources and experiences will be helpful to a learner if they are based upon the essentials of the process and if they relate to the background needod by the participant. Scope

This research project will be limited to the search for answers to

the following specific questions:

1. What are the essentials of the process used by Quakers to

reach group decisions?

2. What are the kinds of information about the process, the kinds

of abilities needed to participate in the process, and the kinds of

beliefs related to the process which a participant should possess, and

3. What are some suggested learning resources and experiences

potentially of aid to a learner of the process?

The scope of the project will be further limited by a concentra­

tion on the first two questions. It will utilize a limited question­

naire population (twelve experts) and throe rounds of the Delphi

technique (see "Definitions").

Methodology

Library research and the Delphi technique are the two research

methods to bo employed. The researcher will utilize the libraries of

The Ohio State University, Earlham College, Wilmington College, Pendle

Hill, the library of the IJorth Columbus Friends Meeting, and the com­ puter tape search facilities of The Ohio State University Mechanized

Information Center.

The Delphi technique calls for a succession of questionnaires among a group of experts to determine levols of agreement on the questionnaire statements. The process begins with an initial eliciting of brief statements from each export, such as to their forecasts of 13 future occurrences in a certain field or statements of proposed goals for an organization/. The researcher clarifies the statements and re­ turns them for successive,.individual requestioning, combined with feed­ back supplied from the other experts via the researcher. Each partici­ pant can then utilize the input of the other experts in his own responses..

The process was developed in the early 1950's by Olaf Helmer and others as an alternative to the face to face, conference style setting for obtaining a group decision from a number of experts (50,51).

Relationship to Adult Education

The study relates to the field of adult education in three major ways. First, the study is concerned with adults and is directed toward ways in which adults might learn certain facts, skills and attitudes.

Adult learning, and procedures to facilitate the learning, constitute a prime interest of adult education. The works of Cyril Houle (56),

Malcolm Knowles (65), the National Association for Public Continuing and Adult Education (77), and Allen Tough (111) are examples of recent adult education publications concerning adult learning.

Second, the study focuses upon adults within a religious setting.

As discussed in an article by Kenneth Stokes in the 1970 Handbook of .

Adult Education, religious congregations constitute a major setting for adult education in the United States(107).

Third, the study concentrates upon a group decision-making process.

Some important aspects of this, such as group discussion and group dynamics} tap large literature sources in adult education (81). However, helping adults learn group decision processes is not an easily recogniz­ able area of adult education. One of the sources in adult education

literature nost relevant to this topic consists of a series of articles

on the use and misuse of parliamentary procedure (66,36), The series

provide an entertaining and informative discussion of that group

decision method. Other relevant articles include Rasmussen’s "Self

Training in Group Problem Solving" (91) and the report by Swanson on a

study of the effectiveness of decision-making groups (109). Works on

helping adults learn the consensus process of group decision-making,

whether the Quaker variety or other forms (h5), do not appear to exist

in adult education literature.

Definitions

The following are definitions of certain words found in the study,

most of which are likely to be unfamiliar to non-Quakers.

1. Clerk - the person who conducts the meetings in which Quakers

handle their business matters. "The clerk is theoretically a recording

officer, but in practice ho must frequently assume the duties of a presiding officer." (1 if, 1 6)

2, Friend - a member of The Religious Society of Friends. A synonym for "Quaker", A typical dictionary definition, which because

of its brevity cannot include the varieties of Friends’ beliefs and practices, is:

One of a religious sect who lay especial stress upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit, reject outward rites and an ordained ministry, practice simplicity of dress and speech, and oppose war. They are popularly called Quakers. (119:332-3) 15

The Religious Society of Friends ha6 no formulated creed demanding definite subscription. As a result, it contains individuals who hold a wide variety of religious interpretations. For example, Jesus is con­ sidered by many Quakers to be divine, while other Quakers view him primarily as an historical figure. Persons who do not consider them­ selves Christians in the usual sense of the term can be comfortable with

Quakerism.

3. Friends Colleges - institutions at the post-secondary level related to the Religious Society of Friends, While the institutions vary, many are small, coeducational colleges with a liberal arts emphasis.

Sixteen colleges, located in nine states, are listed in the 1971-1972

Friends Directory. (38:94-5) They are: Bryn Mawr, Barlham, Friends

Bible, Friends World, George Fox, Guilford, Haverford, Malone, Pacific

Oaks, Swarthraore, Whittier,*William Penn, and Wilmington Colleges, the

Earlham School of Religion, Friends University, and Pendle Hill, an adult education center for study and contemplation.

4. Friends Organizations - include the four largest associations of Friends Yearly Meetings (Friends United Meeting, Friends General

Conference, Evangelical Friends Alliance, and Conservative Friends).

Also, three service-type organizations exist which are supported by

Friends from all branches of Quakerism. These are the American Friends

Service Committee (AFSC), The Friends Committee on National Legislation

(FCNL), and the Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC). The

AFSC organizes national and international programs in such areas as peace education, war relief and reconciliation, and community develop­ ment. The FCNL is the Quaker lobby in Washington, D.C. The FWCC 16

encourages communication among Friends throughout the world.

5. Friends Schools - include educational institutions at the pre-

eleraentary, elementary and secondary levels. Most of the schools are

coeducational] several of the secondary schools are boarding schools.

The Friends Directory (33:89-94) lists thirty-two pre-elementary and

elementary schools and twenty-nine secondary schools. One or more of the

schools are located in eighteen states and the District of Columbia, with the majority situated in the Eastern United States.

Meeting - a local congregation of the Religious Society of

Friends; the term is often used instead of the word "church." For example, the name of the closest Friends' congregation to the Ohio

State University campus is the "North Columbus Friends Meeting." The

Friends Directory (38:13-86) lists over one thousand (1,000) congre­ gations of Friends, located in forty-seven states and the District of

Columbia.

7. Meeting for Worship - The setting in which Friends meet to worship. Meeting for Worship is us.ually held on Sunday mornings but can also be held at other times. In the United States the form and content of such services vary. Paid ministers, music and pre-planned programs of worship similar to certain Protestant church services are utilized by many Meetings. In the traditional Friends meeting for worship, however, the above three aspects are absent.

In the traditional form of Quaker worship, the meeting begins when all have entered quietly and taken their seats. All wait upon the Spirit in both interior and external silence. This silence is not a mere passivity, but rather an obedient waiting which involves deep engagement and responsiveness. If during this period anyone feels moved by 17

the Spirit to either read fron Scripture, or to address the meeting or to pray aloud, he ought to follow the motion of the Spirit, On the other hand, no one should foel obligated to speak unless genuinely moved by the Spirit, When anyone jioes speak all are to listen attentively. The very seeing of the faces of others, and the listening to their words and prayers may afford the occasion in which the Spirit will move another to speak, read or pray.

The meeting of worship comes to a close when two persons, assigned ahead of time, shake hands. Since the meeting house is not a consecrated edifice, the congre­ gation does not leave in silence, but rather the people take the opportunity to greet one another and to talk, (96:113-114)

8, Monthly Meeting/Meeting for Business/Business Meeting - all three terms refer to the setting in which Friends conduct matters of business.

The Society of Friends is so organized that the chief authority in matters of business, and the body in which membership resides, is the business meeting of the local group, known as the Monthly Meeting, (88:45)

9, Quaker - a synonym for "Friend," Originally a term of approbation, "Quaker" became an accepted term for a member of the

Religious Society of Friends, ___

"According to (George) Fox, the first individual who called the member of the now Movement Quakers was Justice Bennet of Derby, He coined the term, Fox reported, "because we bid them tremble at the word of the Lord, This was in the year 1650," (112:7)

10, Quaker Consensus - a term utilized in this study as a synonym for the phrases, "the Quaker way of reaching group decisions" and "the Quaker group decision process." Use of the wobd "consensus" relates the Quaker process to the similar forms of decision-making by consensus used by other groups and reported in the social science literature, (See next section.) Combining "Quaker" with the word

"consensus" emphasizes the unique religious quality of the Friends' 18

fora of group decision-making. As Howard Brinton has stated:

This method (the Quaker way of doing business) is similar to some other consensus methods, for instance, those suggested by M. P. Follet in The Hew State or Frank V.'alser in The Art of Conference. It differs radically in being religious. George Fox writes, "Friends are not to meet like a company of people about town or parish business, neither in their men's or women's meetings, but to wait upon the Lord." (Emphasis added) (14:17)

11. Recording Clerk - a participant at the monthly meeting for

business who records the decisions of the group. In some meetings this

function is assumed by the Clerk. The Recording Clerk may write the

decision at the time the decision occurs or before the meeting closes.

The decision may also be prepared later, to be read at the next monthly

meeting.

12, Religious Society of Friends - the formal title of the

religious body called "the Quakers."

Even the word "Friends", which later developed into an official name, "The Religious Society of Friends," was an adaptation of the words of Christ, "I have called you Friends." (John 15:15) (112:if)

The Religious Society of Friends is a Christian fellowship based on common religious experiences and ideals rather than on a creed, a ritual, or a liturgy of worship. (83:45)

13. Yearly Meeting - an association of Quaker monthly meetings.

Members of the associated meetings gather-annually for programs, worship

and business. A yearly meeting constitutes the major legislative and

administrative body among Friends. Twenty-seven yearly meetings exist in the United States today. (38:4-7)

Four other definitions are important to an understanding of the study. "Consensus" is defined last because of the discussion about the tern.

1» Delphi technique - a process for obtaining expert opinion on a subject by mail, "...a carefully designed program of sequential interrogations (with questionnaires) interspersed with information and opinion feedback.” (2S:2?2)

2. Expert - a participant of 'the Delphi process used in this study, chosen for his/her knowledge of and experience in the Quaker group decision process. "An ...experienced person; hence one who has special skill or knowledge in a subject....” (119:291)

3. Group decision -process - the proceedings by which several people, acting together, determine an outcome, such as formulating the solution to a problem or deciding to take some joint action.

/f. Consensus - a group decision process involving the search for the highest possible degree of acceptance among the participants; the process is noted for the absence of voting and majority rule.

A decision participated in by all the members of a group and representing the maximum area of common acceptance. Acceptance does not imply agreement; one may accept a decision as the best attainable, though believing that a better plan is conceivable. — Syn. Sense of the I'eeting. (35:113)

Search for a Definition of Consensus

Confusion in Definition and Usage

Currently, a confusing array of definitions and usages exists for the word "consensus.” Confusion occurs because the term is used at both the macro-level of societal attitudes and at the micro-level of small group attitudes. Another factor causing confusion is the terra's use, with one meaning, by the General population and its utilization, with 20 a variety of definitions, by several academic disciplines.

The different uses of "consensus" when applied to a small group also cause confusion. Some writers employ the term in reference to the

"we-feeling" among participants of a small group. Irving Janis utilizes the term this way, emphasizing its most negative aspects, in the article,

"Groupthink." (58) Jamis writes, "The U. S. road to disaster — in

Vietnam, The Bay of Pigs, Korea and Pearl Harbor — is paved with Group­ think — the desperate drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses dissent among the mighty in the corridors of power." (58:if3)

"Consensus" in relation to a small group setting can also apply to the decision-making process. Jay Hall, in a Psychology Today article defines it this way: "Consensus is a decision process for making full use of available resources and for resolving conflicts creatively."

(^5:54) Hall views "consensus" in a very positive light. With such differences in the tern^s meanings and connotations, even within the same small group decision-making setting, one can see some reasons for the resulting confusion over "consensus."

Lastly, the operationalizations of the term, vary greatly, "Consen­ sus" is found in the literature of the Delphi technique, where it is defined as any number over fifty per cent of the responses in a Delphi questionnaire. (50,78) The term has also.been used in a book about community organization, v/here the author defines an "American qonsensus" as "...between 60 and 75 per cent of the people involved (in an issue)."

(97:86) A third operationalization of the term is found in the instruc­ tions for a small group, problem-solving exercise. A portion of the instructions follow: "...each individual should be able to accept the 21 group rankings on the basis of logic and feasibility. When all group members feel this way you have reached consensus as defined here," (^5:86)

Current Definitions

Because of the confusion surrounding the term "consensus," a brief survey of its definitions and uses will help isolate and emphasize the way in which the term will be utilized in this study.

The root words of consensus are "con," meaning "together" and

"sentire," meaning "to feel, think, judge, etc." (8h:850-1) From a common root, the word has come to have a variety of meanings.

First, the tern is often used loosely today to mean "...the convergent trend, as of opinion. The expression consensus of opinion, although objected to by some, is now generally accepted as in good use."

(119:177)

This appears to be the way in which many writers in education employ the term. For instance, the researcher requested a.computer tape search of the abstracts of ERIC's (Educational Resources Information

Center) Research in Education (92) for the word "consensus." The great majority of abstracts identified in the search used the term in this manner. Such phrases as "the consensus of the conference partici­ pants," "the consensus of those interviewed," and "the consensus of the delegates" were common.

The author searched ten standard reference works to seek further definitions of "consensus." The number of definitions ranged from two in Good's Dictionary of Education (if1:122) to five in A Comprehensive

Dictionary of Psychology and Psychoanalytical Terms (35:113). The most common emphasis among the definitions was upon the consensual state of 22 a society or "macrosocial consensus," The following definition is an example of the emphasis:

Consensus is a particular state of the belief system of a society. It exists when a large proportion of the adult members of a society, more particularly a large proportion of those concerned with decisions regarding the allocations of authority, status, rights, wealth and income, and other im­ portant and scarce values about which conflict might occur, are in approximate agreement "in their beliefs about what decisions should be made and havo some feeling of unity with each other and with the society as a whole. (102:260)

Current Uses

"Consensus" as viewed on the macro-level is found in several academic disciplines. It seems to be a particularly popular term in political science. In that field it is used a number of ways, usually without a concise definition, V, 0. Key, a leading political scientist and authority on American politics, has 6tated,

The concept of consensus serves as a handy crutch for those who seek to explain the peculiarities of the American political system, Americans can, the theorists tell us, compose their differences because of the existence of a consensus on fundamentals. Commentators on the nature of political orders conclude that an underlying consensus is a prerequisite to the existence of representative govern­ ment, They may observe that the animosities of conflict are cushioned by the framework of consensus, or that divisive issues nay be settlod democratically only within the limits of a wider consensus. Or those who dispute a warmly contested issue may, when a decision is reached, happily feel that a consensus has been formed. The magic word "consensus," in short, solves many puzzles, but only infrequently is the term given precise meaning. Even less often are inquiries made about the distribution among the population of whatever attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors constitute consensus, A search for its meaning will indi­ cate the naturo of a significant type of distribution of public opinion and will, as such quests invariably do, lead to the discovery that "consensus" has many meanings, Howevor one proceeds to pump concrete content into the nebulous terra, he must remember that he is dealing with a pattern of opinion whose importance is that it may condition the behavior of those in positions of public authority, (6**:2 9) 23

Key, utilizing public opinion data, proposes three kinds of

"consensus:" supportive, permissive and decisive (64:28-53). Other political scientists have developed additional varieties of "concensus."

Nimmo and Ungs state,

In sum, community consensus refers to a state of agree­ ment in personal orientations toward a variety of matters. V/e employ the narrower notion -of political consensus to speak of personal agreement — acceptance or acquiescence ~ with public officials, rules and procedures, democratic values, and policy choices; and we refer to these areas of political consensus as official, constitutional, doctorinal, and policy consensus. (80:2?)

Other academic disciplines carry the "underlying state of agree­ ment" idea to the micro-level. Thus, research works can be found using

"consensus" with diverse topics. The computer tape survey of the ERIC system, mentioned previously, identified one study which reported on the traditional lines of "intuitive harmony and consensus" in the running of a relatively new village council in British Honduras (71). Another study investigated the possible effects of the "social consensus about organizational behavior of supervisors and peers under processes of planned change" (98). A third study found by the ERIC search dealt with

"role consensus" in relation to the elementary school teacher (39).

Consensus as a Small Group, Decision-making Process

"Consensus" as defined and illustrated above is not the way in which the term will be used'by the author. In this study, "consensus" will refer only to the small group decision-making process.

The author found only a few definitions of this use of consensus.

The single definition in Good's Dictionary of Education is, "(group dynamics) individual involvement in the group decision-making process to give a 'we-foeling'" (41:122). The Oxford English Dictionary gives several 24 definitions, including the following: "Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons" (84:850-1).

Other definitions exist; some are more general than the above and at least one is more specific. The latter is the citation utilized in the "Definitions" section of this chapter. It comes the closest of any definition to defining consensus as Quakers use the term. English, in

A Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms states, consensus is, "...a decision particip ted in by all the members of a group and representing the maximum area of common acceptance...

Syn, Sense of the meeting" (55:113).

"Consensus" in the Quaker Context

With the above variety of confusing definitions and uses of the term "consensus," its lack of a clear meaning within Quaker circles is not surprising. In discussions, the author has heard Quakers generally use the term as a synonym for the way in v/hich Friends reach group decisions. He has heard a few persons question the meaning of the term when employed in the Quaker context. Harely has he heard anyone attempt to delineate the term's use in the Quaker context.

The Quaker literature provides examples of several -views of the relationship of the term to the Quaker group decision process. Some authors, link the two closely, as in the following statement. "Members of our Society are so familiar with Friends method of conducting business by "consensus" that v/e often fail to remember and to practice some of the essential elements that keep it from degenerating." (115:1)

However, Howard Brinton, who has probably written most extensively on the Quaker group decision process, never uses the term "consensus" 25 to describe the way in which Friends reach group decisions, fie sees the

Quaker process as similar to other consensus methods but also radically different from them because of its religious"context. (See "Definitions" section*) Quaker writers generally agree with Brinton's views, as can be seen in the next chapter's review of the literature.

The author of this study has attempted another use of the term.

Rather than employing it as a synonym or avoiding its use, the author has combined the word "consensus" with the word "Quaker." In this way, the similarities of the Quaker method and "consensus" as a decision­ making process used by other groups are acknowledged, while emphasizing the unique religious quality of the Friends' decision-making process.

The Quaker Setting

Seventeenth Century

The following quotation is found in the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting edition of Faith and Practice.

The Religious Society of Friends arose in England in the middle of the seventeenth century. It was a time of turbulence and change in both religion and politics. In the Established Church great emphasis was placed upon out­ ward ceremonial; there and in some of the dissenting churches religious faith tended to be identified with acceptance of a creed. Many restless seeking spirits broke away from the churches and, singly or in groups, turned inward in quest of a religion of personal experience and direct communion with God. George Fox (162^-1691), the founder of the Religious Society of Friends, was one of these "seekers." From his youth he was serious and thoughtful, given to lonely pond­ ering of the Scriptures and to deep searching of heart. In vain he sought counsel and help from the official spiritual guides in the churches; none could give rest to his soul or speak to his condition. But finally, he records in his Journal, "when all my hopes in ...men were gone, so that I had nothing outwardly to help me, nor could I tell 26

what to do, then, 0 then, I heard a voice which said, 'There is One, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition,' And when I heard it, ny heart did leap for joy." V/ithin himself, as a present experience, he had found the spirit of the living Christ and knew that it was an experience open to all men. "This was the true Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (88:1)

Fox's message had three chief emphases. The immediacy of Christ's

teachings and guidance, the consequent irrelevance of special church

buildings and ordained minis-ters, and the application of Christ's

teaching to the whole of life (76:5).

Early adherents to Fox's message included groups which had already

evolved practices similar to his beliefs.

The groups of Seekers— strongest in Westmorland, northwest Yorkshire and north Lancashire (England) — "met together, not formally to pray or preach, at appointed times and places, but waited together in silence, and as anything rose.in any of their minds, that they thought savoured of a Divine spring, so they sometimes spoke." These groups looked to the setting up of a church according to the pattern in the Hew Testament, and it was their ready response to Fox's preaching in northwest England about Whitsuntide, 1652, that made of Quakerism a signi- ficant movement, (7 6:b-5)

Early Quakers were vigorous missionaries. Over the next forty years Quakerism spread rapidly throughout the British Isles to Europe and to North America. Fox personally carried his message throughout

England, to Barbados, Jamaica, the American colonies of Maryland,

Rhode Island, Virginia, North Carolina, and Long Island, and to.Holland and Germany.

Other persons vital to the early rise of Quakerism included Robert

Barclay and William Penh. As William P. Roberts relates, 27

The seventeenth century saw the rise of many religious movements which faded away almost as quickly as they came.- One of the unique factors about Quakerism is that it survived. This is due in large measure to tyo men of great genius, Robert Barclay and William Penn who were attracted to the Quaker Movement. (96:7)

Barclay (16^8-1690) is known for his efforts in the intellectual

formulation and defense of the Quaker faith. His most ambitious work,

the Apology, has been, according to the modern Quaker author, Elton

Trueblood, "...the most widely accepted account of the truth as Quakers

have seen it, of any book ever written." (112:61)*

William Penn (16*fA-1718), probably the best known Quaker in Ameri­

can history, was also the most famous Quaker of his day. Penn was an aristocrat who moved in the highest social and political circles of

England. He was a leading Quaker writer, the founder of Pennsylvania, and an outstanding political theorist.

Severe persecutions by the British government failed to restrict

the expansion of Quakerism in the seventeenth century. Fox was jailed

eight times, of v/hich the longest sentence was over two and one-half years. Many other Friends were imprisoned, including William Penn/and

Margaret Fell, one of the early women leaders of Quakerism. According to Milligan (76:6) from the late 1650’s until wide-spread persecution was ended by The Toleration Act (1689)» an estimated 15,000 Friends

*The full title of Barclay's work is, An Apology for the True Christian Divinity, being an Explanation and Vindication of the Principles and Doctrines of the People Called Quakers. Trueblood points out the necessity to state at this date that "Apology," as Barclay uses the word, means intellectual defense and had none of the present derogatory over­ tones. 28 suffered various legal'sentences. More than k5Q are known to have died in prison. Friends were imprisoned for "blasphemy," for refusal to take off their hats or pay tithes to the state church or to take an oath, especially an oath of allegiance, and for defying laws curtailing liberty of conscience and worship (108:23). It v/as out of this early period „ that most of the distinctive Quaker testimonies arose, testimonies which expressed in action Friends* beliefs in equality, simplicity and peace.

Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Quakerism expanded in America. The following quotation briefly summarizes that period:

As early as 1655 the New World had attracted Friends and within a remarkably few years the seeds of Quaker faith were planted in virtually every one of the British colonies in North America and the West Indies. Friends were widely persecuted but the test of martyrdom came in Massachusetts, where the authorities resorted to severe measures to stop the publishing of the Quaker truth. Many faithful men and women underwent tortures and imprisonments; four suffered death before the intolerant laws were finally broken down. During this period, however, a haven was found in Rhode Island, where the first Quaker Yearly Meeting was estab­ lished in 1661. A period of expansion and consolidation followed George Fox's visit to America in 1671-73. The succeeding decade saw West Jersey and Pennsylvania established as Quaker colonies. Here Friends under the leadership of William Penn undertook to carry out a "holy experiment" in conducting a government on New Testament principles. Friends retained political control in Pennsylvania until 1756, when at the onset of the French and Indian war they gave up their seats in the Assembly rather than vote war measures. Quaker policy toward the Indians was an outgrowth of their conviction that all men are equal before God, irrespective of color. This principle gradually formed the Quaker attitude on the question of Negro slavery. George Fox had been an early advocate of the Negro's rights. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting advised against the slave trade in 1696 and antislavery sentiment grew slowly until 1758, when John Woolman made a moving plea for the liberty of the slaves and began his great work 29

on behalf of the Negro. He, with Anthony Benezet, aroused the consciences of many Friends and others in both America and England, and gave strong impetus to the movement that finally resulted in the abolition of slavery. Friends' opposition to war took many of them out of public life after the middle of the eighteenth century, and this withdrawal, together with increasing quietism,.caused a profound transformation in the Society. More and more the Friends shunned the outside world and centered upon deepening their own spiritual lives and hedging their Society about with their distinctive rules and customs. Although this preserved some valuable elements of the Quaker way of life, it also brought a narrowing introspec­ tion which was fertile ground for controversy. By tho opening of the nineteenth century, two divergent tendencies became apparent among American Friends. Both had roots in early Quaker thought but had subsisted together without seriously disturbing the unity of the Society. One was an increased emphasis upon the Inner Light as the basis of faith; the other, an increased inter­ est in evangelicalism, which centers upon the meaning and influence of events in Christian history and finds its primary authority in Scripture. Both these trends, the liberal and the evangelical, reflected influences dominant in contemporary Christian thought. The chasm between the two Quaker groups grew steadily wider until in 1827 a separation took place in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, followed by similar separations in Baltimore, New York, Ohio and Indiana. Later in the century there were further separations within the orthodox body. (88:3-4-)

During the nineteenth century Quakers joined in the migrations westward, establishing areas of Quaker influence in the Midwest, through

Iowa and Kansas, to the West Coast. Als<^ most of the Quaker schools and

colleges were established during this period.

Twentieth Century Quakerism

The outward signs of nineteenth century Quakerism, such as women's bonnets and men's broad brimmed hats, dark colored clothes, and the conversational use of "thee" and "thou" are seldom evident today. Other results of Quakerism in the last century are quite evident. The past schisms have resulted in a variety of forms of worship. These vary 30

according to such aspects as the extent - or absence - of silent worship,

of the pre-planning of the worship, and of the evangelical nature of the

worship. Other differences involve the presence or absence of paid

ministers and the extent to which the traditional Friends' social testi­

monies are followed. Also, Quaker Meetings are not united in a single

church body, but have formed into four major associations of member

yearly meetings. These are known as Conservative Friends, Evangelical

Friends Alliance, Friends General Conference, and Friends United Meeting,

While such differences exist, American Quakers are also united at

many points. Their common origin, history and traditions have an impor­

tant unifying influence. Also, many common beliefs and practices can be

found among the diversities. The fact that Friends reach group decisions

by the practice of Quaker consensus is just one of the points of unity.

Another important area has been the creation of Quaker service organi­

zations supported by Friends from all branches of Quakerism. This was begun in 1917 with the formation of the American Friends Service Com­ mittee (AFSC)v Initiated as a response to the needs of the victims of

World War I, the AFSC has grown, expanding from its focus upon war relief and reconstruction to the broader areas of peace, justice, com­ munity relations and international relations.

In 19^3, Quakers organized the Friends Committee on National Legis­ lation (FCNL). The FCNL presents Quaker views to members of Congress and other government officials, sponsors conferences and seminars for visitors to Washington, and lobbies for legislation in such areas as eliminating the draft, supporting civil rights, improving the conditions of American Indians, strengthening the United Nations, and seeking new 31 ways to ensure international peace.

During the twentieth century American Quakers have also begun the process of exploring their differences and seeking common understandings.

This has occurred especially v/it’u the American Section of the Friends

World Committee for Consultation, both of which were formed in 1937.

Two of the stated purposes of the American Section are:

1) To encourage and strengthen the spiritual life within the Society of Friends through such measures as the promotion of intervistation, study, conferences and a wide sharing of experience on the deepest spiritual level, ... 3) To promote consultation amongst Friends of all cultures, countries and languages. The Committee seeks to bring the different groups of Friends into intimate touch with one another on the basis of their common Quaker heritage, with a view to sharing experience and coming to some measure of agreement in regard to their attitude to modern world problems, ((15:106)

In this century Friends have also continued to take unpopular stands and to be imprisoned for actions arising from their beliefs. This has occurred most recently in relation to the Viet Nam War, Young

Quakers, especially, have been active in and imprisoned for draft re­ fusal and resistance. Other Quakers have.committed acts of civil dis­ obedience in protest against arms shipments from the United States. A small group of Quakers attempted to deliver civilian medical supplies to both North and South Viet Nan during wartime. Letter writing, political activity, vigils, marches, and demonstrations against the war have been among the activities of Quakers during the last few years.

Basic Quaker Beliefs

The Religious Society of Friends has been defined in its simplest, terms as, 32

*.. a religious body which, having never required of its members the acceptance of any formula or belief, holds that the basis of fellowship is an inward ex­ perience, and that the essentials of unity are the love of God and the love of man conceived and practiced in the spirit of Christ. (23:16)

Historically, Quakerism is a Christian faith. It is rooted in tho

Christian community of the Hew Testament. Quakers believe in a spirit or power greater than man. Most Quakers call that spirit or power "God."

Quakers also believe that any person can communicate directly with God, in a God-man, man-God communication. This is the "inward experience" of the above quote. The communication does not require an intermediary, such as a minister.or priost. The practice of silent meditation and prayer, as well as the living of a simple life, are seen as aids in facilitating this communication.

The question of "What do Friends believe?" is answered in the fol­ lowing manner in a short pamphlet entitled, "Friendly Answers to Ques­ tions about American Quakers:"

Belief in the Light of Christ (Fox's phrase), the inward Light, the Seed - belief that there is "that of God in overy man," the potential for good in all persons — this is central in the faith of many Friends today, though they vary in their interpretations. (37:2)

A Catholic author, William Roberts, states that, "...the central doctrine of the Quakers is their belief in the abiding, operative pre­ sence of the Spirit in each member and in the entire community (of believers)." (96:9)

Roberts goes on to relate this belief to the way in which Friends reach group decisions. Roberts writes, 33

In .the .light of this insight (see above quote) the Church is seen not as the hierarchy, but as the community of all the faithful, whatever be their age, sex, race, or educa­ tional and cultural background. Policy-making is not the prerogative of an elite who pass down decisions to passive subjects, bound to blind obedience. Rather, it is the responsibility of all tho faithful, who gather together to search for the right decision with openness to the prompt­ ings of the Spirit through the consensus of the meeting, (96:9-10)

Friends* Testimonies

Over the years Quakers have placed their beliefs into statements

and published them as a form of Christian witness. The testimonies relate to such concerns as simplicity of life style and the equality of persons. The most famous one is the "Peace Testimony," for the Society

of Friends is strongly opposed to war and to conscription. The testimony wa6 first presented to Charles II of England in 1660, and has been

stated and restated at frequent intervals, A restatement of it, adopted

by the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Friends in 193^» reads as follows:

V/e declare our faith in those abiding truths taught and exemplified by Jesus Christ — that every individual of every race and nation, is of supreme worth; that love is the highest law of life, and that evil is to be overcome, not by further evil but by good. The relationship of nation to nation, of race to race, of class to class, must be based on this divine law of love, if peace and progress are to be achieved, V/e believe in these principles, not as mere-ideals for some future time, but as part of the eternal moral order and as a way of life to be lived here and now. War is a colossal violation of this way of life. If we are true to our faith we can have no part in it, V/e affirm the supremacy of conscience. We recognize the priviledges and obligations of citizenship; but we reject as false that philosophy which sets the state above the moral law and demands from the individual unquestioning obedience to every state command. On the contrary, we assert that every individual, while owing loyalty to the state, owes a more binding loyalty to a higher authority — the authority of God and of conscience, (88:38-9) 3 4

The Quaker Population in the United States

The Quakers represent one of the smallest denominations in the

United States. This is dramatically illustrated by the opening statement of a Catholic pamphlet introducing Quakerism. The statement reads, ’’All the Quakers in the world add up to fewer people than the Catholics in a diocese such as Peoria or Dubuque.11 (121:5) The most recent figure of the world-wide membership in the Religious Society of Friends is 194,744

(95:88-9).

The number of Quakers in the United States is 119,489(95:88).

Arthur 0. Roberts, in the article ’’Quaker Growth," (95) finds that relative to population growth, Quakers are declining in number. His figures indicate that the number of Quakers in North America (Canada and the United States), a total of 119*489 in 1972, is only approximately

1,500 more than the 1902 total. Regions of the United States with the greatest numbers of Quakers include the East Coast (primarily from New

England through North Carolina), the Midwest (from Ohio through Indiana,

Michigan, Illinois, and Iowa), and the West Coast (from California to

Oregon). In 1972, the largest yearly meetings were Philadelphia, with approximately 16,000 members and North Carolina Yearly Meeting, with approximately 15,000 members (95).

The Next Chapter

The introduction to the Quaker setting continues in Chapter II with a discussion of the literature on the Quaker way of reaching group decisions. The literature is then reviev/ed for answers to the four research questions, which were presented in ’’The Research Problem" section of Chapter I. CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON THE QUAKER WAY OF

REACHING GROUP DECISIONS

Sumcary Statement

In this chapter the literature on the Quaker way of reaching group decisions is reviewed. Initially, sone observations are offered about the state of the literature. This is followed by a brief discussion of tho origins of the Quaker consensus process and of the importance Quakers attach to the process. A background on the monthly meeting context is then presented. Next, the process used to review the literature is described. The results of the review of the literature for answers to the four research questions of the study are then reported. Observations on the results of the literature review are presented in the remaining portion of the chapter.

Tho Literature on Quaker Consensus

The State of the Literature

The bibliography for this chapter consists of thirty-two books, pamphlets and articles which deal, in some measure, with the Quaker way of reaching group decisions. For most of the sources, over sixty per cent, this topic occupies only a small portion of each work. Examples of such works are tho books by Comfort (Rjj) and Loukes (70). Books which give significant attention to the Quaker consensus process include

55 36 those by Brinton (11,12,13*1 )» Doncaster (2.9), London Yearly Meeting

(69), and Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (88,89)• The Pendle Hill pamphlet,

Peaching Decisions: The Quaker Method, by Howard Brinton (14), is the most extensive work on the topic. Thomas Brown's, "When Friends Attend to Business" (16), is the only "give away" pamphlet available on the

Quaker v/ay of reaching group decisions. Occasionally, articles on the topic have appeared in the major Quaker periodicals (18,25,122),

Other writings on the subject are found outside the usual sources of Quaker literature. Academic studies include the Master's level work of Bartoo (6) and Schmeidler (99), the PhD dissertation of Roberts (96), and the Sociological Inquiry article by Hare (2f8). Writings for more general audiences v/hich discuss the Quaker consensus process include * those by Chase (20), Hoffman (52), and the Pollards (90). These relate the Quaker process to the concepts, respectively, of group agreement,' dialogue and democracy. Articles have also appeared in Fortune (7*f) and the New York Times Magazine (2*+) identifying group decision-making techniques utilized by Quakers and relating these to other decision­ making groups.

The Context of the Writings

The context in which the process is most often written about is that of the local monthly meeting. While references are sometimes made to yearly meeting settings (69,72), only tv/o of the sources included in this bibliography relate the process specifically to settings other than monthly meeting. One source is Macdonald's paper (72) concerning the use of the process in Friends' secondary schools. The other is Hare's study of a thirty-eight member committee, formed in 1970 by Philadelphia 37

Yearly Meeting to draft a response to a black "manifesto" (48),

The Quaker Consensus Process

Origin of the Process

The evolutionary growth of Quakerism in the middle 1600's makes the identification of origins difficult. Loading Quaker authors present slightly different explanations of the origin of the Quaker way of reaching group decisions. Rufus Jones writes,

One of the most novel of all the experiments in religious democracy was that inaugurated by the Society of the Quakers under the leadership of George Fox (162.1+ - 1690, the early formative years being the decade from 1oV7 to 1657. The original suggestion for the type of congregational meeting that emerged in the Quaker groups apparently came from the societies of Seekers which had formed in £he northern counties of England... (99:56)

Elton Trueblood does not cite any originators. He simply says,

It is clear that the Quaker method of group decision arose spontaneously just as did the Quaker manner of worship. ... In Barclay and Penn we find arguments for the method, but they v/e re only giving rational justification to what was already an accepted practice when they v/rote. (113:111)

Whatever the origins, a unique method of reaching group decisions developed early in the life of the Religious Society of Friends and has continued to the present.

Basis of the Process

The Quaker v/ay of reaching group decisions is based on the belief that a group of persons can discern God's will. Trueblood relates the belief to tho process in the following manner.

The immense belief of Friends in the reality of continued 38

revelation nade then expect a revelation of God's will in a group meeting. They accordingly arranged a group meeting in a manner best calculated to know the revel­ ation if it was forthcoming, (113:111)

The sane relationship has been described by Doncaster. He states,

it should be clear that Friends adopted the pr ■: orn of their business meeting because they be'.tyred it gave maximum opportunity for the Spirit of God to find unified expression through the whole membership of the meeting. (29:73)

Importance of the Process

The Quaker consensus process is of great importance to the Relig­ ious Society of Friends. As described above, the process is a direct outgrowth of one of the most basic Quaker beliefs. Its continued utilization throughout the history of Friends gives it a' further impor­ tance, Also, as cited by Brinton (11), the Quaker consensus process continues to be used throughout tho various, branches of Quakerism, including those meetings in which the original form of silent worship is no longer used.

Philadelphia Yearly Meeting's Faith and Practice presents another view of the importance of the process. It states,

Friends' way of conducting business is of central importance to the very existence of the Meeting, It is the Quaker way of living and working together; it is the way that can create and perservc a sense of fellowship in the Meeting community. From there it can spread to larger groups and larger decisions in which individual Friends or Meetings have a part. Thus it contributes to the way of peace in the world in which v/e live. (89:18)

Further evidence of the importance of the Quaker consensus process is the presence of questions about the subject in the "Queries." The

Queries, a particularly Quaker feature, are a set of questions which assist individuals and meetings in self-evaluation. They have been described as "a profile of the Quaker way of. life and a reminder of the ideals Friends seek to attain.1* (S9:187) Meetings use the Queries in a

variety of v/ays, such as reading then in neeting for worship and/or in monthly neeting and preparing written answers to them. The following

Queries are among those found in the 1972 revised edition of Philadelphia

Yearly Meeting's Faith and Practice (89). The first two question the meeting; the latter question the individual.

Are your meetings for business held in the spirit of a meeting for worship in which you seek divine guidance for your actions?

As difficult problems arise, is your Meeting careful to meet them with hearts and minds open for creative ■ solutions, without being hurried by undue pressure for time?

• * •

Do you attend your meetings for business in a spirit of love and understanding, seeking a right course of action through a patient search for unity?

Do you recognize that this search may require you to accept with good grace a decision of the Meeting with which you are not entirely in agreement? (89:189)

The Monthly Meeting Context

Origin of Monthly Meeting

As stated earlier in the chapter, most of the writing about Quaker

consensus describes the process in the context of the monthly meeting.

A brief investigation into the origin and functions of the monthly meeting will provide a bettor understanding of this context.

Howard Brinton describes tho organizational needs faced by the k0 early Friends as follows,

The Quaker movement began as a group held together by no visible bond but united by its own sense of fellow­ ship, a kinship of spirit kept vital by concerned Friends who were continually traveling from one neeting to another. But it was soon found necessary to have some sort of organization dealing with practical natters. For example, there was immediate need of systematic help for persons suffering loss of property through distraint of goods to meet fines. Arrangements had to be made for the validity of marriages without the usual service of an .officiating clergyman. The poor were cared for, burials arranged, records kept of births, marriages, sufferings and deaths. There were children to be educated and traveling Friends, if their own resources wore insufficient, needed financial help. Friends often desired to petition King or Parliament. Disorderly persons were sometimes to be dealt with in order "that Truth might bo cleared" of misunderstanding by the scandalized public. (12:99)

In Emmott's (3^) discussion of the history of business meetings, we find that "general meetings" of Friends in neighboring areas were set up before 1660 to consider the needs of the poor, of prisoners, and of

Friends travelling in the ministry. However, as Friends grew in numbers and faced increased persecution, the occasional general meetings were not sufficient. This was evidently quite clear to George Fox, who, from

1666 to his death in 1691, made the organizing of monthly meetings a major part of his work. As Rufus Jones commented,

It is not the least mark of his (George Fox) genius that, in the face of an almost unparalleled persecution, he left his fifty thousand followers in Great Britain and Ireland formed into a working and growing body, with equally well organized Meetings in Holland, New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas. (59:99)

Functions of the Monthly Meeting

Faith and Practice of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting explains that,

The Religious Society of Friends has organized meetings for business to provide for the orderly care of such matters 41

as are essential to maintaining the Society and carrying on its concerns. These meetings afford opportunity to appoint members to special service; to hear reports by members and committees thus appointed; to encourage. Friends to plan together, under divine guidance, for work that will assist in bringing about the kingdom of God on earth.

The chief authority in matters of business, and the body in which membership resides, is the business meeting of the local group, known as the Monthly Meeting. (88:123-4)

The current functions of monthly meeting are described in part, in the following paragraph.

The Monthly Meeting is the fundamental unit of the Religious Society of Friends, It receives and records members; it extends to them spiritual care and, if necessary, material aid. The authority to take action regarding membership lies only in the Monthly Meeting. • The Monthly Meeting provides for the oversight of marriages and assists its members at the times of death. It collects the funds required to carry on the work of the Meeting. It provides for the holding of titles to property and for the administration of trust funds. Where necessary, the Monthly Meeting deals in a spirit of love with those who fail to live in accordance with Friends* testimonies. Members are encouraged to share their concerns with the Monthly Meeting, which is free to undertake any action and to assume any function that is consistent with Quaker principles and not specifically the responsibility of some other Meeting. (88:127)-

The monthly meeting also approves the creation of meeting committees and appoints persons to serve in the individual positions of the meeting.

An example of the latter is the position of Clerk of the meeting, the person who, "...presides at the business sessions of the meeting and carries out the instructions of the meeting on all matters pertaining to the accomplishment of its business." (88:128) kZ

Descriptions of Monthly Meeting

Detailed descriptions of an actual monthly meeting are not avail­ able in the literature. Descriptions which are presented are usually • short and quite general. The following description, although a general

one, is long enough to give a good idea of the topics which can arise.

It comes from a book published in Great Britain in 1949* Since it is a

general description, it probably reflects monthly meetings in Great -

Britain at that time.

A description of a Monthly Meeting may be of interest. Probably after Friends have taken tea together, the Meeting commences with fifteen to thirty minutes of worship. The Clerk then reads minutes recording the due reading of the disciplinary queries and the attendance or appointment of representatives to other Meetings of the Society. Then probably follow reports on transfers of members, deaths, marriages and the appointment oi* Friends to attend special Meetings for Worship for contemplated marriages, recording of births, perhaps requests by non-Friends to marry by Friends' procedure, resignations, applications for member­ ship and the appointment of two Friends to visit each applicant and report. Possibly the first need for long deliberation will occur on the reports of visitors pre­ viously appointed to applicants for membership. These are among the most interesting discussions, since almost any principle of the Society nay be involved. A Monthly Meeting will sometimes reject or delay an application for membership. After each decision, the Clerk drafts a minute, reads it to the Meeting, which usually either assents or suggests modifications which are accepted. For each matter the appropriate minute of the previous Meeting is read and the present business arises out of it. Then may come a report on ministry from the Elders of the Meeting, which perhaps after long discussion, will be minuted and the minute referred to Preparative Meetings for consideration and report. A committee may perhaps then be appointed to bring in the names of Clerk, assistant Clerk and members of committees for the following year. After this, correspondence from the central committees of the Society may be read. The (central) Peace Committee may be asking Friends to concentrate their attention on the need for stating their position in relation to a conference on disarmament or on atomic energy. The 43

Meeting will consider this and perhaps itself decide to approach its local M.P., send a letter to the Press, and organise a public meeting, possibly in conjunction Y/ith other bodies — or it nay ask its Preparative Meetings to take action with the help of the peace correspondent which each has usually appointed to receive communications from the central body.

The Monthly Meeting may conclude with, say, an address from a member of the Society’s Industrial and Social Order Council on ’’the closed shop" or with an account of the Society's war relief work. A minute summarises the tali:, questions, discussion and, possibly, action agreed upon. The Clerk then reads the remaining minutes of the previous Meeting which require no further action. A period of silence ensues and the minutes of the last meeting are signed. (90:48-9)

The second description, also a general one, is contained in a sociological study of a monthly meeting in the United States in the late

1960's , While the Meeting described here is probably more loosely organized than is usually found, it contains several occurrences common

to other monthly meetings. Unfortunately, for our interests, the author does not describe the manner in which decisions are reached and recorded.

The Monthly Meeting in Practice

The Course of a Monthly Meeting

Preceding the meeting for business there is an informal potluck supper. As those who have attended the potluck are cleaning up, others

come for the business meeting and gather in the meeting room or in the lobby outside to talk about family, the meeting, local or national events, and other tilings.

The meeting room is largo, with rows of benches arranged in a horseshoe for the Sunday meetings for worship. Bofore the monthly meeting begins, the front row of benches is pulled into a circle. The Clerk and Recording Clerk set a small table in front of one of the benches, put out their papers, and arrange correspondance (sic) and other items to be brought to the attention of the meeting. Members of commit­

tees speak briefly with the Clerk,

The Clerk finishes preparations for the.meeting, and sits quietly, or says, "Perhaps we are ready to begin now with a few moments of silence;" and the people sit quietly for five or ten minutes. The Clerk shuffles some papers; the people look up, and shift around in their places, MoGt of the people sit in the first two rows; a few have seated themselves further back and are encouraged to come forward. About fifteen people are present.

The minutes from the preceding meeting are approved, and usually some brief announcements are made regarding births, weddings, and the like. The Clerk frequently makes a comment about the evening's business.

Sometimes there is a special report from a person who has attended a conference. Other times a person comes to the business meeting with a special request. Still other times a committee has approved a couple's request to be married under the care of the meeting; and has brought the couple to be introduced to the meeting, if they are not already known.

The Clerk then asks for the first committee report. Part of the report may entail information about what the committee has been doing; and part will be proposals which the committee recommends for the meeting's approval. Another part may be questions which have come up in the committee meetings, but which the committee feels should be decided by the meeting as a whole, rather than a small group. Jf5

One report may take an hour; another just a few minutes. There are no set time limits for reports, although people may become impatient as a small item drags on and on. Some of the committees report to the business meeting every, month, while others report much less often.

Generally any- business Involving a committee is initiated by that commit­ tee. But sometimes a question arises with regard to an item brought up by someone else, and whatever members of the committee happen to be present are called for information.

Although the Clerk has prepared an agenda, it is not adhered to strictly. Sometimes one committee's report leads directly to other items of business, announcements, requests for assistance, questions about the ways in which the meeting is handling some matter, or related problems.

More often, however, there is little relation between one item and the next. If anyone has to leave, he says so; and the business which he brought is handled early in the meeting. Other people have told the

Clerk that they wish to present items, and so they have been scheduled on the agenda. If they are not present, and have told the Clerk that thoy are not coming, the Clerk (or someone else) may report on the item.

Otherwise, the item is put off until the people come. Throughout the meeting, people go in and out.

One by one the committees who have reports that month make them.

When all the committees have reported, any other items of business are discussed, if they have not been brought up already.

Sometimes a particularly important problem which transcends the boundaries of the regular standing committees is brought up, because it is felt that the matter is so important and sufficiently central to the concerns of Friends that the meeting really must take action. Such items

generally require prolonged discussion, and are seldom completed within

a single meeting for business. But such items do not come up often.

Any last items of business are brought upi Any remaining announce­

ments are made. The meeting ends as it began with a few minutes of

silent worship. (99:2if-7)

With this introduction to the literature and its background of-the

Quaker consensus process and the monthly meeting context, our view shifts

to the research questions of the study.

Answers in the Literature to the Research Questions

The focus of this study is upon the four research questions of: a) what are the essentials of the Quaker group decision process; b) what information or knowledge should a participant have about the process

c) what skills or abilities should a participant bring to the process, and d) what attitudes or beliefs about the process should the participant possess? The literature was reviewed to obtain responses to these

questions.

The review process consisted of two stages. The first was a

content analysis of the literature by key terms. The researcher devel­

oped a list of terms, which primarily involved the words "essentials"

(of the process) and "knowledge," "skills," and "attitudes" (of a participant in the process). Synonyms were also listed, such as

"principles," "basic steps," "major aspects," and "fundamentals" (of

the Quaker consensus process). The literature was then searched for the use of the key words. Statements utilizing them were recorded and W7

categorized, by the terns used. The second stage of the literature review consisted of the selection of responses to the questions on the basis of the researcher's personal judgment, based on his knowledge of and experience in the Quaker way of reaching group decisions. These responses v/ere added to the key word categories.

Representative responses to the questions were then placed in single statement form and listed. This was done to achieve clarity in presentation and to facilitate comparison with the results of the Delphi research. At least one quotation is provided for each statement to clearly indicate the statement's source. In a few instances, the quotation is the statement. The order of the statements is based only on an attempt to provide some rational flow to them. No priorities wero involved in their ordering,

V'/hat are the Essentials of the Quaker Group Decision Process?

1, The Quaker group decision process takes place in a context of worship,

"The spirit of worship is essential to that type of business meeting in which the group endeavors to act as a unit," (12:1 OS)

This in practical terms means that such meetings are held in a context of worship, so that those present may repeatedly and consciously turn to God for guidance, "to seek and Y/ait for counsel and \7isdom from him." (29:67)

"Meetings for the transaction of business matters are conducted in the same expectant waiting for the guidance of the spirit as the meeting for worship," (88:21)

2, Periods of worship may occur before, during and following meetings, in which the Quaker consensus process is utilized. 48

"Periods of worship, especially at the beginning and end, lift hearts and minds out of self-centered desires into an openness to seek the common good under the leadership of the- spirit of Ghrist." (88:21)

At any time in the meeting the meeting may, at the request of the clerk or any member, introduce a period of quiet Y/aiting in which no further spoken contribution is made concerning the subject under discussion. (2 9:68)

3. Business can be presented to the meeting by the clerk, a committee or an individual.

"The method is as follov/s: when a matter requiring decision is placed before the meeting, either by the Clerk or any other member,

(88:49)

"When the group is already in the mood akin to v/orship, ...a i subject is presented for consideration, often by means of some v/ritten communication which has come to the clerk's desk." (1132 116)

4. Business is presented to the meeting as clearly as possible.

"Finally, there should be more concern for clarity in presentation, so that little time needs to be v/asted on clarifications and the ironing out of misunderstandings," (18:312)

5. The subject for- business is spoken to by all who have opinions or judgments regarding it.

"All members who feel concerned to express a judgment should be heard." (88:49)

"Ho one is prodded to speak and all wait quietly until someone rises and makes a suggestion regarding the problem at hand. This will bo the occasion for a contribution from some other person," (113:116-7) w

6. Differing views are respected.

"Matters presented are considered thoughtfully, with due respect to every point of view presented." (85:21)

7. The vocal contributions are helpful in content and presented in a sincere nanner.

Each vocal contribution will ‘be something added to the material in the minds of Friends, a fact or insight or judgment sincerely given, not in argument or debate, not deliberately criticising a previous contribution, but a statement of truth as seen by the speaker, having significance just insofar as the truth in it is com­ municated to the group. (2 9:68)

8. The subject continues under discussion until unity is reached.

"As the consideration proceeds, unity gradually emerges and is finally reached." (14:16) i "No vote is taken; there is no decision made by a majority which overrides opposition. Action is taken only when the group can proceed in substantial unity." (88:21)

9. When the consideration reaches a stage where a reasonable degree of unity has been reached, the clerk announces what he or she believes to be the sense of the meeting.

"When it appears to the Clerk, after general consideration of various views, that the meeting has reached a judgment, he shall state clearly what appears to be the sense of the meeting." (88:49)

10. The clerk or an assistant places the clerk's proposed sense of the meeting statement into written form, callod a "minute,"

"In order not to delay or obstruct the transaction of business, the Clerk should make a minute when the meeting seems generally united,"

(88:49) 50

When the subject under consideration has been discussed, the clerk records in writing the measure of unity which he discerns, and submits this as the conclusion of the meeting. Normally a sensitive clerk can record such minutes without great diffi­ culty, but such a minute is always subject to comment and alteration by the meeting before it is accepted as recording the sense of the meeting. (2 9:68-9)

11. Participants may offer substitute minutes for, or suggest modifi­ cations of, the proposed minute.

"Any member may offer .a substitute minute in exactly the same manner as if it had been submitted by the Clerk." (88:1+9)

Then the clerk, when he thinks this time (when the group has reached unity) has come, makes a minute, stating what he conceives the group conviction to be. ... This interpretation of the sense of the meeting, made without hurry at the clerk's desk, often receives some verbal modification from voluntary suggestions made when it is read, but ordinarily the judgment of the clerk is accepted as a valid statement of the situation. (113s117)

12. Upon approval by the participants, the minute, as proposed/amended/ substituted, becomes the judgment of the meeting and is preserved in the records.

"When approved in its original or modified form, it becomes a part of the meeting's permanent record and should be accepted by the members as final unless called up for reconsideration." (88:1+9)

13. Editorial changes in the agreed upon minute can be made subsequently by the clerk and reported at the next meeting.

"The Clerk should be given authority to make editorial changes in a minute if after more careful consideration such changes seem needed.

He should call attention to ouch changes at the next meeting." (88:1+9) lit. The sense of the meeting statement pan be approved in general at one session and, then, at the succeeding meeting^ be offered in its final form.

If the members then give approval to the Clerk's statement, a minute shall be written and read before the conclusion of the meeting, or if more practicable, clearly outlined for careful composition and presentation at the next stated meeting. (83:49)

15. The sense of the meeting need not be a unanimous decision.

"When a course of action receives the general, though not necessarily unanimous approval of the group, the presiding Clerk formulates the sense of the meeting and it is recorded in the minutes."

(83:21)

16. Persons in the minority are not disregarded. * "An opposing minority, however small, ±s not disregarded, especially if it contains members v/hose judgment is highly respected."

(14:15)

17. "The degree of unity necessary for a decision depends on the impor­ tance of the question and the character and depth of feeling of those who oppose the general trend of opinion." (14:14)

18. When serious differences of opinion exist, the meeting may search for unity through silent prayer.

"If there are serious differences of opinion, perhaps held tenaciously by some who feel sure that their way is .the only right one, it is frequently possible to find unity by recourse to a period of silent prayer." (88:21)

"If serious differences of opinion appear, it may come about that by recourse to a period of silence a basis for unity can be discovered." 52

(14:14)

"Often, when a problem is particularly difficult, especially when there are strong sympathies on opposite sides, someone will rise and suggest that the entire assembly give up speaking or arguing and join in a time of quiet waiting on God." (113:114-5)

19. The minority may withdraw theiT objections in order to allow the meeting to arrive at a decision.

"Not infrequently the minority withdraw their opposition in order that the meeting may come to a decision." (14:15)

"Often an urgent appeal by the clerk or some other Friend to obstructive persons will cause them to withdraw their objections. It must be remembered, however, that minorities are sometimes right." 1 (13:33)

20. V/hen the meeting cannot achieve unity concerning a subject, the subject is either dropped or postponed.

When a meeting cannot unite upon a minute, either the previous policy remains unchanged or no decision is reached on the new business as the case may be. The subject should be dropped for the time being to allow for more careful consideration. (88:49)

"If a high degree of unity is not reached, action is postponed, provided an immediate decision is not necessary." (14:14)

If a few are still unconvinced they may nevertheless remain silent or withdraw their objections in order that this item of business may be completed, but if they remain strongly convinced of the validity of their opinion and state that they are unable to withdraw the objection, the clerk generally feels unable to make a minute. (13:3 2)

21. "If a serious difference of opinion exists on a subject which cannot be postponed, decision may be left to a small committee," (13:15) 53

If a strong difference of opinion exists, on scatter on which decision cannot be postponed, the subject may be referred to a small special committee with power to act, or else to a standing committee of the meeting. (13:3 3)

22. "The sense of the meeting depends upon the 'weight* of the vocal

contributions, not on their number." (2 9:68)

The sense of the meeting depends on the weight of utterances, not on their number. This is quite fundamental. Several Friends may quite sincerely speak in one direction, and then one Friend may express an insight which carries weight and conviction in the meeting in a different sense. It is partly for this reason that Friends take no vote, one acceptable con­ tribution outweighing in significance several more superficial ones. (29:63)

"The weight of a member in determining the decision of the meeting depends on the confidence which the meeting has in the validity of his

judgment. On some subjects some Friends are more reliable than others."

(1h: 15)

In this search for unanimity in a Quaker business meeting, it is important that views of all persons be heard. But the expressions of some members of the Meeting may be listened to with greater care than the words of others. Persons whose spiritual sensitivity is better developed and whose wisdom is generally ^ recognized, will be heard with more openness. These persons are often referred to as "weighty Friends". In the words of Tom Kelly, they are persons "with delicate attunement both to heaven and earth". In this respect a Quaker business meeting is different from the one vote per person concept of democracy which is practiced by most groups in this country. (63:73)

23. Routine items of business can be agreed upon with little discussion.

"On many items of routine business, little or no expression is necessary. Even silence may give consent." (1^:1^)

2/f. On matters of importance, participation by all is requested.

"But on important matters, care is taken to secure the vocal 5Jf participation t>f-all who feel able and willing to express themselves,11

(14:14-5)

25. The clerk's primary duty is to ascertain and record, or be respon­ sible for recording, the sense of the meeting,

"For such a meeting the only essential official is a clerk whose business it is to ascertain and record, or be responsible for recording,

the sense of the meeting,11 (l/ftiq.)

"Each group has a 'clerk,1 a person appointed to fill the double office of chairman and secretary. The clerk is appointed, not to guide

the discussion, but to make a faithful record of what the real convic­ tions of the group are,11 (113:116)

26, The clerk often assumes the more active duties of a presiding officer, but does not dominate the meeting,

MThe Clerk does some steering, but he must not interpose his ego or take a dominant role,11 (20:52)

The clerk is theoretically a recording officer, but in practice he must frequently assume the duties of a presiding officer. He must be sensitive to all trends of opinion, including those not well expressed. When, two or more persons rise at once, he must recognize one as having the floor. He must determine the appro­ priate amount of time to be devoted to each item on the agenda in view of the total business before the meeting. Ho must decide on how much expression he can safely base his minute. He is responsible for keeping one subject at a time before the meeting. He may.request talkative members to limit their remarks and silent members to express themselves. All this appears to lay a heavy burden upon the clerk, but in any contingency he may derive help from any member. Theoretically, it is the meeting as a whole, rather than the clerk, that exercises authority, but the clerk may occasionally find himself in a position in which some exercise of authority is unavoidable. (H:16) 55

27 • If possible, all members of the meeting should attend and partici­ pate in the business meeting.

"Rich and poor, men and women, old and young, have equal status and are expected to participate equally.Everybody has had past experiences, and so everybody has something to give." (20:52)

"If the Meeting is to move as a united group, it is important that all members of that group share in the decisions." (63569)

All present may share in the deliberations of the group, regardless of age, sex or education, ... It is not expected that there will be any onlookers at a meeting of this kind, but that all will be partici­ pators, either actual or potential. (113:115)

28. Silence is employed during the meeting-to enable thoughtful listening and prayerful consideration to occur. • To do this kind of listening is hard work, and we need a brief silence after each person speaks to hear the echo of the message in our own soul and to judge if a response is needed. Such a brief silence is also a guard against interruption. Trivial remarks should be given that consideration, too, because, in the first place, the remark may not really be trivial, and, secondly, if it is, perhaps the speaker may become aware of that fact in the ensuing silence. Finally, such a practice will mean that all our business considerations are, so to say, wrapped in the silence of worship— very helpful in seeking relevance and unity. When meetings go badly, they should be stopped to give way to a silence, not just to let heads cool but to allow prayer for guidance and greater clarity. (18:312)

29. Enough tine should be available to allow for unhurried consideration of the meeting’s business.

"An siid to listening and to assimilating all that is presented is to put aside the competitive bustle of many groups in favor of an un­ hurried seeking together." (116:1-2) 56

"...time should be permitted for careful and deliberate

consideration," (88:49)

"The atmosphere should be unhurried, the participants relaxed."

(63:69)

30. "The Quaker method is likely to be successful in proportion as the members are acquainted with one another, better still if real affection

exists among them." (14:2 0)

It is expected that these persons who make up the group shall already have many experiences and convictions in common. They are bound together by affection for each other and by adherence to a common faith, ...Ideally the fellowship is intimate, so that the members really care about each other. (113:113)

"To work effectively the consensus process must take place in an atmosphere of loving intimacy, where particx^ants know and trust each other and feel free to speak their concerns and feelings openly." (72:2)

31 . The Quaker group decision process is more likely to be successfully employed in small groups than in large ones. •

A minor consideration is that of size. The Quaker method works better in small than in large groups. It is easier to achieve unity in an intimate group the members of which are well acquainted with one another than in a large group where there is bound to be more diversity. (14:19)

What Information or Knowledge Should a Participant in the Quaker Group

Decision Process Have about the Process?

1. The participant should know that Friends have utilized this method of reaching group decisions throughout their history.

Quakers have used this method with a large degree of success for three centuries because it has met the • religious test, being based on the Light Within pro­ ducing unity. As the Light is God in His capacity as Creator, Unity in Him creates Unity in the group. (14:17) 57

2, The participant should know that the Quaker group decision process is based on the belief that religious persons should reach decisions in a spirit of unity.

This general method of procedure has been satis­ factorily follov/ed by the Society of Friends since its organization and has its basis in the deep-seated con­ viction that religious men and women should come to decisions in a spirit of unity, since all have access to the same Light of Truth. (88:50)

3. The participant should know that Friends adopted their form of group decision-maiding because they believed it gave maximum opportunity for discovering God's will in their deliberations.

"It should be clear that Friends adopted the pattern of the business meeting because they believed it gave maximum opportunity for the Spirit of God to find unified expression through the whole membership of the meeting." (29:73)

"The purpose of our meetings for church affairs is to seek together the way of truth - the will of God in the matters before us, holding that every activity of life is subject-to his will." (69:715)-

!».. The participant should know that Friends consider their group decision process to be of central importance to the meeting.

"Friends' way of conducting business is of central importance to the very existence of the Meeting. It is the Quaker way of living and working together." (88:21)

5. The participant should know that the Quaker method of reaching group decisions is a reflection of the Quakers* pacifist view of human relation­ ships. This "mutual confidence11 (in the integrity and social purposes of everyone concerned) is the basis of a pacificist philosophy of life, and the Quaker meeting for business represents a distinctly pacifist type of social unit. To use force on a man is to treat him as a thing, as sub-human and as unworthy of respect or confidence. To appeal to his reason is to treat him as a man, but a man, if his feelings are particularly strong, always finds a reason for what he wants to do. To appeal to that which is divine within him is to appeal to an - intuitive knowledge of truth and righteousness at the apex of his soul, and if this appeal is accompanied by love as well as by confidence it will rouse in him a corresponding love. It may indeed be thought that some men are so near the brute that there is nothing in them which can be aroused by such methods, and therefore they must be dealt with entirely by force, but this assumption is probably wrong. The pacifist method will not always succoed, but it will go much further than force when it does succeed. Those who undertake it must be prepared to make sacrifices in case of failure. Similarly the Quaker business meeting does not always succeed. Other methods are surer of definite results of a certain kind. Those who undertake the peaceable method are often required to make serious sacrifices of tine and to willingly undergo spiritual travail. But a high goal is none the less worthy because it is costly. A Quaker business meeting is an exercise in pacifist technique and a training ground for workers in the pacifist cause. It is not only true that the Quakers have such a type of business meeting and meeting for worship because they are pacifists, it is partly true that they are pacifists because they have such meetings and are trained by them. (11:98-9)

"It is more than a plan of procedure; it is an expression of the fundamental attitude of a Friend toward all men." (88:50)

6. The participant should know that the Quaker group decision orocess is used throughout the various branches of Quakerism in America.

"Even in those areas of the Society in which the original Quaker type of meeting for worship has been discontinued, the Quaker meeting for business is retained." (11:90

7. The participant should know that Quakers have found their group 59 decision process to be both effective and satisfactory,

"This method has been proved by experience to be both effective and satisfactory. Its use is commended in conducting all business and committee meetings," (88:50)

What Skills or Abilities Should the Participant Bring to the Quaker

Group Decision Process?

1, Regular and punctual attendance at meetings.

It is not expected of any Friend that he should attend every meeting or sit upon innumerable committees. Decide what is within your physical and spiritual capacity, and be responsible in your attitude to what you do select. Be as regular, faithful and punctual as possible in your attendance, (69:724)

2, "Centering down" at tho start of the meeting, setting aside personal desires in favor of the group's search for unity.

Let us spend more time in worship and communion at the beginning of the meeting, during which we could pray for divine guidance and for help in not letting our personal hang-ups, our difficulties in relating to this or that individual, or tho tenseness and hostility of the world interfere with the light of God* s love, (18:312)

On taking your seat, try to achieve quietness of mind and spirit. Try to avoid having sub-committees or con­ versations just as the meeting is about to begin. Turn inwardly to God, praying that the meeting may know his guidance in the matters before it and that the clerk nay be enabled faithfully to discern and record the cd.nd of the meeting, (69:724)

3, Seeking and being sensitive to the Spirit of God/Christ,

It (the right conduct of our neetings for church affairs) calls, above all, for spiritual sensitivity. If our neetings fail, the failure may well be in those who are ill-prepared to use the method rather than in the inadequacy of the method itself, (69:716) 60

As Truth is sought through prayer, worship and an earnest effort to purge all that is self-centered and concerned with possessive desires, the group will rise through deliberation to a higher level than that on which it started. (12:116)

4. Self restraint in such actions as hurrying the process oh pressing

one’s view when the judgment of the meeting clearly lies in another

direction.

At this point (postponement) it nay be necessary for members to use great restraint, but the right answer is the end to bo sought and a lapse of time should be accepted rather than pass a minute on which Friends’ minds are not clear. Vocal members who tend to make up their minds quickly should make a special effort at self-restraint. (115:2)

Members are cautioned to seek divine guidance, to exercise mutual forbearance and, having expressed their opinions, to refrain from pressing then unduly if the judgment of the Meeting obviously inclines to some other view. (33:^9)

5. Relevance and conciseness of expression.

"Relevance and conciseness of expression should be encouraged in discussion of actions." (18:312)

"Friends should use as few words as may be, .... The problem of verbosity was noted by John Woolraan...." (29:71)

6. The ability to speak audibly, gently, humbly, and with kindness.

"Speaking should be cool, gentle and kind, remembering that other people have available to them the same light that shines in our own heart." (115:2)

"Opinions should always be expressed humbly and tentatively in the realization that no one person sees the whole truth and that the whole neetinc can see more of truth than can any part of it." (1 /f: 1 7) 61

If you want to speak, try to sum up what you have to say in as few words as possible. Speak simply and audibly, but do not speak for effect, A pause after each contri­ bution will enable what has been said to find its right place in the mind of the meeting. Do not repeat views which you have already expressed. Do not address another Friend across the room but speak to the meeting as a whole. Be ready to submit to the direction of the clerk. Except in very small meetings, speak standing, (69:72^)

7. The ability to listen - with caring, accuracy, patience, and in a spirit of worship.

Let us listen more carefully to each other - certainly without interrupting each other, I suspect that some of us tend to formulate our own thoughts while others are speaking. We would do better to listen more deeply, considering the exact message made explicit; the emotional content in the context of the speaker1s life and commit­ ments; the sources, rational and emotional, of our own acceptance or rejection of tho nesGage; and the source in divine love of the message and of our response to it, (18:312)

On some matters before the meeting you may feel very strongly. Listen as patiently as you can to all other points of view. Even Friends you consider ill-informed or wrong-headed may make positive or helpful points: watch for them..., This demands that we shall be ready to listen to others carefully, without antagonism if they express opinions which are unpleasing to us, but trying alv/ays to discern the truth in what they have to offer. (69:716)

"...we must listen to each other and try to understand those whose views differ from our own." (113:2)

"Not all who attend a meeting for church affairs will necessarily speak; those who are silent can help to develop the sense of the meeting if they listen in a spirit of worship." (69:718)

8. Skill in seeking and utilizing the facts of an issue.

"But open minds are not empty minds, nor uncritically receptive: the service of the meeting calls for knowledge of facts, often pains- 62

takingly acquired, and the ability to estimate their relevance and importance." (69:716)

9. Helpfulness to the clerk.

Pemeraber the onerous task laid upon the clerk and do all you can to help him in his duties. Give him information about matters to cone before the meeting in good time and preferably in writing. Avoid if you possibly can any last-minute messages to the table.

If, when all that is necessary has been said, the clerk is not ready to submit his minute, support him by main­ taining an upholding silence. If the minute is in general acceptable, do not harass the clerk by raising several minor corrections at once. Do not, under the pretext of altering the minute, raise new matter for discussion or reiterate your original contribution. (69:72/+)

10. The ability to relate to one another with sensitivity, understanding and devotion.

...the Quaker method requires greater sensitivity, understanding, and devotion on the part of the members for one another than does the voting method. Even the chronic objector and the eccentric must not only be endured, but loved and understood. (11:95-6)

"Every speaker credits every other speaker with at least some insight." (1/+:17)

11. Skill in building trust among one another.

Do not take offence because others disagree with you. Be chary of ascribing, even in your mind, unworthy motives to others. Try not to take things personally. Promote tlie spirit of friendship in 'the meeting so that Friends may speak their minds freely, confident that they v/ill not be misinterpreted or misunderstood. (69:72/+)

Those who dread the effects of candour in a Meeting are not giving that Meeting the opportunity v/hich it needs to realise all the possibilities of its group life. Such 63

a feeling is often an inverted fear' of something within oneself and the Meeting which is fully trusted by its members can do much to release them from that fear. (90:62) •

12. The ability to be patient.

"As compared with parliamentary procedure this method of conducting a meeting requires more patience and takes more time." (13:34-5)

13. The ability to utilize humor constructively.

Humor and wit may have a role in our sessions to restore proportion and ease. Anger and indignation may be appropriate to give force and emphasis to a concern. But humor and anger, as expressions of per­ sonality, should be used with care and restraint, for the spirit, not the person or personality, should govern. (3:32-3)

14* Skill in using helpful small group processes and techniques from the social sciences.

There seem to be several things we can do to make more creative use of consensus, to give more effective witness to our beliefs, and to bring more living unity both to our own schools and to the larger educational community.

Study the consensus process by training ourselves in recently developed techniques of small group process, sensitivity, and heightened awareness and communi­ cation. Here it may be useful to sponsor v/orkshops that focus on the consensus process and employ experts from the social sciences to train us in becoming more aware of our own values, our effects on other people, and our ability to find new and more effective v/ays of achieving consensus. (72:3)

15. The ability to give one's complete attention to the matter under consideration.

"Give your whole attention to the matter before the meeting."

(6 9:7 24) What Attitudes or Beliefs about the Process Should the Participant

Possess?

1. A belief in corporate, divine guidance.

Both (Quaker worship and Business Meeting) are direct outcomes of the belief of Friends in Divine Guidance. If God speaks t.o men and women in periods of worship and helps them to find their proper orientation to life, He also speaks to men and women in periods of business and helps them to find the proper decisions for individuals and groups* This concept of Guidance is fundamental to an understanding of the business meeting. This, idoa is basic in the conduct of Quaker affairs. (63:68)

"The expectation of corporate guidance is central to the mood of the Quaker gathering." (113:113)

But the Quaker method is not simply a technique; it is a faith which finds expression in a method. The method without the faith will v/ork so long as dif­ ferences are not too great, but may then break down. The essential safeguard against such breakdown amongst Friends is the faith that God is, that there is a will of God for men discernible by men, and that faithful following of such light as we have seen will lead into realisable unity. (2 9:7 3)

"...the meeting is to act as a whole and be governed by Truth, not by personG appointed to rule." (H:5)

2. A belief that participation should occur in the spirit of Jesus.

It is earnestly recommended that in conducting the affairs of the Society we bear in mind alv/ays that this is the Lord's work. Friends should endeavor humbly and reverently to conduct tiieir Meetings in the.peaceable spirit and wisdom of Jesus, with dignity, forbearance and love of one another, (88:1*5)

The primary condition of success, however, goes behind matters of practical self-discipline to the spirit in which Friends gather to transact business. This is most beautifully expressed by Edward Burrough in 1662, a year before he died as a young man in Newgate (prison). (29:71) 65

Being orderly cone together (you are) not to spend time with needless, unnecessary and fruitless discourses, but to proceed in the wisdom of God...not in the way of the world, as a worldly assembly of men, by hot contests, by seeking to outspeak and overreach one another in discourse, as if it were controversy between party and party of men, or two sides violently striving for dominion...not deciding affairs by the greater vote...but in the wisdom, love and fellowship of God, in gravity, patience, meekness, in unity and concord, submitting one to another in lowliness of heart, and in the holy Spirit of truth and righteous­ ness, all things (are) to be carried on; by hearing, and determining every matter coming before you in love, coolness, gentleness and dear unity; — I say, as one only party, all for the Truth of Christ and for the carrying on the v/ork of the Lord, and assisting one another in whatsoever ability God hath given; and to determine of things by a general mutual concord, in assenting together as one man in the spirit of truth and equity, and by the authority thereof. In this way and spirit all things are to be amongst you, and without perverseness, in any self-separation, in discord and partiality; this way and spirit is wholly excepted, as not worthy to enter into the assembly of God's servants,,.in any case pertaining to the service of the Church of Christ, in which His spirit of love and unity must rule. (89:84-5)

3. A belief that the group can and should reach its decisions in unity.

The Religious Society of Friends believes that any right and satisfactory decision depends upon the full understanding and agreement of the persons present. Therefore it transacts business by united decision rather than by majority vote, striving to reach con­ clusions in a spirit of reasonableness and forbearance. (88:48)

"In the transaction of business the meeting assumes that it will be able to act as a unit." (13:3 1)

"Because Friends believe that there is a will of God in part discernible by nan, and that unity in the discovery of this is possible, they refuse to divide a meeting by voting. (29:65) 66

4. A belief that reaching group decisions the Quaker way is a religious act and should be conducted in an attitude of worship.

'•The meeting for the transaction of church business is as directly a religious exercise sis is the meeting for worship, but it has a dif­ ferent objective." < 1 /f: 13>

"The spirit of worship is essential to that type of business meeting in which the group endeavors to act as a unit." (14:14)

"Though the problems faced are often those having to do with the practical aspects of life, they are approached in the spirit of prayer and devotion." (113:114)

5. A belief that the search for unity goes beyond the seeking of ’ compromise.

Throughout our history as a Society we have found that through the continuing search to know the will of God, a different and a deeper unity is opened to us. Out of this deeper unity a new way is often discovered which none present had alone perceived and which transcends the differences of the opinions expressed. This is an experience of creative insight, leading to a sense of the meeting which a clerk is often led in a remarkable _ way to record. Those who have shared this experience will not doubt its reality and the certainty it brings of the immediate rightness of the way for the meeting to take. (69:720)

Such a way transcends compromise; it is the discovery at a deeper level of what all really desire. As separate wills are merged in the underlying will of God, all find themselves united in that vine of which all men are branches. (88:21)

As Truth is sought through prayer, worship and an earnest effort to purge all that is self-centered and with possessive desires, the group will rise through deliberation to a higher level than that on which it started. (14:28) 67

6. A belief in the spiritual basis for achieving unity,

".,.(Friends*-procedure), has its basis in the deep-seated convic­ tion that religious men and women should come to decisions in a spirit, of unity, since all have access to the same Light of Truth." (88:50)

"Since there is but one Light and one Truth, if the Light of

Truth be faithfully followed, unity will result." (14:13)

7. A belief that a right solution exists for any problem and a willing- ness, especially when differences exist, to seek that solution.

Friends have a strong conviction, when differences arise, that there is a right way and that this may well be shown to them if they are sufficiently sensitive. This is why decision is often postponed when there is a marked division in the group. If there is a live possibility of finding a way which will convince the entire group of its rightness, we are foolish to be satisfied v/ith makeshifts or compromises. (113:113-4)

The experience of an early stage of strong differences of opinion followed by a later stage of the discussion in which the differences are overcome by a deeper understanding occurs so often that Friends expect it. The point is that they wait for this culmination. (113:113)

8. A belief that unity can be reached, in part, through a sharing of individual understandings.

"Nevertheless, wo are called to honour our testimony that to every one is given a measure of the light, and that it is in the sharing of. knowledge, experience and concern that the way towards unity will be found." (69:717)

9. An attitude of humility and of obedience to the Truth.

Where there is genuine sincere seeking, willing­ ness to accept new light, above all humility - then the path of unity nay be cleared. It is the experience of Friends, more particularly in their corporate life, 68

that this can and does happen; but it does not happen easily and may be a very costing experience. "The business meeting," says W.C. Braithwaithe, "was (to George Fox) a piece of holy living, a time when life called-to life, and all were brought into obedience to the Truth." .Humility and obedience are cardinal qualities in such experience. (29:65)

10. A willingness to practice self discipline.

...if the exercise of the meeting is to lead to a gathered judgment, it involves a considerable per­ sonal discipline: an alert sensitivity to the coming of light through others, and a willingness to speak or to be silent as we are led, always letting Truth be its ov/n witness. (29:7^)

We have referred already to the need for humility and patience, a willingness to contribute what is given to us, and to be receptive to what is given through others. This involves discipline: a sustained alert sensitivity, and, sometimes, a restraint on one's own desire to over-press a point of view. (29:71)

Quaker business technique was deliberately designed to maintain unity while allowing the utmost possible toleration of individual views. But it cannot achieve its purpose when any considerable section of the body has abandoned the individual moderation which is implicit in the technique. (9 0:5 5)

11. An attitude of honest searching, of keeping an open mind.

If Friends enter a business meeting with their minds completely made up or in a spirit of debate, or con­ tention, unanimity is not likely to be reached. The period of worship which precedes the business session can help create an atmosphere in which people will search for common ground rather than defending their own points of view. But a short period of silence cannot offset years of training in seeking one's own way. The search for unanimity in a monthly meeting is successful only when the members have practiced for many years a seeking attitude, a desire for achieving the common good, a spirit of reconciliation. (65:72)

Persons who are dogmatic, who speak with an air of finality or authority and v/ho go to the meeting determined less to find the truth than to win acceptance 69

of their opinions are exceedingly difficult to absorb. The attitude of a debator is out of place. The object is to explore as well as convince. (13:3 5)

12. A belief in the clarifying and healing qualities of group silence.

At any time in the meeting the meeting may, at the request of the clerk or any member, introduce a period of quiet waiting in which no further spoken contribution is made concerning the subject under discussion. Such a devotional pause can relax ‘tension in a remarkable way when issues can be seen in the light of the presence of God. In such ways the context of worship is main­ tained, and the sense of the meeting is formed within such a context. (29:63)

13. A belief that participation in the process is a way of building the meeting community.

These meetings (for church affairs) are in fact occasions not merely for transacting with proper efficiency the affairs of the church but also oppor­ tunities when we can learn to bctar and forbear, to practice to one another that love which suffereth long and is kind. Christianity is not only a faith but a community and in our meetings for church affairs we learn what membership of that community involves, (69:713)

It is the way which can create and preserve the sense of fellowship in the Meeting community and from there it can spread by contagion to larger groups and _ larger decisions in which individual Friends or Meetings have a part. Thus it contributes to the v/ay of peace in the world in which we live. (88:21-2)

1if» The belief that God's guidance may come through any participant in the group; therefore, each person should be listened to attentively.

Since Friends believe that God reveals His presence and gives guidance to all who seek Him, it behooves them in their meetings to hear with attentive and open minds the messages and views of any members present. This is applicable no less in meetings for business than in meetings for worship. (83:J+5)

It is not easy to give way to someone else or to another point of view; but if one believes that in some way the spirit of God is being liberated in a meeting, one's resistance is weakened and one is alert to find the truth in an unacceptable point of view. (29:65) 70

15* A willingness to tolerate differences in the search for Truth.

Differences within the group on the particular appli­ cation of general principles are tolerated, provided they are being actively explored in a spirit of friend­ ship and in a continued search for truth. Such dif­ ferences are often of great value ir. helping new aspects of truth to emerge. (12:114-)

16. A belief that the Quaker method encourages better decisions than

other ways of reaching group decisions.

Friends profoundly believe that, provided adequate information is available - and there can be no advantage in the more pooling of ignorance - such methods lead to better decisions than are achievable in any other way. (90:50)

17. A belief that the Quaker way of reaching group decisions is a

creative process, producing group solutions which were not present initially in the individual participants.

The Quaker method produces synthesis in which each part makes some adjustment to the whole. ... The organic method may actually produce by a process of cross­ fertilization something which was not there at the beginning. As in all life, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. A new creation emerges through the life or soul of the whole which was not completely present in any of the parts. As the meeting becomes a unit, it learns to think as a unit. This is an achievement. Every partial, fragmentary view contri­ butes to the total view. (12:109)

18. A willingness to allow the sense of the meeting to prevail, even when one is not in agreement.

It is sometimes assumed that unity can be found only by the submission of a minority to the decision of a majority. This is not so but neither should it be assumed that positive steps cannot be taken without unanimity. A minority should not seek to dominate by imposing a veto on action v/hich the general body of Friends feels to be right. (69:719) 71

Friends should realise that a decision which is the only one for a particular meeting at a.particular time may not be the one which is ultimately seen to be right. There have been many occasions in our Society when a Friend, though maintaining his personal con­ victions, has seen clearly that they were not in harmony with the sense of thp meeting and has with loyal grace expressed his deference to it. Out of such a situation, after time for further reflection, an understanding of the Friend's insight has been reached at a later date and has been ultimately accepted by the Society. (69:722)

19. A hesitation to accept suggestions which conflict with "the accumulated wisdom of the saints and prophets who have gone before."

The meeting should hesitate to accept any sug­ gestion which runs counter to the accumulated wisdom of the saints and prophets who have gone before. When it seeks to arrive at a decision which is an expression of truth it must consider as part of itself the invisible company of all those who dis­ covered truth. Their insight must be given due weight in arriving at a decisiort. (14:27)

20. A willingness to utilize the tine and patience necessary to make the process work.

"This procedure takes more time and patience than the voting method, but the results are generally more satisfactory to all concerned."

(14:16)

The most obvious possible disadvantage is that it may sometimes be slow. But it has been well said that "if men are slow to apprehend the will of God, they must be slow to act, for it is their business to act only in obedience." The method is only really slow when strongly divergent views are present, and in these circumstances it iG particularly important not to move quickly to a majority decision, but to be willing to go more slowly to find a decision which seems "good to the Holy Ghost and to us." (29:74)

21. A belief that failure of the process is the result of inadequacies in the participants rather than in the process itself. 72

If this Quaker method of arriving at unity does not succeed, the difficulty is generally due to some members who have not achieved the right attitude of mind and heart." (12:108)

"When the method has not succeeded, as in the divisions during the nineteenth century, spiritual life was low and Friends too inpatient to wait for unity to develop." (14:1?)

Results of the Literature Review

The review of the literature was successful in identifying respon­ ses to the research questions. Based upon the literature, thirty-one statements were developed for tho first question, six for the second question, fifteen for the third question, and twenty-ono for the fourth question. The content analysis for key words was the major source of material for all but the second question. Responses in the literature to question (b): "V/hat information or knowledge should a participant have about the process?" were not readily identifiable. The researcher's judgment was used most extensively in this area.

In another area, the literature review identified certain points at which the research questions overlapped. This occurred primarily With the first and last questions. Although the first question took an over­ all view of the process and tho last one involved the participant's beliefs in the process, they generated several similar responses. Over­ lap occurred to a lesser extent between the questions about the partici­ pant's skills and attitudes. While the overlapping indicates the artificiality of separating some of these concepts, it did not occur 73 often enough to raise doubts about the existence of reasonable differences among the research questions.

The literature review also identified the sources most helpful for responses to the research questions. These consisted of the works

of Brinton (11,1 k ) > Doncaster (2 9 ), London Yearly Meeting (69)»

Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (88,89), and Trueblood (113).

The Next Chapter

Another basic source for answers to the research questions consists of individuals in the field, persons currently utilizing the Quaker consensus process. The following chapter introduces the research technique used in this study to gain tho views of such persons. CHAPTER III

THE RESEARCH PROCESS

Summary Statement

The purpose of Chapter III is to describe the research process utilized in the study. The chapter begins with a summary of reasons for soliciting the views of practitioners about the Quaker consensus process. Alternative means of obtaining the relevant data are then explored, with explanations given for the selection of the Delphi process. This is followed by a brief review of the literature of tho

Delphi process. The guidelines for, steps in, and results of the selection of experts are then discussed. A chronology of the Delphi process as it occurred in the study is presented in the following portion of the chapter. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the variations of the Delphi process which were employed in the study.

Reasons for Contacting the Practitioners

Several reasons for obtaining views from practitioners about the

Quaker consensus process were presented in Chapter I. One general reason is that the literature on the Quaker way of reaching group decisions is inadequate in several ways. The most noteable inadequacy is the almost total concentration of the literature on the process as it is found in the monthly meeting context. Little is written about the

74 process in other settings, such as Quaker'schools, colleges and service organizations. Another inadequacy of the literature is the lack of current works on the Quaker process. For example, the sources found to be most helpful in answering the research questions in Chapter II were those by Brinton (11,12,13,14-), Doncaster (29)» London Yearly

Meeting (69), Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (88,89)* and Trueblood (113).

These were published in 1957, 1965, 194-2, 1952, 1958, 1968, 1965, 1972, and 1937, respectively. The 1972 revision of Philadelphia Yearly

Meeting’s Faith and Practice is the exception. It contains three brief sections on the Quaker consensus process.

The second general reason for obtaining the views of practitioners consists of the potentialities of this source. Information from practi­ tioners will be based on their practical, current experiences. Also, the practitioners will be reporting from their use of the Quaker consen­ sus process in a variety of settings. Information from practitioners may also provide more extensive answers to the second and third research questions, as well as supplementing the answers to the other questions.

Finally, obtaining practitioners' views provides an alternative source of answers to the research questions which can be combined with or compared and contrasted to the answers from the literature. Hopefully, the combination of these two sources will.result in a clearer, fuller understanding of the Quaker way of reaching group decisions.

Selection of the Delphi from among the Alternatives

The following alternatives were considered for the collection of data from practitioners: sponsoring a conference, individually inter- 76 viewing the practitioners, sending a questionnaire, and utilizing the

Delphi technique. The first two alternatives were eliminated on the basis of the- priority Vue.researcher placed on obtaining the partici­ pation of persons associated with a wide variety of Quaker activities.

Such persons live in several states, many outside the Midwest. The expense of sponsoring a conference for out-of-state participants or of travelling out-of-state to interview the participants was prohibitive.

Similarly, the amount of time and scheduling problems required of the participants to attend a conference, or required of the researcher to interview the participants, were prohibitive.

The choice between utilizing the questionnaire or the Delphi technique was more difficult. The major factors in the elimination of the questionnaire method were the difficulties involved in selecting the population and in writing the questions. The priority of gaining partici­ pation from individuals in a wide variety of Quaker activities v/as again involved. The possibility of surveying the entire population was quickly eliminated because of the difficulty of identifying the total'population in the first place, combined with the time and funding requirements to complete a survey. The alternative was to cample the population. How­ ever, workable samples, which would also provide persons with a wide variety of Quaker activities, raised the difficult problems of selection and representativeness of the sample.

Another sot of difficult problems v/as raised in the consideration of the questionnaire's contents. What would be the source of the questions; which questions should be asked, and hov; should they be worded? The objective in going to the practitioners was to find a source of

understanding of the Quaker consensus process which was different from

the information in the literature. This eliminated the literature as

a basis for the questions. Questions written by the researcher would

thus be limited by the writer's knowledge of the Quaker process in

various settings and his ability to word the questions. Such questions

could easily be ineffective and/or confusing. Bartoo, in a sociological

study (6:44-5*62) of the Quaker group decision process in one monthly

meeting, experienced these difficulties with the selection and wording

of questions. In evaluating his questionnaire, he found that many of

the questions were ineffective because the respondents disagreed with or

were confused by them. Also, Bartoo's respondents felt the question­

naire had not sufficiently emphasized the spiritual aspects of the

'process. This researcher wished to avoid such difficulties.

Several positive reasons exist for the selection of the Delphi

technique. First, it is based on the use of selected experts, not on

population samples. Second, the contents of the Delphi are elicited

from the participants, rather than presented to them by the researcher.

Another reason is that the successive rounds of the Delphi offer the

possibility for reactions and additions to the contents; questionnaires

usually do not offer such possibilities. Also, the Delphi technique is

a tool for observing changing levels of agreement among the participants.

Again, the standard questionnaire process does not provide this kind of

observation. A final reason for selection of the Delphi technique is

the researcher-'s interest in utilizing a consensus development technique

to study Quaker consensus. While "consensus" is defined differently in 78 the two uses, as diecussed in Chapter I, basic similarities, such as the search for a convergence of opinions, exist, * One writer (103) has suggested that Quakers utilize the Delphi technique in some of thei„r decision-making activities. This study may be able to provide some insight into the possibilities of such a use.

Background and Literature of the Delphi

Definition and Description

In Chapter I the definition of the Delphi technique by Cyphert and

Gant (26) is utilized. They define the Delphi as, ”.,.a carefully designed program of sequential interrogations (with questionnaires) interspersed with information and opinion feedback,” (26:272) A brief I description of the Delphi also appears in Chapter I. A more detailed description of one form of the Delphi is offered by Pfeiffer (87),

There are a number of variations on the Delphi theme, but the general idea is to prepare successive rounds of questions designed to elicit progressively more carefully considered group opinions. The proce­ dure, which involves some rather sophisticated ways of arranging and presenting information, may take a form such as the following: 1) The first questionnaire may call for a list of opinions involving experienced judgment, say a list of predictions or recommended activities, 2) On the second round each expert receives a copy of the list, and is asked to rate or evaluate each item by some such criteria as importance, probability of success, and so on. 3) The third questionnaire includes the list and the ratings, indicates the consensus if any, and in effect asks the experts either to revise their opinions or else to specify their reasons for remaining outside the consensus, 4) The fourth questionnaire includes lists, ratings, the consensus, and minority opinions. It provides a final chance for the revision of opinions, (87:152-3) 79

The Delphi as a Forecasting Technique

The Delphi technique was developed by Olaf Helmer and others (28,

50, 5 0 , in the early 1950’s at the RAND Corporation. The technique's

primary virtures, according to Helmer (50:16), include its elimination

of face-to-face confrontations and its substitution of a computed con­

sensus for agreed-upon majority positions.

The Delphi v/as developed as a forecasting technique for predicting

future events. One of its early uses was in

...an experimental trend-predicting exercise covering a period as far as fifty years into the future. The experiment used a sequence of questionnaires to elicit predictions from individual experts in six areas: scientific breakthroughs, population growth, automation, space progress, probability and prevention of war, and future v/eapon systems. (50:ifif-5) * Use of the Delphi in forecasting and in other futures studies

has continued. Examples exist in a v/ide variety of fields. They include

the use of the Delphi in planning the future of libraries (120), in studying the future of medicine (7), in determining the future role of vocational and technical education (55), and in developing a fifteen year

forecast of information-processing technology (9). The Delphi, in its use as a forecasting technique has been critiqued by Weaver (117,118).

Non-forecasting Uses of the Delphi

This study does not utilize tho Delphi as a forecasting or other

futures study technique. Rather, it joins a growing area of research in which the Delphi is utilized as a tool for collecting opinions about the present and for seeking priorities among the opinions (2,11 if,26). These uses of the Delphi were suggested, in part, by Weaver, when he wrote, 80

To sum up quickly, although Delphi was originally intended as a forecasting tool, its more promising educational application seems to be in the following areas: ... (c) a planning tool which may aid in probing priorities -held by members and constituencies of an organization. (118:270

Examples of Delphi studies in education cover such topics as terminology in adult/continuing education OfO), criteria for the selec­ tion of a secondary school principal (33) > and competencies needed by personnel engaged in program planning in state divisions of vocational- technical education The second and third examples are PhD theses.

Another PhD thesis, in the field of adult education, identified criteria needed for developing relevant adult basic education programs for urban black communities (78).

Limitations of the Delphi

Critical analyses of the Delphi (117,118) primarily discuss its use in studies of the future. However, some observations, based on a general analysis of the Delphi's weaknesses by Nesbitt (78), are relevant here. First, the Delphi is not a controlled experiment. The inability to control the variables involved place the reliability of the technique in question. Second, in the initial stages of the process, similar but unidentical ideas may be combined, leading to a false consensus. Also in the initial stages, the experts may supply only a few firmly held independent opinions, providing an inadequate basis for convergence of opinions. At the later stages, enormous amounts of material can be accumulated by this procedure, making procedures cumbersome. Finally, time lapses between mailings may reduce the participants' abilities to reproduce their original reasoning. The researcher acknowledges the descriptive nature of this study and makes no claims as to reliability and other factors of a controlled experiment. Attempts to offset some of the above weaknesses will be presented later in this chapter. Further observations on the strengths and weaknesses of the Delphi, as utilized in this study, will be presented in the concluding chapter.

The Selection of Experts

Criteria for Selection

In Chapter I, "expert" is defined as a participant of the Delphi used in this study, chosen for his/her knowledge of and experience in

the Quaker group decision process. As Hesbitt (7 8) found in his review

of the Delphi literature, experts are chosen on the basis of criteria developed by the researcher. The criteria for the selection of experts in this Btudy consist of the following.

The total list of experts should include persons who:

1) currently hold, or have recently held, major positions in groups which utilize the Quaker consensus process;

2) are associated with a wide variety of Quaker settings - schools,

colleges, and organizations;

3) are associated with various branches of the Religious Society

of Friends in the United States;

k) are female and male, vary in ages, and have had varying lengths

of experience with the Quaker consensus process;

5) have officially served as clerks; 82

6) are experimenting with the Quaker consensus process;

7) are concerned about the Quaker way of reaching group decisions;

8) live in the eastern half of the United States, and

9) are interested in participating in and willing to complete the Delphi process.

The objective of criteria 1, 5 and 7 was to find people experienced in leading groups by the Quaker consensus process and interested in the process. Criteria 2,3,^ and 6 sought the general objective of locating a variety of persons who possessed a variety of experiences with the

Quaker group decision process in a variety of settings. The objective of criteria 8 was to limit the complications and expense of mailing and telephoning. Such a limitation would not adversely affect the sought- for varieties mentioned previously. Criteria 9 sought to obtain persons genuinely interested in participating and certain to fulfill their responsibilities in the study. The criteria were developed during the

Fall of 1972.

Search for and Selection of Names

Following the development of the above criteria, a list of potential experts was prepared. Names of people were proposed by the researcher on the basis of his twenty-three year membership in the

Religious Society of Friends and .of his contact with Friends at two workshops in which tho Quaker consensus process was discussed. In addition, he contacted the following for reactions and additions to his original list: the Executive Secretary of the Friends United Meeting and one of his colleagues in Richmond, Indiana; the minister, clerk and two other leaders of Westgate Friends Church in Columbus, Ohio; the

Executive Secretary of the Friends Council on Education in Philadelphia, and a member of the Life Center, a Quaker collective in Philadelphia.*

These activities occurred in late December, 1972 and in early January,

1973.

The initial group of names numbered approximately thirty-five.

This was reduced to eighteen by giving priority to names which were recommended by two or more persons and by choosing one name from among categories of persons with roughly similar experiences and associations in Friends groups.

Experts Contacted by Telephone

Telephoning of the eighteen potential participants took place the last two weeks of January, 1973. In preparation for the calls, a basic message v/as developed (Appendix A). Tv/o persons were eliminated because they could not be contacted by telephone. Three individuals declined the researcher's invitation to participate in the study. A group of thirteen remained who net the proposed criteria. This number was reduced to tv/elve when one person asked to be excused from the study. The person accepted initially but declined after receiving the written description of the study in the first round of the Delphi, The tv/elve became tho experts for the Delphi process.

*Lorton Heusel, Herbert Huffman, Ed Baldwin, Lee V/heeloclt, Herman Lockwood, Paul Langdon, Ton Brov/n, and Gini Coover, respectively. Experts and Their Experiences

Appendix B contains the names of the Delphi participants. Their background data were obtained from a brief questionnaire mailed to the participants in April, 1973 (Appendix D). Some general observations of

the questionnaire results follow.

Participation Experience

The tv/elve experts had participated for, approximately, from four

to forty years in groups using the Quaker way of reaching group decisions.

The average of the group v/as just over tv/enty-five years of experience.

The experts had also served as clerks of one or more groups using this process for^ approximately, from two to thirty years. All of the experts had served, at some time, as clerk of a group utilizing the Quaker * consensus process. The average of the group was ten and one-half years' experience as clerk. All twelve v/ere currently participating, at the time of the survey, in one or more groups utilizing the Quaker process.

Eight of them, at the tine, were serving as clerks of some group which utilized the process.

Varieties Among Participants

The Delphi participants consisted of eight men and four women.

Their ages varied from the early thirties to the late sixties. Their concern about the Quaker way of reaching decisions v/as evident from previous contacts with the researcher or by their telephone responses

to his questions at the time of the invitation to participate in the study. During the period of the Delphi study, five of the participants lived in Pennsylvania, tv/o in New Jersey, two in Ohio, and one each in

Nebraska, Indiana and Hew Hampshire, 85

All of the yearly meeting associations in the United States were represented in this group of experts. However, the affiliations v/ere not balanced, as Friends General Conference v/as represented a total of eight times and-Friends United Meeting a total of seven times. Conser­ vative Friends and Unaffiliated Meetings were represented by two persons and the Evangelical Friends Alliance by one person. Several experts checked more than one yearly meeting, indicating multiple or successive affiliations over the years.

The Settings Involved

The experts indicated a v/ide variety, of settings in which their

Quaker group decision experiences had, at one time or another, occurred.

The settings consisted of the following:

AFSC Board Meetings AFSC Staff Meetings Conferences (Conservative,. EFA, FUM, FGC) Faculty meetings, Quaker colleges Faculty meetings, Quaker schools FCNL Representatives Meetings FCHL Staff Meetings Community meetings, intentional communities - Monthly Meetings Pendle Hill community meetings Trustees' meetings, Quaker colleges Trustees' meetings, Quaker schools Student meetings, Quaker colleges Quarterly Meetings Yearly Meetings

In addition, the exports noted other settings, such as monthly, quarterly and yearly meeting committees (including ad hoc and sub-connitt-ees), conference planning committees, weekend training conferences, Young

Friends of Morth America, and the business meetings of a small Quaker school in which everyone associated with the school participated. One person mentioned his own family as a setting in v/hich the Quaker way of 86 reaching group decisions v/as sometimes practiced. Two nentioned their experiences with the Quaker consensus process in commune settings,

Delphi Procedures Chronicled

Round I - Preparation

Round I of the Delphi v/as developed in the latter half of January,

1 9 7 3. It consisted of a cover letter, a set of instructions, and forms for providing statements to the four research questions (Appendix C),

The cover letter introduced the researcher, explained the study, and outlined the participants' responsibilities. The instructions explained the forms and offered suggestions for thinking about the questions.

The forms consisted of four pages. Each page contained a research 1 question and space for ten responses. The dissertations of Gray ikh) and Nesbitt (7 8) and tho critical review by members of the researcher's dissertation committee were helpful in the development of the Round I contents.

Round I - Hailing and Return

The above materials were placed in a packet, along with a self- addressed, stamped envelope, and nailed to the experts on February 3 and 6, Upon the return of each set of correctly completed forms, the researcher cent an acknowledgment, "thank-you" postcard to the expert.

By February 23, the twelve sets has been returned.

Round II - Preparation

The twelve Delphi participants submitted totals of eighty-nine statements for tho first research question, fifty-three for the soco.nd . question, sevonty-three statements for the third question, and sixty-nine 87

for the fourth question. (Examples of the participants' statements are

presented in the next chapter.) The statements Were transcribed onto

individual cards, and the cards were then sorted into categories. The

researcher requested several experienced, local Quakers, plus members

of his dissertation committee, to aid in the task of categorising the

statements.* Meetings were held on February 28 and March 3, each

attended by a different set of four local experts. In the first session

the experts agreed upon a rough set of categories for the statements

under the first research question. The participants in the second

session agreed upon a set of categories for the statements under the

three remaining questions.

Working from this basis, the researcher developed a more refined

set of categories covering all the statements. He then developed a

single statement for each category which reflected its contents. In

some cases, the statements were duplicates of ones submitted by experts.

In other instances, as in the listing of skills needed by Quaker con­

sensus participants, several experts' statements were easily combined.

Other statements, which attempted to combine and still accurately re­

flect the various emphases of more than one expert, were difficult to

formulate. For example, the statements on the essentials of the Quaker

consensus process were written and rewritten a total of tv/elve times.

In formulating the statements, the researcher attempted to achieve the

•Ruth Browning, Cophine Crosr.an, Lynn Drake, Ton Mays, Flora and Howard McKinney, John Ohliger, and Dick Stow. 88 objectives of clarity and completeness within the statements and exclu­ siveness among the statements. Twenty-two statements were written for the first research question, twelve for the second question, twenty-two for the third, and twenty-seven for the fourth question. (The statements appear on the Round II forms, Appendix D.)

A second packet of materials1 was developed for Round II utilizing the resources found helpful in the Round I preparations. The packet contained a cover letter, a set of instructions, and the statements under the four research questions (Appendix D). The background infor­ mation questionnaire, discussed earlier, was also included in tho packet. In this round, the exports were asked to give a priority rating to each of the statements. The rating was on the following basis:

= first priority, 2 = second priority, = third priority, and Jjj. = fourth priority. The Delphi participants were also invited to comment on any of the statements and to suggest additional statements if any felt that important points had been omitted. To facilitate the last tv/o activities, a copy of each participant’s original statements were in­ cluded in the Round II packet for each person.

Round II - Mailing and Return

The above materials, along with a self-addressed, stamped mailer, were sent on March 12, 1973. V/hile a 100% return rate was achieved, some difficulties were encountered and much time passed. Tv/o Delphi participants did not follow the directions. Upon receipt of their responses, the researcher sent them duplicate sets of materials, informed them by letter that their first attempts could not be accepted, and requested that they try again. Both did so and returned correct, 89 complete forms. The responses of two other experts were complete except

for a few statements which had been overlooked. Upon receipt, the researcher sent them duplicate instructions, copies of the overlooked statements, and a request that they be completed. The experts complied and returned the statements to the researcher. A card acknowledging receipt of each completed form and .thanking the participant was mailed when the forms were received by the researcher.

Tv/o other participants were extremely tardy in their participation.

Reminder cards were mailed to them a month after the initial Round II mailings. Two weeks later the researcher telephoned the experts. One had just sent the materials, while the other promised to do so. That promise was not fulfilled, so, two weeks later, the researcher called i the expert, asked him to rate the statements, and arranged to call again

to obtain the rankings. Three days later, the expert called in his ratings.

The Round II return period stretched over a period of almost tv/o months. The packets were sent on March 12. By the end of March only four complete, correct returns had been received. By the middle of

April, three more had been received, and an additional two came in by the end of April. The telephoned report of the last set of ratings for

Round II came on May 11. The tardiest participant volunteered in April to be dropped from the Delphi study. However, the researcher decided

that total participation by the tv/elve experts was of higher priority to the study than the speed at which the rounds were returned. The expert was asked to continue, meeting the next deadline as best he could.

He agreed to do so. 90

Round III - Preparation

The ratings which the experts gave to the statements in Round IX were tabulated. The ratings given to each statement were then counted.

If a statement received the sane rating from seven or more of the experts, that rating v/as judged to be "the group*s agroeaent" for the statement. The experts' comments about the statements were recorded and stored for discussion of the Delphi results.

Utilizing once more the sources found to be helpful in the prior rounds, the researcher prepared Round III, It consisted of a cover letter, a directions sheet, and the Round III response forms (Appendix

E), The forms contained the original research questions and the sane statements as were presented in Round II, To the right of the state- « ments were four columns. The first column contained the "group-agreed- upon" ratings for those statements where this had occurred. The second column contained the original Round II ratings the expert gave to each statement, Tho experts were asked to reconsider each of their original ratings and then to place their Round III ratings in the third column.

The Round III ratings consisted of the 1-^ priorities used in Round II,

If their Round III ratings differed from the "group-agreed-upon" ratings from Round II, the experts were asked to explain why they wished to remain outside the group agreement. This explanation v/as to be placed in the fourth column.

Two other forms were included in this packet (Appendix E), One consisted of new statements suggested in Round II. The experts were asked to rate and comment on the new statements, just as they had done with the original statements in Round II. The second form requested suggestions "of helpful aids and experiences for learning the Quaker way

of reaching group decisions."

Round III - Mailing and Return '

Packets containing the above materials and a self-addressed, stamped nailer were mailed on May 13, 1973. A 100% return rate was achieved, but, again, the over-all return tine was lengthy. Five

correct, complete sets of forms were returned by Kay 30. Two others returned theirs in May, but the exports had each overlooked a few state­ ments. A directions sheet, duplicates of the forms, and a letter re­ questing their completion were sent early in June. On June 7, the researcher mailed a reminder card to the remaining five Delphi partici­ pants. By June 19, eleven of the Round III forms had been received.

Another reminder note to the twelfth person, followed by a telephone call, occurred in July. Thq tardy.participant, not. the one in Round II, returned the forms on July 25. Sho overlooked one statement, so the researcher mailed her a note asking for the statement's rating and providing a return card for that purpose. The card was received on

August 8, 1973. Throughout Round III, as the correctly completed forms were returned, the researcher sent letters to the experts thanking them for their participation.

The ratings of the Round III statements were recorded and the

"group's agreement" determined. The experts' comments on the added set of statements were recorded for use in the discussion of the Delphi results. This completed the Delphi process. 92

The Delphi Used in this Study

The Delohi Variation Utilized

As Pfeiffer has written, "There are a number of variations on the

Delphi theme ..." (-87). His description of one variety appears on

Pago 7 8. The variety chosen by this researcher more closely resembles

that utilized by Gray (4^)» than the one described by Pfeiffer. A

major difference between the two is that Gray's variation consists of

three questionnaire rounds of the Delphi, whereas Pfeiffer describes

a four round Delphi. The researcher selected the former for three

reasons. First, as Gray demonstrated, successful, useable results

could be engendered from a three round questionnaire series. Also, at

least one of the three previously cited PhD dissertations (33) exper­

ienced difficulties in retaining the experts' participation past the

third round. The final reason is that elimination of the fourth round

greatly reduces the complexity of the forms and the expenditure of the

participants' and the researcher's time.

An Additional Series of Steps

An assumption of the Delphi technique is that the researcher's

formulations of the Delphi participants' Round I statements are treated

as "givens," In succeeding rounds, the experts are usually asked only

to rank the statements and to comment on their rankings. As a result,

the investigator gains no specific feedback from the experts on the clarity or the completeness, for example, of the formulated statements.

This researcher sought to provide a way for the Delphi participants to react to the researcher's formulated statements, as statements, and to 93 propose additional statements. The purposes of these activities were to build an improved set of statements for future use and to provide a kind of informal, evaluation of -the statements used-in this Delphi study.

To accromplish this, the researcher added one set of activities to the usual Delphi procedure. The participants were requested to complete a series of three steps cdncerning the statements formulated by the researcher. The request to complete the first two steps v/as included in the Round IX packet (Appendix D), The first step involved reacting to the statements with written comments. The second step involved adding new statements where the experts thought important points had been omitted. The experts1 comments on the statements were recorded and will be discussed in the next chapter. The additional statements generated in step two were enclosed with the Round III materials

(Appendix E), In Round III, the experts were asked to complete a third step of commenting on the new statements and rating them. These data also are presented in Chapter IV,

The Next Chanter

The results of the Delphi, and of the added steps mentioned above, are presented in the following chapter. The Delphi statements and those

from the review of the literature are then combined and discussed. CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

Summary Statement

In this chapter the findings of the Delphi study are presented and combined with the statements which resulted from the review of the literature. In the first section of the chapter, the results of each of of the three rounds of the Delphi are presented and briefly discussed.

The results consist of a list of statements for each of the research questions, two sets of ratings by the experts on their priorities among

the statements, and the minority opinions of the experts on the ratings

of the statements. In Section 2, the experts' responses to the Delphi statements are summarized and their suggested additions to the statements are listed and discussed. In the third section of the chapter, the statements resulting from the Delphi and from the review of the litera­

ture are combined. Similarities and differences among the statements

from the two sources are identified. The chapter ends with observations

concerning the two sets of statements and their combination.

SECTION I

Round I Delphi Results

Introduction

One of the purposes of the Delphi study v/as to seek responses,

from current practitioners of the Quaker consensus process, to the four

9b research questions of: what are the essentials of the Quaker way of reaching group decisions; what are the kinds of information a participant should have about the Quaker group decision process;- what are the kinds of abilities a participant should bring to the Quaker group decision process,* and what are the kinds of beliefs a participant should bring

to the Quaker group decision process. The second purpose was to search, through the use of successive questionnaires and feedback information,

for group agreement among the experts. These purposes were achieved, as the following results will indicate.

Original Statements of the Delphi Participants

In Round I of the Delphi, the experts were asked to write from five to ten (or more) statements for each of the four research questions.

The experts submitted a total of eighty-nine responses to the first research question, fifty-three to the second question, seventy-three responses to the third question, and sixty-nine to the fourth question.

The questions and several examples of the experts* responses follow.

A. What are the basic procedures, the unique aspects of the Quaker way of reaching group decisions?

1) "A tine of quiet worship, centering down, prior to the taking up of the business."

2) "Tine for unhurried discussion, avoiding premature elimination of possible, solutions or decisions based on insufficient consideration,"

3) "Consensus works best if someone can sum up the sense of the group, read it back to everyone, and lot people think about that state­ ment for awhile." 96

4) "As clear as possible statement of the •situation,' 'problem,'

'opportunity,' or 'concern.'"

B. What kinds of information (knowledge) about the Quaker way of reaching group decisions (origin, philosophy, theology, history, etc.) should the participant bring; to the process?

1) "Awareness of the fundamental differences between decision making by a) voting; b) consensus; c) Quaker business meeting."

2) "Remember and emphasize that historically our process works."

3) "Familiarity with some basic summary of the process, e.g.

Howard Brinton's works on the Business Meeting."

4) "To understand that Quakers from the very beginning have sensed

God's presence in decision-making is very important,"

C. What kinds of abilities (skills) should the participant in the

Quaker way of reaching groufr decisions bring to the process?

1) "Friends need the ability to worship."

2) "The ability to listen."

3) "Ability to speak clearly and concisely,"

4) "A sensitivity to the feelings and thoughts of others."

D. What kinds of beliefs (attitudes) about, the Quaker way of reaching group decisions should the participant bring to the process?

t) "Fundamental is the acceptance by participants of the assump­ tion that there is a right way (God's will) that we can find together."

2) "Willingness to have the group stop short of a decision, and to await a clearer sense as to how to move forward,"

3) "Reverence for peoplo as individuals who have in them a seed of the divine." 97

4) "One needs to believe in the Spirit controlled and directed life."

Statements Formulated by the Researcher

The total of 284 responses of the Delphi participants were cate­ gorized, with-the help of local Quakers, and then formulated into state­ ments. The results consisted of twenty-two statements for the first research question, twelve for the second question, twenty-two for the third question, and twenty-seven for the fourth research question.

The statements follow:

A. THE ESSENTIALS OF THE QUAKER WAY OF REACHING GROUP DECISIONS ARE

AS FOLLOWS:

1. Each person participates - fully, openly and helpfully. « 2. Someone tests the group’s readiness to decide by summarizing the discussion and/or by attempting to state the sense of the meeting.

3. Participants are open to the thoughts and feelings of others,

4. Once an issue is presented, the participants share their information, feelings and opinions on it,

5. Differences are recognised, accepted without antagonism, and worked through to an understanding of them and/or creative solutions to then.

6. The participants attempt to reach unity in their decisions.

7. Participants relate to one another in love and trust.

8. Decisions can be deferred; reasons may include insufficient information, clarity or unity,

9. The decision process begins with a statement,'as clear and concise as possible, of the problem to be considered or of the kind of decision to be made.

10. The group decision can be non-unanimous, in which case the dissenter stands aside, allowing the group to proceed. 98

11. The group decision is identified by a statement which all agree expresses the sense of the meeting,

12. Decisions are accurately recorded for future reference,

13. Participants center down and silently worship together prior to considering the business and, at tines, before making specific decisions.

1/f. A person can block the group decision if one feels it opposes a deeply held value/truth which has not been recognized,

15. In reaching decisions, participants seek Divine Guidance/ God's will within themselves and in one another,

16. At the introduction of an issue for consideration, relevant information is presented, such as the issue's context, constraints and history (if it has been before the group previously),

17. In the discussion, the participants seek full information, attempting to see all sides of the issue,

18. In the case of a dissenter who allows the group to proceed, the individual can be recorded as personally opposed or unclear and/or the individual can meet with a snail committee, appointed by the group, to discuss the issue further,

19. T-he clerk of the meeting facilitates the above activities - (1 - 18).

20. The clerk, at the end of the discussion, formulates the group's decision and presents it, without defense, to the group for improvement and/or acceptance.

21. Enough time is available to allow the above activities (1 - 20) to occur without haste.

22. The process is a group experience; participants familiar with it and with one another facilitate the process.

B. THE FOLLOWING AK3 THE KIIIDS OF INFORMATION (KNOWLEDGE) A PARTICIPANT SHOULD HAVE ABOUT THE QUAKER GROUP DECISION PROCESS:

The participant should:

1. have full information on the way in which the Quaker group decision process works (procedures, outcomes, expected participant behaviors ...).

2. know that the process is based on the religious insight that God may spoak directly to any person. 99

3. be familiar with v/ritings about'the process, such as found in Howard Brinton's books, Faith and Practice, and John Woolaan's Journal.

if. know that the process was. utilized by the earliest Friends and has been used continuously in the Society ever since.

5. know that the Quaker group decision process is rooted in historical Christianity.

6. have some information, (such as significant Yearly Meeting decisions), about Friends* successful and, at times, unsuccessful use of the process in the past.

7. know that the process is consistent with the way in which Quakers attempt to live.

8. know that good experience "in11 the process is more helpful to a participant than knowledge "about" the process.

9. know the fundamental differences between the Quaker way of reaching group decisions and other group decision processes (involving voting, political maneuvering ...),

10. know the important differentiations of the process, such as between unanimity and the sense of the meeting, between disagreeing- but-permitting and blocking the group decision.

11. have some knowledge of the Biblical teaching of Christian unity and its relationship to group decisions.

12. know that the purpose of the process is to give the Spirit opportunity to lead the participants unitedly.

C. THE FOLLOWING ABB THB KINDS OF ABILITIES (SKILLS) A PARTICIPANT SHOULD BRING TO THE QUAKER GROUP DECISION PROCESS;

The participant should have the ability "to:

1, find common ground among differing views and help others, to see the commonalities.

2. constructively utilize humor.

3. eenso the group's feelings and needs, to point them out when helpful, and to suggest procedures.

4, be patient ... with the desire to express own views, with inarticulate speakers, with the group process...

3. speak clearly, concisely and -relevantly. 100

6. love ... especially to love another while differing with that person's ideas,

7. synthesise, recombine and to summarize the discussion.

8. perceive areas of agreement and disagreement or conflict and to state them non. judgaentally.

9. listen ... with accuracy, calmness and understanding.

10. be sensitive to the feelings, perceptions and thoughts of others.

11. utilize her/his own knowledge and feelings, combined with the insights from the group, in reaching a decision.

12. recognize, understand and express his/her own feelings.

1 3. assume control of her/his own life, enabling one to be totally present for the full time a decision is to be made.

1A* recognize and understand nonverbal behavior.

15. discern the mind of the Spirit/God's voice in one's self and in others.

16.— worship, to open one's self to the spirit of truth inside.

17. utilize silence constructively, entering into quiet searching through prayer and concentration.

18. submerge striving for an individual solution in the group search for a mutually agreeable resolution.

19. gracefully 7/ithdraw objections and help others to do so.

20. be imaginative in the search for solutions.

21. deal constructively with conflict.

22. broals large issues down to manageable size.

D. THE FOLLOWING ARE TIE KINDS OF BELIEFS (ATTITUDES)A. PARTICIPANT SHOULD BRING TO THE QUAKES GROUP DECISION PROCESS:

The participant should:

1. believe in silence as a method for assisting group decision- . making. 101

2. believe in God and in God's potential helpfulness in the decision process.

3. value the Quaker way of reaching decisions, believing that it works and works better than other group decision processes-,

4. believe that Truth/God's will/a right v/ay/God'.s leading exists in any given issue and can be discovered by a corporate, loving, patient, persistent, open search.

5. believe that clarity on God's will can be obtained, conflicts can be resolved, and right decisions made if participants are open to the leadings of the Spirit.

6. believe that the greater the differences of perception of the truth, the fuller the truth that will be revealed, if labored through until agreement is reached.

7. be committed to a group solution and willing, in most cases, to set aside one's own opinions and desires in favor of the group.

8. view the process seriously and be willing to incorporate the decisions into the participant's own life. « 9. believe that differences and/or conflicts are natural and are to be valued, sought out and worked through,

10. believe in the ability of all participants to learn, grow and to see clearly,

11. believe the Scriptural teaching of unity, love and the bond of affection.

12. believe that we are not looking nerely for consensus but for the right leading of God.

1 3. have the attitude that this process iG in keeping with the life and teachings of Jesus of liazarcth.

1 4# have the attitude that the process of decision-maiding takes time, patience, perseverence and energy.

Ip. believe that greater truth exists in the whole than in any part, that a group decision is not a compromise but a judgment of a higher order than an individual's decision.

16. believe that since the seed of truth exists in each partici­ pant, a corporate truth can bo obtained.

17. believe that since a spark of the Divine exists in each person, each person is to be loved and her/his contribution to be valued. 102

18. believe in the Spirit controlled and directed life, in the continued revelation of truth ... through one's self and any other participant.

1 9. believe in approaching, issues v/ithout pro-formed conclusions but with a willingness to learn.

20. believe that one's own well-considered ideas and insights nay be valuable to the group's considerations, while acknowledging one's own fallibility.

21. believe in one's self enough to refuse to accept the group's decision if one is deeply opposed on an important matter of principle.

22. believe that the process will not always work.

23. believe that action, rather than inaction, nay need to be taken, even though, as human beings, we may not have chosen the right leading.

2k. believe that the Quaker way of reaching group decisions is basically a religious process and that one's attitude should be of worship, of prayerful seeking for Divine guidance.

25. believe that God leads His people unitedly.

26. believe that the group making the decision has a significance and validity of its own.

27. believe in the worth of waiting, allowing the group to stop short of a decision in order to await a clearer sense of how to move forward or postponing a decision until next meeting to allow indivi­ duals time to seek within themselves and/or with one another.

Discussion of the Round I Results

Those results indicate that the researcher, on the basis of the responses of the Delphi participants, was able to formulate a series of statements for each of the four research questions. The question con­ cerning the participants' beliefs or attitudes engendered the largest number of statements. Five fewer statements were developed for each of the questions about the essentials of the process and the skills or abilities needed by a participant in the process. The number of state­ ments concerning the kinds of information a participant should possess 103 was significantly less than the other groups of statements.

Round II Delphi Results

Presentation and Explanation of Table 1

In Round II, the experts were asked to rate the statements sub­ mitted to them. They rated the statements on a priority of 1 to kt with 1 as the highest priority and k as the lowest. The researcher recorded, combined and analyzed the ratings. The results are presented in Table 1.

The left-hand column in Table 1 contains the initial words of each of the statements. The complete statements appeared previously in this chapter. The second column presents the percentage of group agreement reached on each statement. The figures were obtained by dividing twelve, the number of Delphi participants, into the highest number of identical ratings for each statement. Thus, if a certain rating was utilized eight times for one statement, the percentage of agreement for that statement would be 8 f 12 or 67% (rounded figure). The checkmarks in the next column identify the statement which received identical ratings from seven or more experts. In percentage figures this would be a 58%, or higher, level of agreement. Such statements achieved the "group agree­ ment" level. The figures in the fourth column indicate the rating mode, the rating which was used most often in each statement. The mode was determined by counting the number of times each rating was used for each statement and identifying the rating used most often in each statement.

The final column contains the mean ratings, the arithmetic average of the ratings for each statement. The mean was gained by adding the ratings given to each statement and dividing by twelve, the number of experts.

The second and third columns, therefore, present the extent to which

the experts agreed to the ratings. The fourth and fifth columns indicate

the importance the experts attached to each statement. Since the rating of Mfti indicated "first priority," the statements with the lowest mean ratings were considered by the Delphi participants to be the ones with the highest priority. The statements with the highest percentages were the ones which received the highest levels of group agreement. 105

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF THE ROUND II RATINGS

A - Statements (initial phrase) The essentials of the Quaker way of % of Group reaching group decisions are as Agree­ Agree­ Rating Rating follows: ment ment Mode Mean

1. Each person participates,., 33 1/2/4 2.33

2. Someone tests the group's readiness... 58 X 1 1.50

3. Participants are open to the thoughts... 75 X 1 1.25

4. Once an issue is presented... 58 X 2 2.08

5. Differences are recognized... , 42 2 1.92

6. The participants attempt to reach... 58 X 1 1.92

7. Participants relate to one... 75 X 1 1.33

8. Decisions cam be deferred... 42 2 1.75

9. The decision process begins.., 58 X 1 1.58

10. The group decision cam be non... 50 1 1.92

11. The group decision is identified... 58 X 1 1.50

12. Decisions are accurately recorded.,, 50 2 1.92

13. Participants center down... 50 1 1.66

14. A person can block the group... 50 1 1.66

15. In reaching decisions.., 83 X 1 1.33

16. At the introduction of an issue... 75 X 2 1.75

17. In the discussion, the... 50 1 1.75

18. In the case of a dissenter who... 58 X 2 2.33 106

TABLE 1 - Continued

A - Statements (initial phrase) The essentials of the Quaker way of % of Group reaching group decisions are as Agree­ Agree­ Rating Rating' follows: ment ment Mode Mean

19. The clork of the meeting... 58 X 1 1.58

20. The clerk, at the end of the... 58 X 1 1.58

21. Enough time is available... 50 1 1.75

22. The process is a group experience... 33 1/2 2.08

B m Statements (initial phrase) The following are the kinds of infor­ mation (knowledge) a participant should have about the Quaker group decision process:

The participant should:

1. have full information on the way... 42 1 2.00

2. know that the process is based... 67 X 1 1.50

3. be familiar with writings... 50 3 -~ 3.17

4. know that the process was utilized.. 42 4 3.00

3. know that the Quaker group... 33 3 2.67

6. have some information, such as... 50 2 2.83

7. know that the process is consistent. 42 2 2.00

8. know that good experience "in"... 67 X 1 1.50

9. know the fundamental differences... 42 1 1.92

10. know the important differentiations. 50 1 1.67

11. have some knowledge of the Biblical. 42 2 2.92

12. know that the purpose of the... 67 X 1 1.33 107

TABLE 1 - Continued

C - Statements (initial phrase) The following are the kinds of abilities (skills) a participant % of Group should bring to the Quaker group Agree­ Agree­ - Rating Rating decision process: ment ment Mode Mean

The participant should have the ability to:

1. find common ground among differing. 58 X 2 1.58

2. constructively utilize humor... 42 2/3 2 .5 0

3. sense the group's feelings... 67 X 2 2.00

4. be patient,..with the desire... 58 X 1 1.50 « 5. speak clearly, consisoly 50 1 1.67

6. love...especially to love... 58 X 1 1.58

7. synthesize, recombine... 67 X 2 2.17

8, perceive areas of agreement.,, 75 X 2 2.00

9. listen...with accuracy,., 58 X 1 1.58

10. be sensitive to the feelings... 67 X 1 1.42

11. utilize his/her own knowledge... 50 2 2.1?

12. recognize, understand and express.. 42 2 2.25

13. assume control of her/his own... 42 2 2.08

14. recognize and understand nonverbal.. 50 2 2.58

13. discern the mind of the Spirit... 58 X 1 1.75

16. worship, to open one's self... 75 X 1 1.42

17. utilize silence constructively... 50 1 1.67

18. submerge striving for an... 83 X 1 1.42 108

TABLE 1 - Continued

% of Group Agree­ Agree­ Rating Rating ment ment Mode Mean ’

19. grac e fully wi thdraw ob j e c tions... 42 1 2.00

20. be imaginative in the search 50 1 1.58

21. deal constructively with... 67 X 1 1.58

22. break large issues down... 67 X 2 2.08

D - Statements (initial phrase) The following are the kinds of beliefs (attitudes) a participant should bring to the Quaker group decision process:

The participant should:

1. believe in silence as a method... 42 2 2.33

2. believe in God and in God's... 75 X 1 1.67

3. value the Quaker way of reaching... 75 X 1 1.25

4. believe that Truth/God’s will... 67 X 1 1.50

5. believe that clarity on God's will.. 67 X 1 1.50

6. believe that the greater the... 33 4 2.75

7. be committed to a group solution... 58 X 1 1.50

8. view the process seriously... 50 2 1.75

9. believe that differences and/or... 67 X 2 1.6?

10. believe in the ability of all.,. 58 X 1 1.42

11. believe the Scriptural teaching... 33 3 2.42

12. believe that we are not looking... 67 X 1 1.58

13. have the attitude that this... 33 4 2.58 109

TABLE 1 - Continued

% of Group Agree­ Agree­ Rating Rating ment ment Mode Mean

14. have the attitude that the... 50 1 1.58

15. believe that the greater truth... 50 1 1.58

16. believe that since the seed... 67 X 1 1.58

17. believe that since a spark... 83 X 1 1.33

18. believe in the Spirit controlled... 75 X 1 1.33

19. believe in approaching issues... 67 X 1 1.42

20. believe that one's own... 58 X 1 1.50

21. believe in one's self enough 75 X 1 1.67

22. believe that the process will not... 58 X 4 3.00

23. believe that action, rather than... 42 1 2.08

24. believe that the Quaker way... 58 X 1 1.58

25. believe that God leads His people. 50 4 3.08

26. believe that the group making... 33 1/2 2.25

27. believe in the worth of waiting... 83 X * 1 1.17 110

Discussion of the Round II Results

Several observations about the Round II results are possible. Look­

ing overall at each of the four sets of questions and statements, the

fourth set, (D) which dealt with the attitudes or beliefs of a partici­

pant, received the highest levels of agreement. That is, 17 of its 27

statements (63%) reached the "group agreement" level. The average level

of agreement for all the statements in that set was 58%. The mean of

all the ratings in set (D) was 1.82. Of the seventeen statements which

reached the "group agreement" level, fifteen were rated "1" (highest

priority). The other two statements were rated "2" and "4»"

Thirteen of the 22 statements (59%) in set (C), which concerned the

skills or abilities needed by a participant, received the "group agree­

ment" level. The average level of agreement for all the statements in

that set was 58%. The mean of sill the ratings in set (C) was 1.84. Of

the thirteen statements which reached the "group agreement" level, eight

were rated "1" and five were rated "2."

In set (A), which involved the essentials of the Quaker consensus

process, twelve of the twenty-two statements (54%) reached the "group

agreement" level. The average level of agreement for all the statements

in that set was 55%. The mean of all its ratings was 1.75* Ten of the

twelve statements which reached the "group agreement" level were rated

"1." The other two statements were rated "2."

The statements in set (B) dealt with the kinds of information or knowledge a participant should have about the Quaker consensus process. 111

Three of the twelve statements (25%) reached the "group agreement" level. The agreement levels of all the statements in set (B) averaged

49%. The moan of all the ratings in that set was 2.16. The three statements which reached the "group agreement" level were rated "1," the highest priority.

The rating used most often for all the statements in all the sets was "1," the highest priority. However, use of the highest rating varied among the sets. It was utilized most often (67%) in set (D),

64% in set (A), 54% iu set (C), and 50% in set (B).

In general, the results of Round II indicate that the experts were able to rate all the statements, that they gave rather high priorities to the statements (see the mean ratings), and that they reached signi­ ficant levels of agreement (see the agreement percentages) on many of the ratings. On the bases of the ratings and the levels of agreement, the statements in set (D) (attitudes/belief6 of the participants) received the best reception from the Delphi participants. Next in line were the statements in set (A) which dealt with the essentials of the

Quaker consensus process and the set (C) statements (the skills/abilities of the participants). The ratings and agreement percentages were quite similar for sets (A) and (C). The statements in set (B), concerning the information/knowledge a participant should have about the process, re­ ceived the poorest reception from the experts. In set (B), the extent of "group agreement" levels was significantly lower, while its mean ratings were higher. Round III Delphi Results

Explanation and Presentation of Table 2

In Round III, the Delphi participants received the statements, the

Round II ratings for those statements which reached the "group agree- mejit" level, and their individual ratings of all the statements. They re-evaluated their original ratings and rated all the statements again.

If their final rating differed from the rating of any statement which achieved the "group agreement" level in Round II, they were asked to state reasons for remaining outside the groupfs agreement. The Round

III ratings were the same as-used previously, with "1" = "first priority" through "4"= "fourth priority". The results of Round III are presented in Table 2. For an explanation of the columns and the sources « of their contents, see the previous description of the Table 1 presen­ tation. 113

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF THE ROUND III RATINGS

A - Statements (initial phrase) The essentials of the Quaker way of % of Group reaching group decisions are as Agree­ Agree­ Rating Rating follo7js: ment ment Mode Mean

1. Each person participates... 33 1/2 A 2.33

2. Someone tests the group's readiness... 67 X 1 1 A2

3. Participants are open to the thoughts... 75 X 1 1.25 k. Once an issue is presented... 50 2 2.08

3. Differences are recognized... 50 2 1.66

6. The participants attempt to reach... 67 X 1 1.50

7. Participants relate to one... 83 X 1 1.16

8. Decisions can he deferred... 50 2 1.66

9. The decision process begins... 67 X 1 1.50

10. The group decision can be non... 50 1 1.66

11. The group decision is identified X 1 1.33

12. Decisions are accurately recorded 50 1 1.75

13. Participants center down... 50 1 1.66

A. A person can block the group... 50 1 1.66

15. In reaching decisions... 83 X 1 1.33

16. At the introduction of an issue... 6? X 2 1.83

17. In the discussion, the... 50 2 1.92

18. In the case of a dissenter who... 83 X 2 2.08 TABLE 2 - Continued

% of Group Agree­ Agree­ Rating Rating ment ment Mode Mean

19. The clerk of the meeting... 83 X 1 1.16

20. The clerk, at the end of the... 75 X 1 1.42

21 . Enough time is available... 50 1 1.50

22. The process is a group experience.* . 42 2 1.92

B - Statements (initial phrase) The following are the kinds of information (knowledge) a participant should have about the Quaker group decision process:

The participant should:

1 . have full information on the v/ay... 42 2 2.35

2. know that the process is based... 67 X 1 1.42

3. be familiar with writings... 42 4 3.17

4. know that the process was utilized... 42 4 2.92

5. know that the Quaker group... 33 3 2.6?

6. have some information, such as... 50 2 2.83

7. know that the process is consistent. 58 X 2 1.75

8. know that good experience "in",.. 92 X 1 1.25

9. know the fundamental differences... 50 1 1.83

10. know the important differentiations. 58 X 1 1.42

11. have some knowledge of the Biblical.. 42 2 2 .9 2

12. know that the purpose of the... 75 X 1 1.50 115

TABLE 2 - Continued

C - Statements (initial phrase) The following are the kinds of abilities (skills) a participant % of Group should bring to the Quaker group Agree­ Agree­ Eating Rating decision process: ment ment Mode Mean

The participant should have the ability to:

1. find common ground among differing. 58 X 2 1.58

2. constructively utilize humor,., 50 2 2.33

3. sense the group's feelings... 92 X 2 1.92

4. be patient...with the desire... 67 X 1 1.42

5. speak clearly, concisely... 50 1 1.67

6. love...especially to love... 58 X 1 1.58

7. synthesize, recombine... 75 X 2 2.25

8. perceive areas of agreement.,. 75 X 2 2.00

9. listen...with accuracy... 58 X 1 1 .42

10. be sensitive to the feelings... 67 X 1 1.33

11. utilize his/her own knowledge... 50 2 2.08

12. recognize, understand and express. 42 2 2.25

13. assume control of her/his own... 42 1. 2.00

14. recognize and understand nonverbal. 50 2 2.58

13. discern the mind of the Spirit... 75 X 1 1.50

16. worship to open one's self... 92 X 1 1.17

17. utilize silence constructively... 50 1 1.67

18. submerge striving for an... 83 X 1 1.33 116

TABLE 2.- Continued

'% of Group Agree­ Agree­ Rating Rating ment ment Mode Mean

19. gracefully withdraw objections,,, 50 1 1.83

20. be imaginative in the search... 58 X 1 1.50

21. deal constructively with... 6? X 1 1.50

22. break large issues down... 67 X 2 2.00

D - Statements (initial phrase) The following are the kinds of beliefs (attitudes) a participant should bring to the Quaker group decision process:

The participant should:

1. believe in silence as a method... 42 2 2.33

2. believe in God and in God’s... 67 X 1 1.75

3. value the Quaker way of reaching... 67 X 1 1.33

4. believe that Truth/God’s will... 75 X 1 1.42

5. believe that clarity on God's will. 75 X 1 1.52

6. believe that the greater the... 33 3 2.42

7. be committed to a group solution... 83 X 1 1.25

8. view the process seriously... 50 1/2 1.50

9. believe that differences and/or... 75 X 2 1.75

10. believe in the ability of all... 67 X 1 1.33

11. believe the Scriptural teaching... 42 3 2.25

12. believe that we are not looking... 83 X 1 1.33

13. have the attitude that this... 33 1 2.42 117

TABLE 2 - Continued

% of Group Agree­ Agree­ Rating Rating ment ment Mode Mean

14. have the attitude that the... 50 1 1.75

15. believe that the greater truth... 50 1 1.58

16. believe that since the seed... 67 X 1 1.58

17. believe that since a spark... 83 X 1 1.33

18. believe in the Spirit controlled... 83 X 1 1.25

19. believe in approaching issues... 75 X 1 1.33

20. believe that one's own... 67 X 1 1.42

21 . believe in one's self enough... 75 X 1 1.58

22. believe that the process will not... 58 X 4 3.08

23. believe that action, rather than... 53 1 2.25

24. believe that the Quaker way... 67 X 1 1.50

25. believe that God leads His people.., 50 If 3.08

26. believe that the group making... 33 1/4 2.42

27. believe in the worth of waiting... 92 X 1 1.08 118

Discussion of the Round III Results

The results of Hound III indicate similar overall ratings for three of the four sets of research questions and statements. If the four sets are analyzed for the number of their statements which reached the "group agreement" level, the following results appear. Set (C), which was concerned with the skills or abilities of a participant, contained four­ teen (of 22) statements (6if%) which reached that level. The statements about the attitudes or beliefs of a participant, set (D), included seventeen (of 27 or 63%) which reached the "group agreement" level. In set (A), the essentials of the Quaker consensus process, eleven of its twenty-two statements (50%) reached such a level. Set (B), which dealt with the kinds of information or knowledge a participant should possess, included five statements (of its 12 or 5*$) which reached the "group agreement" level.

Analyzing the four sets on the basis of the overall percentages of agreement reached in the ratings of the statements, the following results occur. In set (D), the average level of agreement for all its statements was 62%. This was followed closely by the 61% of set (A) and the 60% of set (C). Set (B) received a 54% average level of agreement on the ratings of its statements.

An analysis of the means of all the ratings of the statements in the four sets provides a slightly different result. The lowest overall mean occurred in set (A), with a 1,62 mean. Both sets (C) and (D) had overall mean ratings of 1.77. Set (B) had the highest overall mean, 2.17.

In general, the overall Round III results indicate that the Delphi participants were able to rate the statements, that they tended to give the statements high priority ratings (see-the moan ratings), and that

they reached significant levels of agreement on the ratings of the majority of statements. On the bases of the ratings and the levels of agreement, the statements in sets (D), (A) and (C) received the greatest support from the experts. They were followed by set (B). While five of set (B)'s twelve statements reached the "group agreement" level, the remaining statements had the lowest levels of agreement and the highest mean ratings of all the statements in the four sets.

Minority Opinions of Experts

In Round III, the Delphi participants were requested to rate all the statements again. Then, if any of their Round III ratings differed from a "group agreement" rating (for those statements where this level of agreement had been reachfed), they v/ere asked to give their reasons for continuing to differ with the group’s rating. The experts submitted

132 minority opinion statements. Those were recorded and categorized,

A summary of the results, with examples of the statements, follows.

When reference is made to specific statements, their numbers are based on the original Delphi lists, presented early in this chapter.

Frequent Minority Opinions

The largest category of reasons for disagreeing with the group could be titled, "I just believe otherwise," Forty-seven statements fell into this category. Some examples are:

^. "against my own beliefs"

2. "I don't believe the statement"

3, (for statement D-^) "not sure search can always be successful 120

and that 'the Truth' exists."

The second largest category contained forty statements. These

explanations expressed disagreement with the meaning of the statements

or of certain words in the statements. Examples are:

1. (for statement A-6) "I rated this low, because unity is not primary unless it is unity in Truth. The participants can be unanimously wrong!"

2. (for statement B-2) "Is my problem here too terminology? I

find difficulty with this way of expressing things."

3* (for statement C-6) "Mtg. for Business can proceed without my

having to love everybody present. Note that that word love has too many meanings."

Tho third largest category of minority explanations consisted of comments disagreeing with the ratings of the group. In twenty-one instances the individuals felt the group ratings were too high, while in sixteen instances the individual gave a rating higher than the group's rating. Some examples of the explanations are:

1. "I agree - but of top priority?"

2. "important but not first priority"

3. (for statement C-3) "This sensitivity seems to me very impor­ tant,"

if. (for statement D-22) "very important! anything else is naive!"

Infrequent Minority Opinions

The remaining minority opinions divided into throe small categories.

One category consisted of four general comments, such as "no strong reason." Another category consisted of four comments which related the 121 statements to the role of the clerk, rather than to the participants.

Examples include:

1, (for statement A-2) "Such efforts if insisted on may preempt and confuse the clerk's function,"

2, (for statement C—21) "more the role of clerk than participant,"

The smallest category contained two comments. They consisted of questions, such as (for statement D-^J, "can it?"

Discussion of Minority Opinions

The minority opinions give rise to several observations. First, the opinions reflect a variety of beliefs among the Delphi participants and/or a variety of ways in which these beliefs are expressed. The opinions also point up the difficulties of preparing statements which are clear and concise, especially when dealing with such concepts as

"love," and "God." A third*observation is that further rounds of the

Delphi might have encouraged some alterations in the experts ' ratings of the statements. That is, some of the minority comments disagreeing with the group ratings (as illustrated above) were not very forcefully stated.

In such instances the experts might have been influenced by the additional feedback from the other experts to shift their ratings.

Section Summary

This completes the presentation of the results of the three rounds of the Delphi. The Delphi was successful in generating four sets of statements in response to the research questions. The Delphi also obtained an indication of the priorities in which the experts held the statements and of the extent to which the experts agreed upon the prior­ ities, Explanations of minority opinions were also generated by the Delphi. M 1 2

The focus of the chapter now shifts to the statements themselves.

An informal evaluation by the Delphi participants of the quality and completeness of the statements is presented in the next section.

SECTION 2

The Experts1 Responses to the Statements

Introduction

The researcher added a series of steps (described in Chapter 3) in conjunction with the usual Delphi process to obtain some data from the experts on the statements used in the Delphi. The results are summarized here.

Experts* Comments on the Statements

In Round II, the experts were requested to comment on the statements.

Although this was not required of the Delphi participants, ten of the twelve responded. Most of the experts offered several comments. A total of 173 comments were submitted, covering all but ten of the eighty- three statements. Included in the total number of comments were nine general ones, referring to such aspects as a whole set of statements, or to the Delphi process itself. The general statements will be discussed later in the study. Also included in the total were approximately fif­ teen suggestions for additional statements. These will be presented in the next section.

The remaining comments, approximately 150 of them, were collected and categorized. The majority of these comments fell into four general categories. The categories consist of comments which a) support the statements, b) limit/qualify the statement, c) disagree with the state- nents, ar.d d) relate the statements to the duties of a clerk. Examples of the comments follow.

A. Comments which support the statements:

(Statement D-20) - The participant should believe that one's own well-considered ideas and insights may be valuable to the group's considerations, while acknowledging one's own fallibility.

(Comment) - "Yes - must have self respect, as well as group respect

The experts wrote a total of nineteen statements similar to this.

B. Comments which limit/qualify the statements?

(Statement A-1) - Each person participates fully, openly and help­ fully.

(Comments) - '’But sometimes silently,"

"Hot always - at least not in every issue."

"Under the leading of the spirit, yes! Under personal compulsion, no!"

"Each person openly-if his opinion is not being repre­ sented."

"Subject to relevance and repetition."

This category contained a total of thirty-nine comments.

C. Comments which disagree with the statements;

(Statement A-13) - Participants center down and silently worship together prior to considering the business and, at times, before malting specific decisions.

(Comments) - "If a Friends Meeting works, the whole thing is an act of worship, not periods of worship, interspersed v/ith business."

"I object to the implication of separation of worship and business; they are parts of a single process."

The experts wrote a total of twenty such comments.

D. Comments which relate the statements to the duties of the clerk

(Statement C-7) - The participant should have the ability to 12^ synthesize, recombine and to summarize the discussion,

(Comments) - "Not needed by all, only the clerk. Too many clerks spoil the meeting,"

"clerk"

"The clerk needs this but others need if only moderately,"

"clerk especially"

"Particularly the clerk"

"very important for Clerk"

A total of nineteen comments similar to these were presented by the

experts.

Three smaller categories of comments were identifiable. They in­

clude responses about similarities of meanings among the statements, about a lack of clarity in the statements or a lack of understanding on

the expert's part, and about suggestions for changes in, or additions to,

the wording of statements. Some examples follow.

E. Comments about similarities among the statements:

(Statement C-20) - The participant should be imaginative in the search for solutions.

(Comment) - "May be another expression of (C-) 15 & 16"

This category contained a total of fifteen such comments.

F. Comments about the lack of clarity in the statement or a lack of understanding on the expert's part:

(Statement D-25) - The participant should believe that God leads His people unitedly,

(Comments) - "I don't know v/hat this means."

"Aro we 'chosen?'"

'"Unitedly* = info, unity? Meaning not clear." "I'm not sure I understand this statement."

These kinds of comments were offered a total of ten times.

6. Suggested changes in> or additions to, the wording of statements

(Statement D-20) - The participant should helieve in.one's self enough to refuse to accept the group's decision if one is deeply opposed on an important matter of principle,

(Comment) - "'Stand in opposition,' rather them refuse to accept."

The experts offered a total of eight suggestions of a similar content.

The above categories contain 130 of the approximately 150 comments.

The remaining twenty became a miscellaneous category, containing a variety of comments, ranging from "a non sequitur" for statement D-16 to the comment of "Again, it's not easy." for statement A-7.

Experts' Suggested Additions to the Statements

When the Round II statements were mailed, each expert also received a photocopy of his/her original statements. The Delphi participants were asked to compare their statements with those developed by the re­ searcher and to write additional statements if they felt important points had been omitted. Six experts suggested a total of fifteen new state­ ments.

The new statements were included in the Round III packet of mater­ ials with the request that the experts rate the statements and, if they wished, comment on them. Tabulation of the results followed the proce­ dure described for the other tables. The results appear in Appendix F.

A listing of the additional statements follows. They are ordered on the basis of the experts' initial evaluations. Statements which received the lowest mean ratings and the highest levels of agreement are 126

listed first. The letters A, C, and D refer to the relevant research

questions. No additional statements were suggested for research question

B.

1. (D) The participant should be willing to set aside her/his own personal opinions and desires.

2. (A) A person must express his/her opposition to a decision, if it conflicts with a deeply held value/truth not earlier recognized. This may result in failure to reach an immediate decision.

3. (D) The participant should bring a sense of proportion to the group and its proceedings, being able, for example, to recognize and laugh about incongruities.

4. (A) The group nay decide to ask a committee to provide it with information and/or guidance about a subject, in which case the group participants accept, with faith, the information and leading of the committee.

5. (C) The participant should have the ability to recognize his/ her own distress and the distress of others as different from religious leadings and be able to work through distress in a constructive way during and in between meetings.

6. (A) Participants face conflict openly by stating and recognizing it, rather than trying to avoid it.

7. (A) The group may decide to delegate the final decision on an issue to a committee, giving it the authority to decide and act.

8. (C) The participant should have the ability to be objective ...with her/his own views as well as with the views of others.

9. (C) The participant should have the ability to worship, recog­ nizing that his is, in part at least, a skill developed by continual practice, outside as well as inside the gathered meeting.

10. (A) The process is part of a larger group experience; partici­ pants are familiar with each other from shared worship, committee, social and other activities.

11. (C) The participant should have the ability to occasionally interject humor into the proceedings to help the group get over hard spots.

12. (A) Many routine matters can be disposed of on a "without objection" basis, especially in an ongoing group. 127

13. (C) The participant should have the ability to state ideas in proposal form.

H . (A) With routine matters, the opening statement may include a tentative minute for consideration and approval.

15. (C) The participant should have the ability to initiate.

Discussion of the Experts1 Comments and Added Statements

The collection of these data proved to be valuable. The data were helpful in evaluating the statements, in understanding some of the ratings, in providing suggested improvements for future use, and in highlighting a potential topic for further consideration. An example of the first three points was statement A-1 and the comments about it

(discussed previously). As can be seen, the original A-1 statement was not well formulated; it. needed some qualification. This statement received the highest mean rating and the lowest degree of agreement of all the statements in set A (see Table 2). The comments, both their number and their content, help explain that low position. The comments also provide several suggestions which could be employed to improve the statements for future use.

As an informal evaluation of the statements,, the experts' comments indicated that the greatest weakness in the quality of the statements was a lack of qualifying phrases. That is, several of the statements were too broadly formulated. Other apparent weaknesses included a similarity of meanings among certain statements and a lack of clarity in a few statements. Overall, the comments in the above categories numbered less than half of the total number of comments (150) and were spread among fifty-five different statements. In only six instances did 128 more than two experts write critical comments about the same statements.

The statements were A-1, A-Zf, A-6, C-13, D-23, and D-25. As can be seen from Table 2, most of these statements also received quite low ratings.

They appear to be the weakest of the statements.

Several comments (39), both agreeing and disagreeing with the statements, provide a basis for understanding some of the ratings. The comments which expressed disagreement may become the more valuable because they indicated areas of differences among the experts. Also, some contained ideas which could be used to improve the statements. Both the differences and the ideas could become areas for future research.

A number of the experts' comments offered improvements in the Delphi statements. Previous examples and the fifteen additional statements are among these. Although about half of the added statements were closely related to prior statements, a few new concepts were also presented.

For example, two of the statements introduced the use of committees, an idea which had not been included in the original set of statements.

Finally, the experts' comments highlighted the role of the clerk in the Quaker consensus process and identified several instances where the responsibilities of the clerk and the participant may become confused.

This could be an additional area for future investigation.

Section Summary

This section summarized the experts' comments about the statements used in the Delphi and presented fifteen suggested additions to the statements. The comments and additional statements were then discussed in relation to their insights concerning the original statements. The 129 insights proved valuable for evaluating the statements, for under­ standing some of the ratings, for improving the statements for future use, and for identifying areas for additional research.

The next section continues to focus on the statements. They are presented in a final listing and then combined with the statements obtained through the review of the literature. A discussion of the results of that combination concludes tho section.

SECTION 3

Combination of the Statements from the

Experts and from the Literature

Introduction

A major objective of this study was to gain an understanding of the way in which Quakers reach group decisions. The research process in­ volved seeking answers to the four research questions. (These were enumerated in the introduction of this chapter.) The statements that resulted from the Delphi study of selected experts in the Quaker con­ sensus process and from the literature provide a basis for an under­ standing of the process.

An Ordering of the Delphi Statements

During the Delphi study, the statements within the four sets were ordered randomly, with the exceptions of statements A-19 and A-21

(see Appendix C). The statements can now be rearranged on the basis of the experts' final priority ratings and levels of agreement.

In the following listing of the statements, the sets and the state­ ments within them are presented in descending order. They start with 130 those which received priority ratings number one and had the highest

percentages of group agreement and, in general, end with those which

received priorty ratings three and four and had the lowest percentages

of group agreement. The results are not reflected exactly in the

listing since several identical scores occurred. For example, the

following statements A 11-13 received identical scores. The statements

were reordered first on the basis of their mean ratings and then on the

basis of the group agreement percentages. The asterisk identifies the

statements which reached the "group agreement" level on the basis of

their ratings. The reordered Delphi statements follow.

I. The following are the kinds of beliefs (attitudes) a participant

should bring to the Quaker group decision process.

The participant should:

1. *believe in the worth of waiting, allowing the group to stop short of a decision in order to await a blearer sense of how to move forward -or postponing a decision until next meeting to allow individuals time to seek within themselves and/or with one another.

2. *believe in the Spirit controlled and directed life, in the continued revelation of truth ... through one's self and any other participant.

3. "be committed to a group solution and willing, in most cases, to set aside one's own opinions and desires in favor of the group.

if. "believe that since a spark of the Divine exists in each person, each person is to be loved and her/his contribution to be valued.

5. "believe that we are not looking merely for consensus but for the right leading of God.

6. "believe in approaching issues without pre-formed conclusions but with a willingness to learn.

7. "believe in the ability of all participants to learn, grow and to see clearly.

8. ."value the Quaker way of reaching decisions, believing that it works and works better than other group decision processes. 131

9. ‘believe that Truth/God's will/a right way/God's leading exists in any given issue and can be discovered by a corporate, loving, patient, persistent, open search.

10. ‘believe that one's own well-considered ideas and insights may be valuable to the group's considerations, while acknowledging one's own fallibility.

1J. ‘believe that the Quaker way of reaching group decisions is basically a religious process and that one's attitude should be of worship, of prayerful seeking for Divine guidance.

12. view the process seriously and be willing to incorporate the decisions into the participant's own life.

13. ‘believe that clarity on God's will can be obtained, conflicts can be resolved* and right decisions made if participants are open to the leadings of the Spirit.

14. ‘believe in one's self enough to refuse to accept the group's decision if one is deeply opposed on an important matter of principle.

15. ‘believe that since the seed of truth exists in each participant, a corporate truth can be obtained.

16. believe that greater truth exists in t.he whole than in any part, that a group decision is not a compromise but a judgment of a higher order than an individual's decision.

17. ‘believe that differences and/or conflicts are natural and are to be valued, sought out and worked through.

18. ‘believe in God and in God's potential helpfulness in the decision process.

19. have the attitude that the process of decision-making takes time, patience, perseverence and energy.

20. believe the Scriptural teaching of unity, love and the bond of affection.

21. believe that action, rather than inaction, may need to be taken, even though, as human beings, we may not have chosen the right leading.

22. believe in silence as a method for assisting group decision-making.

23. believe that the greater the differences of perception of the truth, the fuller the truth that will be revealed, if labored through until agreement is reached. 132

2/f. have the attitude that this process is in keeping with the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

25. believe that the group making the decision has a significance and validity of its own.

26. believe that the process will not always work.

27. believe that God leads His people unitedly,

II, The essentials of the Quaker way of reaching group decisions are as follows:

1. *Participants relate to one another in love and trust.

2. *The clerk of the meeting facilitates the above activities (1-18).

3. *Participants are open to the thoughts and feelings of others. if. *In reaching decisions, participants seek Divine Guidance/God’s will within themselves and in one another.

5. *The group decision is identified by a statement which all agree expresses the sense of the meeting.

6. *The clerk, at the end of the discussion, formulates the group's decision and presents it, without defense, to the group for improvement and/or acceptance.

7. *Soneone tests the group's readiness to decide by summarizing the discussion and/or by attempting to state the sense of the meeting.

8. *The participants attempt to reach unity in their decisions.

9 . *The decision process begins with a statement, as clear and concise as possible, of the problem to be considered or of the kind of. decision to be made.

10. Enough time is available to allow the above activities (1-20) to occur without haste.

11. Differences ar,e recognized, accepted without antagonism, and worked through to an understanding of them and/or creative solutions to them.

12. Decisions can be deferred; reasons may include insufficient infor­ mation, clarity or unity.

13. The group decision can bo non-unanimous, in which case the dissenter stands aside, allowing the group to proceed. 133

1 /f• Participants center down and silently worship together prior to considering the business and, at times, before making specific decisions.

15. A person can block the group decision if one feels it opposes a deeply held value/truth which has not been recognized.

16. Decisions are accurately recorded for future reference.

17. *At the introduction of an issue for- consideration, relevant in­ formation is presented, such as the issue's context, constraints and history (if it has been before t h e ‘group previously).

18. In the discussion, the participants seek full information, attemp­ ting to see all sides of the issue.

19. The process is a group experience; participants familiar with it and with one another facilitate the process.

20^ "In the case of a dissenter who allows the group to proceed, the individual can be recorded as personally opposed or unclear and/or the individual can meet with a small committee, appointed by the group, to discuss the issue further.

21. Once an issue is presented, the participants share their information, feelings and opinions on it,

22. Each person participates - fully, openly and helpfully.

Ill, The following are the kinds of abilities (skills) a participant should bring to the Quaker group decision process;

1. "worship, to open one's self to the spirit of truth inside.

2. "submerge striving for an individual solution in the group search for a mutually agreeable resolution.

5. "be sensitive to the feelings, perception and thoughts of others. if. "be patient ... with the desire to express own views, with inarticu­ late speakers, with the group process...

5. "listen ... with accuracy, calmness and understanding,

6. "discern the mind of the Spirit/God's voice in one's self and in others.

7. "deal constructively with conflict.

8. "be imaginative in the search for solutions. 13*f

9. “love ... especially to love another while differing with that person's ideas.

10. “find common ground among differing views and help others to see the commonalities.

11. speak clearly, concisely and relevantly,

12. utilize silence constructively, entering into quiet searching through prayer and concentration.

13. gracefully withdraw objections and help others to do so.

1/f. “sense the group's feelings and needs* to point them cut when help­ ful, and to suggest procedures.

15. “perceive areas of agreement and disagreement or conflict and to state them nonjudgmentally.

16. “break large issues down to manageable size,

17. assume control of her/his own life, enabling one to be totally present for the full time a decision is to be made. • 18. utilize her/his own knowledge and feelings, combined with the insights from the group, in reaching a decision.

19. “synthesize, recombine and to summarize the discussion.

20. recognize, understand and express his/her own feelings.

21. constructively utilize humor.

22. recognize and understand nonverbal behavior.

IV. The following are the kinds of information (knowledge) a participant should have about the Quaker group decision process:

1. “know that good experience "in" the process is more helpful to a participant than knowledge "about" the process.

2. “know that the process is based on the religious insight that God may speak directly to any person.

3. #know the important differentiations of the process, such as between unanimity and the sense of the meeting, between dlsagreeing-but-permitt- ing and blocking the group decision. 135

Jf. *know that the-purpose of the process is to give the Spirit opportunity to lead the participants unitedly.

5. *know that the process is consistent with the way in which Quakers attempt to live.

6. know the fundamental differences between the Quaker way of reaching group decisions and other group decision processes (involving voting, political maneuvering ... ).

7. have full information of the wa'y in which the Quaker group decision process works (procedures, outcomes, expected participant behaviors... ).

8. know that the Quaker group decision process is rooted in historical Christianity.

9. have some information, (such as significant Yearly Meeting decisions), about Friends* successful and, at times, unsuccessful use of the process in the past.

10. have some knowledge of the Biblical teaching of Christian unity and its relationship to group decisions.

11. know that the process was utilize by the earliest Friends and has been used continuously in tho Society ever since,

12. be familiar with writings about the process, such as found in Howard Brinton's books, Faith and Practice, and John Woolman's Journal.

A Combination of the Delphi Statements and the Statements from the

Literature ___

In Chapter II of this study, the literature on the Quaker way of reaching group decisions was reviewed for answers to the four research questions. The statements which resulted from the review were them listed in that chapter. In the following listing the statements from the literature review are combined, on the basis of similarity of content, with the Delphi statements. The Delphi statements appear first. The statements from the literature are indented. Their numbers, in par­ entheses, refer to the order of their listing in Chapter II. As will be seen, not all of the statements from the two lists ••matched." 136

I, The following are the kinds of beliefs (attitudes) a participant should bring to tlie~ Quaker group decision process.

Tho participant should:

1. "believe in the worth of waiting, allowing the group to stop short of a decision in order to await a clearer sense-of-how to move forward or postponing a decision until next meeting to allow individuals time to seek within themselves and/or with one another.

(20) A willingness to utilize the time and patience necessary to make the process work.

2. *believe in the Spirit controlled and directed life, in the continued revelation of truth ... through one's self and any other participant.

(11*) The belief that God's guidance may come through any participant in the group; therefore, each person should be listened to attentively.

3. "be committed to a group solution and willing, in most cases, to set aside one's own opinions and desires in favor of the group.

(18) A willingness to allow the sense of the meeting to prevail, even when one is not in agreement.

1*. "believe that since a spark of the Divine exists in each person, each person is to be loved and her/his contribution to be valued.

5. "believe that we are not looking merely for consensus but for the right leading of God.

(5) A belief that the search for unity goes beyond the seeking of compromise,

6. "believe in approaching issues without pre-formed conclusions but with a willingness to learn.

(11) An attitude of honest searching, of keeping an open mind.

7. "believe in the ability of all participants to learn, grow and to see clearly.

8. "value the Quaker way of reaching decisions, believing that it works and works better than other group decision processes.

(16) A belief that the Quaker method encourages better decisions than other ways of reaching group decisions. 137

9. "believe that Truth/God's will/a right Way/God's leading exists in any given issue and can be discovered by a corporate, loving, patient, persistent, open search.

(7) A belief that' a right solution exists for any problem and a willingness, especially when differences exist, to seek that solution.

10. "believe that one's own well-cOnsidered ideas and insights may be valuable to the group's considerations, while acknowledging one's own fallibility.

11. ‘believe that the Quaker way of reaching group decisions is basic­ ally a religious process and that one's attitude should be of worship, of prayerful seeking for Divine guidance,

(if) A belief that reaching group decisions the Quaker way is a religious act and should be conducted in am attitude of worship.

12. view the process seriously and be willing to incorporate the decisions into the participant's own life.

13. "believe that clarity on God's will can be obtained, conflicts can be resolved, and right decisions made if participants are open to the leadings of the Spirit.

(1) a belief in corporate, divine guidance.

1 if. "believe in one's self enough to refuse to accept the group's decision if one is deeply opposed on an important matter of principle.

15. "believe that since the seed of truth exists in each participant, a corporate truth can be obtained.

16. believe that greater truth exists in the whole than in any part, that a group decision is not a compromise but a judgment of a higher order than an individual's decision.

(17) A belief that the Quaker way of reaching group decisions is a creative process, producing group solutions which were not present initially in the individual participants,

17. "believe that differences and/or conflicts are natural and are to be valued, sought out and worked through.

18. "believe in God and in God's potential helpfulness in the decision process.

19. have the attitude that the process of decision-making takes time, patience, perseverence and energy. 20. believe the Scriptural teaching of unity, love and the bond of affection.

21. believe that action, rather than inaction, nay need to be taken, even though, as human beings, v/e may not have chosen the right leading.

22. believe in silence as a method for assisting group decision-making.

(12) A belief in the clarifying and healing qualities of group silence,

2 3. believe that the greater the differences of perception of the truth, the fuller the truth that will be revealed, if labored through until agreement is reached.

2 4. have the attitude that this process is in keeping with the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

(2) A belief that participation should occur .in the spirit of Jesus.

25. believe that the group malting the decisions has a significance and validity of its own,

(13) A belief that participation in the process is a v/ay of building the Meeting community.

26. believe that the process will not always work.

(21) A belief that failure of the process is the result of inade­ quacies in the participants rather than in the process itself.

27. believe that God leads His people unitedly.

(6) A belief in the spiritual basis for achieving unity.

Additional statements from the literature consist of the following:

(3) A belief that the group can and should reach its decisions in unity.

(8) A belief that unity can be reached, in part, through a sharing of individual understandings.

(9) An attitude of humility and obedience to the Truth,

(15) A willingness to tolerate differences in the search for Truth.

(10) A willingness to practice self-discipline,

(19) A hesitation to accept suggestions which conflict with "the accumulated wisdom of the saints and prophets who have gone before." 139

Similarities and Differences

Fifteen statements from each of the sources were similar enough to be "paired." The remaining twelve statements from the Delphi dealt with such subjects as ways in which a participant should view him/herself and others (D-4,7,10,14), and the working through of differences (D-17,

23). The remaining six statements from the literature involved beliefs about the group's search for unity and other attitudes, such as the willingness to practice self-discipline.

II. The essentials of the Quaker way of reaching group decisions are as follows:

1. *Participants relate to one another in love and trust.

2. *The clerk of the meeting facilitates the above activities (1-18).

(26) The clerk often assumes the more active duties of a presiding officer, but.does not dominate the meeting.

3. "Participants are open to the thoughts and feelings of others. l+, *In reaching decisions, participants seek Divine Guidance/God's will within themselves and in one another.

5. *The group decision is identified by a statement which all agree expresses the sense of the meeting.

6. "The clerk, at the end of the discussion, formulates the group's decision and presents it, without defense, to the group for improvement and/or acceptance.

(10) The clerk or an assistant places the clerk's proposed sense of the. meeting statement into written form, called a "minute."

7. "Someone tests the group's readiness to decide by summarizing the discussion and/or by attempting to state the sense of the meeting.

(9) When the consideration reaches a stage where a reasonable degree of unity has been reached, the clerk announces what he or she believes to be the sense of the meeting. 1/fO

8, *The participants attempt to reach unity in their decisions,

(8) The subject continues under discussion until unity is reached,

9, *The decision process begins with a statement, as clear and-concise as possible, of the problem to be considered or of the kind of decision to be made,

(if) Business is presented to the meeting as clearly as possible.

10, Enough time is available to allow the above activities (1-20) to occur without haste,

(29) Enough tine should be available to allow for unhurried consideration of the Meeting’s business,

11, Differences are recognized, accepted without antagonism, and worked through to an understanding of then and/or creative solutions to them,

12, Decisions can be deferred; reasons may include insufficient infor­ mation, clarity or unity,

(20) When the Meeting cannot achieve unity concerning a subject, the subject is either dropped or 'postponed.

13, The group decision can be non-unanimous, in which case the dissenter stands aside, allowing the group to proceed,

(19) The minority may withdraw their objections in order to allow the meeting to arrive at a decision,

1/f. Participants center down and silently worship together prior to considering the business and, at times, before making specific decisions,

(2) Periods of worship may occur before, during and following meetings in which the Quaker consensus process is utilized,

15* A person can block the group decision if one feels it opposes a deeply held value/truth which has not been recognized.

16, Decisions are accurately recorded for future reference,

(12) Upon approval by the participants, the minute, as proposed/ amended/substituted, becomes the judgment of the meeting and is preserved in the records,

17. *At the introduction of an issue for consideration, relevant infor­ mation is presented, such as the issue's context, constraints and history (if it has been before the group previously). HI

18. In the discussion, the participants seek full information, attempt­ ing to see all sides of the issue.

19* The process is a group experience; participants familiar with it and with one another facilitate the process.

(30) The Quaker method is likely to be successful in proportion as the members are acquainted with one another, better still if real affection exists among them.

20. *In the case of a dissenter who allows the group to proceed, the individual can be recorded as personally opposed or unclear and/or the individual can meet with a small committee, appointed by the group, to discuss the issue further.

21 . Once an issue is presented, the participants share their infor­ mation, feelings and opinions on it.

(5) The subject for business is spoken to by all who have opinions or judgments regarding it.

22. Each person participates - fully, openly and helpfully.

Additional statements from the literature consist of the following:

(I) The Quaker group decision process takes place in a context of worship.

(3) Business can be presented to the meeting by the clerk, a committee or an individual,

(6) Differing views are respected.

(7) The vocal contributions are helpful in content and presented in a sincere manner.

(II) Participants may offer substitute minutes for, or suggest modifications of, the proposed minute.

(13) Editorial changes in the agreed upon minute can be made subsequently by the clerk and reported at the next meeting.

(11*) The sense of the meeting statement can be approved in general at one session and, then, at the succeeding meeting, be offered in its final form.

(13) The sense of the meeting need not be a unanimous decision.

(16) Persons in the minority are not disregarded. H 2

(17) The degree of unity necessary for a decision depends on the importance of the question and the character and depth of feeling of those who oppose the general trend of opinion.

(18) When serious differences of opinion exist, the meeting may search for unity through silent prayer,

(21) If a serious difference of opinion exists on a subject which cannot be postponed, decision may be left to a small committee.

(22) The sense of the meeting depends upon the •’weight” of the vocal contributions, not upon their number.

(23) Routine items of business can be agreed upon with little discussion.

(2/f) On matters of importance, participation by all is requested.

(25) The clerk's primary duty is to ascertain and record, or be responsible for recording, the sense of the meeting.

(2?) If possible, all members of the Meeting should attend and participate in the business meeting.

(28) Silence is employed during the meeting to enable thoughtful listening and prayerful consideration to occur.

(31) The Quaker group decision process is more likely to be success­ fully employed in small groups than in large ones.

Similarities and Differences

Twelve pairings occurred between the two sets of statements concern­

ing the essentials of the Quaker consensus process. The ten remaining

- Delphi statements consisted of such topics as the participants' relation­

ships to one another and the possible actions of a person in the minority.

The seventeen remaining statements from the literature included specific

points about the "minute” and about possible actions when the group is

faced with a serious difference of opinion. In general, the statements

selected from the literature were more specific than the Delphi state­

ments on the steps involved in reaching a group decision. 143

III. The following are the kinds of abilities (skills) a participant should bring to the Quaker grout* decision process.

1* ‘worship, to open one's self to the spirit of truth inside.

2. ‘submerge striving for an individual solution in the group search for a mutually agreeable resolution.

(2) Centering down at the start of the meeting, setting aside personal desires in favor of the group's search for unity.

3. *be sensitive to the feelings, perception and thoughts of others,

(10) The ability to relate to one another with sensitivity, understanding and devotion.

4. ‘be patient ... with the desire to express ovm views, with inarti­ culate speakers, with the group process ...

(12) The ability to be patient.

(if) Self restraint in such actions as hurrying the process or pressing one's view v/hen the judgment of the Meeting clearly lies in another direction.

5. ‘listen ... with accuracy, calmness and understanding.

(7) The ability to listen - with caring, accuracy, patience, and in a spirit of worship.

6. ‘discern the mind of the Spirit/God's voice in one's self and in others.

(3) Seeking and being sensitive to the Spirit of God/Christ.

7. ‘deal constructively with conflict.

8. ‘be imaginative in the search for solutions.

9. ‘love ... especially to love another vthile differing with that person's ideas,

10. ‘find common ground among differing views and help others to see the commonalities.

11. speak clearly, concisely and relevantly.

(3) Relevance and conciseness of expression,

12. utilize silence constructively, entering into quiet searching through prayer and concentration. IVf

13. gracefully withdraw objections and help others to do so.

1/*. *sense the group's feelings and needs, to point them out when help­ ful, and to suggest procedures.

15. "perceive areas of agreement and disagreement or conflict and to ~ state them nonjudgraentally.

16. "break large issues down to manageable size.

17. assume control of her/his own life, enabling one to be totally present for the full tine a decision is to be made.

(15) The ability to give one's complete attention to the matter under consideration.

18. utilize her/his own knowledge and feelings, combined with the insights from the group, in reaching a decision.

19. "synthesize, recombine and to summarize the discussion.

20. recognize, understand and express his/her own feelings.

21. constructively utilize humor.

(13) The ability to utilize humor constructively.

22. recognize and understand nonverbal behavior.

(14) Skill in using helpful small group processes and techniques from the social sciences.

Additional statements from the literature consist of the"following:

(I) Regular and punctual attendance at meetings.

(6) The ability to speak audibly, gently, humbly, and with kindness.

(8) Skill in seeking and utilizing the facts of an issue.

(9) Helpfulness to the clerk.

(II) Skill in building trust among one another.

Similarities and Differences

In comparing the two lists of statements about the abilities (skills) a participant should bring to the process, ten pairs were found. Four­ H 5 teen of the Delphi statements and five of the statements from the liter­ ature remained. Many of the Delphi statements involved participant behaviors which would facilitate the decision process. Most of the remaining statements from the literature were closely related to several Delphi statements, although the literature statements presented slightly different thoughts.

IV. The following are the kinds of information (knowledge) a participant should have about the Quaker group decision process.

The participant should:

1. *know that good experience "in" the process is more helpful to a participant than knowledge "about" the process,

2. *know that the process is based on the religious insight that God may speak directly to any person,

(3) The participant should know that Friends adopted their form of group decision-making because they believed it gave maximum oppor­ tunity for discovering God's will in their deliberations.

3. *know the important differentiations of the process, such as between unanimity and the sense of the meeting, between disagreeing-but-perrait- ting and blocking the group decision, if, *know that the purpose of the process is to give the Spirit oppor­ tunity to lead the participants unitedly.

(2) The participant should know that the Quaker group decision process is based on the belief that religious persons should reach decisions in a spirit of unity,

5, *know that the process is consistent with the way in which Quakers attempt to live.

6. know the fundamental differences between the Quaker way of reaching group decisions and other group decision processes (involving voting, political maneuvering ... ),

7. have full information on the way in which the Quaker group decision process works (procedures, outcomes, expected participant behaviors ,,. ).

8, know that the Quaker group decision process is rooted in historical Christianity. 1

9. have some information, (such as significant Yearly Meeting decisions), about Friends' successful and, at times, unsuccessful use of the process in the past.

10. have some knowledge of the Bibiical teaching of Christian unity and its relationship to group decisions,

11. know that the process was utilized by the earliest Friends and has been used continuously in the Society ever since.

(1) The participant should know that Friends have utilized this method of reaching group decisions throughout their history,

12. be familiar with writings about the process, such as found in Howard Brinton's books, Faith and Practice, and John V/oolman's Journal,

The additional statements from the literature were:

(if) The participant should know that Friends consider their group decision process to be of central importance to the Meeting.

(5) The participant should know that the Quaker method of reaching group decisions is a reflection of the Quakers' pacifist view of human relationships,

(6) The participant should know that the Quaker group decision process is used throughout the various branches of Quakerism in America,

(7) The participant should know that Quakers have found their group decision process to be both effective and satisfactory.

Similarities and Differences "

Three matches were found among these statements from the Delphi and the literature. Nine Delphi statements remained. They involved such topics as differences between the Quaker process and other group decision­ making processes and relating the process to the way in which Quakers attempt to live. Four statements from the literature remained. They presented a variety of points, including the relationship of the process to the Quakers' pacifist view of human relationships and to the Quaker

Meeting. In general, the responses from the two sources were quite different for this research question. Possible Significance of the Similarities and Differences

In the discussions of the above combination of statements from the literature and from the Delphi participants, similarities and differences among the statements were noted. Some possibilities as to the signifi­ cance of the similarities and differences can bo proposed. A possible significance of the similarities is that a core of basic aspects of the

Quaker consensus process exists. If.persons could gain an understanding of these basic aspects they would have a good basis for understanding the whole process. Another possible significance of the similarities between the statements from the literature and from the Delphi partici­ pants is that the literature can serve as an important educational re­ source. Since the literature contains certain information similar to that of the practitioners^ some very practical learning can be obtained through the literature. This could be especially helpful to individuals who might not otherwise be able to obtain the information.

An important possible significance of the differences between the statements is that misunderstandings of the process might occur if a learner utilizes only a narrow range of learning resources. That is, learning about the Quaker group decision process only from experience or from the literature will probably not provide a complete view, A second possible significance of the differences is that the Quaker group decision process can be used to various degrees and in various ways.

The setting, for example, may become an important aspect in gaining an understanding of the process. A third possible significance of the differences is that they raise questions about the research process of the study. For example, the highest degrees of difference between the 1/f8

statements from the literature and from the Delphi participants

occurred with the research questions about the essentials of the

process and about the information a participant should have of the

process. These questions appeared to be less understandable to the

Delphi experts, and also less helpful to the researcher as he reviewed

the literature, than the other two -research questions. A possible

significance, then, of the differences is that they identify areas

of the research process which may have been weak.

Section Summary

This section consisted of the combining of the statements gathered

from the Delphi process with the statements obtained from the review

of the literature. The statements were presented as responses to the

four research questions. In each of the four sets several similar

statements were found, as well as differences. The highest similarity

rate involved the beliefs of a participant (31% matched). This was

followed by the statements about the skills of a participant {27% matched), about the essentials of the process (23% matched), and about

the knowledge a participant should have of the process (16% matched),

A discussion of the possible significances of the similarities and

differences between the statements completed the section.

The Next Chapter

This chapter consisted of the presentation and discussion of the

Delphi study results and of the combination of its results with the statements-gained, from the literature review. These were the outcomes

of the efforts to answer the four research questions of the study. In

the next chapter attention is centered upon the final research question

of the study. The question concerns the aids and experiences potentially available to a learner of the Quaker group decision process. CHAPTER V

LEARNING AIDS AND EXPERIENCES

Summary Statenent

Chapter V begins with a discussion of the learning task involved in a person's understanding of and participation in the Quaker consensus process. This is followed by a listing of the suggestions of the Delphi participants for helpful learning aids and experiences. Next, the results of a brief survey of potentially helpful literature sources are presented. The chapter concludes with the brief explanation of a strategy for reviewing literature sources for information and experiences helpful to the learner of the Quaker consensus process.

Introduction

The primary purpose of this study is to help learners understand and participate in the Quaker way of reaching group decisions. In the preceding chapters the emphasis has been upon the gathering of data about the essentials of the Quaker consensus process and about the knowledge, skills and attitudes a participant should bring to the process. In this chapter the focus shifts to a brief survey of learning aids and experi­ ences which could be of potential assistance to a learner of the Quaker process. The survey is an exploratory one. Much work remains to be done in developing or locating and adapting such learning aids and experiences.

150 151

The Learning Task

Learning the Quaker way of reaching group decisions is a major task.

Two points support this statement. First, as evident from the data

collected in the previous chapters, the Quaker consensus process involves major aspects of one's being. For example, the statements answering

the four research questions dealt with the relationships of a person to

him/herself, to others and to God. The statements also emphasized the importance of such abilities as worshipping, listening, keeping an open mind, and being sensitive to others.

Second, several years nay be needed for a person to cultivate the

relationships and abilities involved in the process. Leonard Kenworthy pointed this out when he wrote,

If Friends enter a business meeting with their minds made up or in a spirit of debate or contention, unanimity is not likely to be reached. The period of worship which precedes the business session can help create an atmosphere in which people will search for common ground rather than defending their own points of view. But a short period of silence cannot offset years of training in seeking one's own way. The search for unanimity in a monthly meeting is successful only when the members have practiced for many years a seeking attitude, a desire for achieving the common good, a spirit of reconciliation. (63:72)

Learning Aids and Experiences

The magnitude of the learning task requires a variety of learning

aids and experiences. Of these, the most important is experience in the

process. This was pointed out, in part, by the Delphi participants in

their response to the research question concerning the information

(knowledge) a participant should have about the Quaker consensus process. 152

They agreed that the following statement had the highest priority in

response to the above question: "The participant should know that good

experience 'in' the process is more helpful to a participant than know­

ledge 'about* the process," As will be seen in the next section,

"experience in the process" was the most commonly recommended resource

for learning the Quaker consensus process,

A number of other potential learning aids and experiences exist.

They include such resources as books, programmed learning materials,

individual and group exercises, and group games and simulations. In some

instances, such as with books and a few workshops, resources already

exist which describe and explain the Quaker way of reaching group

decisions. The other resources mentioned above will either have to be

developed or adapted from other fields.

The first step in developing and locating learning aids and experi­

ences was to survey the Delphi participants. The results of such a survey are reported in the next section.

Experts' Suggestions

A brief, one-page questionnaire was mailed to the Delphi participants as part of the Round III packet of materials. The questionnaire asked

the experts to list and briefly describe their suggestions of helpful aids and experiences for learning the Quaker way of reaching group decisions.

(See Appendix E for the questionnaire.) Eleven experts offered sugges­

tions. A condensed, edited listing of their suggestions follows.

1• Participate in or observe meetings where the Quaker consensus process is being used. 153

Six experts, in one way or other, made this suggestion. One simply said, "Ko substitute for participation." Another specified attendance at a yearly meeting when it is wrestling with a controversial subject and/or a monthly meeting when it is dealing with a complex issue. Two experts suggested that the learner observe an outstanding clerk during a meeting. One expert suggested the following combination of activities:

"Attend a monthly meeting several times if at all possible, choosing one conducted by someone v/ell grounded in the method. Talk over the session afterwards with a seasoned Friend who can explain it." Two other experts suggested that the learner visit several different meetings. As one said, "Through observing other groups much can be learned about the

Quaker way of reaching decisions - these 'other1 groups can be a vari- i table laboratory of the do's and don1ts of business procedures."

2. Read about the process.

Six Delphi participants suggested that a learner read about the process. The recommended sources included various yearly meeting dis­ ciplines such as the ones of Philadelphia (8 8,89) and London Yearly

Meetings (69)1 and publications by Tom Brown (16), Howard Brinton (11,12,

13,H), and Henry Cadbury (19). Another suggested book v/as Dynamics of

Groups at V/ork, by Herbert Thelen (110).

3. Attend seminars on the process.

Two experts suggested that quarterly and yearly meetings sponsor seminars for participants in the Quaker way of reaching group decisions, with an emphasis upon training clerks. if. Take part in group dynamics exercises or group process training.

Two experts suggested that individuals and groups could learn about 15J* some aspects of the Quaker consensus process through the exercises and training programs of group work specialists. The work of the National

Training Laboratory* was among the sources mentioned.

The rest of the suggestions came from individual experts. The suggestions were:

5. for "consultants11 (those particularly skilled in clerking) to be invited to observe grouns and then, afterwards, to discuss the group decision process with the participants;

6. to develop a "synopsis11 of the “Quaker way11 to give tonew people;

7. for a personal -(one-to-one) description to be given to new people before they attend a meeting for business;

8. to follow every meeting with a -period of evaluation, specifically to elicit constructive proposals for improving future meetings;

9. to rotate group responsibilities more often, especially that of clerk;

10. for participants to become acquainted with the ideas and procedures of Re-evaluation Counseling,* and for -

11. the early training of children through a family Business Meeting.

*HTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science (formerly known as the National Training Laboratory in Group Development), National Education Association, Bethel, Maine.

* For materials on re-evaluation counseling write Rational Island Publishers, P. 0. Box 2081, Main Office Station, Seattle, Washington, 98111. 155

Suggestions from the Literature

A review of the literature on croups and other subject headings provides a number of potential resources which could assist a learner in understanding and participating in the Quaker consensus process. In most instances, the resources would require adaption in order to be of use in learning about the Quaker process. Also, the adapted resources would provide only a limited understanding of the Quaker process, but, when combined with experience in the process, they could be quite help­

ful to the learner.

The following suggestions serve as examples of potential resources for the learner of the Quaker consensus process.

1 . Administration

A) Newman, William, Administrative Action (the techniques of organization and management), (79). B) Wilson, Roger C., Authority, Leadership and Concern (a study in motive and administration in Quaker relief work), (123).

2. Exercises, games, simulations in group decision-making

A) American Friends Service Committee, Decision Makers,-a game involving role playing, (1). B) Graham, Robert and Clifford Gray, Business Games Handbook, (43).

3. Group Decision-Making

A) Elliott, Grace (Loucks), How to Hein Groups Hake Decisions (being condensed and revised in part from The Process of Group Thinking by Harrison Sackot Elliott), (32).

B) Holloman, Charles R. and Hal W, Hendrick, "Adequacy of Group Decisions as a Function of the Decision-Making Process," (54).

C) Miles, Matthew, Learning to Work in Groups, (75). Group Decision-Making; by Consensus

A) Hall, Jay, "Decisions, Decisions, Decisions," (45)» B) Hall, Jay and Martha S. Williams, "A Comparison of Decision-Mailing Performances in Established and Ad Hoc Groups," (4-6),

Groun Discussion

A) Bergevin, Paul and Dwight Morris, A Manual for Group Discussion Participants, (5), B) Brunner, Edmund S., et. al., The Use of Discussion, (17), C) Dubois, Rachael, Reducing Social Tension and Conflict Through the Group Conversation Method, (30). D) Osinski, Franklin Y/, V/. et. al.. Toward Gog and Magog or ?; A Critical Review of the Literature of Adult Group Discussion, (82).

Group Dynamics

A) Blake, Robert Rogers and J.S. Houton, Group Dynamics - Key to Decision-Making, (10). B) Hall, Jay and Martha S. Williams, "Group Dynamics Training and Improved Decision Making," (47). C) Knowles, Malcolm and Hulda Knowles, Introduction to Group Dynamics, (67). D) Thelen, Herbert A,, Dynamics of Groups at V.'ork, (110).

Group Leadership

A) Gordon, Thomas, Group Centered Leadership (a way of releasing the creative power of groups), (42). B) Schmidt, Y/arren H, and Paul C. Buchanan, -Techniques that Produce Teamwork, (100),

Small Group Research

A) Hare, A. Paul, Edgar F. 3orgatta and Robert F. Bales, Small Groups; Studies in Social Interaction, (49). B) McGrath, Joseph E. and Irwin Altman, Small Group Research, (73).

Social Psychology

A) Collins, Barry and Harold Guetzkow, A Social Psychology of Group Processes for Decision-Making, (22). B) Katz, Daniel and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations, (62). 157

10, Structured Experiences for Groups

A) Cytrnbaun, Sonny (compiler), "Selected T-group Exercises for Outreach Groups," (2?). B) Otto, M.A. and J, Mann, V/ays of Growth: Approaches to Expanding Awareness, (83). C) Pfeiffer, Jay W. and John Jones, Handbook of Structured Experiences for Hunan Relations Training. (65). D) Pfeiffer, Jay 7J, and John Jones, The 1972 Handbook for Group Facilitators, (86).

The above citations provide information primarily related to groups.

Other sources of potential helpfulness to the learner of the Quaker way of reaching group decisions include the following, which emphasize the individual.

11 . Seeking '.Vithin One’s Self

A) Richards, Mary Caroline, Centering (in pottery,- poetry, the person), (93). B) Steere, Douglas V., "/here V/ords Come From (an interpretation of the ground and practice of Quaker worship and ministry), (104).

12. Communication and Dialogue

A) Bach, Robert 0. (editor), Communication; the Art of Under­ standing and Being Understood, (4). B) Lippitt, Gordon L., Quest for Dialogue, (68).

A Search Strategy

The above citations, as well as many other resources, could be reviewed for information and experiences helpful to a person wishing to understand and participate in the Quaker way of reaching group decisions,

A simple strategy for such a review would involve identifying basic con­ cepts from the data reported in Chapters II and IV and searching the literature for material relevant to those concepts. Some of the most readily identifiable concepts could be found in the statements about the -kinds of abilities (skills) a person should bring to the Quaker group

decision process. Examples include the abilities to worship, to listen,

to be sensitive to others, to speak clearly, to be imaginative in the

search for solutions, to find common ground among differing views, and

to break large issues down to manageable size. Searches of the liter­

ature for sources helpful to a person learning such abilities would be

a formidable task but certainly a useful one.

The Next Chapter

This chapter consisted of the final reporting of the research

conducted for the study. The topic, learning aids and resources, was

one which had not been discussed previously. With the next chapter, the

study concludes. Chapter VI contains an overview of the study, an

evaluation of parts of it, and a consideration of possible future

activities, based upon the present research. CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY. DELPHI 'EVALUATION, POSSIBLE FUTURE

a c t i v i t i e s a n d implications

Summary Statement

The chapter begins with a summary of the study, including its objectives and its research questions, procedures and results. Next, the Delphi technique utilized in the study is evaluated. This is fol­ lowed by the identification of certain future research areas and of probable "next steps" in the researcher's continuing work with the topic.

The chapter concludes with a discussion of some of the implications of the study.

Summary of the Study

Reasons for the Study

This study grew out of the author's concern that additional learning resources were needed to help people understand arid participate in the

Quaker way of reaching group decisions. Such people might include new members of the Religious Society of Friends and non-Quaker staff members of Quaker organizations or schools, as well as long-time Friends who wish to improve their understanding of and participation in the Quaker consensus process. Current Quaker learning resources consist of only a fey/ books, pamphlets and workshops on the process. The traditional way of learning the Quaker group decision process v

159 160 such as the mobility of families today and the large percentages of new members in some Meetings, have greatly weakened the socialization process.

Because of these, and other reasons, new learning aids and experiences need to be developed.

Objectives of Study

The primary objective of the study was to identify the essentials of the Quaker consensus process and the kind of background a participant should bring to the process. A second objective was to identify some aids and experiences which might be helpful to a learner. The emphasis of the study was placed upon the first objective.

Four Research Questions

Four questions were developed to guide the research. They were:

1. what are the essentials of the Quaker group decision process;

2. what information or knowledge should a participant have about the process;

3. what skills or abilities should a participant bring to the process, and

A. what attitudes or beliefs about the process should the partici­ pant possess?

Research Procedures

To gain answers to these questions, the researcher first conducted an extensive review of the Quaker literature. The result was a total of seventy-four statements responding to the research questions.

The researcher utilized the Delphi technique to obtain the views of practitioners of the Quaker consensus process. The Delphi technique is

"...a carefully designed program of sequential interrogations (with 161 questionnaires) interspersed with information and opinion feedback"

(26:272). Twelve Delphi participants v/ere selected to obtain a group of persons who varied in age, sex and Quaker background, who were experienc­ ed in the Quaker process, and whose use of the process had occurred in a variety of Quaker settings.

Three rounds of the Delphi technique were utilized. In Round I, the experts were requested to v/rite several statements in response to the four research questions (presented above). For Round II, the experts received a composite list of the statements generated in Round I. They were asked to rate (on a four-point scale) the importance of each state­ ment, In Round III, the experts received the statements and their indi­ vidual ratings of the statements from the previous round. Also included in Round III, in those instances where it occurred, were the ratings upon which the group had agreed. The exports v/ere asked to reconsider their earlier ratings on each statement, to revise any rating, if desired, and, if their rating was outside the group agreement, to state a reason for remaining there.

Research Results Presented and Combined

Eighty-three statements v/ere generated from and rated by the experts through the use of the Delphi technique. The Delphi statements were ordered on the basis of the experts' ratings.

The statements identified in the literature and those generated from the Delphi participants were then combined and discussed. The possible significance of the similarities and differences of the statements from the tv/o sources v/ere identified. 162

Other data were also obtained from the Delphi participants. These

included comments on the statements, an additional list of fifteen sug­

gested statements, and initial ratings and comments on the suggested

statements. The data provide a resource for future- revision of the

statements.

Additional Research Procedures and Results

The second objective of identifying some aids and experiences poten­

tially helpful to a learner of the Quaker group decision process was met

by requesting suggestions from the Delphi participants and by surveying

several areas of the literature. The experts emphasized the necessity

for the learner to experience the process. Their suggestions included

the learner’s observation of various Quaker groups and of outstanding

clerks, plus the learner's participation in Quaker groups of different

sizes v/hen the groups are dealing v/ith difficult decisions. Other sug­

gestions from the experts included the use of books, pamphlets, individual

orientation/explanation sessions, and workshops. The researcher reviewed potentially helpful sources in the literature of several fields, including

the dynamics, decision-malting, and leadership of groups and structured

experiences for groups. Books under the topics of "seeking within one's self" and "communication and dialogue" v/ere also suggested.

Evaluation of the Delnhi

Results of tho Technique

The Delphi technique was successful in obtaining statements from tho experts concerning tho four research questions and in obtaining ratings from the experts on the importance of the statements. Another product of the Delphi consisted of the minority comments on the ratings. The

Delphi also identified some movement of individuals toward groupi agree­ ment between the second to the third rounds. For example,, the overall average level of agreement for the statements concerning the essentials of the process and for the statements about the skills of a participant rose six percent between Hounds II and III.

Possible Future Delphi-Related Hesearch

A number of future research activities, based on this Delphi, are possible. A replication of the study with a different group of experts would yield results which could be compared to the results of this study.

Other possible activities include further investigation into the results of this Delphi. For example, do identifiable sub-groups exist within the group of experts? This was not readily apparent but might be present.

Another research procedure would be to give the raw data of the Hound I returns to another researcher, assigning him/her to develop a set of statements for each of the research questions. The statements could then be compared to the statements devoloped by this researcher from the Round

I data. An additional research possibility would be to ask the same experts to complete one or two more rounds of the Delphi. The problems of recontacting tho participants and of overcoming the influences of tho tine lag between Hound III and any following rounds night be insurmount­ able, but, again, the results night be significant. For example, at the completion of Round III, a total of twenty-one statements had a fifty percent level of agreement. Iline of these statements involved tho 16^ essentials of the process and six involved the skills of a participant.

The movement of only one expert throughout could place all of these statements into the '-'group agreement" category, increasing that number significantly.

Suggested Improvements

The Delphi might have been improved in the following ways. First, two participants had difficulties understanding and/or following the directions. This might have been averted by an improved set of direc­ tions. Also, tho researcher might have telephoned each expert a few days after mailing Round I to ask if anyone had any questions about the forms or the directions. The experts v/ere asked to call the researcher

(reversing the charges) if they had any questions, but none did so.

Second, the experts seldom used the third and fourth priority ratings.

Perhaps it v/as because, as one expert stated, "I found all of these items (in set A) of considerable essentiality, so have used only prior­ ities 1 & 2," However, in case this occurred because of difficulties distinguishing among first, second, third, and fourth priorities, a three level set of priorities night have been more useful or a different rating nomenclature might have been used, such as "essential, important, useful, and unimportant." Also, greater emphasis could have been placed in the directions upon the experts' use of all of the priority ratings.

This procedure v/as followed by Anderson (2) in his Delphi study. Third, on several occasions an expert overlooked one or more statements. These mistakes night have been reduced by using a form like that of Gray's (4/f), where all the ratings were printed after each statement and the expert 165 was asked to circle one of them.

A limitation of this Delphi study was the tine lag between the rounds. The lag might have been shortened if the researcher had begun contacting the Delphi participants as soon as the initial deadlines had passed. An alternative procedure might have been to have started with a larger number of experts and to have dropped from the study those who missed the deadlines. Another limitation of the study was the research­ er's ability to compile the experts' Sound I responses into statements.

The experts' comments identified certain statements which were too broadly formulated, were unclear, and which overlapped other statements.

Such statements might have been improved by carefully field testing them before placing them into Round II. The same individuals who assisted the researcher in the initial categorization of the Round I responses might have assisted with this task.

Experts' Comments

Several of the experts wrote notes about some aspect of the Delphi.

Two notes related specifically to the statements concerning the skills a participant should bring to the process. The notes clearly indicated a skepticism about these statements. The representativeness of these comments is not known.

"...I am still skeptical of any scientific evaluation being made where the statements seem to overlap and have a tendency to modify and blur each other."

The tone of several of these, taken together, implies almost a "graduate course" in sociology/psychology - while these skills may be helpful (very helpful at times), I've had the experience, more than once, of groups getting bogged down by attention to "skills" and "attitudes." The process can and does work well 166

when practiced by laymen who are sensitive to one another - even though they are unable to define exactly the source of one another's "uneasiness."

Half of the Delphi participants either sent notes when they returned the last set of forms or communicated later with the researcher. The comments ranged from "...A fine job of questioning - congratulations - " and "Hope this works out well for you. It's been interesting for me to be involved," to:

I want to tell you what a valuable and sometimes wrenching experience it has been for me to answer your questionnaires. I've become clearer than every (sic) how far away I am from having traditional Quaker concepts about ourselves....

Such comments raise the possibility that this Delphi may have been an educational experience for the participants. Weaver, in his critique of the Delphi as a method of forecasting, wrote the following:

Of equally great importance, however, our research also leads us to conclude that Delphi, in combination with other tools, is a very potent device for teaching people to think about the future of education in much more complex ways than they ordin­ arily would. (118:271)

It would be interesting to know if the Delphi participants in this study feel they now think about the Quaker consensus process in much more com­ plex ways than they had previously.

Use of the Delphi by Quakers

Clifford rJeal Smith, in his article "Friends and the Delphi Techni­ que" (103), presents several reasons for the Quaker use of the Delphi,

These include the clear identification of diverging views, the minimi­ zation of dominating individuals, and the inclusion of Friends of varying ages in the Society's national-level deliberations. He also states, 167 without any supporting evidence, that "Decisions achieved by the Delphi

Technique could be more reflective of individual leadings of the Spirit

than our committee meetings presently are." (103:Jf26) Quakers night do well to consider utilization of the Delphi process, especially in some

of their national-level deliberations. However, this researcher believes

that at least two questions must be answered before the Delphi is adopted by Quakers as a way of reaching certain group decisions. First, can a group seek and identify by mail the leadings of the Spirit? Second, who is going to design and coordinate the Delphi and write the statements which become the basis of the ensuing rounds? This researcher does not see the Delphi as a substitute for the Quaker way of reaching group decisions.

Areas for Future Research

Clear Definitions

The study identified several aspects of the Quaker consensus process which require further clarification. For example, of the twelve state­ ments concerning the information which a participant should have about

the process, the following was rated third by the experts. "The partici­ pant should know the important differentiations of the process, such as between unanimity and the sense of the meeting, between disagreeing-but- perraitting and blocking the sense of the meeting." One expert reacted to

the statement with the following comment. "1 am now clear that so much

confusion abounds that clear definitions are universally needed." A

recent article and letter in two Quaker journals (105,106), provide

further examples of the need for clear definitions. Such definitions do 168 not exist at present.

Perhaps an area of research would be to seek words which have a

clear meaning for Quakers today. Traditional terms, such as "God's v/ill" may need to be reinterpreted. Certain contemporary social science terms, such as "consensus" (discussed in Chapter I), may need to be used only in special ways by Quakers. Other terms used by Quakers, such as "the sense of the meeting," need clear definitions.

Individual-Group Relationships

Another area needing clarification is that of the power of the indi­ vidual in relation to the group, A specific example is the following, which was among the statements about the essentials of the Quaker group decision process. "A person can block the group decision if one feels it opposes a deeply held value/truth which has not been recognized." The statement was vigorously opposed by one expert. The expert commented twice on the statement, writing in Round I, "I do not subscribe to this veto power (nor did John V/oolman)" and in Round II, "This is real heresy

- not just a mistaken perception of the Quaker understanding of the Mtg, for Business, The group and the individual stand.in tension not one subordinate to the other." Further research is needed to clarify this basic aspect of the individual-group relationship.

Roles of Participants and Clerk

Another area of investigation, although not so important perhaps as the above areas, consists of the need for differentiations between the participants' and the clerk's roles. This vra.s cited several times by the Delphi experts. One expert commented on the possible problem with the following statement, "Too many clerks spoil the meeting." 169

Use of the Quaker Group Decision Process

Two other possible areas of research involve the use of the Quaker way of reaching group decisions. One area concerns its use in the various Quaker settings of Friends' monthly meetings, organizations and schools. For example, descriptions of the Quaker consensus process as

found in two Qualter colleges (21,31)» include little or no emphasis upon

the spiritual/worshipful aspects of the process. A research project might involve observation of the process in different Quaker settings

to see if variations occur in its use.

A final area of possible research involves the utilization of the

Quaker consensus process in large Quaker groups which meet only once or

twice a year. Such groups include yearly meetings and representatives' meetings of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL).

Certain important aspects of the Quaker process may be absent in such circumstances. For example, the experts cited the following as one of the important abilities a participant should bring to the Quaker consensus process: "The participant should have the ability to love - especially to love another v/hile differing with that person's ideas," One expert commented, "love is not an accurate description of the attitude toward those in a 200-person rntg."

An allied problem was raised by Howard Brinton when he stated, "The

Quaker method is likely to be successful in proportion as the members are acquainted with one another, better still if real affection exists among them." (lif) Neither may exist for large yearly meetings which,

for example, may include monthly meetings from a variety of the "branches" 170

of Quakerism, which meet only once a year,' and which attract significant

numbers of Friends who do not attend regularly. Observation of the

decision-making process in large Quaker groups, such as yearly meetings,

might determine the extent to v/hich the Quaker way of reaching decisions

is affected by size and the lack of acquaintance among the attenders.

The question night also be posed as follows: what is the extent of

"community" necessary for the Quaker consensus process to work success­

fully? This approach night identify factors important to the kind of

yearly meeting described above, as well as to small Meetings v/hich face

the problems of a mobile membership and a lack of participation in

business meeting.

Next Steps

A Final List of Statements

Three areas of "next steps" remain to be accomplished. The re­

searcher will begin work in these areas upon the completion of this

study. The first area consists of developing a final, combined list of

statements in response to the four research questions, A start v/as made

on this in Chapter IV with the combination of the statements from the

literature and from the Delphi study. Other possible sources of state­

ments and suggested revisions have been discovered during the course of

the study. These include the v/ritings of Bartoo (6), Crouse (25), and

Selleck (101), Also, additional sources were generated by the study.

They consist of the minority comments from Round III of the Delphi, plus

the informal comments and additional statements offerod by the Delphi participants. These sources will need to be carefully reviewed before 171

the-statements-from the literature and from the Delphi are again combined.

In addition, the statements which were among those rated last in each set

by the experts should either be eliminated or reworded. After these

activities are accomplished and a combined list of statements formulated,

further improvement might be achieved by sending the lists to the Delphi

participants and others for their reactions*

A Further Survey of Learning Resources

A second step for the researcher is to expand the sunyey of aids and

experiences potentially of assistance to the learner of the Quaker con­

sensus process. The results presented in Chapter V originated from a

preliminary survey. The areas cited there need to be more thoroughly

investigated. Many areas of the literature have not yet been surveyed.

Also, new areas should be investigated. For example, how does the League

of Women Voters orient its members to the use of group decision by con­

sensus? How do new residents of the houses of the New Life Center in

Philadelphia loarn the group decision-by-consensus used there? Their

literature and learning experiences may be of assistance to learners in

the various Quaker settings.

The suggestions of the experts constitute another source of possible

learning aids and experiences. One of their suggestions was for workshops

on the topic. The researcher has already led three workshops concerning

the Quaker consensus process and will continue to develop this learning

resourco. Further development could occur in several of the other

suggestions.

Publication of the Study

The third "next step" for the researcher is to determine how, where, 172 when and in what form this study should be made available to Quakers and other interested people. Aspects of this have been mentioned in the prior "next steps," Some of the Delphi participants and several of the workshop participants have encouraged publication of all or parts of the study. Before this can occur, however, the practical aspects of deter­ mining the various forms of publication and of seeking publishers must be researched.

Implications

A few of the implications which arise from this study will be pointed out here. Some relate to the individual as a participant in groups which utilize the Quaker way of reaching decisions. Other implications relate to Friends Meetings, schools and organizations, as well as to other groups which nay utilize the Quaker consensus process.

For the Learner-Participant

An implication of the study for the learner is that the person’s attitude toward or beliefs about the process are probably the most impor­ tant aspect of the learning situation. This aspect may be the logical and, potentially, the most effective starting place for learners of the process. Knowledge about, an understanding of the essentials of, and skills in the Quaker consensus process are- important, but the learner’s belief system is the essen*ial ingredient. Unless the learner's belief system is in accord with the Quaker way of reaching group decisions, the other aspects can be of little consequence to the basic quality of the learner's participation. 173

Another implication relates directly to the religious nature of the Quaker group decision process. It seems doubtful that a person will totally appreciate or understand the Quaker group search for unity/the right way/God's will, if the person has not found a similar search to be valid in his or her own life. The implication, therefore, is that the person must have validated the search for unity/the right way/God's will in his or her individual decisions, and perhaps in the decisions of the family of which the person is a member, before fully appreciating the group search.

For Friends Meetings

An implication of the study for Friends Meetings relates to the fact that the Quaker consensus process, while it provides for much flexibility and creativity, nay appear to the learner to be highly complex. The implication for Meetings is that members and attenders cannot be ex­ pected to gain with ease the necessary attitudes, skills and information.

Concerted attention should be given to orienting and training them in the process. Additionally, because of the above points and the involvement of the participants’ belief systems, the learning should be viewed as a continuing process.

Another aspect related to Meetings is that if their use of the Quaker group decision process is inflexible and imcreative, they may be employing the process incorrectly or inadequately. The Meeting’s members- and attenders may need to develop much higher expectation levels for the process in order to use it to its fullest extent.

For Other Groups

Implications of the study exist for other groups which utilize the m

Quaker consensus process. One such implication is presented in the

following series of questions. If the Quaker way of reaching group

decisions is a religious process, to what extent can it be defined and

utilized in non-religious ways before its meaning is lost? That is,

as the essentials of the Quaker process are removed to fit the process

to the setting or the occasion, at what point does the Quaker process

become something else? At what point does it become simply a series of

group techniques unrelated to religious beliefs? Groups, if they have

omitted some of the essentials of the Quaker decision process in their

use of it, should either not claim to be using the process or should

claim only to bo using parts of the process.

For Any Group

An implication, which applies to any group using the process, con- cerns the way in which participants relate to one another. The Quaker consensus process calls for honest, helpful, person to person relation­ ships, The implication is that individuals who participate as represen­

tatives or who participate as "takers of institutional roles" (for instance, in a school setting, the principal participating in the group decision process only in the role of the principal or the teacher only as the teacher), may be unable to move beyond the restrictions of their roles. This would limit the extent to v/hi'ch they could participate in the Quaker consensus process simply as persons. When this situation exists, the process cannot be utilized to its fullest extent.

A related implication is that participants in groups utilizing the

Quaker process should know one another on a variety of levels in order 175 to better relate as persons. This means, for instance, that they

should have opportunities to experience one another as persons outside

the specific decision-making setting.

Another implication concerns the mobility of persons in our culture.

Much of what has been identified here implies some degree of permanence and community. The Quaker way of reaching group decisions arose in

rural, sixteenth century England, Our society differs greatly from that

time and, also, from the United States of fifty years ago. It may be

that the pressures of modern society greatly inhibit the utilization of

the Quaker consensus process. In such a case, radical revisions in the life styles of individuals and groups, as well as in society itself, may

be necessary in order to enhance the full growth and utilization of this

form of group decision-making,

A Final Word..,

The researcher wishes to encourage others to study the Quaker way

of reaching group decisions and to help learners understand and partici­ pate in the process. One writer stated, —

We can no longer take it for granted that Friends will somehow absorb Quakerism by osmosis, as did our predecessors in rural communities. In modern urban culture, which is unchristian in so many respects, Friends ways need to be systematically nurtured by training for participation in the meeting for worship, and by training for service as clerks, committee chairmen, and secretaries. (53:10)

This researcher would add, "and by training for participation in the

Quaker way of reaching group decisions." APPENDIX A

SAMPLE TELEPHONE INVITATION TO EXPERTS

176 177

Sample Telephone Invitation to Experts

Hello, ? My name is Matt Drake. I am a Quaker and live

In Columbus, Ohio, where I serve as Clerk of the North Columbus Friends

Meeting.

______gave me your name as someone who was experienced and interested in the Quaker way of reaching group decisions. This is the subject of a study I am conducting for my PhD work in adult education at Ohio State University.

I am calling to see if you would be interested in participating in the study.

• ••«

I am asking if you will participate in a kind of questionnaire process called a Delphi. The process involves your completion of three sets of questionnaires over a period of the next few months.

Let me describe it to you briefly. In the first round I will ask you to give me five to ten answers to each of four questions. The questions are: what are the essentials of the Quaker way of reaching group decisions; what should a participant know about the process; what skills or abilities should a participant bring to tho process, and what beliefs or attitudes should a participant hold concerning the process?

When I receive all the responses - I'm asking eleven others to participate in the study - I will combine them into a series of statements.

Then, I will send the statements back to you and ask for your reac­ tions to them. I will also ask you to give some kind of priority rating to the statements. When you return this information to me, I will 178 combine it with the others and see if there is a group agreement on the priorities.

On the last round I will send you the sets of answers to the four original questions, along with your individual ranking of them and the group's agreed-upon rankings, if that occurred. This will let you compare your evaluation rankings with those of the group. You'll bo asked, on the basis of this information, to again give a priority ranking to the statements and then return the materials to me. At the completion of the study I'll send you the final results.

Now, I've given you a lot of information in a short time, do you have some questions about what I am doing and what I'm asking you to do?

• • • • Are you interested in this topic and would you have the time to complete the questionnaires? I'll be sending the first round out in

February. The time required to complete the questionnaires will probably vary. But this isn't a quickie survey. I'm asking you to take some time with it and to think about it. I'm sure you've thought about the general topic before. It will be a matter now of putting your ideas down on paper and then evaluating answers.

• • • • I'm happy you can. I know you will add a great deal to the study.

Y/ith the first round of questions, I will send you a letter which gives a full description of the Delphi process and of what I've asked you to do.

Thank you for your willingness to participate. You'll be hearing from me soon.

Good-tye. APPENDIX B

THE DELPHI PARTICIPANTS

179 180

Delphi Participants and Their Locations

1. George Bliss, New Ipswich, New Hampshire

2. Charles K. Brown, Westtown, Pennsylvania

3. Thomas S. Brown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

4. William F. Buckley, Wenonah, New Jersey

5. Miriam Brush, Piscatawny, New Jersey

6. Wallace Collett, Cincinnati, Ohio

7. Gini Coover, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

8. Helen Hole, Richmond, Indiana

9* Douglas Macdonald, New Hope, Pennsylvania

10, Lynne Shivers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

11, Don Reeves, Central City, Nebraska

12, Harold B. Winn, Salem, Ohio APPENDIX C

ROUND I OF THE DELPHI, INCLUDING LETTER,

INSTRUCTIONS, AND FORMS 182

February 2, 1973

Dear Friend,

When I spoke with you on the telephone I attempted to briefly explain the purpose and process of my research into the way Quakers seek group decisions. I requested your participation and you were kind enough to agree. I wish to present my explanation in writing to further clarify my request. 1 am a PhD student at Ohio State University in adult education. My dissertation is focussed upon the Quaker group decision process. The subject combines my lifetime of Quakerism (Wilmington (Ohio) Friends Meeting, North Columbus (Ohio) Friends Meeting, sojourns at the Hong Kong Meeting and Pendle Hill); ny study and experience in group decision­ making (MA in political science, Ohio Legislative Service Commission staff member of several committees of the Ohio Legislature); my third year as clerk of the North Columbus Friends Meeting; my concern to im­ prove the way in which Friends, in a variety of settings, practice and interpret to others their decision-making process, and my hope to produce a dissertation of some use. The title of my research proposal is, "Quaker Consensus: Helping Learners Understand and Participate in the Quaker Way of Reaching Decisions." The research objectives are to identify the essentials of the Quaker group process and to develop criteria of the kinds of back­ ground most helpful to a participant. From this base, I plan to present some suggestions for learning resources and experiences potentially of aid to individuals and groups wishing to learn about and to participate in the process. The investigative methods will consist of a combination of library research (reviewing the Quaker and certain social science research) and the search for agreement among a group of experts. I have asked you to participate as an expert, as one who has prac­ tical experience in, and a concern for,, the Quaker group decision process. I would like you to answer three sets of questionnaires. The first "round" is attached. I request your thoughtful response to each set of questionnaires and your commitment to their return to me within a few days of your receipt of them. This high degree of participation is necessary because your responses, combined with those of the other experts, will become the primary content of the succeeding questionnaires. Thus, I cannot construct the following rounds of questions until I re­ ceive all the responses from each current round. I trust that your interest in the topic will encourage you to meet these expectations. Should circumstances arise that would eliminate my reaching you during February and March (and also April, in case of delays) at the address I have used today, or that would for other reasons restrict your participation, please let me know. Do not hesitate to telephone; I will be happy to accept the charges (Tel: 61^-263-2802). Alternatively, you might include a note when you return the response forms. We can probably solve most problems. I do hope to both complete Round I and mail the second round to you in February. 183

As you read over the accompanying papers you will notice that your name is requested on each response form. This will enable me to return a copy of your original responses to you for comparison with other responses, a possible procedure for rounds two and three. Responses circulated among experts will not be identified by name. Thank you again for your willingness to aid in this study, I look forward to your participation and hope that you will also find it re­ warding.

Yours truly,

Matt Drake 152 W, Tulane Road Columbus, Ohio Jf3202 184

Round I - The Quaker Way of Reaching Group Decisions

Instructions/Suggestions

1) You are requested to write five'to ten (5-10) statements for each of the four questions on the following pages.

2) Before you prepare your responses, consider your experience in the number of settings (Quaker schools, colleges, organizations, Honthly Meetings, Yearly Meetings, etc.) in which the Quaker way of reaching decisions is utilized. Seek those statements which are true for a variety of Quaker settings. Base your responses upon your own exper­ ience and knowledge, rather than upon Quaker or social science litera­ ture.

3) Question 1 might best be answered first, since it deals with the process in general. Here your responses should reflect the point of view of am observer of the Quaker group decision process. The other questions ask you to take the point of view of a participant in the process. if) Clearly written/printed responses will be helpful; typed responses welcomed.

5) Please return the four response forms (envelope enclosed) within seven (7) days.

Thank you agaiin. I plan to mail Round II to you before the end of the month.

Matt Drake

Pleaise mail the four completed response forms by February , 1973. 185 Round I ___ Name ______

Response Form A Address (for February)

Advices: Think of those instances when the Quaker way of reaching group decisions worked well. Think of the combinations, the interactions, the flavor of such occasions. Consider the missing ingredients of those instances where the Quaker way of reaching decisions was used only parti­ ally or not at all. Consider the meaningful, worthwhile aspects of the process.... Please prepare yourself in such a way before answering the following question.

1) What are the basic procedures, the unique aspects of the Quaker way of reaching group decisions?

In my opinion, the following (5-10) statements identify these essentials:

1. _

2.

5.

5.

6.

7.

8 .

9.

10- *

Use back of form for additional comments. 186

Round I Name ______———— .

Response Form B Address (for February) ______

2) What kinds of information (knowledge) about the Quaker way of reaching group decisions (origin, philosophy, theology, history, etc.) should the participant bring to the process?

In my opinion, the following (5-10) statements present this information:

1. ______

2* ______

3. ______

k . ______

5. ______

6. ______

7. ______;______

8. ______

9.

Use back of form for additional comments. 187

Round I Name ______

Response Form C Address (for February)

3) What kinds of abilities (skills) should the participant in the Quaker way of reaching group decisions bring to the process?

In my opinion, the following (3*10) statements identify these abilities:

1. ; ’______

2. ______;______

3. ______

5 . ______

6 . ______;______

7. ______

8. ______

j,IW| — ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ - ■■■ — ...... - — 9. ______

10. ______

Use back of form for additional comments. Round I Name

Response Form D Address (for February)

Zf) What kinds of beliefs (attitudes about the Quaker, way of reaching group decisions should the participant bring to the process?

In ay opinion, the following (5-10) statements present these beliefs:

1. ______

2.______

3. k. ______;______

5 . ______

6. ______

7. ______;______

8. ______

9. ______

1 0. ______

Use back of form for additional comments. APPENDIX D

ROUND II OF THE DELPHI, INCLUDING LETTER,

INSTRUCTIONS, AND FORMS, PLUS A

BACKGROUND DATA QUESTIONNAIRE

189 190

March 10, 1973

Dear Friend,

Thank you again for your Round I responses. I have spent many hours with then over the past two weeks. For Round II your responses have been combined into statements representing all the Delphi participants* responses. I think you will find the results interesting.

The primary objective of Round II is to obtain your ratings of the revised statements (A,B,C & D). Second, any additions and/or reactions you may have to the revised statements are requested. The extra questionnaire will provide helpful data for the analysis of the Delphi results.

I hope that my delay in getting Round II to you does not cause any problems, I know a few of you have trips coming up. Because of this and because I will also be gone (from March 17 to April 7), please be sure to call me (reversing the charges) within the next couple of days if you cannot return this round by April £. Round III cannot be prepared until I receive all the results from Round II. I want to send Round III out by the middle of April, if at all possible.

Round III will relate primarily to the ratings of the statements. Also, I will include a questionnaire asking for your advice/suggestions/ ideas on preparing a person to participate in the Quaker group decision process. I'm eager to utilize all your experience on this subject. This notice will give you extra time to think about it.

I am very pleased with the quality of the responses in Round I and appreciate the seriousness with which you approached the questions. I look forward to the same in your second round responses.

Best wishes.

Matt Drake 152 V/. Tulane Road Columbus, Ohio *t3202 Telephone: 61^-263-2802 191

Round II

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS

This packet consists of the following: 1. four sets of revised statements (A,B,C & D), for your review, comments, ratings, and return; 2. a one-page questionnaire for your completion and return; 3* a copy of your original set of responses (do not return), and i+, a stamped, addressed return envelope for (1) and (2) above.

For this round I would like you to: First, compare your original statements with the revised ones of sets A,B,C, and D. Second, if you feel any important points from your original statements have been omitted, please add them to the appropriate set. However, before doing so, check all four sets. In several instances I shifted statements around, especially from set A to D. Third, taking each set separately, rank the importance you give to each statement within the set. Fourth, comment, if you wish, upon each or any statement. (Comments are not required in this round.) Fifth, complete the additional questionnaire, and Sixth, please mail the revised sets A,B,C, and D and the questionnaire to me bjr April j?, 1973.

Rating Instructions

Within each set (A,B,C, & D) are several statements listed randomly. Give me your personal priorities among the statements within each set. The priorities will range from first to fourth.

For example, all the 22 essentials of the Quaker group decision process (A) will probably never exist at any one time, or any one participant will probably not bring all of the 22 abilities listed under C. Which of the 22 essentials in A, then, do you give the first priority, which gets second priority, etc.? Similarly, in C, which of the abilities would you most like a participant to bring to the process (first priority), which do you see as of lesser importance (second priority), etc.?

1. Be certain to assign a priority to each statement! Please do not leave any blank. If you feel uncomfortable about any rating, use the "comments1' space for your explanation or concern. 2. Place your name at the top of each sheet. This is essential as your individual ratings will be used by you in Round III. 3. Remember the April 5 return date.

Thank you! 192

Round II Your Name ______

Response Fora A

Instructions - After each statement indicate the priority you give it in relation to the other statements in this set. - Use the following key: 1_ = first priority, 2 = second priority, £ « third priority, and 4. = fourth priority.

THE ESSENTIALS OF THE QUAKER WAY OF REACHING GROUP DECISIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: Priority Comments 1. Each person participates - fully, openly and helpfully. ______

2. Someone tests the group*s readiness to decide by summarizing the discussion and/or by attempting to state the sense of the meeting. ______

3. Participants are open to the thoughts and feelings of others. _____ ' if. Once an issue is presented, the participants share their information, feelings and opinions on it. ______

5. Differences are recognized, accepted without antagonism, and worked through to an understanding of them and/or creative solutions to them. ______

6. The participants attempt to reach unity in their decisions.

7. Participants relate to one another in love and trust.

8. Decisions can be deferred; reasons may include insufficient information, clarity or unity.

9. The decision process begins with a statement, as clear and concise as possible, of the problem to bo con­ sidered or of the kind of decision to be made. 193

Page 2, Response Form A Your Name

Priority Comments

10, The group decision can be non- unanimous, in which case the dissenter stands aside, allowing the group to proceed. ______

11, The group decision is identified by a statement vrhich all agree expresses the sense of the meeting. ______

12, Decisions are accurately recorded for future reference. ______

13. Participants center dovm and silently worship together prior to considering the business and, at times, before making specific decisions.

H , A person can block the group decision if one feels it opposes a deeply held value/truth which has not been recognized,

15. In reaching decisions, participants seek Divine Guidance/God's will within themselves and in one another.

16, At the introduction of an issue for consideration, relevant infor­ mation is presented, such as the issue's context, constraints and history (if it has been before the group previously).

17. In the discussion, the partici­ pants seek full information, attempting to see all sides of the issue.

18. In the case of a dissenter who allows the group to proceed, the individual can be recorded as per­ sonally opposed or unclear and/or the individual can meet with a small committee, appointed by the group, to discuss the issue further. Pago 3» Response Form A Your Name

Priority Connenta 19* The clerk of the meeting facilitates the above activities (1 - 18). ______

20. The clerk, at the end of the discussion, formulates the group*s decision and presents it, without defense, to the group for improve­ ment and/or acceptance.

21. Enough time is available to allow the above activities (1-2 0) to occur without haste.

22. The process is a group experience; participants familiar with it and with one another facilitate the process.

Use the back for additional statements and give them a rating. Round II Tour Name

Response Form B

Instructions - After each statement indicate the priority you give it in relation to the other statements in this set. Use the following key: 1_ = first priority, 2 = second priority, £ = third priority, ^ = fourth priority.

THE FOLLOV/IHG ARE THE KINDS OF INFORMATION (KNOWLEDGE) A PARTICIPANT SHOULD HAVE ABOUT THE QUAKER GROUP .DECISION PROCESS:

Priority Comments The participant should:

1. have full information on the way in which the Quaker group decision process works (procedures, outcomes, expected participant behaviors ...), ______

2. know that the process is based on the religious insight that God may speak directly to any person. ______• 3 . be familiar with writings about the process, such as found in Howard Brinton's books, Faith and Practice, and John Woolman's Journal. ______

if, know that the process was utilized by the earliest Friends and has been used continuously in the Society ever since.

5. know that the Quaker group decision process is rooted in historical Christianity.

6. have some information, (such as significant Yearly Meeting decisions), about Friends' successful and, at times, unsuccessful use of the process in the past.

7. know that the process is consistent with the way in which Quakers attempt to live.

8. know that good experience "in" the . process is more helpful to a participant than knowledge "about" the process. 196

Page 2, Response Form B Your Name

The participant should:

9. know the fundamental differences between the Quaker way of reaching group decisions and other group decision processes (involving voting, political maneuvering . . . ) . .

1 0. know the important differentiations of the process, such as between unanimity and the sense of the meeting, between disagreeing-but-permitting and blocking the group decision, _____

1 1. have some knowledge of the Biblical teaching of Christian unity and its relationship to group decisions. _____

1 2. know that the purpose of the process is to give the Spirit oppor­ tunity to lead the participants unitedly. _____

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***

Round II Response Form C Your Name

Instructions - After each statement indicate the priority you give it in relation to the other statements in this set. Use the following key: = first priority, Z - second priority, jj = third priority, k = fourth priority.

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE KINDS OF ABILITIES (SKILLS) A PARTICIPANT SHOULD BRING TO THE QUAKER GROUP DECISION PROCESS.

The participant should have Priority Comments the ability to:

1. find common ground among differing views and help others to see the commonalities. ______197

Page 2, Response Form C Your Name —^ ____

The participant should have the ability to: Priority Comments

2 . constructively utilize humor. ______

3. sense the group's feelings and needs, to point them out when helpful, and to suggest procedures. l\m be patient ... with the desire to express own views, with inarticulate speakers, with the group process...

5. speak clearly, concisely and relevantly.

6. love ... especially to love another while differing with that person's ideas.

7. synthesize, recombine and to summarize the discussion.

8. perceive areas of agreement and disagreement or conflict and to state them nonjudgmentally.

9. listen ... with accuracy, calmness and understanding.

1 0. be sensitive to the feelings, perceptions and thoughts of others.

1 1. utilize her/his own knowledge and feelings, combined with the insight from the group, in reaching a decision,

1 2. recognize, understand and express his/her own feelings.

1 3. assume control of her/his own life, enabling one to be totally present for the full time a decision is to be made.

1/f. recognize and understand nonverbal behavior.

15. discern the mind of the Spirit/God's voice in one's self and in others. 198

Page 3 1 Response Form C Your Name ______

The participant should have the ability to: Priority Comments

16. worship, to open one's self to the spirit of truth inside. _____ '

1 7. utilize silence constructively, entering into quiet searching through prayer and concentration. ______

18. submerge striving for an individual solution in the group search for a mutually agreeable resolution. ______

1 9. gracefully withdraw objections and help others to do so. ______

2 0. be imaginative in the search for solutions. ______

2 1. deal constructively with conflict.

2 2. break large issues down to manage­ able size.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***

Round II Response Form D Your Name

Instructions - After each statement indicate the priority you give it in relation to the other statements in this set. Use the following key; 2, = first priority, 2 = second priority, = third priority, /j. = fourth priority.

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE KINDS OF BELIEFS (ATTITUDES) A PARTICIPANT SHOULD BRING TO THE QUAKER GROUP DECISION PROCESS:

The participant should: Priority Comments

1 . believe in silence as a method for assisting group decision-making. Page 2, Response Form D Your Name

The participant should: Priority

2. believe in God and in God's potential helpfulness in the decision process. ______

3. value the Quaker way of reaching decisions, believing that it works and works better than other group decision processes. _ _ _ _

4. believe that Truth/God's will/a right way/God's leading exists in any given issue arid can be discovered by a corporate, loving, patient, persistent, open search. _____

5. believe that clarity on God's will can be obtained, conflicts can be re­ solved, and right decisions made if participants are open to the leadings of the Spirit. ______

6. believe that the greater the differences of perception of the truth, the fuller the truth that will be re­ vealed, if labored through until agree­ ment is reached. _____

7. be committed to a group solution and willing, in most cases, to set aside one's own opinions and desires in favor of the group.

8. view the process seriously and be willing to incorporate the decisions into the participant's own life.

9. believe that differences and/or conflicts are natural and are to be valued, sought out and worked through.

1 0. believe in the ability of all participants to learn, grow and to see clearly.

11. believe the Scriptural teaching of unity, love and the bond of affection. 200

Page 3» Response Form D Your Name ______

The participant should: Priority Comments

1 2. believe that we are not looking merely for consensus but for the right leading of God, ______

1 3. have the attitude that this process is in keeping with the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

1if. have the attitude that the process of decision-malcing takes time, patience, perseverence and energy.

1 5. believe that greater truth exists in the whole than in any part, that a group decision is not a compromise but a judgment of a higher order than an individual's decision.

1 6. believe that since the seed of truth exists in each participant, a corporate truth can be obtained.

1 7. believe that since a spark of the Divine exists in each person, each person is to be loved and her/his contribution to be valued.

18. believe in the Spirit controlled and directed life, in the continued reve­ lation of truth ... through one's self and any other participant.

1 9* believe in approaching issues with­ out pre-formed conclusions but with a willingness to learn.

2 0. believe that one's own well- considered ideas and insights may be valuable to the group's considerations, while acknowledging one's own fall­ ibility.

2 1. believe in one's self enough to refuse to accept the group's decision if one is deeply opposed on an impor­ tant matter of principle. Page 4» Response Form D Your Name

The participant should:

22. believe that the process will not always work.

2 3. believe that action, rather than inaction, nay need to be taken, even though, as hunan beings, we nay not have chosen the right leading.

24. believe that the Quaker way of reaching group decisions is basically a religious process and that one’s attitude should be of worship, of prayerful seeking for Divine guidance.

25. believe that God leads His people unitedly.

2 6. believe that the group making the decision has a significance and validity of its own.

27. believe in the worth of waiting, allowing the group to stop Short of a decision in order to await a clearer sense of how to move forward or post­ poning a decision until next meeting to allow individuals time to seek within themselves and/or with one another. 202 Questionnaire #1 Your Name: _ _ _ _ _ Address (for April)

Dear Friend,

The purpose of this forn is to obtain a general idea of your back­ ground with groups shich use the Quaker way of reaching group decisions.

The right-hand column presents settings in which the Quaker group decision process nay be used. The list is not exhaustive; please add to it to reflect your own experiences.

The left-hand columns present spaces for you to check ( * 0 the settings in which you:

A. have participated in the past (not as clerk); B. have served as clerk in the past; C. are currently participating (not as clerk); D. are currently serving as clerk,

A B C D Past Past Current Current Part. Clerk Part. Clerk ______- AFSC Board Meetings ______~ AFSC Staff Meetings ______** Conferences (Conservative, EFA, FUM, FGC) ______“ Faculty meetings, Quaker colleges ______~ Faculty meetings, Quaker schools* ______~ FCNL Representative Meetings - FCUL Staff Meetings ______“ Community meetings, intentional communities ______“ Monthly Meetings ______- Pendle Hill community meetings ______“ Trustees’ meetings, Quaker colleges ______“ Trustees' meetings, Quaker schools ______- Student meetings, Quaker colleges ______- Quarterly Meetings ______“ Other? *(pre-elementary, ele. & secondary levels) 203

Page 2, Questionnaire #1 Your Name: '

I have participated in groups using-the Quaker way of reaching group decisions for _____ years (approximately), and have served as clerk of one or more groups using the process for a total of _____ years (approx).

Ify relationship with Friends has been primarily through the following "branch" of Quakerism (circle one or more): Conservative, EFA, FITM. FGC. ONAFFILIATED MEETINGS.

If you have had, or are currently having, important experiences with the Quaker group decision process which this form does not elicit, please use the back of the form to -describe such experiences. APPENDIX E

ROUND III OF THE DELPHI, INCLUDING LETTER, INSTRUCTIONS, AND

FORMS, PLUS THE "ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS" FORM AND

A LEARNING RESOURCES SUGGESTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE

ZOh 205

May 3, 1973

Dear Friend,

The packet contains the last phase of our research together. I am grateful for your past cooperation and look forward to your responses to the enclosed materials.

Enclosed is Round III of the Delphi process. Please note that you are to return only the right-hand portion of the Round III response forms. You may thus keep the statements and the interim results as a product of the group's efforts. I will supplement this at a later date with the final results.

The purposes of Round III, in accordance with the Delphi technique, are to provide each respondent with an opportunity to (1) reconsider and revise his/her earlier ratings and (2) to briefly defend any rating that remains outside the group opinion. You are also asked to rate the new statements suggested in the last round and to comment on them if you wish.

Looking at the Round III forms you will notice the following:

1. that the statements are the same as they were for Round II

(one of the "rules" of the Delphi process);

2. that a few new statements, suggested in Round II, have been added for your rating and comment;

3. that a "group agreement" appears for many of the statements

("Group agreement" simply means that more than 50 per cent of the group agreed upon that rating in the last round,); 206

that a column exists for you to again give a priority rating on every statement,' and

5. that a .space exists for you to give your reasons for staying outside the group agreement, should that occur.

Round III, then, offers you the opportunity to see where the group agreement existed in the Round II rankings. It gives you the opportunity to re-evaluate your original rankings on the basis of the group's rankings. You should re-evaluate all your rankings, including the statements which did not receive a ranking agreed to by the group. Also, please remember the special purpose of the "reasons" section of the

Round III form. It is for your reasons for remaining outside any group ranking ... assuming that the statement achieved a group ranking from

Round II and assuming that your Round III ranking differs from the

Round II group ranking.

The second form is for the recording of your suggestions of how persons can be aided in learning the Quaker way of reaching group decisions. Such information has not been collected before. Your back­ ground and interest provide an excellent resource. I hope you v/ill be able to share it in this way.

Should the information on the enclosed forms not further clarify the directions, please feel free to call me (614-263-2802, reversing the charges) or drop me a note. I'll be happy to answer your questions.

I request that you return the completed forms to me (return envelope enclosed) within the next three weeks - by May 30 - if at all possible.

Thank you again for your continued interest and participation.

Best wishes, Matt Drake 207 EXPLANATIONS ... DEFINITIONS ... DIRECTIONS

Delphi Round III

Explanations; Listed in Column A (at left, below) are the original statements. Column 5 contains the rankings agreed to by the group in the last round.* Column C contains your Round II rankings of every statement. Column D provides spaces for your re-evaluated rankings of every statement. Column E provides spaces for your reasons for staying outside the group agreement, if your ranking in Column D does not agree with an existing group ranking in Column B.

* "the group's agreement" was determined by counting the number of times each ranking was used in each statement in Round II. If seven or more persons (out of twelve total) used the same ranking for a statement, that ranking was considered the "group agreement" and the agreed-to rank was listed in Column B.

Suggested Procedure: Proceeding from left to right, read a state­ ment, Then look at Column B to see if a ranking for that statement was agreed to by the group in Round II. Next, look at Column C to see how you ranked the statement last time. Now, after considering your origi­ nal ranking, put a Round III ranking for the statement in Column D. If your Round III ranking disagrees with an existing Column B ranking for the statement, please state briefly in Column E your reasons for contin­ uing to disagree with the Column B ranking.

* For the Column D rankings use the following key: J_ = first priority, 2 = second priority, 2 = third priority, and = fourth priority.

* Please fill in all the blanks in Column D.

* Please fill in the appropriate blanks in Column E,

* Please detatch the Right-hand portions of the Round III forms and mail them, with the attached sheet of new statements and with your responses to the Suggestions Questionnaire, to me by May 30! t

Round III Response Form A Name

THE ESSENTIALS OF THE QUAKER WAY OF REACHING GROUP DECISIONS ARB AS FOLLOWS: ______

(b) (c) Your (d) Your (e) Reasons for (a) Group previous , re-evaluated disagreement between Statements ranking ranking . ranking Columns (b) & (d)

1, Each person participates - fully, openly and helpfully. •

2, Someone tests the group's readiness to decide by summarizing the discussion and/or by attempting to state the cense of the meeting. •

3, Participants are open to the thoughts

and feelings of others. •

if. Onco an issue is presented, the participants share their information, feelings and opinions on it.

5. Differences are recognized, accepted without antagonism, and worked through to an understanding of them and/or creative solutions to them.

6. The participants attempt to reach unity in their decisions, ______• _____ ' Please cut along the dotted line and ' , return this portion of the form to me. Round III Response Form A Continued Name

(b) (c) Your . (d) Your (e) Reasons for (a) Group previous . re-evaluated disagreement betv/een Statements ranking ranking . ranking Columns (b) & (d)

7. Participants relate to one another in love and trust. •

3. Decisions can be deferred; reasons may include insufficient information, clarity or unity. «

9. The decision process begins with a statement, as clear and concise as possible, of the problem to be considered or of the kind of decision to bo made.

10. The group decision can bo non-unaniraous, in which case the dissenter stands aside, allowing the group to proceed. ______• . ______•

11. The group decision is identified by a statement which all agree expresses the sense of the meeting. ______• _____ '

12. Decisions are accurately recorded for future reference. ______• ______. Please cut along the dotted line and . return this portion of the form to me.

ru o VO Round III Response Form A Continued Name

(b) (c) Your (d) Your (e) Reasons for (a) Group previous . re-ovaluatod disagreement between Statements ranking ranking . ranking Columns (b) & (d)

13. Participants center down and silently worship together prior to considering the business and, at times, before making specific decisions.

lif. A person can block the group decision if one feels it opposes a deeply held value/ truth which has not been recognized.

13. In reaching decisions, participants seek Divine Guidance/God's will within themselves and in one another.

16. At the introduction of an issue for consideration, relevant information is pre­ sented, such as the issue’s context, con­ straints and history (if it has been before the group previously). ______. ______

17. In the discussion, the participants seek full information, attempting to see all sides of the issue. _____ • . ______. Please cut along the dotted line and ( . return this portion of the form to me. Bound III Response Form A Name

(b) (c) Your • (d) Your (e) Reasons for (a) Group previous . re-evaluated disagreement between Statements ranking ranking . ranking Columns (b) & (d) 18. In the case of a dissenter who allows the group to proceed, the individual can be recorded as personally opposed or unclear and/or the individual can meet with a small committee, appointed by the group, to discuss the issue further*

19. The clerk of the meeting facilitates the above activities (1-18).

20. The clerk, at the end of the discussion, formulates the group's decision and presents it, without defense, to the group for improve­ ment and/or acceptance.

21. Enough time is available to allow the above activities (1-20) to occur without haste.

22. The process is a group experience; partici­ pants familiar with it and with one another facilitate the process. ______. _____ . Please cut along the dotted line and . return this portion of the form to me.

ru Round III Response Form B Name

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE KINDS OF INFORMATION (KNOWLEDGE) A PARTICIPANT SHOULD HAVE ABOUT THE QUAKER GROUP DECISION PROCESS: The participant should:

(b) (c) Your . (d) Your (e) Reasons for (a) Group previous . re-evaluated disagreement between Statements ranking ranking ranking Columns (b) & (d) 1. have full information on the way in which the Quaker group decision proceGs works (proce­ dures, outcomes, expected participant behaviors. .)

2. know that the process is based on the religious insight that God may speak directly to any person. •

3. be familiar with writings about the process, such as found in Howard Brinton's books, Faith and Practice, and John Woolman’s Journal.

/f. know that the process was utilized by the earliest Friends and has been used continuously in the Society ever since.

5. know that the Quaker group decision process is rooted in historical Christianity. . Please cut along dotted line and . return thiG portion of the form to me. Round III Response Form B Continued Name

(b) (c) Your . (d) Your (e) Reasons for (a) Group previous . re-evaluated disagreement between Statements ranking ranking . ranking Columns (b) & (d) 6. have some information, (such as significant Yearly Meeting decisions), about Friends* success­ ful and, at times, unsuccessful use of the process in the past.

7. know that the process is consistent with the way in which Quakers attempt to live.

8. know that good experience "in" the process is more helpful to a participant than knowledge "about" the process.

9. know the fundamental differences between the Quaker way of reaching group decisions and other group decision processes (Involving voting, political maneuvering...).

10. know the important differentiations of the process, such as between unanimity and the sense of the meeting, between disagreeing-but-perraitting and blocking the group decision.

11. have some knowledge of the Biblical teaching of Christian unity and its relationship to group decisions, V . Please cut along the dotted line and . return this portion of the form to mo. Round III Response Form B Continued Name

(b) (c)Your . (d) Your (e) Reasons for (a) Qroup previous . re-evaluated disagreement between Statements ranking ranking . ranking Columns (b) & (d)

12. know that the purpose of the process is to give the Spirit opportunity to lead the participants unitedly.

Please cut along the dotted line and return this portion of the form to me. Round III Response Form C Name

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE KINDS OF ABILITIES (SKILLS) A PARTICIPANT SHOULD BRING TO THE QUAKER GROUP DECISION PROCESS: The participant should have the ability to:

(b) (c) Your . (d) Your (e) Reasons for (a) Group previous , re-evaluated disagreement between Statements ranking ranking . ranking Columns (b) & (d) 1. find common ground among differing views and help others to see the comraonalitios. ______• ______

2. constructively utilize humor, ______• _____ '

3. sense the group's feelings and needs, to point them out when helpful, and to suggest procedures, ______• ______k , be patient ••• with the desire to express own views, with inarticulate speakers, with the group process... ______• ______

5. speak clearly, concisely and relevantly. ______• ______

6. love ... especially to love another while differing with that person's ideas. ______• '

7. synthesize, recombine and to summarize the discussion. ______« _____ . . Please cut along the dotted line and ^ . return this portion of the form to me. Hound III Response Form C Continued Name

(b) (c) Your • (d) Your (e) Reasons for (a) Group previous • re-ovaluated disagreement between Statements ranking ranking • ranking Columns (b) & (d) 8. perceive areas of agreement and disagreement or conflict and to state them nonjudgmentally. •

9. listen ... with accuracy, calmness and understanding. a

10. be sensitive to the feelings, perceptions and thoughts of others. . ■ • •

11. utilize her/his own knowledge and feelings, combined with the insights from the group, in reaching a decision. a

1?.. recognize, understand and express his/her own feelings. •

13. assume control of her/his own life, enabling one to be totally present for the full time a decision is to be made.

1/f. recognize and understand nonverbal behavior.

15. discern the mind of the Spirit/God's voice in one's self and in others.

\ Please cut along the dotted line and return this portion of the form to me. Hound III Response Form C Continued Name

(b) (c) Your • (d) Your (e) Reasons for (a) Group previous • re-evaluated disagreement between Statements ranking ranking • ranking Columns (b) & (d) 16, worship, to open one’s self to the spirit of truth inside. •

1 7, utilize silence constructively, entering into quiet searching through prayer and concentration. •

18, submerge striving for an individual solution in the group search for a mutually agreeable resolution. •

1 9. gracefully withdraw objections and help others to do so. •

20, be imaginative in the search for solutions. •

21. deal constructively with conflict. e

22. break large issues down to manageable size. •

. Please cut along the dotted line and . return this portion of the form to me. Round III Response Form D Name

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE KINDS OF BELIEFS (ATTITUDES) A PARTICIPANT SHOULD BRING TO THE QUAKER GROUP DECISION PROCESS: The participant should: 1

(b) (c) Your • (d) Your (e) Reasons for (a) Group previous • re-evaluated disagreement between Statements ranking ranking • ranking Columns (b) & (d) 1 * believe in silence as a method for assisting group decision-making. •

2. believe in God and in God's potential helpfulness in the decision process. •

3. value the Quaker way of reaching decisions, believing that it works and works better than other group decision processes. •

4. believe that Truth/God's will/a right way/ God's leading exists in any given issue and can be discovered by a corporate, loving, patient, *

persistent, open search. •

3. believe that clarity on God's will can be obtained, conflicts can be resolved, and right decisions made if participants are open to the leadings of the Spirit. •

. Please cut along the dotted line and . return this portion of the form to me* Round III Response Form D Continued Name

(b) (c) Your . (d) Your (e) Reasons for (a) Group previous . re-evaluated disagreement between Statements ranking ranking . ranking Columns (b) & (d) 6. believe that the greater the differences of perception of the truth, the fuller the truth that will be revealed, if labored through until agreement is reached.

7. be committed to a group solution and willing, in most cases, to set aside one's own opinions and desires in favor of the group.

8. view the process seriously and be willing to incorporate the decisions into the partici­ pant's own life.

9. believe that differences and/or conflicts are natural and are to be valued, sought out and worked through.

10. believe in the ability of all participants to learn, grow and to see clearly,

11. believe the Scriptural teaching of unity, love and the bond of affection.

. Please cut along the dotted line and • return this portion of the form to me Round III Response Form D Continued Name

(b) (c) Your . (d) Your (e) Reasons for (a) Group previous . re-evaluated disagreement between Statements ranking ranking . ranking ColumnG (b) & (d) 12. believe that we are not looking merely for consensus but for the right leading of God. ______. ______

1 3. have the attitude that this process is in keeping with the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. ______. ______

1 /*. have the attitude that the process of decision-making takes time, patience, per- serverence and energy. _____ — • — — ______

15. believe that greater truth exists in the whole than in any part, that a group decision is not a compromise but a judgment of a higher order than an individual’s decision. . ______

16. believe that since the seed of truth exists in each participant, a corporate truth can be obtained.

1?. believe that since a spark of the Divine exists in each person, each person is to be loved and her/his contribution to be valued.

Please cut along the dotted line and return this portion of the form to me. Round III Response Form D Continued Name

(b) (c) Your . (d) Your (e) Reasons for (a) Group previous . re-evaluated disagreement between Statements ranking ranking . ranking Columns (b) & (d) 18. believe in the Spirit controlled and directed life, in the continued revelation of truth ... through one's self and any other participant. _ —_____ ■

1 9. believe in approaching issues without pre-formed conclusions but with a willingness to learn. . ____ . , ______

20. believe that one’s own well-considered ideas and insights may be valuable to the group's considerations, while acknowledging one's own fallibility. _____ • — — ______

21. believe in one's self enough to refuse to accept the group's decision if one is deeply opposed on an important matter ofprinciple, ______• — — ______

22. believe that the process will not always work. ______. ______

23. believe that action, rather than inaction, may need to be taken, even though, as human beings, we may not have chosen the right leading. ______• ______\ . Please cut along the dotted line and • return this portion of the form to me# Round III Response Form D Continued Name

(*> (c) Your (d) Your (e) Reasons for (a) Group previous . re-evaluated disagreement between Statements ranking. ranking . ranking Columns (b) & (d)

24. believe that the Quaker way of reaching group decisions is basically a religious process and that onefs attitude should be of worship, of prayerful seeking for Divine guidance.

25. believe that God leads His people unitedly.

26. believe that the group making the decision has a significance and validity of its own.

27. believe in the worth of waiting, allowing the group to stop short of a decision in order to await a clearer sense of how to move forward or postponing a decision until next meeting to allow individuals time to seek within themselves and/or with one another.

. Please cut along the dotted line and . return this portion of the form to me. 223

Additional Statements from Round II Name — ______

In Round II you were asked to suggest additional statements for the four areas. The following (with some editing) were suggested. Please rate the statements in the usual manner: 1 = first priority, 2 * second priority, ^ = third priority and k = fourth priority. Comment upon the statements if you wish.

A - THE ESSENTIALS OF THE QUAKER WAY OF REACHING GROUP DECISIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: Your Statements Rating Comments 1. Participants face conflict openly by stating and recognizing and accepting it, rather than trying to avoid it. ______

2. The process is part of a larger group experience; partici­ pants are familiar with each other from shared worship, committee, social and other activities.

3. With routine matters, the opening statement may include a tentative minute for consideration and approval.

i f Hany routine matters can be disposed of on a "without objection" basis, especially in an ongoing group. .

5. The group may decide to dele­ gate the final decision on an issue to a committee, giving it the authority to decide and act.

6. A person must express his/ her opposition to a decision, if it conflicts with a deeply held value/ truth not earlier recognized. This may result in failure to roach an immediate decision. 224

Name

Additional Statements from Hound II Continued

Your Statements . Rating Comments

7. The group may decide to ask a committee to provide it with infor­ mation and/or guidance about a subject, in which case the group participants accept, v/ith faith, the information and leading of the committee. ______

C - THE FOLLOWING ARE THE KINDS OF ABILITIES (SKILLS) A PARTICIPANT SHOULD BRING TO THE QUAKER GROUP DECISION PROCESS:

The participant should have the ability to:

1, be objective ... with her/his own views as well as with the views of others. ______

2. recognize his/her own distress and the distress of others as different from religious leadings and be able to work through distress in a constructive way during and in between meetings.

3. worship, recognizing that this is, in part at least, a skill developed by continual practice, outside as well as inside the gathered meeting.

4. state ideas in proposal form.

5. initiate.

6. occasionally interject humor into the proceedings to help the group get over hard spots. 225

Name

Additional Statements from Round II Continued

Your Statements Rating Comments

D - THE FOLLOV/ING ARE THE KINDS OF BELIEF (ATTITUDES) A PARTICIPANT SHOULD BRING TO THE QUAKER GROUP DECISION PROCESS:

The participant should:

1. be willing to set aside her/his own personal opinions and desires. ______

2. bring a sense of proportion to the group and its proceedings, being able for example, to recognize and laugh about incongruities.______

Note: Please check to make sure that you return to me at least nineteen (19) sheets or portions thereof. That is, you should nail the right hand portions of the Round III forms (15 pages), these three pages of additional statements, and your suggestions for learning aids and experiences. Thanks for putting up with all the cutting and nailing.

% Name ______

Suggestions Questionnaire

Please list and briefly describe your suggestions of helpful aids and experiences for learning the Quaker way of reaching group decisions.

"Loarning aids and experiences'* can include such resources as: books, self-teaching/self-learning materials, individual and group exercises, and group games and simulations. Be sure to include experiential learn­ ing possibilities, such as, "hear ( ) describe the process," "be a part of the group when ( ) is clerking," "participate in ( ) group when they are taking up business,'* etc. Feel free to go outside

Quaker circles to pull in relevant references and experiences from business, government, group dynamics, other religions, etc. Please be specific; give as complete references as possible. I want to follow up on these suggestions. Additional pages may be attached to this one.

SUGGESTIONS DESCRIPTIONS & SOURCES APPENDIX F

TABLE 3 - SUMMARY OF THE EXPERTS* RATINGS

OF THE SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AND THE

EXPERTS* COMMENTS ON THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

227 228

TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF THE EXPERTS' RATINGS OF THE

SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

% of Group Agree­ Agree­ Rating Rating ment ment Mode Mean

A1. Participants face conflict openly... 58 X 1 1.75

A2. The process is part cf a larger... 58 X 2 2.00

A3. V/ith routine matters... 50 2 2.25

A4. Many routine matters can be... 58 X 2 2.08

A5. The group may decide to... 50 1 1.83

A6, A person must express his/her- 75 X 1 1.41

A7. The group may decide to ask... 58 X 1 1.58

Cl. be objective,,.with own views.,, bZ 1/2 1.83

C2. recognize his/her own distress.. . • 50 1 - 1.67

C3. worship, recognizing that this.. . bZ 1/2 1.92

C4. state ideas in proposal... 50 2 2.17

C5. initiate... 42 2 2.42

C6. occasionally interject humor... 67 X 2 2.08

D1 . be willing to set aside... 83 X 1 1.25

D2. bring a sense of proportion... 58 X 2 1.51 229

THS EXPERTS' COMMENTS ON THIS ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

The experts offered thirty-two comments on the added statements.

These were recorded and placed into five categories. The largest cate­ gory (twelve comments) consisted of attempts to limit or qualify the statements. The best example of this category follows:

The group may decide to ask a committee to provide it with information and/or guidance about a subject, in which case the group participants accept, with faith, the information and leading of the committee.

Comments - "with faith but not without examination"

"the last more doubtful 'unless there appears some

obvious error or omission'"

"group for info, a good idea but why must we accept their leading."

"But not assume the committee is infallible"

"Yes, provided the full group seeks together after the

committee has presented its insights."

The next largest category includes eight comments which indicated agreement or disagreement with the statements. Examples are ( 2-A )

"very important" and ( 12-A ) "No - all issues should be opened to full

consideration. What might be a routine matter to me could be an irritant

to you." The third largest category consists of seven comments on the

essential or unessential nature of the statement. An example is one

expert's comment for ( 1-C ) "useful but not mandatory." In the smallest

categories were three comments concerning a lack of understanding of

terms and two comments relating statements to the role of the clerk. 230

Examples of these two categories, respectively are: ( 5-C ) "don't know what's meant" and ( 1-D ) "esp. impt. for clerk." BIBLIOGRAPHY

231 23 2

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. American Friends Service Committee, Decision-Makers. (A game of role playing) New York: Lew York Regional Office, American Friends Service Committee,

2. Anderson, Donald P, Clarifying and Setting Objectives on an Intermediate School District's Objectives Utilizing the Delphi Technique. A paper presented at an AERA Symposium: Exploring the Potential of the Delphi Techniques by Analyzing Its Applications, March h, 1970, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1970. (Mimeographed.)

3. Arvio, Cynthia, et al. Quakerism: A View from the Back-benches. Pomona, New York: The Backbenchers, 1966.

*f. Bach, Robert 0. (ed,) Communication: the Art of Understanding and Being Understood. New York: Hastings House, 1963.

5. Bacon, Margaret H. The Quiet Rebels. The Story of the Quakers in America. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 19&9.

6. Bartoo, Glenn. "Quaker Decisions - A Study of Decisions by Consensus and of the Related Norms and Beliefs." Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Chicago, 1952.

7. Bender, A. Douglas, et al. A Delphi Study of the Future of Medicine. Philadelphia: Smith, Kline and French Laboratories, Philadelphia R & D Division, 1969. _

8. Bergevin, Paul and Morris, Dwight. A Manual for Group Discussion Particinants. New York: Seabury Press, 1965.

9. Bernstein, George B. A Fifteen-Year Forecast of Information-Process­ ing Technology. Final Report. Washington, D. C.: Naval Supply Systems Command, January 20, 1969. (In Research in Education: ED Okk 1/+6).

10. Blake, Robert Rogers and Mouton, J, S. Group Dynamics - Key to Decision-Mailing. Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Co., 1961.

It. Brinton, Howard H. Creative Worship and Other Essays. Pendle Hill, Wallingford, Pennsylvania: Pendle Hill Publications, 1963.

12. Brinton, Howard H. Friends for 300 Years. Pendle Hill, Wallingford, Pennsylvania: Pendle Hill Publications and Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, 1965. 233

13. Brinton, Howard H. Guide to Quaker Practice. (Pendle Hill Pamphlet Number 20.) Pendle Hill, Wallingford, Pennsylvania: Pendle Hill Publications, 1955.

14. Brinton, Howard II. Reaching Decisions: the Quaker Method. (Fondle Hill Pamphlet Number 65.) Pondle Hill, Wallingford, Pennsylvania; Pendle Hill Publications, 1952.-

15. Bronner, Edwin B. (ed.) American Quakers Today. Philadelphia: Friends V/orld Committee, American Section and Fellowship Council, 1966.

16. Brown, Thomas S. When Friends Attend to Business. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of tho Religious Society of Friends.

17. Brunner, Edmund S., et al. The Use of Discussion. Washington, D.C.: Adult Education Association of the U.S.A., 1959. (In Research in Education: ED 022 079).

18. Byhouwer, Peiter. "The Conduct of Business," Friends Journal, XVII, No. 10 (Hay 15, 1971), 312.

19. Cadbury, Henry J. Quakerism and Early Christianity. London: Allen and Unv/in, 1957.

20. Chase, Stuart. Roads to Agreement. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951.

21. Clark, Burton R. The Distinctive College: Antioch, Reed and Swarthnore. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1970.

22. Collins, Barry and Guotzkow, Harold. A Social Psychology of Group Processes for Decision-Making. ' New York: Wiley, 19&**.

23. Comfort, William V/istar. The Quaker'Way of Life, .)ust Among Friends. Philadelphia: American Friends Service Conimittee, 1968,

21f. Cooke, Morris L. "The Quaker Way Wins New Adherents," New York Times Magazine, June 17, 1951, 21ff.

25. Crouse, Paton B. "The Right Ordering of Meetings for Business," Friends Journal, XVII, No. 2 (January 15, 1971), 55-56,

26. Cyphert, Frederick R. and Gant, Walter L. "The Delphi Technique: A Case Study," Phi Delta Harman, LII, No. 5 (January, 1971), 272-273.

27. Cytrnbaun, Sonny, "Selected T-group Exorcise for Outreach Groups." Paper, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 1968.' (Mime ograp hod,) 23A

28. Dalkey, Norman and Helmer, Olaf. "An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts," Management Science, IX, No. 3 (April, 1963), A58-A67.

29. Doncaster, L. Hugh. Quaker Organization and Business Meetings. (Study papers Number 2.) London: Friends Hone Service Committee, 1958.

30. Dubois, Rachael. Reducing Social Tension and Conflict Through the Group Conversation Method. New York: Association Press, 1971.

31. Earlhan College. Earlham College Catalogue 1972-73. Richmond, Indiana, 1972.

32. Elliott, Grace Loucks. How to Help Groups Make Decisions. (Condensed and revised in part from The Process of Group Thinking by Harrison Sacket Elliott.) New York: Association Press, 1959*

33. Emmons, Jean. "Use of the Delphi Technique in Establishing Criteria for the Selection of a Secondary School Principal." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, College of Education, The Ohio State University, 1971.

3A. Emmott, Elizabeth B. The Story of Quakerism. London: Friends' Central Education Committee, Headley Brothers, 1908.

35. English, Horace B. and English, Ava Champney. A Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms. IIe w York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1958.

36. English, Robert W. "General Robert Replies to Malcolm Knowles," Adult Leadership, II, No. 2 (June, 1953), 29.

37. Friends World Committee. Friendly Answers to Questions about American Quakers. Philadelphia: Friends World Committee, American Section and Fellowship Council.

38. Friends World Committee. 1971-1972 Friends Directory. Philadelphia: Friends World Committee, 1971.

39. Frosket, John M. Role Consensus: The Case of the Elementary School Teacher. Eugene, Oregon: Center for Advanced Study of Educational Administration, Oregon University, 1969. (In Research in Education: ED 0A9 551).

AO. Gideon, Victor C. et al. Terminology about Adult/Continuing Education: A Preliminary Structure and a Suggested Development Process. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics, November, 1971. (In Research in Education: ED 065 761) 235 if 1. Good, Carter V. (ed) Dictionary of Education. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959*

42. Gordon, Thomas. Group Centered Leadership: a V/ay of Releasing the Creative Pov/er of Groups. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1955.

43. Graham, Robert and Gray, Clifford. Business Games Handbook. Hew York: American Management Association, 1969* (In Research in Education: ED 042 954). k k. Gray, Kenny Earl. “Competencies Needed by Personnel Engaged in Program Planning in State Divisions of Vocational-Technical Education.“ Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, College of Education, The Ohio State University, 1970,

45. Hall, Jay. "Decisions, Decisions, Decisions," Psychology Today, V, No. 6 (November, 1971), 51-54ff.

46. Hall, Jay and Williams, Martha S, “A Comparison of Decision-Making Performances in Established and Ad Hoc Groups," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, III, No. 2 (February, I9 6 6), 214- 222.

47. Hall, Jay and Williams, Martha S. "Group Dynamics Training and Improved Decision-Making," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, VI, No. 1 (Spring, 1970), 39-68.

4 8. Hare, A. Paul, "Group Decision by Consensus: Reaching Unity in the Society of Friends," Sociological Inquiry. XLIII, No. 1 (January, 1973), 75-84.

49. Hare, A. Paul, et al. Small Group's: Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Knopf, 1 9 6 2.

50. Helmer, Olaf. Social Technology. New York: Basic Books, Inc, 1 9 6 6.

51. Helmer, Olaf and Rescher, Nicholas. "On the Epistemology of the Inexact Sciences," Management Science. VI, No. 1 (October, 1959), 25-52.

52. Hoffman, Halloclc. "The Quaker Dialogue," in The Civilization of the Dialogue (A Center Occasional Paper, II, Ho. 1) Santa Barbara, California: The Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, December, 1968, 9-12.

53. Hole, Francis D. How Can Friends Meetings Discover and Discharge Their Responsibilities? Philadelphia: Advancement Committee, Friends General Conference, 1962. 236 54. Holloman, Charles R, and Hendrick, Hal W. ''Adequacy of Group Decisions as a Function of the Decision Making Process," Academy of Management Journal, XV, No. 2 (June, 1972) 175-184.

55. Hopkins, Charles 0. et al. Delphi; A Planning Tool. Stillwater, Oklahoma: Division of Research, Planning, and Evaluation, Oklahoma State Department of Vocational and Technical Education, 1972. (In Research in Education: ED 065 6 8 9)

56. Houle, Cyril 0. The Design of Education. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1972.

57. James, Sidney V. A People Among Peoples. Quaker Benevolence in Eighteenth-Century America. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1 9 6 3.

58. Jani6, Irving L. "Groupthink," Psychology Today, V, No. 6 (November, 1971), 43-76.

59. Jones, Rufus M. Mysticism and Democracy in the English Commonwealth. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1932.

60. Jones, Rufus M. The Quakers in the American Colonies. New York: W, W. Norton, 1 9 6 6.

61. Jones, Rufus,M. "The Sense of the Meeting," in The Quaker Reader, Jessamyn West (ed#); New York: The Viking Press, 1962, 411-415*

62. Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L, The Social Psychology of Organi­ zations. New York: V/iley, 19 6 6.

63. Kenworthy, Leonard S. Toward a Fourth Century of Quakerism, (no publisher) 1952.

6 4* Key, V.O. Public Opinion and American Democracy. New York: Alfred - A. Knopf, 1967.

65. Knowles, Malcolm S. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Androgogy Versus Pedagogy. New York: The Association Press, .1970.

66. Knowles, Malcolm S. "Move Over, Mr. Robert," Adult Leadership, I, Ho, 2 (June, 1952), 2-4.

6?. Knowles, Malcolm S. and Knowles, Hulda. Introduction to Group Dynamics. Rev. od. New York: The Association Press, 1972.

68. Lippitt, Gordon L. Quest for Dialogue. (I966 Rufus Jones Lecture) Philadelphia: Religious Education Committee, Friends General Conference, 1966. 237

6 9. London Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends. Church Government. London: Headley1 Brothers Ltd., 1968.

70. Loukes, Harold. Friends Face Reality. London: The Bannisdale Press, 1954.

71. McCaffrey, Colin. Potentialities for Community Development in a Kekchi Indian Village in British Honduras. Ph.D. thesis. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1967. (No. 68-5779).

72. MacDonald, Douglas C. "Consensus in Friends Schools," Position paper for the conference on "Quakers as Educators," Pendle Hill, Wallingford, Pennsylvania, June 27 - July 2, 1971.

73. McGrath, Joseph E. and Altman, I. Snail Group Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1 9 6 6.

74. Maurer, Herrynon. "Management by Committee," Fortune (April, 1953)» 145-147ff.

75. Miles, Matthew. Learning to Work in Groups. Hew York: Columbia University Press, 1959.

76. Milligan, Edward H. Brltannica on Quakerism. London: Friends Home Service Committee, 1965.

77. The National Association for Public Continuing and Adult Education. The Second Treasury of Techniques for Teaching Adults. Washington, D.C.: The National Association for Public Continuing and Adult Education, 1970.

78. Nesbitt, Charles E. "Proposed Basic Criteria Needed for-Developing Relevant Adult Basic Education Programs for Use in Urban Black Communities." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, College of Education, The Ohio State University, 1972.

79. Newman, William. Administrative Action: the Techniques of Organi­ zation and Management. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1 9 6 3.

80. Nimmo, Dan and Ungs, Thomas D. American Political Patterns: Conflict and Consensus. 2nd ed, Boston: Little Brown, 1969.

81. Ohliger, John. Syllabus for Education 672 - Introduction to Adult Education. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1 9 6 7, 22, 25-26. (In Research in Education: ED 023 954). 233

82. Osinski, Franklin Y/.V/. et al. Tov/ard Gog and Magog or?; A Critical Review of the Literature of Adult Grout) Discussion. Syracuse, Hew York: Syracuse University, ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Education, Hew York Publications Program in Continuing Education, 1972. (In Research in Education: ED 066 652)

83. Otto, M.A. and Mann, J. Y/ays of Growth: Approaches to Expanding Awareness. Hew York: Grossman, 1966.

8ff. The Oxford English Dictionary. Vol. II. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1961.

85. Pfeiffer, Jay V/. and Jones, John, Handbook of Structured Experi­ ences for Human Relations Training. Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press, University of Iowa, 1969.

86. Pfeiffer, Jay V/. and Jones, John. The 1972 Handbook for Group Facilitators. DelMar, California: Psycho-Sources, CRM Books, 1972.

8 7. Pfeiffer, John. Hew Look at Education: Systems Analysis in our Schools and Colleges. Hew York: The Odyssey Press, 19ob.

88. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. Faith and Practice of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, A 3ook of Christian Discipline. (Adopted 1955. Printed with subsequent revisions. Fourth printing, 19°5) Philadelphia: Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, 1965.

89. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. Faith and Practice. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, A Bool: of Christian Discipline. (Adopted 1955. Revised 1972) Philadelphia: Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, 1972.

90. Pollard, Francis Edward, et al. Democracy and the Quaker Method. London: The Bannisdale Press, 1949.

91. Rasmussen, Glen R. "Self Training in Group Problem Solving," Adult Leadership, V, Ho. 3 (September, 1956), 88-89ff»

92. Research in Education. Y/ashington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, U.S. Office of Education, National Center for Educational Communication.

93. Richards, Mary Caroline, Centering: In Pottery, Poetry, the Person. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 196if.

9^. Robert, General Henry M. Robert»s Rules of Order. Newly revised by Sarah Corbin Robert. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1970. 239

93. Roberts', Arthur 0. "Quaker Growth," ' Friends Journal, XIX, No, 3 (February 1, 1973)» 38-39.

96. Roberts, William P, The Quakers as. Type of the Spirit Centered Community, Manasquan, New Jersey: Catholic and Quaker Studies, 1972.

97. Ruoss, Meryl. Citizen Power and Social Change - The Challenge to Churches. New York: The Seabury Press, 1 9 6 8.

9 8. Samuel, Yitzhack. Social Consensus and Social Change: A Study of Groups in Complex Organizations. U.S. Government Report Number AD-71*7653, August, 1972.

99. Schmeidler, Emilie. "Ideology and Organization in a Friends Meeting." A paper prepared for Sociology 522-523. Ann Arbor Michigan: University of Michigan, August, 1970. (Mimeographed.)

100. Schmidt, Warren H. and Buchanan, Paul C. Techniques that Produce Teamwork. New London, Connecticut: A.C. Croft Publishers, 195*f*

101. Selleck, George A. Principles of the Quaker Business Meeting. Executive Council, New England Yearly Meeting, 1973.

102. Shils, Edward. "The Concept of Consensus," in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. Ill, Edited by David S, Sills. New York: The Macmillan Company and The Free Press by Crowell Collier and Macmillan, Inc., 1 9 6 8.

103. Smith, Clifford Neal. "Friends and the Delphi Technique," Friends Journal. XVII, No. 11* (September 1, 1971), 1*25-426.

101*. Steere, Douglas V. Where Words Come From. (Swarthraore Lecture Pamphlet.) London: Friends Hone Service Committee, 1953, 1968.

105. Stern, T. Noel. "Creative Unity Among Friends," Friends Journal, XIX, No. 6 (March 15, 1973), 165.

106. Stevens, Elaine. "Unity in Spirit." Letter to the Editor, Quaker Life, Series XIV, No. 5 (May, 1973), 31.

107. Stokes, Kenneth. "Religious Institutions," in 1970 Handbook of Adult Education. Edited by Robert !i. Smith, George F. Aker and V.R. Kidd. New York: Adult Education Association of the U.S.A., The Macmillan Company, 1970, 353-370.

108. Stranahan, Edward H, The History of Friends - An Outline Study. Oskaloosa, Iowa: The Friends Publication Board, Five Years Meeting of Friends in America, 1930. 240 109. Swanson, Guy 2. "The Effectiveness of Decision-Making Groups," Adult Leadership, VIII, No. 2 (June, 1959)» 48-52.

110. Thelen, Herbert A. Dynamics of Groups at Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.

111. Tough, Allen. The Adults Learning Projects. A Fresh Approach to Theory and Practice in Adult Learning. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1971.

112. Trueblood, D, Elton. The People Called Quakers. New York: Harper St Row, Publishers, 1966.

113. Trueblood, D. Elton, "The Quaker Method of Reaching Decisions," in Beyond Dilemmas. Edited by S.B. Laughlin. Port Washington, New York: Kennikat Press, 1937, 104-125.

114. Uhl, Norman P. Encouraging Convergence of Opinion, through the Use of the Delphi Technique, in the Process of Identifying an Institution's Goals. (Report No. PR-71-2) Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, February, 1971. (In Research in Education: ED 049 713)

113. Walker, Janes F. "The Quaker Meeting for Business," Pendle Hill Bulletin, No. 190 (April, 1967), 1-3.

116. Warner, Malinda. "Understanding Consensus," Peacemaker, XXVI, Ho. 3 (February 24, 1973), 1-2.

117. Weaver, W. Timothy. Delphi, A Critical Review - A Research Report. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Research and Development. Syracuse University Research Corporation and The Hew York Educational Policy Research Center, February, 1972. (In Research in Education: ED 061 636)

118. Weaver, \7. Timothy, "The Delphi Forecasting Method," Phi Delta Kappan, LII, No. 5 (January, 1971), 267-271.

119. WebSTgP'D 'Ktw-Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts: G St C Kerriara Co., Publishers, 1959, 332-333.

120. V/ennerberg, Ulf. "Using the Delphi Technique for Planning the Future of Libraries," UNESCO Bulletin for Libraries, XXV, No. 5. 1972, 242-246ff. (In Research in Education: ED 066 972)

121. Whalen, William J» The Quakers...Our Neighbors, The Friends. Chicago: Claretian Publications, 1966.

% 2if1

122. Wilson, James D. "Quakerism and the Democratic Process," Quaker Life, Series XIV, No. 5 (May, 1973), 27.

123. Wilson, Hoger C. Authority Leadership and Concern. (Swarthmore Lecture Pamphlet.) London: Friends Home Service Committee, 19^9, 1970.