Sohail Inayatullah, Mykola Kyrchenko, Olha Petroye, and Olha Prosina
Introduction: Imagining Beyond the Bunker
On July 9, 2026, along with local colleagues I, Sohail Inayatullah, facilitated a workshop on the future of education in Kyiv. The context was brutal, with the possibility of workshop setting being bombed. While we had worked in Croatia after the war, this was different as the war was present. What I learned from other encounters in challenging places – war zones, or communities battling with collective depression and fatigue (farming federations) or organizations where the future was not a possibility but a site of fear – was to acknowledge what was real in the moment, to not be overly optimistic and inappropriately focus on visionary thinking. I understood that I needed to ensure that the questioning of the current future was therapeutic and not merely clever.
Fittingly, the university rector’s greeting began with a moment of silence for the fallen, framing our task with a solemn urgency: this was not an academic exercise but a necessary act of hope. As Olha Prosina, a director at the host university, stated, our work was to be carried out ” with the thought of the children of the future.” The challenge was not merely to improve Ukrainian education but, in the face of national trauma, to fundamentally change the perspective on its future.
In conditions of such overwhelming crisis, the “weight of the present” is immense. The default response is to retreat into a metaphorical bunker – especially problematic given drone warfare – to focus entirely on survival. Futures thinking, however, argues that it is precisely in such moments that imagining a different future becomes a critical act of agency. This essay documents the process of using the futures – from scenarios to Causal Layered Analysis (Inayatullah, 1998) – to help a group of Ukrainian educational leaders move beyond the bunker, analyze the deep stories shaping their reality and begin to co-create possible transformative and healing pathways toward 2036.
Ukrainian context
The workshop was organized by the State Institution of Higher Education “University of Educational Management” of the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Institute of Education Development, in partnership with the UNESCO Chair in Futures Studies, AMURTEL Romania, and the Neohumanist Education Association. The event took place in the conference hall of the State Institution of Higher Education “University of Educational Management” of the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine in Kyiv. The University of Educational Management and the Ukrainian Institute of Education Development were responsible for organizing the event, recruiting participants, and providing professional coordination throughout the workshop. The international partners—AMURTEL Romania and the Neohumanist Education Association—coordinated collaboration with Ukrainian educational institutes. Participants met face to face while I participated via zoom in English. The online process went for three hours while the physical interaction continued for a few more hours. Groups formed through self-organizing principles with participants speaking in Ukrainian.
The workshop was conceived by the organizers as not merely a lecture on futures studies but as a collaborative foresight laboratory for Ukrainian educational leaders. Its primary purpose was to create a space in which educators, leaders of higher education institutions, researchers, representatives of public authorities, and international experts could jointly reflect on the long-term future of Ukrainian education despite the immediate challenges associated with the war.
The workshop aimed to help participants move beyond reactive thinking, develop futures literacy, explore alternative scenarios for the development of education in 2036, identify outdated assumptions that constrain the development of the education system, and collaboratively formulate new narratives capable of supporting its systemic transformation. Rather than attempting to predict the future, the workshop was designed to strengthen participants’ capacity to imagine, discuss, and design desirable futures for education.
The workshop brought together 30 representatives from different levels of Ukraine’s education system and educational policy. Participants included professors, researchers, and leaders of higher education institutions; principals of general secondary schools; representatives of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Institute of Education Development, and the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine; leaders and specialists of postgraduate teacher education institutions; experts from the National Agency of Ukraine on Civil Service; representatives of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Committee on Education, Science and Innovation; representatives of international organizations; as well as representatives of civil society organizations working in the fields of education and educational innovation.
Formation of the National Education System Following Independence
Since gaining independence, Ukraine’s education system has evolved from a centralized Soviet-style model into a European-oriented system based on the principles of institutional autonomy, quality assurance, competency-based education, and integration into the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the European Research Area (ERA). Key milestones in this transformation included Ukraine’s accession to the Bologna Process in 2005 and the adoption of the Laws of Ukraine On Higher Education No. 1556-VII of 1 July 2014 and On Education No. 2145-VIII of 5 September 2017, which established the contemporary legal framework for the functioning of the education system, institutional autonomy, internal quality assurance, and lifelong learning.
At the beginning of independence, Ukraine inherited a centralized administrative education system characterized by standardized curricula, limited institutional autonomy, and hierarchical governance. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, the country developed a national educational curriculum, expanded Ukrainian-language instruction, introduced private educational institutions, enabled tuition-based study in higher education institutions, and shifted from the centrally planned allocation of graduates to a market-oriented model (World Bank, 2019; 2025).
Ukraine’s accession to the Bologna Process facilitated the adoption of a comparable degree structure, the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS), and European approaches to quality assurance. The introduction of External Independent Testing (EIT) as the principal admission mechanism for higher education institutions represented a significant step toward greater transparency and equitable access to higher education.
The Russian Occupation of Crimea and the Outbreak of the War in Donbas (2014).
A major challenge for Ukraine and its national education system emerged with the Russian occupation of Crimea and the outbreak of the war in Donbas in 2014, which resulted in the territorial fragmentation of the Ukrainian education system. In the occupied territories, Russian educational standards were imposed, while the use of the Ukrainian language and access to Ukrainian educational programmes were restricted. As a consequence of the Russian occupation in 2014, eighteen higher education institutions were relocated to government-controlled territory: nine from Donetsk Oblast, eight from Luhansk Oblast, and one from Crimea (Brintseva, 2026). These relocated universities lost buildings, laboratories, libraries, student dormitories, and a substantial proportion of both students and academic staff.
Despite the occupation, the period from 2014 to 2021 witnessed the establishment of the core legislative architecture of Ukraine’s contemporary education system. During this period: (1) the Laws of Ukraine On Higher Education (2014), On Scientific and Scientific-Technical Activity (2015), and On Education (2017) were adopted; (2) fiscal decentralization and the educational subvention mechanism were introduced; (3) the New Ukrainian School reform was launched, focusing on competency-based learning, critical thinking, and life skills; (4) the National Agency for Higher Education Quality Assurance was established (2015); and the development of hub schools and inclusive education was significantly expanded. Since then there has been a loss of teachers, damaged infrastructure, environmental collapse, major displacements – death and terror – making teaching and educational transformation far more difficult, and even more necessary.
Establishing Literacy for Transformation
While the above provides the context, we now turn to the actual workshop, run by the facilitator in cooperation with Didi Ananda Devapriya of the Neohumanist Education Association. Data was collected by volunteers and translated from Ukrainian to English by volunteers and through AI. The workshop began by framing futures studies not as a predictive process but as a literacy – a capacity that allows us to deconstruct the present and reconstruct new possibilities for the future (Inayatullah, 2005). In a crisis context, this literacy is built on several crucial shifts in thinking. It involves moving from seeing systems as closed to open and adaptive; extending the temporal horizon from the immediate to the generational; and, most importantly, deepening the analysis from the surface-level litany of problems to the systems, worldviews and deep metaphors that structure our reality.
To illustrate the power of this deeper analysis, I, the facilitator, introduced a familiar narrative from my work with government ministries: the “castle and the hungry wolves.” (Inayatullah, 2019). The institution sees itself as a castle protecting order and standards, while the “wolves” parents, students, the media – howl outside. This defensive metaphor, born of real pressure, inevitably leads to a dysfunctional strategy of hiding and resisting engagement. The participants’ immediate and insightful deconstruction of this metaphor – suggesting “we are all one pack” or seeing the wolves as potential partners – signaled a readiness to rewrite such limiting stories.
This process reflects the move from what Chris Argyris and Donald Schön (1978) would call single-loop learning (problem-solving within a given frame) to double-loop and narrative learning (questioning the frame itself). In a state of war, the temptation is to remain in a reactive, single-loop mode. The goal of this first phase was to establish a shared understanding that true transformation requires challenging the foundational assumptions and stories that guide our actions, a core tenet of critical futures studies (Slaughter, 1996).
Strategic Postures in the Shadow of War
The first interactive exercise was to explore the group’s strategic postures through scenario creation. After identifying the “impossible” yet transformative goals – namely, achieving national safety and overcoming systemic rigidity – we explored four archetypal responses to change based on the change progression model (Milojević, 2002; Inayatullah, Jacob, Rizk, 2020; Government of Malaysia, 2018). Participants were asked to argue for one of four futures for Ukrainian education in 2036: No Change, Marginal Change, Adaptive Change and Radical Change.
The results were a powerful diagnostic of a community grappling with trauma:
No Change (“Not Now”) – There is no time and space for the consideration of alternative and preferred futures. Safety and survival are paramount. We are exhausted, who has time for the future when we may die at any moment.
This scenario emphasized societal exhaustion, limited resources, and the need for stability and predictability. Under wartime conditions, even well-designed reforms may impose additional burdens on individuals and institutions. From this perspective, preserving the existing education system was viewed as a way of avoiding further destabilization.
Participants warned that radical reforms could undermine what is already functioning effectively, accelerate migration, and result in the loss of institutional memory. Accordingly, the central argument advanced by this group was that the education system—and, above all, the people who sustain it—must first be preserved before further large-scale reforms can be undertaken.
Marginal Change (“Finish What We Started”). Change is a luxury that cannot be afforded. These postures represent a retreat into what is known and manageable, a defensive crouch against further disruption.
Their key arguments included: the need to preserve a stable core of the education system; the importance of foundational and classical knowledge; the need to ensure continuity between educational generations; limited financial and human resources; the need to provide sufficient time for teachers’ professional development and retraining; and the risk of overburdening the education system during wartime.
In essence, this group advocated the principle that the education system should remain stable while allowing for cautious, incremental changes where they are genuinely needed.
Adaptive Change (“Building a Bridge”) represented a move toward agency, acknowledging the need for transformation but stressing a paced, supportive approach. Its metaphor of building a bridge between tradition and innovation reflects a worldview that seeks synthesis and avoids ruptures.
According to the participants, adaptive transformation requires: the gradual introduction of innovations; supporting teachers as they transform their professional thinking; sufficient time to develop new competencies; piloting new solutions before scaling them up; reducing the risk of system-wide failures; and balancing institutional stability with organizational flexibility.
Radical Change (“An Idea Whose Time Has Come”) was a visionary leap. This group argued that the crisis itself was the “burning platform,” making a complete and rapid reinvention of education not just possible, but necessary for national rebirth.
The Radical Change scenario included: moving away from a standardized model of education; personalizing educational pathways; shifting from the transmission of information to the development of diverse forms of thinking; integrating artificial intelligence into teaching and learning; redefining the role of the teacher; reimagining the university as an institution; promoting lifelong learning; responding rapidly to emerging professions and competencies; transitioning from a diploma-centred model to a competency-based model.
For this group, radical change did not imply the chaotic dismantling of the education system; rather, it meant transforming its underlying logic.
Figure 1. Scenario table by participants with assistance from Gemini and Chatgpt
These scenarios reveal the deep tension between the desire to hold on and the need to let go, a central dynamic in any transformative process especially during an existential threat.
Causal Layered Analysis: Deconstructing and Reconstructing
The deepest work of the workshop involved using Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) (Inayatullah, 1998) to deconstruct the thinking behind the challenges and opportunities facing Ukrainian education. CLA is a methodology that unpacks issues at four levels: Litany (the data and headlines), the Systemic causes (policies and structures), the Worldview (the cultural and ideological assumptions) and the deep Myth/Metaphor (the unconscious narrative). Transformation is achieved by moving back up through these layers, creating a new metaphor that enables a new worldview, which in turn supports new systems and leads to new, measurable outcomes. Given time constraints the CLA tables do not strictly follow the CLA model, they do capture the spirit of depth in analysis. The four visual modified CLAs created by the groups were particularly revealing.
- From Collapse to Resilience: The first analysis depicted the existential crisis of “universities without students.” The litany of shrinking institutions and a youth exodus was driven by the systemic reality of war, leading to a breakdown of trust. The transformative pathway involved changing the deep story from one of collapse to one of resilience. The new metaphor of “build back better” creates a worldview focused on restoring trust and fostering international cooperation. This, in turn, suggests new systems – flexible, modern and globally connected institutions – that can reverse the outflow and create a vibrant educational future. Participants did not use the conventional CLA table, but most important was the narrative of rebuilding.
Figure 2. Modified CLA table by participants with assistance from Gemini and Chatgpt
- From Deficits to Partnerships: The second analysis focused on the perceived deficits of the current system: low teacher prestige, unmotivated students and a disconnect from real-world competencies. The transformative work here was to shift the narrative from a list of disconnected problems to a holistic vision of partnership. The new metaphor of a deep and evolving partnership – between the state, universities, parents and the community – fosters a worldview of shared responsibility. This worldview enables a new system: a state-led program that supports diverse, specialized educational paths, thereby creating a modern system that is valued and effective.
Figure 3. Modified CLA table by participants with assistance from Gemini and Chatgpt
3. From Cheating to Co-creation: The third CLA tackled the challenge of AI and academic integrity. The used future is a litany of cheating, rooted in a conservative, memory-focused system. The disempowering metaphor is that of the student as a “reproductive” machine. The transformation lies in rewriting this narrative. By changing the metaphor to a “Researcher-AI Partnership,” the worldview shifts from rote learning to active thinking and collaboration. This new worldview legitimizes a systemic evolution in assessment methods, turning the threat of AI into a powerful catalyst for deeper, more authentic learning.
Figure 4. Modified CLA table by participants with assistance from Gemini
4. From the University as a goal to learning as partnership. The final analysis presented the most fundamental identity shift. The old story is of a dying institution: the “University without a Student,” burdened by “Outdated Baggage.” The worldview sees a diploma as a rigid “ticket to life,” leading to the disempowering metaphor that a student without it “is Nobody.” The transformation here is profound. The new metaphor is one of lifelong “Partnership.” This enables a worldview of the university as a “Service Platform” and a “Student Hub.” University is no longer a place you leave with a piece of paper, but a partner you engage with throughout your life.
Figure 5. Modified CLA table by participants with assistance from Gemini and Chatgpt
While this analysis is conventional in the sense that workshops around the world reflect these positions: the need for greater partnership, the need for more flexible pathways, the need for greater choice (Inayatullah and Ithnin, 2018) what was surprising was that in a situation of war and threat, participants did not revert to the “killing of the wolves” -rather they sought transformative partnerships.
Conclusion: The Futurist as a possible Healer
From our view as participants in the exercise, the journey undertaken in Kyiv was more than a typical foresight session – it was a form of collective therapy or at the very least may open space for healing. The content from our view as facilitators, organizers, and participants was fascinating – the new metaphors and strategies – but far more important it demonstrated the power of futures methodologies to create a space for a community to process trauma, externalize its deepest fears and begin to co-author a new, more hopeful story. By moving from the litany of pain and loss down to the foundational metaphors of despair and then consciously building a pathway back up toward metaphors of resilience, partnership and possibility, the participants engaged in an act of agency.
In a context where the past is traumatic and the present is overwhelming; the future is the only open space. The work of the futurist in such a setting is not to predict or prescribe, but to serve as a facilitator of imagination, a holder of space for difficult conversations and a partner in the act of authoring a new narrative. The journey from a pedagogy of pain to a pedagogy of possibility is arduous, but the educational leaders in Kyiv were willing to take this journey. Using the change progression scenario approach worked well in that agency was built into the future. This was far more important than a focus on uncertainty which would likely only aggravate the pain. The goal was to help participants see what they could do, within their zone of control.
For facilitators it is important to be mindful of the lived reality of participants, to not overly emphasize possibility, that is to be situated in the zone of control of participants. While some futures work can rightfully begin with utopias, in frightening conditions our experience is to begin with the lived reality and then assist in the creation of preferred futures.
In conclusion, this was merely a short workshop, but hopefully part of a larger learning and healing journey. We are thankful to participants for their willingness to share and stay focused in a situation of imminent threat.
AI disclosure
Along with humans (co-authors), AI – Chatgpt and Gemini- were used to translate the participant tables from Ukrainian to English. Chatgpt and Gemini were used to create the figures/tables. Microsoft Word was used for grammar and spell check.
References
Argyris, C., and Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.
Brintseva, O. (2026). The impact of war on Ukrainian universities: A difference-in-differences analysis and post-war recovery strategies. Higher Education Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.70113
Inayatullah, S. (1998). Causal layered analysis: Poststructuralism as method. Futures, 30(8), 815-829.
Inayatullah, S. (2005). Questioning the future: Methods and tools for organizational and societal transformation. Tamkang University.
Inayatullah, S. and Ithnin, F. (2018). Transformation 2050: the Alternative Futures of Malaysian Universities. USIM.
Inayatullah, S. (2019). “A Castle surrounded by hungry wolves: toward a stage theory of the uses of the future,” World Future Review, 12(1), 1-15.
Inayatullah, S., Jacob, A., & Rizk, R. (2020). Alibaba and the golden key: Scenarios of manufacturing futures in Egypt. Journal of Futures Studies, 25(2), 1–12. https://jfsdigital.org/2020/11/03/alibaba-and-the-golden-key/
Milojević, I. (2002). Educational Futures. Routledge.
Government of Malaysia (2018). Framing Malaysian Higher Education 4.0: Future- Proof Talents. Ministry of Education, Government of Malaysia – FRAMING MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION 4.0 : Future-Proof Talents – UNIMAS Institutional Repository
Slaughter, R. A. (1996). The knowledge base of futures studies. Futures, 28(8), 771-783.
World Bank. (2019). Review of the education sector in Ukraine: Moving toward effectiveness, equity and efficiency. https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/884261568662566134/pdf/Review-of-the-Education-Sector-in-Ukraine-Moving-toward-Effectiveness-Equity-and-Efficiency-RESUME3.pdf
World Bank. (2025, March 25). Learning and school reforms continue in Ukraine despite war challenges. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2025/03/25/learning-and-school-reforms-continue-in-ukraine-despite-war-challenges
